Philosophical & bioethical boundaries in current biotechnologies: human enhancement and welfare biology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37467/revtechno.v13.5120Keywords:
Philosophy of mind, Mind uploading, Transhumanism, Welfare biology, Wild animal suffering, CRISPR, Bioethics, Applied ethicsAbstract
The aim of this paper is to conduct a descriptive and normative exploration of the most intriguing current biotechnologies. Firstly, biotechnological means capable of enhancing humans will be described, including the possibility of transferring the mind to a non-biological device. Secondly, the emerging discipline of welfare biology will be explored, subjecting it to a theoretical stress test. Well-founded concerns regarding the potential impact of biotechnologies exist, with a particular emphasis on the speculative nature of mind uploading. In contrast to large-scale welfare biology, small-scale welfare biology seems entirely plausible to reduce wild animal suffering.
References
Alonso, M. (2022). Tecnologías cerebro-afectantes, identidad personal y autenticidad. Bajo Palabra. Revista de filosofía, (30), 83-96. https://doi.org/10.15366/bp2022.30.004
Álvarez Díaz, J. A. (2023). The future of human reproduction: Ectogenesis and transhumanism? TECHNO REVIEW. International Technology, Science and Society Review, 13(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.37467/revtechno.v13.4796
Agar, N. (1997). Biocentrism and the Concept of Life. Ethics, 108(1), 147-168.
Ayala-Colqui, J. (2023). El nacimiento del “ciberalismo”. Una genealogía crítica de la gubernamentalidad de Silicon Valley. Bajo Palabra, (32), 221-254. https://doi.org/10.15366/bp2023.32.012
Biscaia Fernández, J. M. (2021). Neuromejora: de la vanguardia científica y tecnológica a las dificultades y límites planteados por la filosofía de la mente y la bioética. Revista Iberoamericana De Bioética, (16), 01–17. https://doi.org/10.14422/rib.i16.y2021.003
Bostrom, N. (2009). The future of humanity. Geopolitics, History, and international relations, 1(2), 41-78.
Capone, N., & Albert Márquez, J. J. (2022). Reconsidering the paradigm “death” form transhumanism: Will death remain only and illusion? HUMAN REVIEW. International Humanities Review, 13(5), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.37467/revhuman.v11.4068
Catton Jr, W. R., & Dunlap, R. E. (1978). Environmental sociology: A new paradigm. The American Sociologist, 41-49.
Delon, N., & Purves, D. (2018). Wild animal suffering is intractable. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 31, 239-260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9722-y
Faria, C. (2023). Animal ethics in the wild: Wild animal suffering and intervention in nature. Cambridge University Press.
Faria, C. (2023). Vulnerability and the Ethics of Environmental Enhancement. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2023.2200725
Fernández-Cuesta, J. A. (2023). Do Accelerating Turing Machines Exist? Paradoxes and Logical Possibilites. TECHNO REVIEW. International Technology, Science and Society Review, 13(1), 49–74. https://doi.org/10.37467/revtechno.v13.5005
Fernández-Mateo, J., & Franco-Barrera, A. J. (2023). Responsible Consumption and Production in the Anthropocene: Animal Ethics and the Sustainable Development Goals. Rev. Bioetica & Derecho, 57, 287. https://doi.org/10.1344/rbd2023.57.38250
Fourneret, É. (2020). The hybridization of the human with brain implants: the neuralink project. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 29(4), 668-672.
Gherab-Martin, K. (2022). Mentes contra Máquinas: Revisión histórica y lógico-filosófica del argumento gödeliano de Lucas-Penrose. HUMAN REVIEW. International Humanities Review, 11(2), 185-195. https://doi.org/10.37467/revhuman.v11.4503
Hettinger, N. (2010). Animal beauty, ethics, and environmental preservation. Environmental Ethics, 32(2), 115-134.
Horta, O. (2010). What is speciesism? Journal of agricultural and environmental ethics, 23, 243-266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-009-9205-2
Horta, O. (2015). The problem of evil in nature: Evolutionary bases of the prevalence of disvalue. Rel.: Beyond Anthropocentrism, 3, 17. https://doi.org/10.7358/rela-2015-001-hort
Horta, O. (2022). Making a stand for animals. Routledge.
