Blackwell Publishing Ltd Oxford UK and Malden USABIOTBioethics0269 9702Blackwell Publishing Ltd 20052005193202214ArticlesIN DEFENSE OF POSTHUMAN DIGNITYNICK BOSTROM Bioethics ISSN 0269 9702 print 1467 8519 online Volume 19 Number 3 2005 IN DEFENSE OF POSTHUMAN DIGNITY NICK BOSTROM ABSTRACT Positions on the ethics of human enhancement technologies can be crudely characterized as ranging from transhumanism to bioconservatism Transhumanists believe that human enhancement technologies should be made widely available that individuals should have broad discretion over which of these technologies to apply to themselves and that parents should normally have the right to choose enhancements for their children to be Bioconservatives whose ranks include such diverse writers as Leon Kass Francis Fukuyama George Annas Wesley Smith Jeremy Rifkin and Bill McKibben are generally opposed to the use of technology to modify human nature A central idea in bioconservativism is that human enhancement technologies will undermine our human dignity To forestall a slide down the slippery slope towards an ultimately debased posthuman state bioconservatives often argue for broad bans on otherwise promising human enhancements This paper distinguishes two common fears about the posthuman and argues for the importance of a concept of dignity that is inclusive enough to also apply to many possible posthuman beings Recognizing the possibility of posthuman dignity undercuts an important objection against human enhancement and removes a distortive double standard from our field of moral vision TRANSHUMANISTS VS BIOCONSERVATIVES Transhumanism is a loosely defined movement that has developed gradually over the past two decades and can be viewed as an outgrowth of secular humanism and the Enlightenment It holds that current human nature is improvable through the use of applied science and other rational methods which may make it possible to increase human health span extend our intellectual Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005 9600 Garsington Road Oxford OX4 2DQ UK and 350 Main Street Malden MA 02148 USA IN DEFENSE OF POSTHUMAN DIGNITY 203 and physical capacities and give us increased control over our own mental states and moods 1 Technologies of concern include not only current ones like genetic engineering and information technology but also anticipated future developments such as fully immersive virtual reality machine phase nanotechnology and artificial intelligence Transhumanists promote the view that human enhancement technologies should be made widely available and that individuals should have broad discretion over which of these technologies to apply to themselves morphological freedom and that parents should normally get to decide which reproductive technologies to use when having children reproductive freedom 2 Transhumanists believe that while there are hazards that need to be identified and avoided human enhancement technologies will offer enormous potential for deeply valuable and humanly beneficial uses Ultimately it is possible that such enhancements may make us or our descendants posthuman beings who may have indefinite health spans much greater intellectual faculties than any current human being and perhaps entirely new sensibilities or modalities as well as the ability to control their own emotions The wisest approach vis vis these prospects argue transhumanists is to embrace technological progress while strongly defending human rights and individual choice and taking action specifically against concrete threats such as military or terrorist abuse of bioweapons and against unwanted environmental or social side effects In opposition to this transhumanist view stands a bioconservative camp that argues against the use of technology to modify human nature Prominent bioconservative writers include Leon Kass Francis Fukuyama George Annas Wesley Smith Jeremy Rifkin and Bill McKibben One of the central concerns of the bioconservatives is that human enhancement technologies might be dehumanizing The worry which has been variously expressed is that these technologies might undermine our human dignity or inadvertently erode something that is deeply valuable about being human but that is difficult to put into words or to factor into a cost benefit analysis In some cases for example Leon Kass the unease seems to derive from religious or crypto religious sentiments whereas for others for example Francis Fukuyama it stems from secular grounds The best 1 N Bostrom 2003 The Transhumanist FAQ v 2 1 World Transhumanist Association Webpage www transhumanism org resources FAQv21 pdf 2 N Bostrom Human Genetic Enhancements A Transhumanist Perspective Journal of Value Inquiry Vol 37 No 4 pp 493 506 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005 204 NICK BOSTROM approach these bioconservatives argue is to implement global bans on swathes of promising human enhancement technologies to forestall a slide down a slippery slope towards an ultimately debased posthuman state While any brief description necessarily skirts significant nuances that differentiate between the writers within the two camps I believe the above characterization nevertheless highlights a principal fault line in one of the great debates of our times how we should look at the future of humankind and whether we should attempt to use technology to make ourselves more than human This paper will distinguish two common fears about the posthuman and argue that they are partly unfounded and that to the extent that they correspond to real risks there are better responses than trying to implement broad bans on technology I will make some remarks on the concept of dignity which bioconservatives believe to be imperiled by coming human enhancement technologies and suggest that we need to recognize that not only humans in their current form but posthumans too could have dignity TWO FEARS ABOUT THE POSTHUMAN The prospect of posthumanity is feared for at least two reasons One is that the state of being posthuman might in itself be degrading so that by becoming posthuman we might be harming ourselves Another is that posthumans might pose a threat to ordinary humans I shall set aside a third possible reason that the development of posthumans might offend some supernatural being The most prominent bioethicist to focus on the first fear is Leon Kass Most of the given bestowals of nature have their given speciesspecified natures they are each and all of a given sort Cockroaches and humans are equally