Posthumanism: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SporkBot (talk | contribs)
m Remove template per TFD outcome
Rescuing 2 sources and tagging 0 as dead. #IABot (v1.6.1) (Balon Greyjoy)
Line 9: Line 9:
#'''[[Posthuman condition]]''': the [[deconstruction]] of the [[human condition]] by [[critical theory|critical theorists]].<ref name="Hayles 1999">{{cite book| author = [[N. Katherine Hayles|Hayles, N. Katherine]]| title = How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics| publisher = University Of Chicago Press| year = 1999| isbn = 0-226-32146-0}}</ref>
#'''[[Posthuman condition]]''': the [[deconstruction]] of the [[human condition]] by [[critical theory|critical theorists]].<ref name="Hayles 1999">{{cite book| author = [[N. Katherine Hayles|Hayles, N. Katherine]]| title = How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics| publisher = University Of Chicago Press| year = 1999| isbn = 0-226-32146-0}}</ref>
#'''[[Transhumanism]]''': an ideology and movement which seeks to develop and make available technologies that [[anti-aging|eliminate aging]] and greatly [[human enhancement|enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities]], in order to achieve a "[[posthuman future]]".<ref name="Bostrom 2005">{{cite journal| last=Bostrom | first=Nick | authorlink = Nick Bostrom |title = A history of transhumanist thought|year = 2005 |url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/history.pdf|format=PDF| accessdate=2006-02-21}}</ref>
#'''[[Transhumanism]]''': an ideology and movement which seeks to develop and make available technologies that [[anti-aging|eliminate aging]] and greatly [[human enhancement|enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities]], in order to achieve a "[[posthuman future]]".<ref name="Bostrom 2005">{{cite journal| last=Bostrom | first=Nick | authorlink = Nick Bostrom |title = A history of transhumanist thought|year = 2005 |url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/history.pdf|format=PDF| accessdate=2006-02-21}}</ref>
#'''[[AI takeover]]''': A more pessimistic alternative to transhumanism in which humans will not be enhanced, but rather eventually ''replaced'' by [[strong artificial intelligence|artificial intelligences]]. Some philosophers, including [[Nick Land]], promote the view that humans should embrace and accept their eventual demise.<ref name="darkright">{{cite web|url=http://www.theawl.com/2015/09/good-luck-to-human-kind|title=The Darkness Before the Right}}</ref> This is related to the view of "[[The Artilect War|cosmism]]" which supports the building of strong artificial intelligence even if it may entail the end of humanity as in their view it "would be a cosmic tragedy if humanity freezes [[evolution]] at the puny human level".<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.iss.whu.edu.cn/degaris/news/zurich.html | title = First shot in Artilect war fired | author = Hugo de Garis | year = 2002|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20071017165724/http://iss.whu.edu.cn/degaris/news/zurich.html|archivedate=17 October 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | date=3 September 2007 | url=http://www.machineslikeus.com/cms/interview-hugo-de-garis.html | title=Machines Like Us interviews: Hugo de Garis | quote = gigadeath – the characteristic number of people that would be killed in any major late 21st century war, if one extrapolates up the graph of the number of people killed in major wars over the past 2 centuries}}</ref><ref name=artiwar>{{cite web|last1=Garis|first1=Hugo de|title=The Artilect War - Cosmists vs. Terrans|url=http://agi-conf.org/2008/artilectwar.pdf|website=agi-conf.org|accessdate=14 June 2015}}</ref>
#'''[[AI takeover]]''': A more pessimistic alternative to transhumanism in which humans will not be enhanced, but rather eventually ''replaced'' by [[strong artificial intelligence|artificial intelligences]]. Some philosophers, including [[Nick Land]], promote the view that humans should embrace and accept their eventual demise.<ref name="darkright">{{cite web|url=http://www.theawl.com/2015/09/good-luck-to-human-kind|title=The Darkness Before the Right}}</ref> This is related to the view of "[[The Artilect War|cosmism]]" which supports the building of strong artificial intelligence even if it may entail the end of humanity as in their view it "would be a cosmic tragedy if humanity freezes [[evolution]] at the puny human level".<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.iss.whu.edu.cn/degaris/news/zurich.html | title = First shot in Artilect war fired | author = Hugo de Garis | year = 2002|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20071017165724/http://iss.whu.edu.cn/degaris/news/zurich.html|archivedate=17 October 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | date=3 September 2007 | url=http://www.machineslikeus.com/cms/interview-hugo-de-garis.html | title=Machines Like Us interviews: Hugo de Garis | quote=gigadeath – the characteristic number of people that would be killed in any major late 21st century war, if one extrapolates up the graph of the number of people killed in major wars over the past 2 centuries | deadurl=yes | archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20071007081149/http://www.machineslikeus.com/cms/interview-hugo-de-garis.html | archivedate=7 October 2007 | df= }}</ref><ref name=artiwar>{{cite web|last1=Garis|first1=Hugo de|title=The Artilect War - Cosmists vs. Terrans|url=http://agi-conf.org/2008/artilectwar.pdf|website=agi-conf.org|accessdate=14 June 2015}}</ref>
#'''[[Voluntary Human Extinction]]''', which seeks a "posthuman future" that in this case is a future ''without humans''.
#'''[[Voluntary Human Extinction]]''', which seeks a "posthuman future" that in this case is a future ''without humans''.


