Advertisement

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 127–131 | Cite as

The Looping Effects of Enhancement Technologies

  • Carl ElliottEmail author
Critical Perspectives

Abstract

Libertarians often portray the decision to use enhancement technologies purely as a matter of individual choice, affecting the person who uses them but no one else. Yet individual choices often add up to large social changes that profoundly affect the lives of other people, effectively pushing individual choices in a particular direction. It seems plausible that self-reinforcing loops such as those that have driven the adoption of technologies like cars and air-conditioners might also play a role in the adoption of enhancement technologies, effectively exerting pressure on people to use a technology that they might otherwise resist.

Keywords

Enhancement technologies Ian Hacking Looping effects Self-reinforcing loops 

References

  1. Ackerman, M. 2013. Cool comfort: America’s romance with air conditioning. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books.Google Scholar
  2. Arsenault, R. 1984. The end of the long hot summer: The air conditioner and southern culture. The Journal of Southern History 50(4): 597–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Diller, L. 2006. The last normal child: Essays on the intersection of kids, culture and psychiatric drugs. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Elliott, C. 2010. White coat, black hat: Adventures on the dark side of medicine. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hacking, I. 1995. Rewriting the soul: Multiple personality and the sciences of memory. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. -----. 2000. The social construction of what? Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. -----. 2006. Making up people. London Review of Books 28(16): 23–26.Google Scholar
  8. Haiken, E. 1999. Venus envy: A history of cosmetic Surgery. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859): 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hinshaw, S., and R. Scheffler. 2014. The ADHD explosion: Myths, medication, money and today’s push for performance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Lienhard, J. 2006. How invention begins: Echoes of old voices in the rise of new machines. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Little, M. 2000. Cosmetic surgery, suspect norms and the ethics of complicity. In Enhancing human traits: ethical and social implications, edited by E. Parens, 162–176. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  13. McHugh, P. 2008. Try to remember: Psychiatry’s clash over meaning, memory and mind. New York: Dana Press.Google Scholar
  14. Ofshe, R., and E. Watters. 1996. Making monsters: False memories, psychotherapy, and sexual hysteria. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ridgway, A., J. Northup, A. Pellegrin, and A. Hightshoe. 2003. Effects of recess on the classroom behavior of children with and without attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Quarterly 18(3): 253–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Savage, J. 2007. Teenage: The creation of youth culture. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
  17. Savulescu, J. 2005. New breeds of humans: The moral obligation to enhance. Reproductive Biomedicine Online. March 10(Supplement 1): 36–39.Google Scholar
  18. Tenner, E. 1997. Why things bite back: Technology and the revenge of unintended consequences. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  19. Trippett, F. 2000. Hymning and hawing about America: A few symbol-minded essays. Bloomington, Indiana: Xlibris Corp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for BioethicsUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations