“From Frankenstein to the Visible Human project, the body is continually reinterpreted as a limit to what it means to be human.” Discuss critically.
Although viewings of such movies as Blade Runner and I, Robot have made me aware of such anxieties about an over reliance on technology, upon conducting research for this project I realised there is a lot more to it than one may think. I did my research based on the idea that I would approach this question by looking at what it is to be human, then look at the various arguments of transhumanists vs. bioconservatives. I typically favour using the libraries search engine to scan through scholarly journals, which is the method I used predominantly here. However, I found ‘Google’ and ‘Google Scholar’ helpful also.
In addressing this question, I first wanted to determine exactly what it is to be human.Russel Blackford's article[1] was very insightful and used similar terminology to a lot of the readings for this unit. Whilst the beginning of the article was not so helpful, concentrating more on the distinction between humans and other animals, Blackford then turns his attention to how ‘cyborgisation’, ‘mutation’ and ‘AI’ (artificial intelligence) will affect our position as a morally superior human race. Echoing Haraway’s sentiments, Blackford feels we are all becoming cyborgs and mutants in one way or another. He outlines the two schools of thought on the matter (transhumanists vs. bioconservatives), using a debate he attended to illustrate various points made by each side. Blackford himself seems to be a conservative transhumanist, claiming that as our reliance on technology increases our status as fully moral beings will not be compromised; we will become cyborgs or mutants that will still be capable of reason, emotion, logic etc. Whilst he may seem somewhat relaxed he does alert the reader to the notion of social injustice regarding the distribution of ability enhancing technology and warns that there is a possibility of the development of conscious, non-human intelligences. This article provides a good first point of contact for the guiding question as it provides one interpretation of being human, and then explains why we are not endangering ourselves by relying more on technology. The article was also strengthened by the fact that it provided two views on the subject and was written by a reputable intellectual.
I was very fortunate to come across this article by Megan Stern[2] as it is more or less a 25-page answer to the guiding question. As such, I could write a very detailed summary of the article however I will endeavour to outline the points that would best answer the guiding question. Using Gunter Von Hagen’s Body Worlds exhibition (which we discussed in the first tutorial), Stern points out the general disdain the general public has had towards such public viewings of ‘medicalized bodies’. She explains this in terms of utopian and dystopian medicine. Basically, the utopian discourse believes good health is a result of improved technology and manipulation of the human body. Later in the article, the Visible Human Project is used as an example of a result of the utopian scientific vision. Alternatively, a dystopian view sees medicinal technology as highly invasive, and something that poses a threat to human integrity and identity; in other words it reminds us of our limits as human beings. Stern cites Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein as a work that reflects such anxieties about scientific and technological progress of the time it was written and ultimately, deems it a dystopian text. There is much more to the article than what is written above, but certainly if I was to write a lengthy essay on this topic, I would consult this piece first due to its comprehensive nature and the fact that it includes texts I am familiar with.
This article by Andy Miah[3] was a departure from the previous two as the author wrote in an argumentative manner, heavily favouring technology and promoting the way it aids human beings. Miah believes that modern society is overly sceptical of technology and too pessimistic when it comes to the future of human/technology relations. Instead he adopts a more utopian approach to medicine, citing plastic surgery and the treatment of some sporting injuries as ways in which human beings have benefited greatly from modern medicine. What I found most interesting about this article was how Miah was able to use the example of how many sporting injuries are treated with rather invasive technologies which leave a lot of sportsmen and women with non-organic body parts (aka cyborgs). Subsequently, he suggests that transhumanism is experiencing a process of normalisation. This article is relevant to the question because it provides yet another example of how we, as humans, are being reminded of our limitations. Furthermore, it provides a strong argument for the refusal of anxieties geared towards technology and it’s place in modern medicine. The fact that this article also appears in a credible journal also implies the argument is backed by a trustworthy author.
I was searching through some forums and I noticed a lot of debate over an article written by Paul Lauritzen[4]. Wanting to see what all the fuss was about, I eventually found the article and read through it. Though it uses more scientific/medical jargon, Lauritzen is actually a renowned ethicist. Up to this point I had looked at the guiding question from a theoretical approach mainly focussing on those for and against the increased use of technology in medicine. Lauritzen calls for a broader perspective when it comes to stem cell research. Traditionally, debate has revolved around issues of autonomy, informed consent and commodification, but the author thinks given modern developments people should now consider concerns about embodiment, species boundaries and human nature. What follows is an intricate and, at times, confusing presentation of these issues. Lauritzen does include a discussion of such works as Francis Fukuyama’s Our Posthuman Future which I had experienced elsewhere in my research. Though at times confusing, and a little too technical for my knowledge, I still feel this article could prompt discussion as to how and why biotechnologies are seen as threatening to bioconservatives.
Nick Bostrom is a Philosophy Professor at
REFERENCES
1. Blackford, Russel (2003) ‘Mutants, Cyborgs, AI & Andriods’ in Meanjin. 63 (1) http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/blackford20030301/ [22 August 2008].
2. Stern, Megan (2006) ‘Dystopian Anxieties Versus Utopian Ideals: Medicine from Frankenstein to the Visible Human Project and Body Worlds’ in Science as Culture. 15 (1)
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&bquery=(AU+(+%22stern%22+))+and+(TI+(+%22dystopian%22+%22anxieties%22+))&type=1&site=ehost-live [22 August 2008].
3. Miah, Andy (2003) ‘Be Afraid: Cyborg Athletes, Trnashuman Ideals & Posthumanity’ in Journal of Evolution and Technology. 13 http://www.jetpress.org/volume13/miah.html [23 August 2008].
4. Lauritzen, Paul (2005) ‘Stem Cells, Biotechnology, and Human Rights: Implications for a Posthuman Future’ in The Hastingsd Centre Report. 35 (2) http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/stable/3527760?cookieSet=1
[23 August 2008].
5. Bostrom, Nick (2005) ‘In Defense of Posthuman Dignity’ in Bioethics. 19 (3) http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/dignity.html [24 August 2008].
No comments:
Post a Comment