Advertisement

Human Enhancement: The Nature of the Debate

  • Nayef R. F. Al-Rodhan
Part of the St Antony’s Series book series

Abstract

The debate over the morality of human enhancement, and what constitute acceptable enhancements and what fundamentally alters our essence as human beings is, not surprisingly, a heated one. Broadly, the debate can be broken down into two sides: the bioconservatives, including thinkers such as Francis Fukuyama, Leon Kass, Jürgen Habermas and Charles Krauthammer; and the transhumanists led by theorists such as Nick Bostrom, Ray Kurzweil and John Harris. Naturally, there are also some more intermediate, nuanced positions, but the two extremes serve as a good starting point for introducing the debate.

Keywords

Human Nature Human Dignity Human Enhancement Enhancement Technology Human Enhancement Technology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Cf. The President’s Council on Bioethics (2003), Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness (Washington, D.C.), http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/pcbe/reports/beyondtherapy/beyond_therapy_final_webcorrected.pdf, date accessed 26 August 2010.Google Scholar
  2. 11.
    F. Fukuyama (2002), Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux), p. 159.Google Scholar
  3. 12.
  4. 13.
    Cf. The President’s Council on Bioethics (2003), Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness.Google Scholar
  5. 14.
  6. 15.
    F. Allhoff, P. Lin and J. Steinberg (2009), ‘Ethics of Human Enhancement: An Executive Summary’, December, Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1–12.Google Scholar
  7. 16.
    M.J. Sandel (2009), ‘The Case Against Perfection: What’s Wrong with Designer Children, Bionic Athletes, and Genetic Engineering’ in N. Bostrom and J. Savulescu (eds) Human Enhancement (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 78.Google Scholar
  8. 17.
  9. 18.
    T. Assenheuer and J. Jessen (2002), ‘Interview: Auf schiefer Ebene’, Zeit Online, May, http://www.zeit.de/2002/05/200205_habermasint.xml, date accessed 17 August 2010.
  10. 19.
    P. Brey (2009), ‘Human Enhancement and Personal Identity’ in J.K.B Olsen, E. Selinger and S. Riis (eds) New Waves in Philosophy of Technology (New York: Palgrave Macmillan), p. 170.Google Scholar
  11. 20.
    Ibid., p. 181.Google Scholar
  12. 21.
    R. van Est, P. Klaassen, M. Schuijff and M. Smits (2008), Future Man—No Future Man (The Hague: The Rathenau Institute), p. 17.Google Scholar
  13. 22.
    C.A.J. Coady (2009), ‘Playing God’ in Bostrom and Savulescu (2009), Human Enhancement, p. 179.Google Scholar
  14. 23.
    Cf. The President’s Council on Bioethics (2003), Beyond Therapy:Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness.Google Scholar
  15. 24.
    Fukuyama (2002), Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, p. 149.Google Scholar
  16. 25.
    F. Fukuyama (2004), ‘Transhumanism’, Foreign Policy, September/October, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2004/09/01/transhumanism, date accessed 17 August 2010.
  17. 26.
    N. Bostrom (2005), ‘In Defense of Posthuman Dignity’, Bioethics, Vol. 19, No. 3, 202–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 27.
    N. Bostrom (2008), ‘Smart Policy: Cognitive Enhancement in the Public Interest’ in L. Zonneveld, H. Dijstelbloem and D. Ringoir (eds) Reshaping the Human Condition: Exploring Human Enhancement (The Hague: Rathenau Institute,), p. 29.Google Scholar
  19. 28.
    Ibid., p. 30.Google Scholar
  20. 30.
    S. Cave (2001), ‘The Most Dangerous Idea on Earth’, The Financial Times, 28 May; J. Harris (2007), Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  21. 32.
    P Lin and F. Allhoff (2006), ‘Nanoethics and Human Enhancement: A Critical Evaluation of Recent Arguments’, Nanotechnology Perceptions, Vol. 2, 47.Google Scholar
  22. 36.
    Cf. R. Persaud (2006), ‘Does Smarter Mean Happier?’ in J. Wilsdon and P. Miller (eds) Better Humans? The Politics of Human Enhancement and Life Extension (London: Demos).Google Scholar
  23. 37.
    F. Allhoff, J. Moor, P. Lin and J. Weckert (2009), ‘Ethics of Human Enhancement: 25 Questions and Answers’, submitted to Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology, Manuscript 1110 (Berkeley, CA: The Berkeley Electronic Press), http://files.allhoff.org/research/Ethics_of_Human_Enhancement_SELT.pdf, accessed 30 July 2010, 22.Google Scholar
  24. 38.
  25. 40.
    N. Bostrom (2003), ‘Human Genetic Enhancements: A Transhumanist Perspective’, Journal of Value Inquiry, Vol. 37, No. 4, 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 42.
    N. Daniels (2009), ‘Can Anyone Really Be Talking About Ethically Modifying Human Nature?’ in Bostrom and Savulescu (2009), Human Enhancement, p. 31.Google Scholar
  27. 43.
  28. 44.
  29. 45.
    A. Caplan (2009), ‘Good, Better, or Best?’ in Bostrom and Savulescu (2009), Human Enhancement, p. 204.Google Scholar
  30. 46.
    Ibid., p. 205.Google Scholar
  31. 47.
    P. Hagoort interviewed by L. Zonneveld and M. Slob (2008), ‘Cognitive Perfection is not the Optimal Condition’ in Zonneveld et al. (2008), Reshaping the Human Condition: Exploring Human Enhancement (The Hague: Rathenau Institute), p. 92.Google Scholar
  32. 48.
    R. Roache and S. Clarke (2009), ‘Bioconservatism, Bioliberalism, and the Wisdom of Reflecting on Repugnance’, Monash Bioethics Review, Vol. 28, No. 1, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 49.
  34. 53.
    F. Baylis and J.S. Robert (2004), ‘The Inevitability of Genetic Enhancement Technologies’, Bioethics, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 54.
    Cf. N.R.F. Al-Rodhan (2008), Emotional Amoral Egoism: A Neurophilosophical Theory of Human Nature and its Universal Security Implications (Berlin: LIT).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Nayef R.F. Al-Rodhan 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nayef R. F. Al-Rodhan
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.St Antony’s CollegeOxford UniversityUK
  2. 2.Geneva Centre for Security PolicyGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations