Abstract

In the present paper we want to argue that Wearable Robots (i.e., technological devices used to restore the possibility of walking and re-establishing “normal” human life) should not necessarily be anthropomorphic, in order to respect human autonomy, freedom, and nature. Moreover, we argue that this non-anthropomorphism does not necessarily lead to transhumanism. To adequately discuss this topic, we are called to consider various aspects embedded in the question: the difference between restoring and enhancing, i.e., the difference between considering human nature as normative, or will (or wish) as the main criterion of choice; the difference between exceeding the limits of human nature (i.e., human enhancement) and restoring human functions; and, finally, the nature of the function itself. We will introduce a “weak” notion of autonomy and freedom, dealing with rehabilitation and motility, in order to assess the use of Wearable Robots in rehabilitative medicine. Hence we will argue that the less constraints that patients have, the freer they are. All these aspects also imply an anthropological and ecological view, since they have to do with the relationship of the human being with its environment. Keywords: human ecology, Wearable Robots, Transhumanism, anthropomorphism, Arne Naess, environment.

Highlights

  • Wearable robots, autonomy, and freedomIn this paper we want to argue that Wearable Robots, i.e., technological devices used to restore the possibility of walking and re-establishing “normal” human life, in order to respect human nature and to be ecological, should not necessarily be anthropomorphic, which in turn does not necessarily lead to transhumanism

  • We can temporarily conclude that WRs, in so far as they help human beings in maintaining their autonomy, assist them in recovering basic functions; since they remove barriers in the human relation to the environment, they facilitate the achievement of noble purposes and the “humanization” of human nature

  • The adoption of a suitable non-anthropomorphic structure brings a number of advantages; the main ones are: easier wearability, meaning that small anthropometric changes are intrinsically compensated by the ability of the robot to slightly adapt its configuration, helping patient’s autonomy and freedom of movement; and dynamic advantages, meaning that the heaviest parts can be located close to the trunk, reducing the oscillating masses

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In this paper we want to argue that Wearable Robots, i.e., technological devices used to restore the possibility of walking and re-establishing “normal” human life, in order to respect human nature and to be ecological, should not necessarily be anthropomorphic, which in turn does not necessarily lead to transhumanism. We can temporarily conclude that WRs, in so far as they help human beings in maintaining their autonomy, assist them in recovering basic functions (in particular “motility”); since they remove barriers in the human relation to the environment, they facilitate the achievement of noble purposes and the “humanization” of human nature.

Results
Conclusion

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 call

Disclaimer: 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.