No. 53 (2024)
Articles

Contemporary Challenges: Critical Posthumanism as a Framework for Action in Addressing Ecological Issues

Samuel Ricardo Espinoza Venzor
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua

Published 2024-12-11

Keywords

  • Transhumanism,
  • Critical Posthumanism,
  • Anthropocene,
  • Ethics,
  • Environment

How to Cite

Espinoza Venzor, S. R. (2024). Contemporary Challenges: Critical Posthumanism as a Framework for Action in Addressing Ecological Issues. Revista Sarance, 53, 8-28. https://doi.org/10.51306/ioasarance.053.02

Share

Abstract

This academic paper examines addresses the relationship between transhumanism and posthumanism, two significant theoretical frameworks in contemporary discourse. While technoscientific perspectives often view transhumanism and posthumanism as aligned with a shared project, emphasizing their convergence through biotechnological advancements, critical approaches contend that these are distinct paradigms. Transhumanism primarily focuses on practical and technological innovations, whereas posthumanism emphasizes theoretical, linguistic, and cultural dimensions. This divergence enriches the debate, offering diverse perspectives on the ethical, social, and philosophical implications of emerging technologies. This paper adopts a critical posthumanist stance, arguing that it provides a more comprehensive response to contemporary challenges, particularly the ecological crisis. Whereas biotechnological approaches often present insufficient solutions, critical posthumanism recognizes the intricate interrelationships between technology, society, and the environment. It challenges traditional human-centric categories, advocating for an inclusive understanding of life on Earth. By addressing the environmental impact of emerging technologies, critical posthumanism promotes an ethics of responsibility and sustainability that transcends anthropocentrism and values all forms of life. This discussion explores the possibilities of technological enhancement for humanity while critically reflecting on its ethical, social, and environmental implications. Additionally, criticisms of posthumanism are considered, particularly regarding its ongoing ties to humanism, alongside its potential to address the current ecological crisis and foster a more authentic and harmonious relationship with the natural environment. 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Arias Maldonado, M. (2018). Antropoceno: la política en la era humana. Taurus.
  2. Bellver, V. (1995). Tema de estudio: ecología, demografía y bioética. Cuadernos Bioética,(4),389-399.
  3. Beneite-Martí, J. (2018). El nuevo paradigma post-ecológico. Lecturas de nuestro tiempo,(3),37-54.
  4. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: a political ecology of things. Duke University Press.
  5. Chagani, F. (2014). Critical Political Ecology and the Seductions of Posthumanism. Journal of Political Ecology, 21(1), 424-436.
  6. Coole, D., & Frost, S. (2010). Introducing the New Materialisms. En D. Coole, & S. E. Frost. (Eds.), New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics (pp. 1-45). Duke University Press.
  7. Diéguez, A. (2013). Biología sintética, transhumanismo y ciencia bien ordenada. Viento Sur, (131), 71-80.
  8. Durand, L., & Sundberg, J. (2019). Sobre la ecología política posthumanista. Sociedad y Ambiente, (20), 7-21. doi:https://doi.org/10.31840/sya.v0i20.1989
  9. Ferrando, F. (2013). Posthumanism, Transhumanism, Antihumanism, Metahumanism, and New Materialisms: Differences and Relations. Existenz, 8(2), 26-32.
  10. Garrido Peña, F. (2007). Sobre la epistemología ecológica. En F. Garrido Peña, M. González de Molina, J. L. Serrano Moreno, J. L. Solana Ruiz (Eds), El paradigma ecológico en las ciencias sociales (pp. 31-54). Icaria.
  11. Grosz, E. A. (1994). Volatile Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Feminism. Indiana University Press.
  12. Haraway, D. (2003). The companion species manifesto: dogs, people and significant otherness. Prickly Paradigm Press.
  13. Haraway, D. (2008). When species meet. University of Minnesota Press.
  14. Haraway, D. (2016). A Cyborg Manifesto. Science, technology, and socialist - feminism in the late Twentieth Century. University of Minnesota Press.
  15. Heidegger, M. (1977). The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. Harper Torchbooks.
  16. Heise, U. (2017). Imagining extinction: The cultural meanings of endangered secies. Chicago University.
  17. Lara, P. M. (2014). ¿Es posible construir un puente teórico entre la teoría feminista y las teorías sobre la ecología? Debate Feminista, 49, 125–147.
  18. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.
  19. Lewis, S. & Maslin, M. (2015). Defining the Anthropocene. Nature, 2(519), 128-146.
  20. Mallavarapu, S., & Prasad, A. (2006). Facts, fetishes, and the parliament of things: is there any space for critique? Social Epistemology, 20(2), 185-199.
  21. Martin, L.; Gutman, H.; & Hutton, P. E. (1988). Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault. University of Massachusetts Press.
  22. Martorell Campos, F. (2012). Al infierno los cuerpos: el transhumanismo y el giro postmoderno de la utopía. Thémata. Revista de Filosofía, 489-496.
  23. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1993). Fenomenología de la percepción. Planeta-Agostini.
  24. Missa, J.–N. (2013). Biodiversidad, filosofía transhumanista y el futuro del hombre. Revista Colombiana de Bioética, 65-76.
  25. More, M. (1994). On becoming posthuman. Free Inquiry, 14(4), 38-41.
  26. Rico Bovio, A. (1990). Las fronteras del cuerpo. Crítica de la corporeidad. Grupo Editorial Planeta.
  27. Rico Bovio, A. (2000). Teoría corporal del derecho. Miguel Ángel Porrúa.
  28. Rico Bovio, A. (2017). Muerte y Resurrección del Cuerpo. Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua; Plaza y Valdés.
  29. Samuelson, H. (2012). Transhumanism as a Secularist Faith. Zygon(r), 47. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2012.01288.x
  30. Sloterdijk, P. (2015). The Anthropocene: a process-state at the edge of geohistory? En D. Henry, E. Turpin (Eds.), Art in the Anthropocene: encounters among aesthetics, politics, environments and epistemologies (pp. 327-340). Open Humanities.
  31. Watson, M. (2011). Cosmopolitics and the subaltern: problematizing Latour’s idea of the commons. Theory, Culture and Society, 28(3), 55-79.
  32. Weisberg, Z. (2009). The broken promises of monsters: Haraway, animals and the humanist legacy. Journal for Critical Animal Studies, 7(2), 21-61.
  33. Zalasiewicz, J.; Williams, M.; Steffen, W. & Crutzen, P. (2010). The New World of the Anthropocene. Environmental Science & Technology, 44(7), 2228-2231.
  34. Zapf, H. (2022). Posthumanism or Ecohumanism? Environmental Studies. Journal of Ecohumanism , 1(1), 5–17. doi:https://doi.org/10.33182/joe.v1i1.1743