DOCSLIB.ORG

Contemporary Science in Society: Creating Monsters Or Superhumans?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Contemporary Science in Society: Creating Monsters Or Superhumans? University of Hawai‘i at Hilo HOHONU 2019 Vol. 17 disease” (F. Zhang). The future is already becoming the Contemporary Science in present: as of November 2018 twins who had been Society: Creating Monsters or genetically modified in their embryonic stages to be HIV resistant were born through Dr. He Jiankui’s use of Superhumans? CRISPR experimentation (Stein). This technology feels futuristic; however, in the Sarah Graves early 1800’s, Shelley was already creating a science As contemporary science evolves, the altering of fiction world where Frankenstein discovers the cause “of DNA coding may become an accessible commodity1. In generation and life” and uses it to create a superhuman, 2015 scientists began editing the genetic code of human while turning himself into a monster (Shelley 40). In embryos (Ball). If scientists continue to experiment, our own reality, Dr. He is already viewed by many as a and the market for genetic editing exaggerates, then monster in the scientific community for experimenting future generations could be created and altered through with human life and for keeping it secret until the birth of science, with no real need for human reproduction. the aforementioned genetically engineered twins. We do Thus, creation could lead to monstrosity through science, not yet know if the twins will be HIV resistant or if they power, and lust for the ideal. Contemporary scientists will have other medical downfalls, but their creation is are beginning to approach a highly controversial path in the first step in a direction toward creating superhumans. modern DNA manipulation; a path which resembles a Therefore, in many ways, Frankenstein should be viewed Frankensteinian future. as a cautionary tale. The fear of future generations becoming less human In the book, Victor immerses himself in the and more human-like sounds dystopian and horrific, “unhallowed arts” of alchemy and chemistry; he is yet at the pace synthetic biology is moving it seems like thoroughly intrigued by them and it’s because of his time a probable reality. One of the first and most notable spent studying that he yearns to “bestow animation upon novels on the creation of human-like entities was Mary lifeless matter’ (Shelley 42). The language surrounding Shelley’s Frankenstein, in which, the main character, Victor and his studies is dark and forewarning. The Victor Frankenstein, a scientist, becomes obsessed with phrase “unhallowed arts” connotes an unholy or immoral the idea of constructing a human being out of dead body practice, which is Shelley’s way of warning her audience parts. He claims that his creation was for the betterment not to delve into experiments similar to Frankenstein’s. of humankind, but it could be argued that Frankenstein’s As of 2018, science has already brought forth cures arrogance was what drove him to take on the god-like for diseases, shots for immunizations, plastic surgery for role of creation. alteration, and in vitro fertilization for procreation. Ethics Much like Frankenstein’s ambition, the drive for is a major point of contention in all the aforementioned creation is still an inherent characteristic of many modern procedures. Independent agencies regularly oversee day scientists. This motivation, combined with society’s research in the scientific community; however, because hunger for perfection, and big industries’ lust for money, embryonic gene manipulation is rather new, there are means that ethical lines have and will continue to be no specific rules to govern it. Thus allowing scientists to blurred. Therefore, we must question if altering life in have almost absolute control with their experimentation. such ways, as through genetic engineering, is taking In fact, some nations are so appalled by this technology away from our natural state of being. and in fear of its potential that they have “banned such The technology behind genome editing is known as work” (Kolata). Because of the lack of regulation on “CRISPR-Cas9” or “clustered regularly interspaced short genome manipulation, and Dr. He’s recent independent palindromic repeats” which, in short, is the irregular work, there has been substantial backlash from the sequence of DNA in some bacterial genomes (S. Zhang). public and the scientific community: “He’s research has This irregularity has potential to cure diseases found in raised serious ethical questions around the transparency plants, animals, and humans. Scientists use CRISPR as of gene editing and sparked calls for a globally binding coding to inform the Cas9 enzyme where to cut, splice code of conduct” (Regan). Thus, as Shelley warned, or remove DNA in a genome (S. Zhang). The technology and as current science is showing us, we must institute itself is innovative and revolutionary by showing guidelines and laws on such procedures before biology “promise in gene therapy” through extracting stem cells, turns Frankensteinian. correcting them and then infusing them “back into the The relationship between present-day synthetic same patient to cure a genetic disease” (Warmflash). biologists