DOCSLIB.ORG

A NORMATIVE FRAMEWORK for ANALYZING HUMAN ENHANCEMENT TECHNOLOGIES by Michael Joseph Gentzel a Dissertation Submitted to John Ho

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A NORMATIVE FRAMEWORK for ANALYZING HUMAN ENHANCEMENT TECHNOLOGIES by Michael Joseph Gentzel a Dissertation Submitted to John Ho A NORMATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING HUMAN ENHANCEMENT TECHNOLOGIES by Michael Joseph Gentzel A dissertation submitted to John Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland July, 2015 A NORMATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING HUMAN ENHANCEMENT TECHNOLOGIES Abstract of the Dissertation Due to the explosion of biotechnological advancements, there is a growing body of literature in philosophy concerning the moral and social issues surrounding biotechnical means of enhancing human capacities. A common trend has been to view enhancement as a homogenous category, and to either advocate for it or demonize it. This dissertation advances a moderate view, which suggests that human enhancement should not be normatively analyzed as a single and unified topic; rather, particular categories of enhancement ought to be normatively evaluated based on their own merits and demerits. In doing this, I suggest that concerns about harm to others have not received adequate attention. Addressing the diversity of human enhancements and their potential to create harm to others should play a more prominent role in evaluating specific forms of biotechnology used for human enhancement. This dissertation has two main divisions: a theoretical section and an applied section. In the first section, I develop an interpretation of Joel Feinberg’s conception of harm along with his version of the harm principle. According to this model of harm, A harms B when A unjustly damages B’s interests. The harm principle holds that the prevention of harm to others or the risk of harm to others is always reason in favor of legislation that limits individual liberty. In the second section (Chapters Four, Five and Six), I apply this harm principle and conception of harm to three categories of enhancement. Chapter Four deals with muscle enhancement technology; Chapter Five deals with cognitive enhancement technology; and Chapter Six deals with the ii genetic engineering of children. In each of these chapters, I consider several ways each category of enhancement could raise concerns about harm to others. I then critically analyze these concerns and propose tentative social policy recommendations based on my analysis of each category of enhancement using the harm principle. Dissertation Director: Hilary Bok Internal Readers: Dean Moyar and Richard Bett iii Acknowledgements This dissertation would not have been possible but for the support and help from many people. I would like to extend my thanks and gratitude to my dissertation committee. My dissertation director, Hilary Bok, provided important suggestions and advice on many drafts. Due to her guidance, I am no doubt a better philosopher and writer. My committee members, Dean Moyar and Richard Bett, provided essential feedback on drafts, and they were always available whenever I needed some assistance. Steven Gross has also provided insightful advice and suggestions on this project. I should also extend my gratitude to my fellow graduate students in the department of philosophy at Johns Hopkins. In particular, John Waterman, Bryan Miller, Michael Abramson, Victor De Fate, Jennifer Astin, John Brandau, and Jon Hricko all provided great philosophical conversation, encouragement, and friendship during my journey as a doctoral candidate. My undergraduate professors at Rutgers University-New Brunswick also deserve acknowledgments, especially Doug Husak, Peter Klein, and Martin Bunzl, for providing me with an outstanding philosophical foundation for my future studies. I must express how truly grateful I am to my family. My parents, Alfred and Pamela, taught me the difference between right and wrong. Their love and support have been infinite. They have always encouraged me to follow my dreams, and they were always there for me, no matter what. And lastly (but certainly NOT least), I must thank my wife Renee. Without her love and support, this dissertation would not be possible. She devoted her time and her patience in iv helping me succeed, especially during the home stretch of this work. She is truly my life partner. Thank you for being in my corner. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Acknowledgements iv Table of Contents vi Part I: Methodology and Theoretical Foundations 7 Chapter 1: Human Enhancement: A Question of Morality and of Policy 7 Chapter 2: The Theoretical Framework: The Harm Principle and a Conception of Harm 52 Chapter 3: The Harm Principle: Objections / Replies, Moral and Policy Implications, and a Guide for its Application to Categories of Enhancement 104 Part II: The Application of the Harm Principle to Specific Biotechnologies Body, Mind, and Birth: Physique Enhancement, Cognitive Enhancement, and Genetically Engineered Children 126 Chapter 4: Physique Enhancement: A Cultural Movement from Antiquity to Modernity 127 Chapter 5: Cognitive Enhancement: Smart Drugs and Mensa-Mice 163 Chapter 6: Choosing the Genotype of our Children: Designer Babies 189 Chapter 7: Conclusion 219 Bibliography 229 Curriculum Vitae 235 vi --‘Primum non nocere’ (First, do no harm).1-- Part I: Methodology and Theoretical Foundations Chapter 1 Human Enhancement: A Question of Morality and of Policy Introduction The Problem of enhancement The purpose of this work is to suggest a practically applicable and plausible theoretical framework of moral/ political philosophy that will provide preliminary moral and social policy solutions to the questions surrounding biomedically engineered human enhancement. During the past several years, the field of applied ethics has seen a proliferation of work concerning the moral use of biotechnology. Biomedical technology aimed at human enhancement has received a significant amount of attention, and not without good reason. Increasingly, science has allowed us to manipulate our own biology not only to cure and reverse disease, but also to improve the biological make-up of otherwise healthy individuals. Muscles can be made stronger and concentration can be improved by pharmaceutical and genetic alterations to the human body.2 In the near future, the lengths to which these types of enhancements can be carried by medical intervention will advance greatly, and what was previously considered science fiction is now being considered science fact. 1 This phrase is commonly thought to have derived its spirit from the Hippocratic Oath, which has been historically known to have set the ancient precepts of the ethical practice of medicine since antiquity. 2 Pharmaceutical and genetic means for enhancing both muscular strength and cognitive capacities are topics that I will consider in later chapters of this work. Steroid use, human growth hormone use, and gene therapy occupy the moral debate over physique enhancement. Drugs and genetic engineering techniques targeted to improve concentration, memory, and mood elicit ethical concern and political anxiety. Some of these means of enhancement are not yet possible (for instance, gene therapy treatment that will improve one’s intellect), but many are already currently available (consumption of the drug modafinil for improved concentration and IGF-I injected intramuscularly as a virus for muscular hypertrophy). 1 With these novel scientific abilities comes emerging moral concern. Michael Sandel has described this topic as inducing a sort of ‘moral vertigo’, for ‘…When science moves faster than moral understanding, as it does today, men and women struggle to articulate their unease.’ (Sandel 2004). It is clear that as bioengineering opens new doors and broadens horizons, serious moral questions arise that cannot be ignored. Is it morally permissible to make use of our knowledge and research in genetics and pharmaceuticals to enhance humans by altering human biology? What social and political considerations should we focus on to properly shape and prepare society for these potentially drastic changes in human functioning? If human enhancement is morally permissible, how should we regulate its use in society? These general questions give rise to more specific normative questions of philosophy and politics. Is it morally wrong for a set of parents to genetically modify their child to express certain characteristics, such as athletic prowess or musical talent? What sort of regulations and policies should govern the use of pharmaceutical and genetic enhancements aimed at achieving the ‘perfect physique’? These are just a couple of the many topic-specific questions that arise within the debate of human enhancement which have no easy answers. The focus of this work will be to shape a systematic way of handling these types of pressing questions. What is human enhancement? For the purposes of this work, we can define human enhancement as follows: Human enhancement is the non-therapeutic use of biomedical technology to improve biological functioning. 2 We should note that this definition stipulates several characteristics of human enhancement. Human enhancement refers to some intervention in the biological functioning of a person. Further, this intervention uses some form of biomedical technology. Accordingly, we would not consider special talents or capacities that have been inherited by the genes of the mother and father as human enhancement. Genetic inheritance is not intervention nor does it involve biomedical technology. Improving human capacity through mastering mindfulness meditation would be a form of intervention, but would not be accomplished by biotechnology. Since these ways of improving our capacities are not the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Value of Technological Idealisations to Future Ethical Thinking 81-83
    1 The Value of Technological Idealisations to Future Ethical Thinking By Adam Kelly A thesis submitted to Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Philosophy Victoria University of Wellington 2016 Year of Submission 2 3 Acknowledgements My work in this thesis owes much credit to my sole supervisor Nick Agar and fellow student Johnny McDonald. I would like to thank Nick for his encouragement, guidance and criticism. I would like to thank Nick and Johnny both for many enjoyable discussions, some of which were even related to this thesis. 4 Abstract This thesis focuses on what I have called “technological idealisations”, and how they are valuable to many current and future ethical debates. Technological idealisations refer to a methodology of using technology thought experiments to contribute to ethical debates. I do not claim this to be a new idea, and in fact will go on to give many examples of technological idealisation that already exist in the philosophical literature. The term describes the purposeful effort to collate these examples into a specific methodological framework; one which gives a particular kind of evidence which can ignore concerns of practicality and critically focus on the theoretical issues in a given debate. In order to explore this idea I will first be looking at past, better known, examples of idealisations to facilitate understanding of my own. I will look at Rawlsian ideal theory as a template for my own idealisations, as well as to explain how they can be valuable in contributing to debates (in Rawls’ case political and in my case ethical).
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Thinking and the Human: Introduction
    Journal of the Philosophy of History 14 (2020) 285–309 brill.com/jph Historical Thinking and the Human: Introduction Marek Tamm Professor of Cultural History, School of Humanities, Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia [email protected] Zoltán Boldizsár Simon Assistant Professor, Institute for History, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands Research Fellow, Faculty of History, Philosophy and Theology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany [email protected] Abstract In recent years the age-old question “what is the human?” has acquired a new acute- ness and novel dimensions. In introducing the special issue on “Historical Thinking and the Human”, this article argues that there are two main trends behind the con- temporary “crisis of human”: ecological transformations (related to human-induced climate change and planetary environmental challenges), and technological ones (including advancements in human enhancement, biotechnology and artificial intel- ligence). After discussing the respective anthropocenic and technoscientific redefini- tions of the human, the paper theorizes three elements in an emerging new historicity of the human: first, the move from a fixed category to a dynamic and indeterminate concept, considering the human as a lifeform in movement; second, the extent to which the human is conceived of in its relational dependence on various non-human agents, organic and non-organic; and third, the reconceptualization of the human not as one but as many, to comprehend that we cannot speak of human individuality in the classical biological sense. In the final part, the article addresses the consequences of the redefinition of the human for historical thinking. It makes the case for the need to elaborate a new notion of history – captured by the phrase “more-than-human his- tory”, and attuned to an emerging planetary regime of historicity in which historical thinking becomes able to affirm multiple temporalities: digital, technoscientific, socio- cultural, human, biological and anthropocenic.
    [Show full text]
  • 0195136365.Oxford.University.Press.USA.John.Rawls.His.Life.And
    JOHN RAWLS This page intentionally left blank JOHN RAWLS His Life and Theory of Justice thomas pogge Translated by Michelle Kosch 1 2007 3 Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further Oxford University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education. Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam This book was originally published in German as John Rawls by Thomas W. Pogge. Copyright # C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Mu¨chen, 1994 English translation copyright # 2007 by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Published by arrangement with C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung www.oup.com Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Pogge, Thomas Winfried Menko. John Rawls: his life and theory of justice / Thomas Pogge; translated by Michelle Kosch. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13 978-0-19-513636-4; 978-0-19-513637-1 (pbk.) ISBN 0-19-513636-5; 0-19-513637-3 (pbk.) 1. Rawls, John, 1921– 2. Justice. I. Kosch, Michelle. II. Title. JC578.R383P638 2006 320.011' —dc22 2006043775 135798642 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper For Sidney Morgenbesser, Mensch This page intentionally left blank preface rying to introduce an important philosopher within a small Tvolume, one must keep to the essentials.
    [Show full text]
  • Societas Proposal
    Societas Ethica 2011 Proposal Enhancement for All?: A Feminist Ethical Analysis of the Discourses and Practices of Democratic Transhumanism In the past few years, democratic transhumanism has emerged as the primary voice working toward mainstreaming the transhumanist movement in popular discourse. Through the work of groups like the World Transhumanist Association (recently rebranded Humanity Plus) and the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, democratic transhumanism has worked to blend transhumanist ideals with progressive democratic values. They have begun to distance themselves from libertarian and other transhumanists, claiming the mantle of “technoprogressivism.” Technoprogressives are seeking to position themselves as a “middle way” (http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/biopolitics) between technoutopianisms (including libertarian transhumanism, extropianism, and other technopositive movements) and technoconservatisms (including both left and right bioconservatism and neo-Luddism). The posing of this middle way frames the discussion as a movement standing between uncritical acceptance and uncritical rejection of emerging technologies. Technoprogressives claim the ground between uncritical stances, though they advocate strongly for the development and use of human enhancement technologies, provided there is universal and uncoerced access to those technologies. Democratic transhumanists emphasize the importance of the development and availability of technologies to expand human capabilities and related transformations. They support
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Moderate Bioconservatism and Moral Enhancement Karim Jebari
    Moderate bioconservatism and moral enhancement Karim Jebari Doktorand i Praktisk Filosofi Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan Abstract: Moral enhancement, an instance of human enhancement, consists in the aim to alter a person’s dispositions, emotions or behavior in order to make that person more moral. I will argue that moral enhancement could be carried out in three different ways. The first strategy, favored by prominent defenders of moral enhancement is emotional enhancement. The second strategy, well known from science fiction is behavioral enhancement. I will argue that only the third strategy, enhancement of empathy, is a plausible alternative. This conclusion should be, I argue, welcomed even by those skeptical to human enhancement in general. Keywords: Human enhancement, moral enhancement, bioconservatism, bioethics, medical ethics, neuroethics, virtue, empathy, Introduction In Secular Humanism, a notion that has become widespread, the idea of moral improvement is central. According to the declaration of the Secular Humanist Association’s tenet 5: “Moral Education: We believe that moral development should be cultivated in children and young adults. […] Accordingly, we support moral education in the schools that is designed to develop an appreciation for moral virtues, intelligence, and the building of character.”1 The Holy See also has a positive approach to moral improvement as it pertains to the cultivation of virtues. “A virtue is an habitual and firm disposition to do the good. It allows the person not only to perform good acts, but to give the best of himself. The virtuous person tends toward the good with all his sensory and spiritual powers; he pursues the good and chooses it in concrete actions.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critical Review of the Ethical and Legal Issues in Human Germline Gene Editing: Considering Human Rights and a Call for an African Perspective
    This open-access article is distributed under ARTICLE Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0. A critical review of the ethical and legal issues in human germline gene editing: Considering human rights and a call for an African perspective B Shozi, LLB, LLM African Health Research Flagship, School of Law, College of Law, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa Corresponding author: B Shozi ([email protected]) In the wake of the advent of genome editing technology CRISPR-Cas9 (clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeat (CRISPR)- associated protein 9), there has been a global debate around the implications of manipulating the human genome. While CRISPR-based germline gene editing is new, the debate about the ethics of gene editing is not – for several decades now, scholars have debated the ethics of making heritable changes to the human genome. The arguments that have been raised both for and against the use of genetic technologies in human reproduction reiterate much of the arguments made in the pre-CRISPR debate. As such, it is instructive for South Africa to reflect on these arguments now, in considering our position on the regulation of the use of this novel biotechnology. There are two dominant schools of thought in this area, bioliberalism and bioconservatism. Bioconservatives raise concerns about the risks of genetic manipulation, and argue that it ought to be limited or prohibited to avert these risks to human health and human nature. Bioliberal scholars are more open to the prospect of genetic manipulation, because of its potential utility. In this article, I conclude that in liberal democracies such as our own, bioliberal arguments ought to be seriously considered when formulating policy on human genome editing because of the extent to which they resonate with our Constitutional values and human rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Between Bioconservatism and Transhumanism: in Search of a Third Way
    Ethics in Progress (ISSN 2084-9257). Vol. 6 (2015). No. 2. 153-163. doi:10.14746/eip.2015.2.9 Between Bioconservatism and transhumanism: In search of a third way Filip Bardziński (Adam Mickiewicz University) Review of the book by R. Cole-Turner (ed.) Transhumanism and Transcendence: Christian Hope in an Age of Technological Enhancement. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, pp. 208. Introduction Transhumanism is undoubtedly one of the most important – and most controversial – intellectual movements of the early 21st century. It’s reception of the development of biological and computational sciences, as well as the hopeful perspectives it offers, proves how universally important for all humanity are such topics as individual perfection, cultural development, and relations between progress in science and their social reception and application. However, the transhumanist perspective on how to benefit from new technologies (i.e., life extension, enhancing human capabilities, etc.) remains highly controversial, as far as to be called the modern world’s most dangerous idea by Francis Fukuyama: “The environmental movement has taught us humility and respect for the integrity of nonhuman nature. We need a similar humility concerning our human nature. If we do not develop it soon, we may unwittingly invite the transhumanists to deface humanity with their genetic bulldozers and psychotropic shopping malls” (Fukuyama 2009). Most transhumanists disagree with Fukuyama voice, stating that “the only real danger posed by transhumanism, it seems, is that people on both the left and the right may find it much more attractive than the reactionary bioconservatism proffered by Fukuyama or Leon Kass” (Bostrom 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • The Ethics of Human Enhancement
    Philosophy Compass 10/4 (2015): 233–243, 10.1111/phc3.12208 The Ethics of Human Enhancement Alberto Giubilini1* and Sagar Sanyal2 1Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Charles Sturt University 2Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University Of Melbourne Abstract Ethical debate surrounding human enhancement, especially by biotechnological means, has burgeoned since the turn of the century. Issues discussed include whether specific types of enhancement are permis- sible or even obligatory, whether they are likely to produce a net good for individuals and for society, and whether there is something intrinsically wrong in playing God with human nature. We characterize the main camps on the issue, identifying three main positions: permissive, restrictive and conservative posi- tions. We present the major sub-debates and lines of argument from each camp. The review also gives a f lavor of the general approach of key writers in the literature such as Julian Savulescu, Nick Bostrom, Michael Sandel, and Leon Kass. 1. Introduction Human enhancement in contemporary philosophical debate refers to biomedical interventions to improve human capacities, performances, dispositions, and well-being beyond the traditional scope of therapeutic medicine. Some forms of enhancement, such as doping in sport or the pharmaceutical improvement of memory and attention span, are already feasible. Others might be available in the near future, such as genetic engineering to increase cognitive capacities. The ethical issues that arise include whether specific enhancements are permissible, obligatory, or a net good for individuals and for society. Positions in the debate span a continuum between permissive and restrictive views. Authors holding the most permissive positions have no objections to a wide range of enhancements, such as the ones already mentioned.
    [Show full text]
  • Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies Harvard School of Public Health
    Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies Harvard School of Public Health Rethinking the WHO Definition of Health Sissela Bok Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies Working Paper Series Volume 14 Number 7 October 2004 Sissela Bok Senior Visiting Fellow Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies 9 Bow Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies Working Paper Series The purpose of the working paper series is to disseminate work-in-progress by Center members and associates on issues related to the Center’s research agenda on critical issues of population, health, and development. All papers go through a peer review process at the Center before appearing in the Center’s working paper series. However, full responsibility for the content of the paper remains with the author(s). Comments from readers are welcomed and should be sent directly to the author(s). Published by the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies. Copyright by the author. The Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies is a university-wide research center based in Cambridge and managed by the Harvard School of Public Health. Founded in 1964, the Center’s primary aim is to advance understanding of world population issues, especially those related to health, natural resources and socioeconomic development in developing countries. The Center pursues its work principally through multi-disciplinary groups of faculty, research fellows and students. Participants come from Harvard and Boston area faculties and include visiting scholars from around the world. The Center attempts to advance knowledge of world population issues through collaborative research, publications, seminars and its Working Paper Series.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioconservatism, Bioenhancement and Backfiring
    Journal of Moral Education ISSN: 0305-7240 (Print) 1465-3877 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjme20 Bioconservatism, bioenhancement and backfiring Tamara Kayali Browne & Steve Clarke To cite this article: Tamara Kayali Browne & Steve Clarke (2020) Bioconservatism, bioenhancement and backfiring, Journal of Moral Education, 49:2, 241-256, DOI: 10.1080/03057240.2019.1576125 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2019.1576125 © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Published online: 01 Apr 2019. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1173 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjme20 JOURNAL OF MORAL EDUCATION 2020, VOL. 49, NO. 2, 241–256 https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2019.1576125 ARTICLE Bioconservatism, bioenhancement and backfiring Tamara Kayali Browne a,b and Steve Clarke b,c aSchool of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia; bSchool of Humanities and Social Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, Australia; cWellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom ABSTRACT KEYWORDS The prospect of enhancing ourselves through the use of new backfire; bioconservatism; biotechnologies is for the most part, hypothetical. Nevertheless, bioenhancement; Brave New the question of whether we should undertake such enhancement World; conservative; is worthy of discussion as it may become possible in the future. In enhancement; moral education this article, we consider one form of argument that conservative opponents of biotechnological means of enhancement (biocon- servatives) deploy in opposition to the use of enhancement tech- nologies—the backfiring objection.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association
    September 2010 Volume 84, Issue 1 Proceedings and Addresses of The American Philosophical Association apa THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION Eastern Division Program University of Delaware Newark, DE 19716 www.apaonline.org The American Philosophical Association Eastern Division One Hundred Seventh Annual Meeting Marriott/Westin-Copley Connection Boston, MA December 27 - 30, 2010 Proceedings and Addresses of The American Philosophical Association Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association (ISSN 0065-972X) is published five times each year and is distributed to members of the APA as a benefit of membership and to libraries, departments, and institutions for $75 per year. It is published by The American Philosophical Association, 31 Amstel Ave., University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716. Periodicals Postage Paid at Newark, DE and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Proceedings and Addresses, The American Philosophical Association, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716. Editor: David E. Schrader Phone: (302) 831-1112 Publications Coordinator: Erin Shepherd Fax: (302) 831-8690 Associate Editor: Richard Bett Web: www.apaonline.org Meeting Coordinator: Linda Smallbrook Proceedings and Addresses of The American Philosophical Association, the major publication of The American Philosophical Association, is published five times each academic year in the months of September, November, January, February, and May. Each annual volume contains the programs for the meetings of the three Divisions; the membership list; Presidential Addresses; news of the Association, its Divisions and Committees, and announcements of interest to philosophers. Other items of interest to the community of philosophers may be included by decision of the Editor or the APA Board of Officers.
    [Show full text]
  • A Typology of Posthumanism
    Part One Abstract. The term ‘posthumanism’ has been employed to describe a diverse array of phenomena ranging from academic disciplines and artistic move- ments to political advocacy campaigns and the development of commercial technologies. Such phenomena differ widely in their subject matter, purpose, and methodology, raising the question of whether it is possible to fashion a coherent definition of posthumanism that encompasses all phenomena thus labelled. In this text, we seek to bring greater clarity to this discussion by formulating a novel conceptual framework for classifying existing and poten- tial forms of posthumanism. The framework asserts that a given form of posthumanism can be classified: 1) either as an analytic posthumanism that understands ‘posthumanity’ as a sociotechnological reality that already exists in the contemporary world or as a synthetic posthumanism that understands ‘posthumanity’ as a collection of hypothetical future entities whose develop- ment can be intentionally realized or prevented; and 2) either as a theoretical posthumanism that primarily seeks to develop new knowledge or as a practi- cal posthumanism that seeks to bring about some social, political, economic, or technological change. By arranging these two characteristics as orthogonal axes, we obtain a matrix that categorizes a form of posthumanism into one of four quadrants or as a hybrid posthumanism spanning all quadrants. It is suggested that the five resulting types can be understood roughly as posthu- manisms of critique, imagination, conversion,
    [Show full text]