Abstract
The debate on human enhancement and posthumanism refers to the concepts and expectations in the field of converging sciences and technologies aiming at interventions into the human mind and body (Roco & Bainbridge, 2002). This debate is among the major contemporary fields of intellectual engagement with future relations between humans and technology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Anders, G. (1956). Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen. München, Germany: Beck.
Bechmann, G. (2007). Die Beschreibung der Zukunft als Chance oder Risiko? Technikfolgenabschätzung—Theorie und Praxis, 16 (1), 24–31.
Bimber, B. A. (1996). The politics of expertise in Congress: The rise and fall of the Office of Technology Assessment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Brune, H., Ernst, H., Grunwald, A, Grünwald, W., Hofmann, H., Krug, H., Janich, P., Mayor, M., Rathgeber, W., Schmid, G., Simon, U., Vogel, V., & Wrywa, D. (2006). Nanotechnology — Perspectives and Assessment. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Coenen, C. (2010). Deliberating visions: The case of human enhancement in the discourse on nanotechnology and convergence. In M. Kaiser, M. Kurath, S. Maasen, & C. Rehmann-Sutter (Eds.), Governing future technologies: Nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime (pp. 73–88). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Coenen, C. (2014). Transhumanism in emerging technoscience as a challenge for the humanities and technology assessment. Teorija in praksa, 51 (5), 754–771.
Coenen, C., Hennen, L., & Link, H. J. (2009). The ethics of synthetic biology: Contours of an emerging discourse. Technikfolgenabschätzung—Theorie und Praxis, 18 (2), 82–86.
Coenen, C., Schuijff, M., Smits, M., Klaassen, P., Hennen, L., Rader, M., & Wolbring, G. (2009). Human enhancement study. Science and Technology Options Assessment (IP/A/STOA/FWC/2005-28/SC35, 41 & 45). Brussels: European Parliament. Available from https://www.itas.kit.edu/downloads/etag_coua09a.pdf.
Coenen, C., & Simakova, E. (2013). STS policy interactions, technology assessment and the governance of technovisionary sciences. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 9 (2), 3–20.
Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
DEEPEN. (2009). Reconfiguring responsibility: Deepening debate on nanotechnology. Available at http://dro.dur.ac.uk/6399/1/6399.pdf?DDD14+dgg1mbk.
Drexler, E. (1986). Engines of creation: The coming era of nanotechnology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Dupuy, J.-P. (2007). Complexity and uncertainty: A prudential approach to nanotechnology. In F. Allhoff, P. Lin, J. Moor, & J. Weckert. (Eds.). Nanoethics: The ethical and social implications of nanotechnology (pp. 119–132). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.
Ferrari, A., Coenen, C., & Grunwald, A. (2012). Visions and ethics in current discourse on human enhancement. Nanoethics, 6 (3), 215–229.
Goodman, N. (1954). Fact, fiction, and forecast. London, England: Athelone Press.
Grunwald, A. (2007). Converging technologies: Visions, increased contingencies of the conditio humana, and search for orientation. Futures, 39, 380–392.
Grunwald, A. (2009). Technology assessment. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences. (Volume 9, pp. 1103–1146). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsivier/North Holland.
Grunwald, A. (2010). From speculative nanoethics to explorative philosophy of nanotechnology. NanoEthics, 4 (2), 91–101.
Grunwald, A. (2012a). Technikzukünfte als Medium von Zukunftsdebatten und Technikgestaltung. Karlsruhe, Germany: KIT Scientific Publishing.
Grunwald, A. (2012b). Responsible nanobiotechnology: Philosophy and ethics. Singapore: Pan Stanford Publications Pte. Ltd.
Grunwald, A. (2013a). Techno-visionary sciences: Challenges to policy advice. Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, 9 (2), 21–38.
Grunwald, A. (2013b). Modes of orientation provided by futures studies: Making sense of diversity and divergence. European Journal of Futures Studies, 2 (1): 2–30.
Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24 (1–2), 93–109.
Harris, J. (2010). Enhancing evolution: The ethical case for making better people. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Heinrichs, D., Krellenberg, K., Hansjürgens, B., & Martínez, F. (Eds.) (2012). Risk habitat megacity. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Joy, B. (2000, April). Why the future does not need us. Wired, 8 (4). Available at http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html.
Kamlah, W. (1973). Philosophische Anthropologie: Sprachkritische Grundlegung und Ethik. Mannheim, Germany: Bibliographisches Institut.
Marcuse, H. (1991). One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press
MASIS Expert Group. (2009). Challenging futures of science in society. EUR 24039. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
Nordmann, A. (2007). If and then: A critique of speculative nanoethics. NanoEthics, 1, 31–46
Nordmann, A. (2010). A forensics of wishing: Technology assessment in the age of technoscience. Poiesis & Praxis: International Journal of Technology Assessment and Ethics of Science, 7 (1–2), 5–15.
Paschen, H., & Petermann, T. (1992). Technikfolgenabschätzung—ein strategisches Rahmenkonzept für die Analyse und Bewertung von Technikfolgen. In T. Petermann (Ed.), Technikfolgen-Abschätzung als Technikforschung und Politikberatung (pp. 19–42). Frankfurt, Germany: Campus.
Picht, G. (1971). Prognose Utopie Planung. Stuttgart, Germany: Klett.
Rip, A., Misa, T., & Schot, J. (Eds.) (1995). Managing technology in society. London, England: Pinter Publishers.
Roco, M.C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (Eds.) (2002). Converging technologies for improving human performance. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Department of Commerce.
Sandel, M. (2007). The case against perfection: Ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
von Schomberg, R., & Davies, S. (Eds.) (2010). Understanding public debate on nanotechnologies. EUR 24169. Brussells, Belgium: European Commission.
Zülsdorf, T. B., Coenen, C., Ferrari, A., Fiedeler, U., Milburn, C., & Wienroth, M. (Eds.) (2011). Quantum engagements: Social reflections of nanoscience and emerging technologies. Heidelberg, Germany: AKA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Grunwald, A. (2016). What Does the Debate on (Post)human Futures Tell Us?. In: Hurlbut, J., Tirosh-Samuelson, H. (eds) Perfecting Human Futures. Technikzukünfte, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft / Futures of Technology, Science and Society. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-11044-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-11044-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-11043-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-11044-4
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)