In class on Thursday, there was a lot of discussion about what kind of ‘intellect’ is valued, which was defined in terms of rationality, science, math, mostly fact-based, something that gives definitive answers. Continue reading
An idea we have discussed in class is that sometimes androids (in this case Spike) can appear to be “more human” than most actual humans (including those who appear in the first part of The Stone Gods as genetically altered monsters), and in turn this can beg the question of what it means to be human. Throughout the novel, Billie insists that Spike’s system is limbic, not neural (and therefore cannot experience emotions), and usually Spike wisely retorts that the definition of humanity is constantly changing, and if this is so what really is human? Are “genetically fixed” people any more human than synthetically created ones? I interpreted these conversations as suggesting that (at least part of) the reason why humans are again and again so destructive is that we value our own form and way of life above that of other forms. Continue reading
Ever since class on Tuesday, I have been thinking about Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go and our discussion of how the students are raised at Hailsham. Specifically, we focused on the way students were taught creative trades and how they were encouraged to be artistic and to take pride in their work. At Hailsham, Kathy tells us, it was a big deal to have work chosen for the Gallery, even when they did not actually know the true intent of that gallery. It was not the revelation that art is an indicator of possessing a soul in this novel that stunned me, rather, it was the awareness that everyone seemed to agree on such a point in what I presume would be a rather scientifically-based community. Continue reading
Hayle’s analysis of the work of Philip K. Dick generated a great deal of questions for me about how the definition of core “human like” characteristics evolve not only in society, but on a personal level as well. Continue reading
In his article on the potential ramifications of post-humanist technological advances, Winner denounces wealthy, privileged, insular Northern hemisphere scientists who “claim that the changes at issue are foreordained by history”. The author is rightly suspicious of the motives of corporation-funded scientific research, which seems to be geared towards making a bigger profit, rather than the good of humankind. There is also much to be said for his belief that problems such as insufficient housing and healthcare should be addressed first, before any post-humanist innovations are made. Unfortunately, this is an overly idealistic approach which is patently unrealistic when considered in conjunction with humans. Continue reading