Education

‘Scientists and philosophers need each other’

Supporters and detractors of human enhancement are engaged in a great debate about ‘improving’ mankind. Dr Ciano Aydin, a professor at the TPM faculty, perceives in both camps the dogged influence of old philosophical ideas.

Dr Ciano Aydin (1972) holds the Thomas More Chair at the faculty of Technology, Policy and Management. In this new position, the endowed professor focuses on “philosophy and the applied sciences in relation to Christian beliefs”. The Thomas More Chair is funded by the Roman Catholic foundation. Dr Aydin, a psychologist and philosopher, is a member of the Syrian Orthodox church and of Aramaic descent. He was born in Nusaybin, a border town in southeastern Turkey. His parents emigrated to the Netherlands as refugees. Aydin obtained his PhD in 2003 writing on Nietzsche’s deconstruction of the notion of substance. As professor of philosophy and engineering, he is currently focusing on the concepts of human enhancement and transhumanism – the idea that technology and technological development can overcome mankind’s biological shortcomings and weaknesses.

You were raised in the Syrian-Orthodox church. How has the church’s traditions influenced your own work?
“As a boy it was often a trial for me to spend three days a week on Bible exegesis, but in this way I learned to devote time to texts, to read closely and patiently. And as for the ideas therein: I do feel an affinity for the 4th century poet, Ephrem the Syrian, one of the inspirers of the Syrian-Orthodox Church. He always said that he could not say anything about God, because this went beyond the borders of his own understanding. And yet he still wanted to explore this area. That’s something I recognize. One primarily explores by asking questions. As soon as somebody claims to have all the answers, I start to feel uneasy.”

In a recent article you stated that discussions about human enhancement are partly determined by the implicit assumptions found in the work of Descartes and Kant. Is it possible to use philosophies dating from the 17th and 18th centuries to unravel the moral dilemmas associated with modern issues like genetic engineering, smart drugs and brain implants?
“It’s good to inform the discussion with what certain philosophers have said about subjects that we’re now wrestling with. Otherwise we’ll very naively reinvent the wheel. But indeed some concepts are no longer sufficient. Take for example the idea of responsibility: for centuries philosophers linked that to the individual. But today in fact we deal with complex organizations. Actions and responsibilities are more involved with networks and relationships between people. We therefore must develop new ethics. To do this, scientists and philosophers really need each other.”

In the debate between transhumanists and bioconservatives (critics of human enhancement – ed.), you cite the old idea that there is a strict separation between mind and matter, between man and the external world. According to this view, man has an autonomous ego that unassailably hovers over empirical reality.
“My thesis is that with this concept, Descartes tried to defuse a crisis in thought. Old certainties were faltering in the face of new scientific insights, journeys of discovery, the Reformation. Descartes said: the external, empirical reality may well now be a source of uncertainty, but we can still find truth by investigating our own thoughts. You can sail blindly in the inner world. That was a radical, somewhat contorted attempt to once again exert control over reality. The material world was totally torn loose from the spiritual world. Those who wanted to make adequate statements about reality were dependent on their inner world, because that was pure, uncontaminated by empirical influences.”

And so the ‘autonomous ego’ does not exist?
“No. And therefore I find some bioconservatives’ arguments against human enhancement less convincing. The fear that human enhancement threatens a person’s uniqueness often stems from the concept of the unchanging, autonomous spirit. A concept that also quickly leads to an aversion to new technologies. In reality there is a continuous interaction between you and the external world. There is no immovable wall in between. And because technology, in recent centuries, increasingly determines the external world, our identities in turn are increasingly determined by our interactions with technology. That technological development is altering our self-image is nothing new. When the first steam trains were introduced, people thought: this can’t be healthy, such high speeds go against human nature.”

People change with the technology. Thus we can take all objections to human enhancement off the table?
“No. I don’t say that you must embrace all new technologies uncritically. But we must be critical based on adequate arguments. If you say: ‘no human enhancement, because that goes against human nature’, you must explain what you mean by that. Is human nature something pure and unchanging? Or rather something for which we constantly develop new ideas?” 

Translation: David McMullin

De aardappeleters
Hoe zat het ook alweer? Schillen, een vingerkootje water erboven en dan koken – maar hoe lang eigenlijk? Doe het makkelijk: stop je aardappels in de magnetron. Laagje water erbij (ze hoeven zeker niet onder te staan) en vier minuten op vol vermogen. Nóg makkelijker: doe hetzelfde met een paar grote, ongeschilde aardappelen (wel gewassen natuurlijk) en serveer er knoflooksaus bij.
Toch maar de ouderwetse manier? Een klontje boter in de pan voorkomt overkoken, en dus extra schoonmaakwerk. Wat overblijft houd je in een laagje koud water trouwens nog dagen goed in de koelkast.

Pimp it
Blijf realistisch: elke chef-kok is klein begonnen. Waarom pizzadeeg kneden als je kant-en-klare bodems kunt kopen? En wilde jij echt tomaten pellen als de gepelde uit blik net zo lekker zijn? De kunst zit ‘m in het pimpen. Met wat (verse) kruiden bijvoorbeeld en de favoriete toppings van je date. Wist je trouwens dat je tenen knoflook gewoon ongepeld in de knijper kunt stoppen? Pas wel op waarmee je sjoemelt: aardappelpuree uit een pakje is veel minder lekker dan the real thing, en fruit uit blik kan écht niet bij je toetje dat naar meer moet smaken…

Keep it simple
Beter één overheerlijk, simpel gerecht, dan vijf gangen mislukking. Probeer eens een goede stamppot, nu je alles weet van aardappels. De Hollandse keuken is onderschat, en bij een kaarsje reuze romantisch. Maar het allermooiste: het kan eigenlijk niet mislukken.

Ojee, we zijn de boodschappen vergeten
Geeft niks. Er ligt vast nog wel wat verlepte groente in de koelkast. Kwestie van de lelijke stukken eraf snijden, de left-overs besprenkelen met koud water en in een theedoek een uurtje in de koelkast leggen. Ook nog wat oude patat over? Mooi! Even in de oven en hij is weer net zo lekker als eerst. Gaat trouwens ook op voor chips.
Ten slotte: als je achter in de vriesla echt geen verdwaalde visstick meer kunt vinden en er geen ham meer is om je groenten in te wikkelen, is er altijd nog de gebakken plak kaas. Klein beetje natmaken, door bloem en paneermeel (of fijngemaakt beschuit) halen en bakken in lekker veel boter. Hmmm…

Ik snij alcoholvrij
Geen diner zonder borrel vooraf. Maar wacht even voor je echt losgaat. Zo’n vleesmes is best scherp na een paar biertjes, en bovendien proef je na vijf glazen niet meer of je eten lekker is. Dat kan voor je gezelschap natuurlijk een pluspunt zijn (vergeet dus niet tijdig bij te schenken)…

Morning after
Maar ja, nobody’s perfect. Dus wat nu te doen met je zwartgeblakerde pannen? Zet ze een nacht in een laagje azijn, of warm water met een theelepel soda. Ga je voor snel resultaat? Een staalspons doet wonderen. Nog beter: ruil de restjes van je diner met je huisgenoten (die hebben vast ook iemand om indruk op te maken) tegen een flinke schoonmaakbeurt. 

Mocht het na dit alles toch nog fout gaan:

Editor Redactie

Do you have a question or comment about this article?

delta@tudelft.nl

Comments are closed.