What do you think?
Rate this book
????? ??????: ????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????
?????????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ????? ? ????????????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ?????????? ???????? ????? ???? ???. ?? ??? ????? ??? ????????? ????? ????? ?? ?? ????????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???: ???????? ????? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ??????????? ????? ????????? ??????????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ? ????????? ???? ? ???? ??????? ? ????????????? ??????? ? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ???????.
????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ??????????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?? ???? ?????????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ????????? ???? ?? ????? ????????? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ????????? ???? ? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ???????? ????? ?? ?? ????????????? ?????? ????? ??????? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ?? ???????????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ??????? ? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ????????????? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ????
???? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ???????. ??? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ????????? ????? ??? ? ????? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ? ?????????? ?????????? ?? ???? ?????????? ?? ????????? ???.
????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ??????????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?? ???? ?????????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ????????? ???? ?? ????? ????????? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ????????? ???? ? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ???????? ????? ?? ?? ????????????? ?????? ????? ??????? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ?? ???????????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ??????? ? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ????????????? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ????
???? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ???????. ??? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ????????? ????? ??? ? ????? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ? ?????????? ?????????? ?? ???? ?????????? ?? ????????? ???.
144 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2007
89 people are currently reading
3124 people want to read
About the author
Michael J. Sandel
45?books2,266?followersMichael J. Sandel is an American political philosopher who lives in Brookline, Massachusetts. He is the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University, where he has taught since 1980. He is best known for the Harvard course 'Justice', which is available to view online, and for his critique of John Rawls' A Theory of Justice in his first book, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982). He was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2002.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 147 reviews
December 3, 2023
???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???. ???? ?????? Gattaca 1997 ?? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ?? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ???.
?
?
August 8, 2024
4 star
????? ( ???? ???? ??? ???? ???)?? ?????? ???????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???
?? ??? ???? ? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ? ?????? ??? ?????????? ???? ?? ???
???: ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ? ???? ??????? ??? ??????
???: ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??.... ????? ?????
???:??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ???( ??? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????) ?? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ????? ??? ????
????? : ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????. ?? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ?????
???? : ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ????
???: ??? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????
????: ??? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ????
????: ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ( ????? ???????) ?
???: ??? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???.? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ???????
???: ?? ???? ????? ?? ????????? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ????????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???????
????? ( ???? ???? ??? ???? ???)?? ?????? ???????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???
?? ??? ???? ? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ? ?????? ??? ?????????? ???? ?? ???
???: ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ? ???? ??????? ??? ??????
???: ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??.... ????? ?????
???:??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ???( ??? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????) ?? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ????? ??? ????
????? : ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????. ?? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ?????
???? : ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ????
???: ??? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????
????: ??? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ????
????: ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ( ????? ???????) ?
???: ??? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???.? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ???????
???: ?? ???? ????? ?? ????????? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ????????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???????
December 13, 2015
This book was recommended to me from a friend here on good reads. And it was nice as he said - look, it’s short and interesting, but I can understand if you don’t have time etc. and that nearly convinced me to read it straight off. But it is sort of off-topic at the moment – I know it might not look like it, but this is me being quiet on good reads, as I’m trying to write up my thesis and so shouldn’t, I mean I really, really shouldn’t, be doing this or anything else. Mmm.
Anyway, I have this real problem with the whole idea of genetic manipulation, selection and perfectibility. Part of that problem is that I have an older sister who is intellectually disabled, and although that wasn’t exactly caused by her genes, I’m still particularly sensitive to the kinds of simpleminded ‘solutions’ (final solutions, even) that get trotted out to ‘the problem with people with disabilities’. But that is only a wee bit of my problem. It isn’t at all clear just what the ‘perfect’ human might look like. There is an image going about the internet of what Jesus would have looked like – it doesn’t pretend to be actually what he looked like, but a kind of average face of people born around Galilee at or about the time Jesus was. The image certainly doesn’t look like the lanky white guy that the Son of Man is generally painted as. The bit that really attracted my attention, though, was that he was probably only about five-foot-one. That is, Jesus was someone that would easily have qualified for some of the growth hormone treatments discussed in this book.
The other problem I have with genetic improvements is that genes are very deeply associated with the founding myths of our culture – particularly the idea that we live in a meritocracy. It is interesting that some of the arguments put forward in this book, which I enjoyed, by the way, I thought it did a really good job in putting forward issues from many sides and really trying to find a way through the thickets and brambles, but that the arguments here about why perfectibility is wrong were based on our revulsion when we feel meritocracy is being overthrown by a kind of cheating. And the use of such gene ‘perfecting’ of humans is seen as a kind of cheating.
This review is going to be in two parts. The first part is going to be the standard McCandless attack on the idea of merit. The second is my argument against perfecting humans as being part of my understanding of Darwin and his little theory of natural selection.
Right, merit. God, I really have learnt to hate that word over the last couple of years. The idea is that our society is essentially one that is based on merit. That is, if you are good enough there is enough leeway in the system to allow you to succeed. Hard work, great ideas, being the guy on the spot – or perhaps Bauman’s lovely idea of ‘pointillist time’, where any of us could just as well be the next-big-thing – any dot on the landscape could suddenly explode and become an entire universe all on its own (our own) that no one had ever expected before. The only thing that is holding us back is merit. If you haven’t succeeded it is almost certainly because you don’t deserve to succeed. No need to take it personally – although, let’s be honest, it is pretty well impossible not to take it personally, what could be more personal? – some people have it, and some people don’t. And we don’t, clearly. Pity, but that is the way it is.
This is a remarkably effective story, this merit myth. Those who have all of the good things get to keep everything they have got, while those that don’t get to learn from the myth of merit, so as to make them feel bad about themselves, rather than to feel ripped off. I saw this posted somewhere the other day - essentially that 100 people in the US own as much as the whole African American population of the country. The thing is that, in the US in particular, social mobility is remarkably low. Essentially, the country has a caste system. You are born into a caste and the chance of you moving out of that caste is virtually zero. But if the world is going to still be considered a meritocracy, then you really have to come up with something that will explain this lack of social mobility while still being able to blame those who fail for their own failure. And the solution forever and ever to this problem has been to play the gene card. This remarkably effective solution helps to explain away some of the harder to explain problems immediately. Why do the children of the poor remain poor? Bad genes. And the rich? Good genes. It is all manifest destiny right in front of you, hardly any need to ask the question even.
And that is part of the problem with this whole idea of perfectibility – if there is a perfect human (whatever that could even mean) then the rich are more likely to be able to afford the technology that will provide them with those perfect genes as we get better and better at manipulating such things, and so we will be forever left behind – as if we weren’t already.
My problem with all this is that the arguments are a bit circular. There actually are no real measures for human worthiness. Smart people can be completely socially dysfunctional, cultured people can build concentration and extermination camps, people who like dogs can flick the channel when images of children dying come on the TV, and the list goes on. If we need to be perfected, the thing we ought to work on – the thing that gets to be on top of the list and a long way ahead of being able to run-about quickly on grass after a ball or to cram ever-longer lists of nonsense words into our heads, is empathy. We really could do with many more empathetic people kicking about the place – it might not help, but I can’t see how it could hurt.
Empathy doesn’t really come from genes, at least, I certainly hope not, but rather from practice. And it is formed from a fundamental believe that we are all ‘the stupid guy’. I’m not a religious man, but if I was my favourite saying would be ‘there but for the grace of God go I’. Like I said, we are all the stupid guy and if we aren’t right now, we very soon will be. Our only hope is that people will be nice enough to us to forgive us our idiocies, because if anyone looks too closely, none of us passes the test. We are all, every one of us ‘human - all too human.’
The second part of all this is Darwin. You see, this book mentions Galton – Darwin’s half-cousin and one of the early eugenicists. He decided Darwin was saying that since we can use artificial selection to make ever-faster racehorses, why can’t we used the same principles to make ever-better humans? All we need do is encourage those with good genes to have more kids and, at more or less the same time, to sterilise those with bad genes and all will be well with the world. I think this is a fundamental misreading of Darwin – not just a wee bit wrong, but actually a complete misunderstanding of what Darwin was on about.
The key to evolution through natural selection isn’t the narrowing of the gene pool, but rather making sure you have genes that are suited to your environment. The problem is that the environment isn’t really a fixed thing – it is, in fact, something that is always changing. One of the problems with many species is that they find themselves trapped in their own specialisation. The koala is a favourite example. Here in Australia the koala is often the most expensive animal to keep in a zoo. Sounds weird, but it is true. Why? Because koalas can only eat one kind of gum leaf and that only grows on one sort of tree (oddly enough) and that tree only grows in one area of Australia – so zoos not in that area need to bring these leaves constantly in from this one area and that quickly becomes expensive. The problem is that you don’t really have an Australian zoo if you don’t have a koala – but it always amuses me that it is often cheaper to keep a lion or elephant in an Australian zoo than a koala. And the koala problem isn’t just a problem for zoos. If that particularly tree dies out, so does the whole koala population. We humans can’t really laugh, much of our agriculture is based on super-phosphates, which we get from oil. So, like the koala, we also feed on a single product that has a limited life expectancy, given we will eventually reach peak-oil, presumably. We, too, have wandered down a particularly narrow and dangerous ecological cul-de-sac, only confused by the fact we keep calling ourselves ‘omnivores’, when we feast solely on oil.
The point I’m trying to make is that any ‘perfecting’ of us as humans will invariably narrow our gene pool. We are, to quote that amusing meme, all seeking to be above average. By getting rid of the botched and bungled, we will be narrowing down our genetic variability and in doing so we will not be doing ourselves any favours. Diversity isn’t just a nice ‘kinda-leftish’ idea, it is actually our only hope. Not because it ‘teaches us compassion’ – and if it does, that’s a side benefit only. But because diversity is what allows for variation, adaptability and evolution, we are undermining our species if we keep seeking sameness. Accepting diversity is good for us all – and seeking perfection is a complete waste of time.
Anyway, I have this real problem with the whole idea of genetic manipulation, selection and perfectibility. Part of that problem is that I have an older sister who is intellectually disabled, and although that wasn’t exactly caused by her genes, I’m still particularly sensitive to the kinds of simpleminded ‘solutions’ (final solutions, even) that get trotted out to ‘the problem with people with disabilities’. But that is only a wee bit of my problem. It isn’t at all clear just what the ‘perfect’ human might look like. There is an image going about the internet of what Jesus would have looked like – it doesn’t pretend to be actually what he looked like, but a kind of average face of people born around Galilee at or about the time Jesus was. The image certainly doesn’t look like the lanky white guy that the Son of Man is generally painted as. The bit that really attracted my attention, though, was that he was probably only about five-foot-one. That is, Jesus was someone that would easily have qualified for some of the growth hormone treatments discussed in this book.
The other problem I have with genetic improvements is that genes are very deeply associated with the founding myths of our culture – particularly the idea that we live in a meritocracy. It is interesting that some of the arguments put forward in this book, which I enjoyed, by the way, I thought it did a really good job in putting forward issues from many sides and really trying to find a way through the thickets and brambles, but that the arguments here about why perfectibility is wrong were based on our revulsion when we feel meritocracy is being overthrown by a kind of cheating. And the use of such gene ‘perfecting’ of humans is seen as a kind of cheating.
This review is going to be in two parts. The first part is going to be the standard McCandless attack on the idea of merit. The second is my argument against perfecting humans as being part of my understanding of Darwin and his little theory of natural selection.
Right, merit. God, I really have learnt to hate that word over the last couple of years. The idea is that our society is essentially one that is based on merit. That is, if you are good enough there is enough leeway in the system to allow you to succeed. Hard work, great ideas, being the guy on the spot – or perhaps Bauman’s lovely idea of ‘pointillist time’, where any of us could just as well be the next-big-thing – any dot on the landscape could suddenly explode and become an entire universe all on its own (our own) that no one had ever expected before. The only thing that is holding us back is merit. If you haven’t succeeded it is almost certainly because you don’t deserve to succeed. No need to take it personally – although, let’s be honest, it is pretty well impossible not to take it personally, what could be more personal? – some people have it, and some people don’t. And we don’t, clearly. Pity, but that is the way it is.
This is a remarkably effective story, this merit myth. Those who have all of the good things get to keep everything they have got, while those that don’t get to learn from the myth of merit, so as to make them feel bad about themselves, rather than to feel ripped off. I saw this posted somewhere the other day - essentially that 100 people in the US own as much as the whole African American population of the country. The thing is that, in the US in particular, social mobility is remarkably low. Essentially, the country has a caste system. You are born into a caste and the chance of you moving out of that caste is virtually zero. But if the world is going to still be considered a meritocracy, then you really have to come up with something that will explain this lack of social mobility while still being able to blame those who fail for their own failure. And the solution forever and ever to this problem has been to play the gene card. This remarkably effective solution helps to explain away some of the harder to explain problems immediately. Why do the children of the poor remain poor? Bad genes. And the rich? Good genes. It is all manifest destiny right in front of you, hardly any need to ask the question even.
And that is part of the problem with this whole idea of perfectibility – if there is a perfect human (whatever that could even mean) then the rich are more likely to be able to afford the technology that will provide them with those perfect genes as we get better and better at manipulating such things, and so we will be forever left behind – as if we weren’t already.
My problem with all this is that the arguments are a bit circular. There actually are no real measures for human worthiness. Smart people can be completely socially dysfunctional, cultured people can build concentration and extermination camps, people who like dogs can flick the channel when images of children dying come on the TV, and the list goes on. If we need to be perfected, the thing we ought to work on – the thing that gets to be on top of the list and a long way ahead of being able to run-about quickly on grass after a ball or to cram ever-longer lists of nonsense words into our heads, is empathy. We really could do with many more empathetic people kicking about the place – it might not help, but I can’t see how it could hurt.
Empathy doesn’t really come from genes, at least, I certainly hope not, but rather from practice. And it is formed from a fundamental believe that we are all ‘the stupid guy’. I’m not a religious man, but if I was my favourite saying would be ‘there but for the grace of God go I’. Like I said, we are all the stupid guy and if we aren’t right now, we very soon will be. Our only hope is that people will be nice enough to us to forgive us our idiocies, because if anyone looks too closely, none of us passes the test. We are all, every one of us ‘human - all too human.’
The second part of all this is Darwin. You see, this book mentions Galton – Darwin’s half-cousin and one of the early eugenicists. He decided Darwin was saying that since we can use artificial selection to make ever-faster racehorses, why can’t we used the same principles to make ever-better humans? All we need do is encourage those with good genes to have more kids and, at more or less the same time, to sterilise those with bad genes and all will be well with the world. I think this is a fundamental misreading of Darwin – not just a wee bit wrong, but actually a complete misunderstanding of what Darwin was on about.