Horta, O., & Teran, D. (2023). Reducing Wild Animal Suffering Effectively: Why Impracticability and Normative Objections Fail Against the Most Promising Ways of Helping Wild Animals. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2023.2200726
Johannsen, K. (2017). Animal rights and the problem of r-strategists. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 20(2), 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-016-9774-x
Johannsen, K. (2020). Wild animal ethics: The moral and political problem of wild animal suffering. Routledge.
Kirkwood, J. K., & Sainsbury, A. W. (1996). Ethics of interventions for the welfare of free-living wild animals. Animal Welfare, 5(3), 235-243. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600018820
Keulartz, J. (2016). Should the lion eat straw like the ox? Animal ethics and the predation problem. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 29(5), 813-834. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63523-7
Korsgaard, C. M. (2018). Fellow creatures: Our obligations to the other animals. Oxford University Press.
Mababu Mukiur, R. (2022). Análisis de las competencias claves para la industria 4.0: Las competencias para la Industria 4.0. TECHNO REVIEW. International Technology, Science and Society Review, 12(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.37467/revtechno.v11.4392
McMahan, J. (2015). The moral problem of predation. In: Chignell, A., Cuneo, T., & Halteman, M. C. (Eds.). Philosophy comes to dinner: Arguments about the ethics of eating. Routledge., 268-94.
Merkle, R. C. (2013). Uploading. In: More, M., & Vita-More, N. (Eds.). The transhumanist reader: Classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future. John Wiley & Sons, 157-164.
Mi, J., Zhou, Y., Ma, S., Zhou, X., Xu, S., Yang, Y., ... & Meng, Q. (2023). High-strength and ultra-tough whole spider silk fibers spun from transgenic silkworms. Matter. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matt.2023.08.013
Næss, A. (1990). Ecology, community and lifestyle: outline of an ecosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Ng, Y. K. (1995). Towards welfare biology: Evolutionary economics of animal consciousness and suffering. Biology and Philosophy, 10, 255-285. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00852469
Paez, E. (2020). A Kantian ethics of paradise engineering. Analysis, 80(2), 283-293. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anz077
Piccinini, G. (2021). The myth of mind uploading. In: The Mind-Technology Problem: Investigating Minds, Selves and 21st Century Artefacts, 125-144. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72644-7
Sandberg, A. (2011). Cognition enhancement: Upgrading the brain. In: Savulescu, J., Sandberg, A., & Kahane, G. (Eds.) Enhancing human capacities, Wiley-Blackwell, 69-91.
Sapontzis, S. F. (1984). Predation. Ethics and animals, 5(2), 4.
Schneider, S. (2019). Artificial you: AI and the future of your mind. Princeton University Press.
Shih, J. J., Krusienski, D. J., & Wolpaw, J. R. (2012). Brain-computer interfaces in medicine. In: Mayo clinic proceedings Vol. 87, No. 3, pp. 268-279. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2011.12.008
Sterba, J. P. (2011). Biocentrism defended. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 14(2), 167-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2011.578376
Taylor, P. W. (1983). In defense of biocentrism. Environmental Ethics, 5(3), 237-243. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics19835322
Torres, M. (2015). The case for intervention in nature on behalf of animals: A critical review of the main arguments against intervention. Rel.: Beyond Anthropocentrism, 3, 33. https://doi.org/10.7358/rela-2015-001-torr
Vinge, V. (2013) Technological singularity. In: More, M., & Vita-More, N. (Eds.). The transhumanist reader: Classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future. John Wiley & Sons, pp 365-375.
Yuste, R., Goering, S., Arcas, B. A. Y., Bi, G., Carmena, J. M., Carter, A., ... & Wolpaw, J. (2017). Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and AI. Nature 551, 159–163 https://doi.org/10.1038/551159a
Published
Issue
Section
License
All articles are published under an Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0) license. Authors retain copyright over their work.
