As many of you may be aware, many of my beliefs are similar to those of a transhumanist. For those not conversant in futurist terminology, this is the definition (from the
World Transhumanism Association’s FAQ)
quote:
The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.
Many transhumanists, like myself, will naturally spend much time thinking on the societal and ethical implications of this viewpoint.
I have recently noticed that objection to human enhancement is quite correlated with creationism. Many of the people I debate evolution with are also opposed to human enhancement, and I have been considering why.
Firstly, I think that if someone has accepted the idea that a human being is the special creation of a perfect divine power, then we are somehow perfect (and thus transhumanist efforts can only make things worse). And, even if we aren’t considered perfect, there is the opinion that only divine intervention can help us be better in any way. In contrast, if one believes that humans are the product of natural (and imperfect - many ”new-age’ beliefs insist that natural is perfect than technological, and so transhumanism clashes with those beliefs too) processes, then there is no reason why we cannot change it, as we would only be directing our own evolution.
Secondly, the idea of the soul, while not solely restricted to creationists, is also not particularly congruent with transhumanism. As the soul is not a physical entity, it cannot be improved upon by physical means such as genetic engineering or cybernetics. However, if one believes that the entire of human consciousness is controlled by a physical brain, then there is nothing but technological limitations in the way of enhancing it.
I have a quote from the Vatican document titled “
Human Persons created in the Image of God” to back up these last two points:
quote:
Enhancement genetic engineering aims at improving certain specific characteristics. The idea of man as “co-creator” with God could be used to try to justify the management of human evolution by means of such genetic engineering. But this would imply that man has full right of disposal over his own biological nature. Changing the genetic identity of man as a human person through the production of an infrahuman being is radically immoral. The use of genetic modification to yield a superhuman or being with essentially new spiritual faculties is unthinkable, given that the spiritual life principle of man - forming the matter into the body of the human person - is not a product of human hands and is not subject to genetic engineering. The uniqueness of each human person, in part constituted by his biogenetic characteristics and developed through nurture and growth, belongs intrinsically to him and cannot be instrumentalized in order to improve some of these characteristics. A man can only truly improve by realizing more fully the image of God in him by uniting himself to Christ and in imitation of him. Such modifications would in any case violate the freedom of future persons who had no part in decisions that determine his bodily structure and characteristics in a significant and possibly irreversible way."
Lastly, if one believes in an afterlife, then perhaps life extension technology will not be considered ”good’. In a sense, science would offer to supplant religion as the sole offerer of eternal life, and with physical immortality as a possibility, I fear the religions may feel threatened that their promise of spiritual immortality will not be contemplated.
I’m interested to hear your views on this issue, and if possible the reasoning behind it. I think I know most of your religious views, and no doubt they will ”come out in the wash’.
To get you started, I propose two (three actually, but you can probably only answer two) questions to consider. Do you believe that it is ethically acceptable for someone to enhance themselves through technological means? If you consider it ethical, would you opt to be enhanced yourself, if it was proven to be biologically safe? If you don’t consider it ethical, would you resort to force (political, legal or martial) in order to ensure that these modifications don’t occur?
(Social Issues I think)
Edited by Doddy, : fixed quote box
Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!
™ Version 4.2