meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
The Panpsycast Philosophy Podcast

Episode 105, 'Animals in Transhumanism' with Michael Hauskeller (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

The Panpsycast Philosophy Podcast

Jack Symes | Andrew Horton, Oliver Marley, and Rose de Castellane

Education, Philosophy, Society & Culture, Courses

4.8 β€’ 612 Ratings

πŸ—“οΈ 13 March 2022

⏱️ 46 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Welcome to 'Episode 105 (Part II of II)', in which we'll be analysing Hauskeller's argument against transhumanist approaches to animals.

We are all prisoners of our biology. Whether humans (and our non-human cousins) have the capacity to think, feel, or fly is dictated by their DNA, long before they have a say in the matter. It's a living lottery that has lifted human beings to lofty heights; that is, above the world's lowly, lesser creatures. With the emergence of new technologies, the age of the transhumanists is upon us: philosophers and scientists who believe that the lottery should be rigged towards self-design and the elimination of suffering. We have a moral imperative, say the transhumanists, to engineer a world that is better for everybody: to seek out technological solutions to ethical problems, not just for ourselves but the rest of the animal kingdom. After all, the question is not, 'can they reason?' – nor 'can they talk?' – but 'can they suffer?'

In this episode, we'll be discussing animals in transhumanism with Professor of Philosophy and Head of Department at the University of Liverpool, Michael Hauskeller. With over two hundred publications – across a vast range of philosophical questions – in both academic and public philosophy, Professor Hauskeller is, undoubtedly, one of the world's most prominent philosophers. For Hauskeller, philosophy helps us navigate ourselves towards a better tomorrow: through philosophy, we can discover what kind of people we want to be, in what kind of world we want to live, and how we should steer the futures of our fellow creatures.

Our question for today: should we take pity on the world's poor brutes – those who live such lowly lives – and lift them up to our own lofty heights? Or should we leave them to dance the muddy dance of life?

Contents

Part I. How to Become a Post-Dog

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion


Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

Pan, pan, psychist.

0:04.0

Part two, further analyses and discussion.

0:23.3

So at the end of the first part, Michael, you explained to us that you think that the transhumanist, abolitionist project is a radical one.

0:31.4

It's not a modest view, it's quite a radical view, going into the natural world and trying to end suffering.

0:38.7

And some naive reflection, this doesn't seem just a critique of transhumanism. This seems like a critique of

0:43.6

negative utilitarianism as well to trying to remove suffering from the world. Can you talk more

0:50.8

precisely about utilitarianism? Is your article in your paper a critique of utilitarianism as well?

0:56.4

And if so, what does the utilitarian get wrong as well as the transhumanist?

0:59.8

I don't think I've written it as a critique of utilitarianism.

1:03.6

And I wouldn't say that utilitarianism got it completely wrong

1:09.2

because obviously happiness is important and suffering is all important and having more happiness is certainly a good thing.

1:19.1

At least most people want it and having more of it as well and few of us like to suffer.

1:26.9

So reducing suffering is also not obviously a bad idea.

1:33.8

But of course, things are complex.

1:36.2

The world is complex.

1:37.9

And usually people do not just want to be happy.

1:41.5

They want to be happy about things that happen to them or that

1:45.1

happen in the world. So there's a certain connection between how we feel and how things

1:51.0

really are. And the same goes for suffering. Suffering, sometimes we suffer for very good reasons.

1:57.7

For instance, we lose someone, we love, and we suffer. So if a utilitarian

2:04.2

philosopher came along and said, well, the suffering is bad. You have the loss and the suffering.

2:10.3

So at least you should get rid of the suffering or no longer mourn the people you lost. Then you

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Jack Symes | Andrew Horton, Oliver Marley, and Rose de Castellane, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Jack Symes | Andrew Horton, Oliver Marley, and Rose de Castellane and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright Β© Tapesearch 2026.