Adapted from “What does it mean to be posthuman?” By David Cohen
How would you like to be a posthuman? In other words, a superbeing by today’s standards. If this sounds
like hyperbole, bear with me. Behind the jargon lies a fascinating, troubling idea. We’re not just talking
about someone like Olympic runner Oscar Pistorius, who is augmented with technology to compensate
for his disabilities and thus can outrun many able-bodied Olympians.
No, we mean people who, through genetic manipulation, the use of stem cells, or other biointervention,
have had their ability to remain healthy and active extended beyond what we would consider normal.
Their cognitive powers (memory, deductive thought and other intellectual capabilities, as well as their
artistic and creative powers) would far outstrip our own.
Is it possible to imagine such humans without recourse to science fiction clichés? And if we can, how
would they affect how we see ourselves – and each other? Would they change how we treat each other?
Or create a society you would actually want to live in?
If this seems a stretch, consider this: preimplantation genetic diagnosis already lets us screen out some
genetic abnormalities in our IVF offspring. And as evidence mounts for genetic components to the
physical and cognitive traits we consider desirable, “designer” babies are surely plausible.
Then again, imagine if you were alive 150 years ago, and someone described life as it is today. Life
expectancy then was a mere 40 years on average, with a few lucky individuals making it to 75 or more,
though they would likely have succumbed to the first harsh illness they faced. Today, average life
expectancy in rich countries hovers around 80; death and disease have all but disappeared from view,
mostly into hospitals and hospices.
Our expectations of our bodies, their functional capacity and their term of service, are profoundly
different from those of people living in the mid-19th century and, in the great scheme of things, that is a
mere blink of an eye.
Have we reached a natural limit, or is there further to go? In his new book, Extremes, Kevin Fong,
anaesthetist, part-time TV presenter and science cheerleader, recounts how maverick doctors exploring
the extremes of our physiology have produced some amazing medical advances, giving us powers to
suspend, control and augment life in ways that would have looked miraculous to our 19th-century
counterparts.
Take one of Fong’s examples, the practice of controlled cooling of core body temperature before certain
types of surgery. In heart surgery, it prolongs the time surgeons have to operate before brain damage is
irreversible. The patient’s heart is stopped, they are not breathing: to all intents and purposes, they are
dead. Yet if reheated in the right way, with appropriate life support, they will awake as if from a deep
sleep.
Just a few decades ago, a cold, pulseless, breathless body would be considered dead immediately, let
alone after 45 minutes of suspended animation. Yet now we can snatch the patient back from the brink,
blurring the line between life and death.
Advances in intensive care medicine, too, have endowed doctors with spectacular powers that effectively
allow them to take complete control of the most fundamental parts of a patient’s physiology: their
breathing, heart function and the chemical composition of their blood. Fong eloquently outlines the
history of such advances, reminding us how experiments by plastic surgeons on Second World War burns
victims effectively paved the way for the first full-face transplants earlier this century.
At the opposite end of the intellectual spectrum is philosopher and cultural theorist Rosi Braidotti.
Her central argument is that medical science and biotechnology are fast remaking how we view our
bodies, and that they are becoming commodities to be traded. This matters greatly because it affects what
we think is possible and reasonable to do to a person/body, and therefore has deep consequences for the
moral and ethical dimensions of our choices in life. Poor women in India who rent their wombs out to
rich families from developed countries are one manifestation; egg and sperm donors another.
Whatever your views are on the “Post-Human” dilemma, advances in technology and medical practices
can only increase. If you accept that our moral codes reflect to a fair degree the depth of our knowledge of
contemporary issues at any one time, then just as our view of homosexuality morphed from repugnance to
acceptance in under a century, so the multiple ways in which we can meddle with the body are likely to
become the norm in the near future.
But there’s an important proviso: these changes are happening dangerously fast, and will revolutionize all
our lives, for good or ill.
After reading the article write an essay in which you argue whether or not we should be able to
“augment” or “enhance” human beings beyond that which we consider “normal” (as in, superstrength, super-intelligence, etc)? Why do you think we should or should not? Support your point
with original and compelling arguments that go beyond those suggested in this article. That means
you will need outside research. Defend your position using compelling counterarguments. Your
essay should show an understanding of this article, and your own research without simply
repeating it (unless quoting), and you should incorporate specific details from your own experience
and knowledge into your response. The specific requirements for this essay are as follows:
MLA format.
Summarize the main idea of the article.
At least 3 additional sources not including this article.
Write a thesis as the last sentence of your introduction in which you take a stance for or
against “post-humans.”
Include at least 3 quotes from your own research, this article, or the readings we have done
so far for this essay block.
Include a counterargument.
Adapted from: Is the internet killing empathy? By Gary Small and Gigi Vorgan
A TV news reporter for a Los Angeles station was doing an on-camera report on the Grammy Awards
Sunday night, and suddenly her speech became garbled. Was she having a stroke on the air? The newscast
quickly cut away when it became apparent that she was in trouble. But by the next morning, televised
news reports were making it part of their Grammy coverage. (One AOL.com page featured the incident at
the top of its five "memorable moments" from the Grammys.)
