Human enhancement

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
For the book edited by Julian Savulescu and Nick Bostrom, see
Human Enhancement (book)
.

Human enhancement is the natural, artificial, or technological alteration of the human body in order to enhance physical or mental capabilities.[1]

Technologies

Existing technologies

Gene therapy using adenovirus vector
Gene therapy using an adenovirus vector

Three forms of human enhancement currently exist: reproductive, physical, and mental. Reproductive enhancements include embryo selection by preimplantation genetic diagnosis, cytoplasmictransfer, and in vitro-generated gametes. Physical enhancements include cosmetics (

pacemaker) and organ replacements (e.g. bionic lenses)), and strength training (weights (e.g. barbells) and dietary supplement)). Examples of mental enhancements are nootropics, neurostimulation, and supplements that improve mental functions.[2][3]
Internet of Things (IoT) devices,[5] including wearable electronics (e.g., augmented reality glasses, smart watches, smart textile), personal drones, on-body and in-body nanonetworks.[6]

Emerging technologies

Many different forms of human enhancing technologies are either on the way or are currently being tested and trialed. A few of these emerging technologies include:

human-animal chimeras (where some cells are human and some cells are animal in origin).[7]

Speculative technologies

Some other human enhancement technologies are still speculative, such as:

exocortex, and endogenous artificial nutrition
. Mind uploading is the hypothetical process of "transferring"/"uploading" or copying a conscious mind from a brain to a non-biological substrate by scanning and mapping a biological brain in detail and copying its state into a computer system or another computational device. The exocortex can be defined as a theoretical artificial external information processing system that would augment a brain's biological high-level cognitive processes. Endogenous artificial nutrition can be similar to having a radioisotope generator that resynthesizes glucose (similarly to photosynthesis), amino acids and vitamins from their degradation products, theoretically availing for weeks without food if necessary.

Nick Bostrom listed some additional capabilities that are expected to be physically possible in theory, given a sufficient technological level, such as:[8]

  • Reversal of aging
  • Cures for all diseases
  • Arbitrary sensory inputs (e.g. generating subjective experience of taste without eating anything)
  • Precise control of personality, mood, motivation, well-being

Nootropics

Main article: Nootropic

There are many substances that are purported to have promise in augmenting human cognition by various means. These substances are called nootropics and can potentially benefit individuals with cognitive decline and many different disorders, but may also be capable of yielding results in cognitively healthy persons. Generally speaking, nootropics are said to be effective for enhancing focus, learning, memory function, mood, and in some cases, physical brain development. Some examples of these include

omberacetam (Noopept)[16][17][18] along with the neuroprotective Semax, and N-Acetyl Semax.[19] There are also nootropics related to naturally occurring substances but that are either modified in a lab or are analogs such as Vinpocetine and Sulbutiamine. Some authors have explored nootropics as relationship enhancements to help couples maintain bonds over time.[20]

Ethics

Much debate surrounds the topic of human enhancement and the means used to achieve one's enhancement goals.[21] Ethical attitudes toward human enhancement can depend on many factors such as religious affiliation, age, gender, ethnicity, culture of origin, and nationality.[22]

In some circles the expression "human enhancement" is roughly synonymous with

human genetic engineering,[23][24] but most often it is referred to the general application of the convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (NBIC) to improve human performance.[25]

Since the 1990s, several academics (such as some of the fellows of the

President Bush's Council on Bioethics[27]) have become outspoken critics.[28]

Advocacy of the case for human enhancement is increasingly becoming synonymous with "transhumanism", a controversial ideology and movement which has emerged to support the recognition and protection of the right of citizens to either maintain or modify their own minds and bodies; so as to guarantee them the freedom of choice and informed consent of using human enhancement technologies on themselves and their children.[29] Their common understanding of the world can be seen from a physicist perspective rather than a biological perspective.[30] Based on the idea of technological singularity, human enhancement is merging with technological innovation that will advance post-humanism.[30]

Neuromarketing consultant Zack Lynch argues that neurotechnologies will have a more immediate effect on society than gene therapy and will face less resistance as a pathway of radical human enhancement. He also argues that the concept of "enablement" needs to be added to the debate over "therapy" versus "enhancement".[31]

The prospect of human enhancement has sparked public controversy.[32][33][34] The main ethical question in the debate about human enhancement involves which legal restrictions, if any, should exist.[35]

prenatal diagnosis, selective abortion and in-vitro fertilization aims to improve human life allowing for parents to decide via genetic information if they want to continue or terminate the pregnancy.[37]

A criticism of human enhancement is that it will create unfair physical or mental advantages, or unequal access to such enhancements, can and will further the gulf between the "haves" and "have-nots".[38][39][40][41]

Futurist Ray Kurzweil has shown some concern that, within the century, humans may be required to merge with this technology in order to compete in the marketplace.[30] Enhanced individuals have a better chance of being chosen for better opportunities in careers, entertainment and resources.[42] For example, life extending technologies can increase the average individual life span, affecting the distribution of pension throughout the society. Increasing lifespan will affect human population, further dividing limited resources such as food, energy, monetary resources and habitat.[42] Other critics of human enhancement fear that such capabilities would change, for the worse, the dynamic relations within a family. Given the choices of superior qualities, parents make their child as opposed to merely birthing it, and the newborn becomes a product of their will rather than a gift of nature to be loved unconditionally.[43]