and Victor Frankenstein draws a defining The Broad Institute comments that “ [w]ith [CRISPR parallel: both are creating life by manipulating the technology], researchers can permanently modify genes natural world through science. Originally, synthetic in living cells and organisms...at precise locations in biology was devised as a means to manipulate the human genome in order to treat genetic causes of embryonic development, by correcting disease-causing 1 As of November 2018, the first genetically modified babies mutations. However, with social tension already brewing were born. CRISPR/Cas9 was used to remove the CCR5 gene. This around this issue by raising questions about the ethical technology was not yet meant to be marketed or used on humans in boundaries between altering human development, and utero. (Bhattacharya). 19 University of Hawai‘i at Hilo HOHONU 2019 Vol. 17 creating inhuman, and potentially inhumane, individuals public could have the choice, to manipulate embryonic it has turned into a controversy about the power it allows development in order to create superhumans. Through people to have. Although creating life and editing genes Victor’s voice Shelley warns her readers of the potential seem like contemporary innovations, their conception destruction and despair that science, ambition and dates back to the time when Mary Shelley was alive. philosophy culminate to create: During the early nineteenth century the influence of “Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by biologists’ and philosophers’ ideas greatly impacted my example, how dangerous is the acquirement society; it is speculated that Luigi Galvani, a scientist of knowledge, and how much happier that man is and philosopher, contributed to Shelley’s idea of who believes his native town to be the world, than Frankenstein when he wrote, “Perhaps a corpse would he who aspires to become greater than his nature be re-animated… perhaps the component parts of a will allow.” (Shelley 41) creature might be manufactured, brought together, and If synthetic biologists become as obsessed with their endued with vital warmth” (Belt). As we can see, the desires of perfecting life as Victor was with creating it, then ideas of life and creation were speculated upon as much the embryos being manipulated will become constructs then as they are today. In this respect, Shelley is able to of humans and the creators will become monsters driven reflect timeless social issues such as fear of technology, by power, greed and perfection. Knowledge is power, fascination with creation, and ethical controversies and we can use the knowledge we have of biology to (Parker 223-239). benefit humans ethically; however, we must remember Victor and contemporary biologists reflect these fears that there are limits to human power, and those limits by manipulating life with scientific innovations. While are necessary. Frankenstein provides sufficient evidence that there With the power that the scientific community is are limits to human abilities, both Victor and synthetic gaining through genome editing there is great potential biologists are extending them. Scientists are enhancing for unhealthy control and monstrosity to unravel. Not DNA by extracting naturally-made developing embryos only is this an issue of bioethics, but also an ethical to delete, add, and manipulate the sequence of genes; issue of parenthood. Within recent years, and with they are not creating life out of nothing. Similarly, Victor the development of genetic technology, the idea of creates his monster from the limbs of the dead. Many “designer babies” has been questioned and debated. critics argue that Victor and synthetic biologists are taking Designer babies are considered to be genetically on god-like roles because even God created Adam, the modified children or “genetic interventions into pre- first man, from the dust of earth: “If the construction of implantation embryos in the attempt to influence the artificial life forms only deserve to be called creation of traits the resulting children will have” (Steinbock). What life when it is created literally out of nothing (creatio ex this means is that scientists will able to edit the genome nihilo), then we can be pretty sure that this elusive aim of an embryo to the parents’ liking. Scientists have the will never be achieved. But wasn’t Adam formed from capabilities to edit physical, mental, and emotional the dust of the earth?” (Belt). If contemporary scientists traits, in addition to eliminating various mutations and can alter life, similarly to how Frankenstein reinvents it, diseases. Advocates for designer babies say that “[t]here and how God creates it, then it may not be long until will be no disappointments and no surprises—parents we will be able to create life solely through science. If can imagine what they want, and they can get it,” while there is no reason for a God, or for humans to reproduce opponents of the idea call it a violation of human rights sexually, then do scientifically untouched people to turn people into a “manufactured product” (Catalano).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Genetics and Other Human Modification Technologies: Sensible International Regulation Or a New Kind of Arms Race?
    GENETICS AND OTHER HUMAN MODIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES: SENSIBLE INTERNATIONAL REGULATION OR A NEW KIND OF ARMS RACE? HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JUNE 19, 2008 Serial No. 110–201 Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 43–068PDF WASHINGTON : 2008 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey Samoa DAN BURTON, Indiana DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRAD SHERMAN, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts STEVE CHABOT, Ohio GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado DIANE E. WATSON, California RON PAUL, Texas ADAM SMITH, Washington JEFF FLAKE, Arizona RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MIKE PENCE, Indiana JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee JOE WILSON, South Carolina GENE GREEN, Texas JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas CONNIE MACK, Florida RUBE´ N HINOJOSA, Texas JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas DAVID WU, Oregon TED POE, Texas BRAD MILLER, North Carolina BOB INGLIS, South Carolina LINDA T.
    [Show full text]
  • Superhuman Enhancements Via Implants: Beyond the Human Mind
    philosophies Article Superhuman Enhancements via Implants: Beyond the Human Mind Kevin Warwick Office of the Vice Chancellor, Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5FB, UK; [email protected] Received: 16 June 2020; Accepted: 7 August 2020; Published: 10 August 2020 Abstract: In this article, a practical look is taken at some of the possible enhancements for humans through the use of implants, particularly into the brain or nervous system. Some cognitive enhancements may not turn out to be practically useful, whereas others may turn out to be mere steps on the way to the construction of superhumans. The emphasis here is the focus on enhancements that take such recipients beyond the human norm rather than any implantations employed merely for therapy. This is divided into what we know has already been tried and tested and what remains at this time as more speculative. Five examples from the author’s own experimentation are described. Each case is looked at in detail, from the inside, to give a unique personal experience. The premise is that humans are essentially their brains and that bodies serve as interfaces between brains and the environment. The possibility of building an Interplanetary Creature, having an intelligence and possibly a consciousness of its own, is also considered. Keywords: human–machine interaction; implants; upgrading humans; superhumans; brain–computer interface 1. Introduction The future life of superhumans with fantastic abilities has been extensively investigated in philosophy, literature and film. Despite this, the concept of human enhancement can often be merely directed towards the individual, particularly someone who is deemed to have a disability, the idea being that the enhancement brings that individual back to some sort of human norm.
    [Show full text]
  • The Disappearing Human: Gnostic Dreams in a Transhumanist World
    religions Article The Disappearing Human: Gnostic Dreams in a Transhumanist World Jeffrey C. Pugh Department of Religious Studies, Elon University, Elon, NC 27244-2020, USA; [email protected] Academic Editor: Noreen Herzfeld Received: 25 January 2017; Accepted: 18 April 2017; Published: 3 May 2017 Abstract: Transhumanism is dedicated to freeing humankind from the limitations of biological life, creating new bodies that will carry us into the future. In seeking freedom from the constraints of nature, it resembles ancient Gnosticism, but complicates the question of what the human being is. In contrast to the perspective that we are our brains, I argue that human consciousness and subjectivity originate from complex interactions between the body and the surrounding environment. These qualities emerge from a distinct set of structural couplings embodied within multiple organ systems and the multiplicity of connections within the brain. These connections take on different forms, including structural, chemical, and electrical manifestations within the totality of the human body. This embodiment suggests that human consciousness, and the intricate levels of experience that accompany it, cannot be replicated in non-organic forms such as computers or synaptic implants without a significant loss to human identity. The Gnostic desire to escape our embodiment found in transhumanism carries the danger of dissolving the human being. Keywords: Singularity; transhumanism; Merleau-Ponty; Kurzweil; Gnosticism; AI; emergence; technology 1. Introduction In 1993, the mathematician and science fiction writer Vernor Vinge gave a talk at the Vision 21 symposium sponsored by NASA introducing the idea of the Singularity, an evolutionary moment when we would create the capacity for superhuman intelligence that would transcend the human and take us into the posthuman world (Vinge 1993).
    [Show full text]
  • Transhumanism Between Human Enhancement and Technological Innovation*
    Transhumanism Between Human Enhancement and Technological Innovation* Ion Iuga Abstract: Transhumanism introduces from its very beginning a paradigm shift about concepts like human nature, progress and human future. An overview of its ideology reveals a strong belief in the idea of human enhancement through technologically means. The theory of technological singularity, which is more or less a radicalisation of the transhumanist discourse, foresees a radical evolutionary change through artificial intelligence. The boundaries between intelligent machines and human beings will be blurred. The consequence is the upcoming of a post-biological and posthuman future when intelligent technology becomes autonomous and constantly self-improving. Considering these predictions, I will investigate here the way in which the idea of human enhancement modifies our understanding of technological innovation. I will argue that such change goes in at least two directions. On the one hand, innovation is seen as something that will inevitably lead towards intelligent machines and human enhancement. On the other hand, there is a direction such as “Singularity University,” where innovation is called to pragmatically solving human challenges. Yet there is a unifying spirit which holds together the two directions and I think it is the same transhumanist idea. Keywords: transhumanism, technological innovation, human enhancement, singularity Each of your smartphones is more powerful than the fastest supercomputer in the world of 20 years ago. (Kathryn Myronuk) If you understand the potential of these exponential technologies to transform everything from energy to education, you have different perspective on how we can solve the grand challenges of humanity. (Ray Kurzweil) We seek to connect a humanitarian community of forward-thinking people in a global movement toward an abundant future (Singularity University, Impact report 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Nietzsche and Transhumanism Nietzsche Now Series
    Nietzsche and Transhumanism Nietzsche Now Series Cambridge Scholars Publishing Editors: Stefan Lorenz Sorgner and Yunus Tuncel Editorial Board: Keith Ansell-Pearson, Rebecca Bamford, Nicholas Birns, David Kilpatrick, Vanessa Lemm, Iain Thomson, Paul van Tongeren, and Ashley Woodward If you are interested in publishing in this series, please send your inquiry to the editors Stefan Lorenz Sorgner at [email protected] and Yunus Tuncel at [email protected] Nietzsche and Transhumanism: Precursor or Enemy? Edited by Yunus Tuncel Nietzsche and Transhumanism: Precursor or Enemy? Series: Nietzsche Now Edited by Yunus Tuncel This book first published 2017 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2017 by Yunus Tuncel and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book 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 the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-7287-3 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-7287-4 CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 Yunus Tuncel Part I Chapter One ............................................................................................... 14 Nietzsche, the Overhuman, and Transhumanism Stefan Lorenz Sorgner
    [Show full text]
  • The Sociopolitical Impact of Eugenics in America
    Voces Novae Volume 11 Article 3 2019 Engineering Mankind: The oS ciopolitical Impact of Eugenics in America Megan Lee [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/vocesnovae Part of the American Politics Commons, Bioethics and Medical Ethics Commons, Genetics and Genomics Commons, and the History Commons Recommended Citation Lee, Megan (2019) "Engineering Mankind: The ocS iopolitical Impact of Eugenics in America," Voces Novae: Vol. 11, Article 3. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Chapman University Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Voces Novae by an authorized editor of Chapman University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Lee: Engineering Mankind: The Sociopolitical Impact of Eugenics in America Engineering Mankind: The Sociopolitical Impact of Eugenics in America Megan Lee “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”1 This statement was made by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. while presenting the court’s majority opinion on the sterilization of a seventeen-year old girl in 1927. The concept of forced sterilization emerged during the American Eugenics Movement of the early 20th century. In 1909, California became one of the first states to introduce eugenic laws which legalized the forced sterilization of those deemed “feeble-minded.” The victims were mentally ill patients in psychiatric state hospitals, individuals who suffered from epilepsy and autism, and prisoners with criminal convictions, all of whom were forcibly castrated.
    [Show full text]
  • Humanizing the Posthuman in Powers, Wallace, Gibson And
    HUMANIZING THE POSTHUMAN IN POWERS, WALLACE, GIBSON AND DELILLO A dissertation submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of the Doctor of Philosophy By Ahmad Ghashmari December 2016 © Copyright All rights reserved Except for previously published materials Dissertation Written by Ahmad Ghashmari B.A., Yarmouk University, 2006 M.A., Yarmouk University, 2009 M.A., University of Akron, 2015 Ph.D., Kent State University, 2016 Approved by Tammy Clewell_______________, Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Robert Trogdon_______________, Members, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Kevin Floyd__________________ Michael Byron________________ Brian Baer___________________ Accepted by Robert Trogdon_______________, Chair, Department of English James L. Blank________________, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences i TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………………..……..ii Introduction………………………………………………………………………….…………….….…..1 Chapter 1: Richard Powers’ Galatea 2.2: Love, Companionship and Boundaries between Humans and Machines………………………………..………………....32 Chapter 2: David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest: Entertainment Technology and the Reclaiming of the Human………………….………………………………………….60 Chapter 3: William Gibson’s Pattern Recognition: Finding Human Agency in a Commodified Techno-Culture……….……………………………..……………....89 Chapter 4: The Illusion of Transhuman Immortality and the Importance of the Self…………………………..…………………….………….……………………………….122 Conclusion: Towards a New Understanding of Posthumanism………………………….151 Works Cited…………………………………………….……………….………………………………….156 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am immensely grateful to my dissertation director, Tammy Clewell, for her encouragement and patience. I would not have been able to complete this study without her guidance, valuable feedback and suggestions. I would also like to thank my dissertation committee members, Dr. Robert Trogdon, Dr. Kevin Floyd and Dr. Michael Byron for their feedback and interesting questions during the defense, the candidacy exams and the prospectus defense.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Vs. Posthuman Author(S): James Hughes, Nick Bostrum and Jonathan D
    Human vs. Posthuman Author(s): James Hughes, Nick Bostrum and Jonathan D. Moreno Source: The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 37, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 2007), pp. 4-7 Published by: The Hastings Center Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4625770 Accessed: 26-10-2016 01:22 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms The Hastings Center, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Hastings Center Report This content downloaded from 129.67.119.184 on Wed, 26 Oct 2016 01:22:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms letters Human vs. Posthuman To the Editor: In "Whereto Tran- to expand access to enhancement. Dif- able for some posthumans to expunge shumanism? The Literature Reaches a ferences in biology and ability challenge all fellow-feeling for mere humans, or Critical Mass" (May-June 2007), social solidarity, but the Enlightenment for any other persons? Whether local or Nicholas Agar correctly notes that argues for solidarity among equal citi- universal values, ensuring that our de- Simon Young's effort to ground trans- zens irrespective of biological differ- scendents retain capacities for solidarity humanism in a drive to evolve is a non- ences.
    [Show full text]
  • Transhumanism
    T ranshumanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T ranshum... Transhumanism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia See also: Outline of transhumanism Transhumanism is an international Part of Ideology series on intellectual and cultural movement supporting Transhumanism the use of science and technology to improve human mental and physical characteristics Ideologies and capacities. The movement regards aspects Abolitionism of the human condition, such as disability, Democratic transhumanism suffering, disease, aging, and involuntary Extropianism death as unnecessary and undesirable. Immortalism Transhumanists look to biotechnologies and Libertarian transhumanism other emerging technologies for these Postgenderism purposes. Dangers, as well as benefits, are Singularitarianism also of concern to the transhumanist Technogaianism [1] movement. Related articles The term "transhumanism" is symbolized by Transhumanism in fiction H+ or h+ and is often used as a synonym for Transhumanist art "human enhancement".[2] Although the first known use of the term dates from 1957, the Organizations contemporary meaning is a product of the 1980s when futurists in the United States Applied Foresight Network Alcor Life Extension Foundation began to organize what has since grown into American Cryonics Society the transhumanist movement. Transhumanist Cryonics Institute thinkers predict that human beings may Foresight Institute eventually be able to transform themselves Humanity+ into beings with such greatly expanded Immortality Institute abilities as to merit the label "posthuman".[1] Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence Transhumanism is therefore sometimes Transhumanism Portal · referred to as "posthumanism" or a form of transformational activism influenced by posthumanist ideals.[3] The transhumanist vision of a transformed future humanity has attracted many supporters and detractors from a wide range of perspectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Superhuman, Transhuman, Post/Human: Mapping the Production and Reception of the Posthuman Body
    Superhuman, Transhuman, Post/Human: Mapping the Production and Reception of the Posthuman Body Scott Jeffery Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Applied Social Science, University of Stirling, Scotland, UK September 2013 Declaration I declare that none of the work contained within this thesis has been submitted for any other degree at any other university. The contents found within this thesis have been composed by the candidate Scott Jeffery. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you, first of all, to my supervisors Dr Ian McIntosh and Dr Sharon Wright for their support and patience. To my brother, for allowing to me to turn several of his kitchens into offices. And to R and R. For everything. ABSTRACT The figure of the cyborg, or more latterly, the posthuman body has been an increasingly familiar presence in a number of academic disciplines. The majority of such studies have focused on popular culture, particularly the depiction of the posthuman in science-fiction, fantasy and horror. To date however, few studies have focused on the posthuman and the comic book superhero, despite their evident corporeality, and none have questioned comics’ readers about their responses to the posthuman body. This thesis presents a cultural history of the posthuman body in superhero comics along with the findings from twenty-five, two-hour interviews with readers. By way of literature reviews this thesis first provides a new typography of the posthuman, presenting it not as a stable bounded subject but as what Deleuze and Guattari (1987) describe as a ‘rhizome’. Within the rhizome of the posthuman body are several discursive plateaus that this thesis names Superhumanism (the representation of posthuman bodies in popular culture), Post/Humanism (a critical-theoretical stance that questions the assumptions of Humanism) and Transhumanism (the philosophy and practice of human enhancement with technology).
    [Show full text]
  • Superhuman Resources Responsible Deployment of AI in Business 2 Superhuman Resources Foreword
    Superhuman Resources Responsible deployment of AI in business 2 Superhuman Resources Foreword Foreword 1 Since the turn of the century, there has been an exponential increase in the creation and management Background 3 of data. Technologies that can sift, analyse and deploy this growing wealth of digital information are being Development of machine learning 6 rapidly adopted across government and business, as well as by consumers themselves. Artificial intelligence now Transformative potential 8 promises to transform the application of these resources. Deployment risks 10 The effect will be highly disruptive to existing ways of doing things, but promises huge opportunities for consumers and Regulation as society’s 16 for the entrepreneurs that realise their dreams. The argument approach to managing risk that artificial intelligence will cause mass unemployment is as unpersuasive as the argument that threshing machines, Key principles for responsible 18 machine tools, dishwashers or computers would cause deployment of AI mass unemployment. “The bogeyman of automation consumes worrying capacity that should be saved for real Conclusion 21 problems,” said the economist Herbert Simon in the 1960s. None the less, genuine concerns about the misuse of artificial intelligence, and the unintended consequences, need to be taken very seriously. I am therefore delighted to see this white paper published because it is critical that the risks and liabilities associated with AI adoption are equally well recognised as businesses increasingly expose machine
    [Show full text]
  • Preparing for the Future of Artificial Intelligence
    PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Executive Office of the President National Science and Technology Council National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology October 2016 About the National Science and Technology Council The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) is the principal means by which the Executive Branch coordinates science and technology policy across the diverse entities that make up the Federal research and development (R&D) enterprise. One of the NSTC’s primary objectives is establishing clear national goals for Federal science and technology investments. The NSTC prepares R&D packages aimed at accomplishing multiple national goals. The NSTC’s work is organized under five committees: Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability; Homeland and National Security; Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education; Science; and Technology. Each of these committees oversees subcommittees and working groups that are focused on different aspects of science and technology. More information is available at www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/nstc. About the Office of Science and Technology Policy The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was established by the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976. OSTP’s responsibilities include advising the President in policy formulation and budget development on questions in which science and technology are important elements; articulating the President’s science and technology policy and programs; and fostering strong partnerships among Federal, state, and local governments, and the scientific communities in industry and academia. The Director of OSTP also serves as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and manages the NSTC. More information is available at www.whitehouse.gov/ostp.
    [Show full text]