Yet, what, if any, limits should be considered to human enhancement? On what grounds can citizens be prevented from modifying their own genes or brains? How far should reproductive rights be extended? Might enhancement reduce the diversity of humanity in the name of optimal health? Or, conversely, might enhancements inspire such an unprecedented diversity of human beings that they strain the limits of liberal tolerance and social solidarity? Can we exercise full freedom of thought if we can't exercise control over our own brains using safe, available technologies? Can we ensure that enhancement technologies are safe and equitably distributed? When are regulatory efforts simply covert, illiberal value judgments?
(Via Cyborg Democracy.)
Reading assignment: "Holy Fire" by Bruce Sterling.
4 comments:
"Can we exercise full freedom of thought if we can't exercise control over our own brains using safe, available technologies?"
Why does it have to be safe? People are free to do dangerous things every day. We are alowed to buy things (such as cigarettes, for example) which may end up killing us. Sure, maybe you want safe technologies for enhancement, but there are most likely many who would be willing to try new things, knowing the risks, in the name of breaking new ground. After all, the final test of any medical technology or pharmaceutical is a controlled human test. Just throwing it out there. ANDY
Mac -- Thanks for the site link (the article link doesn't work). I scored 100% on both quizzes and, of course, bookmarked the site.
I consider myself an extreme left-liberal (former radical, actually, but mellowing in my old age). However, when it comes to transhuman, I have a huge philosophical problem. I simply can see SIX BILLION PEOPLE being enhanced all together in any way. To say nothing of the political possibility, it's hard to see how it's even technologically possible -- which points to selective enhancement (I'm thinking especially of intelligence and longevity, the only really important enhancements to my mind), which gets us into the whole elitist can of worms about haves and have nots. The only "solution" I'm able to come up with is this. The "growing tip" of humanity -- the incredibly tiny percentage that will be able to incorporate major enhancements -- will simply have to leave Earth and do their evolving on some other world, maybe Mars, ultimately another star system. They will simply have to leave the rest of humanity to its own devices (I hate to say) which probably include things like the Great Dying Back, more wars, etc., etc., etc. Yeah, I guess I'm definitely a pessimist about most people's possibilities for improvement. And I think this is a HUGE issue (note the "huge HUGE") that transhumanist "philosophy" has yet to address and yet MUST ultimately address. Definitely on my soap box today!
Corrigendum to: I simply can see SIX BILLION PEOPLE being enhanced all together in any way.
I meant, of course, that I simply CAN'T see SIX BILLION PEOPLE being enhanced all together in any [meaningful] way.
I dont think there will be the elitist problem in the long term. As the biological sciences advance so will robotics, nano technology, computers ect. In time the processes that enhance a person can be automated. Part of the whole transhuman future/meme/storyline is that as these advances are made the economy of scarcity falls away and something radically different takes its place. Also remember that societies become richer and technologicaly advanced their birthrate tend to fall off.
The future will be neither as bad nor as fantastic as you might imagine but it always seems interesting enough that most people stick around to see what happens next.