WHEN THE “TWILIGHT OF JUSTICE” MEETS THE “DAWN OF NANOTECHNOLOGY”: A CRITIQUE OF TRANSHUMANISM AND THE TECHNOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE IN THE LIGHT OF GEORGE GRANT’S MORAL PHILOSOPHY by Janna Metcalfe Rosales A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department and Centre for the Study of Religion University of Toronto © Copyright by Janna Metcalfe Rosales 2009 When the “Twilight of Justice” Meets the “Dawn of Nanotechnology”: A Critique of Transhumanism and the Technological Imperative in the Light of George Grant’s Moral Philosophy Janna Metcalfe Rosales Doctor of Philosophy Department and Centre for the Study of Religion University of Toronto 2009 ABSTRACT This dissertation examines how contemporary Western ethical perspectives frame moral judgements about technologies intended to expand or enhance human abilities. Of particular interest are technological advances that involve nanotechnology, a realm of technoscience that seeks the precise control of matter through deliberately designing structures, devices, and processes with novel and useful properties at the molecular scale. In this thesis I analyze trends in the emerging dialogue about the social and ethical implications of nanotechnology. There is growing awareness that technological “progress” should not outpace critical reflection over the means and ends of those advances, but I argue that there is a tension between the role of ethics and the practice of technoscience. By ethics I mean ongoing public discussion that contemplates what it means to live a “good life” and that maintains limits to human actions. By contrast, the practice of technoscience appears to be guided by the “technological imperative” which holds that we can only know what is good by first figuring out what is possible. ii Despite concerted interdisciplinary efforts to address the broad range of ethical issues posed by nanotechnology’s proposed goals, the prevailing tone of the current discussion tends to reveal what I call a “technoprogressive” bias, or the belief that technological development is a primary way to improve the human estate and that it leads inevitably to cumulative progress. However, because technoprogressive commentary on nanotechnology focuses on concerns that are framed mainly in terms of risk assessment, cost-benefit analyses, and utilitarian principles, technoprogressive ethics overlooks crucial ethical questions of a different nature, questions that deal with the limits of human action, the nature of justice, and the meaning of being human. To analyze the implications of technoprogressive ethics, I employ the moral philosophy of Canadian thinker George Grant because he articulates an underrepresented yet valuable critique of Western society’s relationship with technology. Grant speaks for a type of transcendental moral realism that challenges the primacy of the technological imperative, insisting that justice ultimately must be grounded upon non-negotiable limits, and that there are objective norms to which human freedom and human self-assertion have to answer. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A doctoral dissertation is as much a journey as it is a tangible (and often weighty!) tome. There are many people to meet along the way: those who counsel, nudge, guide, mentor, challenge, support, and cheer, whether for a moment or for the long haul. To each one, I am grateful. I wish to express particular thanks to the following: To my supervisor Larry Schmidt, whose guidance of this dissertation was steadfast but gentle, thorough but patient, always good-natured, and always judicious, allowing me the time and space to gather together those big thoughts. Big thoughts seldom entail easy answers, and in the midst of the necessary and protracted grappling that is involved in forming a comprehensive understanding of ethics, I remain grateful for Larry’s quiet conviction that tackling complex issues is always worthwhile. To the members of my supervisory committee, Michael Vertin and Doug Perovic. Despite being scheduled to retire from the university a few years ago, Michael honoured his remaining commitments and continued on as a conscientious and thoughtful advisor to my project. His guidance was diligent and always encouraging, and I appreciated the extra care he took to ensure clarity of thought, both on his part and mine. Doug proved a willing and enthusiastic supporter who, in spite of a demanding workload as Chair of the Materials Science and Engineering department, displayed an admirable sense of adventure in taking up the challenge of a truly interdisciplinary project. His open-mindedness reassures me that interdisciplinary collaboration, though challenging, is both possible and rewarding. iv To Ursula Franklin, for a wisdom cultivated and a conviction honed over the course of an extraordinary life, for her warm and generous spirit, and for always making the time to inquire, to counsel, and to connect. To Michael Valpy, friend and fellow traveller in intellect and in spirit. To David Hawkin, who set me delving into Grant’s thought in the first place during my undergraduate years; to Michael Shute, my Master’s supervisor who helped develop my interest in technology and ethics; and to the other faculty in the Department of Religious Studies at Memorial University of Newfoundland, who encouraged the kind of intellectual flourishing that allowed me to continue this academic journey. To the staff and administration (past and present) at the Centre for the Study of Religion, University of Toronto, particularly Marilyn Colaco, Irene Kao, Barb Mainguy, Carol Canzano, and Fereshteh Hashemi, for their diligent work and ability to keep things running smoothly with good humour and friendly faces. To Darin Barney at McGill University for his collegiality and his thoughtful work on technology and citizenship. To Stephen Scharper at the University of Toronto for his mindfulness, humour, and grace in teaching. To the following for their assistance in all things Grant-related: Sheila Grant, Vincent Massey Tovell, William Christian, Edward Andrew, Art Davis, Henry Roper, and David Cayley. To the following, for the various seeds of thought they’ve sown: Gregory Baum, Michael Bourgeois, Philip Byer, Avi Caplan, Patrick Crean, Jennifer Dyer, Margaret Hancock, Katherine Hayles, Thomas Homer Dixon, Andrew House, Bob Hudspith, Yaacov v Iland, Mark Kingwell, Pamela Klassen, Travis Kroeker, Christopher Lind, Alain Lusignan, Peter MacLeod, André Maintenay, Michael Mehta, Paul Miller, Andrew Muncaster, Michael Neff, Dennis O’Hara, Craig Perfect, Ted Sargent, Ingrid Stefanovic, Gregory Stock, Charles Taylor, Bill Vanderburg, Richard Walker, Lois Wilson, Langdon Winner, Gregor Wolbring, and Nora Young. To John Fraser, Master of Massey College, to Elizabeth MacCallum, and to the Massey College community: I am deeply grateful for the rich community life I have been blessed to share and the lifelong friends I have made. To my extended family, near and far, for their kind thoughts and cheerleading. To my friends, for their solidarity, sense of humour, and encouragement. And finally, to my immediate family: Mom, Dad, and brother Michael. My epic voyage has stayed on course because you have been with me every step of the way. You’ve provided shoulders to lean on, a roof over my head, a contented space to write, hot meals, tech support, editorial advice, and comic relief, but most importantly, unwavering confidence, unconditional love, and unflagging support. I am truly blessed, and for all that, I thank you. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .........................................................................................................................................................II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................................. IV TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................................VII PART ONE: AN INTRODUCTION TO THINKING ABOUT TECHNOLOGY .........................................1 CHAPTER 1 PROJECT SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................2 How to think about technology and ethics ..................................................................................................14 Continental and Anglo-American thoughts on technology .........................................................................18 Relevance to the study of religion...............................................................................................................22 Interdisciplinary relevance .........................................................................................................................23 A word on sources.......................................................................................................................................26 A word on method .......................................................................................................................................27 PART TWO: TRIANGULATING THE FOUNDATIONS: AN EXPOSITION OF GEORGE GRANT, TRANSHUMANISM, AND NANOTECHNOLOGY .....................................................................................32 CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION TO GEORGE GRANT’S THOUGHT ON TECHNOLOGY...............................................33 The modern emergence of technoscience....................................................................................................34