Nanotech transhumanist debate heats up
There's an interesting discussion going on between Nigel Cameron, Director of the Center on Nanotechnology and Society and President of the Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future, and George Dvorsky (pictured), President of the Toronto Transhumanist Association.
Cameron kicked the discussion off with Choosing tomorrow: some problems of "transhumanist" approaches to emerging technologies in which he questioned whether some of the highly optimistic assumptions that run through transhumanist thinking are ultimately justified.
Dvorsky responded in an interview with the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies called Nanotechnology Will Reshape Humanity that the idea behind these technologies is to reduce suffering and to foster meaningful lives.
To me, Dvorsky is betraying the highly optimistic assumptions that run through transhumanist thinking that Cameron alluded to. On the other hand, if we accept the textbook definition of transhumanism as a philosophy supporting the use of new sciences and technologies to enhance human cognitive and physical aptitudes, I guess that makes me a transhumanist.
For a more in-depth analysis of this discussion and its transhumanist implications, see my post at GreenTechBlog</>.