Human enhancement is the natural, artificial, or technological alteration of the human body in order to enhance physical or mental capabilities.[1]

Technologies

Existing technologies

Gene therapy using adenovirus vector
Gene therapy using an adenovirus vector

Three forms of human enhancement currently exist: reproductive, physical, and mental. Reproductive enhancements include embryo selection by preimplantation genetic diagnosis, cytoplasmictransfer, and in vitro-generated gametes. Physical enhancements include cosmetics (plastic surgery and orthodontics), Drug-induced (doping and performance-enhancing drugs), functional (prosthetics and powered exoskeletons), Medical (implants (e.g. pacemaker) and organ replacements (e.g. bionic lenses)), and strength training (weights (e.g. barbells) and dietary supplement)). Examples of mental enhancements are nootropics, neurostimulation, and supplements that improve mental functions.[2][3] Computers, mobile phones, and Internet[4] can also be used to enhance cognitive efficiency. Notable efforts in human augmentation are driven by the interconnected Internet of Things (IoT) devices,[5] including wearable electronics (e.g., augmented reality glasses, smart watches, smart textile), personal drones, on-body and in-body nanonetworks.[6]

Emerging technologies

Many different forms of human enhancing technologies are either on the way or are currently being tested and trialed. A few of these emerging technologies include: human genetic engineering (gene therapy), neurotechnology (neural implants and brain–computer interfaces), cyberware, strategies for engineered negligible senescence, nanomedicine, and 3D bioprinting. Variants of human genetic engineering with so far limited usage include the artificial creation of human-animal hybrids (where each cell has partly human and partly animal genetic contents) and human-animal chimeras (where some cells are human and some cells are animal in origin).[7]

Speculative technologies

Some other human enhancement technologies are still speculative, such as: mind uploading, exocortex, and endogenous artificial nutrition. Mind uploading is the hypothetical process of "transferring"/"uploading" or copying a conscious mind from a brain to a non-biological substrate by scanning and mapping a biological brain in detail and copying its state into a computer system or another computational device. The exocortex can be defined as a theoretical artificial external information processing system that would augment a brain's biological high-level cognitive processes. Endogenous artificial nutrition can be similar to having a radioisotope generator that resynthesizes glucose (similarly to photosynthesis), amino acids and vitamins from their degradation products, theoretically availing for weeks without food if necessary.

Nick Bostrom listed some additional capabilities that are expected to be physically possible in theory, given a sufficient technological level, such as:[8]

Nootropics

Main article: Nootropic

There are many substances that are purported to have promise in augmenting human cognition by various means. These substances are called nootropics and can potentially benefit individuals with cognitive decline and many different disorders, but may also be capable of yielding results in cognitively healthy persons. Generally speaking, nootropics are said to be effective for enhancing focus, learning, memory function, mood, and in some cases, physical brain development. Some examples of these include Citicoline,[9] Huperzine A, Phosphatidylserine,[10] Bacopa monnieri,[11] Acetyl-L-carnitine,[12] Uridine monophosphate, L-theanine,[13][14][15] Rhodiola rosea, and Pycnogenol which are all forms of dietary supplement. There are also nootropic drugs such as the common racetams, e.g. piracetam (Nootropil) and omberacetam (Noopept)[16][17][18] along with the neuroprotective Semax, and N-Acetyl Semax.[19] There are also nootropics related to naturally occurring substances but that are either modified in a lab or are analogs such as Vinpocetine and Sulbutiamine. Some authors have explored nootropics as relationship enhancements to help couples maintain bonds over time.[20]

Ethics

Much debate surrounds the topic of human enhancement and the means used to achieve one's enhancement goals.[21] Ethical attitudes toward human enhancement can depend on many factors such as religious affiliation, age, gender, ethnicity, culture of origin, and nationality.[22]

In some circles the expression "human enhancement" is roughly synonymous with human genetic engineering,[23][24] but most often it is referred to the general application of the convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (NBIC) to improve human performance.[25]

Since the 1990s, several academics (such as some of the fellows of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies[26]) have risen to become advocates of the case for human enhancement while other academics (such as the members of President Bush's Council on Bioethics[27]) have become outspoken critics.[28]

Advocacy of the case for human enhancement is increasingly becoming synonymous with "transhumanism", a controversial ideology and movement which has emerged to support the recognition and protection of the right of citizens to either maintain or modify their own minds and bodies; so as to guarantee them the freedom of choice and informed consent of using human enhancement technologies on themselves and their children.[29] Their common understanding of the world can be seen from a physicist perspective rather than a biological perspective.[30] Based on the idea of technological singularity, human enhancement is merging with technological innovation that will advance post-humanism.[30]

Neuromarketing consultant Zack Lynch argues that neurotechnologies will have a more immediate effect on society than gene therapy and will face less resistance as a pathway of radical human enhancement. He also argues that the concept of "enablement" needs to be added to the debate over "therapy" versus "enhancement".[31]

The prospect of human enhancement has sparked public controversy.[32][33][34] The main ethical question in the debate about human enhancement involves which legal restrictions, if any, should exist.[35]

Dale Carrico wrote that "human enhancement" is a loaded term which has eugenic overtones because it may imply the improvement of human hereditary traits to attain a universally accepted norm of biological fitness (at the possible expense of human biodiversity and neurodiversity), and therefore can evoke negative reactions far beyond the specific meaning of the term.[36] Michael Selgelid terms this as a phase of "neugenics" suggesting that gene enhancements occurring now have already revived the idea of eugenics in our society. Practices of prenatal diagnosis, selective abortion and in-vitro fertilization aims to improve human life allowing for parents to decide via genetic information if they want to continue or terminate the pregnancy.[37]

A criticism of human enhancement is that it will create unfair physical or mental advantages, or unequal access to such enhancements, can and will further the gulf between the "haves" and "have-nots".[38][39][40][41]

Futurist Ray Kurzweil has shown some concern that, within the century, humans may be required to merge with this technology in order to compete in the marketplace.[30] Enhanced individuals have a better chance of being chosen for better opportunities in careers, entertainment and resources.[42] For example, life extending technologies can increase the average individual life span, affecting the distribution of pension throughout the society. Increasing lifespan will affect human population, further dividing limited resources such as food, energy, monetary resources and habitat.[42] Other critics of human enhancement fear that such capabilities would change, for the worse, the dynamic relations within a family. Given the choices of superior qualities, parents make their child as opposed to merely birthing it, and the newborn becomes a product of their will rather than a gift of nature to be loved unconditionally.[43]

Effects on identity

Human enhancement technologies can impact human identity by affecting one's self-conception.[44] The argument does not necessarily come from the idea of improving the individual but rather changing who they are and becoming someone new. Altering an individual identity affects their personal story, development and mental capabilities. The basis of this argument comes from two main points : the charge of inauthenticity and the charge of violating an individual's core characteristics.[44] Gene therapy has the ability to alter one’s mental capacity, and through this argument, has the ability to affect their narrative identity.[44] An individual's core characteristics may include internal psychological style, personality, general intelligence, necessity to sleep, normal aging, gender and being Homo sapiens. Technologies threaten to alter the self fundamentally to the point where the result is, essentially, a different person entirely.[44] For example, extreme changes in personality may affect the individual's relationships because others can no longer relate to the new person.[41]

The capability approach focuses on a normative framework that can be applied to how human enhancement technologies affects human capabilities.[45] The ethics of this does not necessarily focus on the make up of the individual but rather what it allows individuals to do in today's society. This approach was first termed by Amartya Sen, where he mainly focused on the objectives of the approach rather than the aim for those objectives which entail resources, technological processes, and economic arrangement.[45] The central human capabilities include life, bodily health, bodily integrity, sense, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, other species, play, and control over one's environment. This normative framework recognizes that human capabilities are always changing and technology has already played a part in this.[45]

See also

References

  1. ^ Buchanan, Allen. "Ethical Issues of Human Enhancement". Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Archived from the original on April 3, 2019. Retrieved April 26, 2019.
  2. ^ "Dorlands Medical Dictionary". Archived from the original on January 30, 2008.
  3. ^ Lanni C, Lenzken SC, Pascale A, et al. (March 2008). "Cognition enhancers between treating and doping the mind". Pharmacol. Res. 57 (3): 196–213. doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2008.02.004. PMID 18353672.
  4. ^ Landau, Elizabeth (May 7, 2012). "So you're a cyborg – now what?". CNN. Retrieved March 22, 2013.
  5. ^ Pirmagomedov, Rustam; Koucheryavy, Yevgeni (September 27, 2019). "IoT Technologies for Augmented Human: a Survey". Internet of Things. 14: 100120. arXiv:1909.11191. Bibcode:2019arXiv190911191P. doi:10.1016/j.iot.2019.100120. ISSN 2542-6605. S2CID 202750140.
  6. ^ Akyildiz, Ian F.; Brunetti, Fernando; Blázquez, Cristina (August 22, 2008). "Nanonetworks: A new communication paradigm". Computer Networks. 52 (12): 2260–2279. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2008.04.001. ISSN 1389-1286.
  7. ^ Marilyn E. Coors, Ph.D. "PRO-LIFE ACTIVITIES. Genetic Enhancement: Custom Kids and Chimeras". Retrieved January 8, 2023.
  8. ^ Bostrom, Nick (March 27, 2024). "Technological maturity". Deep Utopia: Life and Meaning in a Solved World. ISBN 978-1646871643.
  9. ^ Tardner, P. (August 30, 2020). "The use of citicoline for the treatment of cognitive decline and cognitive impairment: A meta-analysis of pharmacological literature • International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology". International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology. Retrieved August 31, 2020.
  10. ^ Tardner, P. (August 28, 2020). "The effects of phosphatidylserine supplementation on memory function in older people: A review of clinical literature • International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology". International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology. Retrieved August 31, 2020.
  11. ^ Aguiar, Sebastian; Borowski, Thomas (2013). "Neuropharmacological Review of the Nootropic Herb Bacopa monnieri". Rejuvenation Research. 16 (4): 313–326. doi:10.1089/rej.2013.1431. PMC 3746283. PMID 23772955.
  12. ^ Smeland, Olav B.; Meisingset, Tore W.; Borges, Karin; Sonnewald, Ursula (2012). "Chronic acetyl-l-carnitine alters brain energy metabolism and increases noradrenaline and serotonin content in healthy mice". Neurochemistry International. 61 (1): 100–7. doi:10.1016/j.neuint.2012.04.008. PMID 22549035. S2CID 1859924.
  13. ^ Owen, Gail N.; Parnell, Holly; De Bruin, Eveline A.; Rycroft, Jane A. (2008). "The combined effects of L-theanine and caffeine on cognitive performance and mood". Nutritional Neuroscience. 11 (4): 193–8. doi:10.1179/147683008X301513. PMID 18681988. S2CID 46326744.
  14. ^ Giesbrecht, T.; Rycroft, J.A.; Rowson, M.J.; De Bruin, E.A. (2010). "The combination of L-theanine and caffeine improves cognitive performance and increases subjective alertness". Nutritional Neuroscience. 13 (6): 283–90. doi:10.1179/147683010X12611460764840. PMID 21040626. S2CID 29075809.
  15. ^ Nobre, Anna C.; Rao, Anling; Owen, Gail N. (2008). "L-theanine, a natural constituent in tea, and its effect on mental state". Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 17 (Suppl 1): 167–8. PMID 18296328.
  16. ^ Bobkova, NV; Gruden, MA; Samokhin, AN; Medvinskaia, NI; Morozova-Roch, L; Uudasheva, TA; Ostrovskaia, RU; Seredinin, SB (2005). "Noopept improves the spatial memory and stimulates prefibrillar beta-amyloid(25-35) antibody production in mice". Eksperimental'naia i Klinicheskaia Farmakologiia. 68 (5): 11–5. PMID 16277202.
  17. ^ Radionova, K. S.; Belnik, A. P.; Ostrovskaya, R. U. (2008). "Original nootropic drug Noopept prevents memory deficit in rats with muscarinic and nicotinic receptor blockade". Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine. 146 (1): 59–62. doi:10.1007/s10517-008-0209-0. PMID 19145351. S2CID 11773065.
  18. ^ Amelin, AV; Iliukhina, AIu; Shmonin, AA (2011). "Noopept in the treatment of mild cognitive impairment in patients with stroke". Zhurnal Nevrologii I Psikhiatrii Imeni S.s. Korsakova. 111 (10 Pt 1): 44–6. PMID 22500312.
  19. ^ Dolotov, O. V.; Seredenina, T. S; Levitskaya, N. G; Kamensky, A. A.; Andreeva, L. A.; Alfeeva, L. Yu.; Nagaev, I. Yu.; Zolotarev, Yu. A.; Grivennikov, I. A.; Engele, Yu.; Myasoedov, N. F. (2003). "The Heptapeptide SEMAX stimulates BDNF Expression in Different Areas of the Rat Brain in vivo". Doklady Biological Sciences. 391: 292–295. doi:10.1023/A:1025177812262. PMID 14556513. S2CID 41400991.
  20. ^ Earp, Brian; Savulescu, Julian (2020). Love Drugs: The Chemical Future of Relationships. Palo Alto, California: Stanford University Press. ISBN 9780804798198.
  21. ^ Miah, Andy (September 2016). "The Ethics of Human Enhancement". MIT Technology Review.
  22. ^ Koucheryavy, Yevgeni; Kirichek, Ruslan; Glushakov, Ruslan; Pirmagomedov, Rustam (September 2, 2017). "Quo vadis, humanity? Ethics on the last mile toward cybernetic organism". Russian Journal of Communication. 9 (3): 287–293. doi:10.1080/19409419.2017.1376561. ISSN 1940-9419. S2CID 158049143.
  23. ^ Agar, Nicholas (2004). Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement. Wiley. ISBN 978-1-4051-2390-7.
  24. ^ Parens, Erik (2000). Enhancing Human Traits: Ethical and Social Implications. Georgetown University Press. ISBN 978-0-87840-780-4.
  25. ^ Roco, Mihail C. & Bainbridge, William Sims, eds. (2004). Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance. Springer. ISBN 978-1-4020-1254-9.
  26. ^ Bailey, Ronald (June 2, 2006). "The Right to Human Enhancement: And also uplifting animals and the rapture of the nerds". Reason Magazine. Retrieved March 3, 2007.
  27. ^ Members of the President's Council on Bioethics (2003). Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness. President's Council on Bioethics. Archived from the original on February 2, 2007.
  28. ^ Hughes, James (2004). Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future. Westview Press. ISBN 978-0-8133-4198-9.
  29. ^ Ford, Alyssa (May–June 2005). "Humanity: The Remix". Utne Magazine. Archived from the original on December 30, 2006. Retrieved March 3, 2007.
  30. ^ a b c Iuga, Ion (March 16, 2019). "Transhumanism Between Human Enhancement and Technological Innovation". Symposion. 3: 79–88. doi:10.5840/symposion2016315.
  31. ^ R. U. Sirius (2005). "The NeuroAge: Zack Lynch In Conversation With R.U. Sirius". Life Enhancement Products.
  32. ^ "Nanoscience and nanotechnologies (Ch. 6)" (PDF). The Royal Society & The Royal Academy of Engineering. 2004. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 5, 2018. Retrieved December 5, 2006.
  33. ^ "Technology Assessment on Converging Technologies" (PDF). European Parliament. 2006. Retrieved January 12, 2015.
  34. ^ "Human Enhancement" (PDF). European Parliament. 2009. Retrieved January 12, 2015.
  35. ^ Lin, Patrick; Allhoff, Fritz (March 16, 2019). "Untangling the Debate: The Ethics of Human Enhancement". NanoEthics. 2 (3): 251–264. doi:10.1007/s11569-008-0046-7. S2CID 18817470.
  36. ^ Carrico, Dale (2007). "Modification, Consent, and Prosthetic Self-Determination". Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Retrieved April 3, 2007.
  37. ^ Selgelid, Michael (March 16, 2019). "Moderate Eugenics and Human Enhancement". Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 1 (1): 3–12. doi:10.1007/s11019-013-9485-1. PMID 23728949. S2CID 3579504.
  38. ^ Mooney, Pat Roy (2002). "Beyond Cloning: Making Well People "Better"". World Watch Magazine. Archived from the original on April 2, 2019. Retrieved February 2, 2007.
  39. ^ Fukuyama, Francis (2002). Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. Farrar Straus & Giroux. ISBN 978-0-374-23643-4.
  40. ^ "Human "Enhancement"". Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future. Retrieved February 2, 2007.
  41. ^ a b Michael Hauskeller, Better Humans?: Understanding the Enhancement Project, Acumen, 2013, ISBN 978-1-84465-557-1.
  42. ^ a b Allhoff, Fritz; Lin, Patrick (2011). "Ethics of Human Enhancement: An Executive Summary". Science and Engineering Ethics. 17 (2). Jesse Steinberg: 201–212. doi:10.1007/s11948-009-9191-9. PMID 20094921. S2CID 11143329.
  43. ^ Sandel, Michael J. (2004). "The Case Against Perfection". The Atlantic. Retrieved January 21, 2016.
  44. ^ a b c d DeGrazia, David (2005). "Enhancement Technologies and Human Identity" (PDF). Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 30 (3): 261–283. doi:10.1080/03605310590960166. PMID 16036459. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 17, 2016. Retrieved May 12, 2013.
  45. ^ a b c Coeckelbergh, Mark (June 2010). "Human development or human enhancement? A methodological reflection on capabilities and the evaluation of information technologies". Ethics and Information Technology. 13 (2): 81–92. doi:10.1007/s10676-010-9231-9.

Further reading