Great post, thank you. I suggest critical thinking and the tools of
scenario planning, strategic systems analysis, environmental scanning,
forecasting and backcasting, as a methodology for assessing issues. As
far as distribution is concerned, we will have to apply a methodology
such as Buckminster Fuller developed.
http://www.bfi.org/our_programs/who_is_buckminster_fuller/design_science/world_game/introduction_to_buckminster_fullers_world_game Now this takes a mind like da Vinci or Fuller who have the intellection, creativity and vision to grasp the current systems and the variables in
play.
Regarding CAE, their works appear to be somewhat biasedin some ways,
but nonetheless they do important work in bringing issues to the public.
Regarding Haraway's quote below, it is a bit of a flip comment without
substantiality. These types of characterizations are very easy to come
by - all one has to do is look for journalists in the 1990s who used
Wired magazine as a source and then selected who was featured (such as
yours truly) and misrepresent and exaggerate content for effect. That
was a bit of a trend in the late 90s and early 2000s, but has simmered
down since what we had suggested in the 1980s actually did develop in
the 21st cen. and since folks like Francis Fukuyama and President
George W. Bush decided that transhumanism was the world's most
dangerous idea. Bruce Mao and Sandy Stone both told me to take that
as a very big compliment. :-) But I do take seriously Katherine
Hayles who recently said that she had hoped transhumanism would go
away, but realized it has become more substantial.
Anyway, I believe that we do have shared values and aims and whether
it is a cyborg a transhuman, a prosthetic being, or a posthuman ...
Best and ciao,
Natasha
Quoting "fmarineo@libero.it" <fmarineo@libero.it>:
> Dear Natasha and all yasminers,
> When I read about "our responsibility to seek
> out ways to make sure that ethics is primary and human enhancement
> is available
> to all the seek it" (quoting from the VP summit introductory page),
> what comes
> into my mind are rather issues concerning an equal distribution and access to
> already available resources. For example, I think about public
> health services,
> cheap and non expired medicines, unpatented seeds for agricultural needs. I
> think about the work of groups like the Critical Art Emseble or the subRosa
> collective.
>
> To criticize the rhetoric of choice that animates the debate
> around reproductive technologies one doesn't need to embrace the pro-life or
> apocalyptic arguments of bioethicists. Rather we should consider who
> appropriates this rhetoric, what interests it promotes, what values
> and models
> it reifies. I believe that accounting for all this can be a way of engaging
> responsibly with new technologies. The same is true for the
> dystopian critiques
> of technological utopias: reversing the argument doesn't not suffice
> (plus, it
> often perpetuates the same sets of oppositions). That is why, in one of my
> previous posts, I talked about a technotopic approach.
>
> By the way, Haraway
> talks about "transhumanist technoenhancement" in a conversation with
> Nicholas
> Gane ["When We Have Never Been Human, What Is to Be Done", in
> "Theory, Culture
> & Society", 2006 Vol. 23(7–8): 135–158] when discussing the uses of the term
> "posthuman".
> The complete statement reads as follows:
> «I think it's a bit
> impossible not to use it sometimes, but I'm
> trying not to use it. Kate Hayles
> writes this smart, wonderful book How
> We Became Posthuman. She locates herself
> in that book at the right
> interface – the place where people meet IT
> apparatuses, where worlds
> get reconstructed as information. I am in strong
> alliance with her insistence
> in that book, namely getting at the materialities
> of information. Not
> letting anyone think for a minute that this is
> immateriality rather than
> getting at its specific materialities. That I'm with,
> that sense of 'how we
> became posthumanist'. Still, human/posthuman is much too
> easily appropriated
> by the blissed-out, 'Let's all be posthumanists and find
> our next
> teleological evolutionary stage in some kind of transhumanist
> technoenhancement.'
> Posthumanism is too easily appropriated to those kinds of
>
> projects for my taste. Lots of people doing posthumanist thinking, though,
> don'
> t do it that way. The reason I go to companion species is to get away
> from
> posthumanism». (p.140).
>
> Federica
>
>> ----Messaggio originale----
>> Da:
> natasha@natasha.cc
>> Data: 23/07/2009 18.36
>> A: "YASMIN DISCUSSIONS"
> <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
>> Ogg: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] R: Re:
> ethnic cyborg
>>
>>
>> In response to Federica: Regarding Haraway - interesting
> enough I have had
>> to counter this belief on a number of occasions. While it
> might be a
>> supposition that there are endless discussions on the ethics of
> human
>> enhancement, this topic, bar none, has been the most sought after topic
> for
>> those who are deeply involved in human enhancement sciences and
>
>> technologies. I think the disconnect is that there has never been a key
>
>> figure within the arts who has written extensively on this topic and also
>> has
> been fortunate enough to have had a heavily populated support system as
>> has
> feminist studies (and related areas such as your own field) and gay and
>
>> lesbian studies. These studies have created new fields within the arts, and
>
>> rightfully so. One day there will be a heavily populated support system for
>
>> human enhancement studies as well, but that time is yet to be realized.
>>
>> To
> counter Haraway's claim about "trashumanist technoenhancement" (which I
>
>> googled but could not locate) and which you say "very often neglects the
>
>> political implications and the hierarchies and inequalities on which it
>
>> rests", there are many worldwide organizations which have been in
>> discussions
> about human enhancement for well over a decade. More recently,
>> there was a
> summit of experts in their fields on this and other issues.
>> This summit
> (February 15 - 29, 2004) states, "Learn why this Summit is so
>> urgently needed,
> how it will work, what it will accomplish, and who should
>> participate in
> bringing about ethical and proactive development of human
>> enhancement."
>>
>> VP
> Summit: http://www.extropy.org/summitabout.htm
>> Institute for Ethics &
> Emerging Technologies: http://ieet.org/
>> Future of Humanity Institute (Oxford
> University) http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/
>>
>> Human enhancement can be broken down
> into three areas: therapeutic
>> enablement modification, selective enhancement,
> and evolution design. The
>> first is often, if now customary, an individual
> choice. Whether or not one
>> wants a prosthetic limb is usually a choice.
> Often pharmaceutical
>> (chemical) therapeutic modification is not a choice, but
> usually it is).
>> Selective enhancement, meaning taking hormone replacement
> therapy (HRT) or
>> other chemical components to improve the human condition is
> usually a
>> choice. The later stages of human enhancement, that of evolution
> design, is
>> a choice. Not everyone has to alter his/her physiology. That is
> why I
>> stated that altering human nature "regardless of why, when or how
>
>> biotechnological advancements come about" is a choice and a right. The
>
>> negative and positive right of "Morphological Freedom" covers this area.
>
>> Often it is thought of as a negative right (meaning only the rich will be
>
>> able to enhance, but that is not a correct assessment of this theory because
>
>> it is more about the right not to be coerced to enhance, which protects
>> those
> who would like to remain unenhanced.)
>>
>> You asked: "[A]re we sure that what we
> have been differently experiencing as
>> our actual or potential enhanced
> condition is a direct 'consequence' of
>> technological 'evolution' and of the
> eventual merging of nature (biology)
>> and culture (sciences)? Or isn't rather
> that a different set of practical
>> and theoretical possibilities (apparatuses),
> undoubtedly also offered by the
>> production and consumption of new
> technologies, allows us to rethink our
>> boundaries and boundary enactments and
> do without binary categories?"
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand the question, but I
> will do my best to answer.
>> No, our actual or potential enhanced condition is
> not necessarily a
>> consequence of technological evolution, but it certainly is
> one result of
>> it. Further potentials are meditation, immersive and
> interactivity of
>> enhanced reality or virtuality in altering or enhancing
> perceptions. This
>> relates to altered brain states, or electrical charges in
> the brain which
>> can cause mood shifts, cognitive shifts, and perceptual
> shifts. This area
>> of neuroscience is fascinating and a very big aspect of
> human enhancement
>> methodology.
>>
>> Yet, this type of enhancement can be applied
> with technologies such as
>> within the nascent field of optogenetics (optics and
> genetics affecting
>> neural circuits at high speeds (millisecond-timescale)).
>
>>
>> Not everyone will want to enhance, nor should they be forced to enhance. We
>
>> need more diversity among our species (as I am sure you will agree). While
>> we
> may not really need different types of sentient life forms, they will
>> most
> likely be developed. And because of this fact alone, it makes for the
>> need of
> new fields within the arts to explore the area of human enhancement.
>>
>> I will
> be speaking on this at the Re:live conference and I am currently
>> writing my
> paper for the Superhuman conference - both in Melbourne.
>>
>> Hope to see you
> soon too -
>>
>> Best,
>> Natasha
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:
> yasmin_discussions-bounces@estia.media.uoa.gr
>> [mailto:yasmin_discussions-
> bounces@estia.media.uoa.gr] On Behalf Of
>> fmarineo@libero.it
>> Sent: Wednesday,
> July 22, 2009 8:50 AM
>> To: yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
>> Subject:
> [Yasmin_discussions] R: Re: ethnic cyborg
>>
>> Hi Natasha,
>> Nice to talk to you
> again.
>> I'd like to comment on your final
>> suggestion to "get beyond the
> cyborg symbol and investigate what is being
>> done *right now* in art, science,
> philosophy, technology which are
>> specifically located in *the field of human
> enhancement".
>>
>> As a matter of fact, I do not
>> feel I want to go beyond the
> cyborg figuration just because the term isn't
>> fashion anymore. My idea of
> cyborgness, filtered trough Haraway, Sandoval,
>> and postcolonial cyberfeminism,
> among the others, has never been fashion.
>> Rather, I have always considered it
> as an antidote to what Haraway has
>> termed "trashumanist tecnoenhancement",
> which very often neglects the
>> political implications and the hierarchies and
> inequalities on which it
>> rests. I am not specifically talking about your
> projects or your idea of
>> transhumanism, although, I must confess, I am deeply
> uncomfortable (and
>> surely not because I am a biological fundamentalist)
> reading about the
>> evolution/enhancement of human nature as an individual
> choice and right
>> "regardless of why, when or how biotechnological advancements
> come about" (I
>> am quoting from your "The New [human] Genre — Primo Posthuman"
> paper here).
>> And this because of the words "individual" and "choice", and "
> regardless".
>>
>> But anyway: are we sure that
>> what we have been differently
> experiencing as our actual or potential
>> enhanced condition is a direct "
> consequence" of technological "evolution"
>> and of the eventual merging of
> nature (biology) and culture (sciences)? Or
>> isn't rather that a different set
> of practical and theoretical possibilities
>> (apparatuses), undoubtedly also
> offered by the production and consumption of
>> new technologies, allows us to
> rethink our boundaries and boundary
>> enactments and do without binary
> categories? Why do we still have to think
>> of humanity as an endangered
> species, that must be either (partially)
>> protected or superseded? Following
> Karen Barad** (very "right now" thinker,
>> quantum physics and all…), I notice a
> very common tendency towards
>> "thingification", that is the transformation of
> material-discursive
>> relations into entities, which in a way or another evokes
> a metaphysical
>> distinction of subjects/objects, minds/bodies and so on. Do we
> really need
>> this?
>> Hope to meet you soon,
>> Federica
>>
>> ** http://xml.nada.kth.
>
>> se/media/Research/k-sem/k-sem-aktuell/Abstracts/SignsBarad.pdf
>>
>>> ----
> Messaggio
>> originale----
>>> Da: natasha@natasha.cc
>>> Data: 21/07/2009 22.26
>
>>> A:
>> <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
>>> Ogg: Re: [Yasmin_discussions]
> ethnic
>> cyborg
>>>
>>> Quoting Joseph Ingoldsby <landscapemosaics@verizon.net>:
>>>
>
>>>> In the
>> discussions to this point mention has been made of the cyborg as an
>
>>>>
>> extension of human beings, compensating for their weakness, and
> magnifying
>>>>
>> their strength- for good or bad. They are used for scientific
> exploration,
>>>>
>> industrialization, and for war. They are physically formed
> with a human
>>>>
>> face and there has been attempts to imbue them with human
> attributes to be
>>>>
>> both servant and master. The machine is an extension of
> the human being. We
>>>>
>> are also of the earth in a web of interconnected
> life. Our technology allows
>>>>
>> us to destroy life and ourselves. The
> development of our inner life and
>>>>
>> consciousness have not kept pace with
> our technological advancement. Those
>>>>
>> cultures who lived in cyclical
> harmony with all organisms have been killed,
>>>>
>> conquered and marginalized.
