Abstract
The rise of new technologies—robotics, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology among them—gave the American computer scientist Bill Joy certain pause for deep concern; these, he cautioned, carry the very real potential to push humankind toward extinction. In this essay, I explore an often understated reference in conversations on the promises and shortcomings of said technologies: the disposability of the human body. The Catholic tradition, in particular, boasts a rich and extensive collection of teachings on the theology of the body, which addresses, among other things, the significance of the body for human identity, its relationship to the soul, our (restrained) rights and mastery over it, its (proper) uses over the course of life, its relationship with other bodies, the value of its limitations, and its postmortem fate. Here, I engage the Church’s understanding of the centrality of the body alongside currents in transhumanist philosophy which champion technologies that neglect, or intentionally seek to discard, the body in the name of progress.
Highlights
Technological Soteriology and Morphological FreedomIt is one thing to speak about biotechnological interventions to aid or even enhance the human body, but it is quite another to propose that these interventions should aim at moving beyond the body altogether
The rise of new technologies—robotics, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology among them—gave the American computer scientist Bill Joy certain pause for deep concern; these, he cautioned, carry the very real potential to push humankind toward extinction
It is one thing to speak about biotechnological interventions to aid or even enhance the human body, but it is quite another to propose that these interventions should aim at moving beyond the body altogether
Summary
It is one thing to speak about biotechnological interventions to aid or even enhance the human body, but it is quite another to propose that these interventions should aim at moving beyond the body altogether. It is interesting to note that some transhumanists make a point to restrain this right by considering the harms that self-modification might cause to others It is this self-direction, More says, that sustains continuity because “continuity requires that later stages of an individual develop out of earlier stages, rather than usurping their place” (More 1993). 19–35), but whether replacing the body altogether ought to be a moral duty as well (once the proper technology becomes available) is left up in the air Whatever the case, both of these propositions seem to impose on individual autonomy and this would not be consistent with transhumanist ethics. This does not, and must not, amount to the perception and treatment of people as disposable and substitutable (say, by some mass of superhuman beings) (Humanity+ 2016), but hinges on making available to all the option to move beyond the body and its limitations
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
