Understanding Transhumanism

Last weekend, I featured in an article by Robin McKie on transhumanism, following Wellcome awarding their annual book prize to Mark O'Connell for his 'To be a machine'. It's a really great article, but I've a few things to add based on some of the responses I've seen online and will make a podcast about it over the next couple of weeks. In the meantime, here's the article. 

Also, if you want a deep dive into this, check out something I wrote a few years ago, which draws together some related ideas on posthumanism and cyborgs.

GATTACA 20 years later

Here's the final edit of the event, created by Luke....

Last week, I took part in a debate hosted by Luke Robert Mason of Virtual Futures, which focused on the legacy and impact of GATTACA. We covered everything from CRISPR Cas9 to film theory and the challenge of speculative ethics. 

It was fantastic to have put this together with Luke, as the film is such a remarkable examination of a potential future, where the prospect of genetic perfection is taken seriously. Having worked in bioethics for nearly 20 years now, it feels still like a really pressing subject, which we haven't quite figured out still.

Digital Health

Last week, I was in Bath for an ESRC seminar about Digital Health and the Older Generation, set up by Cassie Phoenix. Within my closing talk for the day, I was able to get into the many ways that healthcare is being transformed through digital systems, mobile culture, artificial intelligence, and ingestible sensors. The latest article I wrote on this was published in Health Sociology Review and is with my colleague Dr Emma Rich, with whom we presently have a Wellcome Trust grant to explore how young people use digital environments to make sense of health.

NanoEthics

This year, I am delighted to be joining the Editorial Board of NanoEthics, edited by Christopher Coenen. It has a fantastic back catalogue of really provocative articles on cutting edge issues in ethics and I look forward to reading submissions in the future! Here's an overview of what it does:

Nanoscale technologies are surrounded by both hype and fear. Optimists suggest they are desperately needed to solve problems of terrorism, global warming, clean water, land degradation and public health. Pessimists fear the loss of privacy and autonomy, "grey goo" and weapons of mass destruction, and unforeseen environmental and health risks. Concern over fair distribution of the costs and benefits of nanotechnology is also rising.

Introduced in 2007, NanoEthics: Ethics for Technologies that Converge at the Nanoscale provides a needed forum for informed discussion of ethical and social concerns related to nanotechnology, and a counterbalance to fragmented popular discussion.

While the central focus of the journal is on ethical issues, discussion extends to the physical, biological and social sciences and the law. NanoEthics provides a philosophically and scientifically rigorous examination of ethical and societal considerations and policy concerns raised by nanotechnology. 

How artificial intelligence could provide some respite for the NHS

How artificial intelligence could provide some respite for the NHS

Emma Rich, University of Bath and Andy Miah, University of Salford

The NHS recently announced plans to trial an artificially intelligent mobile health app to a million people in London. The aim is to help diagnose and treat patients by engaging them in a real time text message conversation which will complement the NHS 111 phone based service (which was criticised by the Care Quality Commission watchdog). The app’s designers, Babylon Healthcare Ltd, use algorithms to make initial diagnoses which are then followed up with human consultations. It has already received a glowing CQC evaluation.

The app is likely to provoke a mixed response, with enthusiastic technophiles up against those concerned that more technology means a less human healthcare service. Yet, with the NHS being described as suffering from a humanitarian crisis, and with a growing healthcare burden and limited resources, some smart solutions are needed. It is hard to deny that problems of limited funding are enduring features of this unique public service. Perhaps AI has the answer.

In fact, providing effective healthcare is always a combination of systematised technological efficiency combined with patient centred human care. Polarised views on technology are often not helpful. It’s also necessary to recognise how this approach to healthcare is part of a wider technical revolution in which connected objects in the Internet of Things will change everything from healthcare to traffic maintenance.

The NHS app is really simple to use and has been likened to using the social messaging service WhatsApp – but with one crucial difference: you are chatting with a computer, not a person. Once the app is downloaded, you log your basic health information, and then start explaining your symptoms. The robotic “responder” will say things like: “I just need a few details from you before we get started,” and “nearly there” to keep the conversation going. After a more detailed exchange, it might come to a conclusion along these lines:

Ok so your symptoms don’t sound urgent, but I think they require further investigation. Make sure you arrange a consultation with a GP within the next two weeks. If left, symptoms like yours can become more serious, so book now while you remember and I’ll remind you closer to the time. If things change in the meantime and you become more unwell, speak to a doctor as soon as you can.

This digital diagnosis service intends to provide an additional communication tool between the NHS and patients. It it part of a broader ecosystem of digital health services which include online health tracking. Also, the app takes advantage of the fact that some people these days are likely to be more comfortable chatting by text than they are with talking on the phone.

This digital phenomenon is driven by the promise of a wider technological fix to social problems. Applications within healthcare could bring about big wins for society, where the functionality of the device is made all the more efficient by the aggregation of “big data” that it generates. Tech firm Babylon is joined by other big players seeking to do similar things, such as Google’s Deep Mind, which wants to mine NHS data to to enable earlier diagnoses for example, or to achieve more effective monitoring of treatments.

At the world’s largest tech expo in Las Vegas at the start of 2017, home AI systems have been one of the biggest hits. So perhaps the NHS has found an intelligent solution at just the right time. People may now be far more willing to have a “relationship” with an attentive machine than a call centre drone.

Digital doctor

Driving these developments is the assumption that, within a digital knowledge economy, these forms of communication can offer more neutral and accurate responses, circumventing human error. Yet, scholars within the emerging field of critical digital health studies suggest that algorithms must be understood as part of a complex network of interconnections between human and non-human actors. A recent study comparing physician and computer diagnostic accuracy revealed that doctors “vastly outperformed” algorithms

So we need to ask some key questions about the assimilation of AI into healthcare. How do people make sense of the list of possible diagnoses they receive from the machine? Will people follow the advice, or trust it? How will AI need to be tailored to accommodate human variation, by geography, capacity, or cultural identity. Another important aspect of this trial will be the consideration given to the backgrounds of the users. Given enduring concerns about inequalities of digital access and digital literacy, trials for future digital health tech need to be conducted amongst those populations with limited resources, experiences, and technological infrastructure.

Perhaps the biggest question we face in a world where ever more of our data is locked up in the mobile app environment, is over the proprietary and privacy of our data. How can we ensure that we have the freedom to move our health data around, over time, and ensure that it is safe and secure? We may need a new Bill of Health Data Rights to underpin and limit their exploitation of our data, and work on this must start now.

Emma Rich, Reader, Department for Health, University of Bath and Andy Miah, Chair in Science Communication & Future Media, University of Salford

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Life After Extinction

This week, I was down at the Royal College of Art again to give a talk for the Jewellery and Metals Department. Their brief was to imagine how we deal with a future where our survival is under threat...

