The Vitruvian Man Revisited: Human augmentation technologys effect on how humans define

what is a human and how it may change societys morality.

Jesse Bernard Shedd

Sir, Lieutenant La Forge's eyes are far superior to human biological eyes, true? Then

why are not all officers required to have their eyes replaced with cybernetic

implants? (Roddenberry 1989) This quote from Lieutenant Commander Data, a fictional

character on Star Trek: The Next Generation, asks if a human is necessarily a better human if he

or she has been augmented. This is the very question asked by modern scholars who consider

the near future technology of biomedical devices. Biomedical technologies have the potential to

change humans not only physically but morally as well. This is because biomedical technology

can be used to augment humans physically which could redefine what is a human. Redefining

what society understands as a human, could have far reaching moral implications. The

supporters of using biomedical technologies to augment humans are known as transhumanists.

These people maintain that through human augmentation, the definition of a human would

change along with the expansion of the circle of societys morality. The counter position,

supported by bioconservatives, finds that changing the definition of a human would hinder

societys morality. Through academic papers written by both sides, one begins to understand

how both sides believe human augmentation via biomedical technologies could change the

definition of a human and its moral implications on society.

To understand the debate between the bioconservatives and transhumanists, one must first

understand more about human augmentation and the relationship society has with technology.

Shedd

Throughout time, technologies have been developed to enhance the human condition. These

technologies engage in a relationship of fear and fascination with humanity. While technology

offers the promise of a better future with its mastery, it also presents the potential of extinction

(Graham 2003). However, biomedical technology is different from these earlier technologies.

Biomedical technology could allow humanity to enhance the human condition by changing the

human physically, which is more personal than earlier technologies, which were external to

humans. By adding nano-chips, manipulating genes, or various forms of prothesis, biomedical

technology could change what was once a physically and mentally limited human into a cyborg

only limited by the augmentations available. The creation of cyborgs could effect how society

defines who is a human which could in turn effect societies morality. Current universal concepts

that dictate biomedical science in relation to humanity claim:

Intrinsic equality of human beings: Article 10 states the fundamental equality of all

human beings in dignity and rights is to be respected so that they are treated justly and

equitably; Article 11 states no individual or group should be discriminated against or

stigmatized on any grounds, in violation of human dignity, human rights and fundamental

freedoms.

Respect for human life: Article 2c states one of the aims of the Declaration is to

promote respect for human dignity and protect human rights, by ensuring respect for the

life of human beings, and fundamental freedoms (Jotterand 2010).

These two rules suggest that as society progresses forward into the biomedical era, what

is most important to consider is not the potential biomedical devices have for humanity but rather

a humans dignity, rights, and freedoms. Though the universal concepts above, human dignity is

Shedd 2

placed above all else. However, as discussed below, many consider humans who are augmented

to not be humans, and thus, human dignity does not apply to augmented humans. This provides

a deeper question for bioconservatives, and transhumanists when questioning human

augmentation and its potential effects on societies morality.

This question changes the how one should view human augmentation. It should not just

be viewed as a biological change, but a cultural one as well. Culture, as learned and taught, is

significantly a domain of imagination: imagination conceives of that which is not actual, orients

its intentionality upon that which it perceives, and brings it into actuality (Hefner 2009).

Human augmentation changes humans physically, however, this is only half the change that

needs to occur. Humans need to change culturally as well so that societys morality accepts both

humans and unaugmented humans. When examining the stance taken by bioconservatives and

transhumanists, one must take into account how each view the potentials for change physically

as well as culturally.

Transhumanism finds that human augmentation will change humans physically and

culturally for the better. Well known transhumanist, Nick Bostrom, expresses that safe

biomedical technologies can allow one to, legitimately reform oneself and ones natures in

accordance with humane values and personal aspirations (Bostrom 2005). This fundamental

idea to transhumanism comes from the understanding that human nature is biocultural.

Theologian and transhumanist, Philip Hefner, states biocultural human nature constructs the

idea of humans as a creator as a way of interpreting both experiences of human nature and

evolutionary scientific understanding of Homo sapiens (Hefner 2009). This means that it is

human nature to enhance the human condition and shape the social and biological evolution of

Shedd 3

humanity. Attempting to prohibit our ability to create, and change is not only an exercise in

futility, but it is anti-human (Hefner 2009). This understanding of human nature effects all the

other aspects of transhumanism, and portrays the idea as a pro-human movement. The

transhumanist understanding of human nature also influences the comprehension of cultural and

technological development.

Transhumanists understanding of human nature as biocultural, also shapes the stand

points thoughts on technological development. Tranhumanism assumes that culture and

technology develop unilaterally (Antipov & Koldomasov). This means that as a culture

develops , technology develops with it and vice versa. To think of this in terms of human

augmentation, biomedical technologies will develop with cultural changes. By this, the

definition human culture will change to include augmented humans as humans become

augmented. Thus, to a transhumanist, there are few negative moral implications associated with

augmenting humans because the circle of human cultures morals will just expand to cover both

augmented humans and unaugmented humans (Bostrom 2005). Transhumanists believe that this

is possible by pointing out that modern societies are composed of a diverse population of many

different ability levels, and that augmented humans would only expand the understanding of

human dignity and rights, rather than overlap current human rights (Bostrom 2005). Even though

discrimination already exists in modern societies, expanding societys moral circle will change

the nature of discrimination. To a transhumanist this means the nature discrimination would

change to be based on ability level of a person rather than physical characteristics. Through

these understandings one finds that from a transhumanist perspective, biomedical technology

will have few ill effects on society. This is because human nature maintains that humans need to

Shedd 4

progress technologically, in order to develop culturally and morally. For example, the

technological advances in human augmentation could change the nature of discrimination, to

make it based on ability level rather than physical characteristics. However, Bioconservatives

contend that this is too optimistic of an outlook on societys moral outcome from human

augmentation.

Bioconservatives stance on human augmentation is that biomedical technology should be

tempered, due to the potential dangers it poses to humans cultural morality. At the basis of this

argument is the belief that all humans have a certain essence (Fukuyama 2004) that is derived

from human nature. Fukuyama understands essence as a loosely connected cluster of

recognizable properties that make up the abstract idea to which we attach a general name such as

human (Hauskeller 2011). This essence, along with universal human rights, gives one the

ability to allows humans to maintain equal rights and dignity with each other (Fukuyama &

Stock 2002). By augmenting a human through biotechnology, one would not only be altering the

humans anatomical structure, but modifying the humans essence as well. Because a humans

essence is the basis for equal human rights and dignity, bioconservatives find that changing it

will negatively effect human rights and dignity. According to Francis Fukuyama, this change in

the nature of human rights and dignity will create a basic social divide between the augmented

and the unaugmented, (Fukuyama & Stock 2002). The moral implications of human

augmentation are thus, in the bioconservative mindset, a world in which augmented humans are

afforded more dignity and rights, than unaugmented humans. This is because physical

augmentations change human essence in such a way that humans will become unequal.

Furthermore, because augmented humans would be allotted more rights than unaugmented

Shedd 5

humans, a basic class divide would be created between the augmented and unaugmented.

Bioconservatives basis for this theory of social divide is also argued through historical patterns

of technological change. Daniel McIntosh writes in the Journal of Human Security,

In history, technological change has rarely been smooth or rational. The standard model of such change consists of three stages: invention, innovation, and diffusion. Invention is the idea and the demonstration of its feasibility. Innovation is the process by which the invention is brought into use. Diffusion is the spread of the innovation into general use. (McIntosh 2008)

McIntosh is expressing that initially biomedical technologies, after proven safe and

useful, would be too expensive for everyone to afford. This means that only the wealthy few

would have the means to be augmented. Furthermore, the wealthy could also afford the latest

and greatest biomedical technologies, which to bioconservatives, would give the wealthy an

unfair competitive advantage in society. This reinforces the bioconservative view that there

would be a class divide, because the wealthy would have an unfair advantage acquiring

biomedical technology. The negative repercussions for human society morally, however, only

present half of the bioconservative stance.

Bioconservatives also argue that augmenting humans could lead to unaugmented

becoming obsolete. When examining the potential of human augmentation technology one must

consider nature as well. Charles Rubin claims that augmenting humans will be a detriment to

human welfare because there is no particular reason to think that our successors will have any

more care for such of us as may remain (Rubin 2009). This maintains the bioconservative

notion that augmented humans would not have any need to preserve unagumented humans. This

is because augmented humans would likely shape the world to better fit augmented human

needs. Being unaugmented would become a hinderance to surviving in a world of augmented

Shedd 6

humans. This would in turn reshape human rights and dignity to favor augmented humans over

unaugmented humans. Boiling down the bioconservatives stance on human augmentation, one

finds that allowing the use of biomedical technologies to augment humans would cause

unaugmented humans to become obsolete.

