Proactionary and Precautionary Principles and Welfare State 2.0

  • Francis X Remedios
  • Val Dusek


This chapter is on proactionary versus precautionary principles. The proactionary principle stresses risk-taking, while the precautionary principle stresses the need to conserve nature. Fuller explores the futures of the human condition, which includes “transhumanism” and “posthumanism.” Starting with the emerging challenges posed by so-called human enhancement sciences and technologies, Fuller has explored alternative futures under three rubrics: the ecological, the biomedical, and the cybernetic. These attempts to re-engineer both our bodies and the environment require substantial re-definitions of social justice and economics productivity, all envisioned within new political orders of Welfare State 2.0 as opposed to Welfare State 1.0.


Proactionary Precautionary Posthumanism 


  1. Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Coeckelburgh, M. (2013). Human Beings @ Risk. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Collin, F. (2013). Two Kinds of Social Epistemology. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 2(8), 79–104.
  4. Elliott, C. (2014, September 3). More or Less than Human? New Scientist.Google Scholar
  5. Floridi, L. (2002). On the Intrinsic Value of Information Objects and the Infosphere. Ethics and Information Technology, 4(4), 287–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frodeman, R. (2015). Anti-Fuller: Transhumanism and the Proactionary Imperative. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 4(4), 38–43.
  7. Fuller, S. (2006). The New Sociological Imagination. London: Sage Publications, Ltd.Google Scholar
  8. Fuller, S. (2011). The Posthuman Challenge to Ecological Correctness.
  9. Fuller, S. (2013). Preparing for Life in Humanity 2.0. New York/Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fuller, S. (2014). Towards a Proactionary Welfare State. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 3(5), 82–84.
  11. Fuller, S. (2016). The Academic Caesar: University Leadership Is Hard. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fuller, S., & Lipinska, V. (2014). The Proactionary Imperative: A Foundation for Transhumanism. New York/Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fuller, S., Chioti, R., & Ernstsons, K. (2017). Connecting with the Divine and the Sacred and Becoming Cosmically Conscious. In R. Armstrong (Ed.), Star Ark. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Kurzweil, R. (2005). The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. New York: Penguin Group.Google Scholar
  15. Lomborg, B. (2001). The Skeptical Environmentalist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lomborg, B. (2010). Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  17. More, M. (2005). The Proactionary Principle.
  18. Pedersen, D. (2013). Who Should Govern the Welfare State 2.0? A Comment on Fuller. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 2(12), 51–59.
  19. Remedios, F. (2013). Review of Humanity 2.0: What It Means to be Human Past, Present and Future. LSE Review of Books. 2013/05/07/book-review-humanity-2-0/
  20. Remedios, F. (2015). Knowing Humanity in the Social World: A Social Epistemology Collective Vision? In J. Collier (Ed.), The Future of Social Epistemology: A Collective Vision (pp. 21–28). London: Rowman and Littlefield International.Google Scholar
  21. Remedios, F. (2016). Steve Fuller: Knowledge, the Philosophical Quest in History. Metascience, 25(1), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Simon, H. (1981). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle. (1998).

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francis X Remedios
    • 1
  • Val Dusek
    • 2
  1. 1.EdmontonCanada
  2. 2.University of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations