A History of TransHumanist Thought - Essay Example

Journal Since time in memorial, there has been a raging conflict between the humanitiesand the scientists. The conflict has largely involved on whose knowledge is better and matters more in the society. This has created a rigid boundary between the non-scientific and the scientific knowledge. The increasing number of authors and filmmakers who have their views known to the public has portrayed this. The conflict intensifies due to the assumptions of Karl Marx and Mannheim who believed that knowledge goes hand in hand with power. This is a notion that I totally defer with just as Michel who believes that the order, stability, authority, and regulatory power of knowledge. Thus knowledge legitimates power and vice versa. This should be a reason to use both the humanities and science knowledge in the political world (Weiler, 2006). University students should be equipped with the two types of knowledge to make them better politically and ensure they make better decisions than those who only use only one type of knowledge. Weiler in his study noted that since humanities knowledge is mostly priori type of knowledge, students learning it first will equip them better when they start learning special standing that is mostly associated with science thus make politics better (Weiler, 2006). I believe that knowledge leads to political stability. This believe has not gone unnoticed even by the World Bank as it has started projects to eradicate illiteracy in most third world countries. This is a big boost as knowledge does not only bring about political stability but it also leads to economic growth. Bearing this in mind, I am disheartened by other financial providers who only offer funds to eradicate poverty in developing countries because they intend to leap some financial gain from such nations (Weiler, 2006). The Silicon Valley project is an example of projects started where disadvantages exceeds the advantages. In the debate on knowledge is better than the other, the two sets of knowledge tending to be discriminatory. Science is in most cases associated with men while humanity is an art that women thrive in, this notion is not true, and thus it is to my opinion that the two types of knowledge should be taught to both genders (Weiler, 2006). This will make the political world more gender equal and help in the fight against gender inequality. Democracy will thus be observed and make the countries that are struggling much to bring about gender equality. The only way these countries can achieve their goal of gender equality is to make it possible that science and arts are taught to both gender. This will make both genders equally qualified thus limit the stress of maintaining gender equality in all fields. Politics will be better as both genders will give different views on policymaking. To my conclusion, knowledge is the key to better political stability and gender equality. There is no better knowledge between science and humanity. Both should be used to ensure the growth of politics and equality in any nation. The policymaking process will also become better and thus better policies that will benefit the society (Weiler, 2006). The conflict on which knowledge is better than the other according to me is a waste of useful time that should be used to ensure that the boundaries created on the two types of knowledge are done away with in the most effective way. This will make the world a better place to live. Journal #2 Many are times where the public participation in technical decision-making has been limited. Being a strong advocator of democracy where I term government for the people by the people, I am in the opinion that the public who are the real owners of the government should be involved as much as possible in decision making processes. I also believe that science should be used to analyze and educate the public on the technical issues involved in decision-making (Weingart and Maasen, 2005). The involvement of science in policymaking has brought a lot of controversy with most people for instance Kuhn and Lancey advocating that science and policy should have a value-based border. This is not the case with other open-minded authors who advocate for value-free nature of science involvement in policy as this will lead to better policies (Weingart and Maasen, 2005). Introducing science in policy making according to me is a positive result but it is deemed to fail in the case where scientists do not come up with the best methodologies to use to come up with a policy (Weingart and Maasen, 2005). The conflict between many scientists will make the processes fail in improving the policymaking process. The scientists should thus be included in policymaking and ensure that they bear the consequences of any errors involved in the policies they put up. This is a moral obligation, which is a necessity to all the members in the society. By doing so, I am in the belief that fewer errors will be witnessed. The public who are the main beneficiaries of good policies should also be involved and science should help them in technical issues (Weingart and Maasen, 2005). This will increase the participation of the public in policymaking policies be it through referendums or through regulatory process. I thus conclude that both the public and scientists can put minds together to come up with better strategies and make the society better. By so doing the main argument on the involvement of science will be outdated and policies will be in a way that all the parties are involved without any discrimination or any of the party appearing more to blame in case of an error in the policies made (Weingart and Maasen, 2005). Journal #3 Most industrialized west nations who are more concern on maintaining their status quo argue against science in their attempts not to bear the cost of conserving the environment (Oreskes, 2004). According to Herrick and Jamieson, environment modification is the general effect to economics and social activities. On the other hand, the industrialized west articulates that scientists have not proved on their accusation and that they only assume most things about the environment (Oreskes, 2004). This is not the case according to me; environmental conservation is important in economic growth and generally affects the society. Thus the industrialized west should take responsibility of their activities and not to give lame excuses on why scientists should not impose the policies they think will help conserve the environment (Oreskes, 2004). Lomborg has the same opinion. This is seen in his thought on a perfect world whereby the scientists would collect