The Designer in Place Report by Ross McIntosh

THE HUMAN IN PERSPECTIVE RESEARCH INTO HUMAN ATTITUDES TOWARDS TRANSCENDENCE

‘The Designer in Place’ Elective Project Document

MDes Design Innovation & Service Design Session 2017/18

THE DESIGNER IN PLACE EXPERIENCE BASED DESIGN RESEARCH Project Type: Project Brief:

Duration: Core Staff:

PGT Semester 2 Elective course Experience in Design Research: Motivations, Hypotheses and Testing in Experience 10 weeks Dr Brian Dixon

INTRODUCTION ‘The Designer in Place’ introduces a number of experience-based theoretical perspectives drawn from human geography and anthropology. In particular, it considers how these can be applied within an approach to design practice and research that draws inspiration and insight from the surrounding environment. As such this elective’s focus is directed toward conducting an ‘embodied enquiry’, whereby the student is encouraged to develop a reflexive awareness concerning their social, cultural and political experiences as they move through place. The content of the course is structured so the that the student first gains an insight into experience-based theories drawn from human geography and anthropology, and then, through practical exercises, is supported in asking and answering questions relating to the social, cultural, political aspects of place.

Description of action is contextualised using a regular non-italic typeface Reflection ‘in action’ is contextualised using a bold italic typeface

Motivation 1 Contextualisation 2 Research Hypothesis 5 Methodology & Methods 6 Testing In Experience 9 Experiment End-Point 26 Experiment Results 27 Reflection ‘on action’ 28 Bibliography 29

MOTIVATION To begin this elective, we were asked to identify a particular subject or theme that we were motivated to explore through a design or research project. When deciding a theme or subject for this elective, I looked to my Bachelors dissertation around the theme of:

‘Transcending the human condition through Transhuman and Posthuman perspectives’ This disseration allowed me to explore this theoretical philosophy in depth and for my MDes thesis project, I wanted to explore this discourse in practise through a practical design project. As such, I thought to utilise the knowledge and insight attained through writing my dissertation as part of a practical research project that would form the basis of my Semester 3 thesis enquiry later this year. My motivation to explore such a subject originates from my education as where we were fundamentally taught that we design products (objects/ things) for people (human subjects). As such, I often wondered if we always had to design an object for the subject, or would it be appropriate to design the subject as an object? Hence my interest into transhumanism and posthumanism discourse began. Therefore, I believe that humans can be considered products too and therefore designable from subjective and objective perspectives. However, just as a single design cannot suit everyone’s needs, the concepts of the transhuman and posthuman are highly controversial, morally/ethically contentious and thus complex to comprehend from a humans stance. As such, there are a wide spectrum of understandings and interpretations into such discourse that divide opinion and mystify our perception of this concept further. From engaging with many trans and posthuman philosophers through my dissertation last year, I found that the tone of this theory was subjectively rather negative and dystopian; although objectively, this discourse explores how humanity can advance beyond its biological limitations and reach its potential by technologically transcending humanity’s natural selection. Hence, I believe that through design we can approach these negative notions by designing preferable futures collectively that frame and contextualise the transhuman and posthuman through positive attributes and perspectives. 001

CONTEXTUALISATION Before detailing how my motivation informs my hypothesis, I wanted to explore my theme in experience through the contextual study I have researched into trans/posthuman discourse through critical analysis of these concepts and the ramifications this could impose on humanity

ANXIETY AT THE EDGE OF THE HUMAN

? “Humanism may be coming to an end as the human transforms itself into something one must helplessly call Posthumanism.” Ihab Hassan, “Prometheus as Performer: Towards a Posthumanist Culture.” (1977) p.843

“Posthumanist perspective rests on the assumption of the historical decline of Humanism but goes further in exploring alternative ways of conceptualising the human subject.” Rosi Braidotti, “The Posthuman.” (2013) p.37

Transhumanism and Posthumanism are controversial philosophical ideologies that refer to notions of transcending the human condition through the means of technological advancement - these emerging sociotechnological revolutions will undoubtedly cause an ontological paradigm shift in our human subjectivity and ethical consciousness of what is yet to come. (Bostrom, 2005) To begin my critical analysis of Transhumanism and Posthumanism, I will firstly examine human evolution by investigating anxiety within the natural selection process. Humanity is a product of an unguided natural result of a 3.8-billion-year experiment of evolution. (Luskin, 2015) As such, evolution has been our only solution to the survival and progression of our species with Charles Darwin pioneering that species can adapt to changing environmental conditions through the ‘trial-anderror’ process. (Roden, 2015. p34) However, studies show that climate change is unfurling at such a rate that evolution cannot keep up - which is placing humanity at the precipitous of the Sixth Mass Extinction event, which will see an era of ‘biological annihilation’ as we cave way for the Anthropocene. (Stone, 2016) Hence, due to existential threat, humanity has been desperate to overcome its biological boundaries given “it has taken us over a million years to progress from our ancestors Homoerectus to our species Homo-sapiens,” (Gould, 1995. p25) showing how unreliable nature can be and why we cannot depend on it when looking to the future. As apprehensive mortal beings we generate a innate impatience for progression - Transhumanism proposes to humanity to gain control over it’s future by accelerating the painfully slow progression of natural selection and evolution by means of technology. (Levy, 1992. p9) But does so by contradicting humanities survival mechanism. Hence from a design perspective, transcendence is logical as this shows transhumanism as essential for our survival but how would the transition affect both stakeholders involved? As such, to explore these speculative themes in experience, I sought to explore the human in perspective through juxtaposition with our pre-human predecessors to ground my reasoning for approaching and conceptualising trans and posthuman entities through designing preferable futures. 2

Within posthumanist theory, more often than not it is the transhumanists who are most interested in exploring the ethical implications of genetic engineering and metamorphosis. As such, I will explore the contradiction between subject and object discussing the human creation and instigation of technology. I will focus in particular on emerging experimental technology that can be embedded or integrated into the human in such a way as to fundamentally alter their natural state to such a level that the fusion between natural and artificial becomes indeterminable, as well as ethically contentious.

