Enhancement: Three cheers for biomedical enhancement?

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?