人类的进步,过去和现在。

IF 1.6 Q2 ETHICS
Andrew Moeller, Jose Maria Andres Porras
{"title":"人类的进步,过去和现在。","authors":"Andrew Moeller, Jose Maria Andres Porras","doi":"10.1007/s40592-025-00250-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>One important role the medical humanities might and should play relates to public education. In this instance, we mean helping persons to think about their own aims or purposes as potential receivers of enhancement interventions, and similarly helping to inform the developers of said interventions. This article argues that, in the light of real and speculative applications of emerging biotechnologies and artificial intelligence aimed at human enhancement-including germline genetic engineering, the linking of the human brain with an artificial general intelligence by way of a brain-computer interface, and various interventions directed toward life extension-historians would do well to consider the following three practices as they participate in the medical humanities and the shared task of public education: (1) Taking under scrutiny a broad swath of topics and timeframes as it relates to past efforts aimed at human enhancement; (2) Focusing on past engagement with enhancement efforts and their perceived relation to the pursuit of living well; and (3) Entering into debates on enhancement as equal participants. In support of these assertions, this article takes efforts directed towards the prolongation of life in medieval Europe as an illustrative example. It also highlights continuities and discontinuities between past and present justifications for human enhancement, and addresses how similarities and differences can shape and challenge contemporary bioethical arguments.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Human enhancement, past and present.\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Moeller, Jose Maria Andres Porras\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40592-025-00250-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>One important role the medical humanities might and should play relates to public education. In this instance, we mean helping persons to think about their own aims or purposes as potential receivers of enhancement interventions, and similarly helping to inform the developers of said interventions. This article argues that, in the light of real and speculative applications of emerging biotechnologies and artificial intelligence aimed at human enhancement-including germline genetic engineering, the linking of the human brain with an artificial general intelligence by way of a brain-computer interface, and various interventions directed toward life extension-historians would do well to consider the following three practices as they participate in the medical humanities and the shared task of public education: (1) Taking under scrutiny a broad swath of topics and timeframes as it relates to past efforts aimed at human enhancement; (2) Focusing on past engagement with enhancement efforts and their perceived relation to the pursuit of living well; and (3) Entering into debates on enhancement as equal participants. In support of these assertions, this article takes efforts directed towards the prolongation of life in medieval Europe as an illustrative example. It also highlights continuities and discontinuities between past and present justifications for human enhancement, and addresses how similarities and differences can shape and challenge contemporary bioethical arguments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43628,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Monash Bioethics Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Monash Bioethics Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-025-00250-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-025-00250-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

医学人文学科可能而且应该发挥的一个重要作用与公共教育有关。在这种情况下,我们的意思是帮助人们思考他们自己的目标或目的,作为增强干预的潜在接受者,同样帮助告知所述干预的开发人员。本文认为,鉴于旨在增强人类的新兴生物技术和人工智能的实际和推测应用,包括生殖系基因工程,通过脑机接口将人类大脑与人工智能联系起来,以及各种旨在延长寿命的干预措施——历史学家在参与医学人文学科和公共教育的共同任务时,最好考虑以下三种做法:(1)仔细审查与过去旨在提高人类能力的努力有关的广泛主题和时间框架;(2)关注过去参与的增强努力及其与追求美好生活的感知关系;(3)作为平等参与者参与关于增强的辩论。为了支持这些断言,本文以中世纪欧洲为延长寿命所做的努力为例。它还强调了过去和现在人类增强的理由之间的连续性和不连续性,并解决了相似性和差异如何塑造和挑战当代生物伦理争论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Human enhancement, past and present.

One important role the medical humanities might and should play relates to public education. In this instance, we mean helping persons to think about their own aims or purposes as potential receivers of enhancement interventions, and similarly helping to inform the developers of said interventions. This article argues that, in the light of real and speculative applications of emerging biotechnologies and artificial intelligence aimed at human enhancement-including germline genetic engineering, the linking of the human brain with an artificial general intelligence by way of a brain-computer interface, and various interventions directed toward life extension-historians would do well to consider the following three practices as they participate in the medical humanities and the shared task of public education: (1) Taking under scrutiny a broad swath of topics and timeframes as it relates to past efforts aimed at human enhancement; (2) Focusing on past engagement with enhancement efforts and their perceived relation to the pursuit of living well; and (3) Entering into debates on enhancement as equal participants. In support of these assertions, this article takes efforts directed towards the prolongation of life in medieval Europe as an illustrative example. It also highlights continuities and discontinuities between past and present justifications for human enhancement, and addresses how similarities and differences can shape and challenge contemporary bioethical arguments.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Monash Bioethics Review provides comprehensive coverage of traditional topics and emerging issues in bioethics. The Journal is especially concerned with empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Monash Bioethics Review also regularly publishes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. Produced by the Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics since 1981 (originally as Bioethics News), Monash Bioethics Review is the oldest peer reviewed bioethics journal based in Australia–and one of the oldest bioethics journals in the world. An international forum for empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Includes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. One of the oldest bioethics journals, produced by a world-leading bioethics centre. Publishes papers up to 13,000 words in length. Unique New Feature: All Articles Open for Commentary
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信