The video went viral on the internet. At the UK Telegraph website, where we caught up with the video
showing her sudden slurred speech, 9,388 people noted they "liked" the video with a thumbs up signal
and 6,027 recommended it to Facebook friends.
People couldn't turn away. They were drawn to it, watching the images over and over with the same kind
of grim curiosity that compels drivers to slow down and gaze at a fatal car crash -- drawn often by a
subconscious fear that the same thing could happen to us. By observing it in other people, we have our
own experience of it, but at an emotional distance. The more we observe terrifying events happening to
other people, the more they reinforce our sense of denial and detachment: It can't happen to us.
Online, at least, the reporter's incident evoked a range of emotional reactions -- anxiety, laughter, horror
and perhaps a voyeuristic thrill. But where is the empathy when thousands linger on YouTube, repeatedly
watching this unfortunate woman possibly in real danger? In an earlier time we might have been
instructed to look away or give the person privacy. No more. We click and click.
Have our brains become so desensitized by a 24/7, all-you-can-eat diet of lurid flickering images that
we've lost all perspective on appropriateness and compassion when another human being apparently
suffers a medical emergency? Have we become a society of detached voyeurs?
According to the most recent findings from the Kaiser Family Foundation, 8- to 18-year-olds on average
spend 11½ hours a day using their technology.
Their brains have become "wired" to use their tech gadgets effectively in order to multi-task -- staying
connected with friends, texting and searching online endlessly, often exposing their brains to shocking
and sensational images and videos. Many people are desensitizing their neural circuits to the horrors they
see, while not getting much, if any, off-line training in empathic skills. And the effects may even reach
young people.
In a 2002 study published in Brain and Cognition, Robert McGivern and co-workers found that
adolescents struggle with the ability to recognize another person's emotions. The teenage volunteers in
their study had particular difficulty identifying specific emotions expressed by another person's face.
These young people were at an age when they are still developing the capacity for empathy, the ability to
understand another person's emotional point of view. In many ways, the young teenage brain is
nonempathic.
Scientists have even pinpointed a specific region of the brain that controls this tendency toward lack of
empathy and selfishness. When making choices, young people use a brain network in their temporal lobes
(underneath the temples), while older (and more empathic) people use the prefrontal cortex -- a region
that processes how our decisions affect others.
We are concerned that all this tech time interferes with young people's learning and development of basic
empathy skills, such as maintaining eye contact or noticing subtle nonverbal cues during a conversation.
Empathy is learned, but it can be un-learned as well. Using functional MRI scanning, our UCLA research
team found that internet savvy middle-aged and older adults showed dramatically greater brain activity
when searching online compared with age-matched "internet-naïve" volunteers. When these older naïve
volunteers started searching online for an hour a day, after only one week their frontal lobe neural circuits
showed significant activity increases during internet searching. Brains of any age seem sensitive and
reactive to exposure to technology.
Curiosity is human -- our brains constantly seek novelty and stimulation from both positive and negative
sources. But empathy is human, too. Noticing your first response when faced with someone else’s
misfortune and trying to get some perspective on it is one strategy to push back technology's assault on
our brain's ability to feel compassion for others. When our brains become wired to disassociate from
unpleasant experiences, we lose a part of what defines our humanity.
After reading the article write an essay in which you argue whether or not you think the internet is
making us less empathetic. Why do you believe this, or why not? Support your point with original
and compelling arguments that go beyond those suggested in this article. Defend your position
using compelling counterarguments. Your essay should show an understanding of this article, and
your own research without simply repeating it (unless quoting), and you should incorporate specific
details from your own experience and knowledge into your response. The specific requirements for
this essay are as follows:
MLA format.
Summarize the main idea of the article.
At least 3 additional sources not including this article.
Write a thesis as the last sentence of your introduction in which you take a stance on the
issue (do you think that the internet is making us less empathetic?).
Include at least 3 quotes from your own research, this article, or the readings we have done
for this essay block.
Include a counterargument.
Collins 1
Essay #2 General Prompt: The Human I Pretend to Be
For this essay, we will be reading, researching, and reviewing essays and articles that deal with our
humanity, our morals and our ethics, and more particularly how our attitudes, ideologies, and even our
intelligence(s) are being shaped in a world that is dominated by technological advancements.
We will be asking questions such as: What does it mean to be human? What happens to empathy when
you no longer need to experience humanity face to face? How might the “birth” or “creation” of a
“virtual self” bolster or hinder our relationships with our fellow humans? Are we becoming something
other than “human” as technology advances? Are we gaining or losing intelligence? Are we no longer
human? Are we Cyborgs? Are we “post-humans?”
Many of these are “big” questions that will take some serious thought, reflection, and research in order
to form a determined and educated opinion.
