DOC PREVIEW
VANDERBILT HON 182 - IN DEFENSE OF POSTHUMAN DIGNITY

This preview shows page 1-2-3-4 out of 13 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 13 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 13 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 13 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 13 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 13 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Bioethics ISSN 0269-9702 (print); 1467-8519 (online) Volume 19 Number 3 2005 © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UKand 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UK and Malden, USABIOTBioethics0269-9702Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 20052005193202214Articles IN DEFENSE OF POSTHUMAN DIGNITYNICK BOSTROM IN DEFENSE OF POSTHUMAN DIGNITY NICK BOSTROM ABSTRACTPositions on the ethics of human enhancement technologies can be(crudely) characterized as ranging from transhumanism to bioconserva-tism. Transhumanists believe that human enhancement technologiesshould be made widely available, that individuals should have broaddiscretion over which of these technologies to apply to themselves, and thatparents should normally have the right to choose enhancements for theirchildren-to-be. Bioconservatives (whose ranks include such diverse writersas Leon Kass, Francis Fukuyama, George Annas, Wesley Smith, JeremyRifkin, and Bill McKibben) are generally opposed to the use of technologyto modify human nature. A central idea in bioconservativism is thathuman enhancement technologies will undermine our human dignity. Toforestall a slide down the slippery slope towards an ultimately debased‘posthuman’ state, bioconservatives often argue for broad bans on other-wise promising human enhancements.This paper distinguishes two common fears about the posthuman andargues for the importance of a concept of dignity that is inclusive enoughto also apply to many possible posthuman beings. Recognizing the possi-bility of posthuman dignity undercuts an important objection againsthuman enhancement and removes a distortive double standard from our field of moral vision. TRANSHUMANISTS VS. BIOCONSERVATIVESTranshumanism is a loosely defined movement that has devel-oped gradually over the past two decades, and can be viewed asan outgrowth of secular humanism and the Enlightenment. Itholds that current human nature is improvable through the useof applied science and other rational methods, which may makeit possible to increase human health-span, extend our intellectualIN DEFENSE OF POSTHUMAN DIGNITY 203 © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005 and physical capacities, and give us increased control over ourown mental states and moods. 1 Technologies of concern includenot only current ones, like genetic engineering and informationtechnology, but also anticipated future developments such as fullyimmersive virtual reality, machine-phase nanotechnology, andartificial intelligence.Transhumanists promote the view that human enhancementtechnologies should be made widely available, and that individu-als should have broad discretion over which of these technologiesto apply to themselves (morphological freedom), and thatparents should normally get to decide which reproductive tech-nologies to use when having children (reproductive freedom). 2 Transhumanists believe that, while there are hazards that need tobe identified and avoided, human enhancement technologies willoffer enormous potential for deeply valuable and humanly bene-ficial uses. Ultimately, it is possible that such enhancements maymake us, or our descendants, ‘posthuman’, beings who may haveindefinite health-spans, much greater intellectual faculties thanany current human being – and perhaps entirely new sensibilitiesor modalities – as well as the ability to control their own emotions.The wisest approach vis-à-vis these prospects, argue transhuman-ists, is to embrace technological progress, while strongly defend-ing human rights and individual choice, and taking actionspecifically against concrete threats, such as military or terroristabuse of bioweapons, and against unwanted environmental orsocial side-effects.In opposition to this transhumanist view stands a bioconserva-tive camp that argues against the use of technology to modifyhuman nature. Prominent bioconservative writers include LeonKass, Francis Fukuyama, George Annas, Wesley Smith, JeremyRifkin, and Bill McKibben. One of the central concerns of thebioconservatives is that human enhancement technologiesmight be ‘dehumanizing’. The worry, which has been variouslyexpressed, is that these technologies might undermine ourhuman dignity or inadvertently erode something that is deeplyvaluable about being human but that is difficult to put into wordsor to factor into a cost-benefit analysis. In some cases (for exam-ple, Leon Kass) the unease seems to derive from religious orcrypto-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 TranshumanistAssociation. 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. 493–506.204 NICK BOSTROM © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005 approach, these bioconservatives argue, is to implement globalbans on swathes of promising human enhancement technologiesto forestall a slide down a slippery slope towards an ultimatelydebased, posthuman state.While any brief description necessarily skirts significantnuances that differentiate between the writers within the twocamps, I believe the above characterization nevertheless high-lights a principal fault line in one of the great debates of ourtimes: how we should look at the future of humankind andwhether we should attempt to use technology to make ourselves‘more than human’. This paper will distinguish two common fearsabout the posthuman and argue that they are partly unfoundedand that, to the extent that they correspond to real risks, thereare better responses than trying to implement broad bans ontechnology. I will make some remarks on the concept of dignity,which bioconservatives believe to be imperiled by coming humanenhancement technologies, and suggest that we need to recog-nize that not only humans in their current form, but posthumanstoo could have dignity.TWO FEARS ABOUT THE POSTHUMANThe prospect of posthumanity is feared for at least two reasons.One is that the state of being posthuman might in itself bedegrading, so that by becoming posthuman we might be harmingourselves. Another is that posthumans might pose a threat to‘ordinary’ humans. (I shall set aside a third possible reason, thatthe development of posthumans might offend some supernaturalbeing.)The most prominent bioethicist to focus on the first fear isLeon


View Full Document

VANDERBILT HON 182 - IN DEFENSE OF POSTHUMAN DIGNITY

Download IN DEFENSE OF POSTHUMAN DIGNITY
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view IN DEFENSE OF POSTHUMAN DIGNITY and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view IN DEFENSE OF POSTHUMAN DIGNITY 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?