Transhumanism is a philosophy based on the technologies of genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics (GNR), and artificial intelligence that argues for the transcendence of human limitations by harnessing the power of science and technology to an advantage. Transhumanism is also used to denote a philosophical field that examines the possibilities and ethics of such dramatic technological change as represented by GNR and artificial intelligence. With the idea of transhumanism is today’s world, there is a very obvious conflict. There are always two sides to an argument and you could definitely say that both sides of transhumanism both state some very good points. I’d say my stance in this whole argument is somewhere in between both sides because …show more content…
The pro-transhumanist would likely argue that “the goal toward which humanity has been striving for millennia has been to liberate ourselves from more and more of our ancestors’ biological constraints” (Bailey, 2004, p. 452). Bailey has a very good point here because as a species, humans have progressed naturally since mankind was even a thing and even today we face various biological constraints that slow us down. If we could use the ideals of transhumanism to solve and fix these constraints than we will, in theory, be near-perfect human beings. All throughout human life on earth, we have gotten better over time as a species. To give a few examples, “our ancestors had no wings; now we fly. Our ancient forebears could not hear one another over 1,000 miles; now we phone. And our Stone Age progenitors averaged 25 years of life; now we live 75” (Bailey, 2004, p. 452). A big reason for all of this? Technology advancements throughout time. If the human species has been advancing through technology in all of these years, then why is it such a big conflict now? There are so many variables that come into play with this idea, one side will never be completely …show more content…
The idea of modifying the human body and brain is a very touchy subject. This idea can be very scary, and even more importantly, highly unpredictable. By modifying a human, we would be “modifying a complex, inter-linked package of traits, and we will never be able to anticipate the ultimate outcome” (Fukuyama, 2003, p. 449). Fukuyama also has a very good point here. I agree that by modifying one trait or part of a human, there is no way to predict what would happen to that person’s other traits. For example, if we modify someone’s ability to be “violent and aggressive, we wouldn’t be able to defend ourselves; if we didn’t have feelings of exclusivity, we wouldn’t be loyal to those close to us; if we never felt jealousy, we would also never feel love” (Fukuyama, 2003, p.449). We have to be careful about what we would modify about a human being. As the quote stated, for every trait that we think is hurting us, there is a trait that comes from it, that benefits us immensely. Another example would be that the equality of people in the world would be damaged and ruined. If some of the humans of the word started to get modified into superior beings, where would the people that can’t afford these modifications fall in? As a whole, humans of the world preach and build communities on equality. When
Smith, Wesley J. "The Trouble with Transhumanism." The Center for Bioethics and Culture RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.
Fukuyama argues that the need for humans full emotional gamut is the most important unique human characteristic and humans will constantly believe they know what are "good" and "bad" emotions. Fukuyama presents the idea of biogenetics being able to take away attributes that are perceived to be "evil", but "in the absence of these human evils there would be no sympathy, compassion, courage, heroism, solidarity, or strength of character."(Fukuyama 202). This becomes an issue because humans have lost respect for those emotions and forget that they are needed for their ethical emotions to be apart of them. Fukuyama coins the term "genetic lottery" which is the wide range of genetic variations that make humans all different, but also makes them all human. Once humans narrow this genetic lottery down, they lose their differences, and now being human will become a narrow definition instead of a unique one. With the rise of new genetics neglecting the idea of human dignity, or what it means to be human, we will see that a hierarchical system ruled by genetically modified people and the oppression that will
A problem that could arise is a repeat of history. Inequality. Our society would be divided into two groups, the “valids” or “perfect humans” and the “in-valids” or “non perfect humans.” This is just another form of discrimination, whereby people are judged because of the circumstances of they were born, something that they have no control over. "I belong to a new underclass, no longer determined by social status or the colour of your skin. We now have discrimination down to a science." -Vincent. In the film “in-valids were granted less rights than the “valids.” Sounds familiar? In the 1960’s many protests occurred because of the inequality and brutality against African-Americans, who had their rights taken away from them based on the colour of their skin. Introducing the practice of genetically modifying humans to live up to the ideology of perfection could cause protests, violence, chaos and possibly a repeat of the Civil Rights Movement. For many years our society has been attempting to eliminate inequality, but this practice could just as easily re-create
Firstly, a concerning issues related with the enhancement of characteristics through genetic means is discrimination in society. The text “Flowers for Algernon” epitomizes discrimination, where the protagonist Charlie Gordon undergoes a revolutionary change from his mental disability to a genius through an experimental surgery. Following the experiment, his intelligence escalates to a degree such that he progressively becomes isolated from the rest of society. Furthermore, Gordon explains his new intelligence to have “driven a wedge between [him] and all the people [he] once knew and loved” and expresses that “people don’t talk to [him] anymore and it makes [his] job lonely” (insert reference). This reveals a form of discrimination between the upper class and lower class individuals. Likewise, the film “Gattaca” depicts discrimination through the contrast of individual characters. The protagonist Vincent Freeman, is a naturally conceived baby who inherits a “99% probability [of developing] a heart disorder and a subsequent life expectancy of 30.2 years” (insert reference). In contrast, Vincent’s younger brother Anton has been artificially conceived providing him with physical advantages complemented with remarkable ...
The concept has been further discussed and explored by Italo-Australian philosopher and feminist scholar Rosi Braidotti in her, aptly named, book The Posthuman1, in which she states that despite the set term of conservative and oftentimes religious societies of what human and humanity is we have in fact achieved the deconstruction of that with the help of technology and progress made in society as well as the passage of various periods in post-history. Braidotti calls herself an “anti-humanist” and mainly tackles feminist concepts such as the crumbling of gender roles,
In this paper, I will argue that genetic therapies should be allowed for diseases and disabilities that cause individuals pain, shorter life spans, and noticeable disadvantages in life. I believe this because everyone deserves to have the most even starting place in life as possible. That is no being should be limited in their life due to diseases and disabilities that can be cured with genetic therapies. I will be basing my argument off the article by “Gene Therapies and the Pursuit of a Better Human” by Sara Goering. One objection to genetic therapies is that removing disabilities and diseases might cause humans to lose sympathy towards others and their fragility (332). However, I do not believe this because there are many other events and conditions in society that spark human compassion and sympathy towards others.
Have you ever wondered what it is exactly that makes us human? Is it the mistakes we make, or maybe our opposable thumbs? I believe there are many things that make us human, one of which includes our biological programming to die at some point in time. Death is something every human is aware of and every human embraces eventually. Philip K. Dick’s dystopian texts “The Electric Ant” and “A Little Something for Us Tempunauts” both use death as a means to illuminate that we are human; death reminds humans that we are not eternal. In these short stories, Dick speaks through the eyes of his protagonists who have been stripped of their humanity and describes the significance behind their individual choices to seek death.
Using science to modify humans, and better ourselves is becoming more of a reality every year. The term transhumanism can be defined as, a method to increase human’s physical and mental capacities using science (Koch, pg 686). It’s an idea that has been around for as long as humans. Humans will always strive to better themselves, and with new advances in technology and bioengineering this becomes more of a reality. The best examples are simple technologies like pacemakers, or prosthetics. They help people to live better. There are certainly more transhumanist technologies that will be developed to help the human race. However, there are many ethical issues related to transhumanism as well. Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment is a piece of literature written by Nathaniel Hawthorne. It
Manipulating the genes of plants and animals is a feat we have mastered already. We are very close to doing the same thing with humans in an attempt to make them smarter, bigger and leaner (McKibben 22). Gregory Stock, an apostle of human engineering,' said of human germ line engineering, "It touches at the very core of what it means to be human. We are seizing control of our own evolution" (Gianelli 25). Mr. Stock summarized the very basis of genetic enhancement in this quote.
Consistently throughout history people have tried to prove that groups with inborn qualities can either vastly improve or degenerate different races over time. This rhetoric has been proven multiple times throughout the course of the last century throughout the United States and Nazi reigned Germany. Supposedly, this rhetoric has been disproven throughout the United States; however, there are proven accounts that the United States government has recently supported this theory of sterilization of minorities by supporting the eugenics movement was not only in Nazi Germany, but also on United States soil. The topic of improving the genetic make up of different races has not only just become a common theme for many modern day countries to use to make their societies more genetically fit. However, it has adopted the basis for current racism that is clearly apparent in today’s society. If improving genetic fitness was not a concern to past societies, then people, in general would be a lot more open to interracial and cross-cultural relationships rather than completely disregarding the idea of dating someone that is visibly genetically different.
Imagine that you are able to teleport to the not too distant future. In this world you discover that disease and poverty are no longer causes for human suffering, world hunger has become eliminated from society, and space travel is as easy as snapping your fingers. Cryonics, nanotechnology, cloning, genetic enhancement, artificial intelligence, and brain chips are all common technologies at a doctor’s office. You gasp as a friendly sounding electronic voice cries out, “Welcome to the future Natural!” You are unsure of whether being called a Natural is an insult or not, so you feign a half-hearted hello at the posthuman in front of you. Getting over the initial shock you ask the posthuman, “Who are you?” The posthuman gives an electronic sounding chuckle and shakes his head. He replies, “I am a Posthuman, and you Natural, are in Utopia. Welcome.”
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.
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.
With all factors put into place the potential benefits of perfecting human genetic engineering far outweigh the negatives. A world with genetic engineering is a world that would be advantageous to all who undergo the procedure to positively modify their DNA. A genetically engineered human race will be able to have defeated all genetic mutations and diseases, rid humans of possible illnesses in young and unborn children, create drastically longer lifespans, and provide generations with a high quality of life. Human genetic engineering has progressed more rapidly than projected; according to Stephen Hawking, when human genetic engineering is consummated he hypothesizes, “With genetic engineering, we will be able to increase the complexity of our DNA, and improve the human race. But it will be a slow process, because one will have to wait about 18 years to see the effect of changes to the genetic code.”(Hawking). The advancements that genetic engineering will provide for the human race is incredible and we will soon benefit from science and technology more than ever
Would it be the start of a new era for humanity? Or extinction? It’s on this issue that Transcendence is based. The idea is not new. The transfer of a human being into a computer is often reflected on in science fiction theory or even its expansion via the Internet and its worldwide takeover, which is the basis of the plot in Terminator. But Transcendence is not about machines uprising. It’s about the human identity and the limit we want to give it. The movie elaborates and reflects on a situation that it wants to make us believe is possible in today’s world. Are we still far? Artificial intelligence is increasingly present in our lives. We all have a form of it in our cell phones, Siri and other programs, transformed the simple machine in something that we talk to, ask questions, and have a sort of conversation with. In a way it gave life to the machine, it gave it a voice. Transcendence is a cautionary tale about the perils of artificial intelligence and is full of philosophical and ethical questions regarding the advent of artificial