Life After Extinction: Posthuman Enhancements for a Neo-Human Species from Professor Andy Miah

Media, Ethics, & Dementia

This week, I took part in a dinner debate about media, ethics, and dementia. The conversation was run by the Dementia Festival of ideas, a year-long programme of events designed to interrogate key issues in dementia studies and research, along with an exploration of how to create novel forms of public engagement and public responsibility around the subjects. The debate took place with a range of experts fom different areas of interest, from journalism to medical ethics and was a really far reaching discussion. What struck me is how much has yet to be done, to ensure that care is adequate, and that social stigma around dementia is challenged.

Some possible interventions will follow from this event, including finding a way to empower families of suffers to take more decisive action to influence best practice and care within hospitals, along with developing a university alliance that can take strategic action in influencing policy, agenda setting, and generating research funds.

How to make your own superhero

It is a rare thing for me to be invited to speak at a Science Fiction convention, but this year I was asked to present my research within the George Hay memorial lecture slot within this Easter science fiction convention. It was a real delight to be present at this meeting and I had such a great time. I hope I get asked again some time soon! My talk was titled 'How to make your own superhero: Science, Morality and the Politics of Human Enhancement,' and it was especially nice because the event took place in Glasgow.  

Human Enhancement Technologies: Pushing the Boundaries (2013)

This short video is an intro to the Swiss Re event on human enhancement, which took place on July 3, 2013.

Justifying Human Enhancement: The Case for Posthumanity

Presentation given for the 'Imagining the (Post-) Human Future: Meaning, Critique, and Consequences.

Along with the manuscript...

This paper argues on behalf of a posthuman future that is intimately tied to the use of human enhancement technology. It presents three principal justifications for enhancement, which focus on functionality, creative expression, and the ritual of re-making the self through biological modification. Collectively, these aspirations articulate the values surrounding posthuman life and the pursuit of biocultural capital. 

When Christopher told me I would have the opening slot for the conference, I thought there was some merit in trying to deliver a polemic that would set the tone for our subsequent discussions. In part, this is why I decided to consider arguing on behalf of a posthuman existence, as it seems to me to be the most crucial dimension of what we need to consider, in order for this debate to have any merit. After all, if we are not prepared to embrace a posthuman life, then we may as well go home. That’s not to say we all need to embrace own inner posthuman for the project of posthumanism to have merit. Rather, if we conclude that posthumanism is a topic of no political or social urgency, then its currency as a contemporary debate is lost. Indeed, within some applied context, this is catastrophic, as it is a way for the professions to dismiss or ignore the long term implications of their work.

I want to present the case for thinking of ourselves as already posthuman and consider that the pursuit of human enhancements are a definingfeature of that life. One of the rather awkward questions one faces upon making such a statement is ‘when exactly did we become posthuman’, either that or, scholars conclude we have always been posthuman, or – even worse – we have never been human.

Other moral philosophers critique the idea of humanness at all as a defining characteristic of our species, utilizing the concept of ‘personhood’ as a non-speciesist, richer interpretation of the sentient condition, even affording similar moral status to animals, when they exhibit such intellectual capacities. Alternatively, some scholars appeal to such ideas as ‘dignity’ or capacities to experience certain second order psychological states, such as shame or embarrassment, as indicative of our uniqueness.

Moral philosophers have each employed these ideas to argue about a number of beginning and end of life issues, such as infanticide or assisted suicide. Indeed, bioethics has broadly been a place where this debate has found considerable traction, as many authors find themselves debating the merits of life and the conditions that give it value.

You might conclude already that, then, the debate about posthumanism need not be about human enhancements at all. Indeed, the literature outlines a much more complex set of relationship and behaviors that interpret the posthuman condition as intimately tied to discussions about our place within the ecosystem, rather than our identity as technological agents. Posthumanism may also be about the way in which human communities recognize the moral status of certain kinds of lives or lifestyles. For example, I think Chris Hables Gray’s appeal to ‘Cyborg Citizenship’ is crucially about the way that societies fail to give legitimacy to certain forms of sexual identity. We live in a world where still society is reticent to acknowledge the value of certain lifestyles and so posthumanism may be seen as a rejection of certain prejudices and be a project principally about the promotion of freedom of lifestyle. Indeed, I had a conversation last week about whether the contraceptive pill was a human enhancement or not. I think it is and we can debate why later, if you like.

I anticipate that many of the papers we hear over the next two days will explain just how much more complex is our relationship with posthumanism than we first imagined. When I think of this relationship, I draw on what Jacques Ellul refers to as la technique – that complex arrangement of technics, techniques and technologies through our humanness is made and remade. In this sense, being posthuman is to operatewithinthis complexity and to navigate through it, for better or worse.

Nevertheless, there seems something crucial to me about the human enhancement debate, as a defining characteristic of posthumanism and I don’t think I’m alone in making this case. Even authors who reject posthumanism as a worthy direction for humanity, recognize that this mau be the long term goal of Western science – Steve Fuller may talk to us more about that later (but that doesn’t mean I consider Steve as someone rejects his inner posthuman. Steve’s on Twitter for goodness sake.).

Recognising the human species as a ‘work in progress’ is inextricable from this project. However, it’s crucial that we understand the many ways in which human enhancement takes place and the broad social and cultural fascinations we may have with it. In this respect, I think we can identify at least three crucial trends that explain the pursuit of HE.

First, we can talk about the functional benefit that arises from human enhancement. Good examples of this are laser eye surgery, cognitive enhancers and gene transfer.

Second, we can discuss enhancements as a form of creative expression, as a way of exploring new aesthetic experiences. For example, we might look to make up as an early form of this, then to cosmetic surgery as a more radical and permanent change.

Third, we can talk about enhancements as rituals, as ways of marking out ourselves from others or as part of a community. Scarification, tattoo, and body piercing may be like this. More recent examples may ‘bagel heads’ in Japan.

There are examples that fit across these three types in different ways. For example, the use of LSD or other lifestyle drugs like ecstasy may be ways of trying to access new kinds of physical or mental experiences that could be seen as engaging all three of these parameters. If you take ecstasy when going to a nightclub, you might be seeking to enhance your capacity to dance all night.

Of course, many of these examples seem quite close to the present day. There is nothing controversial about laser eye surgery or body piercing.

Collectively, I want to talk about these values as indicative of how people pursue the accumulation of biocultural capital throughout their lives. Drawing on Bourdieu, it is apparent that we seek to enrich our lives today by modifying ourselves. We may have done this in the past by education or leisure. Each similarly reconfigures our mental and physical capacities, hopefully improving our lives by providing greater health or making us feel more capable.

Of course, there is no guarantee that they will, but we shouldn’t be too worried this. Those who argue against human enhancement, like Michael Hauskellar, seem to require us to have certainty over whether our choices will lead to an improvement in our circumstances. I can’t guarantee that. I can’t guarantee that your being able to run faster by genetically increasing your proportion of fast twitch muscle fibre count will mean that your life will be better off over all. Similarly, I can’t guarantee that having television, motor cars, or the telephone makes the world a better place or being human any richer. But we shouldn’t place too much stock in the critique from certainty. Most of what we do in life is a risk. We exercise judgment as to whether something will improve our lives in some way, or not and we for it. Sometimes it works out, other times it doesn’t. If you have a tattoo, there’s no guarantee that you won’t regret it when you are 60 years old.

So, why do I think the pursuit of HE is crucial to the case for posthumanity? Going back to the start of my talk, I wanted us to begin this inquiry by asking into the merit of a posthuman life. If we seek to live as posthumans, what ought that entail? How will we justify employing that term, rather than simply conclude that humans have always been on this trajectory – that what defines our species is this endless pursuit of pushing back the limits of biology and nature?

We have always done that, but if you look at the industries that guard against these posthumanist aspirations, they stillendeavor to stay at the top of the slippery slope, claiming that there are such things as biostatistical norms that explain why medicine should be used only for repair or therapy. They don’t.

Furthermore , we live in a world where such things as dwarf corn exist and where 66% of all cotton is genetically modified. Next year, the first commercial space flights will take place, while the ‘bottom billion’ people are still trying to get above the poverty line.

There is no selfless justification for pursuing longer, healthier lives, while millions of people barely have the resources to promote a healthy-ish lifestyle, or any reasonable expectation of living a long life. There is credible no system of justice that can reasonably argue that a broad social system that fails to protect fundamental needs is justified in trying to raise the upper level of human functioning. Indeed, the biggest collective human enhancement would arise from engaging more people in the democratic process, or in society generally. Providing greater chances to perform as citizens in a world where less than 20% of an electoral register turn up to vote would be a major enhancement for society ,the value of which is beyond measure.

But neither should we assume that these systems of human enhancement would be jeopardized or frustrated by their biotechnological counterparts, or vice versa. We should be vigilient over how such systems are used mosrly because of their efficiency, which may lead to us medicalizing certain problems or prioritizing a quick fix, rather than the best fix.

Yet, societies are moving targets. We edge closer to 9 billion people. James Lovelock – of Gaia theory – thought the planet should be able to sustain just 1 billion. So, we can’t look at the increase in people suffering as an explanation for the world having been made worse.

Neither can we assume that enhancements would benefit only the privileged few, as is commonly assumed. Some research that indicates that the larger benefits to enhancing IQ, for instance, are for those at the lower end of the income scale. Quite simply, being smarter improves your life.

But there are no guarantees that human enhancement will bring us happier lives as individuals. Being an ‘unhappy Socrates’ may be the consequence of our pursuit of betterment.

We ought not get too carried away with the idea that human enhancement is a project that seeks to pursue perfection or control. It is more likely to bring us more opportunities to screw up our lives, than greater certainty about it being better! But, I would rather have that opportunity, than to leave things to chance.

We do have to wise up. Last week, I had a conversation with a nutritional scientist and a dedicated body builder. The body builder asked the scientist which supplements he should be using to bulk up. He went through a list of the ones he had tried and, after each one, the scientists said ‘waste of time’ or ‘does nothing at all’.

So, it’s important we are not ignorant about what actually does what it says on the tin. We need to understand the limits of science and technology and the way that enhancement technologies operate within an unregulated commercial system that and may promise things it cannot deliver, yet. Genetic tests for performance genes claim to identify whether you are more likely to be good at one kind of sport over another, but presently they have no predictive value. Laser eye surgery promises High Definition vision, but only if you are lucky. Modafinil may boost your cognitive alertness, but only in certain situations and not necessarily in situations of high demand. In this sense, it may enhance your humanness, but may not be an enhancement of the human species as a whole.

I’m conscious of having just spent 20 minutes explaining the value of HE, but the last 5 telling you that nothing actually works and it may not be worth the bother! That’s not really how it is, but my main point is that we should not conclude that you can just download a mobile app for enhancement. (Although already people with prosthetic limbs are controlling them with mobile apps.)

Rather, any form of body modification operates within a complex system of experiences thatdetermine the value we attribute to it and derive from it. Moreover, we can’t expect enhancements to be universally sought, unless they are broadly pure biological dimensions, such as the pursuit of making our gums and teeth healthier by using fluoride in our tap water. When HE is like this, then it can be justified on the basis of promoting public health – and many examples may eventually be like this. After all, the WHO talks less about health and illness as a distinguishing factor in health care rationing decisions and much more about ‘well being’. Furthermore, doctors and scientists talk now of ageing as a disease. These shifts in belief systems are intimately tied to the human enhancement project. Recognising that life cannot be just about the alleviation of suffering is a crucial part of this.

So, the language of our posthuman future is already embedded into the professions, which previously just made us well, rather than ‘better than well’ as Peter Kramer’s patient put it when describing her state of health when using Prozac. The project of modern medicine has always led us towards human enhancement because of our desire to stave off death and promote freedom throughout life. Freedom from ill health or the debilitating limits of our bodies is, therefore, the principal justification for human enhancement and the most important argument on behalf of posthumanity. The expansion of this commitment to the eradication of all sufferingis a logical step, but we ought not presume to achieve this, or that life would be better if we could remove all of it. I’m not convinced that a life without suffering would be well lived. However, I do think we can shift the kind of suffering we experience away from that associated with biological illness and disease. Unlike Martha Nussbaum, I don’t believe in the goodness of our fragility.

In due course, the twenty first century may be likened to the swinging sixties, not for its sexual liberation, but for its anthropomorphic liberation. However, it’s important to remember, that the conventional explanation for the sexual revolution misleads us. For while many have tied it to the birth of the contraceptive pill, others point out it was the discovery of penicillin bringing about greater freedom from disease that was more crucial.

For the present day, it may not be the radical transhumanist technologies that usher in a posthuman present, not the botox parties, the cosmetic surgery, or the life extension. In other words, it may not be the pursuit of immortality that allows us to live forever

Instead, it might be the least technological innovations, like DNA biobanks for stem cell harvesting, or selecting out disabilities through PGD. It might be granting certain civil rights that gives birth to a posthuman generation, a generation less worried about the ‘yuck factor’ of biotechnological change; more willing to donate their organs to those in need; more likely to give blood.

This is my kind of posthuman future and throughout all of it, there is no loss of humanity one can presume. If anything, we will become more morally conscious agents.

Thank you very much.

Human Enhancement Technologies @ Swiss Re Centre for Global Dialogue

Video made in advance of the conference in Zurich next week, where I will be speaking.  

Justifying Human Enhancement: The Accumulation of Biocultural Capital (2013)

Miah, A. (2013) Justifying Human Enhancement: The Accumulation of Biocultural Capital, in More, M. & Vita-More, N. The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future, Wiley-Blackwell. MORE INFO

Here are the editors talking about the book...

