Life without limits: The delusions of technological fundamentalism

In two new books, Heather Brunskell-Evans and Michele Moore question the ideologies and practices that promote medical/technological “solutions” to gender, and Renate Klein analyzes the surrogacy industry as a form of exploitation of women and trafficking in babies.

In a routinely delusional world, what is the most dangerous delusion?

Living in the United States, I’m tempted to focus on the delusion that the US is the greatest nation in the history of the world — a claim repeated robotically by politicians of both parties.

In a mass-consumption capitalist society, there’s the delusion that if we only buy more, newer, better products we all will be happier — a claim repeated endlessly in commercial propaganda (commonly known as advertising and marketing).

I’m also white, and so it’s understandable to worry about the delusion that white people are superior to non-white people. And as a man, I reflect on the delusion that institutionalized male dominance is our fate, whether asserted to be divinely commanded or evolutionarily inevitable.

But all these delusions that rationalize hierarchies within the human family, and the resulting injustices that flow from those hierarchies, are less frightening to me than modern humans’ delusion that we are not bound by the laws of physics and chemistry, that humans can live beyond the biophysical limits of the ecosphere.

This delusion is not limited to one country, one group, or one political party, but rather is the unstated assumption of everyday life in the high-energy/high-technology industrial world. This is the delusion that we are — to borrow from the title of a particularly delusional recent book — the god species.

This ideology of human supremacy leads us to believe that our species’ cleverness allows us to ignore the limits placed on all life forms by the larger living world, of which we are but one component. What we once quaintly called “environmentalism” — which too often focused on technical solutions to discrete problems rather than challenging human arrogance and the quest for endless affluence — is no longer adequate to deal with the multiple, cascading ecological crises that define our era: climate destabilization, species extinction, soil erosion, groundwater depletion, toxic waste accumulation, and on and on.

Playing god got us into this trouble, and more of the same won’t get us out.

This inability to accept the limits that come with being part of “nature” — a strange term when used to contrast with “human,” as if humans were somehow not part of the natural world — was on my mind as I read two new books about controversial topics that typically are thought of as social, not ecological, issues: Transgender Children and Young People: Born in Your Own Body, edited by Heather Brunskell-Evans and Michele Moore, and Surrogacy: A Human Rights Violation, by Renate Klein.

[Disclaimer: I have met Brunskell-Evans in our shared work in the radical feminist critique of pornography, and Klein is co-publisher of Spinifex Press, which published my book The End of Patriarchy: Radical Feminism for Men.]

Both books offer a feminist critique of the ideology and practices of these movements that herald medical/technological “solutions” to struggles with gender norms and infertility.

Brunskell-Evans’ and Moore’s book brings together researchers, activists, mental health practitioners, and parents who question such practices as puberty suppression to block the development of secondary sex characteristics as treatment for gender dysphoria. Are such disruptions of a child’s development with powerful drugs warranted, given the lack of testing and absence of a clear understanding of the etiology of transgenderism? The authors challenge what has rapidly become the liberal dogma of embracing medicalized approaches to the very real problem of patriarchal gender norms (the demand that boys must act one way and girls another) that constrain our lives.

Klein marshals research and the testimony of surrogates to point out that another liberal dogma — affluent individuals have a right to “rent a womb” so they may have a child genetically related to them — involves considerable risks for the surrogate mother (sometimes referred to as the “gestational carrier”). The author’s assessment is blunt, but well supported: modern surrogacy is a form of exploitation of women and trafficking in babies.

Both books demonstrate the enduring relevance of the radical branch of feminism that highlights men’s attempts to control and exploit women’s reproductive power and sexuality as a key feature of men’s dominance in patriarchal societies. And both are critical of the naive celebration of high-tech medicine to deal with issues that stem from patriarchy’s rigid, repressive, and reactionary gender norms.

Those radical feminist challenges dovetail with a radical ecological critique that reminds us that being alive — being a carbon-based creature that exists within the limits of the ecosphere — means that we should be skeptical of claims that we can magically transcend those limits. The high-energy, high-tech, human-defined world in which we live can lull us into believing that we are like gods in our ability to shape the world, and to shape our own bodies.

Of course, drugs, surgery, and medical techniques routinely save lives and improve our lives, in ways that are “unnatural” in some sense. To highlight these questions does not mean that lines are easy to draw between what is appropriate and what is ill-advised. But we invite serious miscalculations when we embrace without critical self-reflection the assumption that we can manipulate our human-centered worlds without concern for the limits of the larger living world.

Many of us have experienced this in end-of-life care decisions for ourselves or loved ones. When are high-tech medical interventions that prolong life without concern for quality of life a mistake? I have had long conversations with friends and family about where the line should be drawn, not only to make my own views clear but to search for collective understanding. The fact that the line is hard to draw, and even harder to face when arriving at it, doesn’t make the question any less relevant. The fact that there is no obvious and easy answer doesn’t mean we can avoid the question.

Elective cosmetic surgery is perhaps the best example of the culture’s rejection of limits. All living things eventually die, and human appearance changes as we age, yet many people search for ways to stave off that aging or to change their appearance for other non-medical reasons. In 2017, Americans spent more than $15 billion on cosmetic procedures (surgical and nonsurgical), 91 per cent of which were performed on women. The two most common surgical procedures are liposuction and breast augmentation. Although some people who get liposuction are overweight, it is not a treatment for obesity, and breast augmentation is rarely related to physical health. These procedures typically are chosen by people seeking to conform to social norms about appearance.

With this humility about high-tech human intervention in mind, how should we understand the experience of feeling at odds with gender norms? How should we reconcile the physical inability to bear children with the desire to have children? There are no obvious or easy answers, but I believe that as a culture we are better served by starting with the recognition that we are not gods, that we cannot endlessly manipulate the world without risking unintended consequences for self and others. How does the rejection of limits impede our ability to first examine and then resist the impositions of patriarchy, to find new understandings of sex/gender and new social relationships for caring for children?

At the planetary level, we have considerable evidence that our faux-god attempts to dominate the ecosphere — which started most dramatically with the invention of agriculture 10,000 years ago and intensified with the exploitation of fossil fuels — now make the future of a large-scale human population uncertain. The lesson some of us take from that is to turn away from the “technological fundamentalism” that leads us to see all problems as having high-energy/high-tech solutions and consider different ways of living within the biophysical limits of the planet.

That same perspective is compelling on the level of these questions around gender and fertility. Here’s a sensible place to start: We should step back from the hyper-individualism of neoliberal ideology and examine more deeply how the institutionalized male dominance of patriarchy has shaped our collective thinking about gender and identity, and about women’s status and parenting. Such reflection reveals that the liberal ideology on transgenderism and surrogacy embraces the technological fundamentalism that embraces medical and market “solutions” rather than enhancing the sense of integrity that we seek.

Integrity is a key concept here because of its two meanings — adherence to moral principles and the state of being whole. We strive to act with integrity, and to maintain the integrity of both the living body and the larger living world. In hierarchical systems that reward domination, such as patriarchy, freedom comes to be understood only at the ability to control, others and the world around us. Andrea Dworkin captures this struggle when she writes:

“Being an object — living in the realm of male objectification — is abject submission, an abdication of the freedom and integrity of the body, its privacy, its uniqueness, its worth in and of itself because it is the human body of a human being.”

Freedom in patriarchy is granted only to those in control, and that control turns other living things into objects, destroying the possibility of integrity-as-moral-principles and integrity-as-wholeness. Real freedom is not found in the quest to escape limits but in deepening our understanding of our place in a world with limits.

Robert Jensen is a professor in the School of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin and the author of The End of Patriarchy: Radical Feminism for Men, and Plain Radical: Living, Loving, and Learning to Leave the Planet Gracefully. He can be reached at or through his website: To join his email list, visit:

This article was originally published at and has been republished with permission from the author.

Guest Writer
Guest Writer

One of Feminist Current's amazing guest writers.

Like this article? Tip Feminist Current!

Personal Info

Donation Total: $1

  • Meghan Murphy

    Happy New Year, sister! xx

  • BornACrone

    So much here to comment on …

    I’ve always, ALWAYS had the opinion that it’s testosterone-drive disgust at fertility that is at the heart of our degradation of the planet. When we regard the act of creation of our own species as disgusting, profane, and obscene, something that makes the creator of life a used-up slut with a worthless loose vagina, how can we be expected to behave graciously toward ANY fertility? The very fact that women and the Earth can both produce life at cost to themselves apparently makes them repulsive and frightening to men.*

    I will acknowledge that half of the blueprints for human creation come from men, but anyone who thinks that this makes them equal contributors to life is welcome to respond with a list of men who have died in childbirth. The fact is that after fertilizing a woman, a man can drop dead and a child will still result.

    When we act like we can control our planet and make it do our will, of COURSE we will try to make abortion illegal, because acknowledging that the source of fertility has within its power the ability to decide what lives and what dies is just too frightening for us. (Especially since only one half of the species — and the disgusting, swampy, obscene, untrustworthy, and manipulative half at that — has this power.) And the source of the fertility SHOULD be the one to make that decision. Why the hell else would Nature have connected uteruses up to brains instead of having the fucking things grow on trees or something? It is vitally important to the survival of the species that WOMEN decide who reproduces and WOMEN decide which babies are born.

    We consider fertility to be disgusting and frightening and respond by trying to coerce and control it — be it from human women or from the planet, or really from any female creature anywhere. And we enlist technology to do so.

    And then we delude ourselves that bigger and better toys will change things. The problem isn’t that we don’t have powerful enough toys but that the toys we have are already too powerful. The problem is not the toys but the tantrum-throwing, violent, resentful man-babies that are playing with them. No matter what toys we have, the problem is within them, and they will use ANY toy they have to work both good and evil — and let’s face it, evil is a whole lot easier.

