Pablo García-Barranquero

This paper explores a line of concern underrepresented in the emerging debate about sex robots, arguing for caution in their development. Today’s sex robots cannot suffer because they lack sentience. However, future sex robots that may be sentient could suffer harm due to precedents set today regarding behaviors toward their non-sentient predecessors. The challenge emerges from our lack of philosophically uncontested criteria for sentience in a robot. This paper discusses the phenomenon of spillover, described by Robert Nozick as a situation in which members of one moral category are treated in ways appropriate to another. In the case of sex robots, spillover occurs when robots that could be sentient are treated in ways appropriate to robots that are certainly not sentient. Sex robots could cause harmful spillover.

El debate filosófico y científico sobre la extensión de la vida está polarizado entre dos visiones: una forma de prolongación débil y otra fuerte. Ambas se distinguen en función de la proximidad a la edad de Jeanne Calment o, lo que es lo mismo, a la máxima duración de la vida en la especie humana. En este artículo, evaluaré esta distinción y propondré otra alternativa para pensar en las posibilidades de prolongación de la vida. Para ello, primero revisaré cinco conceptos clave en la literatura científica, ya que algunos de ellos son interpretados erróneamente por los autores que defienden esta distinción. Una distinción que adolece además de una falla importante: la incapacidad de reconocer que la duración máxima de la vida no es un número fijo de años y que no existen argumentos sólidos para garantizar que ese sea el límite de la longevidad humana. También indicaré que estos autores no captan adecuadamente el aspecto principal que nos interesa cuando tratamos de mejorar la calidad de vida a lo largo de nuestra existencia.

Geroscience and philosophy of aging have tended to focus their analyses on the biological and chronological dimensions of aging. Namely, one ages with the passage of time and by experiencing the cellular-molecular deterioration that accompanies this process. However, our concept of aging depends decisively on the social valuations held about it. In this article, we will argue that, if we study social aging in the contemporary world, a novel phenomenon can be identified: the paradox of aging in the digital era. If the social understanding of aging today is linked to unproductivity and obsolescence; then there is a possibility that, given the pace of change of digital technologies, we become obsolete at an early chronological and biological age, and therefore, feel old at a younger age. First, we will present the social dimension of aging based on Rowe and Kahn's model of successful aging. We will also show that their notion of social aging hardly considers structural aspects and weakens their approach. Second, departing from social aging in its structural sense, we will develop the paradox of aging in the digital era. On the one hand, we will explain how the institutionalization of aging has occurred in modern societies and how it is anchored in the concepts of obsolescence and productivity. On the other hand, we will state the kind of obsolescence that digitalization produces and argue that it can make cohorts of biologically and chronologically young individuals obsolete, and thus they would be personally and socially perceived as old.

In the philosophical debate on aging, it is common to raise the question of the theoretical definition of aging in terms of its possible characterization as a disease. Understanding aging as a disease seems to imply its medicalization, which has important practical consequences. In this paper, we analyze the question of whether aging is a disease by appealing to the concept of disease in the philosophy of medicine. As a result of this analysis, we argue that a pragmatist approach to the conception of disease is the best alternative to highlight the relevance of the medicalization of aging. From this pragmatist perspective, it can be seen that the notion of aging is going through a conceptual change, and aging can today be understood as a not radically different process from any other condition that is usually considered a disease.

This chapter discusses the question of whether we will ever have an Artificial General Superintelligence (AGSI) and how it will affect our species if it does so. First, it explores various proposed definitions of AGSI and the potential implications of its emergence, including the possibility of collaboration or conflict with humans, its impact on our daily lives, and its potential for increased creativity and wisdom. The concept of the Singularity, which refers to the hypothetical future emergence of superintelligent machines that will take control of the world, is also introduced and discussed, along with criticisms of this concept. Second, it is considered the possibility of mind uploading (MU) and whether such MU would be a suitable means to achieve (true) immortality in this world—the ultimate goal of the proponents of this approach. It is argued that the technological possibility of achieving something like this is very remote, and that, even if it were ever achieved, serious problems would remain, such as the preservation of personal identity. Third, the chapter concludes arguing that the future we create will depend largely on how well we manage the development of AI. It is essential to develop governance of AI to ensure that critical decisions are not left in the hands of automated decision systems or those who create them. The importance of such governance lies not only in avoiding the dystopian scenarios of a future AGSI but also in ensuring that AI is developed in a way that benefits humanity.

The possibility of curing aging is currently generating hopes and concerns among entrepreneurs, experts, and the general public. This article aims to clarify some of the key assumptions of the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence agenda, one of the most prominent paradigms for rejuvenation. To do this, we present the three fundamental claims of this research program: (1) aging can be repaired; (2) rejuvenation is possible through the reversal of all molecular damage; (3) and the human organism is a sophisticated machine. Secondly, we argue that this agenda fits with a machine conception of the organism (described by Daniel Nicholson); we show that, if aging is understood from this philosophical approach, there is an internal confusion in the research program between what is repair and what is rejuvenation. Finally, we state that this theoretical viewpoint connects with scientific criticism and reinforces the idea that there are limits to the aspirations to live indefinitely young.

