• Tamar Sharon
Part of the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology book series (POET, volume 14)


The question of what it means to be human surfaces time and again in periods of important technological change. As if, once detached from the labor of their creation, technologies then take on the capacity of philosophical anthropologists: signaling to us, undeterred by their own non-humanness, that the fact of their existence solicits a clear definition of human nature. In our current technologized culture, where the life sciences themselves are increasingly merging with technology in the form of reproductive, genetic and neuro-technology, the question of what it means to be human has taken on a new urgency.


Human Nature Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis Cognitive Enhancement Human Enhancement Enhancement Technology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Agar, N. (2004). Liberal eugenics: In defence of human enhancement. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annas, G. (2005). American bioethics: Crossing human rights and health boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Badmington, N. (Ed.). (2000). Posthumanism. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  4. Balsamo, A. (1996). Technologies of the gendered body: Reading cyborg women. Durham/London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. (Eds.). (1987). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bostrom, N. (2002). Existential risks: Analyzing human extinction scenarios and related hazards. Journal of Evolution and Technology, 9(1). Accessed 20 August 2013.
  7. Bostrom, N. (2003). The transhumanist FAQ, Version 2.1. Accessed 6 June 2013.
  8. Bostrom, N. (2005). In defense of posthuman dignity. Bioethics, 19(3), 202–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Braidotti, R. (2006). Transpositions: On nomadic ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Buchanan, A. (2011a). Better than human: The promise and perils of enhancing ourselves. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Buchanan, A. (2011b). Beyond humanity? The ethics of biomedical enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Callon, M., & Latour, B. (1992). Don’t throw the baby out with the Bath school! A reply to Collins and Yearley. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 343–368). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Callon, M., & Law, J. (1997). After the individual in society: Lessons on collectivity from science, technology and society. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 22(2), 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carrico, D. (2006). Technoprogressivism: Beyond technophilia and technophobia. Accessed 14 Jun 2013.
  15. Deleuze, G., & Guattari F. (1977). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (trans: Seem, M., Lane, H.R., & Hurley, R). New York: Viking Press. Original edition, 1972.Google Scholar
  16. Feenberg, A. (1991). Critical theory of technology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Foucault, M. (2005). The hermeneutics of the subject: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1981–1982 (trans: Burchell, G.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Fukuyama, F. (2002). Our posthuman future: Consequences of the biotechnology revolution. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  19. Gane, N. (2006). “When we have never been human, what is to be done” interview with Donna Haraway. Theory, Culture and Society, 23(7–8), 135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gordijn, B., & Chadwick, R. (Eds.). (2008). Medical enhancement and posthumanity. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Graham, E. L. (2002). Representations of the post/human: Monsters, aliens and others in popular culture. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gray, C. H. (Ed.). (1995). The Cyborg handbook. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Habermas, J. (2003). The future of human nature. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  24. Halberstam, J., & Livingstone, I. (Eds.). (1995). Posthuman bodies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Halliwell, M., & Mousley, A. (2003). Critical humanisms: Humanist/anti-humanist dialogues. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Haraway, D. (1991). A Cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In D. Haraway (Ed.), Simians, Cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature (pp. 149–181). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Haraway, D. (1997). Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium. FemaleMan©_Meets_Oncomouse™: Feminism and Technoscience. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2000). Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Harris, J. (2007). Enhancing evolution: the ethical case for making better people. Princeton: Princeton University.Google Scholar
  30. Hayles, N. K. (1999). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature and informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hovenden, F., Janes, L., Kirkup, G., & Woodward, K. (Eds.). (2000). The gendered cyborg: A reader. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Hughes, J. J. (2002). The politics of transhumanism. Accessed 6 June 2013.
  33. Hughes, J. J. (2004). Citizen cyborg: Why democratic societies must respond to the redesigned human of the future. Boulder/Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hughes, J. J. (2009). Social pressures for technological mood management. Free Inquiry, 29(5), 28–32.Google Scholar
  35. Ihde, D. (1993). Postphenomenology: Essays in the postmodern context. Evanston: Norhtwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Ihde, D. (2009). Postphenomenology and technoscience. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kass, L. (1997). The wisdom of repugnance. The New Republic, 216(22), 17–26.Google Scholar
  38. Kurzweil, R. (2005). The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  39. Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? Sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnological change (pp. 225–259). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Latour, B. (1994). On technical mediation: Philosophy, sociology, genealogy. Common Knowledge, 3, 29–64.Google Scholar
  42. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (Eds.). (1985). The social shaping of technology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  44. McKibben, B. (2003). Enough: Staying human in an engineered age. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
  45. Moravec, H. (1990). Mind children: The future of robot and human intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pickering, A. (2005). Asian eels and global warming: A posthuman perspective on society and the environment. Ethics & The Environment, 10(2), 29–43.Google Scholar
  48. Rose, N. (2007). The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Sandel, M. (2007). The case against perfection: Ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Savulescu, J. (2001). Procreative beneficience: Why we should select the best children. Bioethics, 15(5), 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Savulescu, J. (2007). In defence of procreative beneficence. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(5), 284–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Savulescu, J., & Bostrom, N. (Eds.). (2009). Human enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Soper, K. (1986). Humanism and anti-humanism. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  54. Stone, A. R. (1995). The war of desire and technology at the close of the mechanical age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Verbeek, P.-P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency and design. University Park: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Verbeek, P.-P. (2008). Obstetric ultrasound and the technological mediation of morality: a postphenomenological analysis. Human Studies, 31(1), 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Verbeek, P.-P. (2011). Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109, 121–136.Google Scholar
  59. Wolfe, C. (2009). What is posthumanism? Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  60. Wolfe, C. (2010). Posthumanities. Accessed 7 Mar 2011.
  61. Zylinska, J. (Ed.). (2002). The cyborg experiments: The extensions of the body in the media age. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tamar Sharon
    • 1
  1. 1.PhilosophyMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations