Uniwersyteckie Czasopisma NaukoweWhat do people think about technological enhancements of human beings? An introductory study using the Technological Enhancements Questionnaire in the context of values, the scientistic worldview, and the accepted versions of humanism
Słowa kluczowe:
values, scientistic worldview, transhumanism, versions of humanism, technological enhancementsAbstrakt
Background
Rapid development of technologies increases the possibility of technological enhancements of human beings, e.g., in their cognitive skills or physical fitness. Attitudes towards such enhancements may result in their social acceptance or rejection.
Participants and procedure
One hundred and thirty-nine young Polish adults participated in the study. Participants completed the designed Technological Enhancements Questionnaire (TEQ) and questionnaires to measure values, the scientistic worldview, and the accepted versions of humanism.
Results
The study showed a one-dimensional TEQ structure and its satisfactory reliability. Attitudes towards technological enhancements correlated positively with achievement, self-direction in thought, power over resources, the scientistic worldview, and the evolutionary version of humanism. They also correlated negatively with tradition and the liberal version of humanism.
Conclusions
The TEQ questionnaire is a short, reliable tool to measure attitudes towards technological enhancements. This preliminary study provided some significant results, but future work to validate the questionnaire is needed.
Downloads
Bibliografia
Academy of Medical Sciences (2012). Human enhancement and the future of work. Report from a joint workshop hosted by the Academy of Medical Sciences, the British Academy, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society. The Royal Society.
Barfield, W., & Williams, A. (2017). Cyborgs and enhancement technology. Philosophies, 2, 4. https:// doi.org/10.3390/philosophies2010004.
Barreto, P. S., Ferrandes, A. M., & Gulihard-Costa, A. M. (2011). Predictors of body satisfaction: Differences between older men and women’s perceptions of their body functioning and appearance. Journal of Aging and Health, 23, 505–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264310386370.
Bates, T. J., Fergason, J. R., & Pierrie, S. N. (2020). Technological advances in prosthesis design and rehabilitation following upper extremity limb loss. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, 13, 485–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-020- 09656-6.
Blodgett-Ford, S. J. (2021). Human enhancements and voting: Towards a declaration of rights and responsibilities of beings. Philosophies, 6, 5. https:// doi.org/10.3390/philosophies6010005.
Bostrom, N. (2005). Transhumanist values. Journal of Philosophical Research, 30, 3–14. https://doi.org/ 10.5840/jpr_2005_26.
Bostrom, N., & Sandberg, A. (2009). Cognitive enhancement: Methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15, 311–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s119-4-8-0099142-5.
Chadwick, R. (2008). Therapy, enhancement and improvement. In B. Gordijn & R. Chadwick (Eds.), Medical enhancement and posthumanity. The international library of ethics, law and technology (Vol. 2, pp. 25–37). Springer.
Cieciuch, J., Davidov, E., Vecchione, M., Beierlein, C., & Schwartz, S. H. (2014). The cross-national invariance properties of a new scale to measure 19 basic human values: a test across eight countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 764–776. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114527348 .
Cieciuch, J., & Schwartz, S. H. (2018). Pomiar wartości w kołowym modelu Schwartza [Measurement of values in the Schwartz circular model]. In H. Gasiul (Ed.), Metody badania emocji i motywacji [Methods of studying emotions and motivation] (pp. 307–334). Warszawa: Difin.
Daniels, N. (2000). Normal functioning and the treatment enhancement distinction. Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics, 9, 309–322. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0963180100903037.
Coenen, C., Schuijff, M., Smits, M., & Hennen, L. (2008). Shifting boundaries, changing concepts, and the governance of human enhancement (Results of two expert meetings). Deliverable no.2 of the project “Human Enhancement”. European Technology Assessment Group.
Erler, A. (2017). The limits of the treatment-enhancement distinction as a guide to public policy. Bioethics, 31, 608–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12377.
Fahn, C. W. (2020). Marketing the prosthesis: Supercrip and superhuman narratives in contemporary cultural representations. Philosophies, 5, 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies5030011.
Górnik-Durose, M., Jach, Ł., Pasztak-Opiłka, A., & Sikora, T. (2020). Sens i wartość zdrowia w kontekście współczesnej mentalności [The meaning and value of health in the context of contemporary mentality]. Difin.
Gurtner, D. (2021). Neuralink and beyond: Challenges of creating an enhanced human. University of Fribourg.
Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2007). The moral mind: How five sets of innate intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. In P. Carruthers, S. Laurence, & S. Stitch (Eds.), The innate mind (Vol. 3, pp. 371– 396). Oxford University Press.
