Edgar Andrew
Centre for Applied Ethics, Cardiff University, Colum Drive, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
Med Health Care Philos. 2009 Jun;12(2):157-67. doi: 10.1007/s11019-009-9188-9. Epub 2009 Feb 15.
The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact that developments in transhumanist technologies may have upon human cultures (and thus upon the lifeworld), and to do so by exploring a potential debate between Habermas and the transhumanists. Transhumanists, such as Nick Bostrom, typically see the potential in genetic and other technologies for positively expanding and transcending human nature. In contrast, Habermas is a representative of those who are fearful of this technology, suggesting that it will compound the deleterious effects of the colonisation of the lifeworld, further constraining human autonomy and undermining the meaningfulness of the lifeworld by expanding the technological control and manipulation of humanity. It will be argued that these opposed positions are grounded in fundamentally different understandings of the consequences of scientific and technological advance. On one level, the transhumanists remain confident that the lifeworld has within it the resources necessary to find meaning and purpose in a society deeply infused by genetic technology. Habermas disagrees. On another level, the difference is articulated by Horkheimer and Adorno in Dialectic of Enlightenment, primarily by challenging what may be understood as a Baconian faith in science as a project for the domination of nature (where nature is an infinitely malleable material, to be dominated and shaped, without adverse consequences, purely for the purposes of human survival). While the transhumanists broadly embrace this faith, Habermas returns to something akin to Horkheimer and Adorno's pessimistic scepticism.
本文的目的是探讨超人类主义技术的发展可能对人类文化（进而对生活世界）产生的影响，并通过探讨哈贝马斯与超人类主义者之间可能存在的争论来进行这一探讨。像尼克·博斯特罗姆这样的超人类主义者通常认为基因技术和其他技术具有积极扩展和超越人性的潜力。相比之下，哈贝马斯是那些对这种技术感到恐惧的人的代表，他认为这将加剧生活世界殖民化的有害影响，进一步限制人类自主性，并通过扩大对人类的技术控制和操纵来破坏生活世界的意义。本文将论证，这些对立的立场基于对科技进步后果的根本不同理解。一方面，超人类主义者仍然相信，在一个深受基因技术影响的社会中，生活世界具备找到意义和目的所需的资源。哈贝马斯则不同意这一点。另一方面，霍克海默和阿多诺在《启蒙辩证法》中阐述了这种差异，主要是通过质疑那种可被理解为培根式的对科学的信念，即把科学视为一项支配自然的计划（在这种观念中，自然是一种可无限塑造的材料，可被支配和塑造，且不会产生不良后果，纯粹是为了人类生存的目的）。虽然超人类主义者大致上接受这种信念，但哈贝马斯却回归到类似于霍克海默和阿多诺的悲观怀疑主义。
