Throughout centuries, the world is developing gradually from its beginning until the last two decades. The last twenty years might be a real shock to every human being still alive on earth. Landmarks of the world have changed entirely; technology has invaded us all. Our ancestors had enjoyed their technical stone tools, which we, now, when we studied them, find them so primitive. These days, technology has penetrated our finer details of our lives. It touches our very personal core. Nick Bostrom, a Swedish professor at the Oxford University(In Defense of Post-human Dignity.), in his article `In Defense of Post-human Dignity`, presents pros and cons of two totally different movements; bio-conservatism and trans-humanism. Obviously, the first opposes strongly the other.
Trans-humanism, a philosophical movement tends to transform human conditions by developing very sophisticated technologies such as fully immersive virtual reality and machine-phase nanotechnology (In Defense of Post-human Dignity.) in away that enhances human intelligence, health and
longevity. Trans-humanism leads to another concept, the post-human, which is represents unusual super-humans with totally new sensibilities beyond any current normal human being. Simply, it means ”more than human”(In Defense of Post-human Dignity.). On the other hand, a completely opposing movement has emerged objecting to every attempt to change human nature (In Defense of Post-human Dignity.). Its supporters are not a few at all, such as Leon Kass, Francis Fukuyama, George Annas, Wesley Smith and others. While transhumanists think that their movement is an absolute expression of the Enlightenment (In Defense of Post-human Dignity.) proponents of bio-conservatism do not consider it more than ignorance and stupidity.
Bostrom adds that the post-humanity movement is really feared, and gives three probable reasons behind it (In Defense of Post-human Dignity.). Firstly, being a post-human might be in itself dehumanizing and harmful. Leon Kass argues that we need to respect the nature around us and appreciate all it gives us. We should not infringe on it by changing its vital contents, or as he so-calls it, the special gift of the nature (In Defense of Post-human Dignity.). This is what pushes him forward to reject the idea of transforming a human to more than a human. It likens if it is planned to turn a man into a cockroach, he explains, both of them have the same meaning, which is dehumanizing of a human being. The writer explained: this might have grave social consequences such as homogenization, mediocrity, drug-induced contentment, souls without loved and longings (In Defense of Post-human Dignity.), which are, simply, predictable fruits of the pure secular world. Second fear of trans-humanism movement is because of the great chasm which will be between men and more-than men. While the upper class of society will have the chance to turn themselves to post-humans, the lower class will not. So that, consequences of this situation is one of two choices; either the class of post-humans ”abnormal men” will enslave normal humans, or normal men will rise against and kill the more-than-men creatures. “Crimes against humanity”, as he said, will roar (In Defense of Post-human Dignity.).
Bostrom introduces trans-humanism as a successful way to accomplish human rights. Two types of ”freedoms” will emerge in our to-be-societies; morphological and reproductive freedom. The first is the one’s right to do or change morphology of his body as he likes or desires. The second refers to how and when parent may have children (Reproductive Freedom.)
At first glance, it seems that this is a small beautiful image of the Enlightenment in all its forms. But the bigger image of the same scene, shows an era of darkness and a real slavery.
Works Cited
“In Defense of Posthuman Dignity.” Nick Bostrom’s Home Page, 8 May 2007, nickbostrom.com/ethics/dignity.html. “Reproductive Freedom.” NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, prochoiceohio.org/issue/reproductive-freedom/.
Hello teacher, I just recognized that when I copied and pasted the works cited that it weren’t pasted correctly as they are in the document. it become so messy here. So what should i do?
LikeLike
That’s okay, Lara. It’s hard to keep the formatting in place with this blog interface. So you don’t need to worry about this.
You show your understand of Bostrom’s essay here, and the post is quite well written, but I would describe this more as an analytical summary than a true literary analysis, as there is not a clear argument that you are developing. Instead, you have a statement of fact: he presents both sides that are in contradiction with each other, and then take us through the essay to show us that this is true. But as I said, the other aspects of the post are strong.
LikeLike