Today's featured article at Wikipedia is about transhumanism, "an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of new sciences and technologies to enhance human physical and cognitiveameliorate what it regards as harsh and unnecessary aspects of the human condition, such as disease and aging." If you think of humanism as the attempt to help every person reach her or his full potential (whatever that means; as if we have an inborn potential), transhumanism goes beyond this and asks whether we can go beyond the "naturally given" potential and expand our possibilities — and reach them.
Some, however, mean that transhumanism is one of "the greatest threat to the welfare of humanity" today, as suggested by Francis Fukuyama. The basic idea in Fukuyama's criticism is that Transhumanism leads to inequality between humans:
Underlying this idea of the equality of rights is the belief that we all possess a human essence that dwarfs manifest differences in skin color, beauty, and even intelligence. This essence, and the view that individuals therefore have inherent value, is at the heart of political liberalism. But modifying that essence is the core of the transhumanist project. If we start transforming ourselves into something superior, what rights will these enhanced creatures claim, and what rights will they possess when compared to those left behind? If some move ahead, can anyone afford not to follow? These questions are troubling enough within rich, developed societies. Add in the implications for citizens of the worlds poorest countriesfor whom biotechnologys marvels likely will be out of reachand the threat to the idea of equality becomes even more menacing.
Transhumanisms advocates think they understand what constitutes a good human being, and they are happy to leave behind the limited, mortal, natural beings they see around them in favor of something better. But do they really comprehend ultimate human goods? (…)
A response by Nick Boström can be found here. He criticizes Fukuyama on three points:
- The assumption that there is a unique “human essence”
- Only those individuals who have this mysterious essence can have intrinsic value and deserve equal rights
- The enhancements that transhumanists advocate would eliminate this essence. From this, he infers that the transhumanist project would destroy the basis of equal rights.
Against the idea of "human essence", Boström argues:
The concept of such a “human essence” is, of course, deeply problematic. Evolutionary biologists note that the human gene pool is in constant flux and talk of our genes as giving rise to an “extended phenotype” that includes not only our bodies but also our artifacts and institutions. Ethologists have over the past couple of decades revealed just how similar we are to our great primate relatives. A thick concept of human essence has arguably become an anachronism.
(…)
The only defensible way of basing moral status on human essence is by giving “essence” a very broad definition; say as “possessing the capacity for moral agency”. But if we use such an interpretation, then Fukuyama’s third premise fails. The enhancements that transhumanists advocate – longer healthy lifespan, better memory, more control over emotions, etc. – would not deprive people of the capacity for moral agency. If anything, these enhancements would safeguard and expand the reach of moral agency.
Boström concludes:
Fukuyama’s argument against transhumanism is flawed. Nevertheless, he is right to draw attention to the social and political implications of the increasing use of technology to transform human capacities. We will indeed need to worry about the possibility of stigmatization and discrimination, either against or on behalf of technologically enhanced individuals. Social justice is also at stake and we need to ensure that enhancement options are made available as widely and as affordably as possible. This is a primary reason why transhumanist movements have emerged. On a grassroots level, transhumanists are already working to promote the ideas of morphological, cognitive, and procreative freedoms with wide access to enhancement options. Despite the occasional rhetorical overreaches by some of its supporters, transhumanism has a positive and inclusive vision for how we can ethically embrace new technological possibilities to lead lives that are better than well.
The discussion about transhumanism is important because it, in its essence, also deals with the part of neuroethics that pertains to brain enhancements. The making and taking of a memory pill; connecting wetware to hardware; and altering genes for non-medical purposes all deal with an aspect of transcending the naturally given about human beings. Of course, so do glasses and contact lenses. But these are mostly tobe seen as tools to help, rater than something that changes you as what you are. Cosmetic neurology (PDF document) is the term for the artificial enhancement of the brain. I'd say that the term is a bit misguided, since in my view, the "cosmetic" sounds too superficial. If you manipulate the brain, you're tinkering with what a person is per se. Taking a "brainy pill", or adding hardware parts to boost your neuronal engine goes beyond the mere tool that glasses and lenses are. There is not much of a "cosmetic feel" about it when you start changing who you are and what defines you as human: error-prone, forgetful, emotional, mortal.
So, in a way, maybe we shouldn't be too be worried about the societal aspects about cosmetic neurology (or transhumanistic thought). It is possible that cosmetic neurology is neither the problem nor solution to many of today's world's problems such as poverty and inequality between people. Nor should we think of it as something that will add much to the difference, though it will be something that might mark the difference between poor and whealthy. What we should be concerned about is how technical and medical enhancements will change how people define themselves. Just as so and so many use iPod today, will we see communities of people that start inoperating wireless communication into their brains, as in Peter Hamilton's affinity function in the Night's Dawn triolgy? IOW, we should start thinking about what "brain enhancement" does to the individual rather than staring ourselves blind at the societal problems.
-Thomas