The key to evolution through natural selection isn’t the narrowing of the gene pool, but rather making sure you have genes that are suited to your environment. The problem is that the environment isn’t really a fixed thing – it is, in fact, something that is always changing. One of the problems with many species is that they find themselves trapped in their own specialisation. The koala is a favourite example. Here in Australia the koala is often the most expensive animal to keep in a zoo. Sounds weird, but it is true. Why? Because koalas can only eat one kind of gum leaf and that only grows on one sort of tree (oddly enough) and that tree only grows in one area of Australia – so zoos not in that area need to bring these leaves constantly in from this one area and that quickly becomes expensive. The problem is that you don’t really have an Australian zoo if you don’t have a koala – but it always amuses me that it is often cheaper to keep a lion or elephant in an Australian zoo than a koala. And the koala problem isn’t just a problem for zoos. If that particularly tree dies out, so does the whole koala population. We humans can’t really laugh, much of our agriculture is based on super-phosphates, which we get from oil. So, like the koala, we also feed on a single product that has a limited life expectancy, given we will eventually reach peak-oil, presumably. We, too, have wandered down a particularly narrow and dangerous ecological cul-de-sac, only confused by the fact we keep calling ourselves ‘omnivores’, when we feast solely on oil.
The point I’m trying to make is that any ‘perfecting’ of us as humans will invariably narrow our gene pool. We are, to quote that amusing meme, all seeking to be above average. By getting rid of the botched and bungled, we will be narrowing down our genetic variability and in doing so we will not be doing ourselves any favours. Diversity isn’t just a nice ‘kinda-leftish’ idea, it is actually our only hope. Not because it ‘teaches us compassion’ – and if it does, that’s a side benefit only. But because diversity is what allows for variation, adaptability and evolution, we are undermining our species if we keep seeking sameness. Accepting diversity is good for us all – and seeking perfection is a complete waste of time.
March 22, 2016
????? ????? ? ????? ???????? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ????? ????????????? ? ????????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ???. ???? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ????????? ???? ? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ? ?????????? ????? ? ???????? ???.
??? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ? ?? ????????? ?????? ?????? ?? ? ?????? ????? ??? ??????. ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ? ?????? ? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ????? ? ??????? ??????????? ?? ????? ?????? ? ???????????? ?? ??????? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ? ????? ???? ??? ?????
?? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ?????????? ? ????????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ? ??????? ??????????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ? ??? ?????????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ?????????? ????? ??????????? ???????? ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ???? ????
??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????????? ?????? ??? ????????? ????? ???? ? ????????? ????? ????? ? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ? ??? ??????? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????. ?? ????? ?? ?????? ??????? ????? ????? (??????? ?? ?? ??? ??????? ????????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?????????? ?????????? ???? ? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??????) ?????? ?????? ? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ??????? ???????? ??? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???? ????
?
??? ?????? ? ???????? ?? ???? ???????????????? ? ???? ????????? ??? ???? ???. ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??????????? ????? ??? ? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ????????. ???? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????. ?? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ? ???? ? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ??? ???????????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ? ???? ? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ????. ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??????????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??????
.
???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ???????? ?????? ? ????? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ?????? ? ????? ? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ????????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ?????????
.
????? ?????? ???? ???? ????. ??? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???????? ???? ??????? ? ?? ?? ????????? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ???
.
??? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ? ?? ????????? ?????? ?????? ?? ? ?????? ????? ??? ??????. ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ? ?????? ? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ????? ? ??????? ??????????? ?? ????? ?????? ? ???????????? ?? ??????? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ? ????? ???? ??? ?????
?? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ?????????? ? ????????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ? ??????? ??????????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ? ??? ?????????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ?????????? ????? ??????????? ???????? ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ???? ????
??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????????? ?????? ??? ????????? ????? ???? ? ????????? ????? ????? ? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ? ??? ??????? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????. ?? ????? ?? ?????? ??????? ????? ????? (??????? ?? ?? ??? ??????? ????????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?????????? ?????????? ???? ? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??????) ?????? ?????? ? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ??????? ???????? ??? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???? ????
?
??? ?????? ? ???????? ?? ???? ???????????????? ? ???? ????????? ??? ???? ???. ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??????????? ????? ??? ? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ????????. ???? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????. ?? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ? ???? ? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ??? ???????????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ? ???? ? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ????. ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??????????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??????
.
???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ???????? ?????? ? ????? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ?????? ? ????? ? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ????????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ?????????
.
????? ?????? ???? ???? ????. ??? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???????? ???? ??????? ? ?? ?? ????????? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ???
.
August 7, 2018
?? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ? ??? ? ???? ?????? ???! ?? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ?????!!! ?? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ???. ????? ? ??????? ?? ?? ???. ???? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ? ??? ????? ? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ????. ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ? ??? ??? ? ???? ??????? ? ????? ?? ???. ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ? ????? ???? ???
????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???. ???????? ?? ????? ????????? ????? ?? ????? ? ????? ? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ? ??? ??? ????????? ??. ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???????? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ? ?? ? ?????? ??????(???? ????? ??? ? ??? ?? ????? ????) ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???. ?? ???? ????? ? ?????? ??. ??? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ? ???????? ???? ???? ???
???? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ? ?????? ???. ???? ????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ??? ? ?????? ? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ??
*
????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???. ?? ???? ????? ? ???????
1397/05/15
????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???. ???????? ?? ????? ????????? ????? ?? ????? ? ????? ? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ? ??? ??? ????????? ??. ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???????? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ? ?? ? ?????? ??????(???? ????? ??? ? ??? ?? ????? ????) ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???. ?? ???? ????? ? ?????? ??. ??? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ? ???????? ???? ???? ???
???? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ? ?????? ???. ???? ????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ??? ? ?????? ? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ??
*
????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???. ?? ???? ????? ? ???????
1397/05/15
July 22, 2020
Based on what I've read and seen, Sandel sounds like the kind of philosophy teacher that students would be privileged to study under. And he may even be a kind and generous man. But he is also a social reactionary with some horrible views. Sandel believes that life's imperfections are a "gift" from God or Nature. He thinks that Humankind should not play God/Nature, since this would encourage a false attitude towards reality, namely that of hubristic mastery. Sadly, the fundamental arguments of The Case Against Perfection are largely badly argued and morally reactionary.
The whole argument of this book rests on a straw man. "Perfection" is not the goal of most human enhancement advocates. The goal of human enhancement, whether in health, work life, leisure, relationships, sports, or social life, is to make things better for people. But this enterprise, according to Sandel, threatens the integrity of humanity. As it happens, evolution has not made us as functional, healthy, or happy as we would like to be. The "normal" state of human beings has "gifted" people (to use Sandel's own terminology) with various intractable problems.
Instead of going about trying to solve our remaining problems, Sandel would prefer for people to embrace those problems - "imperfections" - and learn to live with them. This attitude might be justifiable if the status quo was acceptable or if the remedies were worse than the disease. Neither is the case. The status quo is a horrible state of affairs. God/Nature has made us barely functional. We human beings have managed to make our lives a little better with various"hubristic" interventions such as technology, science, political institutions, and sustainable economic development. And by and large the remedies have been much better than the underlying disease. The same trend is likely to continue and the human enhancement project must go on. The promise of ever new technologies and enhancement tools to improve our lives - whether through drugs, gene modification, gadgets, or A.I. helpers - is the saving grace of our sorry human condition and something to celebrate.