Line 56: Line 56:
{{quote|This is ontologically critical. Unlike the naming of ‘postmodernism’ where the ‘post’ does not infer the end of what it previously meant to be human (just the passing of the dominance of the modern) the posthumanists are playing a serious game where the human, in all its ontological variability, disappears in the name of saving something unspecified about us as merely a motley co-location of individuals and communities.<ref>{{Cite book | year= 2017 | last1= James | first1= Paul | authorlink1= Paul James (academic) | chapter= Alternative Paradigms for Sustainability: Decentring the Human without Becoming Posthuman | title= Reimagining Sustainability in Precarious Times | editor= Karen Malone, Son Truong, and Tonia Gray | url= https://www.academia.edu/32388929/Alternative_Paradigms_for_Sustainability_Decentring_the_Human_Without_Becoming_Posthuman | publisher= Ashgate | page=21}}</ref>}}}}
{{quote|This is ontologically critical. Unlike the naming of ‘postmodernism’ where the ‘post’ does not infer the end of what it previously meant to be human (just the passing of the dominance of the modern) the posthumanists are playing a serious game where the human, in all its ontological variability, disappears in the name of saving something unspecified about us as merely a motley co-location of individuals and communities.<ref>{{Cite book | year= 2017 | last1= James | first1= Paul | authorlink1= Paul James (academic) | chapter= Alternative Paradigms for Sustainability: Decentring the Human without Becoming Posthuman | title= Reimagining Sustainability in Precarious Times | editor= Karen Malone, Son Truong, and Tonia Gray | url= https://www.academia.edu/32388929/Alternative_Paradigms_for_Sustainability_Decentring_the_Human_Without_Becoming_Posthuman | publisher= Ashgate | page=21}}</ref>}}}}


However, some posthumanists in the [[humanities]] and the [[arts]] are critical of transhumanism (the brunt of Paul James's criticism), in part, because they argue that it incorporates and extends many of the values of [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment humanism]] and [[classical liberalism]], namely [[scientism]], according to [[performance art|performance]] philosopher [[Shannon Bell]]:<ref name="Zaretsky 2005">{{cite journal| author = Zaretsky, Adam| title = Bioart in Question. Interview. |year = 2005 |url = http://magazine.ciac.ca/archives/no_23/en/entrevue.htm| accessdate=2007-01-28}}</ref>
However, some posthumanists in the [[humanities]] and the [[arts]] are critical of transhumanism (the brunt of Paul James's criticism), in part, because they argue that it incorporates and extends many of the values of [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment humanism]] and [[classical liberalism]], namely [[scientism]], according to [[performance art|performance]] philosopher [[Shannon Bell]]:<ref name="Zaretsky 2005">{{cite journal| author = Zaretsky, Adam| title = Bioart in Question. Interview.| year = 2005| url = http://magazine.ciac.ca/archives/no_23/en/entrevue.htm| accessdate = 2007-01-28| deadurl = yes| archiveurl = https://archive.is/20130115125814/http://magazine.ciac.ca/archives/no_23/en/entrevue.htm| archivedate = 2013-01-15| df = }}</ref>
{{cquote|
{{cquote|
{{quote|[[Altruism]], [[mutualism (biology)|mutualism]], [[humanism]] are the soft and slimy [[virtues]] that underpin [[liberal capitalism]]. Humanism has always been integrated into discourses of exploitation: [[colonialism]], [[imperialism]], [[neoimperialism]], [[democracy]], and of course, American democratization. One of the serious flaws in [[transhumanism]] is the importation of liberal-human values to the biotechno enhancement of the human. Posthumanism has a much stronger critical edge attempting to develop through enactment new understandings of the [[Self and Others|self and others]], [[essence]], [[consciousness]], [[intelligence]], [[reason]], [[agency (philosophy)|agency]], [[intimacy]], [[life]], [[embodied cognition|embodiment]], [[Personal identity|identity]] and the [[Human body|body]].<ref name="Zaretsky 2005"/>}}}}
{{quote|[[Altruism]], [[mutualism (biology)|mutualism]], [[humanism]] are the soft and slimy [[virtues]] that underpin [[liberal capitalism]]. Humanism has always been integrated into discourses of exploitation: [[colonialism]], [[imperialism]], [[neoimperialism]], [[democracy]], and of course, American democratization. One of the serious flaws in [[transhumanism]] is the importation of liberal-human values to the biotechno enhancement of the human. Posthumanism has a much stronger critical edge attempting to develop through enactment new understandings of the [[Self and Others|self and others]], [[essence]], [[consciousness]], [[intelligence]], [[reason]], [[agency (philosophy)|agency]], [[intimacy]], [[life]], [[embodied cognition|embodiment]], [[Personal identity|identity]] and the [[Human body|body]].<ref name="Zaretsky 2005"/>}}}}

Revision as of 00:01, 2 December 2017

Posthumanism or post-humanism (meaning "after humanism" or "beyond humanism") is a term with at least seven definitions according to philosopher Francesca Ferrando:[1]

  1. Antihumanism: any theory that is critical of traditional humanism and traditional ideas about humanity and the human condition.[2]
  2. Cultural posthumanism: a branch of cultural theory critical of the foundational assumptions of humanism and its legacy[3] that examines and questions the historical notions of "human" and "human nature", often challenging typical notions of human subjectivity and embodiment[4] and strives to move beyond archaic concepts of "human nature" to develop ones which constantly adapt to contemporary technoscientific knowledge.[5]
  3. Philosophical posthumanism: a philosophical direction which draws on cultural posthumanism, the philosophical strand examines the ethical implications of expanding the circle of moral concern and extending subjectivities beyond the human species[4]
  4. Posthuman condition: the deconstruction of the human condition by critical theorists.[6]
  5. Transhumanism: an ideology and movement which seeks to develop and make available technologies that eliminate aging and greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities, in order to achieve a "posthuman future".[7]
  6. AI takeover: A more pessimistic alternative to transhumanism in which humans will not be enhanced, but rather eventually replaced by artificial intelligences. Some philosophers, including Nick Land, promote the view that humans should embrace and accept their eventual demise.[8] This is related to the view of "cosmism" which supports the building of strong artificial intelligence even if it may entail the end of humanity as in their view it "would be a cosmic tragedy if humanity freezes evolution at the puny human level".[9][10][11]
  7. Voluntary Human Extinction, which seeks a "posthuman future" that in this case is a future without humans.

Philosophical posthumanism

Philosopher Ted Schatzki suggests there are two varieties of posthumanism of the philosophical kind:[12]

One, which he calls 'objectivism', tries to counter the overemphasis of the subjective or intersubjective that pervades humanism, and emphasises the role of the nonhuman agents, whether they be animals and plants, or computers or other things.[12]

A second prioritizes practices, especially social practices, over individuals (or individual subjects) which, they say, constitute the individual.[12]

