Transhumanism: are we on the brink of creating new human species?

By Jason Major

TechNyou

2011 has brought the futurists out from hiding. Humans have that wonderful capacity to think ahead and speculate and imagine about what could be. In the not-so-distant future, we envision the rise of the machines, victory over disease, ageing and injury, revolutionary transport and energy generation…and so on.

One of the more interesting and ethically challenging futuristic concepts is human enhancement where we use our advanced knowledge and technologies to tweak the human species to make it “better”.  A recent paper in the last Journal of Evolution and Technology is one of a number of commentaries on this topic. Andrew Maynard also touches on this in a recent talk about risk science in the 21^st Century. He outlines 5 pressure point technologies that he predicts will radically change society in the next few decades, two of these relate to human enhancement: machine-human interface and cognitive enhancers.

Transhumanism

Riding on the speculative wave of these enhancement technologies is Transhumanism, which I think I can call a cultural movement. Transhumanists appear to use reason to explore ways to improve the human condition, though “improve” is a subjective and slippery term in this context. Apparently we want to be smarter, faster, stronger, disease-free and immortal (or at least live long enough to complete the standard bucket list). And, according to the JET paper, “Transhumanists expect technological innovations to result in the emergence of several varieties of “posthumans,” defined as “future beings whose basic capacities so radically exceed those of present humans that we are unambiguously a different being. Not sure if they mean we won’t be able to interbreed?

To achieve this, transhumanists are counting on technologies that we don’t have – yet.  Speculation and uncertainty are rife, but it is likely that a lot of it will be possible, some of it in our lifetime and a lot more in our children’s lifetime.  And although we can sit here and make moral or ethical judgements about all this, the people who will be most affected by these technologies will likely have a radically different set of values to ours.  What we see as abhorrent or unethical may struggle to raise the eyebrow of future generations.

Ethics for secondary students

For teachers of senior secondary classes it is likely you will get your students to be looking at genetics (eg, stem cells, genetic testing, gene therapies) and nanotechnologies. The tough bit is getting to think about the potential consequences of this science. Science, as you know, does not operate in a vacuum and the knowledge generated can be used many ways.

In Andrew Maynards talk he makes the point that humans are instinctively afraid of the unknown. It is an evolutionary mechanism that has served us well.  In this technologically-driven world, though we are being increasingly bombarded with new stuff that we instinctively baulk at, some of it with probable cause.

Even today, we need to confront our ability to manipulate the genome to create heritable characteristics. Another is cybernetics (a convergence of nano, bio and IT) that will create technologies that can monitor, repair and enhance cognitive, physical (movement, strength, agility, etc), longevity and health.

What enhancements or therapies are acceptable?

Do we need to distinguish between what might be enhancement and therapy? Personally, I think we should drop this distinction and make the judgement case-by-case. Otherwise breast enhancements would be illegal and one could debate whether vaccination is an enhancement of the immune system.

To get deep and profound, we could consider if such radical changes will influence what it means to be human? Will we need to redefine what it means to be human? Or is this need to improve ourselves actually part of being human?

For students, the standard ethical questions to apply include the following:

• Who will benefit from these technologies, individuals, society, both, neither?
• Will anyone be harmed?
• Will there be equity of access, or will only certain privileged classes of people get access?
• Will we have the right to choose if we want access to these technologies?

A point made in the JET paper is that even if these technologies are not abused, they are likely to raise suspicions, promote political and social differentiation, and exaggerate problems that already exist.

It’s not the science

Another point I find I need to emphasise for secondary students is that it is not necessarily the technology or the knowledge that is the issue, it is how we choose to use it that is important.  The knowledge generated by research into gene therapy and manipulation of the genome will lead to radical treatments for serious disease. The same knowledge might also be used to enhance our strength, agility or cognitive ability. Which, if any, application is acceptable? Are all acceptable so long as nobody is harmed? And how do we define what is harmful or beneficial?

I have made a point of this before also. Take a look at society today and our obsession or desire to stave of age by popping pills, and taking other new-age elixirs – reseveratrol being one of the latest, omega-3s being another; our willingness to go under the knife for cosmetic surgery, pop more pills for muscle growth, sex drive (ie Viagra); even line up to clone ourselves or deceased children. This alone has me predicting that if any of the suggested technologies become available their will be a queue of people willing to use them, regardless of ethical considerations.

And why shouldn’t we?  Again, it comes down to the question of who benefits, who is harmed and our right to choose.

James Watson had the following to say on using genetics to enhance humans:

“But I would use it wherever you could improve human life. I think we should be able to try and improve people’s minds,” he said. “I don’t see genetics as offending the gods, I don’t think there are any gods up there.”

And if you thought this stuff was still a figment of a crusty old scientist’s imagination, this is what the research arm of the US military (DARPA)  -  – is up to (from JET paper):

“DARPA has engaged in a program for “Metabolic Dominance” which would “enable superior physical and physiological performance of the warfighter by controlling energy metabolism on demand” There is also a Metabolic Engineering Program, which “seeks to develop the technological basis for controlling the metabolic demands on cells, tissues, and organisms,” beginning with blood and blood products Peak performance is encouraged by devices to control body temperature, “nutriceutical” foods and “first strike rations,” and “tweaking” mitochondria to increase energy and reduce fatigue. An Augmented Cognition program has aimed to extend the ability to manage information, while the Continuous Assistance Performance (CAP) program has as its goal “to discover pharmacological and training approaches that will lead to an extension of the individual warfighter’s cognitive capability by at least 96 hours and potentially by more than 168 hours without sleep”. The soldier, in this vision, will be more focused, smarter, and have a better memory. He or she would be stronger, fast-healing, and capable of functioning for days at a time without food or sleep.

And who decides?

Who assesses the risk, the potential to manage it, what is good for society and what is not? In the old days it was some dude at the top of the pyramid who was the apparent expert. And for the most part we seemed to trust him (it was usually a him).

Now with the globalisation and the interconnected world we live in with social media, smart phone and other modern communication tools hooked up to the world the top dog is starting to lose his influence. People power is taking over. Having said that, I find it weird that the young generation of today that is embracing all this modern communication tools, yet nearly everyone school group I pose the question to about who should decide what we do with this knowledge, it is this generation that says it should be scientists, governments, kings, queens…  Ah, what will happen when they truly realise the power they hold, literally, in their hands?

I wonder how the new homo species will communicate?