So, Sandel's position is a reactionary defence of the status quo. In effect, it is a justification for misery and hardship in the name of "virtues" and "sacredness" and religious sensibility. Of course, a philosophy book can be good in its methods if not its conclusions or premises. However, the book does not redeem itself on the structural level either. It relies on an unimpressive combination of intuitive reasoning, rhetorical persuasion, and a series of entertaining anecdotes. There are flashes of brilliance where you get the sense that Sandel can be a good and generous philosopher. Sadly, most of the book is a poorly argued straw man argument in defence of a horrible status quo.
The whole argument of this book rests on a straw man. "Perfection" is not the goal of most human enhancement advocates. The goal of human enhancement, whether in health, work life, leisure, relationships, sports, or social life, is to make things better for people. But this enterprise, according to Sandel, threatens the integrity of humanity. As it happens, evolution has not made us as functional, healthy, or happy as we would like to be. The "normal" state of human beings has "gifted" people (to use Sandel's own terminology) with various intractable problems.
Instead of going about trying to solve our remaining problems, Sandel would prefer for people to embrace those problems - "imperfections" - and learn to live with them. This attitude might be justifiable if the status quo was acceptable or if the remedies were worse than the disease. Neither is the case. The status quo is a horrible state of affairs. God/Nature has made us barely functional. We human beings have managed to make our lives a little better with various"hubristic" interventions such as technology, science, political institutions, and sustainable economic development. And by and large the remedies have been much better than the underlying disease. The same trend is likely to continue and the human enhancement project must go on. The promise of ever new technologies and enhancement tools to improve our lives - whether through drugs, gene modification, gadgets, or A.I. helpers - is the saving grace of our sorry human condition and something to celebrate.
So, Sandel's position is a reactionary defence of the status quo. In effect, it is a justification for misery and hardship in the name of "virtues" and "sacredness" and religious sensibility. Of course, a philosophy book can be good in its methods if not its conclusions or premises. However, the book does not redeem itself on the structural level either. It relies on an unimpressive combination of intuitive reasoning, rhetorical persuasion, and a series of entertaining anecdotes. There are flashes of brilliance where you get the sense that Sandel can be a good and generous philosopher. Sadly, most of the book is a poorly argued straw man argument in defence of a horrible status quo.
June 10, 2020
???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ? ??????? ? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ???. ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ???. ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ???? ? ????? ????? ????.
???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???. ??????? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ? ?? ?? ????? ????. ?? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ( ?????? (??? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????) ????? ??? ?????)
??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????????? ?? ??? ? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ????. ?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???.
?? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ????? 190? ???????? ???? ????? ??????? ????? 1400? ???? ? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??????. ???? ?? ????. ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ???
?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ???. ???? ????. ???? ???? ??????? ???? ??????? ?? ??????? ? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? (??? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ???). ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????. ??? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ? ????? ?????. ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ????? ? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????
??? ??? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ??????. ??????? ?? ??? ????? ?????????? ???????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ????? ? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?? (?? ???? ??? ????? ??? ?? ? ??? ????? ?? ???? ? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??????) ??????? ???????. ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?????????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????. ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ????. ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?????????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????. ??????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ? ?? ???????? ???? ?????? ??. ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???. ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???.
?? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ???. ???? ???????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ???. ??? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???????. ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ? ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???????. ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?????. ??? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ? ?????? ??? ???????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ?? ???.
???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? (?????? ????? ???? ?????? ????) ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ?????.
???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???. ??????? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ? ?? ?? ????? ????. ?? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ( ?????? (??? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????) ????? ??? ?????)
??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????????? ?? ??? ? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ????. ?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???.
?? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ????? 190? ???????? ???? ????? ??????? ????? 1400? ???? ? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??????. ???? ?? ????. ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ???
?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ???. ???? ????. ???? ???? ??????? ???? ??????? ?? ??????? ? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? (??? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ???). ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????. ??? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ? ????? ?????. ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ????? ? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????
??? ??? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ??????. ??????? ?? ??? ????? ?????????? ???????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ????? ? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?? (?? ???? ??? ????? ??? ?? ? ??? ????? ?? ???? ? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??????) ??????? ???????. ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?????????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????. ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ????. ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?????????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????. ??????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ? ?? ???????? ???? ?????? ??. ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???. ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???.
?? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ???. ???? ???????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ???. ??? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???????. ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ? ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???????. ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?????. ??? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ? ?????? ??? ???????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ?? ???.
???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? (?????? ????? ???? ?????? ????) ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ?????.
December 13, 2015
“We want to believe that success, in sports and in life, is something we earn, not something we inherit. Natural gifts, and the admiration they inspire, embarrass the meritocratic faith; they cast doubt on the conviction that praise and rewards flow from effort alone.”
A few years ago, I was addicted to Sandel’s Harvard lecture series entitled “Justice.” I found him to be a highly compelling speaker, and so it was a wonderful surprise to see that he had written about one of my favorite topics: bioethics and genetic engineering.
As with his lectures, Sandel’s writing style is engaging because of the abundance of real-life examples and hypothetical scenarios. He approaches every subject with intellectual curiosity rather than immediate condemnation. He asks questions upon questions, allowing the reader to follow his train of thought as it evolves into a solid argument.
I would like to note that this is not really a book, as it is maybe 20,000 words at most. I was fortunate enough to snag a copy from my local library system, but the hardback sells for $18.95, which is a bit steep for something that can be read in an hour or two. Then again, most academic articles tend to sell for more than that, so it could be considered a fair market value.
Although I don’t necessarily agree with every argument, Sandel ultimately presents an intelligent essay about moral questions that are still relevant today and that will remain important far into the future.
A few years ago, I was addicted to Sandel’s Harvard lecture series entitled “Justice.” I found him to be a highly compelling speaker, and so it was a wonderful surprise to see that he had written about one of my favorite topics: bioethics and genetic engineering.
As with his lectures, Sandel’s writing style is engaging because of the abundance of real-life examples and hypothetical scenarios. He approaches every subject with intellectual curiosity rather than immediate condemnation. He asks questions upon questions, allowing the reader to follow his train of thought as it evolves into a solid argument.
I would like to note that this is not really a book, as it is maybe 20,000 words at most. I was fortunate enough to snag a copy from my local library system, but the hardback sells for $18.95, which is a bit steep for something that can be read in an hour or two. Then again, most academic articles tend to sell for more than that, so it could be considered a fair market value.
Although I don’t necessarily agree with every argument, Sandel ultimately presents an intelligent essay about moral questions that are still relevant today and that will remain important far into the future.
September 23, 2018
??? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ?? ????????? ? ?????????????? ?????? ???????????? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ???. ???? ??? ??????? ?? ??????? ???? ?????
??? ? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ? ?????? ? ?????? ???????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ????? ????.
????? ????? ?? ??????? ? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ????????? ????? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ??? ??????? ?????.
??? ? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ? ?????? ? ?????? ???????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ????? ????.
????? ????? ?? ??????? ? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ????????? ????? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ??? ??????? ?????.
April 8, 2020
?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ????????? ? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????. ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????????? ?????? ????????? ????? ? ????? ?????? ?? ???????? ??????-????? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????. ???? ?????????? ?? ?? ?????????? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ?????? ? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???????.
?? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ???????????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?????.
?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ? ????? ??? ????? ???????? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ?.. ????????.
????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ? ????? ????: "??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?????"
???????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ? ?????? ????. ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?????: "??? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????" ???????? ????? ? ???? ??????????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ???? ????. ????? ??? ??? ??????????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? :)
?.?. ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ????. ?? ???? ?????????.
?? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ???????????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?????.
?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ? ????? ??? ????? ???????? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ?.. ????????.
????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ? ????? ????: "??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?????"
???????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ? ?????? ????. ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?????: "??? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????" ???????? ????? ? ???? ??????????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ???? ????. ????? ??? ??? ??????????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? :)
?.?. ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ????. ?? ???? ?????????.
March 2, 2022
????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ? ??????????? ???? ? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ????????? ??????? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ?????????????? ???????? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ????????? ??? ???? ??????????? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ? ????????? ?? ?? ????????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ??????. ???? ?? ?? ????? ???????? ???: ?? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?????????? ? ???? ??????? ???? ? ?????? ? ??????? ????? ??. ??? ???? ???????? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??????????? ???? ? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ????. ??? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ? ????????? ???
August 3, 2016
A very short, easy to read essay on the ethics of genetic engineering from the author of . Unlike Justice, Sandel here takes a very clear stance on genetic engineering, while exploring every side of the issue. I was most interested by the final section on the ethics of embryonic stem cell research because it touches on a subject the debate on which I have often found myself really frustrated at: namely abortion. Pro-lifers insisting that a fertilized egg or an embryo containing only a few cells has all the same rights as a fully born baby is ridiculous. But it's equally ridiculous to suggest that a woman should be able to abort a fetus at any stage in development up to birth (most pro-choicers don't adopt this position, but it's definitely common enough). Sandel does not delve into the issue of abortion, but his treatment of the ethics of embryonic stem cell research does suggest that maybe most people are looking at this the wrong way: maybe there is no simplistic binary distinction between not human and fully human. I would love to read the author's further meditations on this subject.
October 10, 2019
in terms of writing quality, this book definitely practices what it preaches
May 17, 2009
Michael Sandel continues to be one of the best lecturers in bioethics. With that said, this book is kind of like him in a book; easy to access, thought-provoking, and very human to read. It is not necessarily the most cohesive book on bioethics I have ever read, but perhaps it is the fact that I feel like I am talking with him rather than reading his work is what makes this book great for someone curious about eugenics and bioethics.
August 20, 2021
A recent article in the April 29 edition of the New York Review of Books, “Editing Humanity’s Future” by Natalie de Souza, awoke in me a very insistent interest in the topic of bioetics. Rather than begin with any of the books reviewed in de Souza’s article, I took an interest in a considerably lighter novel mentioned in a footnote; that title? Michael J. Sandel’s Case Against Perfection.
Sandel’s arguments advise caution against the liberal use of genetic engineering that seems ever closer to becoming reality. That is not to say he doesn’t make allowances for the use of gene therapy to cure debilitating diseases–on the contrary, Souza recognises it for the potential powerful tool . The arguments he gives voice to stem from the following issue:
What worries Sandel–and many of those who examine the ethics of bioengineering–is the use of gene editing technology for the corruption of “natural gifts…with artifice” (29). If this sounds a little arcane, don’t worry; the author presents the notions of “giftedness” and “mastery/control” as two ends of the pole of human development, pre- and post-genetic engineering. Giftedness is that mystical thing that keeps us humble, that awareness that our skills and abilities, whatever it is we excel most at, are not wholly our own. They’re at least partially based on luck, on winning the genetic lottery–whether in intelligence, physical prowess, virtuoso musical ability. On the other side of the coin is the control that we, as a species, are close to having over our genetic make-up, thanks to CRISPR. If we uncoil the complex weaves of DNA in such a way as to figure out what set of genes make for a good writer, or a phenomenal athlete, the whole notion of giftedness goes out the window. Our children might be engineered from the very onset of their development to have natural advantages, tailor-made by demand of ambitious parents. This creates a host of issues, Sandel tells us, including but not limited to:
I am not wholly convinced by the arguments Sandel puts forth–some of them land better than others. His early points about the impermissibility of cloning human beings due to robbing their agency, for example, is well-reasoned and commonsensical enough that I struggle to imagine anyone arguing against it. His anxiety about humanity losing track of itself over self-deterministic genetic changes is understandable, but even despite his best efforts does not altogether escape an explanation more spiritual and less concrete. Sandel appeals to our common humanity, fearful that, say, the capacity of parents to tailor certain traits of their offspring will pervert humanity in the long run:
Overall, a worthwhile entry point on what is a complicated field of socio-political and philosophical questions. well-structured and easy to read. I leave you with the following questions:
They are important questions, no doubt. But it seems to me you might find answers different from the ones Sandel puts forth–and in doing so, you will begin to involve yourself in a conversation that must be had, and soon.
Sandel’s arguments advise caution against the liberal use of genetic engineering that seems ever closer to becoming reality. That is not to say he doesn’t make allowances for the use of gene therapy to cure debilitating diseases–on the contrary, Souza recognises it for the potential powerful tool . The arguments he gives voice to stem from the following issue:
The moral quandary arises when people use such therapy [the kind that repairs or replaces defective genes] not to cure a disease but to reach beyond health, to enhance their physical or cognitive capacities, to lift themselves above the norm.
THE CASE AGAINST PERFECTION, P. 08
What worries Sandel–and many of those who examine the ethics of bioengineering–is the use of gene editing technology for the corruption of “natural gifts…with artifice” (29). If this sounds a little arcane, don’t worry; the author presents the notions of “giftedness” and “mastery/control” as two ends of the pole of human development, pre- and post-genetic engineering. Giftedness is that mystical thing that keeps us humble, that awareness that our skills and abilities, whatever it is we excel most at, are not wholly our own. They’re at least partially based on luck, on winning the genetic lottery–whether in intelligence, physical prowess, virtuoso musical ability. On the other side of the coin is the control that we, as a species, are close to having over our genetic make-up, thanks to CRISPR. If we uncoil the complex weaves of DNA in such a way as to figure out what set of genes make for a good writer, or a phenomenal athlete, the whole notion of giftedness goes out the window. Our children might be engineered from the very onset of their development to have natural advantages, tailor-made by demand of ambitious parents. This creates a host of issues, Sandel tells us, including but not limited to:
…the explosion, not the erosion, of responsibility. As humility gives way, responsibility expands to daunting proportions. We attribute less to chance and more to choice. Parents become responsible for choosing, or failing to choose, the right traits for their children.
THE CASE AGAINST PERFECTION, P. 87
I am not wholly convinced by the arguments Sandel puts forth–some of them land better than others. His early points about the impermissibility of cloning human beings due to robbing their agency, for example, is well-reasoned and commonsensical enough that I struggle to imagine anyone arguing against it. His anxiety about humanity losing track of itself over self-deterministic genetic changes is understandable, but even despite his best efforts does not altogether escape an explanation more spiritual and less concrete. Sandel appeals to our common humanity, fearful that, say, the capacity of parents to tailor certain traits of their offspring will pervert humanity in the long run:
This takes us back to the notion of giftedness. Even if it does not harm the child or impair its autonomy, eugenic parenting is objectionable because it expresses and entrenches a certain stance toward the world—a stance of mastery and dominion that fails to appreciate the gifted character of human powers and achievements, and misses the part of freedom that consists in a persisting negotiation with the given.
(THE CASE AGAINST PERFECTION, P. 98)
Overall, a worthwhile entry point on what is a complicated field of socio-political and philosophical questions. well-structured and easy to read. I leave you with the following questions:
The problem with eugenics and genetic engineering is that they represent the one-sided triumph of willfulness over giftedness, of dominion over reverence, of molding over beholding. But why, we may wonder, should we worry about this triumph? Why not shake off our unease with enhancement as so much superstition? What would be lost if biotechnology dissolved our sense of giftedness?
