Progress, and faith in progress to improve human lives, has been a cornerstone belief in American civilization (and, indeed, Western civilization generally, at least since St Augustine argued that Christ's death put an arrow on history).  It was so important to the Founding Fathers that they enshrined promoting progress as one of the powers of Congress in the Patent Clause.

But there has always been a countervailing meme:  that technological progress threatens our humanity and that we run the risk of having our humanity devalued by overreliance on technology.  This idea has fueled countless science fiction plots, from Frankenstein to The Matrix.  In many ways, the urge for "natural" products is a reflection of that idea, and while it provides a useful and (general) healthy counterpoint to overly processed foods, the philosophy has its limits.  As Covert Bailey used to say, syphilis is natural.

And in the biotechnology era, that is the point:  most of what biotechnology addresses involves the breakdown of the natural machine, at the cellular level.  It has provided and continues to provide drugs that have addressed chronic disease and provided insights into the mechanisms for other diseases of ancient provenance.  Most of the fears that have arisen regarding biotechnology -- Asilomar, test-tube-babies -- have not come to pass.  And in their stead have been elucidation of the basis of diseases like muscular dystrophy and Huntington's chorea, as well as personalized medicine and treatments for cancer, AIDS, and Alzheimer's disease.

Indeed, the disruptions that technology can cause are social ones, and these need to be addressed.  Apocryphally, medieval shoemakers threw sabots into prototype machines for mass production to disable them, and this sentiment persists today in resistance to technological change.  What is needed is not resistance to technology but the political will to help workers adapt to such change, and these days political will is one thing most recognize is sorely lacking.

The National Geographic is airing a special, hosted by Paul Giamatti, that addresses some of these questions.  It is serious and informative, and is a welcome addition to the conversation we need to have about technological change.

But the truth is that the only thing to fear is fear of the new and unknown.  And it would be a shame if collectively we are too afraid to take advantage of the ever-increasing pace of technological change, because we are too afraid of an unlikely dystopian future to accept the benefits we are more likely to get in return.