Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution

Ronald Bailey presents both a sensible investigation into human enhancement technologies and an inviting discourse that is better written and more thoroughly researched than most books on the same topic. Bailey does not skirt issues and does not cut and paste information. If you want knowledge that is pertinent and from a voice of logic - read this book!

This is a clear and vigorous statement of the libertarian position on biotechnology. Bailey argues for "liberation biology" as "the earthly quest to overcome the physical and mental limitations imposed on us by nature, enabling us to flourish as never before." Bailey insists that the technological manipulation of nature to satisfy human desires has been part of human life at least since the development of civilization based on agriculture. Using biotechnology to enhance human nature--to promote our physical and mental health and to extend our life span--is a continuation of this ancient human effort to conquer nature by articial means. Although he recognizes the need for some legal regulation to secure the safety and efficacy of biotech products and to protect against force and fraud, Bailey prefers to leave adults free to decide for themselves (and their children) whether to employ biotechnology to enhance life. People will make mistakes. But they will learn by trial and error what uses of biotech are desirable and what not. Some people will decide to avoid such biotech advancements--following in the tradition of the Amish and other groups that choose to restrict their reliance on technology. In arguing for this libertarian position, Bailey attacks both the bioconservatives (such as Francis Fukuyama and Leon Kass) and the Leftist bioluddites (such as Jeremy Rifkin and Bill McKibben). I find Bailey's reasoning generally persuasive, although I think that at some points he exaggerates the power of biotech for changing human nature. He appeals to the natural human desires as the moral motivation for biotech--for example, the natural desire of parents to care for the health and happiness of their children. It's hard for me to see how biotech is going to alter, or even abolish, those desires. (I have elaborated this point in my book DARWINIAN CONSERVATISM.) Bailey has a clear argument that is forcefully presented. He has made a great contribution to the continuing debate over biotechnology and the future of human nature.