Ada Florentyna Pawlak, Chips, Implants and Autoprosthetics.  The Grinder Movement: Practical Transhumanism

Ada Florentyna Pawlak

Chips, Implants and Autoprosthetics.  The Grinder Movement: Practical Transhumanism

Abstract:

Bodily extensions (chips, implants, prostheses, interfaces) are made possible by the convergence of NBIC technologies (nanotechnology-bio-engineering-IT-cognitive science) and the sponsorship of powerful investors, owners of high-tech companies and influential enthusiasts of transhumanism, namely Peter Thiel (Methuselah Foundation), Peter Diamandis (X Prize Foundation), Elon Musk (Space X, Nauralink), Dmitri Itskov (Avatar 2045). Biohackers (biology and hacking) carry out experiments to enhance the capabilities of the human body in a non-institutional setting, outside official research institutions and the world of large corporations. Biohackers fight for the access to “know-how” that enables cyborgization, and develop new senses that open up previously non-existent perceptual paths to reality, as well as test devices and methods for the fusion of human beings with technology, making society aware of the dangers of bio-power and control over cybernetic extensions, such as neural implants, RFID chips, NFC. The new sensorium is also a result of artistic manifestations performed in the art@science paradigm (Neil Harbisson, Moon Ribas) and is a means of expressing the nascent, novel cyborg identity. The experiments of biohackers support the trend of synestetic design and sensory substitution – the phenomenon of transferring the characteristics of one sensory modality to the stimuli of another modality, using devices for sensory substitution. Biohacking practitioners are egalitarian transhumans defending “morphological freedom” and undertaking a struggle (ideological, social and legislative) for the freedom to create and manage a technicised corporality. “Body burglars” from the Grinder Movement contest elite human enhancement, criticize the “corporate panopticon”, and promote open science and open source ethics that condition safe cyborgization. Homo-hacker is a harbinger of species-based autoevolution. Are biohackers a resistance movement against technocracy or do they support and create algorithmic culture and somatic capitalism? Their actions arouse justified fears about a new carnal techno-model that may result in unprecedented inequalities in Western civilization.

Keywords:

Biohacking, Transhumanism, Sensory Substitution, Cyborgization, Somatic capitalism, Art@Science

Bibliography:

Aughenbaugh S. (2015). Garage Biohacking: A Really Bad Idea | FYSA. [online] Fysa.csis.org. Available at: http://fysa.csis.org/2015/03/31/garage-biohacking-a-really-bad-idea/ (dostęp 14.1.2018)
Delfanti A. (2013). Biohackers. The Politics of Open Science, Pluto Press, London.
DIYbio. (2013). Draft DIYbio Code of Ethics from European Congress. [online] Available at: http://diybio.org/codes/draft-diybio-code-of-ethics-from-european-congress/ (dostęp 14.1.2018)
Emslie K. (2018). This Artificial Sixth Sense Helps Humans Orient Themselves in the World, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/artificial-sixth-sense-helps-humans-orient-themselves-world-180961822/ (dostęp 14.1.2018)
Fuller S. (2016).Morphological Freedom and the Question of Responsibility and Representation in Transhumanism, „Confero: Essays on Education, Philosophy and Politics”.
Grassie W, Hansell G. R. (2011). Introduction, [w:] H±: transhumanism and its critics, (red.) G. R. Hansell, W. Grassie, Metanexus Institute, Philadelphia.
Hurlbut J.B, Tirosh-Samuelson H. (2016). Perfecting Human Futures. Transhuman Visions and Technological Imaginations, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
Kelly D. (2015). 10 Things You Should Know About Biohacking – Listverse. [online] Listverse. Available at: http://listverse.com/2015/05/20/10-things-you-should-know-about-biohacking/(dostęp 14.1.2018)
Kelly K. (2017). Nieuniknione. Jak inteligentne technologie zmienią naszą przyszłość, tłum. P. Cypryański, Wydawnictwo Poltext, Warszawa.
Kuiken T.(2016).Governance: Learn from DIY biologists, „Nature” (531), s. 167-168.
Michels S. (2015). What is biohacking and why should we care?. [online] PBS NewsHour. Available at: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/biohacking-care/ (dostęp 14.1.2018)
Pawlak A.F. (2018). Zwrot biotechnologiczny. Projekty art@science jako obszar dyskursu transhumanistycznego, [w:] Dyskursy sztuki, dyskursy o sztuce, (red.) T. Pękala, Wydawnictwo UMCS, Lublin.
Pawlak A.F. (2017). Awangarda technologiczna. Estetyka transhumanizmu, Wydawca: Art+ScienceMeeting, Centrum Sztuki Współczesnej „Łaźnia”, Gdańsk. http://artandsciencemeeting.pl/teksty/awangarda_technologiczna_i_estetyka_transhumanizmu-17/ (dostęp 14.1.2018)
Pawlak A.F.(2017). Biotechnotransformacje. Ciało w projekcie transhumanistycznym, [w:] Oblicza choroby w czasach płynnej nowoczesności, (red.). E. Nowina-Sroczyńska, S. Latocha, T. Siemiński. Łódź, s. 61-91.
Pawlak A.F.(2017). Homo scientificus. Transhumanizm w perspektywie technoantropologicznej, [w:] Zrozumieć naukę, Fundacja Nauki Polskiej Promowendi, Łódź, s. 94-109.
Sharon T. (2014). Human Nature in an Age of Biotechnology. The Case for Mediated Posthumanism, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
Sandberg A.(2013). Morphological Freedom Why We Not Just Want It, but Need It [w:] The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future, (red.) M. More, N. Vita-More, Wiley–Blackwell, Chichester UK.

Presentation:

Translated by: Adrian Mróz (SL: Abenteuerzeit)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *