A side event to the 7th Multi-stakeholder Forum on Science, Technology, and Innovation for the Sustainable Development Goals (STI Forum), to be held on 5-6 May 2022 by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs - Sustainable Development.
Gihan S. Soliman
International Curricula Educators Association
Gender Equality in the Era of 'Human Augmentation': Technology Transfer for Conservation, Quality Education & Gender Equality; Case Studies from the Global South
WATCH VIDEO
Technology has surely enhanced human performance to an unprecedented level. Technology may
also have its downside in that it intensifies inequality among people, genders, species, and nations.
The 'Human Augmentation: The Dawn of a New Paradigm' is a recent publication by the UK Ministry
of Defence designed to set the foundations for more detailed research and development of Human
Augmentation. Human Augmentation [1], also known as, the Human Enhancement or Human 2.0 is
not in fact a new concept. What’s new, and indeed considered a paradigm shift, is that the
publication accepts Human Augmentation as a form of evolutionary advancement in the
Darwinian sense (as seen in the illustration). A concept that I presented back nine years ago in a
form of an Open Letter to the IUCN World Congress 2014 proposing that ‘We Are NOT just another
species’ [2] and that the correction of the human taxonomic identity is way overdue; that we are rather a
highly-complex kingdom of life, so to speak, comprising a biological, physical, and socioeconomic
entanglement that I called the Homocybernetica [3].
The issue with the Human Augmentation perspective, though, is that it reduces the evolutionary
advancement in the human organisation to a matter of ‘size’ with an implication that enhancement is
guaranteed. It also represents human beings as mere users of technology and subject to its
modification, disregarding the fundamental distinction as the ‘innovator’ or the maker of technology
and thus overlooking the role of communication and socio-economics, as well as justice and equality
in this evolution. Such disregard is alarming because technology is generally mediated by a
socio-economic system deeply rooted in inequality and competition and might, if not appropriately
addressed, continue to intensify injustice among people, genders and species - and that is a recipe for
failure in the long run. The more viable route is to focus on the unity of kind, the role of
communication, and the mobilisation of energy into our organisation through social and eco-friendly
innovation not necessarily as a moral choice but simply for survival.
We need to remember that the first form of technology was ‘making a fire’ and the first form of mass
technology was organic agriculture and that augmentation does not necessarily make us better, more
adaptive, or more efficient as the expression and illustration imply. Two study cases from Mexico (De la Chinampas) and
Bolivia (PROINPA) showed alternative technology integrated successfully into the community with other
non-invasive forms of technology to enhance production, social solidarity, and resilience while
preserving the environment and species.
Reference List:
[1] Human Augmentation – The Dawn of a New Paradigm. 2021.A think-piece designed to set the foundation for more detailed research and development on human augmentation. Ministry of Defence of the United Kingdom.
[2] G. Soliman. 2014.We are not Just another Species;An Open Letter to the IUCNWorld Park Congress 2014,Australia. International-Curricula Educators Association.Available at http://www.icea-global.org/Publications.html. Accessed on 03/05/22.
[3] G. Soliman. 2019.‘Cybernetic Recombination, on the Biology of Technology, Revisiting Linnaeus Kingdom Minerals’ in G.Soliman. 2022.The Cybernetic Animal & the Shortfall in Taxonomy.The Cybernetic Society.Available at https://cybsoc.org/?p=2206&fbclid=IwAR15hpQCu2bpGaaYULVsjjeDy3oklBA6YbZ6zksEOmi5QGXnTlNLuSuFlWA.Accessed on 03/05/22.