Effects on identity

Human enhancement technologies can impact human

Homo sapiens. Technologies threaten to alter the self fundamentally to the point where the result is, essentially, a different person entirely.[44] For example, extreme changes in personality may affect the individual's relationships because others can no longer relate to the new person.[41]

The capability approach focuses on a normative framework that can be applied to how human enhancement technologies affects human capabilities.[45] The ethics of this does not necessarily focus on the make up of the individual but rather what it allows individuals to do in today's society. This approach was first termed by Amartya Sen, where he mainly focused on the objectives of the approach rather than the aim for those objectives which entail resources, technological processes, and economic arrangement.[45] The central human capabilities include life, bodily health, bodily integrity, sense, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, other species, play, and control over one's environment. This normative framework recognizes that human capabilities are always changing and technology has already played a part in this.[45]

See also

References

  1. ^ Buchanan, Allen. "Ethical Issues of Human Enhancement". Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Archived from the original on April 3, 2019. Retrieved April 26, 2019.
  2. ^ "Dorlands Medical Dictionary". Archived from the original on January 30, 2008.
  3. PMID 18353672
    .
  4. ^ Landau, Elizabeth (May 7, 2012). "So you're a cyborg – now what?". CNN. Retrieved March 22, 2013.
  5. S2CID 202750140
    .
  6. ISSN 1389-1286
    .
  7. ^ Marilyn E. Coors, Ph.D. "PRO-LIFE ACTIVITIES. Genetic Enhancement: Custom Kids and Chimeras". Retrieved January 8, 2023.
  8. ISBN 978-1646871643
    .
  9. ^ Tardner, P. (August 30, 2020). "The use of citicoline for the treatment of cognitive decline and cognitive impairment: A meta-analysis of pharmacological literature • International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology". International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology. Retrieved August 31, 2020.
  10. ^ Tardner, P. (August 28, 2020). "The effects of phosphatidylserine supplementation on memory function in older people: A review of clinical literature • International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology". International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology. Retrieved August 31, 2020.
  11. PMID 23772955
    .
  12. S2CID 1859924
    .
  13. S2CID 46326744
    .
  14. S2CID 29075809
    .
  15. PMID 18296328
    .
  16. PMID 16277202
    .
  17. S2CID 11773065
    .
  18. PMID 22500312
    .
  19. S2CID 41400991
    .
  20. ISBN 9780804798198
    .
  21. ^ Miah, Andy (September 2016). "The Ethics of Human Enhancement". MIT Technology Review.
  22. S2CID 158049143
    .
  23. ISBN 978-1-4051-2390-7
    .
  24. ISBN 978-0-87840-780-4
    .
  25. ISBN 978-1-4020-1254-9
    .
  26. ^ Bailey, Ronald (June 2, 2006). "The Right to Human Enhancement: And also uplifting animals and the rapture of the nerds". Reason Magazine. Retrieved March 3, 2007.
  27. ^ Members of the President's Council on Bioethics (2003). Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness. President's Council on Bioethics. Archived from the original on February 2, 2007.
  28. ISBN 978-0-8133-4198-9
    .
  29. Utne Magazine. Archived from the original
    on December 30, 2006. Retrieved March 3, 2007.
  30. ^
    doi:10.5840/symposion2016315
    .
  31. ^ R. U. Sirius (2005). "The NeuroAge: Zack Lynch In Conversation With R.U. Sirius". Life Enhancement Products.
  32. The Royal Society & The Royal Academy of Engineering. 2004. Archived from the original
    (PDF) on February 5, 2018. Retrieved December 5, 2006.
  33. ^ "Technology Assessment on Converging Technologies" (PDF). European Parliament. 2006. Retrieved January 12, 2015.
  34. ^ "Human Enhancement" (PDF). European Parliament. 2009. Retrieved January 12, 2015.
  35. S2CID 18817470
    .
  36. ^ Carrico, Dale (2007). "Modification, Consent, and Prosthetic Self-Determination". Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Retrieved April 3, 2007.
  37. S2CID 3579504
    .
  38. ^ Mooney, Pat Roy (2002). "Beyond Cloning: Making Well People "Better"". World Watch Magazine. Archived from the original on April 2, 2019. Retrieved February 2, 2007.
  39. ISBN 978-0-374-23643-4
    .
  40. ^ "Human "Enhancement"". Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future. Retrieved February 2, 2007.
  41. ^
    ISBN 978-1-84465-557-1
    .
  42. ^
    S2CID 11143329
    .
  43. ^ Sandel, Michael J. (2004). "The Case Against Perfection". The Atlantic. Retrieved January 21, 2016.
  44. ^
    PMID 16036459. Archived from the original
    (PDF) on May 17, 2016. Retrieved May 12, 2013.
  45. ^
    doi:10.1007/s10676-010-9231-9
    .

Further reading

External links

Wikiquote has quotations related to Human enhancement.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_enhancement&oldid=1218598640"