Human Enhancement Ethics: The Risks of Transhumanism and Emerging Cultural Trends

Is Transhumanism Already Happening?

In 2018, the first genetically altered humans were born. This procedure involved Dr. He Jiankui, a Chinese biophysicist, disabling the CCR5 gene, which allows HIV to infect cells, so that the babies would be immune to HIV. The procedure was done on an embryo of a HIV-positive father and was later successfully implanted to bring about the first CRISPR-edited babies. Yet this has raised serious ethical questions, to do with the safety, morality and long-term effects of gene-editing, leading to public outcry and the subsequent imprisonment of Dr. Jiankui and his colleagues.

We have been involved in tampering with our biology using medicine and medical technologies for centuries, particularly with the use of drugs to enhance our emotions and energy levels. Yet in recent years, human enhancement has gained ever increasing popularity, seemingly off the back of advancements in gene editing, such as CRISPR. Gene-editing technologies like CRISPR allow DNA sequences to be altered by cutting and pasting genes, whereby particular sections of your DNA can be taken out and new genes inserted to alter your biological qualities, such as virus susceptibility or even strength and intelligence potential. The promise of transhumanism is to eliminate human suffering and advance humans to the level of superhumans, whatever that may be classified as. Yet this carries with it a collection of ethical problems about the genetic effects of human enhancement, both long-term and short-term, as well as the social and moral effects about our nature.

On the surface, transhumanism seems to be a godsend, a utopian solution to all of our suffering and limitations. Yet upon deeper inspection, this seems to carry many issues, not least of which being the concern of whether, when adopted to a wide and deep extent, we still remain humans. Is a superhuman still a human? Or, more precisely, is a human without the limitations and qualities of suffering still a human? Given that these seem to be key, if not fundamental, aspects of humanity, this is by no means a small issue. Furthermore, transhumanist technology will cause significant genetic change to our biology, something of great potential danger. Should you be able to completely edit your biology, and what responsibility do you have for its effects on your descendants? Let us first investigate exactly what transhumanism is, and its potential.

What is Transhumanism?

The dictionary describes transhumanism as “a belief that humans should strive to transcend the physical limitations of the mind and body by technological means.” This involves the augmentation of the body, in any way, including both mechanical and biological means. In many ways humanity has already adopted many medical practices and technologies that can be classified as transhumanism. For instance, the use of prosthetics allows injured patients to transcend, at least partially, their limitations by technological means. Furthermore, these technologies are becoming ever more powerful as we develop means of controlling prosthetics and the like using our mind, as the result of advanced BCI chips (which we’ve looked into in an earlier article). Yet the real focus of modern transhumanism, at least in its recent growth in popularity, seems to be centred around recent and significant biological advancements, particularly in regards to gene-editing.

Gene-editing, most notably CRISPR, is a revolutionary advancement in medicine, not only allowing us to better cure a variety of diseases and cancers, but also potentially to transcend our fundamental biological limitations. In general, but especially in our current early stages, the great promise of CRISPR technology lies in the ability to defeat disease by editing the cells at the root of the problem. For example, sickle cell disease, a detrimental disease causing healthy disk-shaped red blood cells to become sickle-shaped and block blood flow, could be eliminated using CRISPR. This works by taking, from the patient, HSCs (the stem cells that give rise to all blood cells) from the patient to disable the unhealthy gene and activate healthy haemoglobin cells (which are typically produced in infancy), and then transplanting the blood cells back into the patient, leading (in principle) to the elimination of the disease. Yet, even with its brilliant medical potential, there are many other uses of gene-editing and human enhancement, and we must ask where we draw the line.

What are the Arguments for Transhumanism?

Transhumanism has always been an interesting ethical argument, and since the advent of CRISPR this argument has only become more controversial. Yet before endeavouring into this argument we must first place in the foreground an important fact about the nature and progress of transhumanism. As we previously defined, transhumanism refers to any means of transcending physical limitations, including due to injury, by technological means. This has been a key quality of medicine for a long period of time, and so transhumanism, even if only often at a fairly early stage, is by no means a new idea, both theoretically and practically. Not only prosthetics, as previously mentioned, but all forms of pharmaceutical drugs are also a form of transhumanism. Overall, most forms of modern human enhancement and medical technologies are some form of transhumanism. The primary point here is that transhumanism is not new and that, unless you are in support of eliminating medicine (a ruthless idea which will not be addressed), transhumanism will, and must, be continually developed for medical purposes. Our ethical investigation lies not in the medical side but in the hedonistic and idealistic side of utopian superhumans.

Suffering is a central aspect of the human experience, and has been identified as such for thousands of years. The Buddha, who lived 2000 years ago, proclaimed that “life is suffering” and asserted this as the first noble truth central to his teachings. Yet the goal of transhumanism lies in eliminating this fundamental quality of humanity. In many ways, transhumanism is probably the modern-day embodiment of the hedonistic utopian dream – one that is rooted in us all (a pleasuresome lack of responsibility), but that lacks meaning and may well, as a result of boredom and superficial utopianism, lead us to chaos and danger. Clad in scientific and technical armour, transhumanism is really a social idea that aims to rewrite what it means to humans, both biologically and socially – and this movement has already begun.

In my research of transhumanism, and my realisation of its inherent social nature, I came across an interesting quote that showed me the core of the coming transhumanist social movement. Martine Rothblatt, a lawyer, entrepreneur and transgender rights activist says that “once we realize that our essential sweetness is in our minds, and that each of us has a unique life-path potential not fully tethered to a body-determined route, then it is as sensible to be transhuman as it is to be transgendered. The being is mightier than the gene.” No, the being IS the gene. Or at least, the being emerges, in a huge portion, from the qualities of the gene and builds its nature and experiences heavily around its genes and body. As a human being, you are part body and part mind, to take away that body is to make you only part-human. Yet even the qualities of the mind are heavily built by the nature and experiences of the body. To take that away, or significantly alter it, is to make you less than part-human. Is that the aim of trans-ism, to make you less than part-human? Is that the end result of this growing social trend?

Conclusion

It is difficult to say what will come of this social trend, especially in a world that is ever more controversial, polarised and extreme. I believe that the issue, the ethical argument we set out to investigate, must really be solved, and perceived, through a psychological lens. With greater quality of and access to technology, wealth, living standards and the other many great features of the twenty-first century, our world, both at the collective and individual level, is losing meaning. To embrace transhumanist culture and transcend our nature as humans, to become a different sort of being itself, is to make an attempt at becoming Gods. We have dreamed and speculated for millenia on the utopia and grandeur of the Gods and, even without admitting it, that is the aim of trans-culture. Neitzche said that we killed God, and now we want to become Gods. But are we really ready?

How do you see it? Comment your take👇

If you enjoyed this article or are interested to learn more, check out the article below on gene editing to counteract aging:

• Cellular Rejuvenation: Unlocking Human Potential Through mRNA Reprogramming