ENG 216: 3rd Application Paper

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
Unhid

eWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Colorful Grid Accent 1″ />

<w:LsdException Locked=”false” Priority=”65″ SemiHidden=”false”
UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium List 1 Accent 6″ />

The Human in Posthumanism

The world as we know it has ended. Vast scenes of destruction lay in all directions. The pale sun glints off the cold, silver, mechanical bodies of the populace. Humans are gone and the machines have taken over. Yet, it could be argued, despite their lack of flesh, blood and bone, these walking, talking, thinking machines are the new humanity, the humans in the posthumanist world.

In Neil Badmington’s article “Theorizing Posthumanism,” he states that when talking about posthumanism most people want a firm break, a world where there is no humanity. The majority of the populace does not want to look at the humanity that is not quite human and believe them to be the human equivilant. I think the real question is, what is it that makes the human, human? If it is the ability to think logically and rationally (that which is supposed to be the factor that “distinguishes” man from the animals), lying strictly within our minds, our bodies having no bearing, it is strictly how we think. If this is the case, then shouldn’t those thinking, even with an artificial intelligence, be considered part of humanity? Thought, according to Badmington’s article “takes place within a certain tradition,” it is only in this form that thought can take place, creating that which is humanity. So, as long as even the non-human is thinking in this tradition, the thinking itself lends humanity to the thinker.

If it is the ability to think freely and rationally that deems what is human, I believe Kurt Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron” becomes a comment on Posthumanism. Despite the characters being actual humans, they have lost the ability to think logically and rationally. In the name of equality everyone is saddled with “handicaps,” whether they are physical or mental. They even employ the use of masks as handicaps, hiding the human faces of those forced to wear them, this too works to take away the human element. These handicaps strive to take away that which serves to make an individual a true individual. In essence, it takes away their very humanity.

Badmington’s article discusses the idea that Posthumanism forgets humans own ability to come back from the brink of a posthuman existence. I believe it is that very thought which is demonstrated in Vonnegut’s story by the title character. Despite Harrison’s forced handicaps, he refuses to become part of the non-thinking, non-acting world. There is still that spark of what it is to actually “be” human within him, and he will not fall victim to becoming part of the posthuman world and give up the ability to think freely.  </s

pan>The majority of the populace, Harrison’s parent’s included, accept what they have been made, much like the automaton would in a posthumanist world. Not thinking of what the world should or could be like, just simply existing in a state of non-thought and non-action. Harrison still possesses the human conscious, the human ability to think freely, despite the handicaps that have been set in place to make him like everyone else.

No matter how much one attempts to remove humanity and create a posthumanist condition, some element of humanity is going to creep its way back into existence. “I think, therefore I am,” the very essence of humanity is the ability to think. Whether you have a thinking automaton society or one that is forced into non-thought, the human element is going to exist somewhere, if only on a minute level. The human element is going to do what it can to re-establish its existence.