Technological and pharmaceutical discoveries and research continue to stimulate philosophical reflection, outlining new scenarios. One of these is the so-called “transhuman and posthuman movement.” It has long been the focus of media attention. Various understandings of the two terms and what differentiates them pose some difficulties. Depending on the authors and their fields of expertise, the perspectives presented vary considerably, a sign of the fluidity that increasingly characterizes today’s cultural landscape.
Here, having to choose, we first of all distinguish between the practical-applicative sphere and the theory underlying it. In other words, the possible applications of the new findings are not the exclusive property of these trains of thought, although they can certainly become a channel for a new anthropological vision.
The transhumanist movement was born from discoveries and applications in the digital and biotechnological field, in particular from the confluence of four research directions: nanotechnology; biotechnology; information technology and cognitive sciences, all summarized by the acronym NBIC. It focuses on the potential that these could represent for human beings: in medicine (helping to shape an increasingly efficient body, not subject to disease, aging and death), in the cognitive and computer sciences (enhanced memory and intelligence through the insertion of special microchips or even the transfer from the biological to non-biological), and in robotics.
One of its theorists, philosopher Fereidoun M. Esfandiary, explained his decision to change his name to FM-2030 in these terms: “2030 reflects my conviction that the years around 2030 will be a magical time. In 2030 we will be ageless and everyone will have an excellent chance to live forever. 2030 is a dream and a goal.”