Is medicine only about healing and restoration? Or is it also about restructuring human nature so that it is capable of doing far more than it could left to itself?
This debate about the relationship between therapy and enhancement is going to become more and more important. “Transhumanism” is the label given to the work of clinicians and bioethicists who believe that science should be used to transform the human condition and not just to heal it. Remember Lee Majors and the Six Million Dollar Man?
The 2002 version of the Transhumanist Declaration states:
Humanity will be radically changed by technology in the future. We foresee the feasibility of redesigning the human condition, including such parameters as the inevitability of aging, limitations on human and artificial intellects, unchosen psychology, suffering, and our confinement to the planet earth.
This is from an article by E. Christian Brugger:
Transhumanism is really a set of ideas that has developed in response to the rapid advance of biotechnology in the past 20 years (that is, technology capable of and aimed at manipulating the physical, mental and emotional condition of human beings). Conventional medicine has traditionally aimed at overcoming disorders that afflict the human condition; it has prescribed leeching, cauterizing, amputating, medicating, operating and relocating to dryer climates, all in order to facilitate health and militate against disease and degeneration; in other words, the purpose has been to heal (i.e., has been broadly therapeutic).
Technology is now making possible interventions that in addition to a therapeutic aim are intended to augment healthy human capacities. There is a gradual but steady enlargement taking place in medical ideals from simply healing to healing and enhancement. We are all too familiar with “performance enhancing drugs” in professional sports. But biotechnology promises to make possible forms of enhancement that go far beyond muscle augmentation.
Germ-line gene therapy, for example, still in its infancy, aims to genetically modify human “germ cells” (i.e., sperm and eggs) in order to introduce desirable intellectual, physical and emotional characteristics and exclude undesirable ones. Since the modifications are made to cells in the “germ line,” the traits would be heritable and passed on to subsequent generations. Drugs to improve mental function such as Ritalin and Adderall are increasingly being used by the healthy in order to enhance cognitive abilities. One study has shown that close to 7% of students at U.S. universities have used prescription stimulants for enhancement purposes. That number appears only to be increasing.
Research is rapidly progressing on advanced technologies such as direct brain-computer interfacing (BCI), micromechanical implants, nanotechnologies, retinal, neuromuscular and cortical prostheses, and so-called “telepathy chips.” While it is true that each of these technologies may play a role in transforming the lives of disabled patients to enable them better to communicate, manipulate computers, see, walk, move their limbs and recover from degenerative diseases; transhumanism sees them as potential instruments for transforming human nature.
Their most radical proposal is to overcome death. Although the aim sounds fanciful, there are influential scientists and philosophers committed to it. The prominent transhumanist scientist and inventor, Dr. Ray Kurzweil, argues that for most of human history death was tolerated because there was nothing we could do about it. But a time is rapidly approaching where we will be able to isolate the genes and proteins that cause our cells to degenerate and reprogram them. The assumption of death’s inevitability is no longer credible and ought to be retired.
Brugger is uneasy about these developments:
I fear that the only thing presently preventing wide-scale affirmation of the transhumanist imperative is an emotional “yuck” factor, which we can be sure will gradually subside under the gentle and inexorable prodding of secular opinion. When it does, our rationality insulated by this extreme notion of autonomy will find itself helpless against the technological imperative which says: if we can design our perfect child, if we can be smarter, stronger, and more beautiful, if we can extend human life indefinitely, then we should do it. If embryos are sacrificed through the experimental process required to perfect this technology, or if inequalities are introduced to the advantage of some and disadvantage of others; these are the costs of progress!
I’m certainly against the exploitation of human embryos in any form, and the creation of designed children. But I’m not convinced that you can argue against transhumanism by referring to the inequalities it will create, as these already arise through ordinary medicine. Is it wrong to improve the physical and mental functioning of someone who already exists through medical interventions? In itself, I don’t think so. But there are deeper issues floating around, and I don’t think I’ve puzzled out what they are yet.
Like Brugger, I too am uneasy about this. There is nothing wrong in improving the physical and mental functioning of the living, in spite of the equalities created. However, this whole movement smacks very much of the creation of a Master Race of physically and intellectually superior human beings. indeed, it might be suggested that it could lead to an absolute lack of tolerance of anything less than ‘perfect’. This, in it’s turn, could lead to euthenasia for any person born with ANY physical or mental defect. My feeling is that scientists and ethicists must be very careful how far they allow this movement to progress.
You certainly touch on some of the deeper issues, unintended consequences etc
Hi Fr. Stephen
The term “eugenics” springs to mind with all its negative conotations from the past (who decides what is desirable?). Also,if death eliminated for some, where does new life come in ie. children? Won’t they want to have the same? But that would inevitably clog up the world. Or will they never be created (or terminated) unless needed to maintain the lucky few.we seem to be on “Brave New World” territory.
New life refreshes, it is spring look around, such a world would become very stale for those condemned to live in it.
Current improvements in quality of life in the western world seems to result in a lowering of birth rates, so that may be a consequence – nature always seems to surprise man when he thinks he has it sussed.
Just a few initial thoughts but I’ve no objection to improving the quality of existing life.
Ken
This may seem totally naive but Gods is the master artist and the designer and the pattern cutter and the gift bearer. The life He has given us is one to be embraced, cherished, Nourished, protected and fulfilled. But surely not reformed. (who likes eating reformed food) just the very thought of it is hideous.
I have lost people that I dearly Love and to prolong their life, enhance their will being, take away their suffering and make them better was in my deepest prayers. But them and their authenticity and their beauty and their uniqueness is surely what made my Loved ones so very human and God Blessed.
Their natural decline or the result of their ill health and imperfections were the catalyst that propelled us to share intimate sadness and happy times together. Times which for us both were deeply spiritual and momentous and life changing for both them the dying, and those left living.
One wonders what would become of a world, if this unseen dimension of internal or spiritual growth of mind and soul in the living were to be tampered with and distorted.
Just another thought, even in a secular world the subtle or magnified physiological change which occurs in someone’s outlook and consciousness when they loose people they Love, is a profound part of life and the way in which we respond to life.
Although these moments are mammouthly difficult they ultimately make one more compassionate, thoughtful, loving, gracious, understanding and full of gratitude. Take out the dimension of going through this mind shifting process and I am almost certain mankind will live with less integrity, wisdom and ultimately Love
ref above-or psychological even
“This may seem totally naive but Gods is the master artist”
This might come as a total surprise but… God does not exist.
Only God could possibly have created all that ‘without existing’!