Steve Fuller and Darian Meacham
|
Humanity 2.0: What it Means to be Human, Past, Present and Future 
|
How will we ascribe status to human life in a ‘post-human’ and ‘trans-human’ world? We have gone from asking whether humans needed to be social to realize their nature, to whether the social needs to be human at all. Fuller’s Humanity 2.0 is an ambitious attempt to bring about a full discussion of our present and post-human future. Fuller challenges us to take post-humanism seriously and proposes the need to define and value humanity in the face of a future that will only otherwise confer advantage on the few. He provides a robust argument in favour of the contribution that the social sciences can bring to this discussion, defending them from a ‘pincer attack’ by biology and theology. Fuller shows how definitions of ‘humanity’ have changed since the 18th century, framed by the relationship between science, religion and society. Looking forward, his urgent task is to formulate an original, sociological perspective on how technology and biology are colliding to radically transform our post-human and trans-human future. From science policy makers to sci-fi enthusiasts, artists and technogeeks, philosophers and commentators, whose ideologies run the gamut from collectivism to libertarianism, a large constituency is already engaged with our enhanced future. As our desire and capacity to explore various ‘post-human’ conditions increases, this constituency may radically reconfigure the global political space. Fuller will be in conversation with Darian Meacham, University of the West of England.
This Festival of Ideas event is part of a regular series of live discussions with Julian Baggini recorded at Foyles for the microphilosophy podcast series.
Steve Fuller holds the Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology in the Department of Sociology at the University of Warwick. He is acknowledged with founding social epistemology (a broad set of approaches to the study of knowledge) and has published over 17 books including Kuhn vs Popper, The Intellectual, and Dissent over Descent – the subject of intense and heated debate.
Darian Meacham is senior lecturer in philosophy at the University of the West of England. His current research interests are in phenomenology and political philosophy. He is particularly interested in problems surrounding the concept of Europe and post-national political institutions, and the ethical and anthropological issues raised by the technological enhancement of the human body and mind.
Responses
Comments
If you would like to subscribe to our RSS Comments feed, please click on the orange XML logo below (click here to read more about our RSS feeds).
** Should you wish to retract a comment, or if you experience technical difficulties, please email us at: ideas@gwebusinesswest.co.uk. We reserve the right to delete posts containing offensive language or content.
September 21st, 2011 at 4:35 pm
[...] http://www.ideasfestival.co.uk/?p=1856 [...]
October 14th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
At the end of this event, Julian Baggini noted that, in relation to Steve Fuller’s latest book, so much had NOT been talked about.
Frankly, given the complexity of the subject and the interplay between Fuller and panellist/foil Darian Meacham, Baggini made more than a decent fist of providing the debate with both structure and momentum.
We covered a lot of ground in 50 minutes. The biological critera of “humanity” came under scrutiny, with discussion of how the Darwinian explanation of evolution has effectively created an “overlap” with other species, thus blurring the notion of a boundary between “us” and “the rest”. This fed into musings about technological, biological and pharmaceutical enhancement, and then on to where androids, apes and even ET stand in relation to our idea of humanity.
The metaphysical aspects of the concept were also examined, with consideration of how both the perception of humans being a “coalition” of gods and animals, and the notion of humanity as a project to be realised through collective effort, have shifted over time.
The session even ventured into pondering whether science fiction can be considered a form of sociology, with Fuller pointing out that in the time of HG Wells the terms biology, science fiction and sociology did not have the fixed meanings that they have today.
All fascinating stuff. However, I would like to focus on one particular strand of Fuller’s analysis.
In his introduction, Baggini pointed out that Fuller has become a “bete noire” in the eyes of secular humanists after being called on as an expert witness by US backers of the teaching of intelligent design in schools. Baggini was at pains to stress that this didn’t imply that he was appearing ON BEHALF OF these people. However, another aspect of Fuller’s position on the mixing of science and religion was to surface later in the talk.
Towards the end of the event, Baggini prompted Fuller to explain how his take on religion informs his views on the human urge to advance scientific knowledge. If I understand Fuller correctly, he feels that scientific discovery is being driven increasingly by both commercial and political imperatives. He therefore contends that without the impetus provided by the legacy of Judeo-Christian theology – that the universe is knowable to the human mind, that we are created in the likeness of God and that we can strive to know the mind of God – the promotion of science will be compromised.
Baggini suggested that although scientific inquisitiveness may at one time been shaped by theological considerations, these origins no longer have contemporary relevance – “so what?”, as he succinctly put it. I could only agree, and frankly I felt baffled that Fuller could make this assertion in the face of countless individuals – whether scientists or members of the public – who are inspired to engage with the far boundaries of the scientific project out of a purely secular sense of awe and wonder and without needing to tap into any historical theological reservoir.
On the other hand, perhaps Fuller doesn’t really believe this line of argument himself. At the beginning of the debate, Fuller seemed to take the position that it is legitimate to champion views one doesn’t believe in provided that the dominant position is challenged and the debate is moved forward.
So, bearing in mind such intellectual sophistication, and putting aside the question of exactly where the debate is heading if it is based on deliberate misrepresentation, what position is Fuller really adopting here ? Strongly held conviction? Devil’s advocate? An updated version of Plato’s “noble lie”? Pseudo-postmodern mumbo-jumbo? An attempt to sneak religion in the back door under a thin cloak of rationality? Or is he just making sure that if the criticism gets too strident he can say “Hey! I didn’t really mean it!”?
As I walked home, I could only conclude that I didn’t actually know – and considering how Fuller had effectively pre-undermined every single point that he had made, I didn’t much care.