InterviewwithStefanoVajonBiopoliticsandTranshumanim

byAdrianoScianca(ed.).TranslationfromItalianbyCatarinaLamm

Rome,May2007.FestivalofPhilosophy.ThecreamofItalicofficialbigwigsconvening.Herearethe
titlesofsomeofthespeechesfeaturingintheprogram:ScienceattheFrontiers:Potentiality,Limits,
Guarantees,Real,Virtual,Imaginary:WherearetheBoundaries?TheConfinesofLifeand
Euthanasia.AnEthicalandScientificPerspective,SecondLife:theNewFrontiersofExperience,Is
ManObsolete?Human/Posthuman,plusthematiclecturesonCharlesDarwin,GuntherAndersand
PhilipDick.StefanoVaj,amIwrongoristhereaspectrehauntingEurope,andisitthespectreof
biopolitics?

Europeeventodayremainstheepicentre,atleastculturally,ofparadigmshifts.Andthereisnodoubt
thatwearefacingagrowingawarenessthatwhatIcallbiopoliticsrepresentsthecrucialissueofthe
day,ournexthorizon,andthereallypoliticallevel,inCarlSchmittssenseoftheword,meaningthelevel
thatrendersallotherpersuasionsandaffiliationssecondary.SincethetimewhenIbegantoworkonthe
essayBiopolitics.Thenewparadigm,whichisnowonlinefulltext[inItalianTN]attheaddress
http://www.biopolitica.it,thishaslittlebylittlebecomeeverclearer,tothepointwhenitdownrightstares
youintheface.Attheturnofthesecondmillenniumofourera,thereisntacorneroftheEarths
biospherethatisimmunetothehandofman.AsawidelycirculatedarticleinthereviewScience
remarkedsomeyearsago,therearenomoreplacesonEarththatarenotintheshadeofhumans.
Todayhumankindexertsitsinfluenceontheentiresurfaceoftheplanet,eitherbydirectlytransformingit
orbymodifyingitsbiochemicalandphysicalequilibria.Ofcoursewearefarfrommasteringits
processes,butthereisnomorepartthatisimmunetomansinfluence.

Andalsoviceversa
Exactly.Ournatureandidentityareobviouslyshapedbyourenvironment,andnotjustculturally,but
alsobiologically,ifanythingthroughthevaryingreproductivesuccessofourgenes.Oncethe
environmentinwhichwegrowandevolveandtheselectivepressuresactingonourgeneticheritage
becomealtogetherartificial,thenitbecomesclearthatitisnolongerjustamatterofourresponsibilityin
definingourenvironmentinrelationtoaproject,butthatofhavingaprojectdefininginthefirstplace
whatwewanttobe,aprojectallowingus,inNietzscheswords,tobecomewhatweare.Heidegger
writes:Nietzscheisthefirstthinker,who,inviewoftheworldhistoryemergingforthefirsttime,ask
thedecisivequestionandthinksthroughitsmetaphysicalimplications.Thequestionis:Isman,asmanin
hisnaturetillnow,preparedtoassumedominionoverthewholeearth?Ifnot,whatmusthappentoman
asheissothathemaybeableto'subject'theearthandtherebyfulfilltheworldofanoldtestament?
Mustman,asheis,then,notbebroughtbeyondhimselfifheistofulfillthistask?[]Onething,
however,weoughtsoontonotice:thisthinkingthataimsatthefigureofateacherwhowillteachthe
Supermanconcernsus,concernsEurope,concernsthewholeEarthnotjusttoday,buttomorroweven
more.Itdoessowhetherweacceptitoropposeit,ignoreitorimitateitinafalseaccent.

Inconclusion,thequestionofthebermenschcannotbeeluded,eventhoughthemarketrabbletriesto
dosowhen,inZarathustra,itinvokesthelessfrighteningLastMan

Letusimaginethreementhrownonboardasailingboatatlarge.Thefirstimprecatesthefatethat
broughthimthere,andinsiststhatinvoluntarypassengerslikehimselfshouldabandonshipusingthe
lifeboatsorevenswimmingifnecessary.Thesecondsuggeststheyimposearulethatprohibitsany
interferencewiththerandomdriftingoftheboat,exceptminimallyforitsmaintenanceandheisabove
allintenttograbholdoftheavailablerationsandthebestberthoratmosttofindsomewaytodivide
themupequitablysoastomaintainpeaceonboard.Whatinsteadmatterstothethirdmanisthe

possibilitytosteertheboatwherehewants,learntomanoeuvreit,anddecideontheroutetofollow.
Today,thespaceavailabletothesecondstancethatoftheFreudianrepression,stillprevailing,above
allatthelevelofgovernmentsandbusinessesisgraduallyshrinking.Thisinfavourofboththefirst,
theneoLuddite,stance,beitofatraditionalistorneoprimitivistpersuasion,rootedinreligionorindeep
ecologyandofthethirdstance,whichwemaycallwithoutgoingtoodeephereintothedifferent
shadesofmeaningofthesetermstranshumanist,posthumanist,postmodernoroverhumanist.
Infact,whenIrecentlytookpartinaprojectthatresearchedthebibliographyrelativetothesubjectof
biopolitics,transhumanism,andthemomentoustransformationcurrentlyunderway,Ihadthe
opportunitytoinventoryseveralhundredworkspublishedinthelast10or15years,ataneverincreasing
pace,thatdealexplicitlywiththistopic,andthatrecognisethatwearefacingatransformationin
comparisontowhich,inthewordsofGuillaumeFaye,futurehistorianswillviewtheIndustrialisationas
smalltimeandtheFrenchRevolutionasastorminateapot.Achangethathasitsonlyprecedentinthe
Neolithicrevolution,ifnotinhominisationitself.AndinItalythisdebateisanythingbutabsent,notonly
becauseofmyownmodestcontribution,butalsobecauseofalocalawarenessoftheimportanceofthe
subjectthatisspreadingeverfurtheracrosstheideologicalandintellectualspectrum.
Besides,intheshortterm,thebioludditetechnophobesontheonehand,andthetranshumanistsonthe
other,areobjectivelyalliediffornootherreasonthanthecommongoaltoraisepublicawarenessthat
aneraisover,thatbusinessasusual,whichimplicitlyleavesittothemarketandtoabstractjuridical
rulestochooseinourplace,isbothimpracticableandpotentiallycatastrophic.

Thecomparisonyouproposebetweenthebiopoliticalrevolutionandhominisationisveryinteresting.
Beforediscussingthissubject,however,Ishouldfirstliketodwellonanothermatter:youfleetingly
mentionedtranshumanism.Whatisit?Howdoesbiopoliticsrelatetotranshumanism?Woulditbe
thecasethattheformerkeepsthemoreneutralanddescriptivetingeofaphenomenonthatis
actuallytakingplace,whilethelatterindicatesaspecificpathonwhichtodirecttheongoing
mutations?Isthiscorrect?

Transhumanismisatonceaverysimpleposition,andalooselyorganisedgalaxyofassociations,authors,
foundations,andinitiativesexistingprimarilyonline.Assuch,iteffectivelyrepresentsoneoftwopoles
aroundwhichrotatestheparadigmshiftthatgoesunderthenameofbiopoliticalrevolutiontheother
poleisofcoursetheonethattranshumanistssomewhatpejorativelyrefertoasneoludditeor
humanisteventhoughtherespectivealignmentsarestillinthemaking,andstillremainpartly
overshadowedbytheresidualweightgiventootherkindsofaffiliation(suchasthehazyideological
shadesthatmightstillbeleftinthenineteenthcenturydistinctionbetweenrightwingandleftwing).
Now,notonlyitshouldbeabundantlycleartoeveryoneevenvaguelyfamiliarwithmyideasthatIstand
firmlyinthetranshumanistcamp,butinthelastfewyearsIhavealsoactivelyparticipatedinorganised
transhumanism,especiallybyservingasboardmemberoftheAssociazioneItalianaTransumanisti
(http://www.transumanisti.it),bytakingpartininternationalforumsonthetopic,etc.
Ontheotherhand,transhumanisminitswidersense,andwhenboileddowntoitscorememe(touse
theconceptRichardDawkinsforgedinTheSelfishGenetorefertobasicculturalunits),meanssimply
this:itislegitimateanddesirabletoemploytechnoscientificmeanstotakechargeofonesowndestiny
andgobeyondthehumancondition.
Inthissense,transhumanismtodaystandsatonceforsomethingmoreandforsomethinglessthanmy
ownpersonaltakeonmattersofbiopolitics.Somethingmore,inthesensethatitconsistsofavery
diversespectrumofpositionsandbackgroundsthat,althoughmostlyfindingthemselvesonaninevitably
convergingpath,stillincludesome,inmyview,residualsofoutdatedideasderivedfrommonotheism,
albeitinaradicallysecularisedform.Somethingless,inthesensethatmyvisionofthechallengesand
radicalchangesthatareloomingisbasedonaquitespecificphilosophicalperspective,thatmany
transhumanisttrendsandthinkershaveasyetadopted(atbest!)onlyimplicitly.

Andwhatexactlyisthatperspective?

Clearly,Ithinkthatthefundamentalist,overhumanistandposthumanistversionthatIstandfor
representsinthelastanalysistheonlyviableoutcomeforanyconsistenttranshumanism.And,
conversely,thatarejectionofdecadence,ofFukuyamasendofhistory,ofBraveNewWorldishcultural
andanthropologicalentropy,inonewordoftheZivilisationthattodaywantstoprojectitselftoeternity,
ofNietzschesLastMan,ofGehlenslatecultureorHeideggersoblivionofBeing,canreallytake
usforwardonlyifbasedinanewbeginningoftranshumanistinspiration.Moderntechnology,withits
futuristiccapabilitytoinsertmutationsinourenvironmentandinus,isaMolochthathasbeenawakened
aftertwothousandyearsofmonotheisticrepressionoftheEuropeansubconsciousandofdesacralisation
oftheworld,butitisalsosomethingthatwillleadeithertoanoutcomemostlikelytobecatastrophic,or
toasradicalarupturewithourrecentpastaswastheNeolithicrevolutionwithrespecttowhatcame
beforeit.AsHlderlinwritesinPatmos,WoaberGefahrist,wchstdasRettendeauch.(Where
poisongrows,theretoosproutstheremedy.)

YoumentionedtheveryHeideggerianexpressionofanewbeginning.Thistakesusbacktowhatwe
saidearlierwhenwecomparedthebiopoliticalrevolutiontotheNeolithicrevolution.Itwould
seem,then,thatthesefuturechangesawaitingmaninthescarcelybegunthirdmillenniumretaininyour
opinionanundeniablyarchaicaspect.Howcome?

Archaicliterallymeansinitial,primordial.Accordingly,itmayrefertotheoriginofwhatweare,
aslivingbeings,species,racesorculturesoritmayrefertoanoriginthatisyettocome,toourabilityto
becomethisorigin.Currentlinguisticusageprivilegesthefirstsense,andgivesitanegativetwist:the
originobviouslydoesnotembodyallitssubsequentdevelopments,andinawayitsresidual,
contemporaryfossilsreflectonlyafractionofthepotentialwhichhasinthemeantimeunfolded,thus
betrayinganddenyingitsowndevelopmentsanddeployments.Suchfossilsrepresentthenonlythedream
ofareversiontothepastthathasnothingtodowiththeoriginalpositionofthosewhoinsteadcreated,
preciselythrougharevolution,arupturewiththeworldthatcamebeforethem.ThisisthereasonwhyI
havealwaysbeenreluctanttoadoptFayeswordarcheofuturism,beitjustasaneasysloganthis,and
becauseofarchaicfeaturesthatarealreadyintrinsictoFuturismasthoseofonewhopositsorclaimto
posithimselfastheoriginofanewage,includingthatkindofnostalgiathatisessentiallyanostalgiaof
thefuture.Furthermore,itmaypertaintomanasanhistoricalanimalatleastintheinterpretationof
historygivenbyauthorslikeFriedrichNietzscheorGiorgioLocchithatheisunabletoplan,to
conceivearevolutionunlesshecanbaseitontheclaimtoaheritage.Viewedinthislight,suchaclaimis
avariablefeatureofeverytimeandtendencyandmovement:theonlydifferencewithoverhumanismis
thatthismechanismisconsciouslyadopted,andradicallyso,becausethedepthofthedesired
transformationandthegreatnessofthecollectivedestinyareassumedtobeproportionaltothehistoric
depththatoneisabletoassumeasonesown.

ThisbringstomindNietzschesfamousideathatthemanofthefuturewillalsobetheonewiththe
longestmemory,doesntit?

Exactly.Fromthisperspective,itisnotbychancethatthecomingofageofcontemporarytechnology
andthegradualemergenceofbiopolitics,asademandforhumanselfdeterminationthatdigsintoevery
aspectofourbodilyandphysicalandspiritualenvironment,coincideswiththegraduallyexpanding
knowledgeofourmostremotehistory.Insuchaperspective,asalreadymentioned,theonlyprecedent
thatmightjustbecomparedtotheparadigmchangethatistakingplacetodayisindeedthatofthe
Neolithicrevolutionandespecially,frommypointofview,howitinterweaveswiththeresponsegiven
toitbytheIndoEuropeanculture,whichwaspartlyitsresult,andpartlyitscauseatleastwithrespectto

howtheNeolithicageactuallycametotakeontheshapeitdid

Infact,hundredsofthousandsofyearsafterhominisation,itiswiththeNeolithicrevolution,sometime
aftertheendofthelastIceAge,andinyetanotherimpressivestageoftheprojectofselfdomestication
thatdenotestheadventureofourspecies,thatasecondmanemergesforthefirsttime.ThisSecond
Manisofcoursethemanofagriculture(andthecorrelatedsedentarylifestyleandfirstdemographic
explosion),oftowns,ofpolitics,religion,traditions,divisionoflabour,ofwhathascometobecalled
pyrictechnology,ofthegreatSpengleriancultures.AtthetimeoftheSecondMan,thenatural
environmentbecomesforthefirsttimeaculturalenvironment.Notonlyisthenaturalenvironment
henceforthinfluencedandmouldedbythepresenceofman,butthehumanfactorproperlyspeaking
becomesinextricablyinterwovenwiththepurelybiologicalfactorsinacombinedactionatonceonthe
individualphenotypeandontheselectivepressuresthatshapehisgeneticlines.

Fascinating...

Spenglerwrote:[Atthispoint,]thetempoofhistoryisworkinguptragically.Hitherto,thousandsof
yearshavescarcelymatteredatall,butnoweverycenturybecomesimportant.[...]Butwhatinfacthas
happened?Ifonegoesmoredeeplyintothisnewformworldofmansactivities,onesoonperceives
mostbizarreandcomplicatedlinkages.Thesetechniques,oneandall,presupposeoneanothers
existence.Thekeepingoftameanimalsdemandsthecultivationofforagestuffs,thesowingandreaping
offoodplantsrequiredraughtanimalsandbeastsofburdentobeavailable,andthese,again,the
constructionofpens.Everysortofbuildingrequiresthepreparationandtransportofmaterials,and
transport,again,roadsandpackanimalsandboats.Whatinallisthisisthespiritualtransformation?The
answerIputforwardisthiscollectivedoingbyplan.Hithertoeachmanhadlivedhisownlife,made
hisownweapons,followedhisowntacticsinthedailystruggle.Noneneededanother.Thisiswhat
suddenlychangesnow.Thenewprocessestakeuplongperiodsoftime,insomecasesyearsconsider
thetimethatelapsesbetweenthefellingofthetreeandthesailingoftheshipthatisbuiltoutofit.The
storythatdividesitselfintoawellarrangedsetofseparateactsandasetofplotsworkingoutin
parallelinoneanother.Andforthiscollectiveproceduretheindispensableprerequisiteisamedium,
language.

Gehlenhoweverremarkedmanyyearsago,muchbeforebioengineering,nanotechnologyorartificial
intelligenceexistedevenhypothetically:Theindustrialrevolutionwhichtodayisdrawingtoaclose
marksinfacttheendofthesocalledadvancedcultures,thatprevailedbetween3500BCEuntilafter
1800CE,andfosterstheemergenceofanewkindofculture,asyetnotwelldefined.Alongtheselines
ofthinking,onecouldindeedcometobelievethatthecivilisedageashistoricalperiodisabouttopass
away,ifoneunderstandsthewordcivilisationinthesensethathasbeenexemplifiedbythehistoryofthe
advancedculturesofhumanityuntiltoday.

SoinfactwhatliesaheadistheendofthepostNeolithicageandofeverythingthatpertainstoit

Theresnodoubtaboutit.Butatthesametime,theNeolithicturningpointistheonlyexamplewehave
ofwhataresponsetothebiopoliticalrevolutionmightconsistin,therevolutionthatwillseemaninherit
theEarth,andgaintotalresponsibilityforhisphysiology,psychology,identity,composition,and
everythingthatwillsustainandinteractwithhim.OnthismatterIrefertothedistinctionImakeinmy
alreadymentionedbookBiopoliticsbetweensocietiesthathaverefusedorignoredthissortof
transformation,consequentlyheadingmoreorlessdeliberatelytowardsirrelevanceandextinctioncold
culturesthathavetriedtocongealearlyachievementsintoanendlessrepetition,somehowmimickingthe
previousstagnationtepidcultures,activebutunwillingpreysofhistoryandfinallythe

(Indo)Europeanresponseandthemythitgaveriseto.ItisofcoursethislastresponseIhaveinmind
whenItaketheNeolithicrevolutionasamodel.Anditisalsointerestingtonoticethatiftherupturethat
iscurrentlyabouttotakeplaceislikelytobeevenmoreradical,andinthissensemoresimilar(sinceit
willnecessarilyleadtoaposthumanoutcome)tohominisationitself,themostrecentstudiestendto
emphasisehowthetimeoftheNeolithicrevolutionisoneofsignificantbiologicalmutations,ofwhich
onlyafewyearsagowehadnoidea.
NicholasWadewritesinBeforeDawn(Penguin2006):Therecentpast,especiallysincethefirst
settlements15,000yearsago,isatimewhenhumansocietyhasundergoneextraordinarydevelopmentsin
complexity,creatingmanynewenvironmentsandevolutionarypressures.Hithertoithasbeenassumed
thehumangenomewasfixedandcouldnotrespondtothosepressures.Itnowappearstheoppositeisthe
case.Thehumangenomehasbeeninfullfluxallthetime.Thereforeitcouldanddoubtlessdidadaptto
changesinhumansociety.InferringfromthestudiesWadeusesforillustration,thesechangesinclude
amongotherthingsthegradualspread,originatinginEurope,ofgenetictraitsthatwouldindeedhave
influencedthecognitiveperformanceofourancestors!
Ithasalsoalreadybeenremarkedelsewherethatinacertainsensehistorysmajorculturesrepresent
grandexperimentsineugenicsand/orinbreeding,inasmuchastheynotonlyclearlyresultfromoriginally
differentpopulations,butalsoconsciouslyorunconsciouslyendupselectingforarbitrary,differentand
asPeterSloterdijkremarksinRegelnfrdenMenschenpark(SuhrkampVerlagKG,1999)totally
artificialtraits,inaloopthatendsupreinforcingandevolvingtheinitialfeaturesinunpredictable
ways.HeretootheThirdMan,whoaccordingtomyprognosticsissummonedtocommandthe
biopoliticalrevolution,canperceivethetruelevelofmagnitudeofthetransformation,whichisnotthatof
thefirstgreenrevolutioninagriculturegoingbacktothefiftiesandsixtiesoflastcentury,northatofthe
nineteenthcenturyIndustrialrevolution,butoftheonethatbeganeightortenthousandyearsago.

Beforewecontinueitmightbeagoodthingifyouclarifiedthenatureofthisfigure,theThirdMan,
thatyoujustmentioned.Whatsitabout?

Theexpressionthirdmandoesnotinitselfrefertoanewspeciesoranewrace(eventhoughbiological
mutationsareinherentintheorigin,andevenmoresointheimplications,oftheterminitswidersense).
Andevenlessdoesitconnotesomenextstepintheculturalprogressofhumanity.Itismerelyan
anthropologicalIdealtypus,acategoryofphilosophicalanthropology,discussedingreaterdetailby
ArnoldGehlenorGiorgioLocchi,butintrinsicalsointheconvergingintuitionsofmanyauthorsof
differentleaningsandobjectives,fromErnstJngertoHerbertMarcuse,fromPeterSloterdijktoMartin
HeideggertoFilippoTommasoMarinetti,andthedefinitionofwhichbearsdeeplyonmansessence,the
reinmenschliches,anditsrelationtotechnologyatatimeofprofoundupheaval.
Inthislight,thefirstmanwouldberepresentedbywhattheanthropologistscallthebehaviourally
modernmanheisthehuntingandgatheringbeingwhoselfcreatesthroughtheadoptionoflanguage
andmagic,whichallowhimorhertoidentifywithmodelsborrowedfromtheenvironmentinwhichheis
immersedinordertomakeupforhisnaturalshortcomingsandexploithisethologicalplasticity,thereby
becomingtheomnibeast,theopenendedanimal.TheSecondMan,onthecontrary,isrepresented
bytheemergence,preciselywiththeNeolithicrevolution,ofthenewdiverse,longlastingandfast
changingwaysoflifeandartifacts,thedifferentiationandaffirmationofwhicharewellillustratedbythe
biblicalmythoftheTowerofBabel.Ifthefirstmanepitomisestheabilitytomirrorhisenvironment
andrecasthimselftherein,andthesecondmantheabilitytomodifyandchoosehisownselfalso
biologicallybyshapinghisownspecificenvironment(Umwelt),theThirdManisthentheonewho
mastersthisprocess,whichhasnecessarilybecomeselfconsciousanddeliberateinsideanenvironment
which,atleastwithintheEarthsbiosphere,canfromnowonbenothingotherthanthroughandthrough
artificialevenwhenitisintentionallyarchitectedtomaintainorrecreatetheideaofanarbitrarily,and
culturallyidentified,imageofnature...

Couldyouelaborate?

Inotherwords,iftheculturaltextureoftheselectivepressuresandenvironmentalinfluencesthatshape
individualsandtheircommunitiesiswhatdeterminesthehumanityofthesecondman'sphylogenesis
andontogenesis,intheThirdMantheseprocessesarethemselvesculturalproducts.Withthethirdman,
whenthetechnologiesoftransportation,storageandlongdistancetransmissionoftexts,data,soundsand
images,modernmedicine,computation,enginesrunningonphysicalandchemicalenergy,emerge,then
ourextendedphenotypealtersbothgraduallyanddramaticallyuntiltransformingintoacyborgorat
leastintoafyborg((afunctionalcyborg,asdescribedbyGregoryStockinRedesigningHumans,
MarinerBooks2003).So,itisnotbychancethatthearrivalofthisthirdmanimmediatelyopensupa
newperspectiveofeugenicselfdetermination,whichthenewresponsibilitiesnowweighingonusrender
bothpossibleandnecessaryasdothepotentiallycatastrophicconsequencesoftheprocessofhisown
affirmation.
Itshouldbeadded,asIhavedoneelsewhere,thattheabovementionedanthropologicaltypesareof
coursetosurvive,andtheirhistoriestooverlaptoacertainextent,atageographicalorculturallevelat
leastuntilthedeplorableandfinalestablishmentofaglobalBraveNewWorld,atasociallevel,andin
individualpsychologiesandreflexes,asthereptilemayingeneraltermssurviveinmanexactlylikepre
Neolithiccultures,forinstancetheAustralianaborigines,havesomehowmanagedtosurviveuntilnow,
oratleastuntilthebeginningoflastcentury.Actually,ifthepastisagoodprecedentforthefuture,the
sociologyofthethirdmanmighthaveafewsurprisesinstoreforusconcerningthecommonplaceofan
evolutionthatwouldbereservedtoafew.

Meaning?

InthepostNeolithicsociety,contrarilyforinstancetoGuillaumeFaye'shypothesisinArcheofuturism
(ArktosMedia2010)thatthefuturemightbringusmodivivendiwithtwovelocities,itisinfacttheelites,
ifanyone,whoperpetuatedarchaicwaysoflife,albeitinanidealisedandlargelysymbolicform.The
king'spark,asIstressinBiopolitics,doesnotconsistofcultivatedfieldsarounddenselyscatteredfarms,
butofessentiallyuninhabitedgardens,orchards,huntinggrounds,areassetapartfortheoccasionaland
highlyritualisedcombats(duelsandtournaments),whereuntilrelativelyrecentlythearistocracystill
mimickedlifestylesmorethanalittlerelatedtothoseofhuntingandgatheringcultures.Whileformost
peopledailylife,forbetterorforworse,hadbeenmuchmoredisruptedbyongoinghistoricalmutations
thanforthosewhofoundthemselvestoorganiseandmanagesuchmutations.

ButwhatwouldbethecorrespondingchangesapplicabletotheThirdMan?

Ofcourse,withrespecttotheThirdMan,iftheoriginofthistransformationmightbethatthe
geographicalexplorationofalllandabovesealevelandthefirstindustrialrevolutionhadessentiallybeen
exhausted,itisthepromiseofthetechnologiessubsumedbytheumbrellatermdefinedbytheexpression
bionanoinfocognothatrepresentedthefinalpointofrupturewiththeoldlifestyle.So,toconclude,
Iwilladoptametaphortakenfromcomputerscience,withallduecautionrequiredwhendealingwith
metaphors:ifwithrespecttothesomewhatstaticandrepetitivebehaviouralmodulesofchimpsand
gorillaswecouldpoeticallycomparethefirstmantoacalculator,whowouldforthefirsttimemakeit
possibletoadd,multiplyordividearbitraryintegers,thenthesecondmanwouldcorrespondtoa
universalandprogrammablecomputer,suchasthePCthatstandsoneveryone'sdesk,andthethirdman
couldbelikenedtoanartificialintelligencecapableofselfprogramming.

ThisideaofmanconsciouslyselfdesigningcallstomindwhatCraigVenter,theAmericanscientistonce
moremadefamousbytheannouncedcreationofalabsynthesisedchromosome,recentlydeclaredinan

interviewwiththeBBC:Thesynthesisofanentirehumangenomeinatesttubewillbepossiblealready
inthiscentury,butIdon'tthinkthatitwilltakeplace,becausewescientistsareallagainstthiskindof
experimentsonhumans.Thisofcoursedoesn'truleoutthatsomeonewilldoitnextcentury,orattemptto
changesomepiecesofDNAtoimprovesomephysicalfeatures.Whatdoyouthinkofthis?

Ithinkthat,withallduerespectforVenterandforwhathehasachieveduntilnow,tospeakofallwe
scientistsisstretchingit,becausescientists'stancesare(luckily)spreadacrossthewholespectrumof
opinionsfoundinsidethecommunitieswheretheyareactive,eventhoughthereareimportantstatistical
discrepancies(forinstance,onaverage,AmericanscientistssubscribemuchlesstoIntelligentDesign
thandoestheirsocietyatlarge),andoftentheyfeeladegreeofsolidaritywiththeaspirationsalivein
thesecommunities.Infact,contrarytoVentersview,Idaresaythatifsomethingisdoable,andlikelyto
beadvantageoustothoseconcerned,thenitisprettylikelythatsoonerorlatersomeonewillgoaheadand
doit.Nevertheless,whatarepressivelegislationisabletoaffectisthewhen,who,whereandwhy(here
inthesenseoftowhatend?,inwhoseinterest?).
AsGregoryStocksayinRedesigningHumans(op.citp113):governmentregulationsinthisareaare
unlikelytoalterthefundamentalpossibilitiesnowemerging.Thelegalstatusofvariousproceduresin
variousplacesmayhastenorretardtheirarrivalbutwillhavelittleenduringimpact,because,asalready
noted,thegenomicandreproductivetechnologiesattheheartofGCT[germinalchoicetechnology]will
arisefrommainstreambiologicalresearchthatwillproceedregardless.Banswilldeterminenotwhether
butwherethetechnologieswillbeavailable,whoprofitsfromthem,whoshapestheirdevelopment,and
whichparentshaveeasyaccesstothem.Lawswilldecidewhetherthetechnologieswillbedevelopedin
closelyscrutinizedclinicaltrialsintheUnitedStates,ingovernmentlabsinChina,orinclandestine
facilitiesintheCaribbean.
Ontheotherhand,itiswithintherealmofpossibilitiesthatanindefinitelyexpandingandevermore
pervasivesystemofsocialmonitoring,aimedatexorcisingsuchaprospect,willemerge.Forinstance,
regardinghumanreproductionandgeneticengineering,whentherelevanttechnologieswillbeavailable
toeverybody,notmuchbeyondthelevelofachildrenschemistryset,inordertopreventtheiradoption
weshallhavetoenforcethesequestrationofallovulesandspermatozoafromtheirnaturalholdersin
ordertopreventtheirmanipulation,instituteadatabaseofnaturalspeciesandracethatitshallbe
prohibitedtobypass,andcreatelawsthatmaketestingofallpregnanciescompulsorytoverifythatthey
aretheresultofonesownovule,fertilisedbyarandomlyselectedpartnerofunknowngeneticidentity,
andthatallpregnanciesmustbecarriedtocompletionwhilethenatureofitsfruitremainsinthedark.

