Who Should Govern the Welfare State 2.0? A Comment on Fuller

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Abstrakt

In his thought-provoking exploration of the future of humanity, Steve Fuller envisages a new and strengthened role for the welfare state. The future transhumanist society will be inhabited by increasingly segregated classes of biological species, some of which have been successful in enhancing their biological condition beyond evolutionary determination. Others, however, will be trapped in Humanity 1.0 with no hope of getting access to expensive biomedical products or genetic services. Fuller emphasizes the “proactionary principle” as a new welfare model in which the benefits from risky experiments are redistributed to the wider society through taxation and compensation. Still, the basic philosophical question remains: what is the basis of solidarity between Humans 1.0 and Humans 2.0 in a world where citizens no longer will share a common biological condition. Distributive justice is key to Fuller’s proactionary ethics. In this comment, I examine the foundation of justice as outlined by Fuller. I propose a new set of political positions for the post-biological age (i) biolibertarianism, (ii) bioegalitarianism and (iii) bioutilitarianism
OriginalsprogDansk
TidsskriftSocial Epistemology Review and Reply Collective
Vol/bind2
Udgave nummer12
Sider (fra-til)51-59
Antal sider9
StatusUdgivet - 20 nov. 2013
Udgivet eksterntJa

Citationsformater