TRANSHUMANISM AND POSTHUMANISM • Scott, M.; Oppenheim, A.; and Rodrigue, J. 2000. Adequacy of its functional capacity. Transhumanism and posthumanism Informed Consent for Tissue Donation: A Survey of Donor are worldviews, or philosophies, that strongly favor an Families. Gainesville: University of Florida Tissue Bank, Inc. affirmative reply to these questions and that look forward to Tomford, W. W. 1993. “A History of Musculoskeletal Tissue the day when homo sapiens have been replaced by biologi- Banking in the United States.” In Musculoskeletal Tissue Bank- cally and technologically superior beings. ing, ed. W. W. Tomford. New York: Raven Press. U.S. Congress. 1984. National Organ Transplantation Act (PL Transhumanism has been defined as “the intellectual 98–507). and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the desirability of fundamentally improving the human condi- Inspector General. 2001. Informed Consent in Tissue Donation: tion through applied reason, especially by using technology Expectations and Realities. Washington, D.C.: Author. to eliminate aging and greatly enhance human intellectual, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the physical, and psychological capacities” (Bostrum, 1999). A Inspector General. 2001. Oversight of Tissue Banking. Wash- posthuman would no longer be a human being, having been ington, D.C.: Author. so significantly altered as to no longer represent the human Youngner, Stuart; Anderson, Martha; and Schapiro, Renie. 2003. species. Underlying this worldview is a core belief that the Tissue Transplantation: Ethical Issues. Oxford: Oxford Univer- human species in its current form does not represent the end sity Press. of our development, but rather its beginning (Bostrom, 1999).
INTERNET RESOURCES The tools transhumanists would use to achieve their ends include genetic manipulation, nanotechnology, cy- American Association of Tissue Banks, Eye Bank Association of America, and Association of Organ Procurement Organiza- bernetics, pharmacological enhancement, and computer tions. 2000. Model Elements of Informed Consent for Organ and simulation. The most ambitious—and controversial— Tissue Donation: Joint Statement. Available from
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIOETHICS 3rd Edition 2517 TRANSHUMANISM AND POSTHUMANISM • updated to recent transhumanist writings, such as Bart 1999). There is nothing sacrosanct about nature in general, Kosko’s The Fuzzy Future (1999), in which he proclaims: or about human nature in particular. Criticisms of attempts “Biology is not destiny. It was never more than tendency. It to modify nature as “playing God” or as the ultimate human was just nature’s first quick and dirty way to compute with hubris are therefore rejected as inappropriate. meat. Chips are destiny” (p. 256). Consider also Kevin Katherine Hayles, in her book How We Became Warwick’s declaration, written in 2000, “I was born human. Posthuman (1999), describes four characteristic posthuman, But this was an accident of fate—a condition merely of time or transhuman, assumptions. First, information patterns are and place. I believe it’s something we have the power to more important or essential to the nature of being than any change” (p. 145). Derived from other Enlightenment ideals “material instantiation, so that embodiment in a biological is a fierce libertarianism, supported by a postmodern moral substrate is seen as an accident of history rather than an skepticism, that proclaims that each individual is the final inevitability of life” (p. 2). Second, consciousness is an arbiter of what is right and appropriate for his or her life or epiphenomenon. There is no immaterial soul. Third, the body. One also sees a precedent for transhumanist thinking body is simply a prosthesis, albeit the first one we learn to use in Frederick Nietzche’s thoughts on the will to power and and manipulate. Consequently, replacing or enhancing hu- the ubermensche (superman), particularly in Thus Spake man function with other prostheses is only a natural exten- Zarathustra, “man is something to be overcome”(p. 12). sion of our fundamental relationship with our begotten As a named movement, transhumanism started in the bodies. Lastly, the posthuman views the human being as 1980s with the writings of a futurist known as FM-2030, capable of being “seamlessly articulated with intelligent with the term transhuman being a shorthand for transitional machines. In the posthuman, there are no essential differ- human (Bostrom, 1999). Transhumans were “the earliest ences or absolute demarcations between bodily existence and manifestation of new evolutionary beings, on their way to computer simulation, cybernetic mechanism and biological becoming posthumans” (FM-2030). Within the first years organism, robot technology and human goals” (p. 3). of the 1990s, a whole series of groups emerged embracing transhumanist ideology, including the Extropians, the Transtopians, and the Singularitarians, the latter group Ethical Issues anticipating and working to bring about the technological One of the first significant ethical issues relating to “Singularity” predicted by Vernor Vinge. Writing in 1993, transhumanism and posthumanism is the question of en- Vinge predicted that the exponential increase in scientific hancement or augmentation: should human beings aug- and technical knowledge, coupled with feedback loops from ment or enhance themselves and future generations? This is artificial intelligence systems, would soon lead to a massive not a simple question to answer, though humans have made destabilization and transformation of all social structures, a practice of augmenting and enhancing themselves through- technical devices, and human beings, who would be trans- out recorded history. This is the nature and explicit goal of formed into superior beings. While the Singularity is the all tool use and education. Yet there are some implicit most extreme of the transhumanist visions, the idea that boundaries that transhumanist modifications challenge. humankind should engineer the next phase of its own As an example, consider correction of vision. The use of evolution, and that human beings should be augmented and glasses or contact lenses to correct vision is an example of a altered, even to the point of losing their humanity, has commonly employed augmentation. Yet this intervention is captured the thinking of numerous faculty and leaders in the only correcting a deficiency, returning the individuals func- engineering and scientific establishment. This can no better tion to species-normal levels. It is thus a healing intervention be illustrated than the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) more than an enhancement. What becomes problematic for proposed plan for converging several technologies, includ- some is when the augmentation or enhancement in question ing nanotechnology, biotechnologies, information technolo- potentially exceeds the function that could be achieved by gies, and cognitive technologies (such as cybernetics and the finest specimens of homo sapiens trained in the most neurotechnologies) for the expressed purpose of improving rigorous fashion. People accept the use of some enhancing human performance (Roco and Bainbridge). technologies, such as telescopy or microscopy, which may be used for a time, and for a specific purpose, but cannot become a permanent fixture of the human being. They Fundamentals of Transhumanism remain tools, rather than becoming attributes. Thus it is and Posthumanism acceptable to use a computer or personal digital assistant The first assertion of transhumanist thinking is a rejection of (PDA), which can be separated from the user, but perma- the assumption that human nature is a constant (Bostrom, nently enhancing the brain with cybernetic connections or
2518 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIOETHICS 3rd Edition TRANSHUMANISM AND POSTHUMANISM • brain implants seems to many to cross a boundary that intervention intended to move function beyond species- should not be violated. Why is this so? normal levels would be rejected. This leads to the next series of concerns: the social consequences of transhumanism. The Two criticisms of such permanent enhancements are pursuit of transhumanist goals could lead to individuals and that: (1) they are unnatural; and (2) they engage people in communities possessing significant differences in the type activities that should be the sole purview of the deity— and extent of biotechnological modifications. One conse- “Playing God” is a frequent aspersion thrown at enhance- quence of these disparities will be the likelihood of discrim- ment technologies. While these are both legitimate con- ination—against both the enhanced and the unenhanced, as cerns, the rhetoric used in the critique typically misses the each community may feel threatened by the other. Claims of point, which is a concern about the appropriateness, per- unfair competitive advantage are probable, potentially lead- sonal and social consequences, and wisdom of pursuing the ing to attempts at restrictive legislation. Yet it is doubtful proposed modifications and are thus generally dismissed as such restrictions would find sufficient consensus to be irrelevant by transhumanists (without addressing the genu- passed, let alone prevent the enhancements from taking ine issues). place. According to Freeman Dyson, a British physicist and Transhumanists dismiss the claim of unnatural because educator, “the artificial improvement of human beings will most of what human beings do with any technology is come, one way or another, whether we like it or not, as soon unnatural, yet these uses are accepted as benefits, not harms. as the progress of biological understanding makes it possible. As to the second argument, many, if not most, transhumanists When people are offered technical means to improve them- are agnostic or atheists, and thus engaging in a supposed selves and their children, no matter what they conceive Promethean rebellion against the gods is not to them a improvement to mean, the offer will be accepted.