Aterrifyingscenario,whichhoweverishardlysustainableinthelongrun...

Effectivelyveryhardindeed,andthisdespiteeffortsofbioethicalcommitteesandofreactionary
legislators.Infact,inaconferencein1998,JamesD.Watson,theNobellaureateandfatherofthe
GenomeProject,andwithFrancisCrick,thediscovererofDNA,longbeforehiscrucifixionbythemedia
thatrecentlyaffectedhim,attheageofeighty,becauseofsomenotreallypoliticallycorrectstatements,
whenconfrontedwiththeusuallitanyofthedifferencebetweenthegoodgeneticengineeringthataims
tocure,andthebadonethataimstomodifyormeliorate,stooduptosay:Noonereallyhastheguts
tosayit,butifwecouldmakebetterhumanbeingsbyknowinghowtoaddgenes,whyshouldntwe?
Stockadds:Watsonssimplequestion,Ifwecouldmakebetterhumanswhyshouldntwe?cutsat
theheartofthecontroversyabouthumangeneticenhancement.Worriesabouttheproceduresfeasibility
orsafetymissthepointNooneisseriouslyworriedaboutwhatisimpossible.Somecritics,like
LeonKass,awellknownbioethicistattheUniversityofChicagowhohaslongopposedsuchpotential
interventions,arentworriedthatthistechnologywillfail,butthatitwillsucceed,andsucceed
gloriously.


Anotherfrontierwhich,tothedismayofscandalisedbioethicists,isonthevergeofbeingconqueredby
science,ishumancloning.ItwasrecentlyannouncedthatateamofbiologistsoftheOregonNational
PrimateResearchcentreofBeaverton,USA,wouldforthefirsttimesuccessfullyhaveclonedtensof
embryosfromadultmonkeys,andthisdemonstratesthatprimatestoo(andthereforehumans)cantoday
becloned.Whatdoyouthinkofthisscientificpractice,consideredbymanytobetheveryincarnationof
theconformistandegalitarianspiritofthesystemofpowerinplace?

Cloningisatermthatgenerallyreferstothepossibleasexualreproductionofsexuallyreproducing
animalsandplants.Instricterterms,itisinprincipleabanalprocedure,althoughtechnicallydifficultin
thecaseofhigheranimals,thatconsistsinsubstitutingthegeneticmaterialofanordinary,andtherefore
diploid,celltothatfoundinanovule,whichconsequentlydevelops,withnopriorfecundation,an
embryowhichformostpracticalpurposesisatwinofthedonor.Thismethodofasexualreproductionis
equivalenttoparthenogenesis,whichconsistsinstimulatingaovuletoduplicateitsgeneticcodeinorder
againtohaveitdevelopintoanembryothatisgeneticallyidenticaltothemotherandso,contrarilytothe
bestknownreligiousnarrativeabouthumanparthenogenesis,inevitablyfemale.Anditisequivalentto
anyinterventionthatcausesanembryotosplitwhilestillatthetotipotentstage,whichasknowndoesnot
inducethegrowthoftwohalffoetuses,butoftwogeneticallyidenticalfoetuses.
Thelattertechniquepresentsuswithaninterestingtheologicaldilemmawithrespecttothesoulofthe
originalembryo:doesthesouloftheoriginalembryosplitaswell?Isitmiraculouslysupplemented,in
favourofeitherrandomlychosenfoetus,byandadditionalone?Or,ifactuallytwobrandnewsoulsare
insteadsupplied,doesthefirstsoulreturntoheaven?Luckilythisproblemhasbeensolvedbythe
Italianparliament,withLawn.40/2004,socalledonassistedprocreation,eventhoughitplainly
concernsseveraladditionalissues.Accordingtoarticle12,paragraphVII,ofthisstatute,whichputsall
theseproceduresinthesamebasket,whoeverimplementsaproceduremeanttoobtainahumanbeing
descendingfromasingleinitialcell,andpossiblywithidenticalnucleargeneticheritagetothatofanother
humanbeingaliveordead,shallbesubjecttoimprisonmentforadurationtobedeterminedbetweenten
andtwentyyearsandtoafinebetween600000and1millioneuros.Ifheisamedicaldoctorheshallin
additionbepermanentlybarredfromthepracticeofmedicine.Now,giventhatthissentencingguideline
ismoreseverethanthatconcerningpunishmentofinvoluntaryhomicideandassistedsuicideintheItalian
jurisdiction,weknowthatourlegislator,inthespiritoftheparanoiastemmingfrombioludditecircles
andthesocalledmovementspro...life(!),regardsashomicidalthequitetrivialdecisiontoprovokethe
birthoftwomonozygotictwinsaphenomenonthatoccursspontaneouslyinaboutonein300
pregnancieswithoutcausingbereavementinthefamily,socialalarmorforthatmatteranyattemptsto
preventit...

Besides,itissignificantthattheprolifeconcernsofthesemilieuxareespeciallydirectedagainst
reproductivecloning,whichafterallyieldsindividualsdestinedtohaveanormallife,whiletheyfindit
somewhatmoredifficulttoattackthesocalledtherapeuticcloning,thepurposeofwhichisthe
developmentofstemcellsnecessarytocurethesick,althoughthisprocedureresultsintheinevitable
destructionofalltheutilisedembryossothatthosemovementstendinthiscasetoprioritisethe
promotionofcompetingalternativeprocedures(adultstemcells,etc.)ratherthaninvestingin
unconditionalcriminalisationcampaigns.

Isitnottrue,ontheotherhand,thattherapeuticcloningandreproductivecloningaresimplythetwo
facesofthesamecoin?Arentthedistinctionsbetweenthemjustbyzantine,speciousanddoomedtobe
outstrippedbyevents?

Itisverytrue.Anditisjustastruethattheonemakestheothermoveforward.Whileitisunclear
whethertherearealreadyclonedchildrenwalkingamongus,itwouldonlyrequiretheimplantationinto

anavailableuterus,withmethodsnowtriedandtested,forthehumanembryosgeneratedfromcasual
cellssinceMay2005intheUnitedKingdomandKoreaforpossiblestemcelltherapiestoturninto
children,thusguaranteeingtheindefiniterepeatabilityofinterventionsandexperiments.
Suchprospectshavealsobecomeincreasinglyrealisticbytheannouncementofrecentbreakthroughsin
thecloningofembryosfromthecellsofadultprimatesand,beforethat,byEnglishresearchprogrammes
thathintatthefeasibilityofhumanDNAtransplantsintoovulesofbovineorigin,apracticewhichwould
avoidthecomplicatedandratherunhealthyprocedurenecessarytoremoveseveralovulesfromhuman
donors.Hencecloning,perhapsjustbecauseitsrealisationisalreadyinsight,becomestheprimary
targetofthewholebioludditemovementthroughouttheworld.
AsBrianAlexanderwritesinRapture(Perseus2003,p129),Therealityofcloningandstemcellspulled
bioLudditeslikeKassfromthemarginsandgalvanizedastrangecoalitionbetweenconservative
politicians,Christianevangelists,theCatholicChurch,leftwingintellectuals,andgreen
environmentalists,allofwhomrealized,likethebioutopians,thatgenetechnologies,weldedtostemcells
andcloning,mightfinallypermithumanstodecidetheirownbiologicalfuture.Withcloningtechnology
itwasnowpossibletogeneticallyengineeracellwithsomedesiredtrait,insertthatcellintoanegg,and
getacustommadecreature.Thatswhyitwasinvented.Stemcellsmadethatprospectevensimpler,
justliketheyhadformakingcustomizedlabmice.Thoseprospectsdrovetheunlikelyalliance.[]No
amountofhyperbolewastoomuchifitsucceededinscaringthebejesusofthepublic.Kassevenequated
thefightagainsttheevilsofbiotechnologytothebattleagainstinternationalterrorism:thefuturerestson
ourabilitytosteeraprudentmiddlecourse,avoidingtheinhumanOsamabinLadensontheonesideand
theposthumanBraveNewWorldersontheother

Ofcoursethepopularisationofthese'battles'continuestogeneratemonsters...

Certainly.InthedebateonAmericanlawagainsthumancloning,thattheBushadministrationhas
activelytriedtoextendtotherestoftheworld,inparticularviatheUnitedNations(seeresolutionno.
59/280,TheUnitedNationsDeclarationonHumanCloning),theproposeroftheparliamentarybill
CliffSternsfromFloridamadematterssplendidlyclear:Whenyoudoaclone,therearethesetentacles,
partoftheovum.Theyremovethat.Theresanactualtermforthat.Whenyouclone,youdonthavean
exactcloneoftheovamaterial.ThetentaclesareallremovedTheclonewouldnothavetheseandyet
youandIhavethesewhenweareborn.Ifwecloneourselves,wewouldnothavethem.Wewouldhave
acategoryofsomebody,peoplewhodidnothavethesetentaclesandthesemightbesuperiororinferior
people.AsAlexandercomments(Rapture,op.cit.p140):Thiswasthesortofexplanationthatmade
scientistsburytheirfacesintheirhands,speechless.Butsuchmisconceptionswerepopular.OnApril
14,2002,punditGeorgeWillappearedonABCsThisWeekwithGeorgeStephanopoulosandargued
thatallformsofcloning,therapeuticornot,shouldbebannedbecausetheseareentitieswithacomplete
humangenome.Infact,justabouteverycell,redbloodcellsbeingoneexception,hasacomplete
genome.ByWillslogic,youcouldnottamperwithanycellinthebody,evencancercells.

Thingsquicklygetparadoxicalwhenthinkingalongtheselines...

Now,itisevidentthat,whilecloningmaystriketheareasofthepublicwhoarecollectivelymore
receptivetobioludditeandpoliticallycorrectpropaganda,owingparadoxicallytothedreadedriskthat
humansmightindeedbecome...allequal,itdoesnotperseincreasetheoddsofareductioningenetic
diversityforthespeciesconcerned.Actually,notonlydoescloningenablesciencetostudytheheredity
ofspecificallyhumantraitssuchasintelligencewithoutthelimitationofworkonnaturalmonozygotic
twins(andonlypeoplewhofeartheresultsofthesestudieswilldisputetheirvalueforanthropology,

publichealth,education,etc.)butitalsomakesitpossibletoinvestigatehowidenticalgenetic
endowments,perhapspertainingtoindividualsthatarephenotypicallyexceptionalinsomerespector
other,areexpressedindifferent,andindefinitelyrenewable,contexts.Infact,objectingthatthepriceto
payforknowledgeofthiskindwouldbeanevergreateruniformisationofthehumangenusanoddly
paradoxicalcriticisminaculturewhereequalityandconformityareconsideredpositivevaluesandgoals
isonlyvalidwithregardtothechoicetocreateaverylargenumberclonesofasingle,orveryfew,
individual(s)whilepreventingeverybodyelsetoreproduce.
GregoryStockwrites:Theveryfactthathumancloninghasbecometherallyingpointforoppositionto
emerginghightechreproductivetechniquesemphasizesthechallengesaheadforthatopposition.Human
cloningislargelyasymbol.Itappealstoonlyatinyfringe.Itdoesnotyetexist.Therecouldbeno
easiertargetforaban.Andwhetherornotrestrictionsareenactedmakeslittledifference,becauseas
KassandFukuyamamustknow,ifproceduresforhumancloningdonotarrivethroughthefrontdoor,the
willcomethroughtheback,probablypropelledbystatesupportedresearchonembryonicstemcells[]
AttemptstopreventcloningintheUnitedStatesorEuropewouldsimplyshifttheeffortelsewhere[...]At
theendof2002,Britainannounceditwouldaddanadditional40milliontothe20millionithad
alreadycommittedtostemcellresearch.JapanisbuildingabigcentreinKobethatwillhaveanannual
budgetofsome$90million.AndChinaandSingaporearealsomovingaheadaggressively.
Inreality,aclonedindividualimpliesageneticlossforhisspeciesonlyinthecaseinwhichhisbirth
correlatestoanextinctionofthegenomeofthepotentialreproductivepartnerofhisorherparentthatis,
inthecaseinwhichthesexualpartnerisnotdestinedtoreproducebecauseoftheparentschoicetogive
birthtoaclone.Shortofthis,reproductionviacloningdoesnotentailmoredepletionofgeneticdiversity
thandoesthenaturaloccurrenceofmonozygotictwinsinhigheranimalsandinhumans,orthe
reproductionviaparthenogenesisofplantsandanimalsthatcanresorttothisasanalternativetosexual
reproduction.Onthecontrary,inthecaseofanimals,cloningisalreadyusedasmuchtoperpetuatethe
lineagesofanimalswithexceptionalcharacteristicsastoconservespeciesonthevergeofextinction.
Similarly,humanandanimalcloningcouldwellbedeliberatelyusedtodefendbiodiversity,justasmuch
astoreduceitthatis,topreserveandspreaddesirabledifferentiationsinsideagivenpopulation,that
perhapswouldotherwisehavebeendestinedtodisappearandtobereabsorbed,possiblyintheframework
ofmoregeneraldysgenictrendsarisingfrompresentdaylifestyles,ensuringtheirtransmissiontothe
immediateoffspringoftheindividualsconcerned,andtheirprotectionfromthegeneticrouletteofsexual
reproduction.

