Not So Strange Bedfellows
Posted by Osagie K. Obasogie January 8, 2007
Biopolitical Times
Nobel laureate Milton Friedman’s recent passing marks the end of a long and productive career. As one of the most influential free market proponents since Adam Smith, Friedman greatly influenced the development of local exchanges and global economies. But markets aren’t the only things that Friedman liked “liberal”; he was a staunch opponent of the draft and thought legalizing marijuana made good sense.
But, would Milton Friedman be a transhumanist?
The Economist—the magazine of record for free marketeers—suggests that he might. Its recently published annual look at the upcoming year includes an article arguing that human biotechnologies and other medical applications that may be used for “enhancement” are not unlike other uncontroversial attempts at health and longevity such as reducing caloric intake or taking supplements. Throwing its proverbial hands in the air, The Economist implies that market forces are best suited to sort out this growing field since “one thing is certain: whatever ailment drugs may be developed to treat [illness], if they can also be used to provide someone with a competitive advantage, or prolong life, people will take them.”
This libertarian link between transhumanism and free market conservatism is certainly disturbing. They share the perspective that government regulation is bad by default and the public good is nothing more than an aggregate of individual choices. This is surely simplistic to a fault; government oversight, such as civil rights legislation, often advances individual freedoms and the public interest relies heavily upon keeping individual choices from running amuck.
Viewing transhumanism as a legitimate market endeavor also fails to consider the qualitatively different concerns that arise when biotechnology enters the fray. What’s particularly troubling is that many of these enhancement technologies are irreversible, such as the transhumanist dreams of reproductive cloning and germline engineering. Even the worse market decisions, such as the Enron debacle, can eventually be remedied or prevented from happening again. But, can we say the same about a laissez faire approach to biotechnology that creates the conditions for genetically superior classes of people that clone themselves in perpetuity?
But, would Milton Friedman be a transhumanist?
The Economist—the magazine of record for free marketeers—suggests that he might. Its recently published annual look at the upcoming year includes an article arguing that human biotechnologies and other medical applications that may be used for “enhancement” are not unlike other uncontroversial attempts at health and longevity such as reducing caloric intake or taking supplements. Throwing its proverbial hands in the air, The Economist implies that market forces are best suited to sort out this growing field since “one thing is certain: whatever ailment drugs may be developed to treat [illness], if they can also be used to provide someone with a competitive advantage, or prolong life, people will take them.”
This libertarian link between transhumanism and free market conservatism is certainly disturbing. They share the perspective that government regulation is bad by default and the public good is nothing more than an aggregate of individual choices. This is surely simplistic to a fault; government oversight, such as civil rights legislation, often advances individual freedoms and the public interest relies heavily upon keeping individual choices from running amuck.
Viewing transhumanism as a legitimate market endeavor also fails to consider the qualitatively different concerns that arise when biotechnology enters the fray. What’s particularly troubling is that many of these enhancement technologies are irreversible, such as the transhumanist dreams of reproductive cloning and germline engineering. Even the worse market decisions, such as the Enron debacle, can eventually be remedied or prevented from happening again. But, can we say the same about a laissez faire approach to biotechnology that creates the conditions for genetically superior classes of people that clone themselves in perpetuity?