Extract of my Chapter

The argument on behalf of biocultural capital claims that the pursuit of human enhancements is consistent with other ways in which people modify their lifestyles and is analogous in principle to buying a new mobile phone, learning a language, or exercising. It is a process of acquiring ideas, goods, assets, and experiences that distinguish one person from another, either as an individual or as a member of a community. While one might – and should - scrutinize the merits of such individual choices, we should recognize the limits of this task. Furthermore, the argument for biocultural capital considers that it is unreasonable for enhancement choices to be imposed upon individuals by the state. The normative transhumanist concept of morphological freedom emphasizes this prohibition. (More, 1993; Sandberg 2001) While general consensus on enhancements might have legal force, they will not necessarily have universal persuasive value – not everybody would wish to be tall, stronger, or whatever it may be - since enhancements only confer positive value within particular cultural contexts. As such, the precise value attached to any particular enhancement cannot be assumed to be a shared, universal good, particularly where choices of enhancements involve a trade-off.

The argument from biocultural capital explains that the designation of a biological modification as a human enhancement does not correspond with some prescribed or abstract value claim. There is no necessary “good” that, in itself, can be objectively identified to justify (or reject) enhancements. For instance, if I were to enhance the efficiency of my digestive system to allow me to assimilate foods that are generally shown to be unhealthy, it is difficult to argue that this is a tangible enhancement, other than through its allowing me to satisfy the desire of always wanting to eat foods that I find tasty but which would, otherwise, be unhealthy. While such a modification would be beneficial to me, it is unlikely to withstand the scrutiny of those who have no such desire. Such a choice also faces the criticism that one’s taste cannot develop in a positive sense if one closes off the potential to find value in experiencing other tastes. So, if I were a twelve year old and really like McDonald’s food, I might enjoy enhancing my metabolism to assimilate such food, rather than to treat it like junk food. In doing so, by failing to choose alternative foods, I also restrict the possibility of developing tastes for other foods.[7] Yet, again, it seems premature to panic too much about such a prospect. Rather, it may emerge that one’s taste develops alongside such new alternatives to consumption and that moderation will thus emerge.

Importantly, and as enshrined in the idea of morphological freedom, this argument on behalf of human enhancements does not extend to the freedom to modify others – for example, through genetically engineering embryos. Rather, this argument presents an initial position as to why certain obstacles towards human enhancement may be overcome by acknowledging the limits of concerns over rationalizing medical resources and avoiding a slippery slope towards undesirable circumstances, I have endeavored to explain the value of pursuing self-regarding, biological enhancements and, as such, to suggest why such freedom of choice should not be withheld.

In conclusion, asking why we should enhance ourselves limits the discussion prematurely. It prescribes a particular kind of moral justification, which would explain a choice that makes sense only in the particular case. However, treating such actions as micro-ethical processes, contrasts with the macro-ethical task of regulating the commercial and non-medical use of such interventions. In short, via this argument, one cannot offer a good reason for why all people should enhance themselves in a specific way, since each reason would require embedding the clause within a particular context that another individual might not deem to be valuable at all. So, understanding the value of improving attention span or enhancing sexual function would require understanding the specific context that give rise to such an interest. Instead, one may give reasons for why a motorcyclist might value an enhancement to protect the durability of her head, or why a ballerina might welcome enhanced strength in specific parts of her body, or why a mathematician or a chess player should value cognitive enhancements. These are all sensible human enhancements for particular kinds of people, but are not generally good enhancements for all kinds of people.

The rise of a privately funded human enhancement market and the possibility of commodifying life are each relevant moral concerns that should concern the governance of such industries.  While a publicly-funded system for human enhancements may be preferable to a privately-funded one, areas of human desire are always likely to outweigh the limited funds available to accommodate such desires on a nationally funded system, even if one can aspire to a certain level of social care throughout a population. As such, it is sensible to presume that a transhuman future will be brought about within a commercial structure, though as argued earlier there are reasons to presume that some forms of enhancement will eventually ease the burden on a national health care system, by ensuring more people are less vulnerable to common illnesses.

Mind control over robotic arms

New interview with Reuters about the use of mind control over robotic limbs, my quote focuses on the ethics.

Can technology set you free?

What: roundtable discussion, Battle of Ideas satellite eventWhen: 22 Nov, 2012 Where: Royal Academy of Engineering Who: Dr Mo Ibrahim of TIME's 100 most influential, Dr Aleks Krotoski of BBC Radio 4 tech fame and Chair David Bowden.

Valores y ética para el siglo XXI (2012)

at the BBVA Palace, Madrid.

Scotland on Sunday profile

A couple of weeks ago, the Scotland on Sunday published a 4-page profile piece about my work. It was written by the awesome Anna Burnside, with whom I've been in dialogue about my research for a few years. It's a really lovely article and a real privilege to have given so much space to explain what I do. It's certainly the most in depth and personal examination of my background, motives and interests. Here's the link to the full piece. The portait was taken by an amazing photographer called Ian MacNicol, who turns out to be (we think) the only Scotland based photographer accredited at the London 2012 Olympic Games. Small world!

New PhD studentships

I'm currently advertising a few new PhD studentships, three of which I am directing, deadline 31st May. The first under my direction is on Ethics and Emerging Technologies, the second on the Olympic Games, and the third on Digital Culture generally. There's a lot of flexibility in either, so if you're at all interested in the subject matter, get in touch. Stay tuned for another 1 about the Internet, but here are the details for the first 2:

ETHICS AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES (PHDCCI013)

In the context of transatlantic debates about the converging sciences, this PhD will examine any aspect of emerging technological culture (nanotechnoogy, biotechnology, information, cognitive). The study may draw on research into public engagement with science, media and cultural representations of new technology, science communication, the philosophical and ethical dimensions of new technology, or the political economy of science and technology. Areas of focus may include posthumanism/transhumanism, human enhancement, life extension, artificial intelligence, digital culture, environmental ethics, synthetic biology, the ethics of outer space, or elite sport, among other areas. The project should have a strong social dimension and expect to inform the science sector, either through working closely within bioethics or by bringing communication expertise to the sciences.

Applicants should have an interest in science communication and, ideally, have a background in applied philosophy and/or media and communication studies. The successful applicant may choose to focus on ethical narratives within cultural texts (film, television, literature), or apply philosophical ideas to the regulatory and policy environment within bioethics. Applicants with higher degrees in a relevant area will be at an advantage.

MEDIA NARRATIVES ON THE LONDON 2012 OLYMPIC GAMES (PHDCCI014)

The Olympic Games is an event characterized by its capacity to generate media coverage in many aspects unrelated to the sports themselves. Over the last 20 years, various studies have focused on the economics, logistics, culture and politics of the hosting process. Studies of the Olympic Games and have included historical analyses of former Games, the political circumstances surrounding bid processes, the creative and cultural dimensions of the Games, and the distinct local political issues that arise within a country. The London 2012 Games are unique in their pursuit of creating a national Games experience and their capacity to realize this shared experience will rely heavily on how the Games is articulated through media narratives. In this context, applications are sought from candidates interested in studying the cultural, media and political dimensions of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The successful applicant will focus on media representations of the Olympics, though the specific area of focus is open. Methodologically, the research will require a strong background in qualitative research, focusing particularly on media narrative analysis. Additionally, the research will require and develop an understanding of how media change is operating around the London 2012 Olympics, particularly how the rights-paying media (television and print), are transforming their production outputs towards online and mobile delivery.  Applicants with a relevant higher degree will be at an advantage.

Whatever happened to the Internet? (CCI022)

This PhD project will examine any aspect of digital and new media culture and may consider some of the following dimensions: ethical issues of digital media, how traditional media have reported the Internet over the years, structures of communication, changing patterns of journalism, cybersexuality in Web 2.0, digital communication for development. The PhD should focus on examining the Internet longitudinally and investigate some of its key facets, while contextualising it within broader processes of media change and assertions about there having been different eras of the Internet.

to apply, click here or feel free to contact me directly email@andymiah.net

and here's the general call for apps in our school for new phds..

Creative and Cultural Industries Studentships

• ETHICS AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES (PHDCCI013)

• MEDIA NARRATIVES ON THE LONDON 2012 OLYMPIC GAMES (PHDCCI014)

• DARK NARRATIVES: GOTHIC NIGHTMARES (PHDCCI015)

• REAL TO READ (PHDCCI016)

• NEW PARADIGMS OF ARTISTIC PRACTICE IN HEALTHCARE ENVIRONMENTS (PHDCCI017)

• PLACE, IDENTITY AND LOCALITY: PLACE-MAKING IN CONTEMPORARY ARTS PRACTICE (PHDCCI018)

• CHANNEL 4 AND THE SCOTTISH INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION SECTOR (PHDCCI019)

• FILM AND MEDIA ARTS FESTIVALS AND EVENTS (PHDCCI020)

• FILM AND MEDIA IN ASIAN-EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE (PHDCCI021)

• ACTIVIST ARTIST PRACTICES AND URBAN INTERVENTIONS (PHDBUS029)

• NETWORK ENTERPRISES IN THE CREATIVE INDUSTRIES: EXPLORING 'CREATIVE CLUSTERING' AT FILM CITY GLASGOW (PHDBUS031)

The Media: An Introduction (third edition)

New book chapter published here on 'The Body, Health and Illness' with Emma Rich. Edited by Daniele Albertazzi and Paul Cobley [kml_flashembed publishmethod="static" fversion="8.0.0" movie="http://www.andymiah.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/MiahRich2009Media.swf" width="600" height="860" targetclass="flashmovie"]

[/kml_flashembed]

[kml_flashembed publishmethod="dynamic" fversion="8.0.0" movie="http://www.andymiah.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Miah2009Media.swf" width="600" height="850" targetclass="flashmovie"]

Abstract:

This chapter discusses media representations of health and illness and offers a description of the ways in which media habitually represent the body. Issues such as disability, eating disorders, body image, genetic engineering, sexually transmitted diseases, mental disorder, cosmetic surgery, drug cultures, abortion, fertility treatment, euthanasia, gerontology, and so forth, are within the general remit of this chapter. However, it focuses on three main issues as exemplary: ‘beginning of life’, eating disorder, disability and ‘end of life’ issues. These examples, it will be shown, urge  consideration of the kind of ethical principles which might inform media representations.

http://www.pearson.ch/HigherEducation/Longman/1471/9781405840361/The-Media-An-Introduction.aspx

Art & Democracy

Arts & technology: The role of the arts in democratic policy making

Tuesday 14th October 2008

1400     Welcome & introductory remarks

1410    Art in an age of uncertainty

Dr. Andy Miah Reader in New Media & Bioethics at the University of the West of Scotland

1435    Begotten not made

Mr Paul Meade Director and joint artistic director of Gúna Nua Theatre Company, Dublin and winner of the Irish Council on Bioethics arts competition

1500    Tea & coffee

You are encouraged to use this time to view the ‘Art of Bioethics II’ art exhibition.

Bioethics policy making- Is there a role for the Arts? Dr. Chamu Kuppuswamy School of Law, University of Sheffield

Intellecual property, equity, Warnock report, human fertilization and embryology

Policy

1540    The Good, The Bad and The Indifferent: ethical explorations in Science Fiction

Justina Robson UK science fiction writer

1605    Panel Q&A session

Chair: Dr. Rob La Frenais, Curator, Arts Catalyst – the science art agency

1635    Close

Drinks Reception

Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (2006, May, Stanford Law School)

Stanford Law School Ron Bailey, Reason Magazine

Designer babies PGD Sex selection

Consent of unborn concern -    but nobody has consent over birth

‘much against my will’

ME: Is action done against those who cannot exercise will, an affront to it.

X-men enhanced vs naturals

People oft say what will happen to equality -    Bill McKibben: declaration of independence cant withstand equality -    Fukuyama:

Are people equal? -    nothing self-evident about this.

Political equality idea arise from enlightenment that nobody has truth

Political equality has never rested on playing to human biology

George Annas: ‘the new species or Posthuman will likely view the…. As …. The normals on the other hand may view the posthumans as….potential for genocide….makes weapons of mass desutrction’

Remind Annas that enlightenment people of tolerance.

Political liberalism is already answer

David DeGrazia -    are any X inviolable

no reason

expanding healthy human life spans

Erik Davis Author of ‘Techgnosis’

Not going to talk about normative concerns. Not interested in debate about enhancement

Interested to draw a space where all will be engaged in a way that is difficult, confusing, enlightening, etc.

‘the Posthuman condition’

attempt to explain an existential view of human acxtion, etc.

‘being unto death’ Heidegger. -    maybe we can change this now

whether or not I accept Ron’s arguments, I have to live in possibility that death as I imagine it is not going to work out that way

another aspect of human condition that doesn’t change: choice -    will still be faced with decisions

transhuman or poshuman?

I use post to invoke postmodern

One element of postmodern that has resonance: loss of grand narratives

Posthuman condition

The Matrix ‘red’ or ‘blue’ pill - choices

Why does morpheus offer a ‘pill’

Pharmacology offers way of grappling with Posthuman condition

Funl mistake that proenhanement make sometimes – confusing ends and means -    richness of means -    ie. End is more happiness, learn to live with my anxiety. I can take a pill or try something more tedius, like yoga, etc.

technologies that enhance abiliy to inquiry about Posthuman.