CONTRADICTION OF TRANSCENDENCE

The prospect of transhumanism and posthumanism may present many beneficial qualities for human survival and autonomy but controversially it can also be considered a threatening concept for humanity due to the hostility the proposed transhuman could impose to the existing human race. (Wolfe, 2010. p21) As transhumanism/posthumanism focuses directly on improving the human; characteristically it is antagonistic to the traditionalist philosophical stance of humanism. (Wolfe, 2010. p54-56) With this idea, Transcendence can be considered a controversial philosophy as we know it through elaborating alternative ways of conceptualising the human as a subject. As such, rational fear is aroused whenever a new superior entity poses a threat to a species existence, as unadapted humans could view the transhuman upgrade process as their genocide. (Clarke, 2008. p196) It can be argued that there is risk that a prevailing form of species could dominate humanity by ushering us into extinction with their supremacy. Juxtaposing this transitional phase alongside previous iterations of humankind; it could be considered that homo-sapiens were innately dangerous to their ‘protohuman’ homo-erectus ancestors they respectively evolved from. (Clarke, 2008. p199) Hence, it could be argued that the creation of a new race supreme beings would become hierarchical cartographies of power. However, with this in mind, trans/posthumanity itself owes its very existence, evolution and perpetuation to the human archetype of their creators. (Reynolds, 2009. p286) This relationship becomes more deeply enmeshed in our design reasoning as the boundaries between human and machine start to blur until technology shapes human subjectivity as much as humans have shaped technology. Therefore, could design help to distinguish this contradicting relationship between the human and technology moving forward?

“We are already are cyborgs in the sense that we experience, through the integration of our bodily perceptions and motions with computer architectures and topologies, this signals a changed sense of subjectivity.” Katherine Hayles, “How We Became Posthuman” (1999) p.12

“When a subject becomes a transversal agent, she actively permeates and makes permeable the parameters of her subjective territory and generates a continuously shifting series of conditions that challenge the underlying structures of her individuality and social identity. Yet this entropic reconfiguration can produce enhanced reflexive consciousness and agency by triggering new experiences and perspectives never before imaginable.” Bryan Reynolds, “Transversal Subjects.” (2009) p.286

IDENTITY OF THE POSTHUMAN

? ?? “The Posthuman unsettles the very foundations of what we call ‘the human’.” Cary Wolfe, “What is Posthumanism?” (2010) p.69

“Even though it is not possible, at present at any rate, to do much to improve the quality of the human stock by eugenic means, it is interesting and profitable to consider what would be the result if socially undesirable types could be eliminated entirely or in large part […] it is evident, in the first place, that it is inconceivable that human nature could be changed to the extent that is contemplated by the theory of perfectibility [...] But even if such ‘post-human’ did come into existence, it is difficult to believe that it could carry on the necessary economic activities without using a certain amount of formal organization, compulsion, etc.” Maurice Parmelee, “Poverty and Social Progress” 1916) p.350

Finally I will conclude by analysing the decentering of the human and the ethics of posthumanism, by focusing on the speculative identity of the utopian ‘Posthuman’ juxtaposed against the supposedly inferior human archetype. To what extent will the Posthuman progress humanity? Or to what extent will we retrogress into a dystopic nightmare? Seminal to this discourse is Hayles’ book “How We Became Posthuman” - where she identifies subjectivity being ‘historically specific’ with “changes to human subjectivity were never complete transformations or sharp breaks; without exception, they re-inscribed traditional ideas and assumptions even as they articulated something new.” (Hayles, 1999. p6) Hence as her title alludes, the transition to the trans/posthuman will be instigated by us as, “people become posthuman because they think they are posthuman.” (Hayles, 1999. p7) Hayles elaborates that technology has created new notions of identity and subjectivity that will delineate transhuman ontology. However, technology advancement will not be the sole catalyst for the transhuman object. Instead technology’s influence on humanity will enable the prospect of a transhuman subject; “Technologies do not develop on their own. People develop them.” (Hayles, 1999. p14) Thus, Hayles proclaims we are at the crossroads of our posthuman future but this “does not really mean the end of humanity. It signals instead the end of a certain conception of the human.” (Hayles, 1999. p286) However, in a Cyborg Manifesto, a predominant question for Donna Harraway is whether the human body could be superfluous for the transhuman subject; “should the body be seen as evolutionary baggage that we are about to toss out as we vault into the brave new world of the posthuman?” (Haraway, 1991. p98) This notion, linked with science fiction desires of downloading human brains, derives from modern age values to separate mind from matter (Kunru, 1997). Therefore, these implications could alter human subjectivity dramatically as our consciousness would no longer belong to a body, hence would we be objects instead? Given that our consciousness could live outside its host body opens interpretation for how this new entity could be explored and how life could succeed outside the boundaries we designate as reality. (Notary, 2009) Hayles disputes this concept as our subjectivity is defined within a context by the “inextricable intertwining of body with mind.” (Hayles, 1999. p54) Thus, we could never contemplate isolation of the mind by rejecting the human body when alluding to a subject within the trans or posthuman era. Therefore, I believe that design could help to give form and identity to the proposed posthuman and transhuman alike, which in turn could allow humans ‘think’ they have transcended beyond humanity. 4

HYPOTHESIS Having explored the theme of transhumanism/ posthumanism in its theoretical and philosophical context, I derived a hypothesis to test through this project. From my engagement looking at the transhuman and posthuman, notionally these concepts were perceived negatively from a humans stance due to the ontological paradigm shift that would occur in our subjectivity for humanity.

HUMANS PERCEIVE TRANSCENDING BEYOND NATURAL EVOLUTION (TRANS/POSTHUMANISM) NEGATIVELY... THROUGH DESIGN, HUMANS CAN EMBRACE PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS TRANS/POSTHUMANISM TRANSCENDENCE POSITIVELY

TESTING

However, from exploring emergent design philosophy and practise, it is noted that design can act as a catalyst to change our perceptions and attitudes towards subject matter we wouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have previously engaged with. Hence, I wanted to test my hypothesis through design to embrace positive attributes towards transcendence and encourage trans/posthuman discourse within design domain and explorative practise. 5

METHODOLOGY & METHODS To approach testing my hypothesis, I sought to explore methodologies and methods to explore in experience. As such, I thought to utilise reaction based responses for my research and collaborative exploration into this discourse. To explore through design, I identified ‘Participatory Design’ as a way of achieving action research. As such, I wanted to engage participants through an experience and compare their stance before and after.

“We only think when confronted with a problem”

METHODS

John Dewey, “Art as Experience” (1934) p.53

CRITICAL THEORY COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ENGAGEMENT APPROACHES OPEN DISCUSSION

METHODOLOGY PRAGMATISM

OUTCOMES As such, I designed a research workshop for human participants to think more reflexively regarding their human experience in order to redesign the human which in turn could provocative positivity towards transcendence. This workshop was designed to allow humans to explore the experience of transcendence through a series of subjective and objective activities.

GROUNDED THEORY ACTION RESEARCH PARTICIPATORY DESIGN

To record participant feedback and analysis through this engagement workshop, I thought to design animal avatar stickers and written feedback cards as a tool to allow participants to engage anonymously and impartially as humans. Within this theme participants selected a random envelope containing an avatar pack, this was subtle irony that in this workshop, we would be working together to demote the human as the hierarchical leaders of the planet, hence we participated as animal instead

SUBJECTIVE ACTIVITIES

00 7

OBJECTIVE ACTIVITIES

Having set up my workshop and invited delegates to participate, all that was left to do was test my methods out through these activities. I was rather anxious to gain response as I was worried that some of this context would be too improbable for humans to understand and relate to but through exploring human experience, I had hoped to make the subject of trans/posthumanism more tangible and reflective.

PRE-ACTIVITY:

Reflecting on being ‘human’ Given the speculative nature of transcending the human, I thought to approach this workshop from a human perspective in order to derive a precedent to experiencing the speculative notions of transcendence. Therefore, by discussing what constitutes being human before we undertook any activities, we established a collective foundation to ground our understanding and inquiry moving forward.

“

“Going into basics, a human is comprised of a body and a mind, these are inextricably linked and one cannot be without the other.” “Is a fundamental aspect of being human the ability to think and act independently as we are our own sovereign entity and subject”

“To be human means to exist within reality and the natural laws of the universe: i.e. we are mortal and we are minuscule “Humans are subject to ethics and morality, to believe allows us to progress as a civilisation and ensure we survive at all costs.” “Could it be considered human to make mistakes? We are not perfect as humans and we are all different and unique of one another”

Reflection in action

”

Through undertaking this prequel activity, I believe I managed to set the scene for how I wanted the participants to explore and engage in this research. Although they were initially apprehensive to define aspects of being human, through their own experience as a human, they could justify a stance and viewpoint into this perspective. As such, we established many fundamentals of being human but also some more auxiliary experiences that connotes to human life today. Therefore, we established a grounding together before approaching any activities. I feel this approach was appropriate as this allowed delegates to define a premise to approaching subject matter like this. Overall, I was pleased with how the workshop began and how the delegates engaged to this stimulus. In hindsight, this is not a common request and I thought that the participants responded well to this discourse and enquiry,

The beginning of my research workshop ‘The Human in Perspective’ which aimed to explore attitudes towards transcendence by reflecting on their experience as a human

TESTING IN EXPERIENCE

ACTIVITY 1:

Testing our Transcendence Tolerance This first activity aimed to explore the notion of trans/posthumanism from a humans perspective. The results insinuate that most humans perceive these notions negatively.

Following the pre-activity to reflect on being human, I began my workshop activities by gauging my samples tolerance towards the trans/posthuman subject. Hence this activity responded to the first part of my hypothesis:

HYPOTHESIS: HUMANS PERCEIVE TRANSCENDING BEYOND NATURAL EVOLUTION (TRANS/POSTHUMANISM) NEGATIVELY... “This is a really difficult decision given how speculative the concepts of the transhuman and posthuman are... but as humans fear what they don’t know, I perceive it negatively”

“I do not like this topic at all... it feels unnatural! Why do we even need to change who we are? Natural evolution has got us here today and probably will tomorrow, why should we? As hypothesised, most of my delegates voted negatively towards trans/ posthumanism transcendence. From discussing with participants afterwards, they found notions like this difficult to comprehend as a human and also found it quite unnatural and even morally/ethically questionable. Hence these reactions result in the trans/posthuman concept to be approached and comprehended negatively.

Reflection in action By undertaking this activity so early in the experiment, I feel this made participants feel more aware of the kind of enquiry I intended to explore from the offset. As such, from reflecting on being human and juxtaposing the suggestion of transcending natural evolution for something else, most participants were sceptical of the validity of this notion and the impact this would have on humanity. However, most gauged their tolerance more negatively to this activity, even those who voted more positively were still sceptical of their stance - this was a very open question to start with. Therefore, in hindsight, I believe I should have undertaken activities before evaluating this notion so early as this would have given participants more scope of context to this inquiry. Albeit, this approach did help structure the remaining activities and set up a foundation for which to build. Hence, I found this activity to be appropriate for purpose at this stage in the experiment. 10

ACTIVITY 2:

Contextualising the ‘human’ in perspective... ““it has taken us over a million years to progress from our ancestors Homo erectus to our species Homo sapiens, can we afford a million more?” Bryan Reynolds, “Transversal Subjects.” (2009) p.46

From gauging how positively or negatively my research delegates perceive the transhuman and posthuman entities, I wanted them to explore these notions in greater depth and map these paradigms in sequential context. Notably, compared to much transcendence literature, I decided to included the prehuman for scope. This allowed my human participants to juxtapose notions of transcendence of the human to that of the human evolving from our prehuman ancestors. Such a comparison allows for the speculative nature of transcendence to be more tangible through our experiences as humans. Therefore, I was eager to see how the delegates approach this task and discover how they define these phenomena in juxtaposition.

This activity asked the participants to use their reflection as a human to explore our being in sequential context with the trans/posthuman

00 11

ACTIVITY OUTCOME

00 13

00 14

ACTIVITY ANALYSIS

00 15 Exploring the sections of paradigms in context as a continual progression of being from prehuman, to human, to speculative trans and posthuman.

After inviting my delegates to undergo this task, many were a bit flabbergasted by the scale of this request but once some participants contributed their thoughts and opinions, others managed to follow and soon the wall become populous with our expressions of these notions. Notably, the hardest entity for many to describe was the ‘human’, even though I asked for delegates to think about this concept as a preworkshop task. Hence it could be argued that although we are human, we are not as aware of what a human implies or constitutes. Moreover, the delegates also struggled with the prehuman embodiment. This suggests that even though these entities are more tangible and relatable to our experience, the human is complex to comprehend or convey notionally as much as speculative beings such as the trans/posthuman.

“This was an interesting approach to this discourse as including the prehuman in this context provides equilibrium amongst these evolutionary paradigm transitions

“I think this exercise has made me even more scared and sceptical of ‘transcendence’ as the trans/posthuman loses the qualities and ontological essence of being human”

Key Takeaways

PREHUMAN

HUMAN

Considered ‘Animals’

Subjective Intelligent

“Primitive” beings “Weak” Inferior to humans “Simple”

Painfully slow evolution

Natural/ Biological

Sophisticated “Centre of the Universe” Adverse to Change Sentient/ Empathetic “Vulnerable {to extinction}” “Resists definition”

“It is such a strange and alien request to describe what a human is! You would imagine this kind of questioning would be approached more often, but this is very difficult!”

“I was a bit thrown by this task at first, how can I think of things that I am not? But through reflecting as a human, the prehuman, trans and posthuman seem fluent in flow.”

“By looking at the prehuman, it is clear that evolving to human brought so much benefits and potential... so does that mean that we will equally progress further onwards?”

TRANSHUMAN Smart

Synthetic

Complex Cyborg/ Cybernetics

Modification

Objective Less limitations

POSTHUMAN Artificial Robot Future

Virtual Disability ‘relief’

Catching up with technological advancement

Superior

Alien Advanced “Rulers of the Universe” Moral?

Not ‘human’ at all...

Lacks Emotions

Blazing Fast Beyond Evolution Comprehension

Reflection in action Through exploring this activity, I feel that I could contextualise the transhuman and posthuman entities appropriately by enticing my research participants to reflect on the human from its prehuman ancestors. This provided a scope to explore this context in experience as we could juxtapose our views of a prehuman to a human, compared to what could be for a human to a trans/posthuman. Therefore, I believe the delegates responded well to this stimulus and their response was appropriate for this level of speculation. As such, I feel that this these responses could have been more detailed and delegates could have worked more collaboratively to define what each entity meant but given its such an early experiment, its main purpose was to broaden my samples minds and think beyond just human. Hence I feel this response was adequate as each delegate could think of the human in context before approaching transcendence further. 16

After contextualising the human in perspective, this task asked human participants to gauge how human they are on a ‘spectrum’ to see how close to transcendence we are

ACTIVITY 3:

Defining our humanity ‘spectrum’ “changes to human subjectivity were never complete transformations or sharp breaks; without exception, they re-inscribed traditional ideas and assumptions even as they articulated something new [...] people become posthuman because they think they are posthuman.” Katherine Hayles, “How We Became Posthuman” (1999) p.6

Following mapping the human in perspective with regards to the prehuman and trans/posthuman, this activity was to allow participants to gauge how human they feel they are in relation to the exploration of being above. Hence this was an opportunity to see how trans/posthuman we perceive ourselves to be. As such, participants had to think about how much technology pervades their life currently and how that could be compared to the archetype of a human. Therefore from exploring the human in perspective, it was evident that we were beyond the conventional human as we interact with so much technology on a daily basis, but how close or far to trans/posthuman entities are we? 17

ACTIVITY ANALYSIS

BIO LUDDITE

BIO CONSERVATIVE

BIO PROGRESSIVE

TRANS HUMAN

Analysing the human ‘spectrum’ alongside the techno tolerance scale to decipher where human sits in context of its pre and post entities

“I had never considered how human I am before, this was an interesting way to see how far we have progressed as a species through our interaction with technology.”

“Just goes to show how transient the human is, we are always evolving one way or another, just its surprising how much we are at the forefront of our evolution now”

“When you contrast it with the pre-human, of course we are much more advanced, but I dread to think we are close to being ‘post-human’, it is very scary!“

“The world we live in is fast moving in its pace and progress movement, hence we are having to keep up with technology or we get left behind, we can’t help but become posthuman”

After my sample gauged where they were placed on the human ‘spectrum’, I could then code where they placed themselves to their ‘Techno Tolerance’. This term connotes how much humans have been shaped and defined by technology. As such, most of my sample fell under the ‘bio-progressive’ stance with some even reaching ‘transhuman’ level. Therefore, this test showed that humans have a dependence on technology and it has progressed us beyond our primitive pre-human ancestors. More-so, this result shows that transhuman and posthuman stances are not as far fetched at my human sample had initially hoped, hence we are headed for them!

Reflection in action By undertaking this task, I feel my sample could begin to comprehend the human in perspective by gauging how ‘human’ they are on a spectrum model. I thought that participants placed themselves reflexively by thinking about their relationship with technology and transcendence. As such, I found this task successful in opening up delegates perceptions of what the human is by acknowledging that we have progressed and evolved through our intrinsic interaction with technology. Hence, most of my sample were classified as ‘bio-progressives’ or even ‘transhumans’ within the techno tolerance scale, which indicates that we are a lot more accepting of technology than what our attitudes towards transcendence insinuates. Therefore, our objective relationship with technology as humans does not correspond to our subjective attitudes towards transcendence through transhuman/posthumanist perspectives. 18

ACTIVITY 4:

Photo of activity that shows participants views on whether humanity is progressing or regressing into technological transcendence, the result can be deemed inconclusive

Assessing Subjective Transcendence Attitudes Concluding my testing into our subjective views towards transcendence as humans, I gauged whether through the exploration that has been done with the human in perspective, I enquired whether my sample thought that humanity were progressing or regressing as they approach technological transcendence. “From looking at where we are now as humans, I think we have came a long way in a relatively short amount of time, therefore what’s stopping us from progressing further...”

“I am still not sure what my stance is on transcendence, so to evaluate whether this would be progress for humanity in the future, I just don’t know! I guess its progressive.“

“Although it looks as if we are progressing in perspective, I believe that technology is degrading the human and will soon replace us, how can that be progress for humanity?”

Overall, my sample were quite divided after their exploration as they struggled to balance the positive and negative attributes that transcendence would have on humanity as we know it. Furthermore, to evaluate from a subjective stance whether the trans/posthuman would be progression or regression was a difficult choice for a human to make. Therefore, this result was expected as our human subjectivity will always play a role in disparaging our trans/posthuman successors given the ontological paradigm shift that would occur in our subjectivity for humanity.

Reflection in action During this activity, it was evident that my research delegates were struggling to make a defined decision on their stance towards technological progression or regression. However, it was notable that through exploring the human in perspective, that my samples attitudes were more embracing of transcendence than before. Through a subjective perspective, we explored what the human is and examined what it could be through transcendence. This gave insight into transcedence through their experience as humans. Albeit, this concept was still just intangible speculation. Hence the results are quite dispersed to reach a holistic outcome for this activity but it was important to approach it in this way to make the most of the next tasks where I will be testing my human participants to view transcendence objectively from a designable stance. 19

Assessing Objective Transcendence Attitudes After gauging my samples response to their views on transcendence as a progressive or regressive stance for humanity moving forward. I took the participants to the other side of the workshops that approached transcendence more objectively through design as a ‘catalyst’ to preferable futures. As such, I asked my sample to gauge how much they believe design can play a role in creating humanity’s future through trans/posthumanism perspectives: “Why shouldn’t we approach design from this stance? It seems very logical to design humanity’s future... is that not what we are aiming to do as designers today? “I never thought that design would be considered in such an area, but now I can’t stop thinking of the possibilities... this could rewrite the rules and boundaries of design!” “I agree that design could intervene but how much impact could designers have over scientists and technologists in this field? How do we make a valuable contribution?

Hence, the majority of my sample were mostly in favour of design intervention towards transcendence notions. Therefore, this activity highlighted the value of design towards the human subject as much as we design for objects moving forward as the boundaries between human and technology blur; where technology will shape human subjectivity as much as humans have shaped technology. As such, design could pose a way for humanity to shape and form its future.

Reflection in action From undertaking this activity, it was clear that my sample could relate more to transcendence through a designers perspective as it made this speculative concept more tangibly and approachable from a humans stance. As such, my sample had experience in designing as humans, from there experiences they were aware of how open and broad the design field has become in the 21st century. Therefore to view humanity or the human as a designable entity was not as far fetched or unimaginable as first thought. Hence, it would have been interesting to test this activity with humans in less creative backgrounds to see if they would have been as enthusiastic to such a concept. However, I feel that through design, this concept becomes more attainable and approachable to humans given we will be the ones who design our future in a preferable manner.

