Humanity in a Posthuman World M. R. Carey’s The Girl with A

Humanity in a Posthuman World: M. R. Carey’s The Girl with
All the Gifts
Kimberly Hurd Hale, Erin A. Dolgoy
Utopian Studies, Volume 29, Number 3, 2018, pp. 343-361
(Article)
Published by Penn State University Press
For additional information about this article
[ Access provided at 28 Jun 2021 04:07 GMT from University at
Buffalo Libraries ]
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/713607
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/713607
Utopian Studies, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2018
Copyright © 2018. The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA
abstract
M. R. Carey’s unique novel The Girl with All the Gifts
examines the intersection
of human nature, natural rights, and the political future of
transhumanism. Carey’s
novel is rare in the canon of dystopian literature, in that it
portrays humanity’s immi-
nent extinction not as the result of human action—or inaction;

there is no external,
extraterrestrial force dismantling the world as we know it, nor
has human technology
escaped its masters’ control. In the context of the novel, the
extinction of humanity
is not necessarily a negative outcome. The creatures initially
presented as zombies
are revealed to be humanity’s successors: creatures with human
intelligence that lack
many human frailties. Carey’s novel posits that human things—
literature, philoso-
phy, reason, poetry—may transcend humanity itself. Through
the lens of Carey’s
novel, we examine the political and philosophical implications
of a humanity ulti-
mately bounded by the vicissitudes of nature.
keywords: political theory, transhumanism, natural rights,
human nature, politics,
literature, film
Humanity in a Posthuman World: M. R. Carey’s
The Girl with All the Gifts
Kimberly Hurd Hale and Erin A. Dolgoy
Utopian Studies 29.3
344
In his novel The Girl with All the Gifts, M. R. Carey presents
human beings
under vexation. The novel begins in medias res, twenty years
after a fungal

outbreak, as Homo sapiens are on the brink of evolutionary
extinction. Evolu-
tion, initiated by the spread of a fungus that first controls and
then destroys
its human hosts, has necessitated that human beings either
adapt, thereby
revealing humanity’s true potential, or die.1 Adaptation is
impossible for Homo
sapiens; the human body in its current form cannot coexist with
the fungus.
In order to preserve humanity, humanoid creatures must become
a new spe-
cies of posthumans. The novel explores the responses both of
the surviving
humans, as they face their deaths and the inevitable end of
humanity, and of
the posthumans, as they rise to prominence.
The narrative follows Melanie, the titular “girl” with all the
“gifts,” as
she slowly discovers her own nature, that of a human-fungus
hybrid born to
an infected mother and educated in the liberal arts. Through
Melanie’s eyes,
the reader learns about humanity’s impending demise and the
struggle of a
few select humans to survive the apocalyptic fungal infection.
At the end of
the novel, Melanie is forced to decide whether to work to
preserve human-
ity in its old form or to become the founder of a new,
posthuman society. In
The Girl with All the Gifts, Carey depicts humans as an
endangered species and
invites his readers to consider those aspects of humanity that
are essential to

humanness and thus worth saving.
The postapocalyptic human extinction trope is not an especially
novel
premise. Literature, film, theory, and popular commentary
abound with
examples of the impending end of Homo sapiens—and
therefore of human-
ity.2 Carey’s novel, however, includes three rare features.3
First, the imminent
extinction of humans is not the result of human action or
inaction, nor is
there a mysterious, external, alien force dismantling the world;
rather, this
extinction is Darwinian—nature evolves, niches shrink, and
predators ascend.
Second, the extinction of humanity is not a negative
development, and there
is no clear sadness associated with its demise. Third, Carey’s
account of the
posthuman future provides a challenge to dominant
transhumanist narratives
about the nature of human evolution and the place of Homo
sapiens in the
human-guided evolutionary process.
The Girl with All the Gifts is neither strictly dystopian nor
utopian.
Although political society has collapsed and the w orld has
become chaotic,
lawless, and dangerous, these are not the novel’s primary
concerns. Neither
the decline in political order nor the change in human biology
featured in the

345
hale and dolgoy: Humanity in a Posthuman World
novel eliminates fear, suffering, disease, pain, or death. We
understand the
novel as an isotopia (a maybe place). Carey depicts a possible
future that chal-
lenges regnant views of humanness and humanity.
In this article, we consider the transhumanist movement in the
context
of political theory. We examine questions raised by the
possibility of posthu-
mans and self-guided evolution, including the status of
posthumans’ natural
and civil rights and their capacity for moral agency, a
prerequisite of justice.
Our analysis focuses on Melanie’s decision to hasten the
extinction of Homo
sapiens, in order to found a peaceful world for herself and
other posthumans.
We question whether her decision, in the context of her role as
political
founder, can be viewed as just or simply as necessary.
The Next Phase of Human Evolution
The destruction of all human beings in The Girl with All the
Gifts is the result
of a fungal mutation.4 An actual genus of fungus,
Ophiocordyceps, prominent
“on the forest floor in humid environments such as the South
American rain-
forest,” is adapted to “hot-wir[e] the [nervous system of] ant[s]”

(53). Once the
fungus “jump[s] the species barrier,” becoming Ophiocordyceps
unilateralis, it is
able to infect humans (54), using “asexual budding in the
favourable environ-
ment of blood or saliva” (175). While the human characters
speculate about
the catalyst to this mutation, since the cause is ultimately
incidental to the
outcome, there is nothing specific that human beings could have
done differ-
ently in order to avoid destruction.
In the post-Cordyceps environment there are three distinct types
of
humanoid creatures who compete for control and survival:
Homo sapiens,
who are struggling to survive the infection while maintaining
their human-
ity; infected, zombielike, human hosts known as the “hungries,”
who eat
people; and the mysterious hybrid children, like Melanie and
her classmates.
There are two groups of Homo sapiens in the novel: those who
gather at the
military base and the “junkers,” who roam the countryside in
search of pro-
visions and are focused solely on survival. The junkers are
concerned with
mere life as opposed to the good life: “They don’t build, or
preserve. They
just stay alive” (216). The junkers have reverted to a brutal,
nomadic, tribal
existence. In contrast to the junkers, the humans who live on the
military
base where Melanie and the other hybrid children are confined

and studied
346
hope to develop a cure or vaccine for the fungus in order to
preserve some
version of the good life. On the military base, Sergeant Ed
Parks is charged
with the security of the Homo sapiens; Dr. Caroline Caldwell is
a scientist
responsible for finding a cure, experimenting on the hybrid
bodies; and Miss
Helen Justineau studies the minds and personalities of the
hybrid children by
educating them in the liberal arts.
The humans on the base regard the fungal infection as a disease
that can
be treated. Caldwell’s methods include the vivisection of
intelligent, sensitive,
self-aware children in order to secure the survival of Homo
sapiens. Caldwell
is convinced that the children are vital to her development of a
cure or vac-
cine for Ophiocordyceps unilateralis. She is a dedicated, si ngle-
minded scientist,
concerned with the end but not the means. Her mission is to
understand the
disease, study the infected, create a vaccine or cure, and save
Homo sapiens:
Melanie and her classmates are specimens to be studied.

While the hungries and the hybrid children are infected by the
Cordyceps
fungus, they have distinct cognitive and emotional capabilities.
Caldwell, in
the hours before her death, discovers the distinction between
Melanie and an
ordinary hungry: Melanie is a second-generation hungry
infected in utero and
born with a symbiotic fungus embedded in her body. The hybrid
children,
like Melanie, are not infected and altered by a parasite; they
develop with
the parasite. After infection, the fungus compels its host to
procreate and,
in order to preserve the hybrid fetus, must keep its host alive
through the
gestation period. The hybrid children are truly a species distinct
from both
their human and their fungal ancestors. They are no longer
Homo sapiens,
nor are they completely cognitively regressed, as are the
hungries. Melanie
and the other hybrid children represent something evolutionarily
new: the
end of human beings as they have thus far been understood and
a beginning
of something humanlike but adapted to the fungus-saturated
environment.
The personhood of the hybrid children is debated among the
humans
on Caldwell’s team. Caldwell maintains that Homo sapiens is
the only truly
sentient species on earth; she has no qualms vivisecting the
children without
anesthesia, likening their suffering to that of a lab rat.

Justineau and Parks
have more nuanced viewpoints. Both agree with Parks’s
statement, “Not
everyone who looks human is human,” although they differ on
what that
means (14). Justineau believes that the children are sufficiently
human to war-
rant dignity and kindness; she fantasizes about saving the
children but recog-
nizes that “you can’t save people from the world. There’s
nowhere else to take
347
them” (51). Parks, on the other hand, views the children with
deep suspicion,
verging on hatred. He chastises Justineau for gestures of
kindness and for
her physical comforting of Melanie, noting that they must treat
the chil-
dren as inhuman, despite the instinct to protect a small
humanoid creature.
Parks understands humanity as dependent on DNA and
physiology. Justineau
believes that humanity is more than mere biology.
When feral hybrid children arrive at the base, they are unable to
speak
or to control their impulses. Biologically, the hungries and
hybrid children in
Carey’s novel are in many ways superior to, or at least more
streamlined than,

uninfected humans. The hungries are programmed to reproduce.
While they
will devour human flesh, it is not necessary for their survival.
Any sort of pro-
tein is sufficient nutrition for an infected human body. Melanie
and the other
children are fed a bowl of grubs once a week; as one of the
doctors explains,
“Their bodies are spectacularly efficient at metabolizing
proteins. . . . The
grubs give them everything they need” (9). The instinct to
attack and con-
sume human beings results from the fungus’s desire to infect a
new host;
much like the ants that are compelled to climb to the highest
accessible point
in order to spread the fungal spores, the hungries are compelled
to infect
human hosts and, potentially, destroy competing humanoid
creatures. In
order to protect themselves from the hybrid children and the
hungries, the
humans must “mas[k] the smell of their endocrine sweat” so
that they are
not eaten (110). The junkers have developed a similar approach
using tar and
Kevlar. Once their biological impulses are (at least temporarily)
under con-
trol, the hybrid children are able to learn from their human
teachers. The chil-
dren quickly learn language, math, literature, and ancient
mythology. They
also form emotional relationships with one another and with
their teachers.
Caldwell’s understanding of the children is thus incomplete.
The children are

not strictly human, yet they retain the intellectual and emotional
capacities
associated with human beings. If they are not Homo sapiens,
what are they?
The novel traces this mystery, chronicling the permeable line
between “per-
son” and “monster.”
On the day that Caldwell intends to vivisect Melanie, the base is
overrun
by “a whole herd of hungries, a friggen tidal wave of
hungries,” driven by
a resourceful group of junkers (103). Justineau, Parks, and
Caldwell escape,
with Melanie’s help. Melanie’s love for Justineau helps her
overcome her
nature. Once outside the base, Melanie not only begins to learn
about herself
and what she truly is but also becomes a protector of her human
captors.
348
Melanie repeatedly risks her life to save Justineau, attacking
junkers who
threaten Justineau’s life and serving as a scout after she,
Justineau, Parks, and
Caldwell escape the junker raid on the base.
Once they reach the city, the group makes a shocking discovery.
Melanie,
while scouting for supplies, comes across a group of children

who are not
hungries but are also clearly not human. They look and smell
like Melanie but
behave as feral creatures. Though the children plainly have
emotional bonds
with each other, playing and working together to capture food,
they primarily
communicate through grunts and hand gestures. They are
capable of reason
but have not been educated. Armed with this new knowledge,
Melanie finally
discovers the truth about her hybrid nature.
Melanie thus conceives a plan both distressing in its brutality
and familiar
in its utilitarian calculation. Through her lessons at the base,
Melanie knows
enough about human society to recognize that a better world is
possible. She
has all the intellectual gifts of Justineau’s education and all the
physical gifts
of the fungus’s evolution. Melanie determines that the only
way to begin
building a new world is to eradicate the remaining vestiges of
Homo sapiens
by releasing all the now-matured fungus spores, infecting all the
remaining
humans at once; with no more human pheromones causing the
hungries to
feed and transmit the fungus to new hosts, the hungries will
focus on pro-
creation and more second-generation posthumans will be born
before the
hungries also die out. Melanie wishes for a peaceful, orderly
society; after
all, she was happy in her school at the military base. In order to

create the
possibility of such a society, however, Melanie will have to
teach the feral
hybrid children to appreciate the liberal arts education she
received from her
human captors. Melanie understands that she cannot educate the
hybrid chil-
dren alone; thus, she protects Justineau from infection and
charges her with
educating the children of the new world. As with all change, “it
will be scary.
But so amazing!” (3).
Transcending the Human: Transhumanism and Natural Rights
Most posthumanist accounts of biotechnology and evolution
suggest that
human beings, as we understand ourselves today, will somehow
survive any
change to our environment and any technological development.
They also
tend to frame humanity’s evolution as somehow dependent on or
catalyzed
349
by technology, such as artificial intelligence or genetic
engineering. Carey’s
account is different and decidedly Darwinian. He envisions the
violent and
painful end to Homo sapiens at the hand of a superior version
of ourselves.

By necessity, all natural beings evolve to better suit their
conditions. With
regard to human beings, these changes are both natural (as with
the evolu-
tionary acquirement of reasoning ability) and unnatural (as
with the use of
medical technologies to overcome diseases or disabilities).
Human beings are
both part of nature and apart from nature.5 Reason helps us
better under-
stand our environment and ourselves. Science and technology—
the system-
atic application of our reason—enable us to understand and
manipulate both
human and nonhuman nature. Transhumanists go further,
advocating the
use of reason, science, and technology to pursue the next
evolutionary form
of mankind. They do not view human interference as a threat to
the natural
order; transhumanists, rather, argue that it is entirely natural
that we would
use every tool at our disposal to progress to the next stage of
being.
Many scholars both opposed to and supportive of
transhumanism have
attempted to explain its appeal. Eric Cohen contends that the
lure of bio-
technology is a promise of freedom from the frailty and
vulnerability of the
body.6 Stefan Lorenz Sorgner argues that the biotechnological
evolution of
man is analogous to the evolutionary gap created by education.7
Education

increases a human being’s value to society; education also
improves our abil-
ity to survive and thrive in society. This gap becomes
evolutionary because
successful individuals (measured by whichever metric one’s
society uses to
evaluate success) are more likely to pass on their genes.8 Mark
Walker takes
Sorgner’s argument further, positing that we may have a moral
duty to genet-
ically enhance virtue in the population.9 His Genetic Virtue
Program seeks
to perpetuate virtue by selecting embryos with desirable
“virtue” genes. In
Walker’s view, nurture can be assisted by nature, rather than
nurture seeking
to overcome nature.10 Melanie’s existence challenges this
genetic argument.
Melanie is both genetically superior to Homo sapiens and
educated. She is not,
however, human.
The relationship between nature and nurture is essential to Fred
Baumann’s treatment of transhumanism. He argues that
transhumanism
simply “continues the Baconian project of control over nature
for human
betterment.”11 Transhumanism differs from humanism,
however, in its effort
to change humanity to better fit the world, rather than changing
the world
to better suit humanity. Baumann questions the wisdom of
treating human

350
beings as “material for transformation.”12 In The Girl with All
the Gifts, the world
has changed, and Homo sapiens are unable to adapt to the new
conditions.
Patrick Deneen, in a similar argument to that posited by
Baumann,
explains the central tenet of the transhumanist view that human
beings are
raw material to be manipulated into a variety of forms.13
Deneen traces this
view to the fundamental distinction between ancient and modern
philosophy.
The ancients believed that man was not entirely a natural being
but, rather, a
mixture of nature and the divine. Modern thinkers, on the other
hand, argue
that human beings can be entirely understood with the same
methods used
to understand nature.14 Consequently, once understood, human
beings, like
nature, can be manipulated. Deneen attributes this turn to the
birth of liber-
alism in the political sphere. Liberalism is the desire to liberate
human beings
from previous modes of politics.15 For transhumanists, this
desire for free-
dom from constraint inevitably extends to a desire for freedom
from the con-
straints of illness, aging, and even death. It is not clear whether
Carey believes
that the hybrid children are a threat to liberalism or a further

liberation of
humanoid creatures from our limited bodies and a hostile
natural world.
Melanie’s Moral Character
When the novel begins, we understand that Melanie is different,
but we do
not know why. Ten-year-old Melanie dreams of becoming a
princess, rescued
from the military base on which she lives. Her world is small:
“the cell, the
corridor, the classroom, and the shower room” (2). When she is
not in her
cell, Melanie is strapped—by her wrists, ankles, and neck—into
a wheeled
chair that is used to transport her from cell to classroom, where
she receives
an extensive liberal arts education. Melanie is remarkable for
several reasons.
Like the other captive children, she is in a symbiotic
relationship with the
fungus. Unlike the other children in her class, she has genius-
level intelligence
and is introspective, perceptive, capable of understanding
detailed scientific
data, and predisposed to contemplate the nature of herself and
the world
around her. Melanie is an ideal leader for the hybrid children.
The first words of the novel, “Her name is Melanie” (1),
establish
Melanie’s identity. She understands that her name “means ‘the
black girl,’
from an ancient Greek word,” μελαινα (melaina), meaning
“black, dark.” Yet,

Carey explains, “she thinks maybe it is not such a good name
for her,” since
351
“her skin is actually very fair” (1). The act of being named
establishes identity.
It informs who we become, how we understand ourselves, and
how others
interact with us. There is, however, no substantive or
sentimental reason that
Melanie is named Melanie. Justineau simply selects the next
name from the
list of names given to the children. While her human captors
may as well
identify Melanie by a number, her name means something to
her.
Caldwell recognizes that Melanie’s humanoid characteristics,
such as the
capacity for speech and learning, make her sympathetic; yet
Caldwell never
regards Melanie and the other hybrids as human. She believes
that the survival
of Homo sapiens demands that she prioritize human beings over
other intel-
ligent life-forms. Transhumanists refer to this type of
perspective as “human
racism” and argue that it is only supported by arbitrary
reasons.16 Caldwell
and Parks maintain that biology is the defining characteristic of
the children:

“Dr. Caldwell takes the view that the moment of death is the
moment when
the pathogen crosses the blood-brain barrier. What’s left,
though its heart
may beat (some ten or twelve times per minute), and though it
speaks and
can even be christened with a boy’s name or a girl’s name, is
not the host. It’s
the parasite” (38). Although Justineau and eventually Parks are
unable to deny
that a creature such as Melanie is worthy of human dignity,
Caldwell never
compromises her scientific position. Melanie and the other
hybrid children
are not human and are therefore not deserving of being treated
as one would
treat a human.
As Melanie becomes increasingly aware of her own nature as a
“hungry,”
she muses about people’s (in)ability to overcome their own
natures. During
an incident in which Parks attempts to prove to Justineau that
the children are
not, and should not be treated as, human children, he wipes
from his arms the
astringent chemicals that block human pheromones. Melanie,
despite being
at the back of the room, smells something that she has never
smelled before,
and she feels instinct and urgency. She understands that her
appetites over-
ride her reason: “Her body was trying to take over her mind”
(15). Melanie
determines that her reaction is caused by her desire to attack
human beings,

an action she would never consciously undertake: “It’s still
scary—a rebellion
of her body against her mind, as though she’s Pandora wanting
to open the
box and it doesn’t matter how many times she’s been told not
to, she’s just
been built so she has to, and she can’t make herself stop” (83).
The question
of whether or not she is able to assert her mind’s authority over
her body’s
instincts in the service of virtue or justice is central to
Melanie’s personhood.
352
Both Plato, in the Republic, and Aristotle, in the Nicomachean
Ethics, argue that
the desire for bodily pleasure, including food, drink, and sex, is
natural; the
pursuit of bodily pleasure, however, is animalistic, insufficient
for develop-
ing reason and virtue.17 As rational creatures, human beings are
tasked with
overcoming our animal desires in order to pursue the higher
things in life,
such as politics, art, and philosophy. We do not succumb to the
urges to rape,
pillage, and gorge ourselves, because we understand that in
doing so, we lose
something much more important than the pleasure derived from
fulfilling
our desires: our humanity.

As the novel progresses, Melanie slowly begins to assert control
over her
world and herself. She consciously undertakes a program of
self-mastery.
Since the human scent inspires her to act contrary to her will,
she endeavors
to overcome her instincts. She starts acclimating to Justineau’s
scent, in order
to protect Justineau from her violent desires. She exposes
herself to human
pheromones and overcomes her instinct to consume. Melanie is
philosophic
in her desire to master her nature. She describes the moment
when she is
taken from her cell and brought to Caldwell’s laboratory for
vivisection as
liberation from “Plato’s cave” (90). Although she undoubtedly
does not fully
grasp the nuances of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, she is
seeing her world
clearly for the first time. She recognizes the truth of her
captivity. Melanie is
not destined to escape or to marry a prince; instead, she is
intended to die at
the hands of the vestiges of humanity. Her near death reveals
her own vulner-
ability and her separation from Homo sapiens.
Melanie is a product of both natural evolution and a liberal arts
edu-
cation, which makes her distinct from the feral hybrid children.
Her educa-
tion allows her a glimpse into a traditional human life that
might have been
hers had the Cordyceps not mutated, her mother not been

infected, and she
not evolved beyond humanity. Melanie’s liberal arts education
enables her to
imagine a life, a genealogy, and a history other than her own.
She knows that
she could have grown up in a human family. Melanie also
understands that
had the Cordyceps not mutated, her mother not been infected,
and she not
evolved beyond humanity, she would be neither as unique nor as
excellent as
she is. The vexations with which she lives, surviving against all
odds, rallying
other hybrid children, and, ultimately, releasing the spores that
bring about
the end of humanity and the rise of hybrid society, are only
possible because
she is infected.
Melanie must make a choice: she must decide whether or not to
com-
plete the extinction of all Homo sapiens. Although Melanie
understands the
353
ramifications of her choice, Carey encourages his readers to
consider the mer-
its of Melanie’s decision: Is Homo sapiens worth preserving, or
is humanity’s
value merely in the artifacts of human culture? If Melanie and
the posthuman

children continue to learn and build in the areas of art,
literature, science, phi-
losophy, and politics, has anything irreplaceable truly been
irrevocably lost?
Transhumanism, Justice, and Choice
In order to establish whether or not Melanie’s decision to
activate the fungal
spores, thereby ensuring the extinction of all Homo sapiens, is
just, we must
first establish whether or not Melanie is capable of justice. As
Aristotle notes,
justice is only possible between multiple people, each of whom
is capable
of choice.18 A single person is neither just nor unjust; justice
is found in the
balancing of interests or the restoration of equality between
political actors.19
In order to make a choice just, a person must be capable of
understanding
right and wrong, legal and illegal, helpful and harmful. Justice
is the pro-
cess of ensuring that harms are corrected and, in modern
political thought,
that rights are equally respected. Melanie is a singular cr eature;
while other
hybrid children have received a liberal arts education, Melanie
is clearly intel-
lectually and emotionally superior. Further, we do not know
whether any of
the human-educated hybrid children survived the raid on the
base. Melanie
seems to have no true peers. Her justness can only be
considered as it relates
to inferior creatures, namely, human beings and feral hybrids.

However,
human beings and feral hybrids are capable of reason and are
thus ultimately
capable of justice and injustice. Complex emotions such as
empathy and love
are commonly cited as signifiers of personhood.20 If Melanie
is to be deemed
a person, she must be capable of empathy and love. Melanie
loves Justineau.
She believes that there is no one “better or kinder or lovelier
than Miss Justin-
eau anywhere in the world” (15). She worries for Justineau’s
safety; in fact,
her concern for her teacher’s safety motivates Melanie to
overcome her own
hungry nature. She is content, even happy, to wander through a
dystopian
wasteland because “now . . . every day will be a Miss Justineau
day” (137).
She believes that Justineau is the one person in the world
exempt from the
Pandora-like impulse to “do wrong and stupid things” (245).21
Although she
does not recognize Justineau’s complex reaction to her—as both
monster and
child—Melanie does not want to be a monster; she loves
Justineau and wants
to be worthy of life and love in return.
354
Melanie is afraid of dying, yet “the fear makes no difference”

(134).
Her primary concern is protecting those she loves, including
Justineau, and
rebuilding a semblance of society with her fellow hybrid
children. Melanie
is capable of fear, anger, and self-defense, as well as love,
kindness, forgive-
ness, and self-reflection. Emulating the actions of Justineau, at
the end of the
novel Melanie forms a class for the feral posthuman children,
complete with a
liberal arts curriculum. It is Parks who unexpectedly explains
Melanie’s com-
plicated nature: “As far as the kid is concerned, the world never
ended. They
taught her all these old, old things, filled her head with all this
unserviceable
shit, and they thought it didn’t matter because she was never
going to leave
her cell except to be dismantled and smeared on microscope
slides” (336).
The liberal arts education that Melanie receives on the base is
anachronistic.
The hybrid children are expected to die, either on Caldwell’s
table or when
a vaccine is developed. These hybrids are educated to live in a
world that no
longer exists and a world that they are never meant to inhabit.
While Melanie
has an education, she has no experience of life in a civilized
political society,
exercising justice, or practicing civic virtue—and, in fact, has
no equals with
whom she can gain that experience until the other hybrid
children have been
successfully educated. The human beings whom she knows are

unable to sur-
vive in the new world and cannot be expected to willingly cede
the planet to
Melanie’s new order.
Melanie clearly understands the ramifications of her choice.
She has
overheard Caldwell “estimate that what’s left of Humanity 1.0
will close up
shop within a month of one of these [fungal spore] pods
opening” (289).22
When Melanie opens the pods and spreads the spores, Homo
sapiens will be
eradicated. A transhumanist may well argue that Melanie’s
choice is just, in
addition to being necessary from a utilitarian point of view, as
human society
is untenable in the world of the Cordyceps fungus. The
remaining humans
will slowly die horrible deaths, if left to their own devices, and
will likely
hunt down and kill the feral hybrid children, effectively ending
all rational
life on earth. Once infected, the human hosts become hungries,
inferior to
both humans and posthumans. Only in the second generation can
the fungus
and the human live in harmony. Melanie is thus faced with a
choice: commit
genocide against the species that educated her or allow all
rational life to die
off slowly and completely.23
Melanie is intent on preserving the lessons of her human
ancestors;
ancient knowledge will find a place in her new world. When

asked by Parks
355
why she chose to destroy humanity, Melanie explains: “Because
of the
children. The children like her—the second generation. There’s
no cure for
the hungry plague, but in the end the plague becomes its own
cure. It’s ter-
ribly, terribly sad for the people who get it first, but their
children will be okay
and they’ll be the ones who live and grow up and have children
of their own
and make a new world” (399). This renewed civilization is only
possible in a
time of peace. Melanie does not believe that Homo sapiens are
peaceful beings,
and most human beings are unwilling to accept the second-
generation hybrid
children as political equals. Although it is not clear that all the
hybrid chil-
dren will be capable of controlling themselves and their
instinctual desire for
human flesh, Melanie justifies her decision: “This way is better.
Everybody
turns into a hungry all at once, and that means they’ll all die,
which is really
sad. But then the children will grow up, and they won’t be the
old kind of peo-
ple but they won’t be hungries either. They’ll be different. Like
me, and the

rest of the kids in the class. They’ll be the next people. The
ones who make
everything okay again” (399). Melanie’s faith in education is
astounding. She
believes that her love for Justineau will keep Justineau safe.
She also believes
that education will provide the other children with the skills and
motivation
to build a more just society than the society that made their
creation possible.
Justineau is thus charged with educating the first generation of
via-
ble posthumans. The price she pays for Melanie’s “love without
hesitation
or limit” is a life spent confined to the laboratory, where she is
protected
from the new, poisonous environment, only free outside of the
laboratory
in her biohazard suit accompanied by a guard of hybrid
children (402). In
Justineau’s view, her sentence—to be the last remaining Homo
sapiens in the
post- Cordyceps world, tasked with educating the hybrid
children—is justice,
retribution for her previous transgressions and for her
complicity in the cap-
tivity and torture of hungries and hybrid children while part of
Caldwell’s
team. Justineau is overwhelmed with “the rightness of it”
(402). She educates
these hybrid children as she would educate young Homo
sapiens. She begins
with the alphabet, drawing the letter A on the side of the
mobile laboratory
that will be her hermetically sealed home: “Greek myths and

quadratic equa-
tions will come later” (403).
Melanie’s decision raises the old question: Is justice relate d to
moral deci-
sion making or simply an expression of power? Transhumanists
and their
opponents have no consensus regarding this question but agree
that it will be
a central concern of the looming conflict between humans and
posthumans.
356
For example, Ingmar Persson argues that it does not matter,
morally
speaking, whether enhanced people are human or not.24 M. J.
McNamee and
S. D. Edwards are also concerned with whether or not humans
and posthu-
mans would have a common basis for universal rights.25 If not,
it is logical to
assume that posthumans would have the practical advantage
from which to
advance their position in society. Persson further argues, from a
utilitarian
perspective, that harming inferior unenhanced human beings is
morally per-
missible.26 James Hughes disagrees, explaining that empathy,
self-awareness,
and understanding of consequences are all required for moral
reasoning and

furthermore that citizenship rights are reserved to moral
beings.27 Hopefully,
empathy precludes deliberately harming beings whose only fault
is evolu-
tional lag. After all, the humans in Carey’s story do not
recognize that the
hybrid children have rights, and their reaction to these children
is part of the
catalyst for Melanie’s destruction of Homo sapiens.
Charles Rubin is pessimistic about transhumanists’ ability to
acknowl-
edge that morally flawed, unenhanced human beings will
initially be respon-
sible for developing and using bioenhancement technologies. He
argues that
the siren song of progress, allowing humanity to fulfill its
“ultimate destiny”
of overcoming itself, blinds transhumanists to the moral
bankruptcy of
their vision.28 Cohen posits that human life is meant to be
metaphysically
unsatisfying, which is why we cannot resist the urge to keep
pursuing a bet-
ter future.29 Given that we will, as a species, pursue genetic
enhancement,
what can be done to ensure that justice and morality survive in
more than a
utilitarian calculation? Will Jefferson and colleagues suggest
that bioenhance-
ments, in combination with a renewed, vigorous program of
civic education,
will produce better citizens.30 Rita Risser, as does Hughes,
argues that the
transhumanists’ belief that self-determination is the essential
quality of per-

sonhood and the bio-conservatives’ belief that the human form
has special
significance are incorrect.31 Instead, she recommends bio-
liberalism, which
seeks neither to prevent nor to pursue transhumanism. Bio-
liberals maintain
a classically liberal faith in individuals’ ability to understand
their own well-
being, while focusing on each technology from a relational
standpoint; for
example, enhancements must contribute to the well-being of
society rather
than merely satisfy curiosity.32
Baumann argues that discussions about liberty with regard to
personal
enhancement are futile. As with all other major technological
changes,
357
the decision to adopt will be made either collectively or from
the top.33
Rubin agrees, positing that the Singularity, in whatever form it
takes, is
essentially unknowable given our current experiences.34
Hughes somewhat
concurs but argues that we can already see evidence that
bioenhancement
will be accepted widely by society, citing (1) medical
technologies such as
pacemakers and (2) hormone and sexual reassignment surgeries

as evidence
that the use of technology to improve the lives of individuals
will outweigh
vague concerns about the implications of transhumanism.35
Rubin offers a less comprehensive, but perhaps more effective,
means
of mitigating the dangers of bioenhancement: “Cultural and
moral relativ-
ism, historicism, postmodernism, dogmatic materialism, and
fashionable
nihilism all create obstacles to taking the question of the
human good seri-
ously in our time.”36 He recommends turning inward, to the
mundane joys
and pains of human life, rather than looking toward the
posthuman. Rubin’s
approach does not preclude the eventual extinction of Homo
sapiens. Instead,
it demands a serious accounting of what we, as human beings,
value enough
to preserve in the posthuman future.
Melanie’s decision to kill off Homo sapiens is, on its surface,
unjust, since
murder of rational creatures is never just. Although they are
not her perfect
equals, the humans in the story are undoubtedly capable of
entering into a
political relationship with Melanie. The uninfected human
beings are moral
actors capable of reason, empathy, love, and suffering. Despite
the cruelty of
certain individuals, such as the junkers and Caldwell, the
entirety of human-
ity does not deserve the fate Melanie bestows upon them,

regardless of its
inevitability.
Melanie, however, is behaving as a founder, not as a citizen.
She acts not
from a concern for justice but from necessity. She cannot have
justice between
herself and the uninfected humans. These uninfected humans
refuse to rec-
ognize the natural rights of Melanie and other hybrid children.
They will not
accept a world where Homo sapiens is not the only species to
possess person-
hood. It is also unlikely that all the hybrid children will be
capable of sup-
pressing their instinctual desire to consume Homo sapiens.
Melanie’s love for
Justineau, in combination with her liberal education, has made
her aware of
the immorality of eating human beings; her fellow hybrids will
not possess
such motivators for some time, if ever. This education has also
led Melanie
to recognize her own mortality and understand her own
enhanced ability to
358
reason, motivating her to rebuild society and preserve human
culture. In the
context of the old society designed by human beings, Melanie’s
first act as a

leader, the genocide of Homo sapiens, is unjust. However,
Melanie has, for all
intents and purposes, left behind that old society by the time she
decides to
release the fungal spores. She is acting as a founder, outside
political society
and thus outside justice. Her act unjustl y kills the old society,
but it creates the
conditions for a new justice to emerge.
In accordance with the law of unforeseen consequences, the
extinction of
Homo sapiens in the novel is ultimately brought about by the
humans’ experi-
mental attempts to eradicate the infected hosts. Melanie’s
education prepares
her to understand both her own nature and the science of the
Cordyceps’s
adaptation. She accepts what she must do in order to ensure her
own survival
and the survival of the hybrid children like her. Melanie knows
that if she
allows the spores to mature naturally, she may miss her
opportunity to found
a new city of hybrid children with herself at its head. She
believes that if she
does not release the spores, she will either live alone forever or
die at the
hands of creatures less suited to the environment. Melanie
chooses her most
hopeful option: Homo sapiens will cease to exist, but some
human things, such
as language, myth, art, and love, will be preserved in the new
society. Without
sentient, rational creatures to appreciate the excellences of
human culture,

the culture would die completely. Melanie indeed destroys
Homo sapiens, but
she maintains their legacy. Melanie, according to Carey’s
account, represents
the best aspects of humanity; she is intelligent, resourceful,
compassionate,
and loyal. She is willing to make tough decisions to ensure the
long-term
survival of her species and the protection of those aspects of
human culture
that she regards as essential.
Transhumanist accounts of the future depend on the
continuation of
the essence of Homo sapiens. The dominant transhumanist
argument suggests
that, regardless of the nature of the enhancement, we will
remain biologi-
cally human, only better. The Girl with All the Gifts challenges
this optimistic
narrative. A biologically superior humanoid may not actually be
an enhanced
Homo sapiens; it may be something evolutionarily different. As
Melanie
explains, she will enter the new world “like Pandora, opening
the great big
box of the world and not being afraid, not even caring whether
what’s inside
is good or bad. Because it’s both. Everything is always both.
But you have to
open it to find that out” (242).
359

Conclusion: The Inevitability of Evolution
Evolution is driven by favorable mutations; it is nature at its
most reckless, as
organisms risk death for the possibility of supremacy. Human-
led innovations
are similar to evolutionary changes; great leaps in science and
technology
require bold and daring scientists.37 Changes of great
magnitude, whether
evolutionary or technological, unsettle what is established. This
view of tech-
nology as an agent of disruption is at odds with technology’s
stated purpose:
to bring human mastery and control over nature. As
technological creatures,
human beings seek to bring order and regularity to every part of
nature. We
use technology to avoid having to evolve. For example,
nearsightedness will
not gradually be eradicated from the human population, as are
unfavorable
characteristics in other species, because we can make glasses
and perform
LASIK eye surgery to allow nearsighted individuals to perfect
their vision and
to survive long enough to procreate. Yet, as Carey’s novel
asserts, evolution
may not be so easily thwarted.
In The Girl with All the Gifts, the replacement of Homo
sapiens with the
posthuman hybrids is accomplished in spite of the remaining
humans’ deter-

mination to use their technological prowess to stop the
evolution. While the
majority of human beings would likely welcome evolution that
we control,
such as the elimination of genetic diseases through genetic
engineering, as a
species we have become extremely resistant to the idea that we
should con-
tinue to take part in natural evolution. In the context of The
Girl with All
the Gifts, this leads to an active human resistance against
transhumanism;
as individuals, we are unwilling to forgo our current physical
form, even if
doing so prevents our species from evolving into something
stronger. This
is a consideration unique to human beings, as nonrational
animals do not
have to contemplate the idea that their deaths may be good for
their spe-
cies. M. R. Carey’s The Girl with All the Gifts helps us explore
our resistance to
natural human evolution. It presents a challenge to
transhumanist accounts
of the future of Homo sapiens. Melanie’s dilemma and the
responses of Parks,
Justineau, and Caldwell provide a framework in which to
consider the essence
that makes human beings human and the nature of humanity’s
true gifts.
kimberly hurd hale is an assistant professor of politics at
Coastal Carolina
University. She is the author of Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis
in the Foundation of

360
Modern Political Thought (Lexington Books, 2013) and The
Politics of Perfection:
Technology and Creation in Literature and Film (Lexington
Books, 2016).
erin a. dolgoy is an assistant professor of political science at
Rhodes College.
Notes
1. As Peter Pesic explains, it is only in conditions of torment
that organisms either
die or adapt, revealing their true potential. If there is no
incentive to change, organisms
remain as they are. Peter Pesic, “Francis Bacon, Violence, and
the Motion of Liberty:
The Aristotelian Background,” Journal of the History of Ideas
75, no. 1 (2014): 69–90, at 86–87.
2. For discussions of artificial intelligence and genetic
engineering toward a
posthuman future, see Kimberly Hurd Hale, The Politics of
Perfection: Technology and
Creation in Literature and Film (Lanham, Md.: Lexington
Books, 2016); Charles Rubin,
Eclipse of Man: Human Extinction and the Meaning of
Progress (New York: Encounter Books,
2014); and James Hughes, Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic
Societies Must Respond to the
Redesigned Human of the Future (New York: Basic Books,

2004).
3. For other examples of works of science fiction that focus on
the “Darwinian”
nature of human evolution and are ambivalent about human
extinction, see Margaret
Atwood, Oryx and Crake (New York: First Anchor, 2004);
Clifford D. Simak, City (New
York: Open Road Integrated Media, 1952); Phillip K. Dick, Do
Androids Dream of Electric
Sheep? (New York: Del Rey Books, 1968); and Isaac Asimov, I,
Robot (New York: Bantam
Dell, 1950).
4. M. R. Carey, The Girl with All the Gifts (London: Orbit
Books, 2014), 54; hereafter
cited parenthetically in the text by page number.
5. Patrick Deneen, “The Science of Politics and the Conquest
of Nature,” New Atlantis
32 (Summer 2011): 90–102, at 90.
6. Eric Cohen, In the Shadow of Progress: Being Human in the
Age of Technology (New
York: Encounter Books, 2008), 4–5.
7. Stefan Lorenz Sorgner, “Beyond Humanism: Reflections on
Trans- and
Posthumanism,” Journal of Evolution and Technology 21, no. 2
(October 2010): 1–19, at 2.
8. This argument is belied by the decreasing birth rates recorded
among the educated
classes of developed nations.
9. Mark Walker, “Enhancing Genetic Virtue: A Project for

Twenty-First Century
Humanity?” Politics and the Life Sciences 28, no. 2 (September
2009): 27–47, at 28.
10. Ibid., 29.
11. Fred Baumann, “Humanism and Transhumanism,” New
Atlantis 28 (Fall 2010):
68–84, at 70.
12. Ibid.
13. Deneen, “Science of Politics and the Conquest of Nature,”
90.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid., 94.
361
16. Animal rights activists also use the term human racism to
indicate an unjust denial
of rights to intelligent animals, such as great apes.
17. Plato, Republic, trans. Allan Bloom (New York: Basic
Books, 1991), Book IV; Aristotle,
Nicomachean Ethics, trans. Joe Sachs (Newburyport, Mass.:
Focus, 2002), Books III–IV.
18. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book V.
19. James Madison also endorses this view of justice in
Federalist 51.
20. Hale, Politics of Perfection, 1.
21. Justineau, of course, does possess this “inescapable flaw.”
Her caress of Melanie’s

head, breaking all protocols for interaction between teachers
and students, has far-
reaching consequences, including an increased hostility between
Melanie and Parks and a
heightened distrust between Justineau and Caldwell.
22. Melanie examines Caldwell’s notes before killing her;
everything that Caldwell
included in her notes, Melanie now knows.
23. There is much more to explore in Melanie’s role as the
founder of a new political
order, which cannot be discussed here due to space constraints.
This discussion will be
resumed in Erin A. Dolgoy and Kimberly Hurd Hale, “Founding
a Posthuman Political
Order in M. R. Carey’s Girl with All the Gifts,” in Science
Fiction and Political Philosophy, eds.
Steven Michels and Timothy McCranor (Lanham: Lexington
Books: forthcoming).
24. Ingmar Persson, “Could It Be Permissible to Prevent the
Existence of Morally
Enhanced People?” Journal of Medical Ethics 38, no. 11
(November 2012): 692–93, at 692.
25. M. J. McNamee and S. D. Edwards, “Medical Technology
and Slippery Slopes,”
Journal of Medical Ethics 32, no. 9 (September 2006): 513–18,
at 514.
26. Persson, “Could It Be Permissible to Prevent the Existence
of Morally Enhanced
People?” 693.
27. Hughes, Citizen Cyborg, 222, 254.

28. Rubin, Eclipse of Man, 153, 160.
29. Cohen, In the Shadow of Progress, 25.
30. Will Jefferson, Thomas Douglas, Guy Kahane, and Julian
Savulescue,
“Enhancement and Civic Virtue,” Social Theory and Practice
40, no. 3 ( July 2014): 504–9.
Jefferson et al.’s claims are predicated on the argument that
smarter citizens will be better
citizens. While this is nominally true, in that people with higher
education levels tend to
be more politically active and have higher levels of political
knowledge, this conclusion
confuses correlation with causation.
31. Rita Risser, “A Tory and a Liberal Spar on the Ethics of a
Posthuman Future,” Public
Affairs Quarterly 25, no. 1 ( January 2011): 53–62, at 53.
32. Ibid., 60; see also Rubin, Eclipse of Man, 179.
33. Baumann, “Humanism and Transhumanism,” 71.
34. Rubin, Eclipse of Man, 140.
35. Hughes, Citizen Cyborg, 207; see also Rubin, Eclipse of
Man, 142. Rubin compares our
acceptance of biotechnology to a frog that does not perceive
that the water around it is
getting hotter, until it boils to death.
36. Rubin, Eclipse of Man, 165.
37. Pesic, “Francis Bacon, Violence, and the Motion of
Liberty,” 86–87.
This assignment is all about familiarizing yourself with the
structure of scholarly academic essays. We'll be focusing

specifically on the essay entitled "Humanity in a Posthuman
World," which you have just read. The assignment functions
basically as a reverse outline--rather than naming the parts of
the essay before you start writing an essay, you're going to
name the key parts of this essay after you've read it.
You should structure your assignment just like the instructions
are structured below. Highlight or bold each section, starting
with Thesis Statement, and then answer the questions for that
section before moving on the next one.
Thesis statement: First, identify what you think is the thesis
statement in this essay. Make sure that you quote it directly
from the text. Don't paraphrase or summarize it, just quote it.
Note that thesis statements in longer scholarly essays may not
appear at the bottom of the first paragraph--they can occur
pretty much anywhere in the essay, so look carefully. Once
you've found the thesis statement and quoted it, write a few
sentences explaining why you think this is the thesis. What
makes it the central, indispensable argument of the whole
paper?
Introduction: How does this essay introduce its topic? Does it
dive right in? Does it provide an anecdote? Is the introduction
effective, in your view? Does it capture the reader's attention?
If so, how? if not, why not?
Topic sentence: A topic sentence is the first sentence in a
paragraph. Pick any topic sentence in the essay and quote it
(don't use the first paragraph--introductions follow their own
rules). After you've quoted the topic sentence, explain what it's
saying, and give an assessment of it. Does it successfully clarify
what the paragraph is about? If so, how? If not, what is it
missing?
Citation of Primary Source: Find one place in the essay where
the author is describing the primary source, the film The Girl
With all the Gifts. Quote a sentence or two of the citation and
note where in the essay it occurs. Finally, what is the author
doing with this citation? How specifically is he using it? How
does it support the thesis?

Citation of Secondary Source: In addition to citing the primary
source, this essay also cites secondary sources. List at least
three secondary sources highlighted in the essay, and for each
one, type a sentence or two describing the purpose of the
source. For instance, if the essay highlights one historical
source, one philosophical source and one statistical/data source,
note the function or purpose of each. How does each source
support the thesis?
A Note: This assignment pairs well with the PowerPoint
presentation that I gave you earlier this semester, entitled "Key
Elements of an Academic Essay." I'm going to attach it here
again, so that you can easily access it. If you have any questions
about the terms in the assignment, this is where you'll find
definitions and clarification. Here's the link in case you need it
again: Key Elements of an Academic Essay (3).pptx
Actions
Nuts and bolts: follow the framework listed above. I think it
should probably be between 400 and 600 words if you answer
all the questions with complete sentences--which you should.
· Each reading response entry should begin with a quotation
from the required reading. It should be a quote of a passage that
you have a question about and that interests you in some way.
· After you’ve posted the quotation, you need to try to articulate
a question that you have about that passage, and that relates to
something in the reading that is of interest to you. The question
should be explained over at least five sentences. This will give
you the opportunity to develop your thinking about the reading
in a meaningful way. Do not simple restate facts, or summarize
what you've read or viewed. We’ve all read it and we DO NOT
need you to rehash the plot, the major themes, etc… You should
be engaging with this material in a way that reflects what you’re
thinking about it. That's what's most important here.
· Each entry should refer directly to the specific passage that
you quoted from. You may want to relate this passage to another

passage in the reading, or to a broader idea but the question
needs to be based in the passage itself.
· You will also be required to respond to at least one of your
classmates’ reading responses. Be sure to engage in a
meaningful, respectful way with their ideas. Don't just say "I
agree" or "that's a bad idea." Try to use your engagement as an
occasion to produce new ideas.
Reading responses are graded, and in order to receive full
credit, they need to reflect careful reading and thinking.
Reading responses that don’t demonstrate that you’ve done the
reading will not receive credit. For instance, if you write, as a
question, “Why did you have us read this?” or, “What other
books did this author write?” or “What does the author want to
say to us?” then you won’t receive credit. Be specific,
referencing the reading/viewing material and engaging with it,
and you’ll do fine.

Humanity in a Posthuman World M. R. Carey’s The Girl with A

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from NarcisaBrandenburg70

More from NarcisaBrandenburg70 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Humanity in a Posthuman World M. R. Carey’s The Girl with A