98 research outputs found

    Ecolog铆a humana. Nuevos desaf铆os para la ecolog铆a y la filosof铆a

    Get PDF
    Current developments of ecology have opened up new challenges for contemporary philosophical reflection. In this sense, it is not possible to interpret human nature starting from the idea of the human being as being isolated from its environment. The paradigm of human ecology presented here, therefore, aims to inherit the reflections developed in the philosophy of nature (and also in the philosophy of human nature), proposing the current ecological crisis as an eminently anthropological issue: man鈥檚 place in the cosmos also indicates his essence. This task requires us to rethink the specificity of human beings in their relation to the world through the theme of dwelling, which invites us to reflect upon the activities of safeguarding and building the house. It thus becomes possible to consider the current ecological crisis as a predominantly anthropological crisis: to heal the wounds of the ecosystem, we must first heal the fracture within the human being itself.El desarrollo actual de la ecolog铆a ha abierto nuevos desaf铆os para la reflexi贸n filos贸fica contempor谩nea. En este sentido, ya no es posible interpretar la naturaleza humana a partir de una reflexi贸n sobre el hombre como un ser aislado de su ambiente. El paradigma de ecolog铆a humana que se presenta aqu铆 quiere heredar la reflexi贸n sobre la filosof铆a de la naturaleza (y tambi茅n sobre la filosof铆a de la naturaleza humana), proponiendo la cuesti贸n ecol贸gica actual como un tema eminentemente antropol贸gico: el lugar del hombre en el cosmos indica asimismo su esencia. Esta tarea nos obliga a replantear la especificidad del ser humano en relaci贸n con el mundo a trav茅s del tema del habitar, que nos invita a reflexionar sobre las actividades del custodiar y del construir la casa. Se hace as铆 posible replantear el tema ecol贸gico actual como una crisis predominantemente antropol贸gica: para sanar la herida del ecosistema, primero hay que curar la fractura dentro del hombre

    L鈥檌dea di natura in Arne N忙ss

    Get PDF
    The aim of the present paper is to analyze the idea of 鈥榥ature鈥 in the context of the 鈥楨cosophical thinking鈥 elaborated by Arne N忙ss, the 鈥榝ather鈥 of the Deep Ecology Movement. This analysis leads us to deepen the main characteristics of nature 鈥 i.e., richness, diversity, vitality, unity, etc. 鈥 and to identify the attribute of 鈥榩erfection鈥 as a synthetic point of all these dimensions. It is also argued that the idea of 鈥榥ature鈥 developed by N忙ss is substantially inspired by an interpretation of Baruch Spinoza鈥檚 Ethics. Finally, we highlight how this idea of nature is central in the work of the Norwegian philosopher, as it sustains the ethical, political and aesthetic implications outlined in the Deep Ecology Manifesto. In this regard, it is possible to understand N忙ss鈥檚 statement about the supremacy of environmental ontology and realism over environmental ethics

    Wearable Robots em fisioterapia: um passo na dire莽茫o de transumanismo ou um instrumento ecol贸gico?

    Get PDF
    In the present paper we want to argue that Wearable Robots (i.e., technological devices used to restore the possibility of walking and re-establishing 鈥渘ormal鈥 human life) should not necessarily be anthropomorphic, in order to respect human autonomy, freedom, and nature. Moreover, we argue that this non-anthropomorphism does not necessarily lead to transhumanism. To adequately discuss this topic, we are called to consider various aspects embedded in the question: the difference between restoring and enhancing, i.e., the difference between considering human nature as normative, or will (or wish) as the main criterion of choice; the difference between exceeding the limits of human nature (i.e., human enhancement) and restoring human functions; and, finally, the nature of the function itself. We will introduce a 鈥渨eak鈥 notion of autonomy and freedom, dealing with rehabilitation and motility, in order to assess the use of Wearable Robots in rehabilitative medicine. Hence we will argue that the less constraints that patients have, the freer they are. All these aspects also imply an anthropological and ecological view, since they have to do with the relationship of the human being with its environment.Keywords: human ecology, Wearable Robots, Transhumanism, anthropomorphism, Arne N忙ss, environment.No presente artigo, queremos discutir como o desenho de Wearable Robots, ou seja, dispositivos tecnol贸gicos utilizados para restaurar a possibilidade de caminhar e para restabelecer a vida humana 鈥渘ormal鈥, a fim de respeitar a autonomia, a liberdade ea natureza humana, n茫o devem necessariamente ser antropom贸rfico, n茫o 茅 necess谩rio que conduza a transumanismo. Para discutir adequadamente este tema, vamos considerar v谩rios aspectos da quest茫o: a diferen莽a entre restaurar e melhorar, ou seja, a diferen莽a entre considerar a natureza humana como normativa, ou a vontade (ou os desejos) como o principal crit茅rio de escolha; a diferen莽a entre a exceder os limites da natureza humana (ou seja, o human enhancement), e restaurar fun莽玫es humanas; a natureza da fun莽茫o em si. Vamos introduzir uma no莽茫o 鈥渇raca鈥 de autonomia e liberdade, que lidam com a reabilita莽茫o e mobilidade, a fim de avaliar o uso de Wearable Robots na medicina de reabilita莽茫o. Por isso vamos argumentar que as menos restri莽玫es os pacientes t锚m, mais livres que s茫o. Todos estes aspectos implicam tamb茅m uma ideia antropol贸gica e ecol贸gico, j谩 que t锚m a ver com a rela莽茫o do ser humano com seu ambiente.Palavras-chave: ecologia humana, wearable robots, transhumanismo, antropomorfismo, Arne N忙ss, ambiente

