DOCSLIB.ORG

LESSONS for the FUTURE? PROPHECY and POLICY in SPECULATIVE BIOETHICS by Ari Schick a DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State Un

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LESSONS for the FUTURE? PROPHECY and POLICY in SPECULATIVE BIOETHICS by Ari Schick a DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State Un LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE? PROPHECY AND POLICY IN SPECULATIVE BIOETHICS By Ari Schick A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Philosophy – Doctor of Philosophy 2014 ABSTRACT LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE? PROPHECY AND POLICY IN SPECULATIVE BIOETHICS By Ari Schick For more than a decade, the field of bioethics has increasingly turned its attention to wide-ranging discussions of possible future biotechnologies, such as those that might be used to determine the genetic endowments of future offspring or to enhance existing people. Yet while the literature on human biomedical enhancement has become a focal point of bioethical debate, few of the technologies that stimulate this discourse have reached the point where they actually generate the ethical questions that the literature addresses. This study offers a comprehensive analysis and critique of speculative bioethics that builds on existing conceptualizations of two parallel modes of bioethical discourse (prophetic and regulatory), and draws from literature outside of bioethics that examines the social function of expectations regarding future technologies. I begin by tracing various developments in bioethics that have given rise to the enhancement discourse in its present form and survey some of the existing criticism that it has drawn. I demonstrate the ways in which speculative bioethics goes wrong when exploring potential future technologies and scenarios, and evaluate the utility of anticipatory bioethics research that attempts to get ahead of expected future technological developments. In the course of developing a robust theory of the nature and function of the prophetic and regulatory aspects of bioethics, I establish that speculative explorations belong within the domain of the prophetic, not regulatory, mode of bioethics. I expand the critique by examining the roles that technological expectations play in driving both biomedical research as well as public engagement with ethical issues in biomedicine. I argue that many existing ethical explorations of possible future technological scenarios mistakenly identify the object of ethical analysis as the actual possible future. Instead, it is the expectations that drive public discussion and research agendas that are the proper object of scrutiny and analysis. After probing the nature of this shortcoming and its consequences, I enlist alternative approaches that are capable of critically assessing the moral implications of technological expectations themselves. Finally, I develop an integrated approach for exploring the possible future technological scenarios found in speculative bioethics. Drawing on work in narrative ethics and the interface between literature and bioethics, I offer a multifaceted model of ‘narrative competence,’ appropriate for analyzing the existing literature on human enhancement, as well as for pursuing alternatives that could better advance useful modes of bioethical discourse and public deliberation. Copyright by ARI SCHICK 2014 Dedicated to the memory of Adrienne Asch, who enriched many lives and the world of bioethics. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted to many teachers, mentors, and fellow students—too numerous to mention individually—for all that I have gained from them. However, those whose contributions to my work in bioethics have been particularly vital, and without whose help and support I would not have completed this dissertation, deserve special recognition. My involvement in bioethics began nearly a decade ago when Erik Parens graciously took me on as a part-time intern at the Hastings Center. Working with him was an invaluable experience that helped to set the course of my research. I have benefited from the erudition of all the members of my doctoral committee, Len Fleck, Fred Gifford, Jim Nelson, and Dan Steel, and have learned much from each of them. I am especially grateful to Jim, who, aside from chairing my committee and directing this dissertation, was instrumental in securing the support that facilitated my studies. As this dissertation neared its completion, I received much insightful feedback from David Wasserman, a source of creative ideas and philosophical inspiration who has always been a pleasure to work with. Two institutions deserve mention as well: first, the Department of Philosophy and the College of Arts and Letters at Michigan State University. My thanks to the deans, administrators, and support staff who, in various capacities, helped my graduate studies to progress as smoothly as possible. Second, for the past two years, I have been writing at the library of the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute in an atmosphere that has been exceptionally conducive to my work. I am grateful to the administration and staff of Van Leer for the use of the library and for obliging a number of special requests. I cannot imagine completing this work without the support of my family. My parents have vi been extremely supportive through the years, in ways large and small, ensuring that I could pursue graduate studies without many of the pressures that are a frequent hazard of academic life. My in- laws have likewise been gracious and helped to ease difficult transitions between New York, Michigan, and Israel. My children, Saadyah, Noa, and Aviyah have changed my life in ways both expected and unexpected, and have multiplied the good in my life many-fold. Above all, this dissertation is the culmination of many years of love and support from my wife, Shana. Without her patient encouragement, reassurance, and assistance I could not have commenced or completed this work. Words cannot express how deeply I appreciate the many ways she accommodates me while pursuing her own work. She has set the bar high as a dedicated scholar and devoted parent. I hope someday to live up to her example. Finally, I write these acknowledgments pained by the recent loss of my friend and mentor, Adrienne Asch, to whom this dissertation is dedicated. I learned more from working with Adrienne than in any classroom or from any book, and she supported and encouraged me in innumerable ways over the past eight years. This dissertation feels complete only because I was able to celebrate its completion with her. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ..............................................................................................................................XII LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................... XIII CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1 I. Human Enhancement and Speculative Bioethics ........................................................................ 1 II. Should We Be Suspicious of Speculative Bioethics? ................................................................... 2 III. Critiquing Speculative Bioethics ................................................................................................ 5 a. Methodological Critique ........................................................................................................... 6 b. Public Interest Critique ............................................................................................................ 7 c. A Note on Purpose and Method .............................................................................................. 9 IV. Alternative Approaches to Speculative Bioethics .................................................................... 11 a. Regulatory and Prophetic Bioethics ....................................................................................... 11 b. Speculative Bioethics as a Reflective Discourse ..................................................................... 14 1. The goals of speculative bioethics ...................................................................................... 14 2. Methods for speculative bioethics ...................................................................................... 17 V. Description of the Chapters ...................................................................................................... 18 CHAPTER TWO – BIOETHICS UNBOUND: HUMAN ENHANCEMENT AND THE EVOLUTION OF A DISCOURSE ...................................................................................... 20 I. From Positive Genetic Engineering to Human Enhancement .................................................. 21 a. Successes and Failures of the Human Genome Project ......................................................... 24 b. Transhumanism Enters the Mainstream................................................................................ 26 c. The Legacy of the Cloning Controversy ................................................................................. 34 II. From Thought Experiments to Likely Futures .......................................................................... 35 a. 1984: What Sort of People Should There Be?............................................................................... 36 b. 1996: The Lives to Come ........................................................................................................... 39 c. 2000: From Chance to Choice .................................................................................................... 41 d. 2011 and beyond: Beyond Humanity (and an Embarrassment of Riches) ............................. 44 III. From Reflective to Regulatory Modes of Thinking
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Imposing Genetic Diversity
    IMPOSING GENETIC DIVERSITY Associate Professor Robert Sparrow Australian Research Council Future Fellow Philosophy Program, School of Philosophical, Historical and International Studies and, Adjunct Associate Professor, Centre for Human Bioethics Monash University Victoria 3800 Australia WORKING PAPER: NOT FOR CITATION OR DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT PERMISSION A version of this paper was accepted to The American Journal of Bioethics on October 28, 2014. Please cite that version. ABSTRACT: The idea that a world in which everyone was born “perfect” would be a world in which something valuable was missing often comes up in debates about the ethics of technologies of prenatal testing and Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD). This thought plays an important role in the “disability critique” of prenatal testing. However, the idea that human genetic variation is an important good with significant benefits for society at large is also embraced by a wide range of figures writing in the bioethics literature, including some who are notoriously hostile to the idea that we should not select against disability. By developing a number of thought experiments wherein we are to contemplate increasing genetic diversity from a lower baseline in order to secure this value I argue that this powerful intuition is more problematic than is generally recognised, especially where the price of diversity is the well-being of particular individuals. KEYWORDS: PGD; ethics; prenatal testing; disability; diversity; human enhancement 1 IMPOSING GENETIC DIVERSITY INTRODUCTION The idea that a world in which everyone was born “perfect” would be a world in which something valuable — a certain richness that flows from diversity – was missing often comes up in debates about the ethics of technologies of prenatal testing and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD).
