DOCSLIB.ORG

Essays on the Ethics of Emerging Technologies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Essays on the Ethics of Emerging Technologies CRUCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: ESSAYS ON THE ETHICS OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES KARIM A. JEBARI Licentiate Thesis Stockholm, Sweden 2012 Abstract. Jebari, Karim A. 2012. Crucial Considerations: Essays on the Ethics of Emerging Technologies Theses in Philosophy from the Royal Institute of Technology 42. 79 + vi pp. Stockholm. ISBN 978-91-637- 2006-2 Essay I explores brain machine interface (BMI) technologies. These make direct communication between the brain and a machine possible by means of electrical stimuli. This essay reviews the existing and emerging technologies in this field and offers a systematic inquiry into the relevant ethical problem ii This licentiate thesis consists of an introduction and the following essays: I. Jebari, Karim A., “Brain Machine Interface and Human Enhancement. An Ethical Review” Forthcoming in Neuroethics II. Jebari, Karim A. and Hansson, Sven Oven., “European Public Deliberation on Brain Machine Interface Technology” Submitted manuscript III. Jebari, Karim A., “Three Kinds of Moral Enhancement” Submitted manuscript © 2012 by Karim A. Jebari ISSN 1650-8831 ISBN 978-91-637-2006-2 Printed in Stockholm, Sweden by E-print AB 2012 iii CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vi INTRODUCTION 1 I. Previous research on human enhancement 1 II. Human enhancement and public discourse 3 III. Human dignity 4 IV. Summary of the essays 7 V. Sammanfattning på svenska 9 ESSAYS I. BRAIN MACHINE INTERFACE AND HUMAN ENHANCEMENT. AN ETHICAL REVIEW 17 1. Introduction 17 2. Existing Brain Machine Interfaces 19 3. Experimental technologies 23 4. Ethical considerations 27 5. Concluding remarks 33 II. EUROPEAN PUBLIC DELIBERATION ON BRAIN MACHINE INTERFACE TECHNOLOGY 34 1. Introduction 34 2. Theoretical background 36 3. Method 38 4. Results 40 5. Conclusions 56 6. Appendix 57 III. THREE KINDS OF MORAL ENHANCEMENT 60 1. Introduction 60 2. Why moral enhancement? 61 3. Three kinds of moral enhancement 62 4. Empathy 66 5. A sense of fairness 69 6. Objections against moral enhancement 70 7. Concluding remarks 73 iv v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my supervisors, Sven-Ove Hansson and Barbro Fröding. I would also like to thank the participants at the philosophy seminar at the Royal Institute of Technology as well as the participants at the CHE-seminar. In particular I would like to thank Niklas Juth for his extensive commentary. I would also like to thank Anders Sandberg and Nick Bostrom for being great sources of inspiration for my work. My greatest thanks are to the many anonymous reviewers who have helped me more than anyone in clarifying my thoughts on these topics. vi INTRODUCTION The topic of these essays concerns the ethical issues on a range of technological developments that has the potential to redefine the human condition: Brain Machine Interface (BMI). The ability to connect the nervous system to a computer may surpass the impact of both nanotechnology and biotechnology. It is in the nature of technological development that it is difficult to predict and has a potential to revolutionize the human condition. Due to the high impact of possible applications of BMI technology, we do not have the luxury of waiting for this technology to emerge before thinking about the ethical consequences of its widespread adoption. The three essays in this thesis form part of a research effort aimed at thinking about the impact of BMI technology from a broad perspective. In particular, they seek to explore the ethical and social and ramifications associated with present and future technology. This introduction consists of the following five parts. The first part is a short review on the literature of human enhancement. The second part explores three difficulties that I have encountered in discussions with the public, when probing the risks and possibilities with BMI and human enhancement technology. The third part is a detailed discussion of a more daunting aspect of human enhancement; the issue of whether it threatens human dignity. The fourth part of this introduction is a short summary of each essay. The fifth part is a popular summary of the three essays in Swedish. I. Previous research on human enhancement Although the term “transhumanism” was first coined by the biologist Julian Huxley in 1957, systematic philosophical enquiries on transhumanism and human enhancement were first formulated in the last decade of the twentieth century.1 The British philosopher Max More is credited by James Hughes, former executive director of the World Transhumanist Association, to have presented the first modern systematic philosophical defense of human enhancement and transhumanism in the early 1990’s.2 The early defendants of human enhancement have often argued from the radically individualist position of “morphological freedom”, the notion that an individual’s desire to enhance is a private concern.3 These radical pro-enhancement ideas are often combined with “the proactionary principle” which states that “Our freedom to innovate technologically is valuable to humanity. The burden of proof therefore belongs to those who propose restrictive measures”.4 By the beginning of the twenty first century, the debate was transformed by the creation of several academic institutions that have been actively promoting these 1 ideas, of which the Future of Humanity Institute under its director Nick Bostrom is the most prominent.5 These academic institutions have lifted the profile of human enhancement and transhumanism, from being in the fringe of academia, to a topic taken seriously in prominent bioethical peer reviewed journals and many courses in bioethics at big