facts while the politicians would develop policies based on the facts. Bearing this in mind, everyone will respect the environment as we all know that the environment owns us and should be taken care off. The United States fish commission is a good example of how embracing science in policymaking is reliable and its results are positive (Oreskes, 2004). Wegener’s continental drift had been a point of much discussion towards the reliability of science and it proved that he was right after the measurement in mid 1980s that proved some changes in the distance due to the earth motion. The defenders of status quo should learn this before they criticize science in the accusation that science is all about theories and no proof (Oreskes, 2004). Bearing this in mind, I believe that science can be used to safe life and make life better. Wegener stated that the drift is still happening and thus in years to come, the rift will be bigger, and enlightening the people who live along the rift to help in noting any drifts that may cause death. The banning of the use of DDH pesticide that was made possible by the scientific research of Carson, which was harmful to the environment and its inhabitants is a clear image that its only science that the dangers imposed on human, animals, and vegetarians can be known and policies can be made to prevent the dangers (Oreskes, 2004). Although Carson’s claims were mainly based on cases reported rather than broad statistical analysis, I believe that he was right, as the continued use of DDH would have caused more harm, I know that to come up with a quality, and substantial statistical analysis would consume time and thus more harm which cannot be reversed. Carson findings created divides among many scientists that were mainly disciplinary and institutional divides (Oreskes, 2004). Since most scientists do not agree with each other findings, it is necessary for scientists to have proof on their findings before their facts are used to make policies. This will help the politicians to take the best steps without creating havoc to the public. Journal #4 It is clearly seen that technology has political significances. There are also better reasons why the social science standard models are seen to account for most interesting things and are bothersome on the subject. It is seen that a lot of political and social thought has repeated statements of what can be referred to as technological politics theory. This is an old mongrel of ideas frequently crossbred with socialist, conservative and orthodox liberal ideas (Winner, 1986). This technological politics theory asserts that individuals need to pay attention to the traits of technical objects and what these traits mean. Moses, who designed and built most of the buildings in New York in 1920s-1970s, built the overpasses to discourage buses on his parkways. I tend to believe in the reasoning of Caro who thinks that Moses was class bias and racial prejudice in his work. Since the poor who are mostly, the blacks in America would be kept out of this part of the city. This will tamper with the freedom of movement and create social cost, as most blacks cannot socialize in city (Winner, 1986). The history of architecture illustrates that buildings, roads, and bridges are built in a design that explicit or implicit political purposes. It is to my understanding that since there was racial discrimination in the 1920s-1970s, the politicians wanted to limit the blacks movement to the city. My thought is because of Moses’s biographer who admitted that Moses was instructed on how to build the parkways (Winner, 1986). I believe that engineers are the main perpetuators of any political aim and fight. This is shown by the support of reaper manufacturing plant in Chicago, the main aim of the government undeniably support was to weed out the skilled workers who would join local union in Chicago and Cyrus McCormick II was engaging in a battle with the Nation Union of Iron Molders. This is enough proof according to my understanding and reasoning that politicians impose their selfish desires to mis-use engineers. Journal #5 Since transhumanism has its root from rational humanism that emphasizes empirical science and critical reason rather than revelation and religious authority, I prefer it to bioconservative position of human overcoming limitation, which deals with genetics and advocates use of drugs to limit birth (Bostrom, 2005). Although most of the things advocated for in transhumanism seem like myths unlike in bioconservative where most things seems true. For example; preserved religious writings fragments and ceremonial burials revealed that prehistoric humans were mostly bothered by the death of the people they loved. Even though in the hereafter this belief was common, it did not prevent the efforts of extending the earthly life of an individual. The boundaries between science and myths, between technology and magic are not clear. Nearly all imaginable means in life prevention were tried by someone or another. However, while interesting discoveries were done by explorers and the alchemists developed useful items, like improving metallurgy and inventing new dyes, the aim of extending life proved indefinable. The transhumanism thought would develop the world to have people with liberal minds and do what is right following their will and innovate more (Bostrom, 2005). People will not only follow authority blindly but will do what is right to make the human race better. My decision of choosing transhumanism over bioconservative is due to one of the criticisms it has received due to the bioconservative view of making people taller, and stronger. The argument is that most people will misuse their strength to harm others. This is true noting that not all people advocate for peace. Bioconservatives should bare this in mind and formulate a way that will make people not to misuse their strength but use it to be more productive. The bioconservatives way is also positive in some way in that people become healthier and wealthier (Bostrom, 2005). Works Cited Bostrom, Nick. “A History of TransHumanist Thought.” Journal of Evolution and Technology 14.1 (2005). Oreskes, Naomi. “Science and public policy: what’s proof got to do with it?” Environmental science & policy 7 (2004). Weiler, Hans N. Knowledge And Power: The New Politics Of Higher Education. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 2006. Weingart, Peter and Maasen, Sabine. “Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making.” Sociology of the Sciences 24.1 (2005). Winner. The whale and the reactor: a search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1986. Read More