Home → Releases → 2023, №3 (47) →

COMPARISON OF THE CATEGORIES OF HUMAN IMPROVEMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF BIO-TECHNOLOGIES AND IMPROVEMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF EDUCATION

Philosophy of Education , UDC: [37+572]:101 DOI: 10.25688/2078-9238.2023.47.3.7

Authors

  • Gumarova Anastasiya Nikolaevna

Annotation

The article presents an analysis of the differences between the categories of educational improvement of personality and biotechnological improvement of human nature. The thesis about the identity of the goals of education and technological improvement of a person is used by supporters of the widespread use of neurotechnologies to influence human cognitive functions. Based on the materials of bioethics and philosophy of education, it is shown that the essence of education and the essence of biotechnological improvement differ in terms of the value content of practices; according to the criterion of anthropological ideas; according to the criterion of individual autonomy; according to the criterion of belonging to society. It is concluded that the justification for the admissibility and limitations of the use of biotechnological improvement of human nature in the process of education must necessarily correlate with the goals and ideals of education.
Tags:
Bioethics , biotechnology , human enhancement , neuroethics , Philosophy of education , social and humanitarian expertise

How to link insert

Gumarova, A. N. (2023). COMPARISON OF THE CATEGORIES OF HUMAN IMPROVEMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF BIO-TECHNOLOGIES AND IMPROVEMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF EDUCATION Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", 2023, №3 (47), 78. https://doi.org/10.25688/2078-9238.2023.47.3.7
References
1. 1. Bryzgalina, E. V. (2016). Tekhnonauka i perspektivy uluchsheniya cheloveka: «ya uzhe vizhu nash mir, kotoryi pokryt pautinoi laboratorii» [Echnoscience and prospects for improving human: «I can see our world which is covered by a net of laboratories»]. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2 (48). (In Russian). Retrieved from https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/tehnonauka-i-perspektivy-uluchsheniya-cheloveka-ya-uzhe-vizhu-nashmir-kotoryy-pokryt-pautinoy-laboratoriy
2. 2. Gessen, S. I. (1995). Osnovy pedagogiki. Vvedenie v prikladnuyu filosofiyu [Fundamentals of Pedagogy. Introduction to Applied Philosophy]. Moscow: Shkola-Press. 448 p. (In Russian).
3. 3. Grebenshchikova, E. G., & Tishchenko, P. D. (2019). Sotsial`no-eticheskie problemy biotekhnologicheskogo uluchsheniya cheloveka [Socio-ethical problems of biotechnological human improvement]. Chelovek, 1, 180–183. (In Russian).
4. 4. Bryzgalina, E. V., & Gumarova, A. N. (2022). A. N. Neiroetika: diskussii o predmete [Neuroethics: discussions about the subject]. Epistemologiya & filosofiya nauki, 1, 136–153. (In Russian).
5. 5. Dewey, J. (2000). Demokratiya i obrazovanie [Democrasy and Education]. Translated from English. Moscow: Pedagogika-Press. 382 p. (In Russian).
6. 6. Zen`kovskii, V. V. (1993). Problemy vospitaniya v svete khristianskoi antropologii [Problems of education in the light of Christian anthropology]. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Svatovladimirskogo bratstva. 122 p. (In Russian).
7. 7. Illich, I. (2006). Osvobozhdenie obshchestva ot shkol. Proportsional`nost` i sovremennyi mir [The liberation of society from schools. Proportionality and the modern world.]. Moscow: Prosveshenie. 149 p. (In Russian).
8. 8. Kant, I. (1980). Traktaty i pis`ma [Treatises and letters]. Moscow: Nauka. 709 p. (In Russian).
9. 9. Zakharova, O. A., Sadovaya, I. I., Romanov, V. V., Fat`yanov, S. O. (2021). Konkurentsiya v obrazovanii — osnova progressa [Competition in education is the basis of progress]. In: Science in the innovation process: Proceedings of the international scientific and practical conference, Moscow, 01–02 December 2021. Moscow: Institute for the Development of Science of the Russian Academy of Sciences. P. 135–138. (In Russian).
10. 10. Popova, O. V. (2021). Telo kak territoriya tekhnologiy: ot sotsialnoy inzhenerii k etike biotekhnologicheskogo konstruirovaniya [The body as a territory of technology: from social engineering to the ethics of biotechnological design]. Monograph. Moscow: Kanon+. 336 p. (In Russian).
11. 11. Sandakova, L. B. (2020). O spetsifike pravovykh i eticheskikh voprosov vnedreniya neirotekhnologii v obrazovanie detei [On the specifics of legal and ethical issues of introducing neurotechnologies into the education of children]. In: Social ontology of Russia. Coll. scientific Art. according to the reports of 14 All-Russian Kopylov readings. Novosibirsk: Publishing house of NSTU. P. 290–301. (In Russian).
12. 12. Freire, P. (2018). Pedagogika ugnetennykh. [Pedagogy of the oppressed]. Moscow. (In Russian).
13. 13. Foucault, M. (1999). Nadzirat` i nakazyvat`. Rozhdenie tyur`my [Supervise and punish. The birth of the prison]. Moscow: Ad Marginem. 478 p. (In Russian).
14. 14. Habermas, Y. (2002). Budushchee chelovecheskoi prirody. Na puti k liberal`noi evgenike? [The future of human nature. Towards liberal eugenics?]. Moscow: Ves` mir. 144 p. (In Russian).
15. 15. Yudin, B. G. (2018). Chelovek: vykhod za predely [Human: Beyond the borders]. Ed. by G. B. Yudin. Moscow: ProgressTraditsiya. 472 p. ISBN: 978-5-89826-517-5. (In Russian).
16. 16. Yudin, B. G. (2016). Chelovek kak ob`ekt, potrebitel` i mishen` tekhnonauki [Man as an object, consumer and target of technoscience]. Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie, 5, 5–22. (In Russian). Retrieved from https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/chelovek-kak-obekt-potrebiteli-mishen-tehnonauki
17. 17. Yudin, G. B. (2019). Kommunitaristskii kriterii dlya bioetiki [Communitarian criterion for bioethics]. Eticheskaya mysl`, 1, 35–48. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21146/2074-4870-2019-19-1-36-48
18. 18. Buchanan, A. (2011). Better than human. The promise and perils of enhancing ourselves. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Р. 146.
19. 19. Buchanan, A. (2011). Cognitive enhancement and education. Theory and Research in Education, 9 (2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878511409623
20. 20. De Jongh, R., Bolt, I., Schermer, M., & Olivier, B. (2008). Botox for the brain: enhancement of cognition, mood and pro-socialbehavior and blunting of unwanted memories. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 32, 760–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.12.001
21. 21. Drerup, J. (2019). Education and the Ethics of Neuro-enhancement (S. K. Nagel (Ed.)). Shaping Children: Advances in Neuroethics. Switzerland: Springer Nature AG. P. 125–142.
22. 22. Gillies, V., Edwards, R., & Horsley, N. (2016). Brave new brains: sociology, family and the politics of knowledge. Sociological Review, 64 (2), 219–237.
23. 23. Henry, G., Sahakian, B., Harris, J., Kessler, R. C., Gazzaniga, M., Campbell, Ph., & Farah, M. J. (2008). Towards Responsible Use of Cognitive-Enhancing Drugs by the Healthy. Nature, 456, 702–705. https://doi.org/10.1038/456702a
24. 24. Sandel, M. (2007). The case against perfection. Ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Cambridge, MA: Belknap press, 162 p.
25. 25. Wurzman, R., Hamilton, R. H., Pascual-Leone, A., & Fox, M. D. (2016). An open letter concerning do-it-yourself users of transcranial direct current stimulation. Annals of Neurology, 80, 1–4. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27216434
Download file .pdf 390.98 kb