Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:35:56.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risk and the Question of the Acceptability of Human Enhancement: The Humanist and Transhumanist Perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2013

JEAN-PIERRE BÉLAND  and
JOHANE PATENAUDE
JEAN-PIERRE BÉLAND
Affiliation:
Université du Québec à Chicoutimi
JOHANE PATENAUDE
Affiliation:
Université de Sherbrooke
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to demonstrate the difficulties involved in interdisciplinary work on the question of the risks associated with the ethical and social acceptability of human enhancement through the development of nanotechnologies. These difficulties emerge in the context of the debate between transhumanism, whose principal defenders have backgrounds in the natural sciences, and humanism, whose principal defenders have backgrounds in the social sciences and the humanities. The aim of the paper is to demonstrate that essentially transhumanists and humanists differ on these questions: the identification of risks and impacts; the assessment that serves as the foundation for the acceptability or unacceptability of these risks and impacts; and faith in the capacity of science to overcome the identified risks to human beings. This paper’s presentation of the divergences that exist in the debate between transhumanism and humanism constitutes a necessary first step towards intervening in that debate in an interdisciplinary manner.

L’objectif de cet article est de montrer les difficultés du travail interdisciplinaire sur la question du risque dans l’acceptabilité éthique et sociale de l’amélioration humaine par le développement des nanotechnologies. Ces difficultés émergent du contexte du débat entre le transhumanisme, dont les principaux protagonistes proviennent des sciences de la nature, et l’humanisme, dont les principaux défenseurs proviennent du milieu des sciences humaines et sociales. Notre objectif est de montrer que les positions des transhumanistes et des humanistes diffèrent essentiellement sur plusieurs aspects de la question : l’identification des risques et des impacts, l’évaluation qui fonde l’acceptabilité ou non des risques et des impacts, et la foi en la capacité de la science de surmonter les risques identifiés pour l’être humain. Rendre ces divergences explicites constitue un premier pas nécessaire en vue de pouvoir y intervenir de façon interdisciplinaire.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 377 - 394
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allhoff, F., Lin, P., Moore, J., Weckert, J.. 2009 Ethics of Human Enhancement: 25 Questions & Answers San Luis Obispo, CA: US National Science Foundation Report.Google Scholar
Bégorre-Bret, C. 2004 “Bioéthique et posthumanité: F. Fukuyama: La fin de l’homme. Les conséquences de la révolution biotechnique / J. Habermas: L’avenir de la nature humaine. Vers un eugénisme libéral / D. Lecourt: Humain, post-humain”, Les études philosophiques 69 (2): 253–64. Available at: http://www.cairn.info/revue-les-etudes-philosophiques-2004-2-page-253.htm, Accessed on March 22, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béland, J.P., Patenaude, J., Legault, G.A., Boissy, P. & Parent, M.. 2011 “The Social and Ethical Acceptability of NBICs for Purposes of Human Enhancement. Why Does the Debate Remain Mired in Impasse?”, NanoEthics 5 (3): 295–307. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3250607/, Accessed on February 8, 2012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Béland, J.P. 2006 “L’homme biotech et la dignité humaine”, in Béland, J.P., ed., L’homme biotech: humain ou posthumain?, Québec, QC: Presses de l’Université Laval, p.13–33.Google Scholar
Béland, J.P. et Legault, G.A., eds. 2012 Asimov et l’acceptabilité des robots. Québec, QC: Presses de l’Université Laval.Google Scholar
Besnier, J.M. 2009 Demain les posthumains: le futur a-t-il encore besoin de nous?, Paris: Hachette Littératures.Google Scholar
Bostrom, N. 2005 A History of Transhumanist Thought. Journal of Evolution & Technology 14 (1): 125. Available at: http://www.jetpress.org/volume14/bostrom.html, Accessed on April 26, 2011.Google Scholar
Coulombe, M. 2009 Imaginer le posthumain: sociologie de l’art et d’un vertige, Québec, QC: Presses de l’Université Laval.Google Scholar
Dupuy, J.P. 2004 Le problème théologico—scientifique et la responsabilité de la science: les effets sur le rapport à la nature (effets ontologiques) Available at: http://formes-symboliques.org/article.php3?id_article=66, Accessed on March 25, 2011.Google Scholar
Dupuy, J.P., Roure, F.. 2004 Les nanotechnologies: éthique et prospective industrielle, Tome 1, Conseil Général des Mines, Conseil Général des Technologies de l’Information.Google Scholar
Fukuyama, F. 2002 Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Fukuyama, F., Furger, F.. 2006 Beyond Bioethics: A Proposal for Modernizing the Regulation of Human Biotechnologies, Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins University, The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.Google Scholar
Grossman, L. 2011 “Sin.gu.lar.i.tyn: the moment when technological change becomes so rapid and profound, it represents a rupture in the fabric human history”, Time 21, p. 43–49.Google Scholar
Grunwald, A., Julliard, Y.. 2007 “Nanotechnology: Steps towards Understanding Human Beings as Technology?”, NanoEthics 1 (2), p. 77–87. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/bx81156452424u76/, Accessed on September 8, 2010.Google Scholar
Joy, B. 2000 “Why the future doesn’t need us: Our most powerful 21st-century technologies—robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotech—are threatening to make humans an endangered species”, Wired Magazine 8 (4): 1–11. Available at: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.htm, Accessed on April 21, 2011.Google Scholar
Kurzweil, R. 1999 The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence, New York: Viking Penguin.Google Scholar
Kurzweil, R. 2005 The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, New York: Viking Penguin.Google Scholar
Legault, G.A., Patenaude, J., Béland, J.P. & Parent, M.. 2013 “Nanotechnologies and Ethical Argumentation: A Philosophical Stalemate” Open Journal of Philosophy, 3 (1), p. 15–22. Available at: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=27780, Accessed on April 7, 2013.Google Scholar
Morin, E. 2004 La méthode, 6, Éthique, Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
No author named 2006 Position Statement: Ethics and Nanotechnology: A Basis for Action, Commission de l’éthique de la science et de la technologie (CEST) Gouvernement du Québec. Report, June 14, 2006. Available at: http://www.ethique.gouv.qc.ca/index.php?option=com_docman&Itemid=70, Accessed on June 14, 2011.Google Scholar
Patenaude, J., Legault, G.A., Béland, J.P., Parent, M. & Boissy, P.. 2011 “Moral Arguments in the Debate over Nanotechnologies: Are we talking past each other?”, NanoEthics, 5 (3). P. 285–293. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3250612/, Accessed on April 7, 2013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ricoeur, P. 1986 Fallible Man, translated by Kelby, Charles A. (Finitude et culpabilité 1. L’homme faillible), New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, P. 1992 Oneself as Another, translated by Blamey, Kathleen (Soi-même comme un autre), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Roco, M.C., Bainbridge, W.S., eds. 2003 Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers (currently Springer)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stock, G. 1993 Metaman: The Merging of Humans and Machines into a Global Superorganism, New York: Simon and Shuster.Google Scholar
Wood, D. 2011 Five key questions for futurists, Paper presented at: Humanity+, UK 2011: Making a Human Difference, London, England.Google Scholar