Photo of activity that shows a considerable favouring of designing humanity’s future through trans/posthuman perspectives, therefore design could help in directing us towards transcendence

ACTIVITY 5:

ACTIVITY 6:

Human ‘Hacking’ Experiment

“Human beings, and only human beings, are the ones who construct society and freely determine their own destiny” Bruno Latour, ‘We Have Never Been Modern’ (1993) p.30

00 21

Throughout my education, I had never found any reference to designing in such a way. Any time I approached researching ‘designing humans’ or ‘human object design’, I was always redirected to conventional sources of ‘human-centred design’ or ‘anthropomorphic design’. However, it was recently that I discovered a product designer called Dan Formosa who has explored this area through ‘biomechanics’:

“Biomechanics considers the mechanisms within the body – muscles, bones, tendons and ligaments – as well as external forces imposed on, or required of the body. Many of these things, not all, can be controlled through design. Design determines the physical properties of the object. It can also affect behaviour, influencing how and when we do things. Both aspects of design, of course, are critical [...] Not everyone is built the same, or thinks the same. Understanding these variations presents an opportunity. In many product categories gender differences, for example, are largely ignored. So is an understanding of the diversity of people, globally, who will (or who could) potentially be using that product. Unfortunately biomechanics is rarely taught in design and engineering schools. Yet it greatly affects the success of many of the products we touch, from kitchen tools to surgical equipment, ultimately affecting a company’s brand image and equity. [...] Quantitative and qualitative methods can be used to help understand the physical advantages and limitations of your products, and your competitor’s products. The results can directly lead to innovations in design, many of which may be closer at hand than you may think.” - Dan Formosa, 2016

Therefore, I believe that humans can be considered products too and therefore designable from subjective and objective perspectives. However, just as a single design cannot suit everyone’s needs, the concepts of trans and posthuman are highly controversial and as such are very complex to comprehend from a humans stance. This activity allows for humans to approach the human entity as if it were a product that we were to analyse and then redesign through identifying insights around the issues that we face during our human experience and then suggest objective opportunities for how we could solve such issues and improve the human condition. Through using Dan’s research, I created an inspiration wall to get the human subject to think about how they would design the human from our latent & tacit experience. As such, we aimed to ‘fix’ human design problems that evolution has not solved by hacking the human entity for better experience from a subjective perspective.

Photo of the ‘Inspiration Wall’ I created through Dan Formosa’s previous research, many of the insights and opportunities are thought provoking of how we could approach redesigning the human ourselves

Given my experience as a product design student, where we were fundamentally taught that we design products (objects/things) for people (human subjects). As such, I often wondered if we always had to design an object for the subject, or would it be appropriate to design the subject as an object?

00 22

Photo of the responses that my sample collated throughout this activity, each group added even more than the last and really embraced this activity through their creativity and humour

From participants observing how an experienced designer approached analysing faults within the human, I then tasked my delegates to derive their own insights into redesigning the human based on their subjective experience as a human. For a task that I thought would only receive one or two suggestions, I was shocked at how well the delegates approached this task as they identified several ‘hacks’ or ‘upgrades’ to the human: more-so, we went beyond many aspects that Dan Formosa identified;

“

“I struggle with losing weight, what if my body did not need food? What if we could fuel or charge ourselves instead for energy?” “We spend a third of our lives sleeping... that’s a waste of time! Could we shut down and start up again like a computer? Instant sleep” “Fear derives from our prehuman limbic system and reptilian complex, could we remove these surplus components for more brain cortex?”

“I have such a bad memory, always forget things! Wish I could just add more memory like you would with a computer! ‘Thumb’ flash drive” “Skin is no tougher than wax paper and is the largest organ in our body, could we develop a tougher skin using other material?” “What if we could allow people with disabilities to be cured? Imagine a wheelchair bound person being able to walk, it would be magical!” “Bones are so easily broken, what if we could make them more pliable and even flexible for increased resistance to breakage”

”

“I wouldn’t want to give up my periods as this defines being a woman to me... but it would be fun to see men how cope with them!” “Wouldn’t it be cool if we could develop more heightened senses, hear things from far away or see things as if you were a ‘super’ human!” “Feet are badly designed, not only do we stub our toes but our Achilles heal is so weak and a pain point, what if we made it indestructible?”

Reflection in action

Looking back I was rather nervous to see how my research delegates would approach this task. As such, I was expecting this task to be one of the most difficult to approach as even an experienced Product Designer could only identify some aspects for redesigning. However, I was pleasantly surprised at how well my sample approached this task as they all revealed very interesting insights into redesigning the human, some even thought of opportunities within such a short activity - I was very happy with their response and creatively towards this task. Hence, I wished I could have extended this task further and allowed more creativity to be expressed through participants engaging more through drawing, possibly drawing themselves as a redesigned human to extract more of their subjective experience through this activity and would like to test it again sometime!

ACTIVITY 7: Following the human hacking exercise, this activity was to explore how far my delegate sample would go towards transhuman and posthuman objectives by evaluating the main philosophies of transcendence that overcome key human limitations through technological advancement and capabilities. As such, I presented participants with these 3 philosophical goals that transhumanists aspire to create whilst developing the human beyond its biological constraints.

“The Transhuman movement aims to benefit humanity by overcoming its limitations of the human condition [...] through transcendence we hope to achieve increased intellect, improved wellbeing and further longevity” - Nick Bostrom, 2005

During this exercise, it was evident that there was a shift in the delegates attitude from the previous task as they were more apprehensive to comment on the final goal of ‘fixing’ the human. Therefore, this activity was contentious for some as it pushed their human tolerance for what is ethically and morally acceptable to be a ‘human’;

“What does increased intelligence mean exactly? We are already the most intelligence species, what if the transhuman was even more clever than us?

“Well if we could cure all diseases and illness that pervade our lives today, who wouldn’t want a world were we are all healthy and happy? Surely that is everyone’s life goal...

“Isn’t death a fundamental aspect of being human? We live and then die... What would we do if we could live forever? What our purpose be?

“From experience, Death is horrible to witness and if there was a way to prevent it or slow down our trip to deaths door, why shouldn’t we? Who says we have to die?”

Interestingly, there were lots of discrepancies within my sample and some interesting debates occurred as to the value of certain objectives and how much achieving these goals would affect our ‘human-ness’; here were some key findings for each:

Photo of participants gauging their views towards these transcendence philosophies; many were hesitant to vote as these ideologies were very morally contentious

Evaluating Transcendence Objectives

00 24

POSITIVE

Analysis of test results which show disparity across all the objectives of ‘Increased Intelligence, Better Wellness and Further Longevity

NEUTRAL

INCREASED INTELLIGENCE Overall, many delegates were confused as to what this meant initially, with some debating whither intelligence is really all so important (i.e.. IQ vs. Emotional Intelligence). After nudging conversations in a transhuman direction of evaluating the brains processing power compared to Moore’s law of computer processing, many delegates were repelled by such notion of ‘upgrading’ our brain but from they were also aware of the limitations of our human brain and how it is hindered by our prehuman ‘limbic system’ and ‘reptilian complex’. Hence most delegates took a neutral stance.

BETTER WELLNESS The majority of delegates were in favour of this objective as it conveyed positive connotations of improved wellbeing and happiness as a human race. As such, transhumanists want to make lifes unexpected more controllable; like eradicating diseases (i.e.. cancer) or curing disability to ensure that we all live as well as we can during our lives. Hence, it was interesting that the delegates found an overwhelming consensus for this objective and dismay for the others, when better wellness could insinuate that we live longer and are intellectually more capable.

FURTHER LONGEVITY This final objective was the most contentious of all, with the sample groups breaking into deep philosophical conversation about life and death. Interestingly, during this exercise the delegates assumed that further longevity meant immortality but could have quite easily of insinuated extending life further naturally too. Given that death is one of the hardest things to comprehend as a human, it could be deemed the ultimate aspect of nature that we would want to control, but most of my sample valued that we have an ‘end’ - hence this was another very interesting debate.

Reflection in action Overall this activity was one of the most controversial of all tasks presented so far. As such, my sample groups became enthralled in deep philosophical debates and stances. This reaction was fascinating as it demonstrated human limitations towards such ideals of transcendence. Hence, certain delegates contrasted when it came to certain objectives. Notably, it could be argued that to achieve some of these ideals would inspire all to be fulfilled: does increased intelligence and wellness not equal longer lifespans? Therefore the contradiction and discrepancies within this task insinuates that this could have been explored in more depth. Possibly it would have been helpful if I gave some examples of these ideals for more context but overall I was pleased with my samples response and energy towards these speculative ideologies.

COMPLEX

EXPERIMENT END-POINT EXPERIMENT END Ending the experiment, this result shows that most attitudes towards trans/posthumanism improved through design exploration of the human

Beginning the experiment, my participant sample were unsure of their stance towards trans/posthumanism

EXPERIMENT START

Conclusion To conclude this experiment, research participants were asked to evaluate their stance on transcending the human beyond natural evolution, transhumanism/posthumanism, following the series of activities they had undergone to reflect on their experience as a human from subjective and objective perspectives. This result sat across from the participants first activity to gauge their tolerance towards human transcendence so that they could juxtapose their position on this controversial topic in place. Hence, this activity required participants to ‘reflect on action’ of all the activities encountered to make a decision and think reflexively on being a human.

Outcome Overall, this activity showed a nuanced improvement in my participant samples attitudes towards transcendence when you juxtapose the results with their initial ranking of their stance. As such, the results show that most participants in my sample, 8/10, gauged their stance to be more positive than their initial tolerance towards the topic. Hence, it could be argued that my hypothesis testing was proved correct, that through design, most humans in my sample embraced more positive attitudes towards trans/posthumanism. From discussing final responses with my participants, it was clear that this activity helped my sample to think more reflexively regarding this subject and acknowledge a posthuman perspective in line with their own human attributes as a way to ‘experience’ the transhuman through reflecting on being a ‘human’.

Evaluation The results suggest that my hypothesis testing was proved correct as most participants embraced the trans/posthuman more following design exploration and critique of the human entity. However, I feel I should have added more to this activity to record reflection and impact more as a holistic justification of my human participants experience beyond just verbal exchange. As such, I believe making a few more response cards would have allowed participants to share their perspectives more. Hence, in future I believe I should include more qualitative exercises to conclude an experiment as this activity is very quantitative in essence. Therefore, I should debrief a workshop session with an in depth questionnaire or record a one-on-one interview with a participant as methods of gaining more qualitative insight into their reflection.

EXPERIMENT RESULTS

POSITIVELY

HYPOTHESIS TESTING: THROUGH DESIGN, HUMANS CAN EMBRACE PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS TRANS/POSTHUMANISM TRANSCENDENCE POSITIVELY

NEGATIVELY

Photo of ‘Human Hacking’ exercise outcome, with research delegates designing their improved human functionality and experiences

REFLECTION ON ACTION Overall, I have thoroughly enjoyed ‘The Designer in Place’ elective and have found the content and discussions I have experienced on this course to have been fascinating - so much so that after every session I felt like a needed a while to process all of the knowledge and insight that had been presented. Moreover, the texts encountered have been very thought provoking and have helped me make sense of where the designer sits in context and the value of reflection in our everyday practise. As such I feel that I have learned lots in this course and would like to continue my inquiry into many of the philosophical phenomena encountered throughout this elective further, in particular phenomenological enquiry. Therefore, I believe this has been a very comprehensive start to exploring design research further in my career.

Role of Experience To me, the role of experience in my elective practise was evident in a reflexive attitude towards our understanding and comprehension of humanity from a holistic perspective and a more personal enquiry into ourselves as a ‘human’ as well. Through this, myself and my research delegates managed to explore ourselves as ‘humans’ through objective and subjective lens which could frame transcending the human in new ways to empathise and relate towards speculative notions of transcendence. Therefore, from undergoing my research workshop activities, many delegates embraced aspects of redesigning the human archetype and exploring opportunities for improvement.

