Utopian Aspects of the Debate on Converging Technologies

The upcoming concept of converging technologies accentuates the coalescence of originally separated branches of science and technology. Tendencies of real technological convergence go along with a convergence of futuristic visions. Several of these visions have been deemed utopian or dystopian. Given this, and the historical importance of utopian thought, the article discusses utopian aspects of posthumanist technofuturism and the use of utopian and anti-utopian references in the ongoing debate on technological convergence. It will be argued that posthumanist visions function as common reference points in this debate and together form an intellectual repository for polemical and other purposes. Moreover, some possible consequences for the assessment of the ethical and societal implications of technological convergence will be addressed. 1 Posthumanism and the Convergence of Technofuturist Visions The emerging concept of converging technologies (CT) evolved mainly out of activities within the US National Nanotechnology Initiative. While the rise of nanotechnology was already marked by an increased awareness of the opportunities and challenges arising from new technoscientific synergies, the CT concept further accentuated the coalescence of originally distinct branches of science and technology (S&T). It became more widely known after the publication of a workshop report entitled “Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science” (Roco/Bainbridge 2002), the fields abbreviated as “NBIC”. The workshop, held in December 2001, was sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Commerce. This constellation and the participation of high-level politicians, scientists, and representatives of government institutions and private corporations created the impression that the “NBIC initiative” is an official US activity, which is, however, not the case. Nevertheless, CT initiatives subsequently started in Europe (HLEG 2004; cf. Coenen et al. 2004) and elsewhere. The debate is still mainly restricted to experts concerned with research and technology development (RTD) policy, to a few nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and to some active journalists. Two issues of discussion are (a) the prospects of enhancing or augmenting human cognitive and physical capabilities (“human enhancement”) and (b) the significance of the “technoimaginary” (including futurism and science fiction). These issues are prominent topics of the debate mainly because of the US NBIC initiative. Its program and cultural context reflect processes which can be deemed a convergence of visions from popular culture and various fields of S&T, above all the NBIC fields, including artificial intelligence (AI), robotics and brain science. Many of these visions are “technofuturistic” in the sense that they portray a future in which the human condition (and, in particular, human corporeality) and some features of societies are fundamentally transformed by technology. While technofuturism is certainly not a new phenomenon, it has apparently been experiencing a kind of revival since the 1980s; this is mainly true in the US, but also, if to a lesser degree, in Europe. Moreover, it exhibits rather unusual political characteristics, some of which will be analysed in this article. In recent years, futuristic visions have attracted growing attention in various fields of research, including that of interdisciplinary technology assessment in which the concept of “vision assessment” was developed (Grin, Grunwald 2000; Grunwald 2004). One element of this is the analysis of normative aspects of “visionary communication”, another, the study of the strategic use of visions by the actors involved in such communication (Grunwald 2006). It aims to help overcome the confrontation between doomsayers and enthusiasts, a problem that is often deemed a crucial challenge (e.g. Nowotny 2005; STOA 2006), by fostering ethically and historically informed discussions about the issues at stake. In the following, we summarise the findings of an ongoing assessment of futuristic visions in the debate on CT, with the focus on normative and strategic aspects. The findings primarily relate to the actor level and historical aspects, in particular to the way in which various actors relate “posthumanist” visions to the tradition of utopian thought. The reasons for selecting this subject for study are that (a) posthumanist technofuturism plays a crucial role in the visionary discourse on CT (and, in the view of some scholars, even contributes to a new model of