Posthuman When I Grow Up Analysis

Nick Bostrom’s essay Why I want to be a Posthuman When I Grow Up discusses some of the aspects of being posthuman. Bostrom defines the term posthuman to mean “as a being that at least one posthuman capacity”. Throughout this essay Bostrom discusses three general capacities: health span, cognition, and emotion. He addresses two things in his essay, the first is that some posthuman modes are good, not all. Second, that being posthuman may be good for us. Bostrom focuses on certain aspects of posthumanity and the objections some have about posthumanity. Bostrom paints this picture of what it would be like if someone possessed posthuman health span, cognitive, and emotion capacities. He describes this posthuman beings as balanced feeling stronger, …show more content…
It is hard to get a read on how he truly feels about humanity. He describes the flaws and challenges of human beings, but he does not seem to boast about all the accomplishment that humanity has had. He does not say it in a way that can describe humanity as complicated but overall good (or something positive). Though it is clear he does not want technology to be a part of humanity, is it clear if he is really fighting for humanism or is his disdain for technology is so strong he would place humanism (though valid in some ways) in the middle? Although my comments may not be valid because as I considered Wieseltier’s attitude of humanism is unclear, I am also unclear on the overall message in this article. What Wieseltier was truly trying to …show more content…
As we begin to move forward with the progress of we must find a principle that is devoted to enhancing technology with much thought and concern, not just fear and hypothetic of what can go wrong as progress forward with technology. Unfortunately, More believes the precautionary principle cannot help the progress of technology because it has too many blockade. Precautionary principles calls for stopping any progress that will cause harm to human beings or the environment. The problem with this principle is that there is no clear structure or definition on what is a real threat and what is a hypothetical threat. The precautionary principle though it is meant to keep us safe is too protective, thus makes it impossible to move forward. Proactionary principle on the other hand is well structured and makes decision making about technology easier. More views this principle as the best, because it allows us to move forward with things like transhumanism and technology. This principle is the best method to guide and as well as analyze the risks without being overprotective. More sees this as a better way to deal with the progress of technology with structure and guidelines that looks at the good and the bad of