mindless pleasures

[Doug Millison]

"[...] The longest section of the book, and the most interesting, explores
the question of whether there exists a human nature that these technologies
can be said to violate. If human beings are infinitely plastic, with no
fixed essence, then whatever we do to alter ourselves will not offend any
preset natural order, and will not infringe the moral rights that
supposedly flow from our nature. Fukuyama defines human nature in these
words: ''human nature is the sum of the behavior and characteristics that
are typical of the human species, arising from genetic rather than
environmental factors.'' Later he homes in on what he calls our ''emotional
gamut'' and suggests that this is what is most under threat from the
biotechnologies he discusses: without ''human evils,'' there would be ''no
sympathy, compassion, courage, heroism, solidarity or strength of
character.'' [...] "
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/05/books/review/05MCGINNT.html


"[...] In Brave New World, by contrast, the evil is not so obvious because
no one is hurt; indeed, this is a world in which everyone gets what they
want. As one of the characters notes, "The Controllers realized that force
was no good," and that people would have to be seduced rather than
compelled to live in an orderly society. In this world, disease and social
conflict have been abolished, there is no depression, madness, loneliness,
or emotional distress, sex is good and readily available. There is even a
government ministry to ensure that the length of time between the
appearance of a desire and its satisfaction is kept to a minimum. No one
takes religion seriously any longer, no one is introspective or has
unrequited longings, the biological family has been abolished, no one reads
Shakespeare. But no one (save John the Savage, the book's protagonist)
misses these things, either, since they are happy and healthy. [...] one
can go on to ask, What is so important about being a human being in the
traditional way that Huxley defines it? After all, what the human race is
today is the product of an evolutionary process that has been going on for
millions of years, one that with any luck will continue well into the
future. There are no fixed human characteristics, except for a general
capability to choose what we want to be, to modify ourselves in accordance
with our desires. So who is to tell us that being human and having dignity
means sticking with a set of emotional responses that are the accidental
byproduct of our evolutionary history? There is no such thing as a
biological family, no such thing as human nature or a "normal" human being,
and even if there were, why should that be a guide for what is right and
just? Huxley is telling us, in effect, that we should continue to feel
pain, be depressed or lonely, or suffer from debilitating disease, all
because that is what human beings have done for most of their existence as
a species. Certainly, no one ever got elected to Congress on such a
platform. Instead of taking these characteristics and saying that they are
the basis for "human dignity," why don't we simply accept our destiny as
creatures who modify themselves? [...] "
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/05/books/chapters/0505-1st-fukuy.html