• HIBINO Aiko
  Professor, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Hirosaki University

New technologies such as robotics and AI are increasingly blurring the boundaries between human and non-human, and life and non-life. This phenomenon is similarly observed in cellular agriculture technology (cultured meat), which produces food from cells taken from animals. What is this food that’s artificially made from the cells of living organisms? To begin with, should cells be considered living entities? The delineation of boundaries in this ambiguous landscape varies among individuals, and the line drawn where what is considered common sense can differ widely from culture to culture. More importantly, the way we draw these lines has complex implications on the acceptance of new technologies. Based on a survey conducted on how people perceive cellular agriculture and synthetic biology, this essay explores the boundaries of what is considered life and how this perspective affects technological decisions.

Our 2019 survey of 2,000 respondents from Japan included questions on their perceptions of cultured meat from a variety of perspectives. One of the questions asked respondents to “Select all items that you consider to be living entities" from eight options: bacteria, atoms, cells, animals, plants, humans, DNA, and viruses. The results, ranked by the frequency of choice for what constitutes life, were as follows: humans (93%), animals (91%), plants (85%), cells (59%), bacteria (56%), viruses (35%), DNA (32%), and atoms (12%). The responses showed an almost even split for cells and bacteria, suggesting that people perceive them as somewhere between living and non-living. It is important to note that individual perceptions of the boundaries of life vary widely; while some respondents identified many of the eight items as living, others recognized a relatively limited selection.

A particularly interesting aspect is how the perceived boundary of life influences the acceptance of cultured meat. The survey asked respondents if they would be willing to try cultured meat and analyzed the characteristics of those who were open to trying it versus those who were not. Results showed that individuals who viewed a broader range of entities as alive were more likely to want to try cultured meat. This trend held even when the items were narrowed; for instance, those who regarded cells as life were more likely to be interested in tasting cultured meat. At first glance, this result may appear counterintuitive. If cells are considered life, one could interpret that cultured meat derived from those cells (being of the same life form) might give such individuals hesitation about eating it. However, an alternative interpretation may be possible. It is about viewing life as a continuum in which various entities in the world are somewhat related to familiar objects rather than strictly categorizing them in black and white. This view may alleviate some of the uneasiness associated with cultured meat and similar newly emerging technologies.

Our finding that the way boundaries are drawn influences perspectives on emerging technologies is consistent with the results of another survey we conducted. This survey, which focused on genome editing technology and synthetic biology, explored the relationship between people's views on these technologies and the extent to which their sense of "we" stretched. We hypothesized that where people draw the line between themselves and everything else might play an important role in their perspectives. The survey, which measured the scope of “we” by the number of things respondents considered part of themselves, revealed that those who identified a broader scope of "we" were more likely to recognize the complexities (both positive and negative) associated with genome editing technology and synthetic biology. Conversely, those with a more restricted scope were more likely to hesitate or delay their judgments about these technologies.

As mentioned at the beginning, the emergence of new technologies, much like the arrival of "strangers" in society, will blur the boundaries between human and non-human, and between life and non-life. In this essay, based on the results of a survey of people’s awareness, I have demonstrated that the way people draw the line in different ways in their perceptions impacts their evaluations of new technologies. In light of the theme of this essay, which is ‘how the presence of others influences us’, I would also like to address the potential for that influence to work in the opposite direction. New technology will continue to create things that are strange to us. In a world where things make the boundaries increasingly blurred, these influences can interact to create greater tolerance for minorities and diverse perspectives within human society. Is such a vision of the future overly optimistic?

Essay All Discours