critically annotated webliography

“From Frankenstein to the Visible Human Project, the body is continually reinterpreted as a limit to what it means to be human.” Discuss critically

In exploring ways in which the body is continually reinterpreted as a limit to what it means to be human, I have chosen to explore five concepts which were derived from online sources. Each of these concepts will be examined in turn.

Concept 1:
With the continual fusing of technology and medicine, the distinction between what actually constitutes a ‘body’, or what is human, and what is not, has been confused. Scientifically-based means to alter and improve the human body have become more popular and important for individuals and communities. Everyday alterations to the human body, such as prosthetic limbs for amputees, dental fillings for cavities, and contact lenses to improve eyesight, are examples of how people are utilising technology in order to remove human flaws. However, the more extreme versions of this use of techno-science are those which question how the body has been altered, in a sense making it less human. In his article ‘Have the Scientists Gone Too Far?’ Martin Hutchington of the BBC argues that the ‘mad scientist’ hype surrounding scientific advancements in the fields of fertility and reproduction is inaccurate. While it is true that there are the few odd reports of unethical scientific research which attempts to make a scientifically altered baby (such as the chimaera baby), “fertility treatment…is slowly getting safer, more reliable, and more effective, giving many more couples the chance to fulfil their dreams of parenthood.” While Hutchington’s argument is compelling, it does not go into enough depth about the ethical issues surrounding genetic engineering, which have resulted in this ‘mad scientist’ hype which prevents modern society from completely embracing this link between technology and medicine.

Concept 2:
Eugene Thacker, in ‘Lacerations: The Visible Human Project, Impossible Anatomies, and the Loss of Corporeal Comprehension’, argues that the Visible Human Project is an “attempt to elevate the anatomical body, aligning the technical logics of…computer modelling and visualization with the anatomical logics of dissection and the anatomical atlas”. The relationship between technology and traditional anatomy is explored in Thacker’s work. In particular, I found Thackers argument that the “virtual body is never totally virtual, and that ‘real’ bodies are never completely different from the technologies which touch them” to be compelling. It is argued that there exists a close relationship between the real and the ‘virtual’, between technology and humanity. Considering that the Visible Human Project “shows a cadaver that never decays, a body that is lifeless but animated” it is clear that Thacker is arguing that what it means to be ‘human’ is changing, as is what constitutes a ‘body’. Thacker places the VHP in the context of advancements in human understanding of the body, and highlights the uses to which this project could be put to use. In doing so, Thacker depicts these advancements as positive, and as beneficial to the future.

Concept 3:
Christopher Meyer’s ‘The New Facts of Life’ presents an argument that “the non-living world is very much alive” in regards to technology possessing qualities which were once believed to be strictly the qualities of organisms. This argument compliments the other articles, as it highlights the fact that drawing distinctions between “organisms and machines is beginning to blur”. Meyer argues that reproduction, self-organisation, emergence and co-evolution, all the traits of organisms, are being demonstrated by machines. A good example provided was the ability of Norton Anti-virus technology automatically updating itself when new viruses are detected. Meyer depicts the idea that what it means to be human is altering, as technology is beginning to exhibit those qualities which humanity use to distinguish themselves from their creations.

Concept 4:
Nick Bostrom explores the idea that it is possible for humans to be living within a virtual reality, in ‘What is the probability that we are living in the matrix?’. Bostroms article argues that “it is in principle possible to implement a human mindo on a…computer”. Although he acknowledges the unlikelihood of this notion, Bostrom does go on to state that “the difficulty [in uploading a human mind onto a computer] appears to be merely technical…[as]…there is no known physical law or material constrain that would prevent…” this uploading. This concept is central to my question, as it explores the possibility that the human ‘body’ may one day become redundant, as humans could exist in the virtual world. By drawing on the concept used for the Hollywood blockbuster ‘The Matrix’, Bostrom is able to project the idea that humans could one day exist in the virtual world, separate from their corporeal selves. In doing so, his article proved helpful to my exploration of whether interpretations of the body are used as a limit to what it means to be human.

Concept 5:
The final source which I decided to use for tackling the question is Orlin Damyanov’s essay on Frankenstein. This essay highlights the undercurrents which flow throughout the narrative of Frankenstein, especially in providing an “implicit warning of the inherent perils in technological developments of modern science”. Damyanov presents a strong argument that despite the fact that there are no modern Frankensteins in todays society, “research in genetic engineering and biochemistry, eugenics and extra-uterine fertilization habe brough to light the opportunity to manipulate life-forms”. By drawing a comparison between modern science and technology, and the traditional horror-image of Frankenstein, Damyanov indicates the possibility that the body can be reinterpreted as a limit to what it means to be human. Damyanov further argues that the development of science and technology have served to “further increase the imbalance between human and nature systems”, a kind of invasion of traditional development. This line of though complements earlier articles which I have drawn upon, in particular Martin Hutchington’s take on the ‘mad scientist’ stigma associated with mixing medicine and technology. I found this source useful as a different way in which to explore what it means to be human, as opposed to traditional scholarly articles which are often dry and lack emotion.

Although the five sources which I have chosen to use vary greatly in content and focus, they all exhibit the same base beliefs. From the Visible Human Project, to the Matrix, to Frankenstein, it is clear that the distinction between science and nature is becoming blurred. All five sources highlight the fat that the body is continually reinterpreted as a limit to what it means to be human.

‘Have The Scientists Gone Too Far?’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3040126.stm by Martin Hutchington of the BBC News Online Health staff 3 July 2003:

‘Lacerations: The Visible Human Project, Impossible Anatomies, and the Loss of Corporeal Comprehension’ http://culturemachine.tees.ac.uk/cmach/backissues/j003/articles/thacker/impossible.htm by Eugene Thacker

The New Facts of Life by Christopher Meyer issue 12.02 Feb 2004 in Wired. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.02/machines.html

What is the probability that we are living in the matrix? http://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix.html by Nick Bostrom Times Higher Education Supplement, May 16, 2003 published in The Philosophical Quarterly
‘Technology and its dangerous effects on nature and human life as perceived in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and William Gibson’s Neuromancer’ http://www.geocities.com/paris/5972/gibson.html by Orlin Damyanov 1996 paper for the American University of Paris