THE CASE AGAINST PERFECTION, P. 85
They are important questions, no doubt. But it seems to me you might find answers different from the ones Sandel puts forth–and in doing so, you will begin to involve yourself in a conversation that must be had, and soon.
July 3, 2024
Δεν με κ?ρδισε. Αδ?ναμα επιχειρ?ματα για? θ?ματα που ε?τε ε?ναι δευτερε?οντα, ε?τε ?χουν ?δη απαντηθε? απ? τι? εξελ?ξει? (πχ πηγ? λ?ψη? βλαστοκ?τταρων).
?πω???και να ‘χει, τα ερωτ?ματα που θ?τει ο κλ?δο? τη???εμβιομηχανικ???(τι ?ρο? κι αυτ??) ε?ναι ενδιαφ?ροντα: Τι ε?ν’ το?το; Απ?/για ποιου?; Π?τε θε’ να ‘ρθει; Προλαβα?νω να αν?βω στη σπηλι?; Εδ? μιλ?με για κατασκευ? συνθετικο??DNA?και τον ερχομ? στη ζω? του υβριδικο? ποντικοαυτιουλη.. Δε? και σκ?σε απ’ το κακ? σου, Δ?κτορα Β?κτωρ Φρανκενστ?ιν:??
Τι σκεπτ?μουν ?σο το δι?βαζα; Α? υποθ?σουμε ?τι η γενετικ? μηχανικ? ε?ναι ?να ?πλο - και μ?λιστα ακριβ?.. Τι συμβα?νει με τα ?πλα;?Απλ? δ?νουν ?να πλεον?κτημα σ? αυτ?ν που τα κατ?χει - κι αντ?στοιχο μειον?κτημα στου? υπ?λοιπου?. Η ανθρ?πινη? τ?ση για κυριαρχ?α (μ?τηρ π?ντων) δεν προβλ?πεται να εξαλειφτε?, εκτ?? κι αν παρ?μβουμε γονιδιακ? (…δεν ?ντεξα στον πειρασμ?, sorry). ?μω? εδ? δεν μιλ?με για μια απλ? τεχνολογ?α, αλλ? για τη δημιουργ?α ν?ου υπ?-ε?δου? sapiens, στο οπο?ο δεν νομ?ζω ?τι θα αν?κω..
Δεν ?χω τερ?στιο ηθικ? θ?μα με την εν?σχυση του σ?ματο? του κ?θε??κ. Πολυλεφταρ?α, α? παραγγε?λει και ?ξι καινο?ρια π?δια αν θ?λει,? πολ? δε περισσ?τερο ε?μαι σχεδ?ν οκ με τα σχετι??? με επανορθωτικ?? επεμβ?σει? καλο?δια.? Αλλ? κ?θε τεχνολογικ? αλλαγ? υποδε?γματο? ?χει (σταθερ?) οδηγ?σει και σε μ?α αντ?στοιχη κοινωνικ?, αυτ? ε?ναι το δικ? μου ρεζουμ?.. Εκε? υπ?ρχει ?να θεματ?κι, ειδικ? αν ε?σαι Ινδι?νο? Καριμπ απ?ναντι στα σπανιολικα πλεο?μενα..??
Α??σημει?σω στο τετρ?διο μαθητο?? του? καινο?ργιου? ?ρου? που ?μαθα σ?μερα: Φιλελε?θερη ευγoνικ? (..), τρ?πεζα ωαρ?ων μοντ?λων (..) , κοσμητικη ενδοκρινολογια (αυξητικ?? ορμονε?), ?τι θ?λει ο πελατη?..??
Στη? σελ?δα 104 βρ?σκεται η παρακ?τω πρ?ταση: ??να? κ?σμο? τ?που Γκ?τακα.. θα ?ταν ?να? κ?σμο? αφιλ?ξενο? για το απρ?σκλητο, μ?α περιφραγμ?νη κοιν?τητα σε μεγ?λη κλ?μακα?..? Εκε? θυμ?θηκα ?τι ?να απ? τα αγαπημ?να κ?λπα των θε?ν για να δοκιμ?σουν τον ?νθρωπο, ?ταν να εμφαν?ζονται ω? ξ?νοι.. θα μπορο?σα να σκεφτ? ?κι ?λλα, ?μω? για μ?να το σημαντικ?τερο ε?ναι ο προσωπικ?? μου φ?βο? για την ανθρ?πινη χ?μαιρα (ν?το π?λι)? που οδηγε? στην ?βρη και αργ? ? γρ?γορα, στη σφαλι?ρα. Μ?λλον γρ?γορα..?
Το Gattaca ταινι?ρα..
?Bauhaus - The Man With the X-Ray Eyes - YouTube?
?
?πω???και να ‘χει, τα ερωτ?ματα που θ?τει ο κλ?δο? τη???εμβιομηχανικ???(τι ?ρο? κι αυτ??) ε?ναι ενδιαφ?ροντα: Τι ε?ν’ το?το; Απ?/για ποιου?; Π?τε θε’ να ‘ρθει; Προλαβα?νω να αν?βω στη σπηλι?; Εδ? μιλ?με για κατασκευ? συνθετικο??DNA?και τον ερχομ? στη ζω? του υβριδικο? ποντικοαυτιουλη.. Δε? και σκ?σε απ’ το κακ? σου, Δ?κτορα Β?κτωρ Φρανκενστ?ιν:??
Τι σκεπτ?μουν ?σο το δι?βαζα; Α? υποθ?σουμε ?τι η γενετικ? μηχανικ? ε?ναι ?να ?πλο - και μ?λιστα ακριβ?.. Τι συμβα?νει με τα ?πλα;?Απλ? δ?νουν ?να πλεον?κτημα σ? αυτ?ν που τα κατ?χει - κι αντ?στοιχο μειον?κτημα στου? υπ?λοιπου?. Η ανθρ?πινη? τ?ση για κυριαρχ?α (μ?τηρ π?ντων) δεν προβλ?πεται να εξαλειφτε?, εκτ?? κι αν παρ?μβουμε γονιδιακ? (…δεν ?ντεξα στον πειρασμ?, sorry). ?μω? εδ? δεν μιλ?με για μια απλ? τεχνολογ?α, αλλ? για τη δημιουργ?α ν?ου υπ?-ε?δου? sapiens, στο οπο?ο δεν νομ?ζω ?τι θα αν?κω..
Δεν ?χω τερ?στιο ηθικ? θ?μα με την εν?σχυση του σ?ματο? του κ?θε??κ. Πολυλεφταρ?α, α? παραγγε?λει και ?ξι καινο?ρια π?δια αν θ?λει,? πολ? δε περισσ?τερο ε?μαι σχεδ?ν οκ με τα σχετι??? με επανορθωτικ?? επεμβ?σει? καλο?δια.? Αλλ? κ?θε τεχνολογικ? αλλαγ? υποδε?γματο? ?χει (σταθερ?) οδηγ?σει και σε μ?α αντ?στοιχη κοινωνικ?, αυτ? ε?ναι το δικ? μου ρεζουμ?.. Εκε? υπ?ρχει ?να θεματ?κι, ειδικ? αν ε?σαι Ινδι?νο? Καριμπ απ?ναντι στα σπανιολικα πλεο?μενα..??
