I found almost every sentence of this paper individually probematic. Dvorsky's concept of "progress" and "advancement", the way he treats alleged "trends" as pseudo-inevitable--I can't decide whether this is laughable or terrifying, and I can't even start critiquing it on a detailed level because I'm so distracted by the absurdity of its largescale implications.


And I'm someone who is sympathetic in principle to the idea of non-human personhood! But who the fuck are we to decide the shape and implications of ape "protoculture"?


I dunno, I just keep going back to the "advanced societies" and freaking out all over again. He just think everything is gonna go REALLY, REALLY GOOD for late-capitalist humanity from here on in, doesn't he?


And it's inventive, and I mean, I am sympathetic. This:


"The ultimate goal of animal uplift is the creation of equal social partners and not a species to be subjugated."



sounds great to me, except for that word "uplift", which betrays the most appalling set of assumptions.


Is an African sex slave going to participate in the cybernetic Singularity on one of those $100 charity laptops? As the global elite enters a posthuman state, who's going without their cancer drugs?


Article appeared in Journal of Evolution and Technology 18/1. ( )