    El retorno de la naturaleza: la 茅tica ambiental y la cuesti贸n antropol贸gica contempor谩nea

    Get PDF
    Rethinking nature nowadays means to face the new perspectives developed by environmental ethics, i.e., the responses to the contemporary ecological crisis. The two main environmental paradigms, biocentrism and anthropocentrism, even before being ethical paradigms, are two anthropological visions developed from a certain idea of the position of human beings in the cosmos. In this sense, the purpose of this article is to highlight the fact the ecology is rooted in anthropology. In order to rethink the idea of nature, then, we have to reformulate our anthropological view, given the failure of the two main environmental paradigms at this theoretic level. Recebido: 06/7/2016Aceito: 30/6/2019Repensar la naturaleza en la 茅poca actual significa enfrentar las nuevas perspectivas desarrolladas por la 茅tica ambiental, es decir, las respuestas a la crisis ecol贸gica contempor谩nea. Los dos paradigmas ambientales principales, biocentrismo y antropocentrismo, antes que ser paradigmas 茅ticos son dos visiones antropol贸gicas desarrolladas a partir de una cierta idea del puesto del ser humano en el cosmos. En este sentido, el objeto de este art铆culo es destacar el hecho de que la ecolog铆a es una antropolog铆a y, debido a esto, para repensar la naturaleza tenemos que reformular nuestra visi贸n antropol贸gica, dada la insuficiencia a nivel te贸rico de los principales paradigmas ambientales. Recebido: 06/7/2016Aceito: 30/6/201

    La dimensi贸n religiosa de la ecolog铆a. La Ecolog铆a Profunda como paradigma

    Get PDF
    La cuesti贸n ecol贸gica se encuentra en el centro de muchos debates contempor谩neos y, 煤ltimamente, ha sido acogida dentro del 谩mbito de lo 鈥渞eligioso鈥, ya que la crisis ecol贸gica actual interroga nuestras visiones del mundo, obligando a preguntarnos sobre nuestra 鈥減osici贸n metaf铆sica en el cosmos鈥. Entre los otros paradigmas, la Ecolog铆a Profunda de N忙ss parece mantener una posici贸n privilegiada, ya que ha sabido destacar con extrema claridad cu谩les son los fundamentos religiosos de tal perspectiva: la visi贸n del mundo budista, la 茅tica de Gandhi, y una cosmolog铆a inmanente inspirada en la filosof铆a de Spinoza. Por todas estas razones, ser谩 interesante considerarla como 鈥渦n paradigma privilegiado鈥 en el v铆nculo entre ecolog铆a y religi贸n

    Tres tesis sobre el transhumanismo

    Get PDF
    In this article I will try to explain three theses, which, in my opinion, constitute the theoretical core of transhumanist philosophy, mainly dealing with 1) the evolution directed by technological means; 2) the limitation on human nature; and 3) perfection as a regulative moral idea. In order to properly address these theses, it is also necessary, in my opinion, to better characterize the difference between posthumanism and transhumanism.En el presente art铆culo tratar茅 de explicar tres tesis, que, en mi opini贸n, constituyen la m茅dula te贸rica de la filosof铆a transhumanista, y que se relacionan con 1) la evoluci贸n dirigida por los medios tecnol贸gicos; 2) la limitaci贸n de la naturaleza humana misma; y 3) la idea de perfecci贸n como ideal regulativo moral. Para poder abordar correctamente dichas tesis, adem谩s, es necesario, en mi opini贸n, caracterizar mejor la diferencia entre posthumanismo y transhumanismo