During this essay block you will be presented with 3 short articles/essay prompts of which you will
choose 1 for the essay. The prompt that you choose will focus on a particular topic and will thus
determine the focus of your research as we work up to writing the essay.
This essay asks that you analyze the argument/s found in a researched, peer-reviewed article from the
Colleges Library Databases. You will then use your researched articles/essay, along with any of the
articles that we read during this essay block in order to create an argument for the essay
Once you have chosen your topic, and gathered your research, you will write the essay following the
criteria on the prompt you selected. This essay is worth 200 points. The topics are as follows (you will
find these topics/prompts on canvas, right under this general prompt):
1. The Internet and Intelligence: You will argue whether or not the internet is making us lose our
intelligence.
2. The Internet and Empathy: You will argue whether or not the internet is making us lose our
empathy.
3. Post-Humanism: You will argue whether or not it is moral/ethical to “enhance” or “augment”
humans beyond what is considered to be “normal.”
Make sure you read all three topics and their corresponding prompt (each prompt consists of a short
article/excerpt of an article followed by the essays guidelines. Read the prompt that you choose multiple
times!
‘
Adapted from: “The Internet Makes Us Stupid and Here's Why” by Kabir Sehgal
It rewires your brain.
I hate to admit it. But reading this column will make you stupider. No, it’s not that what I have to say is
particularly obtuse. It’s [if] you’re reading this piece online, where you are presented a dizzying amount
of options: click here, watch this, share that. These may seem like trivial decisions, but as the amount of
online content explodes, our brains have consequently learned how to read differently (with constant
distractions), which has reshaped how we learn. While the Internet gives us access to more information
than before, paradoxically, we are becoming dimmer and more superficial as a people.
In the book, The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, which was a finalist for the Pulitzer
Prize, Nicholas Carr makes the case that technology is inducing an intellectual decay in our brains. It’s a
provocative and even counterintuitive claim but one that he backs up with ample findings from
neuroscience.
In one UCLA study conducted in 2008, the brains of 24 people were scanned while they conducted
Google searches. The researchers found that those who had more experience with Google had heightened
activity in more parts of the brain, particularly the prefrontal cortex. This is the part of your brain that is
the seat of consciousness, which you use to make decisions. You might think this is beneficial: “The good
news here is that Web surfing, because it engages so many brain functions, may help keep older people’s
minds sharp,” Carr writes.
But there is a downside. When you encounter hyperlinked text, your brain asks the question: “To click or
not to click.” Because you are constantly being interrupted to make these decisions, you rarely “get lost”
in the text and consequently the information infrequently becomes deep knowledge. Or as Carr puts it,
“The redirection of our mental resources, from reading words to making judgments, may be imperceptible
– our brains are quick – but it’s been shown to impede comprehension and retention, particularly when
repeated frequently.” Not surprisingly, Internet usage rewires our brain. As part of the UCLA study, those
with little Googling experience were instructed to use the Internet for one hour per day. After five days,
their brains were rescanned, and sure enough, there was heightened activity in the prefrontal cortexes.
Even a little Internet usage changes the neural pathways of your brain.
When you read a book, you comprehend more. According to a study in the Journal of Digital Information,
those who read documents with hypertext didn’t retain as much information as those who read text
without links. Indeed, book reading is under stimulating. That is a good thing because your brain can
transfer this information from your “working memory” to “long-term memory.” Neuroscientists have
discovered that long-term memory isn’t just where you store random facts, but “schemas” that help you
organize thoughts and concepts. But there is only so much you can transfer into your long-term memory
at once, what scientists call the “cognitive load.”
When you read a book, you take a thimble of information from your working memory and fill your
bathtub of long-term memory, to use Carr’s thought experiment. Yet when you read on the Internet,
“What we do transfer is a jumble of drops from different faucets, not a continuous, coherent stream from
one source,” he writes. Our brains don’t assimilate the information in a rich and meaningful way, creating
fewer connections between our other memories. Carr puts it bluntly: “We become mindless consumers of
data.”
The Internet has indeed changed how we read and think. But does that really matter? You can just Google
for facts and figures. But the richness of human intelligence is predicated on summoning our long-term
memory. Creativity requires engaging our long-term faculties, in order to create new neural pathways and
associations. By reading incessantly on the Internet, we scatter our minds, lessen our focus, and diminish
our aptitude.
After reading the article write an essay in which you argue whether or not you think the internet is
making us “dumber.” Why do you believe this, or why not? Support your point with original and
compelling arguments that go beyond those suggested in this article. Defend your position using
compelling counterarguments. Your essay should show an understanding of this article, and your
own research without simply repeating it (unless quoting), and you should incorporate specific
details from your own experience and knowledge into your response. The specific requirements for
this essay are as follows:
MLA format.
Summarize the main idea of the article.
At least 3 additional sources not including this article.
Write a thesis as the last sentence of your introduction in which you take a stance on the
issue (do you think that the internet is making us less intelligent?).
Include at least 3 quotes from your own research, this article, or the readings we have done
so far for this progression.
Include a counterargument.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment