While studying public reactions to Transhumanism for my dissertation I discovered that people viewed the permissability of different elements of Transhumanism very differently. This is when the problems with defining Transhumanism become clear. Is Transhumanism any technology or technique used to design oneself? Is it already among us? Is plastic surgery an example of Transhumanism? Is caffeine? Is training? Is this too many questions? Has it got to the point where it's ridiculous? Has it? Have I? Have you???
In order to help somewhat I propose the following categories for describing various transhuman techniques in terms of the actual procedure and physical cange involved. I have also arranged them roughly in terms of current perceived acceptibility (or my perception of the perception...or something). Please quote me if you wish to use the terms in your own articles:
Repairing - Potentially Transhuman technologies used in a non-transhuman way.
Advanced training/Lifestyle adjusting - Extreme training techniques that go outside the realms of casual fitness such as becoming ambidextrous, calorie restriction, weight lifting or omni training.
Augmenting - A removable attachment that enhances capabilities, such as a hypothetical 'Iron Man' armour or to a lesser extent speedsoles or even a watch.
Boosting - A temporary measure such as caffeine, steroids or non-insertional gene doping.
Embelishing - a permanent or semi-permanent external change that serves no real purpose such as a piercing or tattoo.
Restructuring - rearranging external or internal elements of a human, for example plastic surgery.
Replacing - permanently replacing an organ or limb with something such as bionic legs. Often here the Transhuman aspect might be more of a side affect than the intended purpose of the procedure (intended as a Repairing procedure but resulting in enhancement).
Adding - permanently integrating something additional into the human form such as a brain chip.
Altering - where the actual biological structure of the human is changed, such as when modifying DNA.
Redefining - a change so great that the person is unrecognisable as human, such as a consciousness upload.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I have also given this some thought and look at the issue from the perspective of bipolarization (with exceptions).
Transhumanist technology can be classified with the following six attributes:
Purpose) Aesthetic or Functional
Attachment) Integrated or Removable
Permanence) Permanent or Temporary
Type) Biological, Chemical or Electro-Mechanical
Requirement) Powered or Unpowered
Function)
Restriction, Remediation or Enhancement
Additional traits would be
Location (internal/external, descriptive), Method of action, Chosen or Forced.
I was even trying to created a coded classification schema that could easily identify a technology
Eyeglasses are Functional, Removable, Temporary, Mechanical, Unpowered, Remediation.
Bypass Surgery is Functional, Integrated, Permanent, Biological, Unpowered, Remediation.
There are certain ways about which we can combine Attachment and Permanence or even Type and Requirement attributes. Suggestions are most welcome
Forgot to include the notation of combining Purpose and function by simply adding Aesthetic as an option.
Hi Nicu, sorry I didn't spot your comment until just recently. That's a really interesting system you've devised there and it seems quite all-encompassing. Mine were just a passing thought and could obviously benefit from further attention. While the simplicity is a positive of a 'type' approach it does also make it far less descriptive.
I can see what you mean about the Permanence and Attachment headings, perhaps only Permanence is is necesary? I opt for that over Attachment only as it also encompasses drugs and non-insertional gene therapy. Perhaps something like:
Permanence) Integrated/Permanent or Temporary/Removable?
A bit of a cop-out maybe!
It's certainly a topic worth extra thought! I think the field could benefit from it, which was mirrored by the participants in my focus groups. Drop me a line if you'd like to discuss it further!
the thought experiment was primarily for use in a project I was developing where I was looking at temporary-forced-restrictive concepts as an alternative to prison terms for non-violent offenders.
H+ tech is not neccessarily all about enhancement. We already have numerous remediation tech in place that is slowly increasing the awareness that we can do better. A good example is the Laser eye surgery that now claims the ability to make your vision better than 20/20.
Classification of the technology will be done by somebody in an official capacity and the hope is that they will not create artificial divisions that are superfluous or meaningless. getting the discussion out there in a way that they might "find" this discussion so that it becomes a form of guidance is a good thing. Just gotta tag it up with anything that might be used to research the subject
That sounds like an interesting project! And I wasn't aware that laser eye surgery could actually improve beyond 20/20, but that's another good illustration of the complications.
I suspect there's a danger that such 'official' categorisation will be rather restrictive and over-simplistic. Having something rough already in place could help guide whoever it falls to.
This was really the main conclusion from my dissertation study, and I'm currently seeking a journal that would publish it on my tutor's advice. The problem is that it's an undergraduate study and uses a rather small sample of students. Still as it's quite unique I'm hopeful I'll find an outlet. That'll be one way of spreading the word! Failing that I may self-publish and sell it through the site.
Dear @Adman,do you think its possible cross-species genetics ?? & what about the relation between cross-species genetics ?? what do you think of it ?? do you think its possible to transfer specific genes from a specific specie (for example, spiders) to another specie (for example,humans ) ?? & how i can do that ?? with which materials & methods ??
Post a Comment