The article “Our Biotech Future” by Freeman Dyson discusses the hopeful, in his view, future of biotechnology and its daily uses. The author believes that biotechnology will become reasonably inexpensive and common in the 21st century, comparable to how physics-based and computer technologies have grown very cheap and widespread during the previous several decades. Some particularly interesting claims for me are the sentiment that such technology should be accessible to everyone in society and, second, that it can be used to fix’ the environmental and poverty challenges.
The first intriguing part of the article concerns technological accessibility for the wider population. Dyson (2007) envisions a period in a few generations when all individuals can use affordable genetic engineering and ‘green technology’ anywhere and thus improve their communities. I will respond to these claims by highlighting the potential risks and placing them in environmental and societal contexts to contest that such ubiquitous use is unlikely and detrimental. The next claim is that the future pervasion of biotechnology will combat global poverty. My response will be on the side of skepticism and caution since I believe the author omits some of the crucial real-world aspects and takes a one-sided view. Lastly, I am interested in the risks and limitations analysis (or lack thereof) that Dyson (2007) conducts in his suggestion of using biotechnology. I will criticize the author’s approach by drawing a climate change parallel.
The first claim that opens the article concerns the future of biotechnology in general. Dyson (2007) is adamant that computers will be increasingly incorporated into biological forms, and their combination will become ‘domesticated’ and widely available within the next 50 years. The drawn parallel with personal computers (PCs) illustrates both the author’s and my points. Dyson (2007) claims that, similarly to PCs, genetic modification tools will be available to all and used for the good of humankind and the planet. However, any novel technology first becomes widely available in the wealthy developed countries populations. I doubt that biotechnology will be distributed evenly and equitably throughout all nations. Hence, I agree that affordable technology has advantages – like contributing to this discussion from my PC – but I do not believe it will be available as readily as the author presents.
Moreover, I would like to address the assertion that such technology should be available to all. Dyson (2007) argues that genetic engineering remains controversial and unpopular because the public does not trust large corporations: it is a centralized activity with unknown – or unshown – consequences. Further, Dyson (2007) states once this technology is popularized, just like PCs were, home genetic engineering kits and innovative crops for every farmer will revolutionize the future and save much of our environment. According to Dyson (2007), this is a liberating scenario: decentralized domestication of a previously suspicious technology will create community and foster individual action. However, I believe that the author posits too much faith in the rational majority – returning to the PC parallel, people have used PCs for a mixture of honorable and despicable deeds. For instance, 21st technology already has ‘domestication’ consequences like spam, screen addiction, money and data theft, and more. Hence, cheap and easy biotechnology may enable biologically invasive fraud like identity theft.
Furthermore, when put in the hands of common folk or even children, genome design may have horrifying impacts on the extant natural balances. For instance, Dyson (2007) suggests that newly created species can breed to replace those destroyed by monoculture farming and deforestation but does not acknowledge the dreadful impact unregulated introduction may have on ecological communities. For instance, newly engineered species may become invasive and outcompete ‘old’ ones, or ‘home-grown’ engineering may yield uncontrolled aggressive animals. The author acknowledges that biotechnology presents some “real and serious” danger and vaguely suggests “rules and regulations” to combat those perils (Dyson, 2007, p. 2). However, he only uses an example of children playing to demonstrate potential risks, and no other consequences are discussed. Hence, I consider the article a utopian vision since it seems to omit or downplay many of the other risks described above. Overall, I am not convinced that biotechnology should be made readily available since it may result in unwarranted consequences for the people and the planet.
The next claim I would like to address is global poverty, especially in rural regions. Dyson (2007) claims strongly that biotechnology’s freedom would, at long last, be the remedy that will save agricultural and rural communities from poverty. However, I cannot entirely agree with this opinion because the world needs to address rural poverty directly by producing wealth and employment in the communities rather than adding technology as a quick fix. Moreover, the author optimistically states that the future pervasion of solar-powered technology in rural and city contexts alike will empower communities and act as an equalizer, thus bringing “the blessings of civilization” to “every village” (Dyson, 2007, p. 9). However, I disagree – any technology needs installation and materials funding, and given the unequal economic distribution, those communities will likely not receive their ‘blessings’ in sufficient volume.
Lastly, the author then ponders the biotechnology ‘domestication’ processes, posing several questions: “First, can it be stopped? Second, ought it to be stopped? Third, if stopping it is either impossible or undesirable, what are the appropriate limits our society must impose on it? Fourth, how should the limits be decided? Fifth, how should the limits be enforced, nationally and internationally?” (Dyson, 2007, p. 2). The author himself does not answer any of these questions, saying that he will leave it to his children and grandchildren to discover the answers. This quote drew my attention away from biotechnology, making me recall climate change instead. Many people in Dyson’s generation are excited about the future – perhaps rightfully so. However, I cannot help but feel frustrated with this careless excitement since the author’s generation will not face the consequences of such actions – instead, our generation will. I profoundly disagree with the mentality of ‘leaving it for someone later’ since preventing a disaster is a much more effective method than addressing the issues as they appear.
In conclusion, there is a difference between hopeful and blindly optimistic. Dyson claims that the domestication of biotechnology will produce a world where any individual can roam free, creating anything that impresses them. I believe that Dyson’s utopian ideas are unfeasible since he deliberately disregards any negative consequences of such unlimited use, like invasive species, homemade weaponry, or fraud. Next, the author discusses ending poverty by embracing biotechnology. However, I believe that this idea does not stand a chance without acknowledging that the poverty-stricken regions are notoriously the last to benefit from technological advances. Lastly, the author leaves clarifying the limitations of biotechnology use to the next generation, which I disagree with since preventative measures are key in avoiding catastrophes. Overall, I believe this article is incomplete and unconvincing without a comprehensive discussion of the risks and limitations of biotechnology.
Reference
Dyson, F. (2007). Our biotech future. The New York Review of Books, 54(12).