Humanity has tried to impose its will on evolution throughout the whole history. The Peking Man, erectus pekinensis, 770 thousand years ago, was capable of using bones and stones as tools, starting fires, and gathering plants and berries for nutrition. After hundreds of thousand of years of evolution, the pithecanthropus erectus, only 11-18 thousand years ago, was now capable of creating pottery, and even beginning agriculture, cultivating plants and harvesting them for food. When the Bronze Age arrived in 3000 BCE, civilisation was capable of blacksmithing, textiles, and even trade. As we continued to evolve, we began to stand upright, grew taller, and our frontal cortices grew as well - we became more capable. In the current technological …show more content…
era, technology allows more and higher level manipulations of human ability. Such examples include South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius, a double amputee, was banned from competing in the Olympics as his prosthetic legs absorbed more shock, and thus, were more kinesiologically effective than human limbs. Some high school and college students are taking prescription stimulants for ADHD, aiming to improve their academic performance but having no ADHD themselves. But the extent to which we modify human ability and still be considered as human beings can be an ethical dilemma. Biomedical enhancement grows closer to becoming a accessible reality - and we must ask ourselves how it may affect each individual of us and the society as a whole. As a society built on the idea of the meritocracy, the system that values skill and ability, does the chance to change our capabilities make a farce out of the system? Or does it give us more opportunity to create a better world to live in? Biomedical enhancement, even if widely used, would make little difference due to the meritocratic ideas of hard work, the circumstances outside of hard work, and the opportunity to access these technologies. These ideas suggest that biomedical enhancement would have the same effect upon us as any other revolutionary technology from history - integral, but not enough to truly alter civilisation. What is the meritocracy? The meritocracy focuses on the idea that those who have the most merit are rewarded - those who work the hardest are able to climb the social ladder and gain the advantages they deserve. The idea of the “self-made” man is based on the qualities of genetic talent, hard work, and luck. Originally, hard work was associated with religion, specifically the Puritans: they believed that the harder one worked, the more likely was the person destined for heaven. When they immigrated to America, their work ethic came with them and the concept of the American Dream arose from it: that a combination of natural talent, luck, and hard work would lead to success. The meritocracy has been translated to our modern society as stressing the significance of hard work; that First, we must clarify what society we are discussing.
We can assume that this is a relatively liberal and democratic society, allowing the people to make their own decisions on enhancements, as well as having faith in the State to not take control enhancement as a type of 'new eugenics.' In short, I am describing Allen Buchanan's enhancement enterprise - a society that "recognizes [sic] the legitimacy of biomedical enhancement." (Buchanan, 16) This society must be willing to use some of its economic and political power to allow enhancement to be viable and safe for the public, as well as preventing its abuse. A liberal, democratic society with a free market offers choice to its people, more openly than a more left-leaning State. These opportunities allow one to make their own decisions on what they specialise in, so that they may succeed in the field of their choosing. Without the enhancement enterprise and the freedom of choice that it presents, biomedical enhancement would not be compatible with a …show more content…
meritocracy. Therapy vs. Enhancement - Is Enhancement Even Ethical? Biomedical technologies are more often used to heal than to improve.
Enhancements, such as steroids or abused prescription drugs, were originally created to alleviate symptoms; steroids, for example, are to assist patients with dangerously low body weights. The idea of medicine is to heal, and to restore patients to their normal status. However, technologies that the biomedical sector can supply are often capable of producing exceptional abilities in those without any health issues. While these technologies are strictly used for those with diagnosed disorders, many people with “normal” capabilities often abuse these technologies to attempt to gain an advantage. Those who enhance themselves further are scorned, seen as cheating and not gaining their victories fairly, as seen further into the paper. If we wish to give everyone equal opportunity, as the meritocracy suggest, we must address what we define as enhancement, and what we define as therapy? When would it be acceptable to use these
technologies? The US President Council on Bioethics have attempted to define this enhancement/therapy dichotomy, where therapy is: The use of biotechnical power to treat individuals with known diseases, disabilities, or impairments in an attempt to restore them to a normal state of health and fitness. And enhancement is defined as: [T]he directed use of biotechnical power to alter, by direct intervention, not disease processes but the ‘normal’ workings of the human body and psyche, to augment or improve their native capacities and performances. While the Council is clear on discerning the differences between enhancement and therapy and the ethical considerations of each one, the discussion remains deliberately vague. Therapy is “always ethically fine,” whereas enhancement, at the very least, is “morally suspect.” These conclusions seem generalised, insisting that there is no exceptions in these conclusions. As Isabel Karpin and Roxanne Mykitiuk point out, “If ‘enhancement’ is defined in opposition to ‘therapy,’ what do ‘healthy’ and ‘impaired’, ‘diseased’, ‘disabled’, ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ and ‘super-normal’ all mean?” Before we can begin discriminating between therapy and enhancement, we must first redefine “normal.” Certain human traits are assumed to be typical, such as the number of limbs or general body temperature. A majority of humans display these traits, and therefore they can be defined as “normal.” Yet, this distinction becomes more difficult once we begin to discuss the metaphysical elements of the person. How can we quantify a person’s creativity, musical prowess, or proficiency in abstract thought? Furthermore, these ideas are often seen as positive traits, encouraged in children. These are, as the scholar Eric Juengst points out, limitlessly beneficial psychosocial traits: there exists no “normal” level beyond which we should stop seeking to cultivate - and yes, enhance - them (Juengst, 1998, 29–47).
The use of bioethics to alter one’s physical and mental happiness is portrayed as deceitful to many. This critical analysis evaluates an essay that pledges justification for self-improvement as morally right. The essay, “Bioengineering and Self-Improvement,” was written by Arthur Caplan, professor of bioethics and the University of Pennsylvania and director of Center for Bioethics. As presented in the essay, the author is supports using technology in improving one’s vigor and appearance. In fact, he declares that bioengineering improves one’s self through boosted confidence and self-respect. The author furnishes strong points and his essay is convincing of positive outcomes provided with biotechnology. The author has effectively proven this
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 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.
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 two controversial topics discussed below share a single goal: to enhance the quality of life of a human individual. The first topic, transhumanism, is a largely theoretical movement that involves the advancement of the human body through scientific augmentations of existing human systems. This includes a wide variety of applications, such as neuropharmacology to enhance the function of the human brain, biomechanical interfaces to allow the human muscles to vastly out-perform their unmodified colleagues, and numerous attempts to greatly extend, perhaps indefinitely, the human lifespan. While transhumanist discussion is predominantly a thinking exercise, it brings up many important ethical dilemmas that may face human society much sooner than the advancements transhumanism desires to bring into reality. The second topic, elective removal of healthy limbs at the request of the patient, carries much more immediate gravity. Sufferers of a mental condition known as Body Integrity Identity Disorder seek to put to rest the disturbing disconnect between their internal body image and their external body composition. This issue is often clouded by sensationalism and controversy in the media, and is therefore rarely discussed in a productive manner (Bridy). This lack of discussion halts progress and potentially limits citizens' rights, as legislation is enacted without sufficient research. The primary arguments against each topic are surprisingly similar; an expansion on both transhumanism and elective amputation follows, along with a discussion of the merit of those arguments. The reader will see how limits placed on both transhumanism and elective amputation cause more harm to whole of human society than good.
In this paper I will make an argument between genetic therapy and genetic enhancement. My argument for genetic therapy will state that it should be used, as for genetic enhancement it should be used but to an extent. However, when making the argument as to why genetic enhancement should not be fully used, I will come across to stating some accepted enhancements.
Jared Diamond makes the argument that when humans decided 10,000 years ago to no longer be hunter-gatherers and made the decision to become sedentary and start domesticating their animals and crops, the result is that the human race has experienced a steady downfall. Diamond makes the point that “with agriculture came the gross social and sexual inequality, the disease and despotism that curse our existence,” (Diamond). While the present system certainly is far from being perfected, Diamond’s various complaints and solutions certainly would not be of much use in the present time either.
When and why did Homo Sapiens begin to grow into a thriving population that have produced both cognitive and technological advances? No one knows for certain and because of this question countless amounts of people have decided to become anthropologists. Anthropology is defined as, “the study of human beings and their ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture(Merriam-Webster). Despite all of the time and effort that anthropologists have put into discovering the correct response, the answer to this question is constantly changing because population, cognitivity and technology are constantly changing too. One way to determine how these factors affect Homo Sapiens is by studying past societies. The development of technology expanded rapidly in the Upper Paleolithic era. The technological and cognitive advances made by the growing Upper Paleolithic people changed their lives for the better and allowed them to adapt to their environment in innumerable ways.
Homo erectus adapted to their surroundings. Homo erectus lost most of their body hair, and developed a pelvis; the pelvis allowed bipedal travel for long distances. However, before this evolution of Homo habilis, there were many adaptations that helped put bipedalism into motion and allowing humans to move out of Africa and into other continents like Asia. The adaptation of a larger heel stabilized bipedal movement, the curve in the lumbar region of the spine allowed humans to stand upright, depth perception allowed us to see color, which allowed us to see and distinguish between safe and deadly plants. The development of a bigger brain helped inspire tool production, and a major advancement, how to build a fire. All of the adaptions helped humans rise to the top of the food chain.
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.
As a species we’ve always looked for ways to be faster, stronger, smarter, and live longer. Many enhancements we take for granted today; blood transfusions, vaccinations, and birth control, seemed unnatural or immoral when first introduced. Yet over time we’ve become accustomed to these controls over our minds and bodies, and have used them to better ourselves and our world. Imagine a society without disease, cancers, or heredity disorders. Life span would increase and IQ raised. Mental illness eliminated. Alzheimer’s gone. Hereditary problems, like baldness eradicated. Technology exists to diagnose flawed DNA in pre-implantation embryos, empowering humans to create a stronger, healthier child. Scientists place a new/modified gene into a virus like organism that enters the cell and inserts the new gene. Genetic modification is utilized to correct defective genes that lead to disease or genetic disorders; in simple terms, manipulating human genes to provide a brighter genetic future for humanity. In the future we may also be able to "cure" genetic diseases in embryos by replacing faulty sections of DNA with healthy DNA, in a process called germ line therapy. This has been performed on animal embryos but is currently illegal for humans.
Other necessary turning points occurred not in a few days, months or even years, but instead of evolutionary developments over decades or even centuries. One of the most important turning points in human history is
...s. The view that humans have always advanced through the manipulation of the environment is somewhat better supported. I at least have seen no evidence that humans large advances have not come without the expanded use or destruction of some part of the natural world. Many academics could rightly point out that this has always been the case, and we seem to have done pretty well for ourselves as a race. Why not continue in the same vein? But if it is indeed true that we are as intelligent and advanced as we believe ourselves to be, isn't it far past time that we demonstrated our superiority not through the imposition of our will on the world that surrounds us, but rather through our harmony with it, our struggle to not only ensure our advancement but the advancement of the environment we live in as well?
Association Studies” Farber stated that the strategy has been effective for” simple” (Faber 2). It says how it is simple to change your genetics. But, the tradition genetic analysis attempts to directly relate to DNA variation to clinical trials. Why should people with money have access to enhancing genes? It is like football players on steroids to enhance their playing ability. They are changing who they are just to do something better. Modification to humans shouldn’t be allowed. The modification will suffer from ethical imperative. The abilities will have a suffering and knowingly withhold that help. The big picture is that we are genetically altering our genes. That would changing who we are meant to be. Instead of working for that reward, we are just inserting it into us. There is already so much inequality and disparity in the world.
Human augmentation (enhancement as some call it) can be defined as the intentional manipulation of humans for the purpose of improvement, using both natural and artificial means. Human augmentation may also be called human 2.0 [Techopedia]. Augmentation is any procedure that alters the human form/genes, including, but not limited to, plastic surgery, gene manipulation/therapy, cybernetics, pharmaceuticals, stem cells, nanotechnology, and computer science. Human augmentation is perfectly fine. With augmentation, we as the human race can improve people’s body image, save humanity from many genetic disorders, and improve the overall quality of life. In the future, humans will be able to transcend what it means to be a person through augmentation.
Human enhancement is any attempt to temporarily or permanently overcome the current limitations of the human body through natural or artificial means. It is in our human nature that we somehow increase our life expectancy, become stronger, fearless, independent and smarter. It is no surprise we turn to all sorts of technologies – neurotechnology, nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology – to improve human performances. While they might improve our performances and abilities, their use raises serious health, ethical and economic issues, furthermore, not enough is known about the long-term consequences.