English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The figure of posthumanity is invoked in a wide range of arguments that advertise the appeal or even the moral imperative of human enhancement through means of genetic engineering. Posthumanity is presented in these arguments as a highly beneficial state, the end point of a process of directed evolution to which we must devote our efforts. Focusing on the writings of transhumanist philosopher Nick Bostrom, in this article I question this normative role of posthumanity as a legitimation for liberal eugenics. For a start, I argue that the costs and benefits of a posthuman state are impossible to calculate. On the other hand, I identify certain problems concerning the positionality and instrumentality of augmented capacities. These capacities can be considered valuable inasmuch as they (1) provide an advantage relative to a context and (2) they are instrumental to the future benefit of persons. I argue that we cannot establish a necessary connection between capacities and wellbeing, thus the promise of posthumanity as beneficial state is difficult to take seriously.9 page(s

La posthumanidad como un bien objetivo: los peligros del futurismo en el debate sobre la optimización genética humana