    Verdades y confianza en la 茅poca del transhumanismo

    Get PDF
    Nel presente articolo si analizzer脿 come, a fronte del paradigma transumanista che opera per una progressiva inclusione dell鈥檜omo nel suo stesso processo di 鈥榤iglioramento鈥 del mondo, 猫 sempre pi霉 pressante la domanda sulla dinamica tra verit脿 (truth) e fiducia (trust) nella relazione uomo-macchina e nella riflessione etica degli enti che orientano gli odierni processi di innovazione bio-tecnologica. Le visioni che emergono 鈥 frutto rispettivamente del paradigma transumanista e di un鈥檈cologia umana che restituisce all鈥檜omo il senso della sua storia e del suo vivere in relazione 鈥 non sono banalmente antitetiche: poggiano su due visioni dell鈥檜omo scientifico profondamente diverse. Si propone quindi che un modo costruttivo per coniugare verit脿 e fiducia nella nostra societ脿 contemporanea, dipender脿 sempre pi霉 dall鈥檌dea di uomo che con la scienza vogliamo servire, coniugando il progresso bio-tecnologico con l鈥檌ncompletezza biologica che caratterizza l鈥檜omo.In this paper we analyze how, despite to a transhumanist paradigm that looks for an inclusion of human beings in the enhancement process of the natural world, the question about truth and trust are more and more compelling in questioning the relationship between human beings and machines and the ethical reflection of those who lead the processes of biotech innovation. The emerging views 鈥搑espectively fruit of the transhumanist paradigm and of a human ecology that highlights the meaning of human biographies and relationships- are not merely antithetic. They rely upon different views of the human being that are profoundly different. We thus suggest that a constructive way in order to combine truth and trust in contemporary societies will depend upon the idea of man that we want to serve through science, combining the biotechnological progress with the biological incompleteness that characterizes human beings.Analizaremos c贸mo, ante el paradigma transhumanista, que intenta incluir al ser humano en el proceso de 鈥渕ejora鈥 del mundo, es cada vez m谩s apremiante la pregunta por la relaci贸n entre la verdad (truth) y la confianza (trust). Nos referimos a la relaci贸n entre una narrativa verdadera sobre la tecnolog铆a y la confianza que en dicha tecnolog铆a podemos depositar. Esta pregunta se plantea en el 谩mbito de la relaci贸n hombre-m谩quina, as铆 como en la reflexi贸n 茅tica sobre la innovaci贸n biotecnol贸gica. Emergen aqu铆 dos visiones, que no son simplemente antit茅ticas: la propia del paradigma transhumanista y la propia de una ecolog铆a humana que nos devuelve el sentido hist贸rico y social de nuestra vida. Estas dos visiones se corresponden tambi茅n con dos concepciones profundamente diferentes del ser humano. Entendemos, pues, que una forma constructiva de combinar la verdad y la confianza en nuestra sociedad contempor谩nea depender谩 cada vez m谩s de la idea de ser humano a la que la ciencia pretenda servir. Para servir realmente al ser humano, la ciencia habr谩 de combinar el progreso biotecnol贸gico con la incompletitud biol贸gica que nos caracteriza.Filosof铆

    Desarrollo humano sostenible: una visi贸n aristot茅lica

    Get PDF
    Sustainability is not a very useful parameter to evaluate the morality of an act, since it is an empty concept and it is linked with several heterogeneous matters. Meanwhile, the concept of sustainable development lacks specificity, as defined in terms of future needs, which are very difficult to predict. As a guide for our actions the concept of sustainable human development, formulated in terms of capabilities, philosophically grounded on an Aristotelian approach, will be more useful. This approach would also lead us to define a political theory for the common good, stating the centrality of the person in his entirety and complexity.La sostenibilidad, por s铆 misma, no es un criterio 煤til para evaluar la adecuaci贸n y moralidad de un acto, dado que se trata de un concepto abierto, necesitado de conexi贸n con diversos elementos heterog茅neos. Por su parte, el concepto de desarrollo sostenible carece de concreci贸n, pues se define en t茅rminos de necesidades futuras de muy dif铆cil predicci贸n. Como gu铆a de nuestras acciones ser谩 m谩s 煤til el concepto de desarrollo humano sostenible, formulado en t茅rminos de capacidades, fundamentado filos贸ficamente en un enfoque aristot茅lico. Dicho enfoque nos permite definir una teor铆a pol铆tica del bien com煤n, centrada en la persona, con toda su integridad y complejidad

    Gene drives, mosquitoes, and ecosystems: an interdisciplinary approach to emerging ethical concerns

    Get PDF
    Gene drives are genetic elements that in sexually reproducing organisms spread faster than those transmitted through a Mendelian fashion. Since gene drives can be engineered to modify different aspects of physiology and reproduction, they have been proposed as a new and revolutionary tool to control vector-borne diseases, particularly those transmitted by the genera Anopheles and Aedes (Culicidae), such as malaria, Dengue and Zika virus. This approach may impact on human health by lowering the transmission of such devastating diseases. However, the release of genetically modified mosquitos (or other species) into the environment raises a series of questions related to the still incipient technology and our present understanding of the complex structure and dynamics of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Moreover, there are ethical concerns about human interventions in natural ecosystems that may eventually impact our way of living or the ecosystems themselves. This work is an interdisciplinary approach that analyzes from a biological, philosophical, and theological perspective the potential ecological impacts on natural environments of the release of genetically modified species, focusing on gene drive-modified mosquitos. It includes theological approach from a Catholic point of view (although it could be easily shared by other Christians) because we hold that world religions give valuable insights even though not everyone may share their groundings. We conclude that the focal problem is the relationship between humans and nature, and the release of genetically modified species may change this relationship unpredictably. However, given the complex interactions in ecosystems, new approaches such as Earth Stewardship principles could provide new and more widely accepted answers involving biological, philosophical, and theological concepts that will help engaging all relevant actors to make a better world
    corecore