Philosophical & bioethical boundaries in current biotechnologies: human enhancement and welfare biology

Autores/as

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37467/revtechno.v13.5120

Palabras clave:

Filosofía de la mente, Mentes artificiales, Transhumanismo, Biología del bienestar, Sufrimiento animal, CRISPR, Bioética, Ética aplicada

Resumen

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.

Citas

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

Descargas

Publicado

2023-10-05

Cómo citar

Fernández-Mateo, J. (2023). Philosophical & bioethical boundaries in current biotechnologies: human enhancement and welfare biology. TECHNO REVIEW. International Technology, Science and Society Review Revista Internacional De Tecnología, Ciencia Y Sociedad, 13(1), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.37467/revtechno.v13.5120

Número

Vol. 13 Núm. 1 (2023)

Sección

Artículos de investigación

Licencia

Aquellos autores/as que publiquen en esta revista, aceptan los términos siguientes:

  1. Los autores/as conservarán los derechos morales sobre la obra y cederán a la revista los derechos comerciales.
  2. Transcurrido un año desde su publicación, la versión del editor pasará a estar en acceso abierto en la web de la editorial, pero la revista mantendrá el copyright de la obra.
  3. En el caso de que los autores deseen asignar una licencia abierta Creative Commons (CC), podrán solicitarla escribiendo a publishing@eagora.org