Philosophical concern for the human future is more important today than ever because of the ethical, social, and technological challenges we face—Human Enhancement (HE) and Transhumanism (H+) are some of the theories that are involved with the future of our species. These two positions tend to be confused, but we contend that a distinction can and should be made between the two approaches. To perform this explanation, we propose two axes of differentiation: the concept of enhancement itself and the valuation of the biological body. In this context, H+ begins with a disregard for the body and seeks to transcend the human condition with exponential enhancements, while HE advocates a gradual enhancement within our current limits. Clarifying this contrast between H+ and HE is vital for the responsible adoption of future technologies, enabling informed decisions about which scientific promises are viable and worthy of support, and which should be reconsidered.

Biomedical innovations are making possible the enhancement of human capabilities. There are two philosophical stances on the role that medicine should play in this respect. On the one hand, naturalism rejects every medical intervention that goes beyond preventing and treating disease. On the other hand, welfarism advocates enhancements that foster subjective well-being. We will show that both positions have considerable shortcomings. Consequently, we will introduce a third characterization in which therapies and enhancements can be reconciled with the legitimate objectives of medicine inasmuch as they improve the capabilities that enable the freedom to pursue personal well-being.

We have recently stated the reasons why we claim that biological ageing is undesirable. Räsänen has responded to our article by arguing that this process has certain desirable aspects and, therefore, our position is inconsistent. Räsänen develops two arguments to defend his position. We will call the first the argument from the totality of the ageing process and the second the argument from the reduced goods of the ageing process. In this reply, we will give reasons to show that both arguments fail. The first, on the one hand, starts from a dubious conception of ageing and, on the other hand, even accepting this conception, its reformulation is morally empty. The second incurs in an absurd conclusion.

Susan B. Levin argues that the human confidence that an ageless body would be better is irrational. She offers a Kantian-inspired argument to show that human understanding cannot rationally access the experiences of a post-human and ageless existence. We challenge this rationale with a three-step argument: first, an ageless body does not have to be post-human. One should distinguish between the transhumanist projects of life extension and accounts focused on enhancing well-being and quality of life. An existence without aging does not require a radical change in one's temporal intuitions, which makes rational discussion possible. Second, we defend that biological aging does not entail any valuable goods. These goods refer to the chronological dimension of aging. Finally, we argue that biological aging is indeed negative and one may need biotechnological interventions in aging to achieve internal transcendence. Thus, we rationally argue that an ageless body would be better.

The covid-19 pandemic has revealed a partially forgotten vulnerability. This very hostile period has made us more aware of the finitude of our life as well as the dangers to which we are exposed as the biological organisms that we are. Faced with such a panorama, transhumanism has taken advantage of this situation to claim, more forcefully than ever, the benefits that the application of technologies on human beings could have. Yet, at the same time, opponents of this movement have pointed out, with equal intensity, how the pandemic has wakened many of its promises. We show how both the former and the latter continue to hold radically different positions regarding how to address vulnerability. However, both have seen the pandemic as an opportunity to highlight what should be the right direction for the future of our species. This event, which is not rooted in the field of science-fiction, could be decisive in rethinking the great challenges that await us.

The technical possibilities of biomedicine open up the opportunity to intervene in ageing itself with the aim of mitigating, reducing or eliminating it. However, before undertaking these changes or rejecting them outright, it is necessary to ask ourselves if what would be lost by doing so really has much value. This article will analyse the desirability of ageing from an individual point of view, without circumscribing this question to the desirability or undesirability of death. First, we will present the three most widely used arguments to reject biomedical interventions against ageing. We will argue that only the last of these arguments provides a consistent answer to the question of the desirability of ageing. Second, we will show that the third argument falls prey to a conceptual confusion that we will call the paradox of ageing: although ageing entails negative health effects, it leads to a life stage with valuable goods. Both valuations, one positive and the other negative, refer to two different dimensions of ageing: the chronological and the biological. We will defend that, by not adequately distinguishing these two types of ageing, it does not become apparent that all the valuable goods exclusive to ageing derive only from its chronological dimension. Third, we will argue that, if we just conceive ageing biologically, it is undesirable. We will elaborate on the two kinds of undesirable effects biological ageing has: direct and indirect. Finally, we will respond to potential objections by adducing that these are insufficient to weaken our argument.

This paper offers new arguments to reject the alleged dream of immortality. In order to do this, I firstly introduce an amendment to Michael Hauskeller’s approach of the “immortalist fallacy”. I argue that the conclusion “we do not want to live forever” does not follow from the premise “we do not want to die”. Next, I propose the philosophical turn from “normally” to “under these circumstances” to resolve this logical error. Then, I review strong philosophical critiques of this transhumanist purpose of immortality in the literature. There are two key questions related to the possibility of fulfilling this goal: the hard problem of consciousness and the personal identity dilemma. Finally, I defend a specific type of indefinite life and justify that it is more desirable than our current limited life.