Paniek in de Polder. Polytiek in tijden van populisme

Paniek in de Polder. Polytiek in tijden van populisme

Jos de Mul. Paniek in de Polder. Polytiek in tijden van populisme. Rotterdam: Lemniscaat, februari 2017. Uitgebreide en geactualiseerde editie…

2017-11-25 (Trouw) Hoe ik bijna boeddhist werd

2017-11-25 (Trouw) Hoe ik bijna boeddhist werd

Jos de Mul. Hoe ik bijna boeddhist werd. Trouw. Bijlage Letter en Geest, 25 november 2017, 14-18. Het gastenverblijf van…

Plessner's Philosophical Anthropology. Perspectives and Prospects

Plessner's Philosophical Anthropology. Perspectives and Prospects

Jos de Mul. ( ed.), Plessner's Philosophical Anthropology. Perspectives and Prospects. Amsterdam/Chicago: Amsterdam University Press/Chicago University Press, 2014. Helmut Plessner (1892–1985)…

Destiny Domesticated. The Rebirth of Tragedy Out of the Spirit of Technology

Destiny Domesticated. The Rebirth of Tragedy Out of the Spirit of Technology

Jos de Mul. Destiny Domesticated. The Rebirth of Tragedy Out of the Spirit of Technology. State University of New York (SUNY)…

Horizons of Hermeneutics

Horizons of Hermeneutics

Jos de Mul. Horizons of Hermeneutics: Intercultural Hermeneutics in a Globalizing World.  Frontiers of Philosophy in China. Vol. 6, No.…


Search this website:

Jos de Mul. Noble versus Dawkins. DNA is not the program of the concert of life. Vrij Nederland #13, 2 april, 2016, 77-81.

Forty years ago Richard Dawkins’ book The Selfish Gene launched Neo-Darwinism to the general public. It is still as controversial as it was then. Philosopher Jos de Mul examines the case of Dawkins' biggest critic: Denis Noble.

Text: Jos de Mul

Illustrations: Siegfried Woldhek

IT IS FORTY YEARS since the publication of Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene, published in Dutch as De zelfzuchtige genen. Over evolutie, agressie en eigenbelang. This text of 'orthodox neo-Darwinism’ (Dawkins' own words) sold 1 million copies in more than 25 languages. Probably since Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) no other biology book has had such a huge influence both on general public understanding of what it is to be human, and on scientific research, not only in the life sciences, but also in the social sciences and humanities. It is a particularly radical book which with its brilliantly worded message - that organisms are not much more than temporary vehicles for their immortal genes – expresses a reductionist, dramatically deterministic and ultimately nihilistic image of humanity.

Monday, 18 April 2016 08:56

The modular body

The Modular Body is an online science fiction story about the creation of OSCAR, a living organism built from human cells. The protagonist is Cornelis Vlasman, a versatile biologist for whom the path well-travelled is the most uninteresting one by definition. Together with a few like-minded people he therefore starts an independent laboratory in which he experiments with organic materials, on his own initiative, with his own resources and his own team.

After many years of hard work, Vlasman’s team succeeds in creating new life from cells taken from his own body. Under his supervision the world’s first living organism is built: OSCAR.

OSCAR is a prototype (the size of a human hand) consisting of clickable organ modules grown from human cells.

What makes OSCAR special is the thought process preceding the organism, which comes down to this: (human) life can be regarded as a closed system but when it is approached as a modular system this may lead to innovative applications and solutions.

In a closed system the parts are designed in such a way that they can only function in one specific configuration, which makes repairs and adaptations very complex. An example of such a closed system is the first Apple Macintosh from 1988.

In a modular system, independent modules – similar to building blocks – make up a transformable and therefore flexible configuration. In 2013, Dave Hakkens produced a Modular Phone that consists of separate parts that can be individually replaced and improved.

With the organism OSCAR Vlasman demonstrates that it is possible to create modular life. Stem cells can be reprogrammed, grown and printed as any type of human tissue. The line separating humans from machines is gradually becoming thinner.

The OSCAR prototype opens up possibilities for the human body, for example when it comes to replacing or improving worn out organs in a possibly ‘clickable’ system. Think of Lego as a metaphor.

In biotechnology many experiments are conducted nowadays with printed organs, regenerated tissue and synthetic blood. Organovo, one of the world’s largest biotech companies, expects to be able to print a functional liver by 2014. Taking the entire human body as a possibly modular system is not (or not yet) possible.

Vlasman develops the OSCAR organism – made up from ‘blocks’ – in his lab. This independent and somewhat obscure laboratory is run by a group of people with various expertise: IT specialists, biologists and designers, working with handmade and sometimes second-hand equipment. They operate outside of official channels, thereby avoiding moratoria, scientific protocols or objections of ethical committees, which perhaps enables them to arrive at this seminal breakthrough.

The primitive, vulnerable organism that finally results from Vlasman’s endeavours is kept alive with blood taken from Vlasman and is continually vaccinated against infections, as it has no immune system. The story refers to various similar narratives in world literature and film history, notably Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.

Published in Art
Jos de Mul. Noble versus Dawkins. DNA Is not the program of the concert of life. Translation of Dutch review, published in the weekly Vrij Nederland

Forty years ago Richard Dawkins’ book The Selfish Gene launched Neo-Darwinism to the general public. It is still as controversial as it was then. Philosopher Jos de Mul examines the case of Dawkins' biggest critic: Denis Noble.

Text: Jos de Mul

Illustration: Siegfried Woldhek

It is forty years since the publication of Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene, published in Dutch as De zelfzuchtige genen. Over evolutie, agressie en eigenbelang. This text of 'orthodox neo-Darwinism’ (Dawkins' own words) sold 1 million copies in more than 25 languages. Probably since Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) no other biology book has had such a huge influence both on general public understanding of what it is to be human, and on scientific research, not only in the life sciences, but also in the social sciences and humanities. It is a particularly radical book which with its brilliantly worded message - that organisms are not much more than temporary vehicles for their immortal genes – expresses a reductionist, dramatically deterministic and ultimately nihilistic image of humanity.

Greed is good

Although much imitated, The Selfish Gene also evoked much resistance and today the book is still as controversial as it was at its appearance in 1976. While zoologist Matt Ridley in his review of the book in the authoritative journal Nature (28-1-2016) argues that Dawkins' gene-centric conception of evolution in the world of biology is now widely accepted and alternative explanations have now lost all importance, in the same journal Nature (10-9-2015) the historian of science Nathaniel Comfort argues that Dawkins' book has now been almost completely overtaken by recent developments in genetics. It bothers Comfort that revolutionary developments that have put the axe to Dawkins continue to be neglected by orthodox neo-Darwinism.

What makes the discussion surrounding The Selfish Gene fascinating and important is that it is much more than a controversy over competing biological theories. Dawkins' gene-centrism - the idea that the evolution turns exclusively on the reproduction of selfish genes – also gave the critics of his book a questionable political charge. It would have served not only in the eighties as an ideological justification for ‘greed is good Thatcherism’, but also contributed to making race realism a socially respectable commonplace in the biological sciences, an idea that, after the horrific genetic experiments of the Nazis had been for many decades absolute taboo. Moreover, The Selfish Gene with its emphasis on the blind character of evolution produced fierce criticism from creationists, which Dawkins provoked in books like The God Delusion (2006) to implement an increasingly militant atheism. Moreover, that fight with the creationists made Dawkins allergic to criticism of his gene-centric approach by other biologists, which was quickly perceived like a stab in the back.

Now abuses of such criticism by creationists, frequently implying that the theory of evolution as such is suspect, led to evolutionary biologists keeping their criticism of Dawkins' radical neo-Darwinism behind closed doors. In his book The Music of Life. Biology beyond Genes, the first edition of which appeared in 2006, almost simultaneously with the thirty-year anniversary edition of The Selfish Gene, Noble presents a full frontal attack on Dawkins. His boldness is probably associated with the fact that Noble is a relatively external bystander in the field of genetics and evolutionary theory. Noble is (emeritus) professor of cardiovascular physiology at Oxford University and has gained great fame with computer simulations of the heart. He is considered one of the founders of Systems Biology. A spicy aspect of his work is that the target of his attack was a former student and colleague at Oxford. Dawkins studied biology in the sixties at Balliol College, where five years earlier Noble, whose candidature had already made him a name with publications in Nature, was appointed in 1963 to lecturer. Until his retirement in 2008, Dawkins, was professor of Public Understanding of Science also at Oxford University.

SIimplistic experiment

To understand the purport of the struggle between Noble and Dawkins, we need to place it against the background of the development of modern evolutionary theory. While, under the influence of Christianity until well into the eighteenth century, thinking about nature assumed that biological species have remained unchanged from the time of their creation, the world in the nineteenth century underwent a fundamental historicizing. While eighteenth-century Linnaeus, to whom we owe the still used classification of biological species, still represented a predominantly static view of the order of nature, the French philosopher Lamarck developed in his Philosophie Zoologique the first consistent theory of evolution. The starting point was the idea that all organisms have a life-force that encourages them to increasingly complex organization. Thereby Lamarck assumed that organisms must continually adapt to the circumstances. Organs could be strengthened or disappear and acquired characteristics are transmitted to the next generations. He said the long neck of the giraffe arose from its continually extension to reach the highest leaves. According to Lamarck evolution proceeded by such learning: fast, jerky and targeted. Darwin took the idea of ​​Lamarck, but also developed in his book On the Origin of Species a complementary theory of the evolution of life: the theory of natural selection. This theory states that the number of offspring is always larger in nature than the number that mature and reproduce themselves. Reproduction always makes small differences, and Darwinian nature selects the individuals that are best adapted to the changing circumstances. Unlike Lamarckian evolution, Darwinian evolution is very slow, gradual and unfocused.

The popularity of Lamarck's theory was brought to an abrupt end by an equally crude and simplistic experiment by the German biologist August Weismann. For six generations he cut the tails on a large number of mice to test whether this "acquired property" would be passed on to the progeny and when that did not happen he concluded that Lamarck's theory was incorrect. According to him this proved that changes in the body's cells do not exert any influence on the germ cells. This so-called Weisman barrier would become an important source of inspiration for neo-Darwinism.

Copy flaws

Neo-Darwinism resulted from the combination of Darwin's theory of natural selection and Mendel's laws of heredity. Although Darwin had observed that offspring always exhibit differences, he could not explain why. Through experiments with growing peas Mendel came out with the theory that there exist hereditary characteristics from discrete units – baptized in 1909 by the Danish botanist Johannsen as 'genes' - the inheritance of which obeys mathematical laws. Population genetics was based on that understanding and provided a mathematical basis for Darwinism during the first half of the twentieth century.

The ideas of the 'modern synthesis', designated as the melding of evolution and genetics, were crowned in 1953 in the discovery of DNA, a macromolecule that is located in each cell nucleus and that in humans consists of no less than three billion nucleotides in four variants as the common building blocks. Each gene consists of specific sequences of these building blocks - as the discoverers thought - were the recipe or program for the genetic characteristics of the organism. When reproducing, the DNA is transmitted to the offspring (which in the case of sexual reproduction creates in each offspring a unique blend of the parental characteristics). The emergence of new properties occurs by occasional copying errors in the reproduction of the genetic material. These mutations play a crucial role in the evolution of life on Earth according to the neo-Darwinists.

