Discussing A Future 

Being human is something we take for granted. Most of the time we go about our days never acknowledging how unique and special we truly are. A simple comparison to observe our differences can be made if we investigate the distinctions humans have from  animals. Human beings can think, love, and feel like no other organism. We are capable of moments of selfless compassion, progressive intuition, and extreme physical feats. Even these examples only scratch the surface of the human condition. However, with such amazing qualities, humans regularly fall short of our own expectations, whether we are responsible for some of these faults or not. Disabilities and supposed shortcomings are present everyday of our lives. From birth defects, such as deafness, and missing limbs and their prosthetic replacements, we strive to augment those lacking a trait to make them “whole.” This discussion includes clear and present use of technological augmentation as well as more implicit uses such as drugs or immunizations. 

We are already on a track of technological developments being able to aid, cure, and solve many human problems. One such example can be found in deafness. Through implants and other technologies, we have widely eradicated deafness to a degree. We have and are still developing better limb prosthetics. Additionally, antidepressants could be put into this emerging category as well as an aid or augmentation to the human condition to benefit our lives. This category I am building is one already under dispute. My goal is to discuss the ideas and potential problems within this category called transhumanism, and perhaps lead you towards an informed and thoughtful stance. I will be using an article from the Journal of Medical Ethics by M. J. McNamee and S. D. Edwards.  

Transhumanism is essentially the movement to modify and enhance the human condition through science and technology. McNamee and Edwards define it much more eloquently: 

Transhumanism is a philosophical movement that advocates for the transformation of the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies able to greatly modify or enhance human intellect and physiology.

This category itself is extremely broad and could take up countless angles in many different essays. My goal is to condense the views of contrasting and controversial perspectives, as well as examine some of the ethical dilemmas behind the movement. As technology increases, our use of it will change and grow. What I hope to discuss will be real questions humans will have to take on as technology only grants us more and more ability. 

Transhumanism includes melding and or integrating technology and machinery in human biology through cybernetics, sophisticated prosthetics, etc. But the movement is much more open ended. It also can include developed drugs to enhance or better a “faulty” human. What if we could take a pill to make us more empathetic? To rid one of selfishness? To make us immune to disease? The list appears endless. 

Our ability to alter humans will come at costs and benefits. Some groups believe it will only work to further humanity. Others worry that we will take it too far too soon. This future could divide economic classes due to affordability. We could be creating another species not definable as homo sapiens. 

This is already broad enough, so I would like to draw it in a little to my first point and discuss who these enhancements would be originally for and what it means for the future. 

Whether what we are doing now is classified as transhumanism or not is controversial. Where it could lead is what I believe is not under dispute. What I mean is we have contemporary technology that is already working to aid or augment humans. But where we seem to be now is only enhancing those who were deficient of the “normal” human condition. There are humans, however they received it, with disabilities, major and minor, who have been enhanced because of these challenges. These enhancements are  in an effort to put them on par with our idea of the healthy human. This could include a cochlear implant to enhance hearing in deaf people, a prosthetic limb for a war veteran, antidepressants to treat chemical imbalance, or anything of that familiar category. I would not classify this as transhumanism, but rather a gateway. These enhancements are possible. I believe transhumanism begins when we are able to offer sophisticated technology to a normal human condition. If given to a healthy human being, it would not be to cure an ailment or disability, but rather to alter human nature in order to enhance a human beyond our normal abilities. This enhancement would begin transhumanism. This is the point at which we become post-biological and merge with technology to evolve past the human condition. One transhumanist, Natasha Vita More, gives examples in the following excerpt:

The body, as we transform ourselves over time, will take on different types of appearances and designs and materials. (...) For hiking a mountain, I'd like extended leg strength, stamina, a skin-sheath to protect me from damaging environmental aspects, self-moisturizing, cool-down capability, extended hearing and augmented vision… For a party, I'd like an eclectic look - a glistening bronze skin with emerald green highlights, enhanced height to tower above other people, a sophisticated internal sound system so that I could alter the music to suit my own taste, memory enhance device, emotional-select for feel-good people so I wouldn't get dragged into anyone's inappropriate conversations. And parabolic hearing so that I could listen in on conversations across the room if the one I was currently in started winding down.

These alterations would be considered transhumanism. However, my particular interest is investigating the point that we reach a blend of two different species: the human and the posthuman. The posthuman being one augmented past normal human condition and thus, at a certain point, forfeits what it means to be human. McNamee and Edwards address this in their own words: 

One possible consequence feared by some commentators is that, in effect, transhumanism will lead to the existence of two distinct types of being, the human and the posthuman. The human may be incapable of breeding with the posthuman and will be seen as having a much lower moral standing… if we no longer have a common humanity, what rights, if any, ought to be enjoyed by transhumans?

This begs the question:  what is to be done regarding the human versus the posthuman? There are many questions that surface with this distinction: What new laws and rights must be established? Who will be able to afford enhancements?  We do not have answers to these questions or the ones that will follow. Perhaps it is frustrating leaving it open-ended like this, but the point of this is not to solve problems but bring them up in discussion so as to be less of a surprise when decisions need to be made. 

As for my stance on transhumanism, it is frightening. Perhaps this is the way to progress, but I believe we must do so with hesitation and contemplation. My reasoning for this being a distrust of humanity to use this technology for a greater beneficial outcome. Even scarier, we can’t even preconceive what these misuses may be. Will there be any amount of privacy when we are all connected to technology? Will our implants be under some regulating corporation subject to corruption? That said I think it is fair to be cautious when giving humans technology that will change our biological natures. 

Granted, this dramatic, but plausible, future hinges on whether we accept these augmentations in the first place. With personal choice and self-understanding being so prevalent in our modern world, transhumanism will only elevate this movement of choice. Best case scenario it will be completely optional, and one can choose to partake or not. Then down this road, the distinction grows, bringing with it, problems similar to what I have mentioned. 

I acknowledge and promote technology for the betterment of human lives who are otherwise below the normative human condition. We are already doing this. Helping those with disabilities or ailments not present in the normal human condition is one area I believe we must continue using technology. Not until we are rid of disabilities and ailments preventing the normal human condition should we look towards transhumanism.  

This distinction between the human and the posthuman will remain throughout this discussion but I would like to move to McNamee and Edward’s thoughts on morality. 

Some radical critics of transhumanism see it as a threat to morality itself. This is because they see morality as necessarily connected to the kind of vulnerability that accompanies human nature.

Transhumanism will alter what we perceive as human morality and identity. This technological movement will either change what it means to be human, or proceed and leave behind the qualities that we understand as being fully human, mainly, vulnerability. This is what McNamee and Edwards were beginning to speak of. Is vulnerability and how we cope with it in ourselves and others not what makes us human? What happens when we shed ourselves of vulnerability? Of course, vulnerability can also be a broad category, but for my sake I am just referring to this broad category for now. For example,  the hardships and vulnerability experienced by all humans and what we hold to be distinctly human. More specifically this can include emotional struggles, aches and pain, guilt, lack of strength or willpower, and death. Indeed, the  list truly does go on much longer. Would we be human without this kind of vulnerability? In fact,  I believe possessing these vulnerabilities and using them as opportunities for growth and wisdom  is what makes us human. Without vulnerability we could lose compassion and fear, or become arrogant and cold as a population. If immortality or at least greatly prolonged life becomes widely available, how would this affect our goals and mindset in life? So much motivation we gather is from our realization that we are not alive forever. Even religious views wherein there is life after death, appreciate the time we have on earth. 

Vulnerability has two meanings I’d like to consider and possibly defend in this discussion of transhumanism: emotional and physical. While these can be discussed under a larger category, I think it is beneficial to distinguish  the two. 

First, emotional vulnerability. The act of being vulnerable with emotions often means the expression of an emotion in a beneficial way and in a healthy environment. Emotional vulnerability is what can lead to the best of what human intimacy and love has to offer. However, emotional vulnerability or the lack of it is a double-edged sword. If one does not open themselves up to others, they do not get hurt but also do not experience the possible love and intimacy of human relationships. I would go as far as to say those relationships are what make life worth living sometimes. This kind of vulnerability is something many understand. We can be hurt, in many senses of that word. Perhaps this common suffering is what binds us together as humans. 

Recalling the heart of this discussion, transhumanism may present us with the ability to rid our human nature of most if not all vulnerability. The larger question I have alluded to, is how transhumanism can change our human condition. How far can it progress before we lose what it means to be human? There is room in this discussion for an entire essay on the religious viewpoints present as you consider transhumanism. With that in mind and excluding religion for now, I believe vulnerability is close to the core of what it means to be human. 

In the beginning of this paper, I drew attention to the differences between  humans and  animals. The ability to sympathize, and more importantly empathize, is one that separates us. We have seen animals mourn and help each other, but nowhere close to our advanced ability of empathy as humans. We can experience emotional and physical pain. Then out of  this experience, we can share and understand the feelings of another human. It is this connection and ability that could  be harmed with transhumanism. This harm to our human nature and our ability to empathize could be mistreated in augmented future situations. 

The second, more graspable, concept of vulnerability is our physical vulnerability. We can feel pain, harm our own bodies, and die (prematurely or simply old age). This physical vulnerability holds much of our “meaning in life.” By this I mean that death is so unforeseeable and present that we live each day in fear of it. The human condition requires us to accept death and do what we can before it catches us. We accept death as a possibility, and therefore live our lives according to this thing we cannot escape. (Again, this topic calls for religious input, but I am staying away from this topic for now.) If we were to prolong life significantly, either by strengthening the physical human condition or by slowing down the process of aging, how would our “meaning of life” change? I see two possible and perhaps ignorant outcomes of prolonged life, of which both can coexist. The first being a newfound motivation. With death taking on a new role of inconvenience rather than an absolute, I believe humans could see this as an opportunity. We may realize the new amount of time we have. With this newfound time and motivation, humanity could enter a golden age. The necessity of more space with the motivation to grow exponentially in science and understanding sounds like the ingredients for a bright future. I appreciated this quote from the article I have been using:

The main goal of these programs seems to be the domination of nature. But we must be more precise. The desire to dominate does not just spring from a lust of power, from sheer human imperialism. It is from the start connected with the aim of liberating humanity from disease, hunger, and toil and enriching life with learning, art and athletics.

Yet with a bright future comes the opportunity for humanity to do what it does best. My second thought towards an outcome of prolonged life would be the contrast to the previous. Instead of realizing the opportunity, we may fall lax. I believe there would be many who take a longer time and do nothing but exist with it. Humans are susceptible to laziness. We could fall further into unproductive cycles of destructive behavior. The possibility of these outcomes by themselves would scare me. While I imagine both as possible, I cannot see one existing without the other. As I mentioned, I think these outcomes would have to coexist. Perhaps just like now, there are those who use time well, those who  squander it, and the rest of us in-between those two at our own unique constantly changing level. I don’t think there can be one without the other. If there is something humans are consistently good at it is being diverse in our hates, loves, motivation and pride; all of which would drive either of these two extreme outcomes into existence. 

While remaining inside the idea of physical vulnerability, the ultimate of death does not have to be our only adaptation. The discussion of transhumanism manifests itself in smaller yet still important areas of vulnerability. Transhumanism and the adaptations it would bring about would not affect everyone at the same time. For a period, there would be those with significant modifications and those without. This could be due to class and financial restrictions, personal choice and bias, or simply availability of the sophisticated science. But this division of the human and posthuman is what would give rise to much of our theoretical problems in the transhumanist future. The physical vulnerability we have as biological humans requires us to be careful in our daily lives. We avoid traffic accidents and angering other humans. We do not take on truly impossible physical feats. As humans we do not regularly assert ourselves as invincible. And the ones who do often do not survive. My point to this is that these reactions are the common human condition. But with transhumanism and its ability to remove fear from us by modifying humans, may be the strife that brings the benefits of transhumanism to a halt. Without their own self-fear, posthumans may become a danger to humans and other posthumans. This danger could manifest itself in a  posthuman being unaware of dangers because they need not fear them anymore. But while the posthumans could ignore physical dangers, the human will be at more risk because of the posthuman’s recklessness. Thus, by losing their physical vulnerability, the posthuman can become a danger to the world they live in. 

Now I envision the future in transhumanism changing the world around humans and posthumans as well. A posthuman being a dangerous driver seems far fetched as we might have self-driving cars by the time a “posthuman” is even possible. But that is one difficult thing about considering the future. We cannot know what it will look like. We can intelligently speculate and theorize, but we have no way of having complete confidence of future events. 

I do not mean to make the posthuman sound like the boogeyman of the future. The posthuman (or whatever other euphemism we give them) will most likely be the poster of health and ambition. I do not think we need to fear the future, but rather embrace its coming and make it the best it can be. I offer this encouragement because vulnerability may not even be the actual problem to consider. 

On this account, our self-understanding would include, for example, our essential vulnerability to disease, aging and death. Suppose the strong transhumanism project is realized. We are no longer thus vulnerable: immortality is a real prospect. Nevertheless, conceptual caution must be exercised here... 

Even the strongest are vulnerable in their sleep.

This last line is what struck me. Maybe vulnerability is actually impossible to eradicate. “Even the strongest are vulnerable in their sleep.” In other words, no matter how advanced we get, we cannot escape something being able to harm us. If nothing we make can be infallible, then maybe there will always be vulnerability in our world. 

I imagine this division being the future’s equivalent to racism. It will divide “humanity” in the same way it still does today. There could be a status quo of general peace. But the notion of being different and having certain advantages or disadvantages will prevail. Out of all the good transhumanism can bring, humans will make it more difficult than it needs to be. 

These changes in our human nature that transhumanism presents will begin to “deprive humans of the naturalness which so far has been a part of the taken-for-granted background of our self-understanding as a species". Whether we think about it everyday or not, the struggles transhumanism aims to fix will deprive us of what makes us realize we are human. I could call back to the ethical discussion of if you could be hooked up to a machine (some glorified version of virtual reality) and experience only pleasure, with no suffering, would you? My response to this is always whether you can even have pleasure in the absence of suffering. With nothing to contrast to one’s pleasure, what is the purpose of it? The same idea seems to apply to the potential future of transhumanism. If we solve the majority of suffering and hardships with technology, we will not appreciate it because we have nothing to compare it to then. Dystopia would be an option, or perhaps more realistically, new sufferings would arise. 

I don’t know if we will even reach this point. I don’t believe humans, being the quirky, stubborn, and complex beings we are, will reach such a dystopian future. There will always be those who oppose one thing and another group to oppose the next. If the time comes, I do trust some humans to be able to see the corruption in some of these scenarios. 

In conclusion, I have great respect for technology and where it is taking us. Developing technology has already done so much to benefit humanity. Sewage systems, clean water, and modern medicines are just a few examples of what we take for granted. We can take our technology further. Why not try our best to make life the best we can for everyone? Transhumanism could allow for the blueprinting of the most benefited, comfortable and capable humans. Morality could be constructed and fully expected. Transhumanism altering humans physically is only the surface. Altering the brain could change even more. Emotions could be evolved, and intellect given. All of that will be possible. To what degree we take it will be the question.

But with every slippery slope benefit, comes a fear and danger. Why stop evolving ourselves? As I mentioned, at a certain point you could not be classified as human. Is self-doubt, pain, disease, hardship, imperfection not what it means to be human? Or rather our ability to overcome every one of those afflictions despite our imperfections? This movement could benefit our world and our comfort in it. But we must be aware of what we are doing. Perhaps humanity’s constant inability to agree will preserve the human race for a longer period of time. 

Transhumanism represents both a better future and the terrifying dangers of it. Would religion be obsolete without suffering or need for self-discipline? If taken to a high degree, we would need to take into consideration the differences and laws for human and posthuman. Equal rights would become even more complicated. Perhaps transhumanism just means eradicating cancer, disease, birth defects and anything in this category. I believe transhumanism could benefit humanity. But how far we take it is what will be dangerous. And having this conversation sooner rather than later can only benefit us. 

Bibliography 

McNamee, M. J., and S. D. Edwards. “Transhumanism, Medical Technology and Slippery Slopes.” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 32, no. 9, 2006, pp. 513–518. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/27719694. Accessed 22 Jan. 2021.