Human enhancement

by Michael LaTorra

Introduction

Transhumanism is often misrepresented. By accident or design, this movement—a movement that aims at improving the lot of humanity through longer lifespans, greater material abundance, enhanced abilities, new powers, and a wealth of opportunities extending beyond current biological limits—has often been depicted as a villain without redeeming qualities. Rather than considering transhumanism on its own terms, we are often given a false choice: Is transhumanism a threat or a menace? Upon first reading Prof. Pickering's papers,1, 2 I was delighted to find that he is opposed to the "freezing and narrowing" of the definition of what it means to be human. Soon, however, I became discouraged when I encountered his claim that the expansive, liberating goals that I know to be the essence of transhumanism were, according to his ill-informed view, actually just the sort of freezing and narrowing he decried. I was at first puzzled as to how he could have so badly misunderstood actual existing transhumanism. Read the whole article

by Mark Walker Transhumanism is the thesis that we can and ought to use technology to alter and improve human biology.1 Some likely targets for the technological makeover of human nature include making ourselves smarter, happier, longer-lived and more virtuous. The operative assumption here of course is that intelligence, moods, longevity and virtues each have deep roots in our biology. By altering biology transhumanists propose to improve human nature to the point of creating a new genus: such as posthumans.2,3 Notice that transhumanism encompasses a moral thesis. Transhumanism does not say that we will create posthumans, rather, it makes a moral claim: we ought to create posthumans.4 The hint of an argument based on the accrual of moral benefits is perhaps obvious from what has been said: to the extent that we value the development of intellectual, emotional and moral virtue5, becoming posthuman is imperative. I won’t pursue this line of argument here directly. Rather, I want to explore the objection that transhumanism is an ill-advised experiment because it puts us at unnecessary risk. My reply will be that creating posthumans is our best bet for avoiding harm. In a nutshell, the argument is that even though creating posthumans may be a very dangerous social experiment, it is even more dangerous not to attempt it: technological advances mean that there is a high probability that a human-only future will end in extinction.

Read the whole article

By Martine Rothblatt

Introduction

A central concern of the pro/anti transhumanist debate is whether to restrict our human bodies to a biological form or to expand our personal existence onto non-biological platforms.  The anti-transhumanist position is that we are our DNA-birthed bodies.  I suggest that cybernetics may very well offer a means for expanding the human being.

In Jean-Pierre Dupuy’s essay “Cybernetics Is An Antihumanism: Advanced Technologies and the Rebellion Against the Human Condition”, Dupuy misstates the cybernetics premise.  Dupuy suggests that cybernetics in its quest for control is something anti-human.  Alternatively, I suggest that cybernetics is simply an extension of life, much like a modern primate digging stick or insectoid behavioral pattern all of which quests for control over the environment.  Failure to exert control over one's environment is tantamount to extinction, for no environment provides all the requisites for life at all times without manipulation.  Even bacteria control their environment by movement through it and linking together metabolic excretions.  To control is not only to be human, it is to survive.

A drug which appears to erase painful memories has been developed by scientists. The astonishing treatment could help sufferers of post-traumatic stress disorder and those whose lives are plagued by hurtful recurrent memories. But British experts said the breakthrough raises disturbing ethical questions about what makes us human. They also warned it could have damaging psychological consequences, preventing those who take it from learning from their mistakes.

Journal of Evolution and Technology - Vol. 17 Issue 1 – January 2008 - pgs 13-22

Abstract

The progress of biology, neuroscience and computer science makes it clear that some time during the twenty- first century we will master the technologies of mind and life. We will build machines more intelligent than ourselves, and modify our own brains and bodies to increase our intelligence, live indefinitely and make other changes. We live together according to a social contract, consisting of laws, morals and conventions governing our interactions. This social contract is based on assumptions we rarely question: that all humans have roughly the same intelligence, that we have limited life spans and that we share a set of motives as part of our human nature. The technologies of mind and life will invalidate these assumptions and inevitably change our social contract in fundamental ways. We need to prepare for these new technologies so that they change the world in ways we want rather than just stumbling into a world that we don't.

Most humans are striving to create a more human world. But many find themselves fighting an endless battle against nature. In my opinion this creation is rather bizarre and primitive without any care or concern for all the living creatures in it.