Transhumanism or scientific human modification could be the single most important breakthrough in the history of mankind. The ability to enhance human intellect and change a human being both physically and or psychologically has been the goal of mankind since the dawn of time. The ramifications of allowing a human being to become god like could be catastrophic, but the goal of human evolution has always been to advance the human race in whatever way possible. Thanks to the ability of human beings to alter themselves through genetics, Nano-technology, and through the use of artificial intelligence they are at the onset of allowing themselves to live healthy lives possibly forever. Another of the benefits for trans-humanism is the possibility for human beings to improve the entire field of medicine through technology. Thirdly, the ability to allow something with super-human intelligence to control the outcome of humanity is always falsely viewed as a detriment to the human race.
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...
... middle of paper ...
...A.
Present Hawk's Perch Technical Writing. (2007).Nanotechnology in medicine - nanomedicine. Retrieved from http://www.understandingnano.com/medicine.html
Siegel, A. (2008, April 25). Ethics of stem cell research. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stem-cells/
Torr, J. (2010, April 10). Genetic enhancement can improve humanity. Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com.bakerezproxy.palnet.info/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&disableHighlighting=false&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE|EJ3010212235&mode=view
World Transhumanist Association. "Genetic Enhancement Can Improve Humanity."Genetic Engineering. Ed. James D. Torr. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "The Transhumanism FAQ." 2003. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 10 Apr. 2012.
The second article I have chosen to evaluate for this topic is The Designer Baby Myth written by Steven Pinker. This article starts off by explaining how many people fear the idea of genetic enhancement. Several citizens are concerned about creating the ultimate inequality or changing human nature itself. Many will say technology in medicine is increasing to the point where genetic improvement is inevitable. Steven presents his position on the matter in his thesis statement; “But when it come to direct genetic enhancement-engineering babies with genes for desirable traits-there are many reasons to be skeptical.” He makes it clear that genetic enrichment is not particularly inevitable or likely in our lifetime. He bases his skepticism around three sources; the limits of futurology, science of behavioral genetics, and human nature.
Smith, Wesley J. "The Trouble with Transhumanism." The Center for Bioethics and Culture RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.
Gillespie, Nick. "Who’s Afraid of Human Enhancement?” Evolving Ideas. 2013-2014 ed. Plymouth: Hayden McNeil, 2013. 177-187. Print.
Human characteristics have evolved all throughout history and have been manipulated on a global scale through the use of science and technology. Genetic modification is one such process in which contemporary biotechnology techniques are employed to develop specific human characteristics. Despite this, there are a countless number of negative issues related with genetic modification including discrimination, ethical issues and corruption. Hence, genetic modification should not be used to enhance human characteristics.
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.
Recent breakthroughs in the field of genetics and biotechnology have brought attention to the ethical issues surrounding human enhancement. While these breakthroughs have many positive aspects, such as the treatment and prevention of many debilitating diseases and extending human life expectancy well beyond its current limits, there are profound moral implications associated with the ability to manipulate our own nature. Michael Sandel’s “The Case Against Perfection” examines the ethical and moral issues associated with human enhancement while Nick Bostrom’s paper, “In Defense of Posthuman Dignity” compares the positions that transhumanists and bioconservatists take on the topic of human enhancement. The author’s opinions on the issue of human genetic enhancement stand in contrast to one another even though those opinions are based on very similar topics. The author’s views on human enhancement, the effect enhancement has on human nature, and the importance of dignity are the main issues discussed by Sandel and Bostrom and are the focus of this essay.
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.
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.”
"Eugenics, Genetic Engineering Lite." The Future of Human Evolution. Humans Future, 2010. Web. 14 Feb 2012.
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 tremendously improved the average human lifespan and the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to make humans superior by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This ability raises the question of how ought this new technology be used, if at all? The idea of human enhancement is a very general, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am specifically referring 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 morally obligatory. In this paper I will argue that it is not morally obligatory to genetically intervene, but may be permissible under the criterion established by Savulescu. I plan to argue that the argument used by Savulescu for the obligation to genetically intervene is not the same obligation as the prevention and treatment of disease. The ability for humans to genetically intervene is not sufficient to provide a moral obligation.
With all factors put into place the potential benefits of perfecting human genetic engineering far outweigh the negatives. A world with genetic engineering is a world that would be advantageous to all who undergo the procedure to positively modify their DNA. A genetically engineered human race will be able to have defeated all genetic mutations and diseases, rid humans of possible illnesses in young and unborn children, create drastically longer lifespans, and provide generations with a high quality of life. Human genetic engineering has progressed more rapidly than projected; according to Stephen Hawking, when human genetic engineering is consummated he hypothesizes, “With genetic engineering, we will be able to increase the complexity of our DNA, and improve the human race. But it will be a slow process, because one will have to wait about 18 years to see the effect of changes to the genetic code.”(Hawking). The advancements that genetic engineering will provide for the human race is incredible and we will soon benefit from science and technology more than ever
It address the questions that are at the center of the medical field, such as what it means to be human, the role of technology in health care, and the boundaries of treatments involving advances in technology. Although human enhancement appears to have several positive affects, the negative affects are also great in number. Neither can be overlooked since this technology has the power to not only improve humanity, but also bring it to an all time low. By considering the factors that play into the outcomes of biotechnology, it is possible to answer the pressing questions at hand and to determine the circumstances in which biotechnology could result in beneficial
In Francis Fukuyama’s “Transhumanism”, he discusses the many complexities and contradictions surrounding transhumanism. He persuades his audience through logic and reason to convey the factual side of human nature, and as to why human nature is too fragile to alter. There is a certain balance to the human body and mental functions, and the temptations of transhumanism incredibly endanger this important harmony. Fukuyama goes on to discuss human character, emotion, and morality to show why transhumanism is counterproductive.
The idea of modifying the human body and brain is a very touchy subject. This idea can be very scary, and even more importantly, highly unpredictable. By modifying a human, we would be “modifying a complex, inter-linked package of traits, and we will never be able to anticipate the ultimate outcome” (Fukuyama, 2003, p. 449). Fukuyama also has a very good point here. I agree that by modifying one trait or part of a human, there is no way to predict what would happen to that person’s other traits. For example, if we modify someone’s ability to be “violent and aggressive, we wouldn’t be able to defend ourselves; if we didn’t have feelings of exclusivity, we wouldn’t be loyal to those close to us; if we never felt jealousy, we would also never feel love” (Fukuyama, 2003, p.449). We have to be careful about what we would modify about a human being. As the quote stated, for every trait that we think is hurting us, there is a trait that comes from it, that benefits us immensely. Another example would be that the equality of people in the world would be damaged and ruined. If some of the humans of the word started to get modified into superior beings, where would the people that can’t afford these modifications fall in? As a whole, humans of the world preach and build communities on equality. When
Is the use of Biotechnology better for the lives of humankind? Transhumanism is the belief that through the use of biotechnology, humans can be freed of their biological restraint. On the one hand, transhumanism can transcend the current standard living for humans; on the other hand, biotechnology is not readily available to everyone. Transhumanism is not new and mankind has been a part of this for years. There are many options that protect us from the dangers that transhumanism may present. Even so there are many reasons why transhumanism is unrealistic.