> We are a seriously flawed species, who will self
>>>>
>> destruct in time. Our
> technology may not be able to save us from ourselves.
>>>
>>
>>> Thank you for a
> stimulating post.
>>>
>>> I have mentioned this before, but it does
>> not seem to
> draw interest or
>>> response. But I think it might be helpful to
>> look
> outside the cyborg
>>> domain for what is occurring in other areas which
>> are
> taking leaps and
>>> bounds in the area of human enhancement.
>>>
>>> The field
>
>> of human enhancement has been the central focus for decades
>>> - far longer
>
>> than postmodernism or the brilliant work of Haraway with
>>> her cyborg
> theory.
>> This field of human enhancement stems from the
>>> works and
> writings of
>> philosophy, cybernetic theory, and the
>>> scientific and
> technological advances
>> in nano-bio-info-cogno/neuro.
>>> Assessing a future
> human which stems from our
>> unfixed biology and
>>> which merges with
> technology is the fully developed
>> perspective is
>>> transhumanism. Now I
> know that many of you do not favor
>> transhumanism
>>> because of some bad press
> several years ago ? that you
>> associate it
>>> with capitalism, consumerism and
> America, but that is simply
>>
>>> inaccurate and insufficient reasoning in not
> investigating what it is
>>> and
>> how it can be useful in these types of
> discussions.
>>>
>>> If a human merges with
>> technology for the purposes of
> augmentation,
>>> modification and enhancement
>> that human is improving
> his/her
>>> physiological condition. This improvement is
>> firstly semi-
> biological
>>> but ultimately a technical modification for
>> enhancement.
> Deeply
>>> augmenting the senses, modifying the restricted
>> lifespan of 122
>
>>> maximum and enhancing cognition through nanotechnology and
>> artificial
>
>>> general intelligence means that the human is evolving beyond what
>> the
>
>>> Homo sapiens sapiens wholly biological condition.
>>>
>>> Once we started
>
>> changing the genetics and producing offspring outside
>>> the body, and
> further
>> extending our cognition beyond the neocortex
>>> structure within the
> body, we
>> were approaching something other than
>>> biological dependency.
> This
>> technological enhancement is leading
>>> toward a species
> transformation.
>> Whether or not one favors or
>>> disfavors the term
> "transhuman" it has been the
>> term which
>>> characterizes the human?s
> transitional transformations brought
>> about
>>> by the merging of biology with
> the sciences and technologies
>> (usually
>>> nano-bio-info-cogno/neuro). That
> transformation does not have to
>> have
>>> a full stop at the posthuman or
> leave behind the human, as no one
>>
>>> truly knows what we will become in the
> next hundred/thousand years.
>>>
>>>> And
>> what is human that is worth saving?
> Empathy? Memory? Love? Intelligence?
>>>
>>> I
>> just gave a talk on Human
> Enhancement Aesthetics at the Metanexus
>>> Institute
>> Conference in Tempe, AZ
> last weekend ("Cosmos, Nature,
>>> Culture A Tran
>> disciplinary Conference).
>
>>>
>>> It is our "humaneness" that is worth sustaining.
>> It is our sense of
>
>>> love, joy, compassion, kindness, curiosity, creativity,
>> intelligence,
>
>>> etc. that we must protect and explore more deeply.
