Blog | Events | Multimedia | About | Purpose | Programs | Publications | Staff | Contact | Join   
     Login      Register    




Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view


whats new at ieet
Tech Pace Fast, Opposition Uncertain: IEET Readers

Autism And Vaccines: Why People Still Believe The Hype

Mining Space

Design Outside the Box

Online Games, Super Empowerment, and a Better World

Are You There, Dog? It’s Me, Gordon.

Where Next for the Space Program?

History is Contingent, Built on Flukes, Accidents, and Surprises

Compassion

What Would You Say?


comments

J on 'Online Games, Super Empowerment, and a Better World' (Mar 19, 2010)

postfuturist on 'IEET Readers See China as Future Power' (Mar 18, 2010)

postfuturist on 'Health Care Good, System Bad' (Mar 18, 2010)

Sara on 'Organization and Information at the Bedside (dissertation)' (Mar 18, 2010)

Omar Fink on 'Health Care Good, System Bad' (Mar 18, 2010)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



Also check out technoprogressive multimedia on Thoughtware.tv

IEET > Rights > Neuroethics > ReproRights > Life > Vision > Technoprogressivism > Staff > J. Hughes

PrintEmailpermalink • (7) Comments • (47) Hits •  subscribeShare on facebook Stumble This




TechnoProgressive Biopolitics and Human Enhancement


J. Hughes
J. Hughes
Progress in Bioethics, ed. Jonathan Moreno and Sam Berger, 2010, MIT Press, pp. 163-188

Posted: Dec 10, 2009

A principal challenge facing the progressive bioethics project is the crafting of a consistent message on biopolitical issues that divide progressives.

The regulation of enhancement technologies is one of the issues central to this emerging biopolitics, pitting progressive defenders of enhancement, “technoprogressives,” against progressive critics. This essay [PDF] will argue that technoprogressive biopolitics express the consistent application of the core progressive values of the Enlightenment: the right of individuals to control their own bodies, brains and reproduction according to their own conscience, under democratic states that work for the public good.

Insofar as left bioconservatives want to ensure the safety of therapies and their equitable distribution, these concerns can be addressed by thorough and independent regulation and a universal health care system, and a progressive bioethics of enhancement can unite both enthusiasts and skeptics. Insofar as bioconservative concerns are motivated by deeper hostility to the Enlightenment project however, by assertion of pre-modern reverence for human uniqueness for instance, then a common program is unlikely.

imageAfter briefly reviewing the political history and contemporary landscape of biopolitical debates about enhancement, the essay outlines three meta-policy contexts that will impact future biopolicy: the pressure to establish a universal, cost-effective health insurance system, the aging of industrial societies, and globalization.  Technoprogressive appeals are outlined that can appeal to key constituencies, and build a majority coalition in support of progressive change. Finally, some guiding principles for a technoprogressive approach to biopolicy are offered.


Download a PDF of an early version of the chapter

Also download and read the introductory essay from this volume: “Bioethics Progressing” by Sam Berger and Jonathan D. Moreno

Buy the book here


Contents:

  • Can There Be a Progressive Bioethics? - Richard Lempert
  • Politics, Progressivism, and Bioethics - R. Alta Charo
  • Bioethics: The New Conservative Crusade - Kathryn Hinsch
  • A Progressive American Bioethics - Laurie Zoloth
  • Biomedicalization and the Rise of Bioethics - Paul Root Wolpe
  • The Tension between Progressive Bioethics and Religion - John H. Evans
  • Can National Bioethics Commissions Be Progressive? Should They? - Eric M. Meslin
  • Technoprogressive Biopolitics and Human Enhancement - James J. Hughes
  • Biopolitics, Mythic Science, and Progressive Values - Marcy Darnovsky
  • Can Bioethics Transcend Ideology? (And Should It?) - Arthur L. Caplan
  • A Catholic Progressive on Care and Conscience - Michael Rugnetta
  • Reforming Health Care: Ends and Means - -Daniel Callahan
  • Finding Common Ground in Bioethics? - William F. May

James Hughes Ph.D., the IEET Executive Director, is a bioethicist and sociologist at Trinity College in Hartford Connecticut USA. He is author of Citizen Cyborg and is working on a second book tentatively titled Cyborg Buddha. He produces a syndicated weekly radio program, Changesurfer Radio.
PrintEmailpermalinkDiscuss in Forums • Send to: ¡ del.icio.us icon ¡ Digg icon


COMMENTS


"Insofar as left bioconservatives want to ensure the safety of therapies..."

Doesn't /everybody/ want to ensure the safety of therapies? Or are you only talking, more or less, about abortion.

"Insofar as bioconservative concerns are motivated by deeper hostility to the Enlightenment project however, by assertion of pre-modern reverence for human uniqueness for instance, then a common program is unlikely. "

When the Enlightenment was in full swing, didn't the followers /still/ believe in human uniqueness? Was that a flaw that just hadn't been worked out yet?



I might approach my last comment from a different angle.

The word "pre-modern" in that sentence sounds a little biased to me. Similar to the way "medieval" is so often used. Imagine replacing it with "traditional" or "time-honored." Would we not accuse the writer of engaging in "argumentum ad antiquitatem"? Using "pre-modern," some might accuse you of engaging in "Argumentum ad novitatem."



Hmmm. Using fancy Latin terms like that sounds pretentious. Sorry about that!



Veronica

You are right that "time-honored" would convey a different message than "pre-modern". The former valorizes pre-Enlightenment values, the latter labels them as pre-Enlightenment. That's why I used "pre-modern."

Re: ensuring the safety of therapies I'm pointing out that there are two kinds of objections to enhancement, safety/equity concerns and pre-modern yuck factor concerns. Insofar as the left biocons focus on safety/equity then they can unite with technoprogressives around strengthening clinical testing and universal access as answers to their concerns. Insofar as they are actually motivated by pre-modern yuck factor concerns such as defending human exceptionalism then there is no common ground.



You wrote "pre-modern REVERENCE." I feel you didn't address my concern.



The "reverence" of human exceptionalism is a pre-modern attitude in my analysis because it rests on either an explicit appeal to a notion of the soul, or a crypto-religious hand wave at some other allegedly unique human traits that confers dignity only on us. I consider non-anthropocentric personhood ethics to be the ethics consistent with Enlightenment values, although admittedly the philosophes would mostly have been surprised to hear that. Perhaps not Diderot....



Your second to last sentence addressed my question much better, thanks.



YOUR COMMENT

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:




Next entry: A Cold War Over Warming

Previous entry: Space Station Baby Due First

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter | Podcast
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 229B, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376