    [Show full text]
  • UC Santa Barbara Other Recent Work
    UC Santa Barbara Other Recent Work Title Geopolitics, History, and International Relations Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/29z457nf Author Robinson, William I. Publication Date 2009 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE CONTEMPORARY SCIENCE ASSOCIATION • NEW YORK Geopolitics, History, and International Relations VOLUME 1(2) • 2009 ADDLETON ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS • NEW YORK Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 1(2) 2009 An international peer-reviewed academic journal Copyright © 2009 by the Contemporary Science Association, New York Geopolitics, History, and International Relations seeks to explore the theoretical implications of contemporary geopolitics with particular reference to territorial problems and issues of state sovereignty, and publishes papers on contemporary world politics and the global political economy from a variety of methodologies and approaches. Interdisciplinary and wide-ranging in scope, Geopolitics, History, and International Relations also provides a forum for discussion on the latest developments in the theory of international relations and aims to promote an understanding of the breadth, depth and policy relevance of international history. Its purpose is to stimulate and disseminate theory-aware research and scholarship in international relations throughout the international academic community. Geopolitics, History, and International Relations offers important original contributions by outstanding scholars and has the potential to become one of the leading journals in the field, embracing all aspects of the history of relations between states and societies. Journal ranking: A on a seven-point scale (A+, A, B+, B, C+, C, D). Geopolitics, History, and International Relations is published twice a year by Addleton Academic Publishers, 30-18 50th Street, Woodside, New York, 11377.
    [Show full text]
  • Interfaces Between Bioethics and the Empirical Social Sciences
    Interfaces between bioethics and the empirical social sciences Publication Series – 2002 Regional Program on Bioethics Division of Health and Human Development Pan American Health Organization World Health Organization Third Meeting of the International Advisory Board on Bioethics Pan American Health Organization World Health Organization October 2nd – 3th, 2001 Buenos Aires, Argentina INTERFACES BETWEEN BIOETHICS AND THE EMPIRICAL SOCIAL SCIENCES Fernando Lolas S. Lorenzo Agar C. Editors 3 Regional Program on Bioethics OPS/OMS Publication Series - 2002 The present edition belongs to Publication Series - 2002 of Regional Program on Bioethics. Under the title: Interfaces of Bioethics and the Social Science. It contains the documents elaborated by the members of the International Bioethics Advisory Committee of PAHO, that was established in the first official meeting held on October 2-3, 2001 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. N° de Inscripción 127-372 ISBN 956-7938-02-4 This publication of 1.000 copies was printed at august of 2002 PRINTED IN CHILE 4 Interfaces between bioethics and the empirical social sciences CONTENTS • Foreword 9 George A. O. Alleyne • Empirical Social Science Studies and Bioethics. An Interface for the Regional 11 Program on Bioethics Fernando Lolas Stepke • What is Bioethics? A history 15 James F. Drane • Equity, Quality, and Patients Rigths: Can They Be Reconciled? 33 Daniel Callahan • Why Justice is Good for our Health 37 Norman Daniels • Pharmacogen-ethics 53 Diego Gracia Guillén • Unresolved Issues in Social Science Research 67 Ruth Macklin • Placebo Controls in Clinical Trials when there are Known Effective Treatments 79 Robert J. Levine • Polls and Focus Groups in Bioethics: The Case of Resource Allocation 91 Daniel Wikler • The Relevance of Empirical Research for Bioethics 99 Ezekiel J.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae
    DANIEL CALLAHAN January 2008 Director International Program The Hastings Center Garrison, N.Y. 10524-5555 (914) 424-4040 BIOGRAPHICAL Born July 19, 1930, Washington, D.C. Married to Sidney deShazo Callahan, Ph.D. (a social psychologist); six children: Mark, Stephen, John, Peter, Sarah and David. Address: Box 260, Hudson House, Ardsley-on- Hudson, New York 10503. Sgt., U.S. Army, 1952-55 (Counterintelligence Corps). EDUCATION B.A. Yale University (1952), English and Psychology major M.A. Georgetown University (1957), Philosophy Ph.D. Harvard University (1965), Philosophy ADMINISTRATIVE, RESEARCH AND EDITORIAL POSITIONS Director, International Programs, The Hastings Center, 1997- Fellow, Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University, 2004- Senior Research Fellow, Department of Philosophy, Yale University, 2004- Senior Lecturer, Harvard Medical School, 1998- Visiting Fellow, Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, 1996 President and Co-Founder, The Hastings Center, 1969-1996 Staff Associate, The Population Council, 1969-1970 Executive Editor, Commonweal, 1961-1968 PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES Special Consultant, Presidential Commission on Population Growth and the American Future (1970-71) Consultant, Ad Hoc Committee on S-hemoglobinopathies, National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council (1972) Selection Committee, Ford-Rockefeller Program in Population Policy (1972-75) Selection Committee, National Book Awards (1975) Council Member, New York Council for the Humanities (1975-79) Member, New York Health Advisory
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Introduction to the Enhancement Debate
    Notes 1 Introduction to the Enhancement Debate 1. Here, it is taken that the human condition is not the same as human nature. The term ‘human condition’ is not only a simple collection of basic features characterising humans, nor implies an essence that remains identical from birth to death; rather, the term implies something dynamic and in a process of continuous development and negotiation. For more on this see Arendt, The Human Condition (1998), and Carnevale and Battaglia, ‘A Reflexive Approach to Human Enhancement’ (2014). 2. Consider for example that nowadays people sometimes talk about them- selves in terms that in the past we only used for our creations, such as updating and even upgrading ourselves. 3. Here and in what follows, the term ‘individualistic’ will be used as a view resulting from holding the concept of the liberal individual. 4. According to the report it is a ‘non-medical’ typology since there is no spe- cific definition of health involved. However, it is plausible to argue that by including the term ‘therapeutical’, they are indirectly referring back to a biomedical-based definition. 5. In the rest of this book, science and technology will be referred to inter- changeably, even though it is acknowledged that there are differences between them. For the purpose of this work it is enough to understand that both science and technology have affected and shaped the material condi- tion of our lives as well as the way we understand ourselves as humans and social beings. 6. Here, the term ‘nanoscale’ is used to refer to the nanometre scale.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics of Emerging Technologies PHI 350/CHV 356 | Spring 2021 | Fridays 1:30-4:20Pm ET
    Ethics of Emerging Technologies PHI 350/CHV 356 | Spring 2021 | Fridays 1:30-4:20pm ET Johann Frick Michal Masny [email protected] [email protected] Brief description This course examines key technological developments and challenges of the 21st century from an ethical perspective. We will discuss some of the following topics: Self-driving cars and autonomous weapons systems; surveillance and the value of privacy; the use of predictive algorithms in the criminal justice system and the question of algorithmic unfairness; the impact of technology on employment and the promise of unconditional basic income schemes; human enhancement and genetic testing; and the risk of human extinction. Office hours We will be hosting joint office hours on Tuesdays, 5:30-6:50pm. Please sign-up for a 20-minute slot using our WASE calendar. Course requirements and assessment This course will be held in a seminar format. You will read and watch the assigned materials in advance of the meeting, and then we will discuss them together during the seminar. Assessment for this course has a number of different components: (i) Once during the semester Oral presentation 10% (ii) 01 March at 11:59pm ET First paper (1000 words) 15% (iii) 22 March at 11:59pm ET Second paper (1000-1500 words) 15% (iv) 05 May at 11:59pm ET Third paper (2500 words) 30% (v) Whole semester Class participation 30% Class participation As you can see, class participation is very important for this course. We are asking you do two things. a) Post a reaction to at least one of the assigned materials on the Canvas discussion board by 11:59pm ET on the day before the seminar.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case Against Cognitive Enhancement: Responding to the Reversal Test
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ResearchArchive at Victoria University of Wellington THE CASE AGAINST COGNITIVE ENHANCEMENT: RESPONDING TO THE REVERSAL TEST By Alice Monro A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Philosophy School of History, Philosophy, Political Science and International Relations Victoria University of Wellington 2008 Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to sincerely thank my supervisor, Nick Agar, for all his advice, guidance and encouragement. I would also like to thank the rest of the philosophy staff, especially Sondra Bacharach who has made this year so great for all the postgrads. Special thanks has to go to the postgraduate students in the philosophy department at Victoria (for the great social times as well as the academic feedback), particularly to Tony (for answering my constant questions), Frieder (for putting words into equations), Dan, Matt, Nick, Dennis and Alan (for all the helpful advice). To my editor and emotional support, Stephen – thanks for reading my entire thesis 6 times in order to find the last misplaced apostrophe. Last, but certainly not least, a huge thank you to Mum, Dad and the rest of my family for all the important stuff. 2 Abstract In this thesis I argue against the use of genetic technologies to enhance human cognitive capacities. More specifically, I respond to Nick Bostrom and Toby Ord’s “Reversal Test”, which they use to argue in favour of genetic cognitive enhancement. The Reversal Test is a burden of proof challenge designed to diagnose status quo bias in arguments against enhancement.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetics, Justice and Future Generations
    GENETICS, JUSTICE AND FUTURE GENERATIONS by Ioana Petre Submitted to Central European University Department of Political Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Supervisor: Zoltan Miklosi Budapest, Hungary 2015 Copyright notice This dissertation contains no material accepted for any other degree(s) at any other institution(s). This dissertation contains no material written and/or published by any other person, except for where appropriate acknowledgment has been made in the form of bibliographical reference. i Abstract How does the distribution of genetic technologies within the current generation influence the potential interests and well-being of future generations? This is the main inquiry of my thesis, which, in order to be adequately answered, is accompanied by a myriad of subsequent questions, such as: (i) who are the future generations?; which types of genetic procedures are, in themselves, morally problematic?; (iii) which types of genetic procedures are morally problematic for the generations to come?; (iv) how can these latter genetic technologies affect future generations?; (v) how can these latter genetic technologies affect the social environment in which the future generations will live? I argue that future generations constitute only a subtype of the large category of future people and I provide a set of characteristics that could help us define them. I claim that germline interventions aimed at modifying the genomes of future people cannot be morally justifiable if there is no possibility of controlling the intervention either by reversing or altering it, whenever need demands it. Performing germline modifications on currently living individuals targets future generations’ health and the well-being associated to it by reducing the diversity of the human gene pool.
    [Show full text]
  • Honoring Arthur L. Caplan
    Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy (1985-2015) Volume 16 Issue 1 Article 3 1999 Honoring Arthur L. Caplan Renee C. Fox Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/jchlp Recommended Citation Renee C. Fox, Honoring Arthur L. Caplan, 16 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol'y (2000). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/jchlp/vol16/iss1/3 This Dedication is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy (1985-2015) by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Honoring Arthur L. Caplan Erratum ix This dedication is available in Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy (1985-2015): https://scholarship.law.edu/jchlp/vol16/iss1/3 DEDICATORY ESSAY HONORING ARTHUR L. CAPLAN Renge C. Fox* Contemplating the writing of an introductory piece about Arthur L. Caplan - philosopher of science, bioethicist, public intellectual, and the person to whom this issue of THE JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY HEALTH LAW AND POLICY is dedicated - summoned up several per- sonal images of him which have more than a personal meaning: A few years ago, while I was flying across the country on a professional trip, engrossed in reading a good novel and happily elevated 35,000 feet above my usual ground-level activities, I glanced up from my book and saw Arthur Caplan's face before me on a television screen. Via electronic media, he was journeying with my fellow passengers and me, exuberantly discussing bioethical questions about organ transplantation with us, as we sped through the sky.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Consent: a Relational Model of Community Authorization for Genetically Modified Mosquito Trials in Developing Countries
    Beyond Consent: A Relational Model of Community Authorization for Genetically Modified Mosquito Trials in Developing Countries by Lara Zahabi, BSc, MD, MHSc A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Institute of Medical Science/Collaborative Program in Bioethics University of Toronto © Copyright by Lara Zahabi 2014 Beyond Consent: A Relation Model of Community Authorization for Genetically Modified Mosquito Trials in Developing Countries Lara Zahabi Doctor of Philosophy Institute of Medical Science/Joint Program in Bioethics University of Toronto 2014 Abstract This thesis provides the first empirical explanatory theory for community authorization for Genetically Modified Mosquito (GMM) trials. Although this theory was developed in the context of GMM trials, it can apply to other endeavors, research or not, where whole communities might be affected. As GMM make their way from laboratories to villages of developing countries to test their effectiveness in controlling vector-borne diseases, community authorization emerges as a critical and urgent, yet undefined, mechanism of protection and respect for communities who might be affected by research and its outcomes. Following a constructivist Grounded Theory approach, I analyzed three prominent GMM trials from Mexico, the Cayman Islands, and Malaysia. Nineteen (19) interviews and two hundred and forty nine (249) documents were analyzed in order to uncover the substantive and procedural aspects of authentic and sufficient community authorization for research, as well as the factors that affect such authorization. This interdisciplinary bioethics thesis supports a relational notion of community authorization, as a continuous state of ongoing, maintenance-dependent, approval for research from inception through all stages.
    [Show full text]
  • Hastings Center 2012
    Narrative Section of a Successful Application The attached document contains the grant narrative and selected portions of a previously funded grant application. It is not intended to serve as a model, but to give you a sense of how a successful application may be crafted. Every successful application is different, and each applicant is urged to prepare a proposal that reflects its unique project and aspirations. Prospective applicants should consult the Challenge Grants application guidelines at http://www.neh.gov/grants/challenge/challenge-grants for instructions. Applicants are also strongly encouraged to consult with the NEH Office of Challenge Grants staff well before a grant deadline. Note: The attachment only contains the grant narrative and selected portions, not the entire funded application. In addition, certain portions may have been redacted to protect the privacy interests of an individual and/or to protect confidential commercial and financial information and/or to protect copyrighted materials. Project Title: The Hastings Center Humanities Research Initiative Institution: The Hastings Center, Garrison, NY Project Directors: Erik Parens Grant Program: Challenge Grants 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20024 P 202.606.8309 F 202.606.8394 E [email protected] www.neh.gov Abstract As part of a comprehensive campaign, The Hastings Center aims to build an endowment for a major humanities research initiative and is seeking a $500,000 challenge grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. The initiative will strengthen and expand the Center’s mission of providing a bridge between enduring ethical and philosophical questions and pressing contemporary practical questions about how we – as members of families, communities, and societies – ought to act in relation to advances in medicine, science, and technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Enhancement Ethics: the State of the Debate
    Introduction Human Enhancement Ethics: The State of the Debate Nick Bostrom and Julian Savulescu Background Are we good enough? If not, how may we improve ourselves? Must we restrict ourselves to traditional methods like study and training? Or should we also use science to enhance some of our mental and physical capacities more directly? Over the last decade, human enhancement has grown into a major topic of debate in applied ethics. Interest has been stimulated by advances in the biomedical sciences, advances which to many suggest that it will become increasingly feasible to use medicine and technology to reshape, manipulate, and enhance many aspects of human biology even in healthy individuals. To the extent that such interventions are on the horizon (or already available) there is an obvious practical dimension to these debates. This practical dimension is underscored by an outcrop of think tanks and activist organizations devoted to the biopolitics of enhancement. Already one can detect a biopolitical fault line developing between pro- enhancement and anti-enhancement groupings: transhumanists on one side, who believe that a wide range of enhancements should be developed and that people should be free to use them to transform themselves in quite radical ways; and bioconservatives on the other, who believe that we should not substantially alter human biology or the human condition.¹ There are also miscellaneous groups who try to position themselves in ¹ See e.g. Bostrom, N. 2006. ‘A Short History of Transhumanist Thought’, Analysis and Metaphysics, 5: 63–95 (http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/history.pdf). 2 between these poles, as the golden mean.
    [Show full text]