>>>
>>>> There
>> is an
> artist who speaks a poetic visual language of our self
>>>> immolation. He
>> is
> Robert ParkeHarrison, who knits together the tattered
>>>> remains of a
>
>> destroyed planet. Robert ParkeHarrison becomes the last human
>>>> alive on a
>
>> smoldering planet. His work stages futile attempts to mend the
>>>> earth,
>
>> reconnect the technologies, to communicate, to restore the damage to
>>>> an
>
>> earth despoiled. The works are a series of elegies to humankind, to the
>>>>
>
>> Industrial land, to the Promised land and Earth Elegies that speak with a
>>>>
>
>> poetic voice a shattering scream that echoes against the barren landscape.
>
>>>>
>> To be human, to be alone, with the façade of technology stripped away to
>
>>>>
>> face an uncertain future. His work embraces the human consciousness as
> one
>>>>
>> reconstructs memory after a tragic, cataclysmic event
>>>> http://www.
>
>> parkeharrison.com/slides-architechsbrother/index.html
>>>> http://www.
>
>> parkeharrison.com/slides-graydawn/index.html
>>>
>>> Beautiful work. But my
>
>> question is why do we not envision an
>>> aesthetics of the future which
>
>> suggests a future worth living in?
>>> This was the crux of my talk. Too
> often
>> the future is perceived
>>> through the media of SF literature and
> filmmaking,
>> which are either
>>> highly utopian or enormously dystopian.
> Most of the
>> current future
>>> aesthetics is dark, dismal and saturated with
> how rotten the
>> world has
>>> become. I am a big Buckminster Fuller fan, and
> I have to say that
>> I
>>> continue to return time and time again to his
> particular logic. What
>>
>>> can we do to bring about a vision for the future
> which will prompt
>>
>>> solutions finding.
>>>
>>> I think Bruce Mao did a
> marvelous job with this in his
>> Massive Change
>>> project (although it was
> not about human enhancement). And I
>> think
>>> many of my colleagues at the
> Planetary Collegium are producing
>>
>>> meaningful projects to bring about a
> glimpse of vision - hope - and
>>
>>> experience, be it virtuality, immersive
> design, or theory.
>>>
>>> Anyway, if we
>> want to develop a larger discussion on
> human
>>> enhancement, it might be
>> beneficial to get beyond the cyborg
> symbol
>>> and investigate what is being
>> done *right now* in art, science,
>
>>> philosophy, technology which are
>> specifically located in *the field of
>
>>> human enhancement*.
>>>
>>> Natasha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Yasmin_discussions mailing
>
>> list
>>> Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
>>> http://estia.media.uoa.
>
>> gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
>>>
>>> Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.
>
>> gr/yasmin
>>>
>>> HOW TO SUBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to
>
>> subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail
>
>> address,
>> name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
>>>
>
>>> HOW TO
>> UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter
> your e-mail
>>
>> address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the
> unsubscribe
>>
>> button on the page that will appear ("options page").
>>>
>>> HOW
> TO ENABLE /
>> DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest
> Mode" option
>> and
>> set it to either on or off.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Yasmin_discussions mailing
> list
>> Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
>> http://estia.media.uoa.
> gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
>>
>> Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.
> gr/yasmin
>>
>> HOW TO SUBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to
> subscribe to. In
>> the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail
> address, name, and
>> password in the fields found further down the page.
>>
>> HOW
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your
>> e-
> mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the
>
>> unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
>>
>> HOW TO
> ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set
>> Digest Mode"
> option and set it to either on or off.
>>
>>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Yasmin_discussions mailing
> list
>> Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
>> http://estia.media.uoa.
> gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
>>
>> Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.
> gr/yasmin
>>
>> HOW TO SUBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to
> subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter
> e-mail address,
> name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
>>
>> HOW TO
> UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail
> address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe
> button on the page that will appear ("options page").
>>
>> HOW TO ENABLE /
> DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode"
> option and
> set it to either on or off.
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
>
> Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
>
> HOW TO SUBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to
> subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter
> e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down
> the page.
>
> HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and
> enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if
> asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear
> ("options page").
>
> HOW TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the
> "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
HOW TO SUBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
HOW TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