Role of Reflection As such, the role of reflection helped to change attitudes and assumptions of trans/posthumanism by allowing the human more autonomy in how this paradigm should be achieved. Therefore, we can shape our future through design, and I feel this research highlighted the significance for us to view the human as a designable entity moving forward. As such, I feel the workshop could be considered successful as participants engaged in trans/ posthumanism discourse and phenomena they had previously not encountered by viewing the human entity from objective and subjective perspectives to explore their perception and attitudes towards trans/posthuman positively.

What’s next? Following this ‘The Designer in Place’ elective, I aspire to continue my inquiry into the subject of the ‘Transhuman’ further through undertaking my Semester 3 Thesis project on this topic. I feel this would be an appropriate approach to my Masters Research project as I had acquired a strong foundation of knowledge and understanding into this area through my BDes dissertation and moreover having experienced this discourse in practise through this Semester 2 elective - I feel I will have a strong basis to ground my speculative notions for my brief. In particular, from my engagement I have lots of tangible opportunities to explore for my MDes Thesis project to redesign the human later this year. 28

BIBLIOGRAPHY McIntosh, R. (2017) ‘Beyond the Human: Subjectivity at the Transition of our Posthuman Future.’ BDes Product Design Dissertation, The Glasgow School of Art

Subjective Transhuman/Posthuman Research Bostrom, N. (2005) ‘A History of Transhumanist Thought’. Oxford: Faculty of Philosophy. Published in IEET Journal of Evolution and Technology Vol. 14 Issue 1.

McIntosh, R. (2018) ‘Designing Beyond Human: Controversy in the Philosophy of Transcending Humanity’ MDes Design Innovation, Semester 1 ‘Design Theory’ report

Braidotti, R. (2013) “The Posthuman.” (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press)

Formosa, D. (2016) ‘Biomechanics - 12 ways to improve the human body’ URL: http://danformosa.com/ wp-content/uploads/2016/02/How-Your-Hands-Dont-Work-v2.pdf [accessed 29 March 2018]

Clarke, B. (2008) “Posthuman Metamorphosis: Narrative and Systems.” New York, USA: Fordham University Press

Heyes, C. (2012) ‘New thinking: the evolution of human cognition: techno-tolerance’ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3385676/[accessed 29 March 2018]

Gould, S. (1995) “’What is life?’ The Next Fifty Years. Speculations on the future of biology.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Objective Design Research Sanders, E. & Stappers, P. J. (2008) ‘Co-creation and the new landscapes of design.’ CoDesign, Taylor & Francis

Haraway, D. (1991) “A Cyborg Manifesto: in Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature." New York, Rutledge Hassan, I. (1977) “Prometheus as Performer: Towards a Posthumanist Culture.” (The Georgia Review no. 31)

Brandt, E., Binder, T., & Sanders, E. B. N. (2012) ‘Ways to engage telling, making and enacting.’ Routledge international handbook of participatory design. Routledge, New York Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P. & Hillgren, P. (2012) ‘Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges.’ Design Issues 28

Hayles, H. (1999) “How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature and Informatics.” Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Kunzru, H. (1997) “You are Cyborg” URL: http://www.wired.com/1997/02/ffharaway/ [accessed 27 March 2018]

Bryman, A. (2004) ‘Social Research Methods.’ Oxford University Press Latour, B. (1993) ‘We Have Never Been Modern’. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Dewey, J. (1934) ‘Art as Experience.’ London, George Allen & Unwin Ltd. Levy, S. (1992) “Artifical Life: The Quest for a New Creation” London: Penguin. Polyani, M. (1967) ‘The Tacit Dimension.’ New York, Anchor Books   Cross, N. (2006) ‘Designerly Ways of Knowing.’ London, Springer-Verlag Co-Design & Co-Creation Jones, J. C. (1970) ‘Design Methods: Seeds of Human Futures.’ New York. Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967) ‘The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.’ New York, Aldine De Gruyter Clarke, A. (2005) ‘Situational Analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn.’ California: Sage Publicationst

Luskin, C. (2015) “What’s the matter with evolution?” URL: https://world.wng.org/2015/04/part_1_whats_ the_matter_with_evolution [accessed 29 March 2018] Notary, A. (2009) “Reality is in the Performance: Issues of Digital Technology, Simulation and Artificial Acting in S1m0ne.” URL: http://refractory.unimelb.edu.au/2009/06/25/reality-is-in-the-performanceissues-of-digital-technology-simulation-and-artificial-acting-in-s1mone-–-anna-notaro/ [accessed 29 March 2018] Parmelee, M. (1916) “Poverty and Social Progress” (New York: Macmillian) Reynolds, B. (2009) “Transversal Subjects.” United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan,

Johnson, M. P. (2016) ‘Mapping Design Things: making design explicit in the discourse of change.’ PhD Thesis, Glasgow School of Art

Roden, D. (2015) “Posthuman Life: Philosophy at the Edge of the Human” Abingdon: Routledge

Latour, B. (2005) ‘Reassembling the Social: an introduction to actor-network theory.’ Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stone, M. (2016) “The Sixth Mass Extinction Will Be Like Nothing in Earth’s History” URL: http://gizmodo. com/the-sixth-mass-extinction-will-be-like-nothing-in-earth-1786598392 [accessed 28 March 2018]

Verganti, R. (2013) ‘Design-Driven Innovation: changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what things mean.’ Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Wolfe, C. (2010) “What is Posthumanism?” Edited by Cary Wolfe, ‘posthumanities.’ Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,

Schön, D. A. (1983) ‘The Reflective Practitioner: how professionals think in action.’ Basic Books Publishing.