universities. Human enhancement and Transhumanism entered the broader public debate after rigorous criticism by leading intellectuals such as Francis Fukuyama, Leon Kass, Michael Sandel, Bill McKibben and Jürgen Habermas. These have been labeled as “bioconservatives” by proponents of human enhancement, as they all seem to subscribe to the “bioconservatives thesis”: “Even if it were technically possible and legally permissible for people to engage in biomedical enhancement, it would not be morally permissible for them to do so”.6 These intellectuals, although from radically different ideological camps, have argued in favor of a general restriction of human enhancement with remarkably similar arguments. Michael Sandel argues that human enhancement epitomizes the modern strive for mastery and control, and that human enhancement is contrary to traditional virtues such as humility and openness to the unbidden.7 Another potential consequence of human enhancement is the further entrenching of inequalities. Michael Sandel and Bill McKibben argue that if for example cognitive enhancement were possible, that this would create a “genetic divide” between the enhanced and the “naturals”.8, 9 The 1997 film Gattaca's depiction of a dystopian society in which one's social class depends entirely on genetic modifications is often cited by critics in support of a combination of these views. Francis Fukuyama suggests that human enhancement threats to undermine the idea that all humans have equal moral worth, by undermining the idea of a “human essence”.10 Jürgen Habermas argues that moral autonomy depends on not being subject to another person’s specifications. This autonomy is threatened by the genetic enhancement of embryos.11 Leon Kass’ main objection to human enhancement is that it undermines human dignity.12 This objection will be discussed in greater detail in section III of this introduction. In the last few years, more moderate proponents of human enhancement have made the debate more mature. Philosopher Nicholas Agar argues that although some enhancement is permissible and even desirable, radical enhancement risks undermining the values that we today hold dear.13 Julian Savulescu and Ingmar Persson has warned about the dangers of cognitive enhancement and proposed moral enhancement to reduce some of the risks that technological development entails.14 Allen Buchanan is another philosopher who has a moderate and cautious approach to human enhancement. He argues that we have to take a more fine-grained approach, because there is no general answer on what to do with regards to human enhancement, as different modes of enhancement in different contexts are going to have different risk benefit 2 profiles.15 The debate on human enhancement has often focused on genetic engineering and the use of performance enhancing or psychoactive drugs. As BMI technology has developed, its enhancement potential has been recognized by the authors in this debate. However, although some ethical concerns regarding BMI are familiar to the human enhancement debate, others are not. These essays will try to explore some of the novel ethical problems that BMI poses. II. Human enhancement and public discourse In my discussions with the general public three broad reactions to human enhancement were prominent in driving intuitions and affecting the judgment of those whom I engaged with. During the writing of these essays, and in particular essay II, that describes the convergence seminars, I have encountered these reactions consistently. The convergence seminars (described in more detail in essay II) are a form of scenario-based discussion technique. One of the ideas of this discussion technique is to bring out moral intuitions and allow the participants to critically reflect on them. Although disgust may be just as any other motion a valid starting point in an ethical discussion, it ought not to be the final word. However, this is often the case. In
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Robert Walser, Paul Scheerbart, and Joseph Roth Vi
    Telling Technology Contesting Narratives of Progress in Modernist Literature: Robert Walser, Paul Scheerbart, and Joseph Roth Vincent Hessling Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2018 © 2018 Vincent Hessling All rights reserved ABSTRACT Telling Technology Contesting Narratives of Progress in Modernist Literature: Robert Walser, Paul Scheerbart, and Joseph Roth Vincent Hessling Telling technology explores how modernist literature makes sense of technological change by means of narration. The dissertation consists of three case studies focusing on narrative texts by Robert Walser, Paul Scheerbart, and Joseph Roth. These authors write at a time when a crisis of ‘progress,’ understood as a basic concept of history, coincides with a crisis of narra- tion in the form of anthropocentric, action-based storytelling. Through close readings of their technographic writing, the case studies investigate how the three authors develop alter- native forms of narration so as to tackle the questions posed by the sweeping technological change in their day. Along with a deeper understanding of the individual literary texts, the dissertation establishes a theoretical framework to discuss questions of modern technology and agency through the lens of narrative theory. Table of Contents ABBREVIATIONS ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii INTRODUCTION: Toward a Narratology of Technological Change 1 CHAPTER I: Robert Walser’s Der Gehülfe: A Zero-Grade Narrative of Progress 26 1. The Employee as a Modern Topos 26 2. The Master and the Servant: A Farce on Progress 41 3. Irony of ‘Kaleidoscopic Focalization’ 50 4. The Inventions and their Distribution 55 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Graduate Studies Program
    GRADUATE STUDIES PROGRAM Welcome It is our pleasure to welcome you to Singularity University. Our mission is to assemble, educate and inspire leaders who strive to understand and facilitate the development of exponentially advancing technologies in order to address humanity’s grand challenges. Singularity University’s Graduate Studies Program brings together a diverse group–the most accomplished experts in academics, business, and government together with the brightest students from across the globe–for an intense ten-week summer program. The program immerses participants in an unparalleled convergence learning environment. We also challenge our students with our 109+ Team Projects, asking them how they can positively affect the lives of a billion people within 10 years. The next few decades will see the transformation of the science and technology tools available to the world in a fashion more profound than any other time in our history. The current technology revolution moves at an exponential pace, and exponential technologies imply a future with capabilities previously unimagined. Singularity University was founded using the standpoint that with more capability comes more responsibility. Our commitment is to not only to teach, but also to act: to view the world’s Grand Challenges as opportunities to use advancing technology for the benefit of all. If you are interested in the world’s grand challenges, if you are an entrepreneur passionate about making your dreams materialize, and if you are at the top of your class then we hope you will consider applying to the Graduate Studies Program. If you are invited to participate in this highly selective program, you will experience a life-changing 10-week program and join an incredible community of thinkers and doers.
    [Show full text]
  • Top 10 Strategic Technology Trends for 2020
    Top 10 Strategic Technology Trends for 2020 Published: 21 October 2019 ID: G00432920 Analyst(s): David Cearley, Nick Jones, David Smith, Brian Burke, Arun Chandrasekaran, CK Lu Strategic technology trends have the potential both to create opportunity and to drive significant disruption. Enterprise architecture and technology innovation leaders must evaluate these top trends to determine how combinations of trends can power their innovation strategies. Key Findings ■ Strategic technology trends have significant potential to create and respond to disruption and to power both transformation and optimization initiatives. ■ Artificial intelligence (AI) is a foundational catalyst for advanced process automation and human augmentation and engagement. ■ Physical environments including factories, offices and cities will become “smart spaces” within which people will interact through multiple touchpoints and sensory channels for an increasingly ambient experience. ■ Dealing with privacy, digital ethics and security challenges generated by AI, the Internet of Things (IoT)/edge, and other evolving technologies will become critical to maintain trust and avoid legal entanglements. Recommendations Enterprise architecture and technology innovation leaders must: ■ Center their innovation efforts on people and use tools such as personas, journey maps, technology radars, and roadmaps to evaluate opportunities, challenges and time frames for adoption. ■ Build an overarching view across functional and process silos and exploit a complementary set of tools including RPA, iBPMS, DTO, application development, and AI domains that guide how the tools are used and the systems they create are integrated. ■ Embrace multiexperience and implement development platforms and design principles to support conversational, immersive and increasingly ambient experiences. ■ Establish governance principles, policies, best practices and technology architectures to increase transparency and trust regarding data and the use of AI.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    M889 - FULLER TEXT.qxd 4/4/07 11:21 am Page 1 Phil's G4 Phil's G4:Users:phil:Public: PHIL'S JO Introduction Science and Technology Studies (STS) is an interdisciplinary field usually defined as the confluence of three fields with distinct intellec- tual lineages and orientations: history of science, philosophy of science, and sociology of science. All three have been marginal to their named disciplines, because surprisingly few of the original practitioners of history, philosophy, or sociology of science were primarily trained in history, philosophy, or sociology. Rather, they were natural or exact scientists who came to be disenchanted with the social entanglements of their chosen fields of study. In effect, they fell victim to an intellec- tual bait-and-switch, whereby the reasons they entered science failed to explain science’s continued support in the wider society. This point often makes STS appear more critical than many of its practitioners intend it to be. STS researchers are virtually in agreement that people tend to like science for the wrong reasons (i.e. they are too easily taken in by its hype), but relatively few STS researchers would thereby con- clude that there are no good reasons to like science. There have been three generations of STS research, and each tells a different story of disenchantment with science. First, the logical pos- itivists, including Karl Popper, were keen to protect the theoretical base of science from the technological devastation that was wrought in its name during World War I. Next, Thomas Kuhn and his con- temporaries on both sides of the Atlantic – including Paul Feyerabend, Imre Lakatos, Stephen Toulmin, Derek de Solla Price – tried to do the same vis-à-vis World War II, though, more than the previous genera- tion, they relied on science’s past for normative guidance, largely out of a realization of technology’s contemporary role in scaling up the sci- entific enterprise and giving it forward momentum.
    [Show full text]
  • Transhumanism, Progress and the Future
    A peer-reviewed electronic journal published by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies ISSN 1541-0099 20(2) – December 2009 Transhumanism, Progress and the Future Philippe Verdoux [email protected] Journal of Evolution and Technology - Vol. 20 Issue 2 –December 2009 - pgs 49-69 http://jetpress.org/v20/verdoux.htm Abstract This paper argues that one can advocate a moral imperative to pursue enhancement technologies while at the same time rejecting the historical reality of progress and holding a pessimistic view of the future. The first half of the paper puts forth several arguments for why progress is illusory and why one has good reason to be pessimistic about the future of humanity (and posthumanity). The second half then argues that this is entirely consistent with also championing the futurological vision of transhumanism. The claim is that, relative to the alternatives proposed, this vision actually offers the safest route into the future, even if it also entails an increase in the probability of self-annihilation. 1. Transhumanism and progress Transhumanism is a recent philosophical and cultural movement that has both descriptive and normative components: (1) the descriptive claim is that current and anticipated future technologies will make it possible to radically alter both our world and persons, not just by “enhancing” the capacities that we already have but also by adding entirely new capacities not previously had.1 (2) The normative claim is that we ought to do what we can to foment and accelerate the creation of such “enhancement” technologies, thereby converting the possibility of a “posthuman” future into an actuality.
    [Show full text]
  • Transhumanism and Its Critics on the Ethics of Enhancement Via Brain-Computer Interfacing
    Western University Scholarship@Western Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository 4-17-2014 12:00 AM Cultivating Better Brains: Transhumanism and its Critics on the Ethics of Enhancement Via Brain-computer Interfacing Matthew Devlin The University of Western Ontario Supervisor Dr. Tim Blackmore The University of Western Ontario Graduate Program in Media Studies A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree in Master of Arts © Matthew Devlin 2014 Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd Part of the Film and Media Studies Commons Recommended Citation Devlin, Matthew, "Cultivating Better Brains: Transhumanism and its Critics on the Ethics of Enhancement Via Brain-computer Interfacing" (2014). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 1946. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/1946 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CULTIVATING BETTER BRAINS: TRANSHUMANISM AND ITS CRITICS ON THE ETHICS OF COGNITIVE ENHANCEMENT VIA BRAIN-COMPUTER INTERFACING (Thesis format: Monograph) by Matthew Devlin Graduate Program in Media Studies A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts The School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies The University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada © Matthew Devlin 2014 Abstract Transhumanists contend that enhancing the human brain—a subfield of human enhancement called cognitive enhancement—is both a crucial and desirable pursuit, supporting the cultivation of a better world.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Principles Should Play a Limited Role in Policy Making
    Knowledge kills action – Why principles should play a limited role in policy making J. Britt Holbrook, Georgia Institute of Technology Adam Briggle, University of North Texas This essay argues that principles should play a limited role in policy making. It first illustrates the dilemma of timely action in the face of uncertain unintended consequences. It then introduces the precautionary and proactionary principles as different alignments of knowledge and action within the policymaking process. The essay next considers a cynical and a hopeful reading of the role of these principles in public policy debates. We argue that the two principles, despite initial appearances, are not all that different when it comes to formulating public policy. We also suggest that allowing principles to determine our actions undermines the sense of autonomy necessary for true action. Keywords: Precautionary Principle; Proactionary Principle; Policy; Decision Procedure; Risk; Uncertainty; Autonomy Knowledge kills action. (Nietzsche)1 1. Knowing and acting How are knowledge and action related? This question is asked less often than another: When do we know enough to justify taking action? In the context of making science and technology policy, the question assumes yet a different form: When do we have sufficient scientific risk assessment about a new technological activity to warrant promoting that activity and embedding it in society? In this paper, we explore how the relation between knowledge and action should be structured in policymaking, which itself is both a kind of knowing and acting. Decision makers often confront a dilemma: Act too soon, and we create avoidable harms; but act too late, and we forfeit possible benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature of the Machine and the Collapse of Cybernetics
    BIBLIOGRAPHY Abraham, T. H. (2003). From theory to data: Representing neurons in the 1940s. Biology and Philosophy, 18(3), 415–426. Académie Catholique de France (2015). L’homme augmenté conduit-il au trans- humanisme?. Colloque annuel. Université Catholique de Lyon (Samedi 28 novembre). Adkins, B. M. (1951). The homeostat. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 2(7), 248. Alighieri, D. (1472). The Divine Comedy: The Vision of Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise. H. F. Cary (Trans.). Chicago, IL: Thompson & Thomas (1901 – originally published in 1814). Ampère, A. M. (1838). Essai sur la philosophie des sciences. Paris, France: Bachelier. Aquinas, T. (OP) (1273) Summa Theologica. Notre Dame, IN: Christian Classics (1981 – originally published in English in 1911). Aristotle De Generatione Animalium. A. Platt (Trans.). Gloucestershire,UK: Clarendon Press. 1910. Asaro, P. (2006). On the origins of the synthetic mind: Working models, mechan- isms, and simulations. (Ph.D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). Asaro, P. (2008). From mechanisms of adaptation to intelligence amplifiers: The philosophy of W. Ross ashby. In P. Husbands, O. Holland, & M. Wheeler (Eds.), The Mechanical Mind in History (pp. 149–184). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Asaro, P. (2010). Whatever happened to cybernetics?. In G. Friesinger, J. Grenzfurthner, T. Ballhausen, & V. Bauer (Eds.), Geist in der Maschine. © The Author(s) 2017 271 A. Malapi-Nelson, The Nature of the Machine and the Collapse of Cybernetics, Palgrave Studies in the Future of Humanity and its Successors, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-54517-2 272 BIBLIOGRAPHY Medien, Prozesse und Räume der Kybernetik (pp. 39–49). Vienna, Austria: Verlag Turia & Kant.
    [Show full text]
  • A Bioethical Paradigm for Enhanced, Post Or Transhumans in Medicine and Biological Research
    Duquesne University Duquesne Scholarship Collection Electronic Theses and Dissertations Summer 8-8-2020 A Bioethical Paradigm for Enhanced, Post or Transhumans in Medicine and Biological Research Roderick Williams Follow this and additional works at: https://dsc.duq.edu/etd Part of the Bioethics and Medical Ethics Commons, and the Medical Humanities Commons Recommended Citation Williams, R. (2020). A Bioethical Paradigm for Enhanced, Post or Transhumans in Medicine and Biological Research (Doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University). Retrieved from https://dsc.duq.edu/etd/1923 This One-year Embargo is brought to you for free and open access by Duquesne Scholarship Collection. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Duquesne Scholarship Collection. A BIOETHICAL PARADIGM FOR ENHANCED, POST OR TRANSHUMANS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH A Dissertation Submitted to the McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts Duquesne University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Roderick K. Williams August 2020 Copyright by Roderick K. Williams 2020 A BIOETHICAL PARADIGM FOR ENHANCED, POST OR TRANSHUMANS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH By Roderick K. Williams Approved May 07, 2020 ________________________ ________________________ Joris Gielen, PhD Gerard Magill, PhD Director, Center for Healthcare Ethics Vernon F. Gallagher Chair for Associate Professor Healthcare Ethics Integration of Science, Theology, (Dissertation Chair) Philosophy and Law Professor of Healthcare Ethics (Committee Member) ________________________ _____________________ Joris Gielen, PhD Peter Osuji, PhD Associate Professor Assistant Professor Center for Healthcare Ethics Healthcare Ethics (Committee Member) (Committee Member) Kristine Blair, PhD Dean, McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts Professor and Dean of McAnulty College (Dean) iii ABSTRACT A BIOETHICAL PARADIGM FOR ENHANCED, POST OR TRANSHUMANS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH By Roderick K.
    [Show full text]
  • Transhumanism: an Ontology of the World's Most Dangerous Idea
    TRANSHUMANISM: AN ONTOLOGY OF THE WORLD’S MOST DANGEROUS IDEA Benjamin D. Ross Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS May 2019 APPROVED: Robert Frodeman, Major Professor Adam Briggle, Committee Member Steve Fuller, Committee Member Doug Anderson, Chair of the Department of Philosophy and Religion David Holdeman, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences Victor Prybutok, Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School Ross, Benjamin D. Transhumanism: An Ontology of the World’s Most Dangerous Idea. Doctor of Philosophy (Philosophy), May 2019, 175 pp., reference list, 94 titles. Transhumanism is the name given to the cultural and philosophical movement which advocates radical human technological enhancement. In what follows, I use perspectives drawn from existential philosophy to problematize transhumanists' desire to recast human finitude as a series of technical problems with technical solutions. The ontological account of transhumanism offered here questions the assumed benefit and inevitability across six chapters. Following an introductory chapter, Chapter 2 introduces the key players, and present the philosophy of transhumanism and the opposing view of bioconservativism. Chapter 3 offers a narrative of transhumanism beginning with its mythical antecedents, and proceeds to describe the emergence of contemporary transhumanist institutions. Chapter 4 focuses on the challenge that transhumanists Aubrey de Grey and Ray Kurzweil present to mortality. The chapter asks whether human immortality is a coherent idea, and consider the consequences of achieving a data-driven amortality. Chapter 5 continues the analysis of transhumanism as it challenges limits to knowledge (ignorance), and limits to well-being (suffering). Ray Kurzweil is presented as a key figure of transhumanist thought, along with David Pearce, who desires to eradicate suffering through genetic engineering.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Should Govern the Welfare State 2.0? a Comment on Fuller David Budtz Pedersen, Aarhus University
    Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 2013 Vol. 2, No. 12, 51-59. http://wp.me/p1Bfg0-19F Who Should Govern the Welfare State 2.0? A Comment on Fuller David Budtz Pedersen, Aarhus University Abstract In his thought-provoking exploration of the future of humanity, Steve Fuller envisages a new and strengthened role for the welfare state. The future transhumanist society will be inhabited by increasingly segregated classes of biological species, some of which have been successful in enhancing their biological condition beyond evolutionary determination. Others, however, will be trapped in Humanity 1.0 with no hope of getting access to expensive biomedical products or genetic services. Fuller emphasizes the “proactionary principle” as a new welfare model in which the benefits from risky experiments are redistributed to the wider society through taxation and compensation. Still, the basic philosophical question remains: what is the basis of solidarity between Humans 1.0 and Humans 2.0 in a world where citizens no longer will share a common biological condition. Distributive justice is key to Fuller’s proactionary ethics. In this comment, I examine the foundation of justice as outlined by Fuller. I propose a new set of political positions for the post-biological age (i) biolibertarianism, (ii) bioegalitarianism and (iii) bioutilitarianism. Two modes of government The basic argument in this paper is as follows: According to Fuller (2011, 2012a, 2013), at some future point in history cognitively and biologically enhanced Humans 2.0 will depart from Humans 1.0. In the future transhumanist society, the role of the welfare state is to stimulate experimentation, distribute positive effects, and compensate negative effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Transhumanism and Society: the Social Debate Over Human Enhancement
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Sacred Heart University: DigitalCommons@SHU Sacred Heart University DigitalCommons@SHU Sociology Faculty Publications Sociology 2013 Transhumanism and Society: The Social Debate Over Human Enhancement Stephen J. Lilley Sacred Heart University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/sociol_fac Part of the Philosophy of Science Commons, Social Psychology and Interaction Commons, Sociology of Culture Commons, and the Theory, Knowledge and Science Commons Recommended Citation Lilley, S. (2008). Transhumanism and society: The social debate over human enhancement. New York: Springer. This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Sociology at DigitalCommons@SHU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sociology Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@SHU. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. SpringerBriefs in Philosophy For further volumes: http://www.springer.com/series/10082 Stephen Lilley Transhumanism and Society The Social Debate over Human Enhancement 123 Stephen Lilley Department of Sociology Sacred Heart University Fairfield, CT USA ISSN 2211-4548 ISSN 2211-4556 (electronic) ISBN 978-94-007-4980-1 ISBN 978-94-007-4981-8 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-4981-8 Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London Library of Congress Control Number: 2012942026 Ó The Author(s) 2013 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
    [Show full text]