Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

The Divine Wedgie

Home
Catholic
Biotechnocracy: Love, Faith and Reason in the Age of the Sexbot

Biotechnocracy: Love, Faith and Reason in the Age of the Sexbot

Last updated on: November 2, 2018 at 6:29 am by Matthew Tan

Biotechnocracy: Love, Faith and Reason in the Age of the Sexbot 2018-11-02T06:29:01+10:00 Matthew Tan

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

More than 20 years ago, the Icelandic singer Björk released the single “All is Full of Love” from her album Homogenic.

The video for that single depicted two humanoid robots being manufactured by a series of robotic arms in a space age factory. As assembly by these arms begins, the first robot sings the first line of the song which goes

You’ll be given love. You’ll be taken care of. You’ll be given love. You’ll have to trust it.

When the two robots meet each other, the pair begin the process of erotic congress on the assembly table, all whilst still being prodded and probed from by the robotic arms.

The convergence of robots, sex, and the overarching logic of technology and industry is the perfect visual accompaniment for a lecture given by Michael Hanby of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute of the Catholic University of America, which the Mars Hill Audio Journal has provided free in its recently launched app.

In that lecture – part of a larger conference marking the fiftieth anniversary of Paul VI’s encyclical Humane Vitae – Hanby spoke of what the journal called the “biotechnocratic redefinition of the human”. Hanby defended the basic thesis of Humanae Vitae concerning the Church’s prohibition on the use of artificial contraception as a gravely disordered act. However, his thesis was that trying to defend Humane Vitae, or any traditional defence of the integrity of the human person made in the image of God, in an age where technology determines the ordering of things would come up against an audience that is tonedef. Tonedef not only to God, but to the human as well.

According to Hanby, technology is not merely a series of instruments but presumes a set of presumptions of how the world is ordered. With the increasing technologisation of more fields of human activity, those presumptions also seep into the governing ethos of those activities. Hanby makes a number of points about what these presumptions are, but two stand out in that lecture.

The first is that technology deliberately excludes the prudential and the metaphysical. Put another way, technology focuses on the “how” of things without concern for the “why” or “is this a good idea”. This is because technology only recognises one good, its own use. All considerations of “good” as such or why things are the way they are are deliberately excised from the equation.

Tied to this is the second point, which is that on its own, technology’s telos lies in the breaking of boundaries previously uncrossed by its user. Combined with the first reason of locking out considerations of prudence, goodness and metaphysics, the technological default means that not only must the technological solution be used all the time. It is also compulsory for any boundary or limit that can be breached by technology to be so breached.

Little wonder then, said Hanby, that in a culture dominated by the technological default, we are also finding our bodies similarly subordinated to a technological paradigm, which Hanby calls “biotechnocracy”. It is not simply that, in the style of The Matrix, that “the machines have taken over” in just a physical sense. Under the conditions of biotechnocracy, the machines also govern the very logic by which we see these bodies.

Where “biotechnocracy” is at its most acute for Hanby is the way in which all limitations placed on bodies, including the limitation of its own integrity, is now rendered as a problem to be solved with the aid of technology. Little wonder then that fertility, excised from the sexual act via contraception, is now rendered an enemy to be defeated by technological means. We should not be surprised by gender, excised from biological sex, must be rendered liquid since we have the technology for it.

Whether these limits actually protect what it means to be human are questions that are deliberately taken out of the realm of thought in a biotechnocratic paradigm, which means that recourse to such questions and insisting on their rationality will struggle to find currency with the rationality of the biotechnocratic.

The lecture is excellent and warrants re-listening for proper unpacking. You can listen to that lecture by downloading the app on either the Apple Store or Google Play. Another lecture on technocracy by Hanby more generally can be found here.

Postscript: As an addendum, it can be argued that the biotechnocratic paradigm can extend to patterns of consumption, which is almost always set against a benefit of cost and benefit (which we can now quantify thanks to the aid of a slew of apps and devices). This calculus in turn feeds into the question of abortion as technology of surveillance and management of risk. I have written about this in an article entitled “Abortion in/as a Consumer Structure“, which was published in the journal Solidarity.

bourgeois Christianity

theological anthropology

theology

Previous Post

October 20, 2018

Romano Guardini & the Heft of Heaven

Next Post

November 12, 2018 Vice is the Opiate of the Masses

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category architecture art Augustine Belloc Benedict XVI bible blogs books bourgeois Christianity Campion College Chesterton Christianisation Church and Culture Church Fathers citizen conference conservative consumer culture cybernetics Desert Fathers discipleship distributism drinking ecclesiology economics education environment Evagrius of Pontus formation Foucault George Weigel Girard Graham Ward http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post interfaith Jacques Ellul John Chrysostom Julia Kristeva Latin liturgy mall marriage monasticism Music Narrative news philosophy polis politics pop culture postmodern city postsecular prayer prostestant quote Quotes Radical Orthodoxy resources Rome Rule of St. Benedict saint Saints secular sociology theological anthropology theology transcendance Uncategorized videos William Cavanaugh

Select a Month December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 October 2009 February 2008 December 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who said, "To obey is better than sacrifice"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Solomon David Samuel Isaiah