What one is able to see from both standpoints is that the core of the debate on human

augmentation hinges on the idea of human nature. Bioconservatives and transhumanists make

viable points about what could happen to society when biomedical technologies are used to

augment humans. However, these points are viable because these ideas are only speculating on

the societal implications of the biomedical technology; one does not know what will actually

happen. Both seem to agree, even though for different reasons, that basis for moving forward

into the biomedical age is to have a strong definition of human nature. For bioconservatives

human nature is fundamental to the points made about the potential societal effects. Human

nature to bioconservatives creates the human essence which affords equal rights and dignity for

all humans. To transhumanists, having a modern idea of human nature will allow one to better

anticipate the changes to it brought on by augmentation. Human nature, according to

transhumanists is a call to create technology and improve the human condition. However, one

must also remember that even though transhumanists and bioconservatives find human nature to

be the basis in exploring the societal implications of human augmentation, human nature cannot

dictate how humans should or will behave. This is because human nature is an abstract concept

and its definition changes throughout time. Thus, ones understanding of human nature in time

could change to support bioconservatism, transhumanism, or neither. However, in debate on the

societal implications of using biomedical technology to augment humans, one should use the

Shedd 7

bioconservative and transhumanist claims about the importance human nature, in conjunction

with the modern standards of bioethics detailed by Jotterand. Thus, to get the most accurate

view available, one should combine the two stances understandings of human nature and apply

it to the modern standards of bioethics. While this view gives one the most accurate view, it is

only accurate in present society. It defines how humans might behave after human augmentation

technology is introduced and not how humans will behave. Furthermore, it is important to

remember the bioconservative and transhumanist understanding of human nature could change

as well. By this, one finds human nature gives humans an essence that makes all humans

equal, while that same essence also calls humans to create; this works as long as these

creations do not violate modern standards of bioethics.

With a combined definition of human nature from the two stances in the context of

modern bioethical standards, one can begin to prepare for the biomedical era. Humans are

forever bound together through a common essence created by human nature that guarantees

humans equal rights and dignity. The same human nature that gives humans essence calls

humans to create technology to better humankind. This definition allows bioconservatives and

transhumanists to better define how using biomedical technology to augment humans will

change society. Furthermore, a single definition allows for a simple application to modern

bioethical standards. There is no argument from either side that human augmentation via

biomedical technologies will change what defines human physically, or how society functions.

However, one is unsure if it would be positively or negatively society, because one does not

know if or how augmentation will effect human nature. It is important to remember that even

though both believe that human nature constructs societys morality, it is humans that define

Shedd 8

human nature. Thus, through examining bioconservatives and transhumanists thoughts that

human nature constructs society's morality, one can initially conclude that human augmentation

does concur with modern bioethical standards.

Through the progress of biomedical technologies, one is appealing to human nature by

allowing the creation of new technologies. By appealing to human nature one further allows the

essence that gives humans equal rights and dignity to continue to bind us together. Biomedical

technology could very well be that key to the future. It is not unreasonable to see how humans,

which are a flawed being, can use physical differences caused by biomedical technologies to

discriminate. It is also reasonable to hope that humanity can morally evolve past its old trends to

create equality for all sentient life. While both situations are possible, one can still dream of the

future utopian society exemplified by shows such as Star Trek, where all sentient life is afforded

the same rights and dignity. While transhumanists and bioconservatives can speculate what

human augmentations societal implications will be, only time can tell what will actually come of

it.

Works Cited

Antipov, M.A., Koldomasov, A.S.. Cyborgization of Mankind as a Display of Transhumanism. Penza State Technological Academy

Bostrom, Nick (2005). IN DEFENSE OF POSTHUMAN DIGNITY. Bioethics, 19(3), 202-214.

Fukuyama, Francis, (2004). Transhumanism. Foreign Policy, September-October 2004, 42-43.

Fukuyama, Francis, Stock, Gregory (2002). The Clone Wars: A reason online debate. Reason, 34(2), 1-11.

Graham, Elaine L.,(2003). Frankensteins and Cyborgs: Visions of the Global Future in an Age of Technology. Studies in Christian Ethics, 16(29), 31-43

Hauskeller, Michael (2011): Pro-Enhancement Essentialism, AJOB Neuroscience, 2:2, 45-47

Shedd 9

Hefner, Philip (2009). The Animal that Aspires to be an Angel: The Challenge of Transhumanism. Dialog: A Journal of Theology, 48(2), 158-167.

Jotterand, Fabrice (2010). Human Dignity and Transhumanism: Do Anthro-Technological Devices Have Moral Status?. The American Journal of Bioethics, 10(7), 45-52.

McIntosh, Daniel (2008). Human, Transhuman, Posthuman: Implications of Evolution-by- Design for Human Security. Journal of Human Security, 4(3), 4-20.

Persson, Ingmar, Savulescu, Julian (2010). Moral Transhumanism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 35, 656-669

Roddenberry, Gene. (Producer). (11 February 1989). The Measure of a Man [Star Trek: The Next Generation]. United States: CBS Television Distribution.

Rubin, Charles T., (2009). The Call of Nature. Social Philosophy & Policy Foundation, 173-192

Shedd 10