Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Transhumanism and ethics
Paper on transhumanism
Arguments against transhumanism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Transhumanism and ethics
In many popular science fiction novels, people can read about a future full of fantastic gadgets, advanced artificial intelligences, and superhuman cyborgs. Although some of these things may seem far-fetched, with recent scientific advancements, it may soon be possible for people to enjoy some the amazing technologies that they read about, such as life-extension therapies or cybernetic implants. A new philosophy known as Transhumanism has emerged in response to these innovations and has embraced this vision of a death-free future populated by enhanced posthumans. However, although many of these technologies have an enormous potential to improve the human condition, it is essential that we as a species practice discretion and moderation as these techniques and devices are implemented if we hope to avoid many of the terrifying consequences of misuse.
To understand many of the dangers and shortcomings of these technological ambitions, it is essential to first understand the philosophy which has become so synonymous with these efforts. Transhumanism can best be described as a philosophy which advocates the use of technology in order to improve not only the quality of life of human beings, but also their lifespan, mental capacity, and physical ability. In essence, transhumanism is a radical extension of humanism. Similar to humanists, transhumanists value “rational thinking, freedom, tolerance, democracy, and concern for our fellow human beings.” The major difference in the case of transhumanism, however, is the additional belief in improving not only the “human condition and the external world,” but the human species as a whole. When arguing for biological enhancements, transhumanists typically refer to a belief in the autonomy th...
... middle of paper ...
...ijntje Smits. “A
European Approach to Human Enhancement.” Paper presented at the European Union Science and Technology Options Assessment workshop, Brussels, Belgium, February 24, 2009. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/events/workshop/20090224/background_en.pdf (accessed March 24, 2010).
Aubrey de Grey, “The War on Aging.” In The Scientific Conquest of Death, edited by Bruce J.
Klein, 29-45. Buenos Aires: LibrosEnRed, 2004. http://www.imminst.org/SCOD.pdf (accessed March 24, 2010).
Andy Miah. “Be Very Afraid: Cyborg Athletes, Transhuman Ideals & Posthumanity.” Jounral of
Evolution & Technology 13, no. 1. (October 2003), http://jetpress.org/volume13/miah.html (accessed March 24, 2010).
Andy Miah. “Posthumanism: A Critical History.” In Medical Enhancement and Posthumanity,
edited by Ruth Chadwick and Bert Gordjin, 71-94. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2009.
Smith, Wesley J. "The Trouble with Transhumanism." The Center for Bioethics and Culture RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.
Advancement of the human race through technology is the goal of evolution and is the reason human beings are on earth. The ability to allow future generations to reach their full potential through technology should be the goal of all human beings. The two main criticisms to this argument are, first it is considered unnatural, and secondly it is considered to be “playing god”. Transhumanists dismiss the claim of unnatural because most of what human beings do with any technology is unnatural, yet these uses are accepted as benefits, not harms (Post, 2004). As for the second concern most transhumanists consider themselves agnostics or atheists so playing god is not a legitimate concern for them. The issue is one of great concern to people...
The technology of today’s world is astounding. We have learned how to battle diseases that were once thought to lead to a certain death, we have invented incredible technologies that allow us to communicate with people across the world instantly, and maybe most impressively of all, we are able to create human life. We now hold in our hands the technologies that allow those who may not have been able to conceive naturally to have children they can call their own; children who will enrich their lives in a way nothing else can, and who will continue their names and lives after they are gone. In an age where we have more power than ever to use the bodies and DNA of others for our own benefit, it becomes increasingly important that we remain open-minded and fully understand both the disadvantages and advantages equally and create stricter regulations to control how we as a people progress our civilization.
Imagine that you are able to teleport to the not too distant future. In this world you discover that disease and poverty are no longer causes for human suffering, world hunger has become eliminated from society, and space travel is as easy as snapping your fingers. Cryonics, nanotechnology, cloning, genetic enhancement, artificial intelligence, and brain chips are all common technologies at a doctor’s office. You gasp as a friendly sounding electronic voice cries out, “Welcome to the future Natural!” You are unsure of whether being called a Natural is an insult or not, so you feign a half-hearted hello at the posthuman in front of you. Getting over the initial shock you ask the posthuman, “Who are you?” The posthuman gives an electronic sounding chuckle and shakes his head. He replies, “I am a Posthuman, and you Natural, are in Utopia. Welcome.”
The two controversial topics discussed below share a single goal: to enhance the quality of life of a human individual. The first topic, transhumanism, is a largely theoretical movement that involves the advancement of the human body through scientific augmentations of existing human systems. This includes a wide variety of applications, such as neuropharmacology to enhance the function of the human brain, biomechanical interfaces to allow the human muscles to vastly out-perform their unmodified colleagues, and numerous attempts to greatly extend, perhaps indefinitely, the human lifespan. While transhumanist discussion is predominantly a thinking exercise, it brings up many important ethical dilemmas that may face human society much sooner than the advancements transhumanism desires to bring into reality. The second topic, elective removal of healthy limbs at the request of the patient, carries much more immediate gravity. Sufferers of a mental condition known as Body Integrity Identity Disorder seek to put to rest the disturbing disconnect between their internal body image and their external body composition. This issue is often clouded by sensationalism and controversy in the media, and is therefore rarely discussed in a productive manner (Bridy). This lack of discussion halts progress and potentially limits citizens' rights, as legislation is enacted without sufficient research. The primary arguments against each topic are surprisingly similar; an expansion on both transhumanism and elective amputation follows, along with a discussion of the merit of those arguments. The reader will see how limits placed on both transhumanism and elective amputation cause more harm to whole of human society than good.
Transhumanist claim the individual can plan their own life. Transhumanist value autonomy: “Transhumanist place a high value on autonomy, the ability and right of individual to plan and choose their lives”(World Transhumanist Association). The right for an individual to “plan” their own life through genetic engineering is terrifying. Ethical people should not have the power to genetically enhance or themselves or others. Genetic enthusiasts may not use genetic engineering right. People genetically enhance themselves without any cause. Planning every single commodity in any person's life creates too much power. Great power corrupts the individual. Genetic engineering yields power that any person should not
Using science to modify humans, and better ourselves is becoming more of a reality every year. The term transhumanism can be defined as, a method to increase human’s physical and mental capacities using science (Koch, pg 686). It’s an idea that has been around for as long as humans. Humans will always strive to better themselves, and with new advances in technology and bioengineering this becomes more of a reality. The best examples are simple technologies like pacemakers, or prosthetics. They help people to live better. There are certainly more transhumanist technologies that will be developed to help the human race. However, there are many ethical issues related to transhumanism as well. Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment is a piece of literature written by Nathaniel Hawthorne. It
Bodies have instead become cyborgs. We, as humans, are a mix of organic and technological/scientific enhancement. She argues that “The cyborg is text, machine, body, and metaphor, all theorized and engaged in practice in terms of communications.” (212) Joseph Schneider, a professor of sociology at Drake University and a writer of many books about Donna Haraway, argues in his article that indeed, Haraway’s ideas were a radical redefinition of humanity, especially our relationships with other living beings. He does, however, reemphasis the limitations of the human body, and its susceptibleness to disease. His viral analysis calls into question the use of this manifesto to further the idea of human exceptionalism based on the improvement of technology. He warns that Haraway’s ideals were to keep the human “in the game” as an important being, even if not the most important or the most capable. (Schneider 300) The idea of the cyborg is profound, and has the potential to the change the construction of identity in a divided and inconsistent world. Our relations with new technologies and living beings are deviations from original expectations, jobs, and cultural needs. We should instead be aiming to change for the new requirements emerging in
The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have increased the average human lifespan and improved the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to alter humans by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This technology gives rise to the question of how this new technology ought to be used, if at all. The idea of human enhancement is a very general topic, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am referring specifically to the use of genetic intervention prior to birth. Julian Savulescu, in his, “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings,” argues that it is not only permissible to intervene genetically, but is a morally obligatory. In this paper, I will argue that it is not morally obligatory to intervene genetically even if such intervention may be permissible under certain criteria. I will show, in contrast to Savulescu’s view, that the moral obligation to intervene is not the same as the moral obligation to prevent and treat disease. In short, I will show that the ability of humans to intervene genetically is not sufficient to establish a moral obligation.
Human genetic engineering has the power to take the human race ahead in the 21st century. With it, we will be able to enhance every aspect of our physical and mental existence. It is crucial that we make the right decisions now, with the needs and wants of future generations in consideration. Genetic enhancement is our next step to a better living experience for everyone, regardless of status. Creating a world where everyone is genetically enhanced and can function at a higher level will transform the future of the human race. After examining the true facts and reasons behind genetic enhancement, it is clear that the human race will benefit greatly. As such, it is important that normal civilians do not disregard these practices as foreign and taboo, but rather encourage scientists in their quest for the ultimate panacea.
In Fukuyama’s essay over Transhumanism, he describes this idea as the “most dangerous idea.” Transhumanism is the growth of humans through science and technology in every possible aspect of life. While this idea sounds beneficial, Fukuyama argues, “Our good characteristics are intimately connected to our bad ones.” The author emphasizes the how important our bad characteristics and complex minds to suggest these make humans complete. Without our faults, we would lose basic feelings of love, pain, exclusiveness, and even loyalty. The authors appeal to the readers looks as if, without the “bad” nothing would oppose, and compare to the “good.” In emphasizing the contrasts of human nature, the author creates a clear understanding of how these contrasts work with each other. For example, pain hurts but it is not bad to feel pain because it lets us know something is wrong with us. Fukuyama’s line of reasoning explains the importance of mortality in a way of putting life and humans into perspective on a much smaller scale.
In Fukuyama’s short writing Transhumanism, he describes his view on what transhumanism is in the modern-day and he describes problems with the current economy, the possible repercussions of a world with transhumans, and possible side-effects of becoming a trans- human. It would not only affect society by having cyborgs and robotic super humans walking around, but he says that there would need to be a massive change in the government and the laws. There would have to be a defining line that stated the difference between a trans human and a regular human being; he then begins to ask very serious questions that would have to be answered about the sanity and safety of creating transhumans. I will break down his published writing with three topics; Outdated Infrastructure, Physiological effects of biomedical surgery, and apocalyptic transhumans.
There is no doubt that the accomplishments made through technology are astonishing. Technology has made amazing impacts on everything from science in space to medical science to the devices we use every day that make our lives easier. People are living longer and better than ever before, but we can’t forget how to live without it. “Just because technology is there and makes something easier doesn’t mean we should rely on it so much that we can’t think for ourselves,” (Levinson).
Effros, R. B. (2005). Roy Walford and the immunologic theory of aging. Immunity & Ageing, 27-3. doi:10.1186/1742-4933-2-7
The issues of transhumanism, is being contrasted with the eugenics movement ,trivialization of human life and the growing gap of socioeconomic groups. Many transhuman advocates say that the current human condition is a work in-progress, a functional, yet incomplete form that we should seek to make better thr...