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.