Α??σημει?σω στο τετρ?διο μαθητο?? του? καινο?ργιου? ?ρου? που ?μαθα σ?μερα: Φιλελε?θερη ευγoνικ? (..), τρ?πεζα ωαρ?ων μοντ?λων (..) , κοσμητικη ενδοκρινολογια (αυξητικ?? ορμονε?), ?τι θ?λει ο πελατη?..??
Στη? σελ?δα 104 βρ?σκεται η παρακ?τω πρ?ταση: ??να? κ?σμο? τ?που Γκ?τακα.. θα ?ταν ?να? κ?σμο? αφιλ?ξενο? για το απρ?σκλητο, μ?α περιφραγμ?νη κοιν?τητα σε μεγ?λη κλ?μακα?..? Εκε? θυμ?θηκα ?τι ?να απ? τα αγαπημ?να κ?λπα των θε?ν για να δοκιμ?σουν τον ?νθρωπο, ?ταν να εμφαν?ζονται ω? ξ?νοι.. θα μπορο?σα να σκεφτ? ?κι ?λλα, ?μω? για μ?να το σημαντικ?τερο ε?ναι ο προσωπικ?? μου φ?βο? για την ανθρ?πινη χ?μαιρα (ν?το π?λι)? που οδηγε? στην ?βρη και αργ? ? γρ?γορα, στη σφαλι?ρα. Μ?λλον γρ?γορα..?
Το Gattaca ταινι?ρα..
?Bauhaus - The Man With the X-Ray Eyes - YouTube?
?
April 9, 2020
?????????? ????? Darth Arsalan? ??????.
????? ? ??????? ????? ???? ???.
?.? ?????
????? ? ??????? ????? ???? ???.
?.? ?????
May 3, 2022
I’ve been re-reading all of Michael Sandel’s books lately, but I was debating on reading this one again. But, I’m really glad I did. As usual, Michael Sandel gives the reader a lot to think about on an ethical level. This specific book is about creating better humans through genetic engineering and other methods. He has us ask some really difficult questions, but he starts off with easy ones.
Is it ok to genetically alter an athlete to make them better and stronger to keep up with the competition? Why are we ok with supplements and strict workout routines or putting athletes in situations where they can train better than others? This seems simple, but as the line moves, you start to ask yourself why you believe A is alright but B isn’t.
What about intelligence? If you could make a child predisposed to being more intelligent in the womb, is that alright? If it’s not, is it ok that so many kids don’t have the same access to good schools and tutors?
The book dives into more difficult topics like eugenics, and it’s crazy learning about the American history of eugenics and how some of the ideas were embraced by Hitler. We start to question where science is and where it’s going. What are we ok with and what is unethical? But, what I think is the most important, why do we believe what we believe about the specific topics?
This is an extremely short book, so the fact that it’s able to get you thinking that much is pretty amazing. I really recommend everyone checks this book out.
Is it ok to genetically alter an athlete to make them better and stronger to keep up with the competition? Why are we ok with supplements and strict workout routines or putting athletes in situations where they can train better than others? This seems simple, but as the line moves, you start to ask yourself why you believe A is alright but B isn’t.
What about intelligence? If you could make a child predisposed to being more intelligent in the womb, is that alright? If it’s not, is it ok that so many kids don’t have the same access to good schools and tutors?
The book dives into more difficult topics like eugenics, and it’s crazy learning about the American history of eugenics and how some of the ideas were embraced by Hitler. We start to question where science is and where it’s going. What are we ok with and what is unethical? But, what I think is the most important, why do we believe what we believe about the specific topics?
This is an extremely short book, so the fact that it’s able to get you thinking that much is pretty amazing. I really recommend everyone checks this book out.
February 6, 2017
Πρ?κειται για ?να μικρ? θησυαρ?. Ο συγγραφ?α? με λ?γα αλλ? περιεκτικ? και εξαιρετικ? δομημ?να λ?για, μα? παρουσι?ζει την ηθικ? πλευρ? τη? παρ?μβαση? στα γον?δια.
Ε?τε πρ?κειται για ?μβρυα με κατ? παραγγελ?α χαρακτηριστικ?, ε?τε για αθλητ?? με εξωπραγματικ? προσ?ντα ε?τε ακ?μη για την χρ?ση κατεψυγμ?νων εμβρ?ων για την ?ρευνα στα βλαστοκ?τταρα ο συγγραφ?α? καταφ?ρνει και παρουσι?ζει και τι? δ?ο εικ?νε?, υπ?ρμαχων και αντιθ?των. Με συγκεκριμ?να παραδε?γματα, αντικρο?ει τ?σο την μ?α ?σο και την ?λλη ?ποψη και καταφ?ρνει κ?τι που ?χω δει μ?νο σε ?να βιβλ?ο. () Σε β?ζει να σκεφτε?? τ? ε?ναι σωστ? και τ? ?χι. Κατ? π?σο ε?ναι δ?κιμη η χρ?ση τη? γενετικ?? μηχανικ?? ? κατ? π?σο δημιουργε? ανισ?τητε? αν?μεσα στου? ανθρ?που?. Εξαιρετικ? δομημ?νο, ιδια?τερα απ? ιστορικ?? ?ποψη?, το κεφ?λαιο για την ?ννοια τη? ευγονικ??.
Πιστε?ω πω? ε?ναι ?να απ? τα καλ?τερα βιβλ?α του ε?δου? του και σ?γουρα ?να απ? τα καλομεταφρασμ?να και προσεγμ?να τη? ελληνικ?? επιστημονικ?? εκλα?κευμ?νη? βιβλιογραφ?α?.
(readathon 2017 3/90)
Ε?τε πρ?κειται για ?μβρυα με κατ? παραγγελ?α χαρακτηριστικ?, ε?τε για αθλητ?? με εξωπραγματικ? προσ?ντα ε?τε ακ?μη για την χρ?ση κατεψυγμ?νων εμβρ?ων για την ?ρευνα στα βλαστοκ?τταρα ο συγγραφ?α? καταφ?ρνει και παρουσι?ζει και τι? δ?ο εικ?νε?, υπ?ρμαχων και αντιθ?των. Με συγκεκριμ?να παραδε?γματα, αντικρο?ει τ?σο την μ?α ?σο και την ?λλη ?ποψη και καταφ?ρνει κ?τι που ?χω δει μ?νο σε ?να βιβλ?ο. () Σε β?ζει να σκεφτε?? τ? ε?ναι σωστ? και τ? ?χι. Κατ? π?σο ε?ναι δ?κιμη η χρ?ση τη? γενετικ?? μηχανικ?? ? κατ? π?σο δημιουργε? ανισ?τητε? αν?μεσα στου? ανθρ?που?. Εξαιρετικ? δομημ?νο, ιδια?τερα απ? ιστορικ?? ?ποψη?, το κεφ?λαιο για την ?ννοια τη? ευγονικ??.
Πιστε?ω πω? ε?ναι ?να απ? τα καλ?τερα βιβλ?α του ε?δου? του και σ?γουρα ?να απ? τα καλομεταφρασμ?να και προσεγμ?να τη? ελληνικ?? επιστημονικ?? εκλα?κευμ?νη? βιβλιογραφ?α?.
(readathon 2017 3/90)
January 3, 2011
An essential read for anyone interested in Bioethics. Topics include eugenics, genetic engineering, and trait selection, among many others.
March 21, 2021
2021年被热烈讨论的代孕、子宫道德、海淀鸡娃这些话题都在这本书里得到了作者给出的回答。
March 14, 2022
Helped me clarify the eugenic tendencies of many phenomena today
March 27, 2021
????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ????? ? ???? ?????? ? ????? ? ??????? ??. ???? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ???. ???? Gattaca ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?? ????.
