Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Human Affairs

Postdisciplinary Humanities & Social Sciences Quarterly

4 Issues per year


CiteScore 2016: 0.33

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.172
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.415

Online
ISSN
1337-401X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 25, Issue 2 (Apr 2015)

Issues

Homo biotechnologicus

Emil Višňovský
  • Department of Philosophy & History of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts, Comenius University Gondova 2, P.O.BOX 32, 814 99 Bratislava, Slovakia / Institute for Research in Social Communication Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dubravska cesta 9, 841 04 Bratislava 4, Slovakia
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2015-04-07 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/humaff-2015-0019

Abstract

The paper outlines the concept of the human being as homo biotechnologicus. This concept is just one version of many possible human self-interpretations, since human beings can answer their own fundamental question of ‘who are we?’ simply using their ‘human, all too human’ self-descriptions. However, technology is a substantial part of the human being as a natural being, and biotechnology is, moreover, its root. The biotechnology of today’s world means that humanity is set on a path to transcending its own human nature, with all the risky consequences that entails. The author considers these radical developments from the standpoint of posthumanism

Keywords: human being; human nature; technology; biotechnology; humanism; posthumanism; transhumanism; technological culture

References

  • Aristotle (1999). Nicomachean Ethics. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.Google Scholar

  • Bachelard, G. (1953). La materialisme rationel. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar

  • Bainbridge, W. S. (2004). Early convergence research and education supported by the National Science Foundation. Ann NY Acad. Sci. 1013, 234-58.Google Scholar

  • Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar

  • Dewey, J. (1925/1988). Experience and nature. The Later Works of John Dewey, Vol. 1, 1925 - 1953.Google Scholar

  • Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dusek, V. (2006). Philosophy of Technology - An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Düwell, M., Braarvig, J., Brownsword, R., & Mieth, D. (Eds.). (2014). The Cambridge handbook of human dignity. Interdisciplinary perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Fukuyama, F. (2002). Our posthuman future.London: Profile Books.Google Scholar

  • Gehlen, A. (1940/2014). Der Mensch, seine Natur und seine Stellung in der Welt. Wiebelsheim: AULAVerlag.Google Scholar

  • Heidegger, M. 1977. The question concerning technology and other essays. New York and London: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Keekok, L. (2009). Homo faber: The unity of the history and philosophy of technology. In J. K. B. Olsen, E. Selinger, & S. Riis (Eds). New waves in philosophy of technology (pp. 13-39). Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Keulartz, F. W. J., Korthals, M., Schermer, M., & Swierstra, T. E. (Eds.). (2002). Pragmatist ethics for a technological culture. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Kurzweil, R. (2005): The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. New York: Viking.Google Scholar

  • Lippert-Ramussen, K., Thomsen, M. R., & Wamberg, J. (2012). The posthuman condition: Ethics, aesthetics and politics of biotechnological challenges. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar

  • Maturana, F., & Varela, H., (1973). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

  • Mitcham, C., & Schatzberg, E. (2009). Defining technology and the engineering sciences. In A.Google Scholar

  • Meijers (Ed.), Handbook of the philosophy of science. Vol. 9 (pp. 27-64). Amsterdam and London: Elsevier and North Holland.Google Scholar

  • Plato (1997). Complete works. John M. Cooper (Ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.Google Scholar

  • Polanyi, M. (1967). The Tacit dimension. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar

  • Salomon, J. J. (1992/1997). Technologický úděl (Technological fate). Praha: Filosofia.Google Scholar

  • Savulescu, J., & Bostrom, N. (Eds.). (2009): Human enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Šmajs, J. (2008). Filosofie - Obrat k Zemi (Philosophy - A turn to the earth). Praha: Academia. Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2015-04-07

Published in Print: 2015-04-01


Citation Information: Human Affairs, ISSN (Online) 1337-401X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/humaff-2015-0019.

Export Citation

© Institute for Research in Social Communication, Slovak Academy of Sciences. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in