Futurist Therapy: What Role Will Therapy Have in a Post-human Future?
Future Teraphy
In this article, I would suggest that now is the time of psychotherapy to begin considering the future. Not from the standpoint of theory and contemporary debates about research and practice, the arguments that are thick cooked in mental health policy and considerations of the benefit of private health companies. I rather think that therapists may need to examine their professional role from a future perspective to see what role, if any, we should start anticipating the biotechnology revolution in the coming decades. If the futurists are correct, then ten years from now the most difficult issues that mental health professionals and is now in retrospect, be totally superfluous.
The world is prepared to advance exponentially in the technologies that will fundamentally alter the nature of human beings. If the profession of psychotherapy is to remain relevant, I think we must start preparing for this revolution. It is possible that in the not too distant future of our customers will be presenting issues of concern and incredible enthusiasm unfathomable new choices they will face in the future post-human. As therapists, we have a responsibility, I think, to deal with these problems in the context of their spiritual ramifications profound psychological and ethical.
In May 2002, the Institute of Ideas, a public policy discussion in London, organized a debate entitled post-human future. She gave an overview of reflection on how the scientific ingenuity is likely to have an impact on basic human nature Givens. The shift function, the philosopher Francis Fukuyama, author of Our Posthuman Futures (2002), and the scientist Gregory Stock, author of Redesigning Humans (2002). Interestingly, the debate focuses not on whether or not fundamental changes in the essence of humanity happen, but if these changes, considered inevitable, should be regulated according to ethical concerns. What guarantees, if any, should be in place when playing with the basic elements of human existence? In this discussion five years ago, Fukuyama, a typical philosopher warned us to start thinking about our technology before we are in a world that no longer recognize.
It is true that our future ability to confront the fundamental questions: What is a human being “better”? Do we want to change human nature? If we change the basis of human nature, what effect will this have on the rights of man? How to reconcile what is beneficial for the prolongation of life (individual, for example) with what is best for society (productive work force at an early age)? Do we want a world where nations are genetically have populated the person “best” while the poor are the most technologically “primitive man? For the first time in millions of years we could have more than one type of man who walks the earth, at the same time. According to Fukuyama, we must confront these fundamental problems of today, and to implement measures to maintain what we value most about ourselves. As a scientist Gregory Stock, by contrast, accepts that the impact of biotechnology will be immense, not shows a laissez-faire and warns against regulation of medical research. He says that we must be realistic. There is no way to stop progress in this area and it is inevitable that, for example, human cloning will happen, and probably before it can be done safely. He believes the technology will meet the real suffering and that in a generation, we are able to delay aging and prolong life, control their emotions accurately, and to test embryos for the personality and temperament. He agreed that the interests of parents and people need will be balanced the interests of society, but insists that it will be impossible to control, even with strict rules.
Parents want their children to have the potential to compete and succeed as adults and if a country prohibits procedures to improve the intelligence of children with implanted memory chips, for example, couples tend to travel around the world to take advantage of the latest technologies elsewhere. Basically, the priority of the Bank of the obvious benefits of future advances in medicine and minimizes hazards and utopian dreams. And there are certainly clear and significant benefits of biotechnology research such. We may be able to eliminate many if not all human disease and degeneration. You could, in principle, to achieve open-ended lives, but we still lethal and capable of dying, but not convicted. For the first time in human history, death in fact become an option.
Three years after this debate in London, the futurist Ray Kurzweil wrote The Singularity Is Near (2005), a book that advocates a greater role for the machines in the future of humanity. Apart from the advances in genetics, Kurzweil sees the human body and brain to fuse with the robots for which we have all become hybrids. According to Kurzweil, our intelligence becomes nonbiological and trillions of times more powerful than unaided human intelligence. It is true that human aging be reversed, because nanotechnology will overcome the limitations of biology. Kurzweil is both radical and optimistic. But in the whirlwind of “progress” that raises a question about the psychological impact of the redesign of the human race? Will effects psychological and spiritual side of advances in genetic engineering? technology may extend and intensify “life, but can you answer the question of how to live life” or “What a good life? This course leads to the therapy, which has always sought to resolve the agonizing questions about how to live well.
The information scientists and futurists, it is clear that this is not too early for therapists to begin exploring the advent of a future recognition. It is no longer science fiction. We must ask what is the therapeutic role now to explore the implications of this radical transformation in the essence of what it means to be human? While some philosophers, scientists and theologians are beginning to participate in an interdisciplinary dialogue about the new world to come, right? Of course, as therapists have to face the practical relevance of everyday fundamental questions of human values and assumptions. Maybe it’s time to start considering what the impact will cybernetics genetic engineering in the understanding of our profession and our personal concerns and how contemplation can prepare to open the new range of issues, values and assumptions that may soon be submitted by our customers. I suggest we need a kind of “futuristic Dialogue for therapeutic purposes,” dedicated to image the deeper impact of this revolution prophesied in human nature. First, we could explore the role that psychotherapy can prepare now for the future. It may be useful to begin to examine what values will be challenged by some of the advances scientists are anticipating. We could reconsider our all current psychological theories in the light of tomorrow’s man, who can live forever, that can make hair and skin color, change their physiology at will, and sex change several times over “eternity.”
Introduce such future possibilities as a conversation in a group of friends and see how long it takes before you will present profound questions such as how it might begin to define “success” and “failure”, such as biotechnology will change the future structure of families, create new forms of society and force fundamental changes in the direction of relationships. Try to think of a psychological theory or a therapeutic model that does not fragment as seen through the prism of that planned for the future of man. As professionals we could also try to predict what form will our profession in this imagined future. I suspect that the assault on biotechnology and cyber updates psychotherapy as a mental health profession “redundant. It will be an effective response to the technical difficulties of the so-called” mental illness, trauma, emotional stress, depression and anxiety etc. Our current psychopharmacological treatments will probably be an embarrassment compared to the regulatory capacity of future psycho-technology.
While many current approaches to technical and medical leave me alone treatment, patients in the future “will probably be as malleable in terms of” nature “,” personality “(an outdated concept I’m sure) or physiology, which concerns about intrusions into the integral composition of a person can not even meaningful. That’s my feeling that the medical treatment “forms of psychotherapy that is based on relieving symptoms, quenching the pathology and diagnosis of” disease “is include the genetics and cybernetics, administered by the technical psycho. However, I have the hope that the more relational, dialogical, spiritual and existential forms of therapy may have a crucial role in this new world and can become the essence of what remains of our profession. As the world becomes more technology-based rights, these forms of psychotherapy can play a role in the maintenance of what was at least “authentic” in human existence. For the sake of discussion, will outline some preliminary ideas on possible questions they may have in the psychotherapy profession post-human. The heart of the concern about these profound changes is the way they influence our ideas about human nature. As therapists, we must clarify what we mean by “human nature.” This clarification of the positions we help our clients explore what they protect in case of rejection of the new “improvements” in an effort to remain “natural.” How customers choose which advances are good and they go too far in changing their sense of personal identity and species? For example, human suffering and death prescription offer in the essential meaning and value to life that some people want to defy attempts to remove them? Since culture is man, the nature of man may also, at some point, be the man. And as each of these dilemmas affects us as customers, the treatment is potentially on the basis of investigations that are completely in the other the impact and importance.
Psychotherapy, particularly those working existentially, I suppose that many of our problems in life arise from the way we respond to or deny the existence of the data. But if they themselves become Givens options instead of facts? For example, therapists may be invited to future discussions with their customers a real choice between life and death, either dying or not. But our ability to understand a decision to keep pace with our ability to generate technically? We can not understand the huge impact that “Death of Death” may have in the world of human life. Our language about death should be examined in detail before they can start using it to think clearly about what you mean “choose death. Today we can not consider this great future of our world view that dies, overshadowed by the death , but even today you can imagine how it would change attitudes toward suicide, the practice of mourning, and our understanding of pain, a clear list some examples. If a loved one chose to die or is killed accidentally, the meaning of this death is undoubtedly affected by the fact that the person could, in principle, never lived (or at least hundreds of years). What kind of relationships that are potentially immortal? Does the insecurity that prevent us from being open and sympathetic towards others more clearly seen as unimportant or that we become less relational subject derives endless solitary along our individual way, asking: “What is the meaning of all this? The therapists of the future may be forced to work phenomenologically, in a state of UN-learn with each client, explore together, literally, to be what they want, what they want to be, and if a sense of everything.
All genetic counseling existential meets (if not already). Parents choose to engineer their children’s emotional life is expressed very explicitly, what they consider useful for human life and what they perceive as negative. future therapists also likely to be genetic counselors, to help design a line with the values of each individual, but also a challenge assumptions and preconceived ideas about what is a desired attribute and what makes a person undesirable. Of course, it would be arrogant to simply assume that any form of treatment still makes sense after a revolution in human beings. But surely someone will take the role seriously questions the decisions of individuals and human communities. Perhaps therapists fall into the role of social criticism, trying to sustain and support the values and sensitivities that can easily be trampled in the rush of technological advances. Therapy can be a profession to help us reflect on the implications of what we do as we do, a hermeneutic practice that helps us to contemplate the assumptions of the UN-, we reflected on the meaning and purpose in life the earth that life itself is constantly transformed? During the next twenty or thirty years, probably with the advent of “emotional technology, which in all probability, arise from our identity as professionals” and instead of taking their place alongside theologians, ethicists, philosophers, Being a common care for the human soul: each of us try to do our best, have to bear the need to make decisions whose deep meaning can not be even partially, fathoms. At least, perhaps consider the future of our profession in a changed world will outline our current practice, revealing previously obscured assumptions about how we live today, offering new ways to interact with customers that we see today tomorrow, together.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment