Mundos y seres poshumanos en la literatura contemporánea. Sophie Dorothee von Werder
P. (1994). En el mismo barco. Ensayo sobre la hiperpolítica. Madrid: Siruela.
__. (1999). Reglas para el Parque Humano. Una respuesta a la Carta sobre el Humanismo (El discurso de Elmau). F. La Valle (trad.). Recuperado de http://www.bolivare.unam.mx/cursos/TextosCurso10-1/Sloterdijk%20Reglas%20Para%20El%20Parque%20Humano.PDF.
Taylor, M. (2013). Universes without Us: Posthuman Cosmologies in American Literature. Mineápolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Turkle, S. (1995). La vida en pantalla. Barcelona: Paidós.
Uribe Ferrer, R. (2018). Humanismo y cristianismo. Itagüí: Editorial Artes y Letras S.A.S.
Wells, H. G. (1901). Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress upon Human Life and Thought. Londres: Chapman and Hall.
Welsch, W. (28 de mayo, 2014). Postmodernism - Posthumanism - Evolutionary Anthropology, Keynote presentation at the International Conference “Mapping Tans- and Posthumanism as Fields of Discourses”, Seoul, Ewha Womans University. Recuperado de http://www2.uni-jena.de/welsch/papers/W_Welsch_Postmodernism_Posthumanism_Evolutionary_Anthropolgy.pdf.
7 Frente a esta situación, Said (2004) considera que se puede ser crítico con el humanismo, en nombre de los ideales humanistas, y que el eurocentrismo, la tiranía y la violencia representan aberraciones y una traición del humanismo. También Paul Gilroy (2002) considera que el colonialismo y el fascismo traicionaron los ideales del humanismo ilustrado, los cuales siguen vigentes.
8 “We need first to understand that the human form —including human desire and all its external representations— may be changing radically, and thus must be revisioned [...] five hundred years of humanism may be coming to an end as humanism transforms itself into something we must helplessly call posthumanism” (p. 212).
9 “Humans typically are innovators, from time to time they transcend borders that were formerly believed to be uncrossable” (p. 8).
10 “By the late twentieth century, our time, a mythic time, we are all chimeras, theorized and fabricatedhybrids of machine and organism; in short, we are cyborgs” (p. 150).
11 “[My text] is an argument for pleasure in the confusion of boundaries and for responsibility in their construction. It is also an effort to contribute to socialist-feminist culture and theory in a postmodernist, non-naturalist mode and in the utopian tradition of imagining a world without gender, which is perhaps a world without genesis, but maybe also a world without end. [...] The cyborg is a creature in a post-gender world” (p. 150). Es importante aclarar que todas las citas textuales conservan su escritura original.
12 “the posthuman means a coupling so intense and multifaceted that it is no longer possible to distinguish meaningfully between the biological organism and the informational circuits in which it is enmeshed” (p. 80).
13 “[the posthuman theory] privileges informational pattern over material instantiation, so that embodiment in a biological substrate is seen as an accident of history rather than an inevitability of life [...] there are no essential differences or absolute demarcations between bodily existence and computer simulation, cibernetic mechanism and biological organism, robot teleology and human goals” (pp. 2-3).
14 “these changes were never complete transformations or sharp breaks. [...] Rather, ‘human’ and ‘posthuman’ coexist in shifting configurations that vary with historically specific contexts” (p. 6).
15 “human being is first of all embodied being, and the complexities of this embodiment mean that human awareness unfolds in ways very different from those of intelligence embodied in cybernetic machines” (pp. 283-284).
16 “Meaning is not guaranteed by a coherent origin, it is made possible (but not inevitable) by the blind force of evolution finding workable solutions within given parameters” (p. 285).
17 “No longer is human will seen as the source from which emanates the mastery necessary to dominate and control the environment. [...] Thinking is done by both human and nonhuman actors” (p. 290).
18 “Post-Anthropozentrismus beseitigt den Gedanken einer Artenhierarchie und einer besonderen Norm ‘des Menschen’ als dem Maß aller Dinge” (p. 72). Como no se tuvo acceso a la versión original en inglés, se está citando la traducción al alemán realizada por T. Langstien.
19 “Es ist auch nicht dekonstruktivistisch, weil es nicht sprachlich strukturiert ist. Die posthumane Subjektivität, für die ich plädiere, ist vielmehr materialistisch und vitalistisch, verleiblicht und eigebettet” (p. 56).
20 “there is a whole range of rights that they [the animals] cannot be granted because they are not human. We would not even consider granting the right to vote, for example, to creatures that, as a group, were incapable of learning human language” (p. 146).
21 “the human-animal-continuity on the one hand and the human-artificial-intelligence continuity on the other hand” (p. 3; cursiva en el original).
22 “Technik ist nicht das gleiche wie das Wesen der Technik. [...] So ist denn auch das Wesen der Technik ganz und gar nichts Technisches” (2000b, p. 5).
23 “Man will, wie es heißt, die Technik geistig in die Hand bekommen. Man will sie meistern. Das Meistern-Wollen wird um so dringlicher, je mehr die Technik der Herrschaft des Menschen zu entgleiten versucht” (2000b, p. 7).
24 La palabra deriva de stellen, es decir, poner o disponer; Heidegger sugiere que aquí el hombre deja de ser el que dispone de acuerdo con su libre voluntad y que, finalmente, es la técnica misma la que dispone también del hombre.
25 “Indessen spreizt sich gerade der so bedrohte Mensch in Gestalt des Herrn der Erde auf. Dadurch macht sich der Anschein breit, alles was begegne, bestehe nur, insofern es ein Gemachtes des Menschen sei. Dieser Anschein zeitigt einen letzten trügerischen Schein. Nach ihm sieht es so aus, als begegne der Mensch überall nur sich selbst” (2000b, p. 28).
26 Das Ge-stell gefährdet “den Menschen in seinem Verhältnis zu sich selbst und zu allem, was ist” (2000b, p. 28).
27 “Die Bedrohung des Menschen kommt nicht erst von den möglicherweise tödlich wirkenden Maschinen und Apparaturen der Technik. Die eigentliche Bedrohung hat den Menschen bereits in seinem Wesen angegangen” (2000b, p. 29).
28 “Die Herrschaft des Ge-stells droht mit der Möglichkeit, daß dem Menschen versagt sein könnte, in ein ursprünglicheres Entbergen einzukehren und so den Zuspruch einer