<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Pop Bioethics &#187; Habermas</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.popbioethics.com/tag/habermas/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.popbioethics.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:03:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>IVF Babies Have Altered DNA</title>
		<link>http://www.popbioethics.com/2010/02/ivf-babies-have-altered-dna/</link>
		<comments>http://www.popbioethics.com/2010/02/ivf-babies-have-altered-dna/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:25:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kyle Munkittrick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pop Transhumanism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Genetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Habermas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reproduction]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.poptranshumanism.com/?p=1918</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Which makes sense, of course, given the enormous amount of influence our gestational environment can have on our genetic expression. <a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/80beats/~3/tXnnHmPR6Qw/">80 beats</a> has the story:</p> <p>Says lead researcher Carmen Sapienza said “By and large these children are just fine, it’s not like they have extra arms or extra heads, but they have a small [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Which makes sense, of course, given the enormous amount of influence our gestational environment can have on our genetic expression. <a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/80beats/~3/tXnnHmPR6Qw/">80 beats</a> has the story:</p>
<blockquote><p>Says lead researcher Carmen Sapienza said “By and large these children are just fine, it’s not like they have extra arms or extra heads, but they have a small risk of undesirable outcomes” [<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/feb/22/ivf-risk-diabetes-hypertension-cancer" target="_blank"><em>The Guardian</em></a>]. Rather, the team found a very subtle impact. In 75 IVF babies and 100 naturally conceived ones, they examined 700 genes that particularly interested the researchers because they are linked to fat cell development, insulin signaling, and other functions associated with diseases for which people tend to be at higher risk as they age. The scientists checked DNA methylation, a modification to DNA which affects gene expression, and found that 5 to 10 percent of IVF babies had abnormal patterns of methylation.</p></blockquote>
<p>I&#8217;d like to note that this is <em>precisely</em> what Habermas talks about in <em>The Future of Human Nature</em> and, by extension, would like to point out that his thesis is <em>demonstrably false</em>. Woops.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.popbioethics.com/2010/02/ivf-babies-have-altered-dna/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Artie&#8217;s Wheels</title>
		<link>http://www.popbioethics.com/2009/12/arties-wheels/</link>
		<comments>http://www.popbioethics.com/2009/12/arties-wheels/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:14:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kyle Munkittrick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pop Transhumanism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Body]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Glee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Habermas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pop]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.poptranshumanism.com/?p=987</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"></p> <p>I really, really like the show Glee. I like it because it stops pretending that people who live in small cities in western and mid-western states are somehow more wholesome than their metropolitan counterparts. I like it because it exposes the high school ruling class for the terrified, soon-to-be-townie losers they usually [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-1023" title="arts-glee-584" src="http://www.poptranshumanism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/arts-glee-584.jpg" alt="arts-glee-584" width="526" height="296" /></p>
<p>I really, really like the show <em>Glee</em>. I like it because it stops pretending that people who live in small cities in western and mid-western states are somehow more wholesome than their metropolitan counterparts. I like it because it exposes the high school ruling class for the terrified, soon-to-be-townie losers they usually are. I like it because it admits high schoolers have sex and drink and smoke weed and still manage to function. I like it because it obliterates the myth that marrying your high school sweet heart is a good idea. I like it because it is the sunshiniest, saccharine dark comedy I&#8217;ve ever seen.</p>
<p>I also like it because instead of taking a stab at diversity, it actually has it. The caveat is that the diversity is totally unrealistic: somehow there are at least three Jews going to the same school in Lima, Ohio, which is actually more impossible than a lot of other things that happen on the show, but whatever. That the wheel-chair bound kid, Artie, isn&#8217;t some super hot chick missing a leg (looking at you <em>Deuce Bigalow)</em>, but instead a nerdy, sweater-vest-and-glasses-wearing, paraplegic with a molasses smooth voice, is great. That the writers of <em>Glee</em> devoted an entire episode to showing what Artie&#8217;s daily struggles are like is, well, something I don&#8217;t know if I&#8217;ve seen on prime time television.</p>