In addition to the transfer of genetic traits in the progeny DNA also plays a crucial role in the production of the approximately one hundred thousand different types of proteins that, as building materials, fuel, enzymes, hormones and antibodies, are indispensable for human life. The idea was that each gene encodes one specific protein and a trait. Francis Crick, one of the inventors of the structure of DNA, formulated 'the central dogma’ of the neo-Darwinism: that genetic information can be transferred exclusively from DNA to proteins (via an intermediate stage in the form of the substance RNA), but never the other way around. This rule was seen by neo-Darwinists as much under the influence of Weismann and was interpreted as meaning that the characteristics of the organism may be inherited only through the genes, and that the organism or the environment may not themselves make changes to the genome.

This interpretation of Crick's central dogma paved the way for the gene-centric approach of evolution, which, thanks to Dawkins' bestseller The Selfish Gene then took enormous flight. Gene-centrism also formed an important source of inspiration for the Human Genome Project (1990-2003). This mapping of all of the genes would not only lead to the prediction of diseases which would be cured, it would mean no less than the deciphering of "the book of life."

Nature versus nurture?

The speed with which the human genome was mapped by global collaborative geneticists, is certainly impressive, but the result was disappointing in some ways. That the human genome contains not one hundred thousand genes (as predicted on the basis of the number of different proteins), but rather not much more than twenty thousand, meant not only an affront to the ego of the human species (there are protozoa that have three times as many genes as man!), but also the end of the one gene, one function paradigm. Most genes are involved in networks, often with hundreds or thousands together in these complex networks. The number of possible combinations is so hyper-astronomically large (many times larger than the number of elementary particles in the universe), that the realization took hold that Human Genome Project is not so much the end as marking a very humble beginning of genetic research. What also became clear was that genes are not naturally expressed. They can be switched on and off. The 98.5 percent of DNA that does not consist of genes, which was dismissed rather as evolutionary garbage (junk DNA), also plays a crucial role.

'Post-genomic' research also proved various different assumptions of neo-Darwinism to be untenable. Mutations turn out to be less random than previously assumed. The speed, quantity and location show strong fluctuations. Such forms of ‘natural genetic engineering’ have been found, for example in the immune system, which can therefore adapt quickly to the constant mutations of viruses that threaten the organism. Such studies also show that genetic change often does not proceed gradually. For example, Barbara McClintock discovered already in 1951 that large pieces of DNA, which often comprise more genes, can be transposed from one location to another on the genome. For the discovery of these ‘jumping genes’, which had been neglected for a long time under the influence of the neo-Darwinian paradigm, she was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1983. These discoveries drew attention back to what Lamarck noted as self-organization of the organism. If possible, even more spectacular was the rehabilitation of Lamarck's idea of ​​the inheritance of acquired characteristics in epigenetics (the branch of genetics that studies the impact of inheritance processes originating outside the nucleus). Heredity does not limit itself to DNA, since also behaviours and substances outside the cell nucleus appear to be capable of being fully inheritable. For example, the Chinese research group of Sun in Wuhan showed that when the DNA of a carp is placed in the fertilized but enucleated (DNA removed) egg cell of a goldfish, the result shows hybrid properties of both the carp and the gold fish. And the research of Feig showed that mice that then grew up in a stimulus rich environment a control group performed better on memory tasks than a control group, and the learning effect also persisted in the subsequent generations, even if they do not grow up in a stimulus rich environment. Experiments also showed such Lamarckian learning effects in the little worm C elegans, which may persist for a hundred generations.

What these experiments teach us is that the whole distinction between nature and nurture effects is problematic. It is not so much a question of having 'both a bit', the experiments show that acquired properties (such as Lamarck surmised) can themselves be inherited.

A group of jazz musicians

What these developments teach us, says Denis Noble in The Music of Life. Biology Beyond Genes, is that the gene-centric picture of heredity and evolution that Dawkins outlines with his metaphor of the selfish gene, is at best one-sided. Noble counters his argument with the metaphor of 'the music of life’. Just as you cannot reduce music to the notes on paper, you cannot reduce life to the code of DNA. Music is only possible through a combination of composer, score, musicians, their instruments and the conductor. Similarly, life is only possible through a combination of genes, proteins, tissues, organs and the environment.

Metaphors are not merely ornamental. They focus on specific aspects of reality and so direct the research. In addition, they provide rhetorical ammunition. The music metaphor used by Noble not only allows us to explain the context of the said elements of life, but also to show why Dawkins' reductionist determinism fails.

The whole idea that genes contain the recipe or the program of life is absurd, according to Noble. DNA cannot do anything by itself. We should understand it not so much as a recipe or a program, but rather as a database that is used by the tissues and organs in order to make the proteins which they need. We are not the temporary vehicles of the genes, the genes are rather the forced labourers of the organism.

In addition, Noble sets against Dawkins’ reductionism the notion of ‘downward causation'. Where Dawkins’ arrow of causality proves to have only one direction (from genes via proteins, cells, tissues and organs in the body as a whole), Noble’s metaphor focuses on the many feedback mechanisms, including from higher to lower levels in the organism, where the higher levels represent controlling levels of organization. The conductor of the music of life is thereby incidentally, not a specific body within the organism, but rather the network as a whole. In that respect, an organism is more like a group of jazz musicians playing without a conductor to produce melodious music.

In his discussion of the composer Noble is careful not to end up in creationist waters. The role of the composer is not a creator standing outside or above nature, but the process of evolution itself, noting that the evolution is even “blinder than Beethoven was deaf”. Noble’s metaphor of the music of life may, however, provide an alternative to the deterministic implications of The Selfish Gene. As individuals, we are not merely a plaything of the processes occurring in a deep place inside our cells. Thanks to the mechanism of downward causation, we can live our lives as legally competent individuals. Again, there is no all-determining conductor (the autonomous, self-conscious subject which modern philosophers such as Descartes and Kant imagined), but we depend on the interplay of all elements of the network. With broken instruments or organs the music of life will get out of tune or even comes to a stop. But before that, life fortunately also has times when it 'swings from the pan' and fills us with vitality.

Noble offers a powerful antidote to the nihilism of Dawkins. Although Dawkins writes on the last pages of The Selfish Gene that man is the only creature to rebel against the selfish genes, how that would be possible in the light of the reductionist determinism which permeates the preceding two hundred pages of his book remains completely unresolved.

That reassuring incantation is not always received by Dawkins' readers. I had to think about it when I read the interview the well-known Dutch author Joost Zwagerman gave to HP/De Tijd four days before his self-chosen death. Referring to a statement by Nietzsche, he says that the thought of suicide for a long time gave him consolation during bad times in his life. But that comforting character completely disappeared when his father undertook an attempt to take his own life. From that moment his life was dominated by the fear that he and his children and future grandchildren would be genetically predisposed to commit suicide. Of course I do not claim that the neo-Darwinian view of man alone drove Zwagerman to suicide. The failure of his marriage, the incurable very discomforting and pain-causing ankylosing spondylitis and recurrent depression will undoubtedly have also played an important role. Again, it is always a combination of elements in life. But the genetic predestination found in books like The Selfish Gene seem to me very likely to have played a role.

For those who love life, the aubade that Noble sings in the music of life, offers at least a lot more grip.

Professor of philosophical anthropology Jos de Mul focuses on the impact of new technologies in robotics, neuroscience, visual culture, science and art and their interaction in us as humans.

He wrote the introduction and commentary to the Dutch translation of The music of Life. Biology Beyond Genes: (Denis Noble, De muziek van het leven. Biologie voorbij de genen, Amsterdam University Press, 238 pp., € 19.95. Translator: Tijmen Roozenboom)

Published in Online publications
Jos de Mul, Michel Houellebecq’s tragic humanism. Lecture in the series Personhood, Law & Literature III organized by the Human Philosophy Project (Warsaw University & Oxford University). Institute of Philosophy, University of Warsaw. Room 4, roundfloor. April 7, 2016, 5-8 PM.

Various authors, including Friedrich Nietzsche and George Steiner, have argued that the tragic worldview, as we find it expressed in Greek tragedy, has become an entirely incomprehensible phenomenon for (post)modern man. The claim defended in this article radically opposes this view. It is argued that tragedy can still teach us something today, and maybe even more so now than in the many intervening centuries that separate us from her days of glory in the fifth century bce. The tragic reveals itself once more in (post)modern society, and nowhere more clearly than in technology, the domain in which we believed the tragic had been domesticated or even eliminated. Referring to the tragic humanism in Michel Houellebecq’s novels The Elementary Particles and The Possibility of an Island it is argued that it is precisely in (post)modern (bio)technologies that we experience the rebirth of the tragic.

Published in Lectures

Department of Philosophy of Culture of the Institute of Philosophy, University of Warsaw together with The Humane Philosophy Project
invite for lectures and seminars by

Professor Jos de Mul

(Erasmus University Rotterdam)

who will be the guest of our Institute in the first week of April.

The plan of his visit is as follows:
Tuesday (5th of April) 
1:15 – 3pm (Institute of Philosophy, room 4, ground floor)
open guest lecture Europe, the tragic continent
6:30 – 8pm (Institute of Philosophy, room 108, I floor)
guest lecture on the seminar Imagination and Identity (conducted by dr P. Bursztyka).
The lecture will be entitled: Playful Identities. From narrative to ludic identity formation

Thursday (7th of April)
5 – 8pm (Institute of Philosophy, room 108, I floor)
Seminar: The tragic humanism of Michel Houellebecq.
This seminar is a part of the seminar series: Personhood, Law & Literature. Humane Philosophy and the Idea of the Tragicorganized by The Humane Philosophy Project.
Contact: dr Przemysław Bursztyka (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)

Jos de Mul is a Professor of Philosophical Anthropology at the Erasmus University of Rotterdam. Among his research interests are metaphysics, philosophy of culture, philosophy of science and epistemology. His publications include: Romantic Desire in (POst)Modern Art and Philosophy (State University of New York Press, 1999) The Tragedy of Finitude. Dilthey’s Hermeneutics of Life, (New Haven: Yale University Press 2004);Cyberspace Odyssey: Towards a Virtual Ontology and Anthropology (Cambridge Scholars Publishing in 2010);Destiny Domesticated. The Rebirth of Tragedy out of the Spirit of Technology (State University of New York (State University of New York Press,  2014).

Published in News
Jos de Mul. Possible printings. On 3D printing, database ontology and open (meta)design. In: B. van den Berg, S. van der Hof & E. Kosta (eds.) 3D Printing: Legal, Philosophical and Economic Dimensions - Information Technology and Law Series. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2016, 87-98.

3D printing can be approached from a number of different disciplinary angels, as it has possible implications for a great variety of human practices, ranging from the organization of economic production to the domain of legal and regulatory issues. In my talk I will focus on 3D printing from yet another angle: design, more particularly the perspective of open design. In Fabricated: The New World of 3D Printing, Lipson and Kurman claim no less than that 3D will  cause “a revolution in the way we make and design things, because of the close connection between the software design of an object […] and its physical manifestation”.[2] Although we should be somewhat skeptical when the word “revolution” in the often hyperbolic discourse on information and communication technologies, it is obvious that 3D printing has the potential to bring about important changes in many domains, including the  world of design. Especially because of its open character, 3D printing challenges traditional design practices. In this chapter, I will investigate some of the implications of the database ontology, which characterizes the open design of 3D printing.

In the announcement of the 2010 Amsterdam conference Redesigning Design, which was organized by Creative Commons Netherlands, Premsela, Dutch Platform for Design and Fashion, and Waag Society, and which resulted in the book Open Design Now. Why design cannot remain exclusive[3]  the present situation in the world of design was described as follows:  “The design industry is going through fundamental changes. Open design, downloadable design and distributed design democratize the design industry, and imply that anyone can be a designer or a producer”. The subtext of this message seems to be that open design - for reasons of brevity I will use this term as an umbrella for the aforementioned developments, thus including downloadable, distributed design and the possibility to  recombine modules to personalized designs and to 3D print them at home or in a specialized shop around the corner– is something intrinsically good, something we should promote. Though my general attitude towards open design is a positive one, I think we should keep an open eye for the obstacles and pitfalls, in order to avoid that we will throw out the designer baby along with the bath water.

This chapter consists of three sections. First I will present a short sketch of open design. As this concept has quite some different connotations and, for that reason, is prone to conceptual confusion, it might be useful to illuminate this tag cloud of connotations. In this first part, I will also summarize some of the objections that can be (and has been) directed against open design.

Published in Book chapters
Renë Moerland. Wordt de vrije wil een illusie? Interview met Jos de Mul, Hans Schnitzler, en Peter-Paul Verbeek. NRC Handelsblad, 19 december 2015, p. 

Politici gaan stilzwijgend nog steeds uit van de mens die zichzelf kan ontplooien. Technologie ondermijnt dat idee en verandert ons leven radicaal. Politici zien dat te weinig.

llustratie Tomas Schats

Dit verhaal begint aan de rand van een zwembad op vakantie. Een beetje vrij denken, fantaseren. Niet op de e-reader. Ik tel geen pagina’s, streep niets aan, ben niet efficiënt. Als ik vanaf een steile helling zee zie, als mijn Belgisch-Burundese gastvrouw kip colombo maakt, terwijl haar terras wind en schaduw biedt: dan besta ik. Even weg van de apparaten, ver van mijn technotoop.

Ik las over Den Haag. Over de moeizame relatie tussen politici en journalisten, het compromissenspel, de gepijnigde polder. En over wat politici willen. Nog altijd: het goede voor de mens. Vrijheid en veiligheid, en soms hulp voor mensen die het moeilijk hebben. Het verlichtingsstreven naar ontplooiing van de mens in de samenleving was kennelijk springlevend. Onze politici: prima humanisten!

Sfeerverstoorder in mijn vakantiestapeltje was een keurig conservatieve Duitse journalist. Frank Schirrmacher, tot zijn dood in 2014 uitgever bij de Frankfurter Allgemeine, schreef zijn pamflet Ego. Das Spiel des Lebens in 2013. Hij dacht dat ons vertrouwde ‘ik’ was opgelost in een „monstereconomie” die via algoritmes en machines uitrekent wat goed voor ons is – en zo „aan de lopende band egoïsme produceert”. Bedenk maar eens wie je bent als er beslissingen over je genomen moeten worden bij paspoortcontrole, in je carrière of over je kredietwaardigheid: je bestaat louter uit nuttige data die alles over je zeggen – en die vermarkt kunnen worden. „De Egoïsme-machines spelen het grote spel allang zonder mensen”, schreef Schirrmacher. „De verliezers staan van tevoren vast: wij allemaal.”

Terwijl we lagen te zonnen, helemaal uit vrije wil, klaar voor een duik in het zwembad, werden we afgeschaft!


Het afgelopen jaar zette NRC een aantal ‘Grote Vragen’ op een rij waarop politici een antwoord moeten vinden om de komende jaren ‘goede politiek’ te bedrijven. Schirrmachers prikkelende pamflet raakt aan zo’n vraag. Is het karakter van de mens als wezen met een vrije wil houdbaar, nu een technologische revolutie bezig is de grenzen en regels van ons bestaan ingrijpend te veranderen? En wat moeten politici daarmee doen?

Geen politicus zal weliswaar ons einde als soort wensen, laat staan nastreven. Maar biedt dat voldoende garantie om meester te blijven over ons bestaan?