??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ?? ??????????? ????? ??????? ? ?? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??? ????. ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???.
???? ?? ???? : ??? ??????????? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ???????? ?? ???????????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ???. ??? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ??????????? ????????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ????????
??? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ??????? ? ???? ??????????? ???????? ?? ??????????? ?????? ??? ??. ??? ???????? ?? ????? ????????? ???? ????????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????????. ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ????????? ??? ???????? ? ???? ?????? ???????? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ????. ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???????????? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ??????.
???? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ??????????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ?????????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ????. ?? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ????????? ????? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ????. ?? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ?????????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ????. ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ? ????? ????? ???????????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???. ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ????????? ?????? ??????. ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ????????? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ????????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?????
??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ?? ??????????? ????? ??????? ? ?? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??? ????. ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???.
???? ?? ???? : ??? ??????????? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ???????? ?? ???????????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ???. ??? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ??????????? ????????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ????????
??? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ??????? ? ???? ??????????? ???????? ?? ??????????? ?????? ??? ??. ??? ???????? ?? ????? ????????? ???? ????????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????????. ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ????????? ??? ???????? ? ???? ?????? ???????? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ????. ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???????????? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ??????.
???? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ??????????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ?????????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ????. ?? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ????????? ????? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ????. ?? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ?????????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ????. ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ? ????? ????? ???????????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???. ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ????????? ?????? ??????. ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ????????? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ????????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?????
Read
November 8, 2021Трансхуманистите обещават светло бъдеще за човечеството, което се довери на генното инженерство: дълъг и щастлив живот; невиждани сила, издръжливост и виталност; суперинтелект и практически перфектна памет; световен мир, благоденствие и епогей на политиката, икономиката, науката и културата. Всичко това на цената на нещо дребно, но ключово - да се признае свободата на всеки да усъвършенства себе си и поколенето си, благодарение на генното инженерство. Един съвършен свят.
Какво тогава ни кара инстинктивно да се опълчим на биотехнологичните нововъведения? Майкъл Сандел има отговор, който е оригинален и надхвърля всичко, което преди това е предлагано, в своята смиреност и простота. Животът е дар и тази му черта трябва да се запази, ако искаме наистина да спасим човешкото у човека.
Какво тогава ни кара инстинктивно да се опълчим на биотехнологичните нововъведения? Майкъл Сандел има отговор, който е оригинален и надхвърля всичко, което преди това е предлагано, в своята смиреност и простота. Животът е дар и тази му черта трябва да се запази, ако искаме наистина да спасим човешкото у човека.
July 27, 2022
???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ? ????? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ????? ? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ???! ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? :)) ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ??
September 23, 2020
Muy interesante y cortito ensayo sobre bioética donde da una visión acerca de varios temas controvertidos como el dise?o de hijos o la modificación corporal. Mención aparte tendría el epílogo dedicado a las células madre y los embriones. Muy interesante.
Read
May 20, 2025It’s interesting but I’m not interested
August 29, 2017
- Θα πα?ρνατε ?να χ?πι που θα σα? ?κανε εξυπν?τερου? και... θα ?πρεπε να ?χετε το δικα?ωμα να το κ?νετε αυτ?;
- Π?? θα ε?ναι οι κοινων?ε? μα? ?ταν η βιοτεχνολογ?α μ?? επιτρ?ψει να σχεδι?ζουμε τα γενετικ? γνωρ?σματα των παιδι?ν μα? και να βελτι?νουμε του? εαυτο?? μα?;
- Ε?ναι θεμιτ? οι αθλητ?? να ενισχ?ουν το σ?μα και τι? επιδ?σει? του? και π?σο επηρε?ζει αυτ? το θαυμασμ? μα? για το αθλητικ? επ?τευγμα;
Αυτ? και ?λλα ερωτ?ματα γ?ρω απ? τι? καινοτομ?ε? στη γενετικ? και την εμβιομηχανικ? εγε?ρει μ?σα απ? το βιβλ?ο του “Εν?ντια στην τελει?τητα” ο καθηγητ?? πολιτικ?ν επιστημ?ν του πανεπιστημ?ου Harvard, Michael Sandel.
Το βιβλ?ο ?χει σκοπ? περισσ?τερο να προβληματ?σει και λιγ?τερο να δ?σει απαντ?σει? ανο?γοντα? τελικ? το δι?λογο περ? ηθικ?? στην εποχ? τη? γενετικ?? μηχανικ??.
Μεστ? σε νο?ματα χωρ?? δυσν?ητε? ?ννοιε? που κουρ?ζουν τον αναγν?στη, αλλ? με αληθιν? παραδε?γματα και υποθ?σει?, το βιβλ?ο θα σα? κρατ?σει καλ? συντροφι? και θα σα? προβληματ?σει.
- Π?? θα ε?ναι οι κοινων?ε? μα? ?ταν η βιοτεχνολογ?α μ?? επιτρ?ψει να σχεδι?ζουμε τα γενετικ? γνωρ?σματα των παιδι?ν μα? και να βελτι?νουμε του? εαυτο?? μα?;
- Ε?ναι θεμιτ? οι αθλητ?? να ενισχ?ουν το σ?μα και τι? επιδ?σει? του? και π?σο επηρε?ζει αυτ? το θαυμασμ? μα? για το αθλητικ? επ?τευγμα;
Αυτ? και ?λλα ερωτ?ματα γ?ρω απ? τι? καινοτομ?ε? στη γενετικ? και την εμβιομηχανικ? εγε?ρει μ?σα απ? το βιβλ?ο του “Εν?ντια στην τελει?τητα” ο καθηγητ?? πολιτικ?ν επιστημ?ν του πανεπιστημ?ου Harvard, Michael Sandel.
Το βιβλ?ο ?χει σκοπ? περισσ?τερο να προβληματ?σει και λιγ?τερο να δ?σει απαντ?σει? ανο?γοντα? τελικ? το δι?λογο περ? ηθικ?? στην εποχ? τη? γενετικ?? μηχανικ??.
Μεστ? σε νο?ματα χωρ?? δυσν?ητε? ?ννοιε? που κουρ?ζουν τον αναγν?στη, αλλ? με αληθιν? παραδε?γματα και υποθ?σει?, το βιβλ?ο θα σα? κρατ?σει καλ? συντροφι? και θα σα? προβληματ?σει.
October 28, 2021
The book is a very well-explained introduction to Eugenics and Genetic Engineering. The author explains the impact of potential genetic engineering on ethics and society, where he highlights the dilemmas of using it by objectively explaining the pros on cons in many domains like sport, parenting, childbirth... Etc.
The book serves as a good introduction to the philosophical case but doesn't dig deep enough to explain the historical evolution, the philosophers' opinions, and the correct framework to help readers to achieve their decisions on this complex topic. Also, the objectivity of the exposure of the topic was lost in the last two chapters, which I consider a minus point.
Overall, it's very good to have your first step in this topic, but it just scratches the surface and doesn't dig deep. Worth reading!
The book serves as a good introduction to the philosophical case but doesn't dig deep enough to explain the historical evolution, the philosophers' opinions, and the correct framework to help readers to achieve their decisions on this complex topic. Also, the objectivity of the exposure of the topic was lost in the last two chapters, which I consider a minus point.
Overall, it's very good to have your first step in this topic, but it just scratches the surface and doesn't dig deep. Worth reading!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 147 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.