Criticism of Human Enhancement Shared in a Major British Newspaper -- Bio, Mind, Psych, Soc
*
The Observer in Britain has printed an edited excerpt from Better Humans? The Politics of Human Enhancement and Life Extension, a collection of essays soon to be published by Demos and the Wellcome Trust. The hostile tone of this piece may be partly a result of the author conflating human enhancement research with technological applications that could supposedly "read minds" or control them.
The author, Steven Rose, states:
Professor Rose seems to suggest in this article that calls for "better brains" are merely a cover for more sinister research meant to spy upon and dominate people.
Personally, I suspect that scanning minds for revealing cues may be extremely difficult if you want to get more than a general idea of someone's emotions. And as for "brainwashing techniques," it seems we have no shortage of drugs and coercive methods already, though I'm not sure how effective they are in subverting (as opposed to destroying) a determined adult.
But nevertheless, serious discussion of these subjects should be a welcome event, particularly if this article heralds a wide-ranging, serious and open-minded debate on human enhancement technologies. It will be interesting to see if The Observer prints any more positive excerpts from the collection, assuming there are any more positive essays to be had.
Future Imperative
The Observer in Britain has printed an edited excerpt from Better Humans? The Politics of Human Enhancement and Life Extension, a collection of essays soon to be published by Demos and the Wellcome Trust. The hostile tone of this piece may be partly a result of the author conflating human enhancement research with technological applications that could supposedly "read minds" or control them.
The author, Steven Rose, states:
Science cannot happen without major public or private expenditure but its goals are set at least as much by the market and the military as by the disinterested pursuit of knowledge. This is why neuroscientists have a responsibility to make their subject and its potentials as transparent as possible, and why the voices of concerned citizens should be heard not 'downstream' when the technologies are already fully formed, but 'upstream' while the science is still in progress. We have to find ways of ensuring that such voices are listened through the cacophony of slogans about 'better brains' - and the power of the military and the market.
Professor Rose seems to suggest in this article that calls for "better brains" are merely a cover for more sinister research meant to spy upon and dominate people.
Personally, I suspect that scanning minds for revealing cues may be extremely difficult if you want to get more than a general idea of someone's emotions. And as for "brainwashing techniques," it seems we have no shortage of drugs and coercive methods already, though I'm not sure how effective they are in subverting (as opposed to destroying) a determined adult.
But nevertheless, serious discussion of these subjects should be a welcome event, particularly if this article heralds a wide-ranging, serious and open-minded debate on human enhancement technologies. It will be interesting to see if The Observer prints any more positive excerpts from the collection, assuming there are any more positive essays to be had.
Future Imperative
posted by Ralph Cerchione | Sunday, February 05, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home