Main content
Course: Wireless Philosophy > Unit 6
Lesson 9: Enhancement: Three cheers for biomedical enhancement?Enhancement: Three cheers for biomedical enhancement?
In this Wireless Philosophy video, we consider the potential effects of the unrestricted development and proliferation of biomedical enhancement technologies. By enabling us to transcend our physical limitations, are these technologies also eroding the very conditions that ground the value and dignity of human life? We celebrate the human capacity for self-improvement, but might certain enhancements transform us into something essentially post-human – and would this too be worth celebrating?
View our Bioethics learning module and other videos in this series here: https://www.wi-phi.com/modules/bioethics/. Created by Gaurav Vazirani.
Video transcript
In this Wi-Phi video,
we’re going to ask: Should we worry about
human enhancement? One of the most exciting medical
technologies to emerge in recent years are brain-computer interfaces that enable users
to interact with an external device using
their thoughts alone. Most research has focused
on treatments for patients with brain injuries who
have lost motor function. In 2021, the US approved
the first wearable interface for stroke victims to use to control
a prosthetic device with their minds. This is wonderful
news for stroke patients! It also opens the door
to possibilities that were, until recently,
pure science fiction: Cars you drive with your mind Headsets that let your boss
monitor what you’re thinking about Being able to have a silent
conversation with your friends by sharing your
thoughts directly Some greet such ideas
with guarded optimism. Like any new technology, we must be careful to consider side
effects and the potential for abuse. But on the whole, optimists see futuristic
enhancements in a positive light. Others are less sanguine. When they imagine these
technologies becoming widespread, they feel anxiety,
not excitement. For every possible benefit, there’s a
possible risk, too. Pessimists worry. One worry about
such enhancements is that they will exacerbate
the already widening gap between the haves and the have nots. If most of us have to
drive using our hands, and have conversations
others can hear or read, while the global elite enjoy
extensive telepathic powers and monitor their workers’
thoughts using corporate implants -- well, that sounds
like what you’d find if you had to look up
‘dystopia’ in the dictionary. Similar concerns arise around
any new technology, though. We always need to
consider the potential social, economic, environmental,
and political consequences when thinking about whether
something’s a good idea. Are there any reasons to be concerned
about enhancement in particular? If you use a step-ladder to
reach an object on a high shelf, you’re transcending the
limitations on your movements imposed by your bodily height. That’s a kind of enhancement. But you haven’t changed. Owning a step ladder
doesn’t make you fundamentally different
from somebody who doesn’t, or from the person you
were before you got it. You can just reach
higher shelves. By contrast, you might argue, if you and your friends could
share your thoughts telepathically, that would be a basic
change to your nature. It wouldn’t be like
getting in shape or learning to dance
the Charleston. It would make you fundamentally
different from all other humans. Linguistic communication through
the use of meaningful sounds or marks is one of the
hallmarks of humanity. It has definitively shaped
all human civilizations, and lies at the heart
of our understanding of reason, knowledge,
and rationality. Telepaths would be
fundamentally different from any human beings
who have ever lived. Now, this change alone might
not make them “post-human”. But if we add some
far-reaching changes made possible by
technological enhancement, it’s not hard to imagine that we’re envisioning creatures
who are no longer humans. To put the point dramatically, telepathy is contrary
to human nature. But … so what? It certainly can sound ominous to say that something
goes against human nature. Some people say that to change
human nature is to “play God,” and that “playing God”
is always a bad idea. But even if that’s right, the same could be said about nearly
any far-reaching medical technology. Why aren’t eyeglasses, vaccines,
blood transfusions, and chemotherapy also ways of playing God? And plus: isn’t
human nature flawed? Many problems are traceable to
biological or psychological deficiencies shared by nearly every
member of our species. If we can improve human
nature … shouldn’t we? A more nuanced strategy is to identify some valuable
aspect of human nature, and argue that the enhancement in
question would undermine that aspect. For instance, you might argue that some of the
limitations human nature imposes are, in fact, essential to us
becoming fully autonomous people. If any enhancement
removes that limitation -- say, by enabling us to communicate
without making any marks or sounds -- then our autonomy may suffer. The arguments will always depend on
the details of the enhancement in question. But the deep ethical questions
underlying many of these debates are really about what
it means to be human. If you see the particular cocktail
of strengths and weaknesses characteristic of human beings
as the crucible of humanity’s value, then you’re likely to
see enhancements that would fundamentally change
those features as a profound threat. On the other hand, if what you cherish most
about human beings is their ingenuity, creativity, and capacity
for rational self-improvement, then you’re likely to view enhancements
the way trans-humanists do -- as exciting stepping
stones into a future that transcends human nature
for something even better. So what do you think?