The new humanists: science at the edge.

edited by John Brockman (Barnes & Noble Books, 2003): 496 pages; $19.95 cloth--reviewed by Jende Huang

This collection of essays edited by John Brockman is, and isn't, about Humanism. Brockman's work bas previously focused on the intersection between scientific knowledge and U.S. society's understanding of the world, and this anthology is no different. The "new humanists" that Brockman envisions are scientists who have replaced traditional intellectuals as purveyors who render "visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefining who and what we are." And considering the multitude of books scientists have written for the public, they appear to be doing a good job.

This emerging "third culture" (a play off of C. P. Snow's observation more than forty years ago that the thinking world is divided into two cultures, one made up of scientists and another of literary intellectuals) is now intent on reclaiming academia and the intellectual world from postmodernists and others in the humanities who are uncaring or unaware of the advances made in scientific knowledge. This isn't to say that Brockman is intent on replacing every English professor with a biologist but, rather, he marvels at

   art critics who know nothing
   about visual perception; "social
   constructionist" literary critics
   uninterested in the human
   universals documented by anthropologists;
   opponents of genetically
   modified foods, additives,
   and pesticide residues who are
   ignorant of genetics and evolutionary
   biology.

This series of essays (many are edited versions of interviews that Brockman conducted with various third culture intellectuals) are divided into three sections. The final section, "Evolving Universes..." finds scientists tediously discussing cosmology and other issues surrounding the evolution of the universe. Indeed, amazing advances in technology are giving cosmologists new insights into the early formation of the universe. However, debates on whether time began at the Big Bang or if humans live in a cyclic universe are less engaging--as is any discussion on quantum gravity, branes, and Planck energy--because the topics under consideration seem so remote. The nature of the phys-ical universe is, of course, relevant to a great many things but doesn't bold its weight compared to the ideas explored in previous sections.

Jared Diamond's opening essay in the "Homo sapiens" section discusses the same issues as his recent book, Guns, Germs and Steel, and focuses on why humans developed at varying paces on different continents. Geography, not biological myths such as intelligence differences, accounts for much of the historical dominance of Europeans and East Asians. Helena Cronin, codirector of the London School of Economics Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Sciences, discusses sex differences and challenges the notion held by some feminists that acknowledging fundamental differences between females and males would somehow defeat the goal of an egalitarian and fair society. As much as Diamond challenges racism with scientific knowledge, Cronin questions if acknowledging differences will somehow lead to more sexism, as opposed to creating social policies that can help people perform at their best. Andy Clark, director of the Cognitive Science Program at Indiana University, thinks it's a distinctive human trait to "deploy non-biological elements (instruments, media, notations) to complement (but not, typically, to replicate) our basic biological nodes or processing," which helps augment our ability to problem solve and process information. This idea, though not new, has wide implications when considering the whole of the human mind.

This leads to "Machina sapiens?" which presents futurists and visionaries--including Marvin Minsky and Ray Kurzweil--theorizing on technology's impact on the future of humanity. Rodney Brooks, director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory sees a future where "our technological infrastructure and out bodies may be indistinguishable." This, in addition to far-reaching advances in nanotechnology, processing speed, and biotechnology, leads Kurzweil to envision a "Singularity." This is a point in time in which technological progress is happening so fast that a rupture in human history will seem to occur and it will be impossible to predict anything beyond that point.

However, before you prepare to merge with your desktop for the technological rapture, rest assured that not everyone sees a fast or easy road to the Singularity, which is predicted to occur around 2020 (surely to fall on October 23 of one of those years). As some contributors point out, they as computer scientists are still confounded as to how to recreate humanity's conceptual abilities in computers. After all, having a processor that can work at the speed of the human brain won't be that impressive unless scientists can get the computer to be able to reason and think like a person. And so, as these scientists work to create machines with the properties of living systems, Jaron Lanier, lead scientist of the National Tele-Immersion Initiative, rails against what he calls cybernetic totalism. Lanier isn't swayed by the idea that cybernetic patterns are the best way to understand the world, or that humans can easily be reduced as such. He sees many social issues that haven't been fully addressed and finds a lack of scientific skepticism among his colleagues.

Technology and its social applications are advancing in ways hard to accurately predict. Filtering Lanier and Kurzweil's disagreements through the context of future studies allows a bit more leeway in deciding what awaits humanity. Since future studies acknowledge that the future cannot be fully predicted--but that it's worthwhile to study possible and preferred futures--Lanier and Kurzweil are placed within the context of a multitude of possible outcomes. The debate itself is especially valuable since people are challenged to think about the future in a different way--and not merely to take into account social, political, and economic factors. Science and technology will surely play a deciding role and it is important to consider those possible outcomes now.

So, to answer the original question, Brockman isn't talking about Humanists but is addressing the issues Humanists should be discussing. Indeed, his definition of humanism, though not synonymous with most Humanists' understanding of the word, isn't disagreeable:

   Around the fifteenth century, the word
   "humanism" was tied in with the idea of one
   intellectual whole. A Florentine nobleman
   knew that to read Dante but ignore science
   was ridiculous. Leonardo was a great artist,
   a great scientist, a great technologist.
   Michelangelo was an even greater artist and
   engineer. To them, the idea of embracing
   humanism while remaining ignorant of the
   latest scientific and technological achievements
   would have been incomprehensible.
   The time has come to reestablish that holistic
   definition.

Humanists share with Brockman the goal of advancing the role of science in modern society. His efforts to get scientists to be more engaged with the public complements the movement's desire to broaden the public's understanding of the scientific method. The New Humanists is a worthy addition to this cause.

Jende Huang is the field assistant for the American Humanist Association.