Techno-progressivism

Techno-progressivism or tech-progressivism is a stance of active support for the convergence of technological change and social change. Techno-progressives argue that technological developments can be profoundly empowering and emancipatory when they are regulated by legitimate democratic and accountable authorities to ensure that their costs, risks and benefits are all fairly shared by the actual stakeholders to those developments.[1][2]

Part of a series on
Progressivism
  •  Philosophy portal
  •  Politics portal
Part of the Ideology series on
Transhumanism
Overviews
Currents
Political ideologies
Organizations

Stance

Techno-progressivism maintains that accounts of progress should focus on scientific and technical dimensions, as well as ethical and social ones. For most techno-progressive perspectives, then, the growth of scientific knowledge or the accumulation of technological powers will not represent the achievement of proper progress unless and until it is accompanied by a just distribution of the costs, risks, and benefits of these new knowledges and capacities. At the same time, for most techno-progressive critics and advocates, the achievement of better democracy, greater fairness, less violence, and a wider rights culture are all desirable, but inadequate in themselves to confront the quandaries of contemporary technological societies unless and until they are accompanied by progress in science and technology to support and implement these values.[2]

Strong techno-progressive positions include support for the civil right of a person to either maintain or modify his or her own mind and body, on his or her own terms, through informed, consensual recourse to, or refusal of, available therapeutic or enabling biomedical technology.[3]

During the November 2014 Transvision Conference, many of the leading transhumanist organizations signed the Technoprogressive Declaration. The Declaration stated the values of technoprogressivism.[4]

Contrasting stance

Main article: Bioconservatism

Bioconservatism (a portmanteau word combining "biology" and "conservatism") is a stance of hesitancy about technological development especially if it is perceived to threaten a given social order. Strong bioconservative positions include opposition to genetic modification of food crops, the cloning and genetic engineering of livestock and pets, and, most prominently, rejection of the genetic, prosthetic, and cognitive modification of human beings to overcome what are broadly perceived as current human biological and cultural limitations.[1][2]

Bioconservatives range in political perspective from right-leaning religious and cultural conservatives to left-leaning environmentalists and technology critics. What unifies bioconservatives is skepticism about medical and other biotechnological transformations of the living world.[5][6][7][8] Typically less sweeping as a critique of technological society than bioluddism, the bioconservative perspective is characterized by its defense of the natural, deployed as a moral category.[1][2]

Although techno-progressivism is the stance which contrasts with bioconservatism in the biopolitical spectrum, both techno-progressivism and bioconservatism, in their more moderate expressions, share an opposition to unsafe, unfair, undemocratic forms of technological development, and both recognize that such developmental modes can facilitate unacceptable recklessness and exploitation, exacerbate injustice and incubate dangerous social discontent.[1][2]

List of notable techno-progressive social critics

Controversy

Technocritic Dale Carrico, an academic known for using term "techno-progressive" as a shorthand to describe progressive politics that emphasize technoscientific issues,[18] has expressed concern that some "transhumanists" are using the term to describe themselves, with the consequence of possibly misleading the public regarding their actual cultural, social and political views, which may or may not be compatible with critical techno-progressivism.[19]

gollark: You can easily treat a product as a service by dividing up the purchase price/expected maintenance cost over the lifespan.
gollark: [REDACTED]
gollark: And?
gollark: If I can get a tablet from a bag or whatever (only the small ones are particularly pocketable, and they then lose any advantage they might have had), I can also probably get out a laptop, which is generally better.
gollark: I have a tablet for convoluted reasons, but it gets absolutely no use because a phone and laptop cover all the things I might want it for.

See also

References
  1. Carrico, Dale (2004). "The Trouble with "Transhumanism": Part Two". Retrieved 2007-01-28. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. Carrico, Dale (2005). "Technoprogressivism Beyond Technophilia and Technophobia". Retrieved 2007-01-28. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  3. Carrico, Dale (2006). "The Politics of Morphological Freedom". Retrieved 2007-01-28. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  4. Technoprogressive Declaration - Transvision 2014, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies
  5. Huesemann, Michael H., and Joyce A. Huesemann (2011). Technofix: Why Technology Won’t Save Us or the Environment, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada, ISBN 0865717044, 464 pp.
  6. Mander, Jerry (1991). ‘’In the Absence of the Sacred: The Failure of Technology and the Survival of the Indian Nations,’’, Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, California.
  7. Rifkin, Jeremy (1998). ‘’The Biotech Century: Harnessing the Gene and Remaking the World,’’ Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, New York, New York.
  8. Shiva, Vandana (2000). ‘’Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply,’’ South End Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  9. Haraway, Donna (1991). "A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century". Archived from the original on 2012-02-14. Retrieved 2007-01-28. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  10. ""Open Source Reality": Douglas Rushkoff Examines the Effects of Open Source | EDUCAUSE". Educause.edu. 2008-07-01. Archived from the original on 2016-05-16. Retrieved 2009-07-25.
  11. Dery, Mark (1994). Flame Wars: The Discourse of Cyberculture. Duke University Press. ISBN 0-8223-1540-8.
  12. Mooney, Chris (2005). The Republican War on Science. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-04676-2.
  13. Sterling, Bruce (2001). "Viridian: The Manifesto of January 3, 2000". Retrieved 2007-01-28. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  14. Steffen, Alex (2006). Worldchanging: A User's Guide for the 21st Century. Harry N. Abrams, Inc. ISBN 0-8109-3095-1.
  15. Newitz, Annalee (2001). "Biopunk". Archived from the original on 2002-12-20. Retrieved 2007-01-26. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  16. Newitz, Annalee (2002). "Genome Liberation". Archived from the original on 2006-07-06. Retrieved 2007-01-26. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  17. Hughes, James (2004). Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future. Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-4198-1.
  18. Jose (2006). "Dale Carrico on Technoprogressive Politics". Archived from the original on 2007-12-25. Retrieved 2008-04-19. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  19. Carrico, Dale (2008). ""Technoprogressive": What's In A Name?". Retrieved 2008-04-16. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.