There may be a third kind of posthumanism, propounded by the philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd. Though he did not label it as 'posthumanism', he made an extensive and penetrating immanent critique of Humanism, and then constructed a philosophy that presupposed neither Humanist, nor Scholastic, nor Greek thought but started with a different religious ground motive.[13] Dooyeweerd prioritized law and meaningfulness as that which enables humanity and all else to exist, behave, live, occur, etc. "Meaning is the being of all that has been created," Dooyeweerd wrote, "and the nature even of our selfhood."[14] Both human and nonhuman alike function subject to a common 'law-side', which is diverse, composed of a number of distinct law-spheres or aspects.[15] The temporal being of both human and non-human is multi-aspectual; for example, both plants and humans are bodies, functioning in the biotic aspect, and both computers and humans function in the formative and lingual aspect, but humans function in the aesthetic, juridical, ethical and faith aspects too. The Dooyeweerdian version is able to incorporate and integrate both the objectivist version and the practices version, because it allows nonhuman agents their own subject-functioning in various aspects and places emphasis on aspectual functioning.[16]

Emergence of philosophical posthumanism

Ihab Hassan, theorist in the academic study of literature, once stated:

Humanism may be coming to an end as humanism transforms itself into something one must helplessly call posthumanism.[17]

This view predates most currents of posthumanism which have developed over the late 20th century in somewhat diverse, but complementary, domains of thought and practice. For example, Hassan is a known scholar whose theoretical writings expressly address postmodernity in society.[citation needed] Beyond postmodernist studies, posthumanism has been developed and deployed by various cultural theorists, often in reaction to problematic inherent assumptions within humanistic and enlightenment thought.[4]

Theorists who both complement and contrast Hassan include Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, cyberneticists such as Gregory Bateson, Warren McCullouch, Norbert Wiener, Bruno Latour, Cary Wolfe, Elaine Graham, N. Katherine Hayles, Donna Haraway, Peter Sloterdijk, Stefan Lorenz Sorgner, Evan Thompson, Francisco Varela, Humberto Maturana and Douglas Kellner. Among the theorists are philosophers, such as Robert Pepperell, who have written about a "posthuman condition", which is often substituted for the term "posthumanism".[5][6]

Posthumanism differs from classical humanism by relegating humanity back to one of many natural species, thereby rejecting any claims founded on anthropocentric dominance.[18] According to this claim, humans have no inherent rights to destroy nature or set themselves above it in ethical considerations a priori. Human knowledge is also reduced to a less controlling position, previously seen as the defining aspect of the world. Human rights exist on a spectrum with animal rights and posthuman rights.[19] The limitations and fallibility of human intelligence are confessed, even though it does not imply abandoning the rational tradition of humanism.[citation needed]

Proponents of a posthuman discourse, suggest that innovative advancements and emerging technologies have transcended the traditional model of the human, as proposed by Descartes among others associated with philosophy of the Enlightenment period.[20] In contrast to humanism, the discourse of posthumanism seeks to redefine the boundaries surrounding modern philosophical understanding of the human. Posthumanism represents an evolution of thought beyond that of the contemporary social boundaries and is predicated on the seeking of truth within a postmodern context. In so doing, it rejects previous attempts to establish 'anthropological universals' that are imbued with anthropocentric assumptions.[18]

The philosopher Michel Foucault placed posthumanism within a context that differentiated humanism from enlightenment thought. According to Foucault, the two existed in a state of tension: as humanism sought to establish norms while Enlightenment thought attempted to transcend all that is material, including the boundaries that are constructed by humanistic thought.[18] Drawing on the Enlightenment’s challenges to the boundaries of humanism, posthumanism rejects the various assumptions of human dogmas (anthropological, political, scientific) and takes the next step by attempting to change the nature of thought about what it means to be human. This requires not only decentering the human in multiple discourses (evolutionary, ecological, technological) but also examining those discourses to uncover inherent humanistic, anthropocentric, normative notions of humanness and the concept of the human.[4]

Contemporary posthuman discourse

Posthumanistic discourse aims to open up spaces to examine what it means to be human and critically question the concept of "the human" in light of current cultural and historical contexts[4] In her book How We Became Posthuman, N. Katherine Hayles, writes about the struggle between different versions of the posthuman as it continually co-evolves alongside intelligent machines.[21] Such coevolution, according to some strands of the posthuman discourse, allows one to extend their subjective understandings of real experiences beyond the boundaries of embodied existence. According to Hayles's view of posthuman, often referred to as technological posthumanism, visual perception and digital representations thus paradoxically become ever more salient. Even as one seeks to extend knowledge by deconstructing perceived boundaries, it is these same boundaries that make knowledge acquisition possible. The use of technology in a contemporary society is thought to complicate this relationship.