    And in a more focused sense, ALL toys will be used to degrade and punish women even more for the crime of actually creating life. I swear to you on a stack of whatever holy writ you may hold dear, if any, that the SPLIT SECOND that artificial uteruses really take off, like the one with that baby lamb in it from a few months back, women are not long for this world. The SPLIT SECOND men can reproduce without us, they will begin to kill every one of us. They will start in the areas of the world where women are already treated the worst, and it will spread from there. Rapidly.

    That’s my prediction for the future of the human race. Men, male fetuses in glass jars, and sex robots. I won’t back down from this nor apologize for its apocalyptic nature. That’s where we’re headed. (Didn’t Saudi Arabia already propose actual citizenship for a “female” robot?) Men, male fetuses in glass jars, and sex robots being shit on and having their limbs ripped off. They won’t even remember what the hell we looked like.

    After that, the planet’s thermostat will do a nice job of clearing away the failed primate experiment, and we’ll probably get another 100 million years of relative calm.

    * Anyone who thinks they are disproving this statement by telling me about how their girlfriend once threw a gum wrapper out of a car window in a national park is going to get laughed at. Loudly.

  • Hanakai

    Thanks for this piece and its articulation of the insanity and delusional nature of modern technologists.

    It really seems that many men who are considered technological and futuristic visionaries are truly insane in their thinking. Really. Industrial man has polluted and toxified and destroyed so much of the Earth, so much of Nature, that the survival of humans and mammalian life is doubtful and rather than thinking to clean up the mess mankind has made, yet Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking and their ilk think the solution is for humans to colonize Mars, a cold planet with no water and no air. Seriously, their idea is that humans should colonize and despoil an inhospitable planet. One wonders whether they ever studied physics and calculated the lift and the fuel needed even to get 500 people to Mars. Duh, fail.

    Other rich white men speak of artificial intelligence and robots taking over all human functions from sex to driving to cleaning to food production and preparation to composing poetry and music. Apngrently their vision of humanity echoes the movie Idiocracy, humans shall sit around on their butts looking at one screen or another and growing gradually duller and more obese. Some men talk of sex dolls and artificial wombs as a prelude to the elimination of women.

    Blech. I am thoroughly sick of zombie men, capitalist men, gun men, the machine men, the bomb builders and weapons designers, the cyber men, the men whose vision is so limited they see nothing but a world of perpetual warfare, the Zuckerbergs and Musks and Bezos and technologists who worship machines and eschew the evolution of greater love and kindness, the damned men giving us the Sixth Great Extinction. The best way to predict the future is to look at the past in l of cause and effect, and based upon the horribleness of human history, there is little cause for optimism. Perhaps Nature in her greater power will knock the madmen upside the head. We can hope.

    • corvid

      Holy hell, yes. The mere act of existing in this man-made system means we are by default contributing to the destruction of the ecosystem: huge amounts of resources and energy go into feeding us and processing our wastes. If we lived close to nature in a non-consumerist culture our wastes could actually nourish the Earth. There are so many known ways to approach this. It sickens me daily to be part of this massive failure to steward this incredible ecosystem the universe has gifted us. Men won’t easily be slowed in their maniacal pursuit of power and their callous disregard for all life.

  • FierceMild

    Woman is to man as female is to male.

  • Jane Gaddin

    When I shared this piece on my f.b page, I was told by one woman she was “sad to see this on my page”, and told by another woman that it (the article) was “terfy”. (She then went on to “educate” me on what terf means and that this author is considered “problematic” to some intellectuals, and that the article borders on denying trans “lived” experience.) Unbelievable. Yet not surprising. We are not supposed to even think about questioning suppressing childrens puberty. We might be “denying them their trans experience”, and that would be violence.
    Had this article solely been a book review about using poor women’s bodies for child bearing, it probably wouldnt have garnered a peep from them.

    • Meghan Murphy

      ugh. These knee jerk reactions/non-arguments are so ridiculous and frustrating, I know.

  • Veronica Viramontes

    I am in the field of biomedical engineering and I am always grappling with these kinds of bioethics questions. I’m a pretty philosophical person and there are many difficult questions to answer in the field of medicine. While I believe we should try as hard as possible to improve a person’s quality of life or give life-saving treatments, there is a point where we have to ask ourselves: is there a purpose in keeping this person alive any longer? If someone is just sitting there on a machine and you’re just stopping their death but they are not really living is it worth it? When do we decide to let nature take over and just let death happen? Where/how do we draw these lines? If someone is in extreme pain and we know they are going to die should we just end their misery(if it is their wish). These questions aren’t easy to answer. However, what I do believe is obvious is that something is not broke do not fix it. I am not going to cut my arm off because I think a prosthetic arm would be cooler. We should not damage/destroy our bodies for vain purposes. I know there are females who have taken out their ribs and I can’t believe it was legal for a dr to do that. It should not be legal for doctors to mutilate someones genitals either. The human body is not a car. We can’t just switch pieces. It is extremely intricate and one little surgical mistake can lead to chronic pain or malfunction. If surgery is necessary yes one should get surgery but surgery is not something to be taken lightly and should always be a last resort. I like how you also connected this to nature and the high tech industry overall. I agree we as humans need to stop playing god