Yourreflectionsontechnoscientificinterventionsonman'shumanityseemtodrawafundamentalline
ofdemarcationbetweenyourpositionandthetraditionaloutlookofthesocalledNouvelleDroite,
withwhichyouhadconnectionsinthepast:infact,whenthisFrenchschoolbegantothinkabout
technoscienceandsociobiology,thepositionstheyexpressedwerestilltoorightwingwithrespectto
yourcurrenttheses.Atthattime,thatis,thechallengewasthatofbiologicalrealism:namelytoshow
(thankstoDarwin,Eysenck,Lorenz,etc.)howinequality,conflicts,hierarchiesandterritorialitywere
naturalfacts,inoppositiontotheabstractideologyofjudeochristianandleftwingegalitarianism.
WithBiopolitica,however,yousoundclosertoaformofbiologicalconstructivismthantoamere
biologicalrealism.Isthatso?

Infact,theNouvelleDroite,preciselyfromthemomentwhenitacceptedthisappellation,hashada
constantinclinationtoshunanysensitivesubjectsofabiologicalorbiopoliticalnature.However,priorto
thattime,andevenbeforeIcameincontactwithitsprincipalexponents,ithadcertainlyplayedan
importantroleinthedivulgationandphilosophicalassessmentonscientific(ethological,psychological,
psychometric,genetical,anthropological,etc.)discoveriesofthefifties,sixtiesandseventiesoflast
centurythusrevivingthedebateanddemystifyingtheidea,untiltheseventiesalmosttakenforgranted
byhumansciences,ofmanasatabularasa(seeStevePinker,TheBlankSlate,Penguin2003),andofa

humankindclearlysetapartfromtherestofthebiosphereandinternallyundifferentiated,whose
behaviouraswellasindividualandcollectivevariationswouldbedictatedbypurelycontingentfactors.
Butthealternativesinnate/acquired,naturevsnurture,havealwaysbeenafoolishandjournalisticwayof
puttingthings,andinfactthenearlyexclusiveprerogativeofthosebiasedinfavourofthesecondtermof
suchdichotomies.Inevolutionaryterms,itisclearforexamplethatitistheenvironmentwhichselects
thevariantsfoundinsideaspecies,orthatallowsgeneticdrifttoactthroughthereproductivesegregation
ofsubpopulations.Similarly,inthespecificcaseofthehumanspecies,itsspecificenvironmentitself,as
PeterSloterdijkstresses(op.cit.)isalwaysalargelyculturalproductthereforeculturesareinfactlarge
scaleexperimentsinselfdomesticationandgoalorientedselection,especiallywhenitcomestosexual
selection.
Butcultures,intheirturn,eventhoughtheyaresubsequentlytransmittedbymemeticdiffusion,are
necessarilythecreationofaspecificpeople,whoseidentityandcompositionaretherebyreflectedina
uniqueandunrepeatableway,reinforcingandmodifyingitscharacteristicsviaanaltogetherartificial
feedbackloop,thusdefininglifestyles,collectivevaluesandcorrelativelydifferentiatedreproductive
successesforitsmembers,anddifferentiatedfromoneculturetoanother,fromonesocietytoanother.It
sufficestothinkofsomethingthatisbydefinitionculturallikelanguages:eventoday,ashasbeenshown
by,forexample,LuigiCavalliSforza(Genes,Peoples,andLanguages,UniversityofCaliforniaPress
2001),theexistenceofalinguisticbarrierdrasticallyreduces,fromastatisticstandpointandforequal
geographicaldistances,thegeneticexchangebetweencommunitiesthisinturntendstocreateamore
entrenchedandcomplexdiversitythatisnotonlyphenotypical.
Itfollowsthat,onceonehasacceptedtheideathatGodisdeadandthatmanissummonedtoinherit
theearth,itbecomesimmediatelyclearthatalsoourownnatureisdestinedtobecome,andthisina
novelanddeepersensethanhasbeentruehitherto,theobjectofaculturallydeliberatechoice.
ThereforeIcannotsee,atleastamongthepeoplewritingatthetimeforthemagazinesandreviewsofthe
GroupementdeRechercheetEtudespourlaCivilisationEuropenneorofAlaindeBenoist,many
believersinthedoctrineofaneternal,uniformandimmutablehumannature,eventhoughitiseffectively
atraditionalreactionaryLeitmotivagainstsocialbutuntilthenineteentwentiesalsoeugenic
experimentalismbytheEuropean(butnotonlyEuropean)left.Thecontrarywouldhavebeen
paradoxical,giventheFrenchmovement'sinsistenceonantiegalitarianism,andonethnicandcultural
identity.ItisnotacoincidencethenthatYvesChristen,theauthorinthewinter1971issueofNouvelle
Ecoleofoneofthebeststudiesonprebiotechnologicaleugenicsofthetime,wroteatthesametime
MarxouDarwin,L'HeuredelaSociobiologie,butlater,andmorerecently,LesannesFaust.LaScience
faceauvieillissement,whichwasoneofthefirstFrenchpopularbooksonmattersoflongevityandonthe
possibility,nowdebated,offorcingcurrenthumannaturetothiseffect.Thereisaswellnoneedto
recallthefirmandconsistentbioFaustianpositionsofGuillaumeFayeacharacterwhohascertainly
movedawayfromwhathadinthemeantimebecometheNouvelleDroite,butwhohasmademajor
contributionstoitsoriginalthematicstheyaremanifestthroughoutallhismorestrictlyphilosophical
works.Oreventheconvergent,thoughdistinct,positionofCharlesChampetier,whoatonestagewas
oneoftheanimatorsoftheFrenchtranshumanistmovement,inparticularwiththesiteat
http://www.lesmutants.com,andwhopublishedonElmentsthearticleAveclesrobots,pardellebien
etlemal.Therefore,thosewhohavebeeninvolvedwithsuchmilieuxandsharetheideathatthecurrent
biopoliticalrevolutionisacentralissue,areveryunlikelytohaverightwingpositionsonthesematters.
Forthoseinsteadwhohaveinthemeantimeturnedright,mostlytheyarenolongerinterestedinthese
issues,andwhenandiftheyaretheyappearmorelikelytobeinfluencedbyArneNsssdeepecology
thanbythetraditionalbeliefthathumannaturewouldbeuniversalandimmutable.
Whatwe'releftwith,outofthebiopoliticaleffortsoftheGRECE,isthepositiveelementofrealism
yourquestionrefersto:namelythatitisfoolishtoelaboratephilosophicalorsociologicaltheorieson,for
instance,aggressionorsexualityorsocialrankingwithouttakingintoaccounttheextenttowhichthese
aspectsaresimplydictatedbyourevolutionaryhistoryandcorrelativelybyourethological,genetical,
neurologicalandendocrinologicalmake.Thiselementdeservestoberetained,bothintermsofamorfati
tosetagainstthevarioushumanistfrustrationsonthesematters,andinviewofalateranddeliberate

developmentofpreciselythisbiologicalnature.

Itishoweverundeniablethattheageofgeneticengineering,ofcyberneticsandofnanotechnology
predisposesus,alsoconceptually,toamajorqualityleap.Manynowexplicitlyspeakofa
posthumanity.Wouldman,infact,bedestinedtovanishlikeatraceinthesandbetweenanebband
atideinthewordsofMichelFoucault?Whoaddedthatmanisacompositionwhoonlyappears
betweentwoother,thatoftraditionalpastthatknewnothingofhimandthatofafuturethanwillno
longerknowhim.Thisisacauseneitherofpleasurenoroflamentation.Isitnotnotawidespread
opinionthatmanpowerhasalreadycoupledwiththepowerofanotherkind,thatofinformation,andthat
togethertheycomposesomethingdistinctfromman,thatisindivisiblemanmachinesystems,where
manhasbeeninextricablylinkedupwiththirdgenerationmachines?Aunionbasedonsiliconrather
thanoncarbon?

Manisdefinitelyaborderlinefigure,astretchedropeintheultrafamouswordsfromNietzsches
Zarathustra,anditisnoaccidentthatthathumanism'sfinalsuccess(inthesenseherenotofthe
RenaissancesHumanism,butasthefulfillmentofjudeochristiantheoanthropocentrism,includinginits
nowadaysdominantsecularisedversion)hasbeenraising,nowformorethanacentury,theissueofgoing
beyondman.Goingbeyondbecausethisappears,intheWagneriansense,whatthespecifically
human,thereinmenschliches,reallyisatleastforthosewhoseesuchgoingbeyondpreciselyasour
destiny,outsidewhichonefindsaccordinglynotonlytherenunciationtotheoverhuman,butalso,asa
consequence,tothehumanqualityitself.Now,ifthisissuehasbeenwithusforalongtime,todayisis
ourimmediatehorizon,bothbecauseofthenewlightinwhichweinterpretman'srelationtohisartificial
environmentandbecauseofthequanticleaprepresentedbythe(possible)comingofthethirdman
alreadymentioned.EvenbeforeRobertoMarchesini(PostHuman.Versonuovimodellidiesistenza,
BollatiBoringhieri2002),RichardDawkinsemphasisedhowthetraditionalconceptionoftheliving
individualasdefinedandlimitedbyabodyisnolongeradequate,andreplaceditwiththatofthe
extendedphenotype(TheExtendedPhenotype:TheLongReachoftheGene,OxfordUniversityPress
2002),inwhichtheorganismisasetofcomplexrelationswiththesurroundingworld,itsparasites,its
symbionts,itsmaterialandnonmaterialtools,itsnutritionanditspredators.
Ifthisistrue,giventhatitisn'tfunctionallypossibletoabstractanoysterfromitsshelloranantfromits
anthill,beforeweevenbecomecyborgs,wearealready,allofusandincreasinglyso,whatwehaveseen
GregoryStockcallfyborgs.Ourcognitive,sensory,immunitary,digestive,locomotive,predatory
capacitiesaswellasthoseofmechanicalworkandofclimaticadaptation,areradicallymutatedbyaheap
oftools,devices,procedures,interactionsandtechniquessopowerfulthattheirgrowthcurve,afterhaving
increasedatasteadyrateforthousandsofyears,appearstodaytohavetakenonanexponentialform.
AsRobertoMarchesiniemphasizesinPosthuman.Versonuovimodellidiesistenza(op.cit.),itisnaive
tobelievethatallthispointstochangesintheexternalworld.Itpoints,andalwayshaspointed,to
changesinwhatweare,notabstractlybutpractically.Thisisjustmademoreobviouswhenthis
metaphoricalbodyisitselfinvadedbyanythingfromdentalfillingsorhipreplacements,contactlenses
orpacemakersbuttodaymuchmoreradicallyandarbitrarilybycochlearandretinalimplants,byplastic
surgery,bysubcutaneousRFIDs,uptothefirstexperimentalneuronalinterfaceswithdigitaldevicesand
equipment.

Andthisprocessseemstobeaccelerating...

Clearly,owingtothestage,stillratherrudimentary,ofthesetechnologies,theyaremostlyrestrictedfor
thetimebeingtotherapeuticalandprostheticapplications.Whyreplacetwoperfectlyhealthylegswith
mechanicalprostheseswhenanywhenanygaininperformancetherebyobtainedwouldeasilybeoutdone

byamotorbike?Andaboveall,speakingforinstanceofmancomputerinterfaces,sight,touchand
hearinghaveforthousandsofyearsbeenselectedforaspreferentialcerebralinputchannels,soitis
reasonabletoexpectthatbeforerunningintogenuinebandwidthlimitationswecanlookforwardtoa
greatmanyenhancementsinouruseofthesechannels.Nevertheless,iffictionssuchasRobocop,Bionic
WomanorTheSixMillionDollarMancontinuetoviewhumanenhancementasaresponsetovery
seriousphysicaldamage,todaytheathleteOscarPistoriushasdemonstratedhowperformancesallowed
bydevicesdesignedtopalliateahandicapalreadyenablehumanstosurpasswhatisconsideredasmerely
normal.Andiftheshortcomingsarisingfromthetransitiontoallartificialsolutionswillgradually
begoingaway,ourexperienceinmattersofvaccinationormammaryprosthesesteachesusthatthe
remedialgoalswillsimplybecomelessandlessrelevantincomparisonwiththedesiretomodifyorto
enhancecharacteristicsdeemedjustnormal.Naturally,asHervKempfwritesinLarvolution
biolithique(AlbinMichel1998),itisabsurdtodread(or,forthatmatter,tolookforwardto)aworldin
whichwewouldbetransformedintothecaricaturalrobotsofscifimoviesfromthefifties.Infact,while
geneticengineeringcontinuestoworkwiththeorganicstuffthathasalwaysmadeusup,ourfusionwith
siliconisinanycaseboundtotakeplaceonadifferentlevel(andperhapsnevertotakeliterallyplace
atall,giventhatmuchofthemostpromisingresearchinthefieldofinformationtechnologyormaterials
scienceactuallyinvolves...carbon!).Inotherwords,saveperhapsfortheexperimentalismorthetribal
trademarksofminoritieswhoareheavilyintobodymodification,suchafusionisboundtohappen
graduallyaspartofacrosspollinationbetweentechnologiesandculturalparadigms,insuchawayasto
maketheirencountergobothunnoticedandunannouncedinaworldofincreasingflexibility,freedom
andmorphologicalreversibility.Whichofcoursecanyieldthingseitherhorrificorsplendid,decadentor
vigorous,dependingupontheiruse,andalsouponhowtheirusewillbeperceived.

Here,nothingnewunderthesun...

Inanyevent,todaymoreandmorethinkerswithinterestsnotonlyintechnology,butalsoinphilosophy
oranthropology,askthemselvesquestionsandimaginescenarios,aboveallinterpretative,aboutthe
momentousmetamorphosisunderway,almostinvariablyonthebasisofsomeconsiderationofthe
essenceoftechnologyinitsrelationtoman,anessencewhichendsuprepresentingaformofconverging
unveiling,intheHeideggeriansense,ofthelimitationsofhumanismandofthemodernity,aswe
haveunderstooditsofar,whichisanywayundergoingacrisisinitsphilosophical,anthropological,
epistemologicalandaxiologicalaspect.AndhereIampleasedtonoticeasurprisingvivaciousnessand
keennessonthepartoftheItalianintellectuallandscapesomethingwhichstandsinsadcontrasttothe
generallydevastatedconditionoftechnoscientificresearchinourcountry,forwhichsporadiccentresof
excellenceunfortunatelycannotmakeup.
Inparticular,ifdoomsayersofvariouslevelsofperceptionexpress,albeitwithanegativeprefix,an
understandingofthesemattersremarkablysimilartomyown,fromSeverinotoGalimbertitoBarcellona
toEsposito,Italyisstillthelandofsynthesesbetweenpostmodern(orbetter,inthewordsofRiccardo
Campa,postpostmodern)criticismanddownrightposthumanpositionssuchasthosebyRoberto
Marchesini,AldoSchiavone(StoriaeDestino,Einaudi2007)andMarioPireddu(seePostumano.
Relazionitrauomoetecnologianellasocietdellereti,Guerini2006).Whiletheseauthorsmayreject
themorefolkloricallyeschatologicalormillenialaspectsofacertainAmericantranshumanism,theyall
clearlysharearejectionofmoreorlesschimericneoludditeevasionsandanendeavourtothinka
posthumanculture.
ReturningtothemaintenetsoftheNouvelleDroite,somethingverysimilartotheEysenckandJensen
affair,whohadobtainedmuchsupportatthetimebydeBenoistandcompany,hashappenedtothewell
knownbiologistJamesWatson,attackedbecauseherecentlydeclaredhimselfinherentlygloomyabout
theprospectofAfricabecausealloursocialpoliciesarebasedonthefactthattheirintelligenceisthe

sameasourswhereasallthetestingsaysnotreally.Whatdoyouthinkofthisstatementandofthe
polemicsitgaveriseto?

Frankly,whatisreallystrikingabouttheWatsonaffair,evenmorethanitsmerits,istheextremeand
paradigmaticmeaningittakesonbyshowinghowfaranddeeptheblanketofconformismandpolitical
correctness,whichtodayessentiallychokesfreedomofthought,speechandresearchallovertheplanet,
hasactuallyreached.Ofcourseweallknowthattherearepeople,aboveallbutnotonlyintheUS,who
goaroundwithKuKluxKlanhoods,wearbrownshirtsorwavetheflagofinsurrectionalanarchy,
absolutemonarchy,satanismorstalinism.Allthisisintermittentlyrepressed,viewedatworstwithakind
ofresignedannoyance,butinrealityitismainlyperceivedasfunctionaltothemaintainingofstatusquo.
Firstofall,asavisiblemanifestationofanEvilforgoodcitizenstopointthefingerat,inanOrwellian
ThreeMinutesHatestyleandsecondarilyasaspectacularsafetyvalveandsterilisationdevicefor
whateverdrivesofradicaldissenttheremightexist,whosemostdangerousexponentsareemulsified
fromtherestofsociety,andnowandtheneventuallyskimmedoffvialegalactionandothermeans.
Butallthisconcernsonlythelunaticfringe,openlydefinedassuch,andwhointheirheartofheartsis
oftenalltohappytoremainalunaticfringe.

AndthereforenothingtodowithWatson...

Notatall:JamesWatsonisaNobellaureate,acertifiedgenius,especiallyasthediscoverer,togetherwith
FrancisCrick,ofDNAascientistwhosetoweringfigurehasimpactedonthewholeofthetwentieth
century,onparwithHeisenberg,Gdel,Chomsky,Einstein,vonBraunorLorenz.Attheageofeighty
andattheendofhiscareer,freefromtenure,assignmentsorfundingconcerns,financiallyindependent,
authorofmanybestsellersstillinprint,allbutoutsidethepoliticalarena,hecouldbeconsideredasone
oftheleastvulnerableofallpeople,beittoblackmailortoreprimandsbytheintellectualestablishment.
Andyet,becauseofapassingremark,quotedoutofcontext,hehasbeenforbiddentogivetalksandto
presenthislatestbookanywhereinUnitedKingdom,hasbeenpilloriedbythemediaallovertheworld,
haslosthis(nownearlyhonorary)chair,whichhehasheldforoverfortyyearsintheColdSpringHarbor
Laboratory,inadditiontowhichhehasbeenunconditionallyandirrevocablybannedbyrepresentatives
ofacademia,bypublicagenciesandinstitutes,byscientificboards.
ThisrevealstheabyssbetweencontemporarypoliticalcorrectnessandwhatAlaindeBenoistandothers
usedtocallintellectualterrorismintheseventies,forexamplewithrespecttothepolemicsoverthe
outcomeofpsychometricresearch,onwhichdeBenoistspublishingcompany,Copernic,publishedin
FranceabookcalledRaceetIntelligence,signedJeanPierreHbert.Atthistime,HansJrgenEysenck
orArthurR.Jensenweredefinitelyattacked,evenphysicallyattacked,byaminorityofpoliticallyactive
students,andwerepreventedtospeakonafewoccasions.Butthecontroversialnatureoftheirresearch
wascertainlynotanobstacletotheirinvitationtopublicdebatesortohavingtheirworkprinted,andin
factfewpublicfigures,evenamongtheirmostscandalisedopponents,openlyadmittedtowishingmore
thananythingthattheirideasbechallengedandconfuted.Evenin1994RichardJ.Herrnsteinstill
managedtopublish,passablyuntroubled,TheBellCurve(FreePress1994),onthebellshaped
distributionofintelligence,theconclusionsofwhichweretakenseriouslyatthetime,despitetheritual
anathemas.

Andtodaythisisnolongerthecase?Whathaschangedinthemeantime?

Inthemeantimewhathashappenedisthatleftwingstudentshavebecomecivilservants,politicians,

intellectuals,researchersandadministrators,whoarebynowtotallyintegratedinthesystem,andmostly
convertedtoconservatismbuttheiropennesstofreedomofspeechandhereticalopinionshasnot
changed,andhasevengrownevernarrowerbecauseofinfluentialpositionsheld,mutualreinforcement,
andtheawarenessthattheyarenolongerpartthemselvesofavulnerableminority.Worse,theradical
blanketdescribedearlierhasspreadglobally,implicating,ifnotthewholeplanet,atleastthewhole
Westernsphere.
Butletusgettothemerits.WhatWatsonsaidisabanalitythathastimeandagainbeenconfirmedby
empiricaldata.Thesocalledintelligencequotient,justlikemostquantitativeandmeasurable
characteristicswithinapopulation,isdistributedsothatitscurvehasabellshape.Thisdistribution
curve,inotherwords,startsoffwithasmallpercentageatverylowlevelsofthevariableinquestion
thenitgrows,slowlyatfirst,thenmoresteeply,untilitflattensoutaroundthemeanvalueafterwhichit
decreases,andfinallyonceagainasymptoticallytendstonoughtasitlittlebylittleapproachesthemost
extreme,highestvalues.
Now,asisthecaseforpracticallyallgeneticallyinfluencedcharacteristics,thebellsrepresenting
differentcomponentsofthesamepopulation,ordifferentpopulations,arenotsuperposableatall.More
specifically,theycanhaveadifferentshape(beforinstancesteeperorflatter),ortheirbarycentremight
befurtherrightorfurtherleftontheaxisofthequantityunderconsideration.Hence,theremark,
whenevertheirperformanceinsolvingIQtestsismeasured,theaverageresultsofAshkenaziJewsare
higherthanthatofotherwhitesthatyellowpeoplehavesharperdifferencesbetweentheiraverage
andmaximumvaluesandthattheperformancesofAmericanswitharecentAfricanoriginarelowerthan
theUSaverage,andthoseofindividualsofthenegroidracestilllivinginAfricalowerstill.
Itisalsothecasethatothercharacteristicsorabilities(fromvelocityinsprinting,totheefficiencyofthe
immunesystem,toempathy,tolongevity)canyield,anddoyield,entirelydifferentresults.Notonly
that.ContrarytotheimplicationsofthecheapironydumpedonWatsonbyanignorantjournalistwith
referencetothepresenceinhisDNA(madepublicbyhimself)ofaround16%ofnegroidgenes,
consistentwiththeexistenceofanunknowngreatgrandfatherorgreatgreatgrandfatherofAfrican
ethnicity,thescenarioheredescribeddoesnotinanywayexclude,andevenforesees,thattheremust
existindividualsbelongingtopopulationsexhibitinglowerresultswhopresentvaluesevennoticeably
abovetheaverageofmorefavouredpopulations.
Finally,inthecaseofintelligencequotient,eventheresearcherswhogivemostweighttoitsinnateness
stillregardthehereditaryfactortoaccountfornomorethan70%ofthedifferencesencounteredinour
species,whichattheindividuallevelleavesquitealotofroomfortheactionofeducationaland
environmentalfactors.

Ifthisisthecase,howdoyouexplainthenumberofscandalisedprotestssuchstudiesgiveriseto?

Infact,Ithinkthatsuchreactionsbetraythebiasesofprotestersmorethanthoseoftheresearchersinthe
fieldofpsychometry.InrealityIQtestsmeasureonly...theabilitytosucceedinIQtests.Assuch,their
resultsshouldnotbetakenmoreatheartthanteststestsmeasuringtheaveragetallnessofapopulation
and,evenless,interpretedasavaluejudgementofgeneralnatureontheindividualconcerned.Indeed,
theycouldevenintheorybeusedtojustifysupportivemeasuresorpoliciesofaffirmativeaction,along
thelinesofjusttomakeaquipremedialbaseballlessonsforwhiteAmericans,hypotheticallyata
statisticaldisadvantageinthissport.
Bethatasitmay,thereisaproblem.Resultsinintelligencetestsarestatisticallycorrelatedafterall,
that'swhattheyexistforontheonehandtoscholasticsuccess(notintermsofpopularityamongpeers
butinscoresachieved),andontheother(eventhoughtoaweakerextent)tosuccesstoutcourtofthe
individualconcernedinsidecontemporaryWesternsocieties,especiallyinsocialandeconomicalterms,

everythingelsebeingequal.
Thelatterqualificationishoweveroftheutmostimportance,becauseeventhoughoursocietiesloveto
fancythemselvesasdenotedbyahighdegreeofsocialmobility,wealthisinfactmostlytransmittedby
inheritanceandinanyeventitautomaticallybuysonesownoffspring,realorpresumed,abetter
education,moreimportantfamilyconnections,statusandreproductivepartnersofbetterquality,thus
contributingalsothanktoadiscretelevelofclassendogamytominimiseinrealtermsany
contemporarycirculationofthelites.Besides,manyofthemostresoundingcasesofupwardsocial
mobilityintheWestareinfactnotcorrelatedintheleastwithtraitsthatcouldhypotheticallybe
measuredbyanIQtest,butforexampletophysicalappearance,sheerluck,ortoonesathletic
performanceinsomesportorthere.
Forthisreason,whattheresultscomingoutofIQtestsreallyhintatisbasicallythedegreetowhichan
individualhasadaptedtocontemporaryWesternsocietiesandtoitsmechanismsandselectivecriteria.
Now,itisobviousthatthisrisksamountingtoanultimatevaluejudgementforintellectualsand
journalistsblindlyconvincedoftheobjectivesuperiorityofthissocialmodel(thebestofallworlds)
overanyotherthatexists,hasexistedorevenhasjustbeenspeculatedaboutandofthemanifestdestiny
ofthismodeltoestablishuniversalandeternalhegemonythroughaglobaluniformisation.And,even
more,forintellectualsandjournalistsconvincedthatonessocioeconomicalsuccessinsuchasociety
representstheonly,oratleasttheonlyrelevant,objectivecriterionofdifferentiationamonghuman
beings,thegoalsuggestedright,leftandcentertoeachandeveryone,andtheobjectivemeasureof
everyone'sworth.
ItbecomesthereforetotallyirrelevantthatwhatIQtestsmeasuredoesnotnecessarilysayanythingabout
thefitnessortheprobabilityofsuccessofthesubjectinothercontexts,bethesethejungleofBorneoor
theTibetanreligioushierarchyorayouthgangintheBronx,ormoreimportantstillaboutother
personalcharacteristicsthatmightmatterjustasmuchorevenmorethanoneschancestogetwealthy.
And,atthesametime,manyregardasmorallyintolerable,nottomentionpoliticallyunpresentable,the
factthatobviouslypopulationsthatforlongerhavebeenadaptingandselected(forbetterorworse)with
referencetothismodelperformbetteraccordingtotheparameters,innowayuniversal,definedbythat
verymodel.
ThisisalsowhatcriticsofIQtestsstress,withoutrealisinghoweverthatthefactthatthetestsare
culturallybiasedisatruthatoncemuchdeeperthantheythink,andatruthinevitableinanykindof
test,giventhatitisimpossibleingeneraltomakemeasurementsindependentlyofthechoice...ofwhat
oneintendstomeasured.

Inthelightofallthis,Watson'sstatement,accordingtowhichitisnaivetoexpectthatAfricansocieties
willeasilyandrapidlybetransformedintoperfectWesternsocieties,appearslessscandalousthan
manyclaimed...

IshouldrathersaythatWatsonsstatementseemsinfactratherplausible.Likewise,itisjustasplausible,
preciselyinadditiontowhathasrepeatedlybeenconfirmedbytestresults,thatonaverageindividualsin
theAmericansocietywhobelongtotounfavouredsocialclassesand/ororiginatefromdifferentethnic
groupsmaywellonaverageachieveinferiorresultsinwhatarethespecialitiesoftheirlandlords.
ThisalsoimpliestheparadoxicalconsequencethatanAfroAmericanwhoattainsthehigheststatusinthe
AmericansocietyisprobablybetteradaptedthanawhiteAmericanatthesamelevelmoreintelligent.
Thisbecausenotonlyhashehadtoexcelinnormalsocialcompetition,buthehasalsohadtoconfront
thenaturalpresumptionscreatedbythegeneralisationinhiscontacts(includingperhapsinthesame
interestedminority)oftheirownempiricaldirectandindirectexperiences.Thus,heisonaveragelikely
tobemoreeconomicallyambitious,moreconformist,morediligent,lessscrupled,tohaveahigherIQ,

andultimatelytopossessacombinationoftheseandotherfactorswhichmaybeusefulforsuccessinthe
relevantsocietythatisonaveragehigherthanthatenjoyedthemembersoftheclass,raceorethnicity
generallyfavoured.

Allthisinfactseemstocorrespondtobasicsociological,psychologicalandanthropological
considerations.

That'sright.Inaddition,iftheconclusions,intermsofbiopolitics,thatonemightdrawfromthemare
several,andpotentiallycontradictory,sincetheydependonfundamentalchoicesofvalues,Istillbelieve
thatonecannotgetawayfromdrawingconclusions.Forexample,inthesenseofmovingbeyondthe
ideologyofthetabularasathatstillprevailsinsocialsciencesandpopularcultureorintherecognition
ofaninevitablephenomenonofregressiontowardsthemean,inthiscaseintermsofpopulations,that
theprospectiveofaperfectmeltingpotwhichwouldeliminatealmostallformsofgeneticdriftand
orientedselectiondependingonethnic,culturalandenvironmentalcontextsinevitablyinvolves,tostart
withintermsofdecreasedbiodiversity,flexibilityandrichnessofthespecies'genepool.
Alsointhisrespectdotheprospectsofselfdeterminationopenedupbythebiologicalrevolutionremain
equallyopen.Wemayexpect,andhope,thatthehumanspeciesgrowsbeyonditselfinmanifoldways
andfollowingapluralityofidealmodelsorelsewemightendupwithauniversallyimposedideaof
optimality,oftheKenandBarbievariety,accordingtowhich,iftodayMichaelJacksondisplayshis
skindeepethnicpridebyhavinghimselfdepigmented,tomorrowAfricansocietiesorethnicminorities
mightbasicallybeofferedabiologicaluniformisation,bothethologicallyandintellectually,aswellasat
thelevelofmentalprocesses,tovaluesthatareinfactwhite,andthatactuallyonemaywellconsider
relativeandinstrumentalalsofromanEuropoidpointofview,allthemoresosincethesedonotdefine
anyultimateorobjectiveconceptofintelligenceeveninthismorelimitedcontext[1].
ItisindeedarguablethatrelativelyremoteagesofEuropeanhistory,isspiteofthelikelypoorresults
theircontemporarieswouldobtainintodaystests,actuallydemonstratedlowervibrancyorcreativityin
anyplausiblesense.Onthecontrary,manyconsiderourownachievementsatleastinparttobethefeats
ofdwarvesontheshouldersofgiants.Inanyevent,itistruethatinothertimeshighlyestimated
parametersfortheevaluationofsomeone'sintellectualcapacityconsistedintheabilitytomemorisea
hugequantityofformulaeorfacts,ortoeffectuatementalarithmeticaloperationsonmanydigitintegers,
inthemannerofidiotsavants.Today,theideaofendeavouringtogeneticallyengineer,oreugenically
selectfor,suchacapacitywouldappearcomical.Fortomorrow,itseemsreasonabletoexpectthatsome
abilities,whichallowanindividualtoscoreveryhighlyonIQtests,willseetheirimportancemaintained
orincreaseotherswillseetheirsdecreaseothersstillwillbecomecompletelyirrelevantincomparison
withentirelydifferentabilitiesthatperhapsarecurrentlyunderestimated.

OnequestionthatneverthelessliesattheheartoftheWatsonaffairandthatpermeates,thoughmore
orlesssilently,allcurrentdebatesonbiologyandgenetics,istheoneabouttheexistenceofraces.The
holyscriptureofpoliticalcorrectnessunambiguouslyinformsusthattheconceptofracehasnoscientific
valueandthatanystatementtothecontraryisasigntheuttererisadangerousenemyofhumanity.How
arethingsinfact?

Actually,myimpressionisthatnoonehasanytroubleadmittingtheexistenceofdifferentracesofhorses
ortigers.Thesamegoesforracesofplants,commonlycalledvarieties(whenthelatterdoesnotsimply
refertothe...setsofclonesofasingleindividual).Thetabooreallyconcernsonlyhumanraces,andit
subjectedtothespecieisteventhoughallegedlyantiracistviewthatmenwouldbebothofa

natureandvaluetranscendentallydifferentfromthatofallotherlivingbeings,andatanygiventime
essentiallyequaltooneanotheraconceptthegenealogyofwhich,especiallyreligious,iseasyto
reconstruct.Thisideaofseparatenessandhomogeneityisbesideseasiertosellinasmuchas,if
Sapiensaretodaydividedinracesandscatteredallovertheplanet,ontheotherhandtheyarealsothe
onlyandlastsurvivingspeciesoftheHomofamilyascenario,forthatmatter,subjecttochangeifever
aresearchprogrammeactuallysucceededwiththereconstructionandcloningoftheDNAof
Neanderthalspecimensorwithreverseengineeringtheirgenomeandrestoreittoalivingorganism.

Itshouldbepointedout,however,thatthetaboothismatterhasbeensubjectedtoisincreasinglyrunning
outofsteam.Itprovedimpossible,forinstance,tocensurethenewsthat,accordingtorecentAmerican
research,thehumanimmunesystemvariesfromracetorace,withconsiderabledifferencesfromone
ethnicgrouptoanother,somethingwhichhasofcourseresoundedinmattersofpharmaceuticalresearch
andpractice.

Notonlythat.Thetabooinquestionmanifestsitsschizophrenicnaturealsoinpoliciesofpositive
discrimination(thataimtopromoteorprotectthecomponentsofagivensocialgroupbyreservingthem
exclusivequotas),orthattargettherepressionofpossibleraciallybaseddiscrimination.Policiesthatare
inevitablyobligedtofirstofallacknowledgetherealityoftheracialfact.
Whatisitallaboutanyway?Thematterismademorecomplicatedbyitshistoricalandpsychological
load,butisroutinelydealtwithbypopulationgenetics,andIdiscusseditquiteextensivelyinthealready
mentionedessayBiopolitica.Ilnuovoparadigma,notonlyoutofabstractanthropologicalinterest,but
becausetheissuesinvolvedareofcrucialimportancetounderstandhowcurrentbiodiversityariseinside
our(andother)species,andhowitcouldbepreservedanddevelopedratherthanbeinggradually
depleted.Araceis,asDobzhanskysays,nothingotherthananabstractionoftheidentifyingfeaturesof
secondaryMendelianpopulationswithinthesamespecies.Tomanipulatesuchaconceptitisnot
necessarytoadheretotherealistic,platonisingvisionof19thcenturypositivistanthropology,according
towhichthereare,oratleasttherewere,puretypesfromwhichpresentdayrealorganismswould
havedescendedviahybridisation,letaloneresorttoconceptssuchasspiritualraces,whichbasically
boildowntometaphorssinceitisindeeddifficulttounderstandhowsuchaconceptcouldeverbeapplied
toracesof.canarybirds.
Today,geneticanalysisbringsanoriginalcontributiontotheidentificationanddefinitionofracial
identitiesacontributionthataddsto,ratherthanreplaces,thetraditionaltypologicalclassification.In
fact,ifthecombinedresultantofallthepossiblegeneticgradientsorvariationsinthedistributionof
phenotypictraitshadbeenuniform,thegeneticfrequencywouldincreaseordecreaseregularlybyso
manypercentageunitspermilecoveredinagivendirection.Withuniformgradientstheboundaries
betweenracescouldonlybearbitraryandraceswouldbenomorethanidealmodels.Onthecontrary
thegradientsareoftenverysteepinsomedirectionsorzones,andsofterinother.Theodosius
Dobzhanskywrites,inGeneticDiversityandHumanEquality(BasicBooksInc,1973):Considertwo
genealleles,A1andA2,inaspecieswithadistributionarea2,100milesacross.Supposethatfor1,000
milesthefrequencyofA1declinesfrom100to90%forthenext100milesfrom90to10%andforthe
remaining1,000milesfrom10to0%.Itisthenreasonableandconvenienttodividethespeciesintotwo
races,characterizedbythepredominanceofA1andA2,respectively,andtodrawthegeographic
boundarybetweentheraceswheretheclineissteep.
Hence,itisperfectlytruethatracesdon'texist(andneitherinthissensedospecies,families,genuses,
phylae,kingdoms),inasmuchastheydon'tcorrespondtoanytangiblereality,butonlytotaxonomic
criteriawhichdefines,asistheruleinthesecases,amodelfoundednotonintrinsiccharacteristics,but
simplyontendential,statisticalordeterministicdifferencesthatmightexist,withrespecttoaninclusive

setsomethingwhichdoesnotpreventspeciesorracetoremainuseful,albeitideal,concepts,atleastas
usefulasthatofidealrectangulartrianglesorpendulums.

Indeed.

Butthereismore.Thespecificconnotationspertainingtoracesareevenmoremeaningfulwhenapplied
toartificiallyselectedracesandbydefinition,humanracescaninanyevent,followinghominisation,at
leasttosomeextentbeconsideredamongthese,andastheworkofprocessesofsegregationandoriented
selectionappliedbymanuponhimselfwithintheframeworkofaprocessofselfdomesticationthatlasted
fortensofthousandsofyears.
Hence,weareperfectlyawarethataDobermannisnottheincarnationofthePlatonicformofthe
Dobermann,tobefoundinsomecelestialrealm,whichatthebeginningoftimeincarnatedinan
imperfectearthlycopyandthat,onthecontrary,itistheresult,viastandardbreedingtechniques,ofthe
gradualapproachingtotoagoal,toanidea...heldbyMr.Dobermannhimself.
Whatislessoftenconsideredisthat,asPeterSloterdijkremarks,thetransformationofhumansocieties,
alsofromthepointofviewoftheirbiologicalsubstrate,isthroughandthroughtheresultofanalogous,
albeitmoreimplicitandlessdeliberate,developments.Thus,thetruenoveltythatregardstoday'sworld
isthatpresentlytechnosciencehasatthesametimebroughttheseprocessesbeyondthebrinkof
consciousnessand/orstartedadebateaboutthemsothattheycanbemaintainedordevelopedforthe
futureperhaps,whoknows,uptoandbeyondthelimitsofspeciationonlybyadeliberatechoicefor
biodiversity,biologicalbecomingandposthumanchange.
Thisisbythewaywhatmostdeeplyworriesthebioluddites,forinstanceJrgenHabermaswhowarnsus
(TheFutureofHumanNature,Polity2003p.121footnote34)againstwhathecallstheuncanny
scenarioofageneticcommunitarianismaccordingtowhichvarioussubcultureswillpursuethe
eugenicselfoptimizingofthehumanspeciesindifferentdirections,thusjeopardizingtheunityofhuman
natureasthebasis,uptonow,forallhumanbeingstounderstandandtomutuallyrecognizeone
another.
Exceptthatsuchaunity,unlessasanideologicalaspiration,hasneverexisted,nomorethanhaveever
existedthepureracialtypesof19thcenturyanthropologistsandthatitisatthebestoneofmany
alternativeprospectivesthatareproposedtotoday'sworld,andcertainlyformanynotaveryalluring
one.Indeedthecontrivedconvergencetowardsauniquemodelofhumanitypresupposesafterallthe
reductionandthedestructionofhumandiversityinfavourofasingleparadigmsaidtobe,asinthe
typicaltheorisationsofAmericanracism,objectivelyanduniversallysuperior.Argumentwhichnot
onlyisunacceptabletowhoeverdefendsinsteadpositionsofculturalrelativism,butwouldalsorequirea
reallyextremedegreeofalienationinordertoobtainthesupportofthosewhosespecificethnicidentity
would,inthiscase,bedoomedtobewipedoutinthecontextofobjectivelygenocidalproceedings,no
matterhowpeacefullyandinadvertentlytheyaresupposedtotakeplace.

Anotherspectrethatisregularlyraisedatthesametimeasthatofracismconcernseugenics.Thistopic
isviewedasparticularlysulphurousbuthasantecedentseveninliberalorsocialistcircles,and
findssomeofitsfirsttheoreticalexpressionsinPlato.Butisitreallynecessarytoequatemeasuresofa
eugenickindtoOrwellian,consumeristandmassifyingscenarios,likethosefoundindystopicand
humanisticHollywoodfilms?

EugenicsisindubitablytheobjectofFreudian,hypocriticalrepressionnowadays.Nevertheless,onecan

saythateugenicconcernsareanimplicitconstantinmostpostneolithiccultures.Whatcomestomind
arethepracticesthatmoststirmodernsensitivity,fromthemountTaygetosandtheSpartanagog,tothe
TarpeianrockinRome,tomedievalexposingofnewborns,allthewaytothemabiki(aeuphemism
whichreferstothetrimmingoftheleavesoftheweakestriceplantstoallowthebetterdevelopmentof
theotherplants)practicedbyJapanesemidwivesuntiltheMeijiRestorationandbeyond.Butitisenough
tothinkalsoofthetypicalexoendogamicregimesinmatrimonialmatters,orofthetaboorelativeto
incestasapotentialguardagainstmonozygoticindividualswithharmfulrecessivetraits.
However,therealandtruequestionofeugenicflaresupwiththeadventoftheDarwinianrevolution,and
ofMendeliangenetics,whichhasbeenconsideredoneandthesamewitheugenicsforalongtime.And
thisinfrontalsoofacontemporarydysgenicrisk,initselfveryreal,giventhatfewbelievethatthe
changeandpartialremoval,viamodernlifestylesandmedicineaswellasthedeclineofreproductive
differentialsoftraditionalselectivefactorsleadspersethegeneticpoolofone'sowncommunityof
referenceinadesirabledirection.
However,eugenics,beforebecomingcursed,alsoasaconsequenceofallmodernideologiesbecoming
increasinglymarkedwiththehumanistseal,hasbeenperceivedforalongtimeandessentiallyuntilthe
nineteenthirtiesasaprogressisttheme,sinceitwaslinkedtoconcernsabouttheevolutionofsociety
ingeneralandcorrelatedwiththelattertakingchargeofitselfalsobiologically,totheextentthateven
USSRintellectualsandscientistspromoteditsstudy.Ofcourse,wherethetermisputinuniversalist,
moralist,classistterms,itquicklyrisksleadingtogrotesqueresults,likethemaniaforsterilisationasa
penaltyandaformofsocialcontrol(theIndianaIdea)thatwasalltherageintheUnitedStatesfrom
thebeginningofthenineteenthcenturyuntiltheNewDeal,withtheultimateblessingoftheSupreme
Court,goingasfarasridiculousbillsforthecompulsorysterilisationofcarthieves,ortoTheodore
Roosevelt'stimocraticprogramsofselectivebreeding,andalltheothermoreorlessbizarreexamples
quotedbyJeremyRifkininTheBiotechCentury(JPTarcher,1998).
Ontheotherhand,asJrgenHabermasstressesinTheFutureofHumanNature(op.cit.),ourtimebrings
alsointhisrespecttocompletionacertainkindofchange,whichradicallyaltersthescenariowefaceon
eugenicmatters.

Couldyouexpandonthat?

Certainly.Asamatteroffact,theratherideologicalandbiopoliticalsubstanceofone'schosenposition
withrespecttoeugenicsistodayaccentuatedbytheincreasingerosion,becauseoftechnoscientific
progress,ofthesubjectivecostsofeugenicpractices.Suchcostshavebeeninconstantdecrease,fromthe
momentthattheexposureofnewbornsandthestrictparentalorcommunalcontrolofmatingwere
succeededbychemicalorsurgicalsterilisationofheavilyretardedindividualsaswellasbybirthcontrol
andthatthesearesucceededbyprematrimonialanamnesisandthatthisoneinturnisreplacedwith
prenataldiagnosisandgeneticscreeningandthesearegoingtobesupplantedbyIVFwithembryoand
gameteselection,andfinallybythedirectandactuallytherapeuticmanipulationofgermlines,Infact,
withrespecttocontemporaryandupcomingprocedures,thenaturalempathyfortheindividuals
concernedmilitatesinanentirelyfavourablesense,tothepointofrenderingtheirunconditionalrejection
anincreasinglyembarassinganduntenablepositionalsoinviewofthehumanistic,hedonisticand
individualisticvaluesoftheprevailingworldview.
AccordingtoGregoryStock(op.cit.p130),statisticsshowthattoday90%ofUScouples,catholics
included,whodiscoverbymeansofprenatalteststhattheyareexpectingachildaffectedwithcystic
fibrosisalreadychoosetoabortit.Obviously,thepercentageofthemthatwouldaccepttohave
deliberatelyimplantedanembryoaffectedbysuchapathology,thatiswhattheItalianlawonIVF
insanelywantstoimpose,wouldbemuchlowerthanthemodest10%ofAmericanswhoarereadyto

carryforthanalreadycommencedpregnancywithanaffectedfoetus.Itislegitimatetosupposethateven
smallerwouldbethepercentageofpeoplewhowouldmakesuchachoicepreciselywhenitwouldbe
possibletoremovefromtheembryoandfromallitsdescendantsthedisease,tothebenefitof
everybody.SothespectreofStateeugenicsisdestinedtoremainnomorethan...aspectre,giventhat
thereisnoplausiblereasoninthefirstplacewhyalegalenforcementofeugenicmeasureswouldbe
required.Ifanything,inournearfuture,verylargeenforcementeffortswouldberequiredtoprevent
theirgeneralisedadoption.
Thereremainshowevertheissueofsociocultural,ratherthanlegal,normsthatwilldirecttheconcrete
utilisationofsuchtechniques,fromtheselectionofthereproductivepartnerasafunctionofhisgenetic
traitstotheselectionandmodificationoftheembryo.Andhere,oncemore,emergesthepotentialfor
disaster,atleastforwhoevercaresforthebiologicalwealthanddiversityofourspecies,nottomention
itsflexibilityanditslongtermevolutionarycapacity,ofthetechnologiesinquestion.
Indeed,itseemscleartomethatthehegemonyofauniversal,intercultural,monoethnic,standardised
KenandBarbiemodel,particularlythroughtheculturalalienationofallthepeoplesinhabitingthe
planetbymeansoftheglobalisationprocesscurrentlyinplace,risksseeingeugenicsturningfroman
instrumentofcommunitarianselfassertionandselfdeterminationtoanadditionalfactortogetherwith
thevanishingofgeneticdriftanddiversificationofselectivemechanismsviaanUmweltstabilisedand
uniformisedonaplanetaryscaleofanentropicendofhistoryinthetermsdescribedmanyyearsago
byJulianHuxleyinBraveNewWorld.

Thislastpointisveryinterestingandcertainlyinvolvesmorethantheissuesdirectlyrelatedtoeugenics.
Wejustsaidthatbiotechnologiescouldwellyieldinhumanratherthanoverhumanresults,ifleftin
thehandsofpowersthatusethemonlywithprivateandshortterminterestsinview.Yet,foryou,sucha
decidedlyundesirableoutcomehasnothingtodowiththetechnologiesthemselvesbutwiththeuseone
mightmakeofthem.Thismaywellbetrue.Butinpractice,ifonehastotakeaconcretepoliticalstance,
oneisboundtotakethepresentsituationintoaccount(thatofamercantilisticworldessentiallyruledby
multinationalconglomerates),notsomehypotheticalFuturist,posthumanistscenario.Agreed,
biotechnologiescouldserveaswellaprojectaimedattheregenerationofhistorybut,asthingsare
now,weareheadingintheoppositeway.Shouldwenotfirstofallconfrontthiskindofsituation?
Followingyouradvice,arentwerunningtheriskofacceleratingtowardsadeadendinthenameofa
newbeginningthatmaycertainlybedesirablebutthatwecannotrealisticallyenvisageinour
immediatehorizon?

Suchconcernsarealtogetherlegitimate,buttheexplosionoftheoldworldisdefinitelyarequirement
forthethepossibilityitselfofanewbeginningtoexist.Ontheotherhand,unliketheApostlesorMarx
butinthissensealsounlikeGuillaumeFaye,whoprofessestobelieveintheineluctabilityofpending
catastrophes(scientific,economic,social,ecological,etc.)Idonotmaintainthatsuchanexplosionis
inevitable.Iammoreinclinedtoseetheendofhistoryasagloomyeternalandneverconcluded
ending,akindofpossiblecrystallisationofmodernity,butinaverydifferentandmuchmoreextreme
waythanwhatwehaveexperienceduntilnow.
Someprocessescannotbereversedman'sincreasingpoweroverhimselfandoverhisenvironment
cannotbeeasilyrenouncedtheabyssofapossiblealternativetotheongoingFreudianrepressionof
suchpoweropeneditsgapeasearlyasthe19thcenturyandcanbekeptshut,tomakecertainnoone
looksinsideagain,onlybymeansofaconstantpressure.Suchsurveillancewouldnecessarilyleadto,on
theonehandtotalsocialcontrol,ontheothertoourrelyingonevermoreimpersonalandrational
mechanismstogoverntheSystem,sothatanytemptationtotakechargeofone'sowndestinymaybe
preventedanddefeatedassoonasitrearsitsuglyhead.Wearealreadywitnessingforexamplethe

voidanceofformallibertiesandprivileges(outofmanydifferentgroundssuchaspreventingtheaccess
toothers'personaldata,limitingtheriskofbacteriologicalordigitalattacks,obstructingtheunrestrained
circulationofnewsandopinions,etc.)also,inthelastyearswehaveseenthegradualobliteration,inthe
sameway,oftheprincipleofnoninterference,ofselfdetermination,ofelectorallegitimisationof
governmentsetc.,sincemaintainingallthatbecomesevermoreincompatiblewiththestabilityand
necessaryglobalityoftheSystem.AllthisdoesofcoursefulfillthepromisesoftheSystemitself,butin
averypeculiarway,which,whenperceivedforwhatitis,isnotespeciallyenjoyedevenbythepeoples
morefullysubjugatedtoitsofficialdoctrines,andwhichbesidesresultsinperpetualcontradictions.
TodaytheSystemusestechnology,itcannotdootherwise,andneedsitineverlargerdoses,butatthe
sametimeintechnologyitfindsproblemsandquestionsthatitcannotaddress.Inthissense,itis,if
anything,theprohibitionistmovementsandopinions,therestrictionofthecirculationofinformation,the
proposalforinstanceofcompulsorilyfreezinginvestmentsinGNR(genetics,nanotechnology,
robotics),theattemptstoregulateInternet,thattrytocontrolthesesamecontradictionsinviewofthe
abovementionedcrystallisation.
Fukuyamahoweverisnolongertalkingabouttheendofhistory,butofourposthumanfuture(Our
PosthumanFuture:ConsequencesoftheBiotechnologyRevolution,Picador2003).Ofcoursehedoesthis
todenounceitandtowarditoff,insofarasthiscanstillbedonebutIthinkthat,forthosewhodoesnot
sharehisvaluesystem,hiscurrentpessimismontheseissuesisindeedreassuring.

Hence,yourlineofargumentseemstocontradicttheequationthatunderliesalmostallantagonistic
discourses,betheyleftwingorrightwing:theonebetweenthemodernworld,Westernsociety,
capitalistsystem,globalisationoroneworldismontheonehand,andtheglobaldeploymentof
technologyontheother.Buthowisitpossibletoestablishacontradictionbetweenthesetwo
environmentsgiventhat,historicallyspeaking,theWesternsystemhasexpandedatthesamerhythmas
theimpositiononaplanetaryscaleofacertainkindoftechnologicaldevelopment?

Thetechn,eventhoughitcanbeconsideredingeneraltermsascongenitaltothespecificallyhuman,
certainlyrepresentssomethingthathasbeendevelopedandthoughtoutinaverypeculiarwayinthe
(Indo)Europeancontext.Atthesametime,itisprobablyreasonableandjustifiedtosuspectthatmodern
technologyasitisthecaseforthegreatanduniqueblossomingoftonal,polyphonicmusicisclosely
linkedtotheWest,aculturetobeunderstoodasacompromisebetweenEuropeandJudeoChristianity,
butmoreaccuratelyastheimpactofthelongstandingmonotheisticrepressionoftheEuropeancollective
subconscious,andofthecontradictoryprocessofsecularisationandemancipationthatthisrepression
gaverisetowiththeRenaissance.
Hence,inthissense,theplanetarygeneralisationoftechnosciencedoescertainlyhaveaWestern
matrix,anddoesrepresentadisruptivefactorwithrespecttotheidentity,diversityandsovereigntyofthe
peoples,thatisobjectivelyfunctionaltoprocessesofglobalisation.Butsucharolecanindeedbe
reversed.Ifthousandsofyearsofpostneolithiccultures,andespeciallytwocenturiesofindustrial
civilisation,are(also)bringingaboutdiminishedbiodiversity,environmentaldegradation,dysgenic
consequences,todaytheonlyremedytothissituationisanexcessoftechnologyanddevelopment
beyondtheneoprimitivistdreamsoftheideologyofDegrowththathasbeensosuccessfulamongthe
mostdecadentcirclesofEuropeanextremerightandextremeleft.
Thisexcessoftechnologyishoweverhardlycompatiblewithafinalsuccessofaglobalised,entropic,
neocapitalistsystemandwithanendofhistorythatthisonewouldbedestinedtoimplementto
accordingtothehopesofitsownprophetslikeFukuyama.AsValrieMerindolillustrateswellinLa
rechercheetlatechnologie,enjeuxdepuissance(Economica2003),therearewellknownreasonsforthe
constitutionalincapacityoftheMarkettoinvestinbreakthroughtechnologiesorinparadigmshiftsorin

fundamentalresearch,andmoregenerallyinhighriskmidorlongtermprojects,letalonecivilisational
projects.Andthereexist,moreover,culturalfactors(inthestrong,anthropologicalsenseoftheword)
thatappeardecisiveforthepossibilitytomaintainacertainpaceoftechnologicaldevelopment.Inthis
light,today'sdazzlingtechnoscientificachievementsdonotappearatallreassuring,andsometimesthey
evenmakeonewonderiftheyarenotjustthelasthurrahsofaverylargemomentumdoomedrather
soonerthanlatertodieout.

Inwhatsense?

Forexample,rocketsanddigitalcomputers,DNAandmutations,theatomandtheevolution,automatic
recording,reproductionandtransferofdata,imagesandsounds,microscopesandpathogens,antibiotics
andinternalcombustionenginesandquantummechanics,allthiswasinventedordiscoveredduringa
spannolongerthanahumanlife,roughlyspeakingbetween1870and1950,correspondingtoan
acceleration,aincandescenceofhistorywhichmanifestedsimultaneouslyinallfieldsofsocial,
politicalandculturallife.
Manyofthethingsachievedafterwardscanberegardedasarefinement,animprovement,anapplication,
abyproductofthingsimagined,plannedanddesignedinthisperiod,andthisonlywheresuch
developmentsactuallyexistinthefirstplace.TheWesterncitizenoftheseventieshadgoodreasonsto
believe1982tobeaplausibledateforthefirsthumanmissiontoMarsorfortheconstructionofthefirst
nuclearfusionplant,andcrossedtheAtlanticonsupersonicairplanesthathavenotbeenincirculationfor
averylongtime.TheUnitedStates,aftertheeventualretirementoftheirdisastrousShuttle,haveto
resorttoRussiantechnologyofthetimeofthelunarconquest(!)totransportChineselowtechgadgetsto
theorbitingtrashcanpompouslycalledInternationalSpaceStation.Theaveragespeedoftransportation
byland,sea,airandspacehasnotchangedforaverylongtimenow,andtheirrespectiverecordshave
alsoremainedstationary.
AllthismakesonedoubtthefactthatthepresentdayWesternsystemreallyrepresentsanenginefor
technologicaldevelopment,insteadofasocioeconomicalmechanismthathasbecomeafreeloadertoan
historicallegacythatismuchmorecomplex,yetwhoseowntechnoscientifichegemonyistoday
questionedbycountriesthatare,ifnotabsoluteoutsiders,atleastperiferaltothislegacy,suchas
China,IndiaortheRussianFederation.

YoujustmentionedtechnoscienceastheemergenceofarestlessIndoEuropeanspiritthatis
emancipatingfromthegripofthesingletrackJudeoChristianthinking.NeverthelessinGreek
thoughtweundeniablyfindatthecentermanynotreallyFaustianreferencestothegoldenmean,to
temperance,totheOlympiccondemnationofPrometheism.Viceversa,variousanalystshave
stressedhowChristianity,throughdisenchantingtheworld,wouldbetheoriginofthedevelopmentof
moderntechnology.YourFuturistthesesonbiotechnologiesmightseem,inthislight,muchmore
christianthanpagan...

Inreality,Titanism,Prometheanism,subversion,excess,areconceptsthemeaningofwhichchangeswith
thecontextwheretheyareimmersed.LetusanalysemorespecificallythemythofPrometheus.Itis
absolutelyobviousthatthemythofPrometheuswasperceivedbytheGreekinatotallydifferentway
fromhowitwaslatertakenupintheRomantic,andfinallyoverhumanist,milieux,becausetheGreek
identifiedwiththeirgodsandtheirfeelingsofempathy,ifany,weremorelikelytogototheeagle
condemnedtoamonotonousdietofliverforalleternity.ButwhatdoestheTitanreallyrepresent?It
representstheeternalreturn,fromobscure,immemorialandtelluricroots,ofaprioranddefeated

religiosity,whichthreatenstoriseanewtoexploit,stealandadulteratethelightning,thefireofthe
newOlympianorder,orlikeLuciferthelight,andsubjugateittoperfectlyblasphemousends.Andits
figureessentiallyrepresentsawarningthatwemustconstantlytobeonourguardsagainstallthis,
becausethehumanandcosmicorderwillneverbeintegrallyrealisedorperenniallygranted.
Now,onehastobeideologicallyblindnottoseehowthemythhascometomeantheexactopposite
whenitisthereligionoftheGreek,theIndoEuropeanpaganism,thatfindsitselfplayingthepartof
formeranddefeatedreligiosity,andyetdestinedtoreturneternally,facedwithanewhistorictrendand
worldviewthathasvictoriouslyexploitedanddistorteditshistoricaldynamism,andisevensucceedingin
establishingplanetaryhegemony.
Hence,inamoreconfusedfashionfortheRomanticsincludingaspectsofromanticismthatwouldend
upinwhatpositivelyarepalingeneticdreams,butofsocialandeschatologicalnature(theproletarians
whoshaketheirfetters)thenmoreexplicitelywithoverhumanism,uptothearcheofuturismofFayeor
totranshumanismorwithMarchesinispraiseofhybris,Prometheusbecomesahope,apromise,an
examplehence,itbecomestheverysymbolofman'stragicdestinyandofwhoeverdemandstoincarnate
it.
Nevertheless,asNietzschesaid,theGreekdonotcomeback.Desacralisation,thedisenchantmentof
theworld,whateveraversionorregretsitmightprovoke,hastakenplace.Therefore,thedeathofthe
JudeoChristianGodalsomeantthedeathofthepagangods,whomitspresenceindirectlyandinevitably
keptalivesofar,asakindofrelativeantithesis.AftertwothousandyearsofWesterncivilisation,after
theestablishmentofaglobalisedSystem,anewbeginningcouldnotbeimaginedsimplyasanother
cycle(ofthetypeoftheDoctrineoftheFourAges),andnotevenasanewSpengleriancivilisation:
Spenglerhimselfrulesthisout,forexampleinManandTechnics(UniversityPressofthePacific2002).
Forthisreasonitisnecessary,inordertoclaimanexemplaryorigin,torefertosomethingasdistantand
asradicalastheneolithicrevolution,andtothehighermagicwithwhichtheIndoEuropeansmastered
it.Judeochristianity,andmoregenerallytheWesterncivilisationthatwasbornwithitsarrivalin
Europe,irrevocablybelongstoourpast.Itisnotthepastthelegacyofwhichthosewhosharemy
worldviewclaimastheirs,itisapast(andapresent)thatIfightandwanttoovercome.Butwearealso
awarethatattemptsatFreudianrepressionwouldleadtonothingotherthantoareturnofwhathasbeen
repressed,itwouldtakeustonothingelse,asinSantayana'swellknownexpression,thanhavingto
reliveitagain.
Therefore,atrueoverhumanismispostChristianandpostmodern,notpreChristianneopagan,not
pagan.AsHeideggersays,whentheworldstrikesmidnight,lestwefallbackintonihilism,wecando
nothingotherthanlendoureartothesoundofthenewgodscallingoutbeyonddaybreak'shorizon.
Today,however,asNietzscheexplicitlyindicatesinThusSpakeZarathustra,thesenewgodscanbeno
otherthanourselvestheycanonlybetheresultofourconsciouscreation,ofasuperhumanchoice
againstthatofthelastman.Asforwhathasbeencalledtechnoscience,giventhatnothingsimilar
hasbeenproducedinotherareaswherebiblicalreligioneventuallyprevailed,wemightatmostconsider
it,asalreadysaid,asasublimatedfruitoftherepressionworkedbytheJudeoChristiantendencyonthe
Europeancollectivesubconsciousandoneformofthelatter'sfinalrebellion,anotherbeingrepresented
forinstancebythegrandadventureoftonalmusic.
However,inthesenseclarifiedabove,itisperfectlytruethatwithoutChristianitynoBach,Beethoven
andWagnernoLinnandHeisenberg,MarconiandvonBraun.
Todayitisthefireofthiscomplexlegacythattheoverhumanisttitanicallywantstomakehisownand
tosettothehumanistWalhalla,sothatthetwilightoftoday'sidolsalreadyannouncedbyNietzschemay
beconsummated.Besides,thehistoricalexperienceoflastcenturyshowsushowrethinkingand
deployingthepotentialofmoderntechnologyisanobligatorystepofanypossibledreamofpowerand
freedomandhowsuchrethinkingcouldentailaprodigiousaccelerationofthatsametechnological
capacity.

AsHeideggeralsowrites,althoughheisperceivedbymanyasadversetotheworldofmodern
technology:Whatisreallyworryingisnotthattheworldistransformedinsomethingentirelycontrolled
bytechnology.Muchmoreworryingisthatmanisnotatallpreparedforthisradicalmutationofthe
world.Muchmoreworryingisthatourspeculativethinkingdoesnotenableustoadequatelycopewith
theeventsofourtime.

Youhavedefinedyourvisionasbeingpostmodern.Thisisinterestingalsoinrelationtowhatwewere
sayingalittleearlierontheconnectionunnecessaryandrather,littlebylittle,evermoreproblematic
betweentechnologyandtheWesternsystem.Similarly,Ibelievetodetectinyourwordingachipping
awayatthebinomialideologicalmodernitytechnologicalmodernity,thathasalreadybeenprophesied,
beitwithoppositevaluejudgements,byFayeandHabermas.Yourbiopoliticalstanceistherefore
postmoderninthesensethatittendstostressonlyoneaspectofmodernity(theoneFayewouldcall
sensorial)andtoprovideitwithanentirelynewphilosophicalarmature,inordertogiverisetoanew
combinationthatalreadylooksbeyondmodernityitself.AmIcorrect?

Infact,thefirstthingthatpartisansandopponentsofmodernityhadbetterrealiseisthatmodernityis
longsincebehindus.ThebeginningofitsendcoincideswiththedeathofGod,thatmodernitytoo
contributedtokill,andcommencestotakerootinpeople'smindsattheeveoftheFirstWorldWar,
despiteendlesslagsthatcontinuetothisday,especiallyatthelevelofpopularcultureandofthevalues
implicitinthepowersysteminplace.
Atleastatatheoreticallevel,itisexactlymodernscience,theone,bornwithGalileo,Leonardo,
GiordanoBruno,whichcoincideswiththeadventofthemodernera,thathas,togetherwithcritical
thinking,underminedthepresuppositionsofmodernism.Afterhavingprogressivelydemystifiedthe
legacythatthemodernsnotwronglydefinedasobscurantist,itendedupbydemystifyingalso
objectivism,positivism,naiverationalism,theprogressismlaExcelsiorBall,theethicaluniversalism
thatrepresentmodernism'smostsalientfeatures.
Thisismanifest,togobacktothetopicofthisinterview,firstofallintheunderstandingthatscience
finallyallowsusofthespecificallyhumanandoflifefromanethological,genetical,sociobiological,
biochemical,populational,psychological,neurological,ecological,evolutionary,etc.,pointofview.But
itisevenmoreobvious,ifpossible,inthefieldofthehardsciencesandofscientificepistemologyitself.
Ofcourse,likeallgreathistoricalphenomena,modernityhasafundamentallyambiguousmeaning,that
doesnotderiveonlyfromitscompositenatureorfromthehistoricalphenomenonthatJulesMonnerot
definesasheterotelia(andthatrepresentstheinevitabledriftofactualhistoricaldevelopmentsin
comparisontotheintendedgoals)butmoreradicallyfromtheperspectiveofthepresentinsidewhich
thephenomenonitselfislookedatapresentthatisfirstofalldefinedonthebasisofthefuturethateach
ofuswantstoenvision.

Interesting.Towhatperspectiveareyoureferring?

Forexample,withrespecttothemonotheisticlegacyandtothedecadentconnotationthatmanyassociate
withit,modernityrepresentsontheonehandabecomingtrue,anactualisation,asecularisationwhichis
alsoabanalisation,thatisafinal,hegemonicpenetrationintomindsetsandlanguagesontheother,it
representsnonethelessamovementthatbreaksthemetaphysicalreferentialframeworkofthatsame
legacy,andrepresentsinnucetheunavoidablepremiseofitsownsurpassing,whichnotbychance
regularlyrefersback,throughoutthe16th,17th18thand19thcenturies,toacriticalandempiricaltradition

thatrepresents,asLucianoPellicaniremarksinLeradicipaganedell'Europa[ThePaganRootsof
Europe,nottranslated](Rubbettino2007),theverysoulofEuropeanculture,fromThalestoPythagoras
toDemocrites,fromHippocratestoLucretius.Forthisreason,tosaymodernityisinawaylikesaying
(Renaissances)Humanismyesterday,theHumanismofPicoofMirandola,LorenzoVallaand
Machiavelli,withalltheextraordinaryculturalemancipationthatthisphenomenonfinallyallowedfor
alsoasregardsourownpossibilitytobetodaywhatweareanditislikesayinghumanismtoday,with
everythingoutdated,exhausted,reactionarythatthiswordnowstandsforwithrespecttothebiopolitical,
transhumanrevolutionwhichrepresentsourimmediatehorizon.
AndhereagainNietzscherepresentstheidealwatershed,thepointofreferenceandtheturningpointof
whatismorethanmodern,andthatthereforeisalreadynotmodernanymore.Thus,postmodernity,as
Iunderstandit,representstheAufhebungofmodernity:theclosureofwhatinmodernityactually
representsnothingelsethantheradicalisationandtheimmanentisationofpreexistentideas,anda
moment(specificallythesynthetic,postideologicalone)ofthedialecticsinherenttosuchideas.A
closurewhichnaturallyisstillinquestofitself,andthatisconstantlyfacingtheriskofareturnto
premoderncategoriesandtothetemptationofshallowness,ofpointlessobscurity,ofelaboratingself
referentialnarrativesthatshunthefundamentalconfrontationwithwhatHeideggerorGehlenorFayecall
[2]
thequestionoftechnology ,andthatcoincidespreciselywiththehistoricalfracturerepresentedby
thelooming(possible)passagetoastagethatisnotonlyposthumanist,butposthuman.Aconfrontation
whichtodayiscentralintheviewsandconcernsofvariouscontemporarythinkerssuchasSloterdijk,
MarchesiniorSchiavone.

Inthebeginningoftheeighties,GuillaumeFayewrote:Habermassaidthatonecannotconceiveofa
nuclearpoetry.Onthecontrary,itistheoppositethatisthecase,eventhoughtheSystemisincapable
ofcreatingit.[]Thespeed,therumblingofthemachinethatcarriesitsriderovergreatdistances,the
potentialgrandnessofmodernurbanismremainpresentintheindividualandcollectivepsyche,because
theycorrespondtopopulararchetypes.AndyetthistechnicalarsenalisnotutilizedbytheSystemother
thanprosaically,because,unconsciously,ititfrightening.Isallthisstilltruetoday?Cantherebea
biopoliticalpoetry?

Intheend,whatelseisthebiopoliticalandtranshumanrevolution,initsproperlyepicaldimension,thana
primordialdemandforpoetryonbehalfofaworldvowedtoBecoming?AsHeideggersays,theessence
oftechnologyisnothingtechnical,andinsteadclaimsanoriginaryandoriginatingpoiesis:Whatatthe
dawnofAncientGreecewasthoughtorpoeticisedisstillpresenttoday,somuchsothatitsessence,still
closedtoitself,isbeforeusandapproachesusfromallsides,aboveallwhereweleastexpectit,thatis
withinthereigndeployedbymoderntechnology,whichistotallyforeigntothatancestraltraditionand
yetfindsthereinitessentialorigin.
Hencetheposthumanchangethatrepresentsthecentralaspectofthepresentbiopoliticalchallengeisfirst
andforemosttheframeworkofapossiblemetamorphosisthattracesanideallinebetweentheEuropean
ancestralmyththatishandeddowntousbyforinstancethehomonymouspoemofOvidandNietzsche's
Overman,Marinetti'sMultipliedMan,Gehlen'sThirdMan,RidleyScott'sReplicant,theCyborgof
sciencefictionandofthetranshumanistculture,Marchesini'sPosthuman.
Hereitcanwellbesaidthatnatureimitatesartorrather,thatartisturningintonature,onascale
hithertonotevendreamtof.Indeed,asIwriteintheconclusiontoBiopolitica.Ilnuovoparadigma:Our
restlessexploringoftheworld,thetechniquesthatderivefromit,condemnustochoose,offerusmeans,
butcannottelluswhattomakeofit.Thisisnotthetaskofengineersorscientistsorlawyers,butofthe
foundingheroes,ofpoets,andofthearistocracieswhocantranslateintodeedstheobscurecollective
willofthecommunityofpeoplewhenceitemanates,buildmonumentsdestinedtochallengeeternity,and

leavebehindundyingglory.

***