Hayles discusses the translation of human bodies into information (as suggested by Hans Moravec) in order to illuminate how the boundaries of our embodied reality have been compromised in the current age and how narrow definitions of humanness no longer apply. Because of this, according to Hayles, posthumanism is characterized by a loss of subjectivity based on bodily boundaries.[4] This strand of posthumanism, including the changing notion of subjectivity and the disruption of ideas concerning what it means to be human, is often associated with Donna Haraway’s concept of the cyborg.[4] However, Haraway has distanced herself from posthumanistic discourse due to other theorists’ use of the term to promote utopian views of technological innovation to extend the human biological capacity[22] (even though these notions would more correctly fall into the realm of transhumanism[4]).

While posthumanism is a broad and complex ideology, it has relevant implications today and for the future. It attempts to redefine social structures without inherently humanly or even biological origins, but rather in terms of social and psychological systems where consciousness and communication could potentially exist as unique disembodied entities. Questions subsequently emerge with respect to the current use and the future of technology in shaping human existence,[18] as do new concerns with regards to language, symbolism, subjectivity, phenomenology, ethics, justice and creativity.[23]

Relationship with transhumanism

Posthumanism is sometimes used as a synonym for a cultural and philosophical movement known as "transhumanism" because it proposes a transition to a "posthuman future", achieved through the application of technology to expand human capacities.

James Hughes comments that there is considerable confusion between the two terms.[24][25]

Criticism

Some critics have argued that all forms of posthumanism, including transhumanism, have more in common than their respective proponents realize.[26] Linking these different approaches, Paul James suggests that 'the key political problem is that, in effect, the position allows the human as a category of being to flow down the plughole of history':

This is ontologically critical. Unlike the naming of ‘postmodernism’ where the ‘post’ does not infer the end of what it previously meant to be human (just the passing of the dominance of the modern) the posthumanists are playing a serious game where the human, in all its ontological variability, disappears in the name of saving something unspecified about us as merely a motley co-location of individuals and communities.[27]

However, some posthumanists in the humanities and the arts are critical of transhumanism (the brunt of Paul James's criticism), in part, because they argue that it incorporates and extends many of the values of Enlightenment humanism and classical liberalism, namely scientism, according to performance philosopher Shannon Bell:[28]

Altruism, mutualism, humanism are the soft and slimy virtues that underpin liberal capitalism. Humanism has always been integrated into discourses of exploitation: colonialism, imperialism, neoimperialism, democracy, and of course, American democratization. One of the serious flaws in transhumanism is the importation of liberal-human values to the biotechno enhancement of the human. Posthumanism has a much stronger critical edge attempting to develop through enactment new understandings of the self and others, essence, consciousness, intelligence, reason, agency, intimacy, life, embodiment, identity and the body.[28]

While many modern leaders of thought are accepting of nature of ideologies described by posthumanism, some are more skeptical of the term. Donna Haraway, the author of A Cyborg Manifesto, has outspokenly rejected the term, though acknowledges a philosophical alignment with posthumanism. Haraway opts instead for the term of companion species, referring to nonhuman entities with which humans coexist.[22]

Questions of race, some argue, are suspiciously elided within the "turn" to posthumanism. Noting that the terms "post" and "human" are already loaded with racial meaning, critical theorist Zakiyyah Iman Jackson argues that the impulse to move "beyond" the human within posthumanism too often ignores “praxes of humanity and critiques produced by black people,”[29] including Frantz Fanon and Aime Cesaire to Hortense Spillers and Fred Moten.[29] Interrogating the conceptual grounds in which such a mode of “beyond” is rendered legible and viable, Jackson argues that it is important to observe that “blackness conditions and constitutes the very nonhuman disruption and/or disruption" which posthumanists invite.[29] In other words, given that race in general and blackness in particular constitutes the very terms through which human/nonhuman distinctions are made, for example in enduring legacies of scientific racism, a gesture toward a “beyond” actually “returns us to a Eurocentric transcendentalism long challenged”.[30]

See also

References

  1. ^ Ferrando, Francesca (2013). "Posthumanism, Transhumanism, Antihumanism, Metahumanism, and New Materialisms: Differences and Relations" (PDF). ISSN 1932-1066. Retrieved 2014-03-14. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ^ J. Childers/G. Hentzi eds., The Columbia Dictionary of Modern Literary and Cultural Criticism (1995) p. 140-1
  3. ^ Esposito, Roberto (2011). "Politics and human nature" (PDF). doi:10.1080/0969725X.2011.621222. Retrieved 2013-06-06. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h Miah, A. (2008) A Critical History of Posthumanism. In Gordijn, B. & Chadwick R. (2008) Medical Enhancement and Posthumanity. Springer, pp.71-94.
  5. ^ a b Badmington, Neil (2000). Posthumanism (Readers in Cultural Criticism). Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0-333-76538-9.
  6. ^ a b Hayles, N. Katherine (1999). How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. University Of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-32146-0.
  7. ^ Bostrom, Nick (2005). "A history of transhumanist thought" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-02-21. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  8. ^ "The Darkness Before the Right".
  9. ^ Hugo de Garis (2002). "First shot in Artilect war fired". Archived from the original on 17 October 2007.
  10. ^ "Machines Like Us interviews: Hugo de Garis". 3 September 2007. Archived from the original on 7 October 2007. gigadeath – the characteristic number of people that would be killed in any major late 21st century war, if one extrapolates up the graph of the number of people killed in major wars over the past 2 centuries {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  11. ^ Garis, Hugo de. "The Artilect War - Cosmists vs. Terrans" (PDF). agi-conf.org. Retrieved 14 June 2015.
  12. ^ a b c Schatzki, T.R. 2001. Introduction: Practice theory, in The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory eds. Theodore R.Schatzki, Karin Knorr Cetina & Eike Von Savigny. pp. 10-11
  13. ^ http://www.dooy.info/ground.motives.html
  14. ^ Dooyeweerd, H. (1955/1984). A new critique of theoretical thought (Vol. 1). Jordan Station, Ontario, Canada: Paideia Press. P. 4
  15. ^ 'law-side'
  16. ^ his radical notion of subject-object relations
  17. ^ Hassan, Ihab (1977). "Prometheus as Performer: Toward a Postmodern Culture?". In Michel Benamou, Charles Caramello (ed.). Performance in Postmodern Culture. Madison, Wisconsin: Coda Press. ISBN 0-930956-00-1. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  18. ^ a b c d Wolfe, C. (2009). 'What is Posthumanism?' University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  19. ^ Evans, Woody (2015). "Posthuman Rights: Dimensions of Transhuman Worlds". Madrid: Teknokultura.
  20. ^ Badmington, Neil. "Posthumanism". Blackwell Reference Online. Retrieved 22 September 2015.
  21. ^ Cecchetto, David (2013). Humanesis: Sound and Technological Posthumanism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  22. ^ a b Gane, Nicholas (2006). "When We Have Never Been Human, What Is to Be Done?: Interview with Donna Haraway". Theory, Culture & Society. 23 (7–8): 135–158.
  23. ^ {{cite journal|last1=Roudavski|first1=Stanislav|last2=McCormack|first2=Jon|title=Post-Anthropocentric Creativity|date=2016|journal=Digital Creativity|volume=27|issue=1|pages=3–6|doi=10.1080/14626268.2016.1151442|url=}
  24. ^ Ranisch, Robert (January 2014). "Post- and Transhumanism: An Introduction". Retrieved 25 August 2016. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  25. ^ MacFarlane, James. "Boundary Work: Post- and Transhumanism, Part I, James Michael MacFarlane". Retrieved 25 August 2016.
  26. ^ Winner, Langdon. "Resistance is Futile: The Posthuman Condition and Its Advocates". In Harold Bailie, Timothy Casey (ed.). Is Human Nature Obsolete?. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, October 2004: M.I.T. Press. pp. 385–411. ISBN 0262524287.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  27. ^ James, Paul (2017). "Alternative Paradigms for Sustainability: Decentring the Human without Becoming Posthuman". In Karen Malone, Son Truong, and Tonia Gray (ed.). Reimagining Sustainability in Precarious Times. Ashgate. p. 21.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
  28. ^ a b Zaretsky, Adam (2005). "Bioart in Question. Interview". Archived from the original on 2013-01-15. Retrieved 2007-01-28. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  29. ^ a b c Jackson 2015, p. 216.
  30. ^ Jackson 2015, p. 217.

Works cited