Hope we never lose process of inquiry when pursue more psychology good

Disenchantment of self and reimagining it

William Hurlbut New paradigm in medicine Gaylin: physician as nature’s assistant – old  paradigm Now freedom from natural life processes

If enhancement an increase then need guidance

Within frame of natural limitations, desire serve as purposeful passions

Gordon Lightfoot: think its  sin when I think I’m winning when I’m losing again.

Without considerable caution, might think we’re winning when we’re losing.

Conclusion: all enhancement might more rightly be recognised as diminishments. Might not mean that not useful

Need some sense of relationship between biotech and natural world – this relates to human good

Need ustdg and wisdom/character

Need to enhance capacity for wisdom and character

ME: my prob is that I don’t like the tone of any of these speakers

‘rising tide of freedom and peril’

need to step back into something rooted more in scientific evidence reflect on where we’ve come from be realistic about scientific meaning and reaslism of what we’re saying doubt much of what’s been referenced already is going to be scientifically feasible

matter, mechanism and meaning

fragile flexibility = life

marvel of life forms – specifically human

balance of body and being

‘embodied intelligent freedom’

reflect on this before seeking posthumans

we might be the ultimate formatio

plato: animals as degraded humans with specific functions

body is not equipment

are there no uses of enhancements? No. surely there are

surgeon using betablocker to steady hand. But you do these with a recognition that a higher good has been served.

Enhancement is a specialisation that XXXX with the world, but occassionalyl undergo alterations

What is a serious purpose?

Not too specific things. Not pleasure. Not competition.

If pleasure, then reduce to free-play – aesthetics of self. Using biologically driven resources to just enjoy. Nothing wrong with that, but deracinated is a great danger. And is trivialising, Nietzsche…

Competitive advantage seeking. Used for selfish ambition. Disrupts our deepest meaning.

We are creatures of the earth

Human word derives from earth

Humility also same root.

Be humble.

Questions and Answers

John Schlender, Arizona State Uni

John: are you asking whether I would give…..

John S: any therepy that can cure age related diseases and extend life span.

John: do I favour radical interventions in human life to increase life span? Very cautious, since level of operation would be disruptive to other purposes of human life. Rennard Hayflick says the reason we age is because we have complex biological systems which ultimately canot repair. Can we make magic bullet interventions. I don’t think so. We already are a specieis with an enhanced life span.rhesus macats already selected for longevity. Not convinced it will be easy. If there is a way consistent with human agency that enhances, then great. Not at cost of other phases of life.

Carl Jacksy, Uni of Washington: funl conservatism that all panels express. ‘adapt to the world’ ‘understanding’. If really about ethics and morality,not posthumanism, but postcapitalism. Never once has discussion fo changing political system. Issue of ludism – social structures need to change. Ultimatel ethical desirada is ecosystem that is 100% symbiotic and 0% parasidic. Marcuse: potential of human race not to dominate nature but transcend struggle for survival. People talk about life extneions as xXX, but majority of species on earth are physically immortal.

Erik: I was not calling for radical political transformation, buit invioking drugs as model, was to raise issue of consumerism, capital, etc. people here have a good sense of how decisions in pharma are driven by capital as well as ethics. But I don’t call for things, nor believe they are around the corner. But invoke impossibility of escaping these questions.

Ron: put in a good word for capitalism. Only social system that allows people to get above natural tate of poverty.

Jean Pierre de XX, Paris and Stanford Uni: respond to Erik Davis – vantage point of history of philosophy. If I heard correct, human condition defined by limitations of human possibilities. I think exactly contrary. Human condition when limits of human life strated to be seen not as lack, but as source of meaning. Kant. Heideggerian notion of being unto death. Recall Satre rejoinder to Heidegger: even if became immoral would remain finite, since condemned to be XXXX, to be free is to choose. The more open possibilities, the more finite – chnoice implies renouncing openness. Equation between choice and possiblitiy to overcome finiteness is dubious. If following satre, of course.

ME: if I’m hnst, I should even be speaking

Nick Bostrom: what are the costs of the surgeon using beta blockers.

Bill: when using a drug, effecting range of responses in body. either body accommodate, or provoke imbalance. Foundation of experience – don’t do interventions unless you need to do them. Not convinced that enhancements will effect desired ends or even reasonably feasible. What is evidence that Posthuman are better? There are obviously conditions that need counterbalancing, but what is the goal?

Ron: who is the we? Societal ‘we’ is very totalitarian. You doubt feasibility, so let us try. Don’t stop now. Humanity is terrible at foresight. Never been good at it.\

Wyre Sententia: choice and freedom. I know ron holds to idea of political liberalism. Potential of Erik’s discussion of grand and small narratives. Who will constrain? For what purpose? Douglas Ruskkoff, echoing Satre: defined more by technologies we choose not to use, rather than those that we do.

Erik: I know an electronic musician. I play acoustic guitar and is quite limited machine in formal characteristics. But if electronic musician today can spend limited mony and have range of capacities.

Bill: I do think there are some things we should tell our citizens that there are some things they can’t do. Germ-line intevention is a very bad idea.

Ron: but probably not in 50 years? Eugenics whether allow or restrict. Enhanced lives are not goalless. Eduardo Kac from Brasil, biotech artist – art gene put into e coli, then art gene in a dish and people could.

Claude XXX, Palo Alto: are you somewhat concerned that all these new powers could lead to a nightmare scenario, dictatorship wher government make decisions for people.

Ron: It has to be a concern. Surveillance technologies.

Erik: proximity to catastrophe is relevant. So many nightmare scenarios though.

XXX: what benefits would acrrue form enhancements. Previously, I evaluated ed programmes for disadvantaged. Yet after spending millions, effects not good. If I were parent of a kid, seems sad to me that many kids that have 2 strikes against them because they’ve lost in genetic lottery. How wonderful if could afford choice to do something about that. This is a good application of microeugenic choice.

Bill: what did you have in mind? Predesigning child to be smarter?

XXX: parent in annual wellness exam, might mention will have a child, and physician says we can evaluate eggs to see if there are eggs or sperm that are normal with regard to intelligence and we can allow you to select.

Bill: so, PGD

XXX: yes, but not just morphological, but actually inspection of genome.

Bill: what about improving genome in progress?

XXX: not sure.

Bill: so, selecting, rather than enhancing?

XXX: yes, first, not sure second.

Bill: so what is intelligence? We have standardised talent recognition. Many people who cant read well are more likely to be in jail than others. People on death row, many are dyslexics. So select out dyslexia? Well maybe, but maybe physiological – tendency to ear ache in early life. Trouble with this is that even if goal acceptable, what goes into intelligence is complex. Hundreds of gene. Multitrait loci. No one gene has 1-2% contribution of a given trait like intelligence. To improve must select complex number to select – eg 1,200 embryos. What’s the goal? So they can all go to Stanford!?

Ron: what you’re hoping for will be achiceved by neuropharmacology before embryo selection. People in memory field .

Bill: would these be drugs they take all the time?

Ron: XXX

Bill ??: how draw line between therapy and enhancement. Stronger immune systems. Bill, in your talk you spoke of Lennard Hayflick of ageing as breakdown of repair. How draw line? If you don’t draw the line, are you into enhancement?

Bill: I’m not a bioconservative. I’m from California. But conservation is a good word, when there is something worth conserving. Medicine is conservative. First principle ‘do no harm’. But first principle should be ‘stay away from docctors’, one in 6 is iatrogenic ‘caused by doc’. If non-invasive that doesn’t harm, I wouldn’t be against, but sceptical. Immune system is a balance – cant work out how to enhance it. We know of deficiencies. But with regard to gene thing, we should make it clear that genetic germline enhancements- genes are not legos. Every system we care about – beauty, intelligence- complex interactions of genes. If really try to bring about scenario, will need cloned human embryos and alter one at a time. Otherwise, natural selection could not predict. Multi body problem raised to nothing degree. This will all amount to experiments on human beings and don’t think we have entitlement to do that.

Ron: with regard to germline, they wont work now. Bioinformatics might produce enough info to simulate genome, interactions of proteins, etc.

Bill: let me correct that. Concordance of identical twins only 18% higher than fraternal. Misimpression that genes are determinate. The bioinformatics prob is so complex that cant do without known genome – so need cloned humans.we have false impressions about how genes work based on genetic diseae. But these are usually missing links in chain, but not just one trait, we just don’t analyse it that way in popular level. Polygenic inheritance means one gene affects many traits. I doubt bioinformatics will solve.

James, Sanfransciso: gentlemen from Washintgon answer question about where this is going – symbiotic rather than parasitic. Ref back to Matrix, agent compared human beings to a virus, uising up resources. Best estimates that lifeblood of oil runs out in a couple of decades. So, question: since 40years since outlaw of psychedelics, so what hindsight of that decision.

Ron: affront of human freedom. Stop drug war and help people who go too far.

YXXXX, Stanford student: ‘we humans might be highest form of physical form’. Something Nick Bostrom wrote on ‘reversal test’. Unlikelt in grand scheme that we are at a local optimum in this point in history. How respond to reversal test.

Bill: human beings are a marvel of balanced capacities. Hands as tool of tools. We could do better. Owls see better at night. But enhancing one thing upsets balance. I think about danger of being torn between arrogance and anxious striving. When ask what really makes people better? My thoughts aren’t something technological. But who is happiest? St Francis: recognised of natural value. Became weak to become strong. French theologian: man can recover true life…certain voluntary poverty is the condition for possessing the world in a way that will not reduce it to ashes.

Erik: I’m a melancholic Posthuman. I recog validity of human ways. Media.

ME: the charge of responsibility and its bearing on enhancement decisions.

Ron: we do have grand narratives: ending of poverty, suffering, etc.

Saturday

Enhancement and Human Rights Session

Why Human Rights are a problem for enhancement Patrick Hopkins

Right almost gives no carte blanche to harm others. Not absolute Alleged right to enhancement in appeal to autonomy no greater appeal than appeal to damgage oneself.

Extreme specificity of contemporary autonomy claims weaken it. Previously, autonomy meant something broader. In deontology, rights recognised some moral laws Autonomy in consequentialist meant that when authorities decided for us, they often got it wrong In none of these views was autonomy content free Autonomy required rationality. So, irrational choices had no validity. Autonomy = self lawed, not no lawed

How is enhancement reasonably way of pursuing interests.

Pro-enhancement crowd must ask what they want from enhancement. If power, gratification, etc, then less than human, not more.

To defend as a right, must be worthwhile, dignified and noble.

Chris Gray Cyborg technology had horrible possibility of taking what rights we have. Must make sure we don’t lose rights we currently enjoy. V good to have a philosophical understanding – or epistemological – but what’s really imp is how you have power in the world. Fact that we have rights now is that many people struggled for them.

Political systems are systems of discourse. Discourse of rights is a metarule Imp we mobiles this to keep freedom

Steve Mann –‘Digital Futures..’

Kevin Warwick says he’s a cyborg, but he isn’t.

Before right to enhance, right as normal citizen.

Epistemological – any imp question need this – how do you know what you know?

In this case, assumes what you need

Manfred Clynes

Goedl – showed mathematics was incomplete and/or imperfect

Church-turing thesis - incompetent

Understand human culture as a discourse. -    change discourse

smartest thing in the world is a community, much smarter than any individual

dialetic – thesis, antithesis, new synthesis

Nigel Cameron Associate Dean, Chicago College of Law

Author of ‘The NewMedicine’ And ‘Human Dignity in the Biotech Century’

(From Edinburgh in Scotland)

caveats of answers

identity complex questions

putative enhancement: proportionality enhancement

recog prob of drawing lines –eg between therapy and enhancement

nobody claims it is easy to draw such lines

role of policy inthis debate is complex naïve freedom of science argument

IRBs make life difficilt

Science constrained by social norms

A defining discussion about human future not easy to resolve.

Enhancement debates are surrogate to discussions about value of human – what is the good life?

This will be the dominating theme of the 21st century.

Questions and Answers

Positive and negative right distinc? David Calvery, Arizona State:

Wesley Smith, Weekly Standard: for Dr Gray:

GraY: proliferation of transhumans. May have its own problems.

Question: are human limits a threshold or a fn of technology and culture?

Gray: universal machine faces same problem. Infiinitte computer cannot understand world.

Carl chansky: human race has been involved in enhancement since time immemorial. Two phases: enhancement of muscular abilities. Now this is closed. We have infinitised our musculature.

Nigel: Much less concerned about steroids

Kirsten Rabe Smolensky

Assume intervention before birth Assume 2: germline not somatic Assume3: safe enough Assume4: intervention before born, resulting in outcome that they dislike and want to sue parents.

Eg. Superior athletic ability given and wanted superior musical ability.

Current state of tort law makes v unlikely that child could bring such a case

Tort Wrongful birth/death

Two potential claims

Wrongful life/birth: Least likely, but worth mention Current law:

Claim: you didn’t screen me when in womb and I have this condition because of that.

Generally not recognised in court, since would require court to accept better off dead than with condition.

Court disagrees.

Alternative: negligence claim.

Ot bring: Need duty of care. Breach of duty Breach must be proximate cause

Question of whether we owe foetus duty of care?

If someone hits pregnant woman and injures child, then potential negligence.

if pregnant woman in car and both damage, also independently liable to foetus

in some jursifactions parent can claim child cant sue.

Hewitt vs Jordan 1981, Mississippi – committed child. When got out sued parent. Disupts family harmony

ME: what is length of term a child would have to make such a claim? In uk, it’s 3 years after realisation or after 18.

Alternative: Negligence Claim

Is duty owed to foetus?

About 6 cases o prenatal harm -    where held: Groto v Grotom 1980, mother tetracycl…, discoloured teeth. -    In Michigan, willallow prenatal harm claims -    Bonti vs Bonti, 1992, New Hampshire: woman cross streetnegligently, hit by vehicle, foetus born, brought suit against mother. Court said mother was negligent. -    Vs. Norton trust bank, 2002, court of appeals, automobile, mother negligent driver, brorn, sued, only upto limits of mothers insurnance – suggests ok if someone else paying, but if from parents’ pocket, then no. -    In all cases, 3rd party tort. If allow 3rd party to be liable, then parents also. -    Also in places where parental tort almost abolished.

If genetically enhance child inappropriately, could be similarly negigleb as if had harmed

3 other cases

car accident case, cocaine using mother and car accident -    when courts focus on duty, say mother doesn’t have duty. If we control mother, then limiting her autonomy -    if recog duty to foetus, then limiting her capacities

genetic enhancement a  little dim -    at preimplantation stage, not changes by parent altering lifestyle. But actually choices of child before hand, which don’t necessarily affect mothers determiniation -    thus, potential court liability more likely

ME: in the case where an award was made, what was it for ‘diminished life’, harm?

ME: defensive medicine a consequence of this prospect? Ie. Genetic counsellor advising about risk. Is counsellor liable? Not so much parent’s being sued, but subsequently – they will act under the advice of health care professionals. Can the child sue the genetic engineer for ineffectiveness. Ie. I was supposed to get 2m legs, and they’re only 30cm, or something.

Defensive medicine concen – spinabifida, alters advice if prospect of being sued.

ME: eg of child who’s born with athletic genes but wants musical genes. Isn’t this too specific an articulation. Ie. No right to all enhancements. A better example might be muscle fibre type selection. Selecting a child with greater fasttwitch fibre types and they want to be a marathon runner, because this an ‘either/or’ decision. My having of fast limits my slow.

Genetic Engineering and the Consent of future generations Martin Gunderson

sceptical of deontological conservatism and consequential utopianism

doctrine of informed consent – not subhect to experiment/treatment without informed consent

Kantian notion of autonomy

Consent can change normative relations

Questions and Answers

Anita: consent issue. Issue is permitting parents to choose for their children. What are standards for surrogate consent.

James: concept of substituted judgmeent is time constraint and cultural constraint of knowl: standard of care.does concept of substituted judgement…at the time what parents were allowed to do.

Kirsten:

George: parent consent illusion. Gattaca, selecting genes. Over interiew, doctor is guiding them. Is this medical liability?

Kirsten: if child bring suit, probably also malpractice suit from parents on informed issue. Another issue is diff notions of informed consent.

ME: you mentioned tht child sues parent and gets money from insurance company. Is this a way of gaining additional support for people with disabilities? Ie. Is there an incentive for parent to take out insurance that would allow them to claim…

James: cant have consent without knowledge of informed consent.

Anders: difference between treatments outside … blur of zone.

Everybody is already different.

Standard body not only non-existent, but also atemporal.

The Right Not to be Normal as the Essence of Freedom Anita Silvers

Prosthetic used by cyclist

Whether lack of flesh enhances

Making better athlete

Equality of opp requires participation in social practices

Over last century commitment to equality of opp in USA has embraced diversity.

Some critics worry that enhancing lead to social inequality

Boil gifts.

Advantageous in some contexts, not others.

Don’t make people stronger, otherwise disabled will be even weaker, assumes what constitutes strength and weakness

Natural vs artificial – you cant go that way.

Whether boil differences are unfair

Assumption that we are naturally competitive.

Mistaken to assume this.

A lot of evolutionary biology that suggest this to be false

Just as likely to be naturally cooperative

So, if working in a group, don’t you want your colleagues to have strengths that you might not have?

Transhumanist continue to buy in to competitive theory

Enhance our ability to cooperate

Transhumanism and the O(/o)Ther Shannon Ramdin

Politics of technological empowerment

Are transhumanists colonial subject or object?

Haraway’s manifesto

James Hughes – WTA alls under liberal democratic transhumanism. Doesn’t mean not affiliated with radical.

Cyborgs and cytberspace connection.

Web not a new world, but reflection of non-virtual world.

Ever widening digtal divide.

Identity not invisible.

Transhuman technologies -    genome

inequalities exist in society

even when technology starts off

ME: why should we expect the Internet to be equally available?

Suffering bodily tolerances and enhancement discourse Jessica Cadwalladar Doctoral candidate critical cultural studies

suffering more than bodily pain

cast as most unquestionable, most natural

poststructuralist claim … to be natural has a number of effects -    places thing outside culture -    Haraway’s Primate Visions – natural as human and thus cultural description -    Patriarchy as natural state of being fed into studies of gorillas

Suffering is a politicised cultural space

Carl Elliott, Better than well Human growth hormone, used to treat shortness almost exclusively in boys Early years, debates about how to use. Some suggested that any boy in shortest 1% should be treated. Short men were observed to suffer following disadvantages – less good jobs, less long term relationships. But parents of boys who grow up to be short men didn’t care about reason, just wanted child not to suffer.

Suffering as trump card.

Yet, suffering not neutral either.

Occurs in relation to deviation from cultural norm.

Those who suffer because of a range of things, don’t suffer because it is natural for them to do so, but because cant fully achieve cultural norms

Taken on by subject.

Merleu ponty

Normal not natural, but conceptions

Pathological deviation from natural functioning

Deviance when not adhering to Norm Fost

Disability already marked as pathological, even in absence of disease.

Any kind fo corporeal difference is taken as diseae

Questions and Answers

ME: competitive with a small c and big C. is competitiveness necessarily a lack of care for one’s competitiveness. One can be competitive without having competitive anxiety.

Anita: what would it mean to engage the public?

Question: you all mentoned respecting difference. What is common ground on which we respect difference?  What is our common humanity?

Jessica: Dewey: there is a human nature, but it is built  by us.

Anita: where does the burden of proof lie? Why on those who accept difference who don’t even notice it. Example of student who probably had asbergers didn’t know this difference. Are we hardwired to attach certain kinds of difference? Lone wolves. Blind wolves are often lone wolves, because they attach the pack.

Jessica: I have major questions about individual liberty. I have a more inter-subjective view on how subjects come to be. People want to conform.

Of genes, bemes and conscious things: from transhuman enhancements to transbeman rights Martine Rothblartt Martine4@gmail.com

Problem/opptunity/solution

Bemes, like memes but cultural.

Beme mightier than gene

How do DNA and BNA matter? -    dna genes -    bna translated via neurochemistry or software

Our Right to Life: Life extension, human rights, and the rational refiniement of repugnance Aubrey de Grey

Structure of talk

Leon kass – credit where due

My flavour of non-cognitivism

Evidence from past precedent

Relevance to the (un)desirability of aging

Non-cog – no one true morality

Will aging become repugnant?

ME: it is already isn’t t?