Abstract
In The Technocene: Reflections on Bodies, Minds, and Markets, Hermínio Martins reflects on the idea of the Technocene, playing off the much more familiar concept of the Anthropocene. Martins suggests the term “Technocene” over “Anthropocene” because it has more to do with “technological agency than with the psychophysiological make-up of Homo sapiens sapiens” (p. 1). This book, masterfully crafted, arrives in a timely fashion to thrust society and academics into the next era of knowledge and change.
Martins bombards the reader with rich food for thought and vast amounts of information—which also is the book’s weakness, as Martins at times can take off on a tangent and move away from the topic at hand. The other issue with the book is that despite its importance for understanding the evolving changes in society affected by technologies such as artificial intelligence, robots, CRISPR, red markets, and so much more, at the current pace of technological change, the book is becoming outdated. This is not a criticism of the book, but rather of academia’s inability to stay ahead of changing technology, which Martins implies in his discussion of universities.
Despite considering many technologies, Martins sometimes is not accurate in his discussion of certain technologies. Yet despite these deficits, many of his reflections are coming to fruition. Furthermore, two very important themes emerge from the book: the growing inequalities that new technologies will impose, and the inevitable restructuring of our social institutions to fit the needs of the growing technology industry that is dominating our society. Thus The Technocene is a must-read, as Martins points out that regardless of specialization or discipline, we will all be affected by the Technocene.
One of the most interesting aspects of the book is the technical terminology. For example, Martins uses the term “ectogenesis,” which was first introduced by “British polymath-biologist, geneticist, and evolutionary biologist, J. B. S. Haldane” (p. 8). Ectogenesis in its broadest sense refers to human biotechnology, which includes the production of the birth control pill, human cloning, and artificial wombs. Martins shares these examples and then takes the next step and interjects future implications. He states that though not everyone might take advantage of an artificial womb, which would become a substitute for human surrogacy, this technology would give women an opportunity to choose to have their children through this means, whether for biological or economic reasons. Also, same-sex couples would have alternative options for reproduction.
Martins also points out that along with these technologies a new hyper-class of biological inequalities also emerges that extends beyond social and economic inequalities. Martins predicted that CRISPR would allow gene editing to produce “super” humans. Just as predicted, China biophysicist He Jiankui, recently sentenced to three years in prison for his role in gene editing, used the CRISPR technology to edit for AIDS immunity in embryos (Cyranoski 2020). According to reports at the ISTAS 2019 conference in Boston, the same gene that was edited for AIDS immunity also affects hyper intelligence. Martins’s predictions are becoming a reality, and the impact on social institutions is also evident.
Martins tackles many institutions, from health to business, but his rhetoric on higher education is important for those in academia. He introduces the commodification of knowledge and explains how universities have moved from being knowledge-based institutions to a workforce labor market, taking on more business qualities. He shows this development through historical references, research, and political policies that have created the path to the industrialization of higher education, such as Talcott Parsons and Gerald Platt’s The American University, Upton Sinclair’s The Goose-Step, and Ronald Reagan’s 1980s policies that brought about the “epoch of marketization of the sciences and especially the universities” (pp. 160–62). The latter have led to greater inequalities as higher education shapes itself to support a technological workforce instead of persisting as a knowledge-based institution.
The commodification of knowledge can be seen through the growth of the virtual university, through e-learning and e-science (p. 168). Martins introduces the “super-Matthew effect”—”to him [or her] that hath much, much more shall be given”—and the “Genghis Khan effect”—”the point is not only to succeed, but to make sure that others fail” (pp. 167–68). What implications do these principles have for higher education? According to Martins, not only do inequalities exist between institutions but within departments themselves, resulting in an emergence of a super class of scholars. Colleges themselves now use various forms of measurement, such as “poll rankings, patent indices, grants, publications listed in ‘peer-reviewed’ journals,” and more to boast about their “excellence” (p. 168). Martins also discusses the impact of the emergence of artificial intelligence and robots on the future of education, as institutions of higher education will gravitate toward methods that further disenfranchise educators and their role in academia.
Martins discusses artificial intelligence (AI) throughout the book, but he sometimes doesn’t adequately explain AI. For example, he sometimes mixes discussion of AI with robots, though these are clearly two different technologies. He does accurately discuss the two technologies’ intersections when he references singularity in crafted robots. Martins tries to stay within his theme of bodies and technology by referencing the robot as a technical body that will serve as a human substitute for tasks from housekeeping to sex (p. 21). He also discusses AI and the internet when introducing the “super organism” (p. 64). Though this book reflects a sociological context, there is an inherent need for social scientists to truly understand the technical underpinnings of AI, as artificial intelligence will be the catapult for many of Martins’s predictions to reach reality.
Despite the valuable discourse in The Technocene, there are moments throughout the book where the reader is left in a jet stream of Martins’s subconscious thought instead of benefiting from a more direct and less circuitous discussion. For example, in Chapter One, he spends much effort introducing enormous amounts of information; yet throughout most of the book, he focuses on certain aspects, such as human reproductive cloning (HRC), the body in a more general sense, and universities. In Chapter Three, “Perpetual Augmentation: From Eugenics to Human Genetic Capitalism,” Martins bounces from idea to idea. He discusses HRC, “medical utopias,” cryogenic waiting, the psychopharmacological society, and back to HRC. At times Martins introduces a conjecture that leaves the reader wondering if the statement is relevant or just superfluous. For example, the quote below appeared during the discussion of bioethics. Martins had already clearly articulated that bioethics has become a tool of biopolicy rather than biophilosophy, pointing out that reputable scientists are entertaining every biotechnological project. Yet, after the point was clearly articulated, Martins spun out in a different direction: I am reminded of the two-party system set up by the Brazilian military dictatorship in the 1960’s—a system which, according to the bon mot of the time, consisted of the party of ‘Yes!’, and the part of ‘Yes, Sir!’. A Martian reading this literature, or much of it, would have no sense that Earthlings have been experiencing a series of moral, theological, metaphysical earthquakes owing to the novel, rapid, unsettling character of biotechnological change. (pp. 90–91)
Despite Martins’s tangents, he delivers some morsels of sociological brilliance as he eloquently touches on various theorists. Parsons, Weber, and Spencer are welcomed in various parts of the book (pp. 64, 98, and 160). For example, when Martins discusses the “World Brain” versus the “World Mind,” referencing the emergence of “an intelligent global computer network,” he brings the reader back to the theoretical roots of Spencer and a social “superorganism” (p. 64). Though he doesn’t directly mention Charlotte Perkins Gilman, he alludes to her theoretical presence in his discussion of women and procreative freedom (p. 3).
Another major contribution from The Technocene is the extensive annotated bibliography. The book is at least one-quarter annotated notes, which any academic can use to further their research and ideas. Thus, the volume serves not only as a masterpiece of ideas, but also lays the foundation for future work to be carried on by others.
In closing, The Technocene is a timely book that is a must-read for any academic, especially those in technological fields, as there needs to be more exchange between disciplines. I also would recommend it for scholars interested in science, economics, inequalities, gender issues, education, aging, sexuality, reproduction, eugenics, institutions, or social change. I recommend that readers be prepared to be impressed and occasionally frustrated at the same time as this treasure trove of information does not read easily. Despite the loquacious tangents, the book keeps the reader engaged and wanting to continue to pursue Martins’s foundational work as his warnings and predictions continue to unfold with ongoing changing and emerging technologies.