Grechkosii, R.
(2025).
The human as consumer of biotechnology: Risks and prospects of the technological boom.
Humanities Studios: Pedagogy, Psychology, Philosophy,
13(1),
98-106.
https://doi.org/10.31548/hspedagog/1.2025.98
The relevance of this article was driven by the need to identify the risks faced by humans as consumers of biotechnology. Enthralled by its possibilities, consumers often overlook how the resulting changes may impact their lives. The study aimed to explore the ambiguities associated with using biotechnology in contemporary society. To achieve this, phenomenological, interpretative, and analytical methods were employed. The findings confirmed that modern advancements offer boundless opportunities – in medicine (such as artificial organ creation and life extension), energy (including biofuel production and environmental remediation), and genetic modification (of both humans and animals). However, these advancements also pose immense challenges, demanding a high level of responsibility from both scientists, who are increasingly conducting various experiments, and individuals, who must navigate the choices presented to them. The very concept of humanity is under threat as biotechnology reshapes and transforms not only this perception but also the understanding of one’s place in the world. The absence of ethical principles and criteria for assessing the work of scientists implementing biotechnology raises further concerns. This article, therefore, focused on the position of modern individuals as consumers of biotechnology who find themselves at a crossroads. Despite the benefits offered by biotechnology, it also entails a range of risks and uncertainties regarding the future of human existence. The practical significance of this study lies in encouraging consumers to make informed choices and use biotechnology responsibly while also fostering an open dialogue among scientists. The research itself remains open to discussion, aiming to unite the efforts of scientists, public figures, and consumers
anthropological perspective; genetic modification; body; responsibility; ethical aspects; transhumanism; identity
[1] Almeida, M., & Ranisch, R. (2022). Beyond safety: Mapping the ethical debate on heritable genome editing interventions. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9, article number 139. doi: 10.1057/s41599-022-01147-y.
[2] Aziz, M.A., Brini, F., Rouached, H., & Masmoudi, K. (2022). Genetically engineered crops for sustainably enhanced food production systems. Frontiers in Plant Science, 13, article number 1027828. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.1027828.
[3] Badiou, A. (1993). Ethics: An essay on the understanding of evil. Paris: Hatier.
[4] Baudrillard, J. (1970). The consumer society: Myths and structures. Paris: Gallimard.
[5] Beilin, M.V., & Zheltoborodov, O.M. (2023). Human in the conditions of the cognitive-technological anthroposphere. Current Problems of Philosophy and Sociology, 39, 3-8. doi: 10.32782/apfs.v039.2022.1.
[6] Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[7] Bukina, T.V., & Marynets, N.V. (2024). Modern approaches to the problem of man in philosophy. Perspectives. Socio-Political Journal, 2, 22-29. doi: 10.24195/spj1561-1264.2024.2.3.
[8] Diamandis, P.H., & Kotler, S. (2020). The future is faster than you think: How converging technologies are transforming business, industries, and our lives. New York: Simon and Schuster.
[9] Heidegger, M. (1927). Being and time. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
[10] Klyuchka, I.V., & Kitov, M.H. (2020). Philosophical problems of modern biotechnological research. Almanac of Science, 11(44), 52-54.
[11] Kotvitska, A.A., Vladymyrova, I.M., Khokhlenkova, N.V., Kalyuzhnaya, O.S., & Dvinskikh, N.V. (Eds.). (2022). Problems and achievements of modern biotechnology. Kharkiv: National University of Pharmacy.
[12] Kurzweil, R. (2024). The singularity is nearer: When we merge with AI. London: Penguin Publishing Group.
[13] Lerner, A., Benzvi, C., & Vojdani, A. (2024). The potential harmful effects of genetically engineered microorganisms (GEMs) on the intestinal microbiome and public health. Microorganisms, 12(2), article number 238. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms12020238.
[14] Macfarlane, N.B.W., et al. (2022). Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation. iScience, 25(11), article number 105423. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2022.105423.
[15] Mustafai, M.K. (2022). Western philosophers and the importance of emerging types of moral philosophy. Central European Management Journal, 30(4), 2148-2153. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4920014.
[16] Nabavizadeh, S.L., Mehrabani, D., Vahedi, Z., & Manafi, F. (2016). Cloning: A review on bioethics, legal, jurisprudence and regenerative issues in Iran. World Journal of Plastic Surgery, 5(3), 213-225.
[17] Ptashchenko, O.V., & Arkhypova, D.Ye. (2020). Global problems of mankind: The status and prospects of solving. Business Inform, 10, 478-484. doi: 10.32983/2222-4459-2020-10-478-484.
[18] Rošker, J.S. (2020). Chinese philosophy of life, relational ethics and the COVID-19 pandemic. Asian Philosophy, 31(1), 64-77. doi: 10.1080/09552367.2020.1863624.
[19] Sinclair, M., & Whistler, D. (Eds.). (2024). The Oxford handbook of modern French philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198841869.001.0001.
[20] Słomski, W. (2007). Bioethics: Selected topics. Warsaw: Katedra Filozofii Wyższej Szkoły Finansów i Zarządzania.
[21] Słomski, W. (2018). Ethical dilemmas of the 20th century: Cloning. Humanistyka i Przyrodoznawstwo, 9, 147-159.
[22] Teslenko, T., & Kandel, B.K. (2024). The contradictory nature of ICT as a factor of developing the information society in the conditions of the fourth industrial revolution. Philosophy, Economics and Law Review, 4(1), 26-44.
[23] Yulevych, O.I., Luhovyi, S.I., Karatieieva, O.I., & Barkar, Ye.V. (2022). Biotechnology and bioengineering. Introduction to the profession. Mykolaiv: MNAU.