<p>When I was initially writing this post, I kept using the word &#8220;disabled&#8221; to describe Artie, but the whole point of &#8220;Wheels&#8221; was to show Artie isn&#8217;t disabled. Except for walk, Artie does everything the other glee club kids do: sing, dance, play instruments, battle wits, go on dates, and maintain some level of self respect. My favorite moment in the episode is when Artie blurts out, &#8220;I wanna be very clear: I still have the use of my penis.&#8221; The act is so human, so basic, and so central to his life as a paraplegic it reminds us that he is simultaneously a person in a wheel chair and a teenage boy. Artie&#8217;s ability to walk away from Tina when she admits she&#8217;s faking her stutter shows he is, alternatively, confident enough in himself to prefer being alone to being with a fraud. He&#8217;s great.</p>
<p>In <em>The Future of Human Nature</em> Habermas writes that, &#8220;Since individuation is achieved through the socializing medium of thick linguistic communication, the integrity of individuals is particularly dependent on the respect underlying their dealings with one another.&#8221; What he is blathering about is that our sense of self is in large part formed around our interactions with our friends, peers, and society at large. He then goes on to discuss how this individuation relates to one&#8217;s sense of bodily (phenomenological) self, &#8220;Bodily existence enables the person to distinguish between these only on the condition that she identifies with her body. For the person to feel at one with her body, it seems that this body has to be experienced as something <em>natural</em> &#8211; as a <em>continuation of the organic, self-regenerative life</em> from which this person is <em>born</em>.&#8221; Emphasis mine. If a person&#8217;s body feels unnatural to her, then she has a fractured identity. What I disagree with is Habermas&#8217; assertion that what constitutes a person&#8217;s body must actually be &#8220;natural&#8221; and/or &#8220;organic&#8221; and must link with what that person was at birth. To say Habermas is discounting or ignoring amputees and the paralyzed, among a multitude of other bodily changes that can occur after birth, is an understatement.</p>
<p>Artie&#8217;s dancing and countenance in a wheel chair, not to mention his confidence and honesty about his difference, disprove Habermas&#8217; claim. I would argue that the body must not feel like something &#8220;natural&#8221; but like something contiguous and familiar. The body must feel as though it responds to one&#8217;s mind in conjunction with what is expected. Artie&#8217;s adaptation to life post-car crash at the age of eight, a situation that borders on normal, demonstrates the ability for the phenomenological body to incorporate (literally) non-natural and non-organic objects into the self. If Habermas had deigned to read Merleau-Ponty or Lacan he would have known these things. But, as we know from another lesson <em>Glee</em> bashes us over the head with: no one is perfect.</p>
<p>Oh, and Artie is singing <em>Billy freaking Idol</em>. The song choice couldn&#8217;t be more perfect. Artie&#8217;s identity and sense of self is <em>heightened</em> by his difference, hence the song &#8220;Dancing with <em>myself</em>.&#8221; Thus, Artie Abrams from <em>Glee </em>disproves Habermas&#8217; thesis on phenomenological self requiring a &#8220;natural&#8221; and &#8220;organic&#8221; body. Enjoy the refutation:</p>
<p><object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="512" height="296" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="src" value="http://www.hulu.com/embed/PejOLdWVjzhFzYULRABLQA" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512" height="296" src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/PejOLdWVjzhFzYULRABLQA" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.popbioethics.com/2009/12/arties-wheels/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dilettante vs Synthesizer</title>
		<link>http://www.popbioethics.com/2009/11/dilettante-vs-synthesizer/</link>
		<comments>http://www.popbioethics.com/2009/11/dilettante-vs-synthesizer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:32:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kyle Munkittrick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pop Transhumanism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Controversy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Habermas]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.poptranshumanism.com/?p=932</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Malcolm Gladwell&#8217;s <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/review/Pinker-t.html">beat down</a> by Steven Pinker seemed to keep popping up in conversation last week. Anissimov has been<a href="http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2009/11/stephen-pinker-responds-to-malcolm-gladwell/"> tracking </a>the back and forth, I saw Outliers on my friend Drea&#8217;s bookshelf, and Alex and I chattered about Gladwell vs. Pinker between mouthfuls of Indian food.  Why does this guy, whose clever, but [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Malcolm Gladwell&#8217;s <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/review/Pinker-t.html">beat down</a> by Steven Pinker seemed to keep popping up in conversation last week. Anissimov has been<a href="http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2009/11/stephen-pinker-responds-to-malcolm-gladwell/"> tracking </a>the back and forth, I saw <em>Outliers</em> on my friend Drea&#8217;s bookshelf, and Alex and I chattered about Gladwell vs. Pinker between mouthfuls of Indian food.  Why does this guy, whose clever, but individually inconsequential essays on pedestrian topics bother so many of us who at least <em>pretend</em> to be serious thinkers?</p>
<p>For one, I&#8217;ve always disliked Malcolm Gladwell&#8217;s demeanor. He&#8217;s like the anti-John Hodgman. Hodgman&#8217;s humility and curiosity are, regardless of their amplification for comedic effect, real. His speech at <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W51H1croBw">TED about falling in love with his wife</a> and his speech at the TV &amp; Radio Correspondent&#8217;s dinner <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW7OPByRGDY">honoring Obama&#8217;s nerdiness</a> exemplify Hodgman&#8217;s weird blend of self-effacement and unique perspective. Gladwell comes off as the opposite, as if he gets an erotic tickle of pride every time he says something contrary to common logic. The <em>Vanity Fair</em> <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2009/12/gladwell-200912">parody of him</a> is pitch-perfect.</p>
<p>But in the end, Gladwell really is small potatoes. Yes, he&#8217;s Famous and Important right now, but Pinker and the <em>NYT</em> effectively lowered the banhammer on his shenanigans. Yet he&#8217;s indicative of a larger trend among intellectuals and it is here that the problem becomes more serious. Interdisciplinarity &#8211; once shunned as the realm of the ADD scholar who couldn&#8217;t cut it as an expert in a single field &#8211; is now being popularized by folks like Zizek, Haraway, and Habermas. Literary critics are writing about computer theory. Psychoanalysts are writing about politics. Political theorists are writing about bioethics. Cross-over! Synthesis! By your powers combined- I am Captain Planet!</p>
<p>Thinking about this little problem, Alex made a good point: how do you tell the difference between a real synthesizer (i.e. Elizabeth Grosz&#8217; work on Darwin) and a power-intellectual playing dilettante? What happens when say, oh, Jurgan Habermas decides that &#8211; despite having zero background in bioethics (Rawls does not count), a popular knowledge of general science, and being a cantankerous old man &#8211; he wants to get into discussing the bioethics of genetic engineering and pre-implantation genetic diagnostics? How would we know if he&#8217;s qualified to speak on the topic?</p>
<p>I guess we ask a few questions:</p>
<p>Q: Has he read the core literature?</p>
<p>A: No. Habermas did cite <em>Beyond Therapy</em>, Kass and Fukuyama&#8217;s much derided neocon polemic, but somehow managed to miss <em>From Chance to Choice: Genetics &amp; Justice</em>, one of the canonical texts of bioethics.</p>
<p>Q: Does he cite empirical evidence backing his claims regarding body/mind cognitive development or genetic influence on personality?</p>
<p>A: Not really. Weirdly, Habermas insists his arguments aren&#8217;t based in genetic determinism and then goes on to rail against how engineered people will be bound by their &#8220;programing.&#8221; More bizarre is his assertion that the knowledge of one&#8217;s creation being &#8220;intentional&#8221; will somehow lead to a fissure between body and mind. Habermas provides a grand total of zero research studies as evidence and a whole lot of rhetorical hand-waving for that claim.</p>
<p>Q: Does he get basic science correct, such as the significance of environment in phenotypic expression or the difference between genetically based diseases and nebulous traits like intelligence?</p>
<p>A: In several cases, no. Throughout <em>The Future of Human Nature</em>, Habermas treats genetic enhancement as simply the reverse process of preventing genetic diseases or that something like &#8220;intelligence&#8221; is programmable, and not at least partially a socially constructed category. Ugh.</p>
<p>Infuriatingly, Habermas, a brilliant mind and a wonderful political theorist, has come crashing through the brush to make a very complicated and very overwrought argument that boils down to: genetically engineering people are scary and those people will be different from the rest of us so we should really worry about it and probably not do it. Worse yet, his research barely qualifies him for the pejorative of dilettante.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m still picking apart Habermas arguments and trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but so far I&#8217;m disappointed. <em>The Future of Human Nature</em> needs one more re-read before final analysis. More to come.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.popbioethics.com/2009/11/dilettante-vs-synthesizer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

