This Wednesday, 60 Minutes ran a story featuring a segment on nanotechnology, specifically its application in medicine. While Mike McRoberts examined how such technology could potentially "cure cancer within twenty years" (amongst promising anti-ageing and longer life), I started to wonder how this form of transhumanism would be socially received. Interestingly, the 60 Minutes piece touched on the ethical problems of 'have and have-not' - the divide created by those who could afford technology and those who couldn't, but pretty much just assumed that society in general would accept this advance in technology.
But why is this? Why is it that nanotechnology is seen as a medical breakthrough, yet other forms of posthumanism are more disturbing (thank you Stelarc) to us? Is this purely aesthetics - that nanotechnology is unseen, as opposed to the visible transgressions and extensions of the human body by Stelarc, or is it something more? Both forms of technology work within the human body, 'under the skin' as a part of the organism, yet nanotech is acceptable, and third ears are not. Am I alone in making this distinction?
But why is this? Why is it that nanotechnology is seen as a medical breakthrough, yet other forms of posthumanism are more disturbing (thank you Stelarc) to us? Is this purely aesthetics - that nanotechnology is unseen, as opposed to the visible transgressions and extensions of the human body by Stelarc, or is it something more? Both forms of technology work within the human body, 'under the skin' as a part of the organism, yet nanotech is acceptable, and third ears are not. Am I alone in making this distinction?
Perhaps it comes down to what we perceive the technology to accomplish. In the case of the 60 Minutes nanotech reporting, the focus was on technology removing human 'problems' of ageing, illness and eventually death. Stelarc, on the other (perhaps third) hand, seems to be more interested in extending human capabilities, questioning why humans should be limited in ability when technology can make us better, stronger, faster.
But isn't this is fundamentally a false distinction? Illness and ageing are as much a part of being human, as having only two ears is. Isn't using nanotech to increase health just the same as using technology to increase number of ears? How does society decide what technology helps us be functioning humans, and what technology allows us to function beyond human limits?
(Stelarc's optional Third Arm also allows him to scratch all his ears at once)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.