Harati, Y. N. (2015). Sapiens: a brief history of humankind. Harper. Harari, Y. N. (2017). Homo Deus. a brief history of tomorrow. Harper.
Jach, Ł. (2019). Spotlight on scientotheism. Structure and psychometric properties of the questionnaire for the study of scientistic worldview aspects. The Review of Psychology, 62, 141–165.
Jach, Ł. (2020). Światopogląd scjentystyczny – korelaty i uwarunkowania [Scientistic worldview – correlates and conditions]. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
Jach, Ł. (2021). How to distinguish a “scientoskeptic” from a “scientoenthusiast”? Psychometric properties and criteria for qualitative interpretation of the scores of the Views of Science Questionnaire in a Polish quota sample. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 9, 66–83. https://doi.org/10.5114/ cipp.2021.104596.
Jach, Ł., & Buczek, A. (2021). Who says “yes” to science without ethics? Acceptance of the violation of ethical norms due to scientific reasons in the context of empathy, systemizing, and the scientistic worldview. Personality and Individual Differences, 179, 110950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. 2021.110950.
Jach, Ł., & Chmiel, S. (2018). The reliability of advertising, the rule of social proof and the rule of scientific authority. Polish Journal of Economic Psychology, 13, 19–34. https://doi.org/10.15678/PJOEP. 2018.13.12.
Jensen, S. R., Nagel, S., Brey, P., Kuldek, K., Ditzel, T., Oluoch, I., Zuiderdiun, A. C., & Wagner, N. F. (2020). SIENNA D3.4: Ethical analysis of human enhancement technologies. Zenodo. https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.4068071.
Jotterand, F. (2010). Human dignity and transhumanism: Do anthro-technological devices have moral status? American Journal of Bioethics, 10, 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161003728795.
Karaś, D., & Cieciuch, J. (2017). Polish adaptation of Carol Ryff’s psychological wellbeing scales. Annals of Psychology, 20, 837–853. https://doi.org/ 10.18290/rpsych.2017.20.4-4en.
Klichowski, M. (2015). Transhumanism and the idea of education in the world of cyborgs. In H. KrauzeSikorska & M. Klichowski (Eds.), The educational and social world of a child. Discourses of communication, subjectivity and cyborgization (pp. 431–438). Adam Mickiewicz University Press.
Kurzweil, R. (2006). Singularity is near. Penguin Books. Latheef, S., & Henschke, A. (2020). Can a soldier say no to an enhancing intervention? Philosophies, 5, 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies5030013.
Lilley, S. (2013). Transhumanism and society. The social debate over human enhancement. Springer.
Musk, E., & Neuralink (2019). An integrated brainmachine interface platform with thousands of channels. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21, e16194. https://doi.org/10.2196/16194.
Nakar, S., Weinberger, S., & Greenbaum, D. (2015). Legal and social implications of predictive brain machine interfaces: Duty of care, negligence, and criminal responsibility. AJOB Neuroscience, 6, 40–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2015.1094558.
Pirmagomedov, R., & Koucheryavy, Y. (2019). IoT technologies for augmented human: a survey. Internet of Things, 14, 100120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iot. 2019.100120.
Prudhomme, M., Nagel, S., Jensen, S., Hanson, T., Greene, O., & Spedding, G. (2020). SIENNA D3.5: Public views of human enhancement technologies in 11 EU and non-EU countries. Zenodo. https://doi. org/10.5281/zenodo.4068194.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.57.6.1069.
Schelle, K. J., Faulmüller, N., Caviola, L., & Hewstone, M. (2014). Attitudes toward pharmacological cognitive enhancement – a review. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8, 53. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fnsys.2014.00053.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Torres, C., Dirilen-Gumus, O., & Butenko, T. (2017). Value tradeoffs propel and inhibit behavior: Validating the 19 refined values in four countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 241– 258. https:// doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2228.
Tegmark, M. (2017). Life 3.0: Being human in the age of artificial intelligence. Penguin Books.
Tillson, J., & Aldridge, D. (2018). Cheating education: Is technological human enhancement the new frontier of learning? Educational Theory, 68, 589–594. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12341.
Whetstine, L. M. (2015). Cognitive enhancement: Treating or cheating? Seminars in Pediatric Neurology, 22, 172–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spen. 2015.05.003.
Whitman, D., Love, J., Rainville, G., & Skufca, L. (2018). U.S. public opinion and interest on human enhancements technology. AARP Research. https:// doi.org/10.26419/res.00192.001.