… The legitimate concern. The issue is one of great concern to technology of improvement may be hindered or delayed by theists, however, though the way the argument is commonly regulation, but it cannot be permanently suppressed.… It expressed comes close to violating their own basic theologi- will be seen by millions of citizens as liberation from past cal tenants. Can God be so easily dethroned? Can the constraints and injustices. Their freedom to choose cannot creature really act outside the permissive will of the creator? be permanently denied” (p. 205–206). Particularly powerful— Further, many theologians assert that part of the Imago Dei, especially in the United States, which is predicated upon the the “image of God,” that humankind is said to bear, is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—is the argument posed by the transhumanist Anders Sandberg that creative impulse. freedom to pursue enhancing technologies is a fundamental The real issue of concern to those who object to or are matter of the right to life. wary of transhumanist goals is that human beings are One likely consequence of this is that multiple commu- engaging in activities that may have a profound impact on nities will develop that adhere to certain values and agreed- the individuals involved, as well as on the surrounding upon levels of technological modification. But as some environment, without balancing forces or divine wisdom groups may choose lesser degrees of enhancement they may that might minimize possible negative consequences of such run the risk of becoming ghettoized or restricted from other activities. From the environmental, or naturalist, perspec- goods of the larger society that they may still desire. While tive, the changes are occurring too swiftly and too dramati- some transhumanists are quite clear that they do not wish to cally for ecosystems or individual creatures to evolve appro- force their desires for enhancement onto others (Bostrom, priate safeguards or counterbalances. From the more theistic 1999), as a group, or even as individual scholars, they have perspective, these changes are occurring without proper not satisfactorily resolved how tolerance will be maintained understanding and respect for God’s initial designs and plan, both within and outside their communities of choice. In and certainly without God’s foresight or wisdom. In the end, fact, some transhumanists already display belligerent atti- both arguments are expressing concern for the great harm tudes against skeptics and dissenters (Dvorsky; Smith; that these interventions could potentially induce, calling Shropshire). into question activities that presuppose a significant degree This fact itself acknowledges one of the fundamental of knowledge, foresight, and wisdom that may, and most flaws of transhumanist, or any other, utopian thinking: the likely will, be lacking. Hubris, therefore, not ingenuity or failure to understand the darkness, the fears, and the unpre- even a passion for change, is the fundamental problem. dictability of each human heart. The lesson of the twentieth For others, however, even if such enhancements would century, such as the experience with eugenics, fascism, and not be tried until there was careful prospective evaluation communism, should have been to beware the power of for, and protections against, undesirable consequences, any utopian dreams to enslave, destroy, and demean, rather than
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIOETHICS 3rd Edition 2519 TRIAGE • provide the promised justice, freedom, and human flourish- McDermott, John. 1969. “Technology: The Opiate of the ing. Now the transhumanists offer yet another form of Intellectuals.” New York Review of Books. human contrivance to provide salvation for all. This time the Nietzche, Frederick. 1995 (1883–1892). Thus Spake Zarathustra, faustian bargain is with technology—what John McDermott, a trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York: Modern Library. professor emeritus in labor studies at the State University of New York at Old Westbury, has referred to as “the opiate of INTERNET RESOURCES the intellectuals”—rather than with economic or political Bostrom, Nick. 1999. “The Transhumanist FAQ.” Available systems. from
2520 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIOETHICS 3rd Edition