De meeste partijen gaan in naam nog altijd uit van een mensbeeld dat terugvoert op de Verlichting: de autonome, zich ontplooiende mens. Maar in de praktijk gaan de meeste politieke debatten niet over mensen, maar over beleid, en de vraag of dat efficiënt, modern, duurzaam, gemakkelijk, waterdicht, fraudebestendig en kostenefficiënt is. De onberekenbare mens is in het politieke debat juist eerder een stoorzender dan een bestemming: hij wordt begeerd als kiezer, maar is ook een gevaar dat in toom gehouden moet worden (fraudeurs, criminelen, radicaliserende jongeren, schoolverlaters). En als we niet crimineel zijn of kunnen worden, moeten we wel door slimme sturing (nudging) tot goed gedrag worden bewogen: een gezonde leefstijl, verstandig financieel plannen, energiezuinig leven en nuttig bijdragen aan de economie.

Technologie houdt een belofte in om die doelen beter, sneller, efficiënter te bereiken, gedrag te voorspellen en te sturen. Banken, verzekeraars, gemeenten, energiebedrijven zijn ons aan het ‘dataficeren’. En wij werken mee: het is nieuw, makkelijk, fascinerend, en misschien sparen we er kosten en energie mee, en reistijd, en onze gezondheid.

Wat vermag en moet de politiek in dat nieuwe krachtenveld? Die vraag leg ik voor aan drie Nederlandse filosofen met uiteenlopende ideeën over technologie. De een staat bekend als een alarmist, de ander als pragmaticus die mens en techniek wil vermengen, en de derde denkt moeiteloos voorbij de menselijke soort. Ze schilderen vooral informatietechnologie als de sluipmoordenaar van het traditionele idee van politiek. Maar de politici zien zelf niet hoe informatietechnologie onze manier van leven verandert. En evenmin hoe zij er zelf aan meewerken.

Bruno Accarino, Jos de Mul und Hans-Peter Krüger (Hrsg.). Internationales Jahrbuch für Philosophische Anthropologie. Band 5 / International Yearbook for Philosophical Anthropology. Volume 5. O. Mitcherlich-Schönherrr & M. Schloßberger, (Hrsg.). Die Unergründlichkeit der menschlichen Natur. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015, 294 p.

Die Unergründlichkeit der menschlichen Natur ist ein Gemeinplatz der Philosophie: Irgendetwas an der Natur des Menschen entzieht sich beharrlich jedem philosophischen Zugriff: homo absconditus. Das Motiv findet sich in vielen philosophischen Traditionen, aber erst die recht gestellte Frage nach dem Wesen des Menschen ermöglicht ein volles Verständnis der Rede vom homo absconditus. Der Band versammelt Beiträge aus unterschiedlichen Traditionen und Schulen und bringt so die verschiedenen Zugriffe auf die Unergründlichkeit der menschlichen Natur ins Gespräch.


Published in Books
Bruno Accarino, Jos de Mul and Hans-Peter Krüger (Hrsg.). Internationales Jahrbuch für Philosophische Anthropologie. Band 4 / International Yearbook for Philosophical Anthropology. Volume 4. O. Mitcherlich-Schönherrr & M. Schloßberger, (Hrsg.). Das Glück des Glücks. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013/2014, 364 p.

Das Jahrbuch für Philosophische Anthropologie reflektiert interdisziplinäre Grenz­übergänge zwischen den empirischen Disziplinen und ihren jeweiligen Anthropologien. Der diesjährige Band, »Das Glück des Glücks« fragt nach dem Verhältnis der subjektiven und der objektiven Dimensionen des Glücks. Dieses Verhältnis wird für die Themen »Glück haben«, »Glücklich sein«, »Das Glück suchen« und »Das Glück verfehlen« ausgelotet.

Published in Books
Jos de Mul. Database Identity: between construction and control. Invited lecture at the 1st Thinkers’ Summit of Translingual Communication on Life: Data, Symbol and Wisdom. Beijing: Department of Journalism and Communication. Beijing University, Jamuary 10-11, 2016.
Published in Lectures
Page 3 of 11