THE VISUAL PART OF BIONIC TECHNOLOGIES IN PROSTHETICS
DOI: 10.23951/2312-7899-2019-4-92-109
The article reviews the development of prosthetic limbs (arms and legs), particularly, their visual transformation over the time. Traumas are imprinted on the spiritual and physical condition of a particular individual, people “with disabilities” can lose jobs or significantly reduce their productivity. The possibility of reparation by means of prosthetics definitely has a positive effect both for the individual and society as a whole. Prosthetics develops in parallel with the development of technology and allows people with “disabilities”/“additional requirements” to have a full life: cope with everyday life, work, sports, travel, have hobbies, participate in the Paralympics, etc. Bionics (or biomimetics) is an applied discipline, which studies the applications of principles of organization and functioning of living matter in the creation of technical systems and devices. Bionic prostheses (biological prostheses) are artificial analogues, which structurally and functionally imitate the operation of the lost organ. In the article, the author mainly focuses on prosthetic arms and legs. There is a number of challenges in creating artificial organs and limbs under the apparent progress in bionic prosthetics: the imperfection of the design, limitations in signal transmission, high price. General trends in prosthetics give scientists, technicians, physicians, anthropologists, philosophers and other researchers hope and reason to make both optimistic and negative predictions associated with the introduction and development of technology, computers, robotics, and prosthetics. This entails issues not only in technology, but also in philosophy and ethics. Do technological effects on humans (NBICS technologies, creation of laboratory creatures, hybrids, chimeras, cyborgs and the extension of the modifications of human nature) have a therapeutic nature, or do they aim at improving humans in the eugenic trans-humanist sense? We observe how today’s reality and visions of the future are formed by semiotic means. Visual symbolism is a dominant tool in these processes. We can conclude that this domination leads to new ways of adaptation: adaptation to the preservation of one’s own identity with the aggression of the visual environment. Thus, there are new people with a different personality that need new forms of protection. The author refers to bioethics as an interdisciplinary system, which is designed to protect and respect life, personality and autonomy. It is important to treat patient’s autonomy with respect as the basic rule and principle of bioethics. In defining this principle, it is necessary to consider that respect for autonomy is in many ways attention to individuality. People can determine their identity and destiny due to scientific discoveries. The assumptions and conclusions are made concerning the increased value of the visual component of modern bionic prostheses. In the past, prostheses were designed mainly to hide, to disguise, to compensate for the lost functions, but now they also become an important part of visual expression, attraction of attention, even epatage.
Keywords: bionics, bioethics, bionic prosthesis
References:
Alexander, R. (1970) Biomekhanika [Biomechanics]. Translated from English. Moscow: MIR.
Anderson, J. (2008) Neuro-Prosthetics, the Extended Mind and Respect for Persons with Disability. In: Düwell, M., Rehmann-Sutter, Chr. & Mieth, D. (eds) The Contingent Nature of Life: Bioethics and Limits of Human Existence. Heidelberg: Springer.
Fletcher, J. (1988) The Ethics of Genetic Control: Ending Reproductive Roulette. N.Y.: Prometheus Books. pp. 135–139.
Fukuyama, F. (2004) Nashe postchelovecheskoe budushchee [Our Posthuman Future]. Translated from English by M.B. Levin. Moscow: AST, Lyuks.
Golubnichaya, A. (2019) Do sikh por ne mogu privyknut’ k protezam, – voronezhskiy kiborg Konstantin Deblikov [Voronezh cyborg Konstantin Deblikov, “Until now, I can’t get used to prostheses”]. Bloknot. Voronezh. [Online] Available from: http://bloknot-voronezh.ru/news/do-sikh-por-ne-mogu-privyknut-k-protezam-voronezhs
Gorbuleva, M.S. (2015) Volunteering: Genesis and Motives. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta – Bulletin of Tomsk State Pedagogical University. 5 (158). pp. 140–146. (In Russian).
Gorbuleva, M.S. (2018) Systematization of the Images of Animal Welfare Activists’ Goals. ΠΡΑΞΗΜΑ. Problemy vizual’noy semiotiki – ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Journal of Visual Semiotics. 4(18). pp. 103–124. (In Russian). DOI: 10.23951/2312-7899-2018-4-103-124
Gorbuleva, M.S. (2018) Volunteerism as Indicator of Social, Economic and Emotional Wellbeing. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences EpSBS. pp. 403–410. DOI: 10.15405/epsbs.2018.02.47
Il’in, Yu. (2013) “Bionicheskie” protezy: kakie organy segodnya mozhno podmenit’ elektronikoy [“Bionic” Prostheses: Which Organs Today Can Be Replaced by Electronics]. [Online] Available from: http://www.computerra.ru/56032/bionic
Khoruzhiy, S.S. (2008) The Problem of Post-Human, or Transformtative Anthropology in the Light of Synergetic Anthropology. Filosofskie nauki – Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences. 2. pp. 10–31.
Kurzweil, R. (2005) The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Viking.
Melik-Gaykazyan, I.V. (2013) Semiotic Diagnostics: Method of Measuring the Selfishness of Power. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta – Bulletin of Tomsk State Pedagogical University. 9(137). pp. 255–261. (In Russian).
Melik-Gaykazyan, I.V. (2014) Metaphors of bioethics as premonition of humanities revolution. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya – Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science. 4 (28). pp. 178–186. (In Russian).
Melik-Gaykazyan, I.V. (2015) Symbolism of bioethics in research of modern culture transformations. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya – Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science. 4 (32). pp. 175–183. (In Russian). DOI: 10.17223/1998863X/32/20
Melik-Gaykazyan, I.V. (2018) Diagnosis of bioethics models. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya – Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science. 45. pp. 75–82. (In Russian). DOI: 10.17223/1998863X/45/8
Meshcheryakova, T.V (2015). Sociocultural Foundations of Bioethics’ Genesis: Individuality or Identity? Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya – Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science. 4(32). pp. 184–189. (In Russian). DOI: 10.17223/1998863X/32/21
Pervushina, N.A. (2018) Visual Perception of Artefact: Significance of Museum in Bioethical Education. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences EpSBS. pp. 1057–1065. DOI: 10.15405/epsbs.2018.02.124
Pervushina, N.A. & Osetrin, K.E. (2017) Neuropedagogics as Expression of Bioethics of Symbolism. Nauchno-pedagogicheskoe obozrenie – Pedagogical Review. 2(16). pp. 198–208. (In Russian). DOI: 10.23951/2307-6127-2017-2-198-208
Yudin, B.G. (2011) Human Being as a Subject to Technological Interventions. Chelovek. 3. pp. 5–20. (In Russian).
( 1.56 MB ) 
( 1.52 MB )
Issue: 4, 2019
Series of issue: Issue 4
Rubric: ARTICLES
Pages: 92 — 109
Downloads: 1868