
75
Filosofía, Artes y Letras
by “Yes to engineering for the mind and body.” This
slogan clearly summarizes our transversal propos-
al and situates transhumanism within the specu
-
lative imagination associated with enhancement.
1989, and indeed, new relationships position us at
least to conceive of it as “someone who, by virtue of
the use of technology, cultural values, and lifestyle,
forms an evolutionary bond.” And that is, or would
be, the great difference between the human and the
non-human—the conscious and assertive sense that
we are human, the interlocutors and guarantors of
that. It is necessary, as we point out, to remember
that the richness of AI, its incalculable appeal, lies in
the fact that it allows us to communicate, learn, and
ultimately interact with other human beings who
are making the same use of freedom and resources
as we are—a meeting place.
-
work, emerges where, as Gabriel (2020) notes, “we
will never be able to replace the Black Forest with
to the territory” (p. 85). This is not a matter of com-
parison but rather of recognizing that technoscien-
and digitalization—must ultimately be implemented
within schools, with educators serving as guaran
-
tors that these processes deepen understanding,
foster development, and prepare individuals for a
better life. In this respect, Martínez Díez (2021),
in Humans, Simply Humans: Challenges of Trans-
humanism, underscores this intermediate point
we have referred to—one that education cannot
overlook. For instance, would becoming transhu-
man enhance factors such as memory, health, and
well-being, thereby making us more educationally
Clearly, we are living in an era of change and
adaptation—an era in which we must embrace the
strong, and often neglected, words and ideas that
Easterling (2014) presents in Extrastatecraft: “Some
of the most radical changes in the globalized world
cited in Berardi, 2021, p. 63). Refusing applications
p. 27). Equality of opportunity must be pursued
while ensuring fairness for all; and lastly, though by
no means least, responsibility—especially in times
of complexity—requires establishing clear criteria
for when and how the use of AI is appropriate in
academic work and educational projects.
In fact, the European Council itself established
-
tives are particularly interesting: “... Ensure that AI
respects fundamental rights (freedom, equality, jus-
tice...)” and “Ensure a trustworthy and responsible
use of AI.” In this regard, although earlier, Habermas
envisioned a world of possibilities, proposing: “the
-
moral be erment.” (Habermans, 2005, p.164). The
moral, the social—terms that clarify the distance
between human capacity and that which emanates
from emerging technologies. We fully agree with
Hottois (2013, p.179): “I do not conceive of blind
and irresponsible optimism,” nor is it about oppos-
ing certain Enlightenment ideals such as freedom,
solidarity, rationality, progress, and integration.
25
The following statement comes to mind: “No to
the engineering of the mind and body”
26
, followed
25
. While we are not going to focus on this, it is worth
highlighting that as a process, it inherently involves a
whole set of programmed and structured intentions,
from human awareness.
26
. “By physically altering or enhancing the human brain”
(p. 42). Excerpted from Converging Technologies for the
European Knowledge Society (CTEKS). Unlike in the U.S.,
Europe emphasizes that technologies should respond
to the rhythms demanded by society itself, rather than
the other way around, as this could mean an advance-
ment... beyond our possibilities. This perspective has
led, since 2003, to the creation of a group of experts in
“prevention of new technologies” in Europe. In its CTEKS
report, the European Group of High-Level Experts pro-
motes research in areas that are highly valued, with the
hope of initiating technological developments in the de-
through convergence is considered desirable, with four
key areas, the second being: “Education with applications
such as invisible knowledge spaces, learning objects, and
intelligent environments.”