Prometheus: The Bioengineering and Transhumanism Debate

So, this morning, I incidentally stumbled across something while doing a google scholar search that about made my jaw drop in terms of eugenics, bioengineering and transhumanism. Transhumanism, according to Wikipedia, is "an international cultural and intellectual movement with an eventual goal of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities." Source While the idea behind transhumanism has been around for a very, very long time, it has generally been a psychological or philosophical debate. However, advances in bioengineering, neurotransplantation, and genetics, have brought actually shaping the course of humanity to a very real and potential future in terms of increasing human intellectual and physical capabilities.

This is a social issue on two fronts. For one thing, who holds the right to decide the best course for humanity? As the debate on the subject of humanity's future has taken place within bioethical and medical journals, other than the rare remark within the mainstream media in regards to cloning or genetic modification, the heaviest exposure that we have had in the public arena would be churned out in the form of science fiction tv shows. Ergo, the majority of the time, we would consider such ideas as being pure fiction. I personally do not think that the course of humanity should simply be argued out within journals while the majority of society is simply entertained by its fictional counterpart. It is humanity as a whole who should have a say in such matters and this particular subject may be one of the most poignant social issues of our time.

Secondly, my rationale for considering this a social issue is because of the high risk for the potential of unforeseen consequences of such medical advances. While we could all imagine having children who are intellectually superior with greater endurance or strength and, are, on top of it all, well behaved or free from mental imbalance, that would be an absolute flaw in rationale due to idealism. Such technologies, especially at their inception, would most likely not be available for mass consumption but instead, would be most likely costly and therefore a medical advantage available for the wealthy elite. If my surmise is correct, then such advantages would simply harden social stratification to the point of being nearly ironclad as, through the option of parents, they can determine just how much advantage their child will have over the naturally born. That is just one of the social effects that I can foresee as being a potential issue for medical transhumanism and there are many, many more.

The following links are articles, papers, and books from scholarly sources on the modification of the human race. For researchgate links, full text is available in the right column of the page. Please give them a read and chime in on a pubic debate on what may very well become reality in the future. Is it a good thing or bad? What problems do you foresee? What benefits?

Converging technologies for improving human performance: Integrating from the nanoscale, by Roco and Bainbridge, National Science Foundation

Human Genetic Enhancements: A Transhumanist Perspective by Nick Berstrom

"Prometheus Unbound: Transhumanist arguments from (human) nature" Michael Haskeller, University of Exeter

"Implanted Minds: The neuroethics of Intracerebral Stem Cell Transplantation and Deep Brain Stimulation" by Fangerau, Fegert, and Trapp

"Ethical Issues in Human Enhancement" by Nick Bostrom and Rebecca Roache, Oxford Univ.

"Untangling the debate: The ethics of human enhancement" by Lin and Allhoff, Nanoethics

"Neurocognitive Enhancement: what can we do and what should we do? " by Farah, Iles, et al., University of Pennsylvania

"The Inevitability of Genetic Enhancement Technologies by Francoise Baylis and Jason Scott Robert

Subscription only (abstract available):

"Humanity and Human DNA" by Jean-Francois Mattei

"New breeds of humans: The moral obligation to enhance" by Julian Savulescu

reply to post by WhiteAlice


I say distribute it on a socialist basis. If you want it and you can afford it and it's not illegal, then you can have it. Be your own god if you want to. It's your right.

Honestly i think we are passed the point of debating questionable ethics and into the realm of inevitable application in regards to trans-humanism and bio engineering. Which of course is the whole purpose of the fictional "entertainment" side mentioned by the OP, seeding the notion of acceptance or cultivating fear to advance the general understanding of the concept.

Most, if not all, scientific advances are met with hope, ignorance and outright fear in the beginning. Slowly, usually after the entertainment industry gets their hands on it, the concept gains acceptance and is ultimately ignored by the general population.

In the 80's and 90's, for example, it was robotics and artificial intelligence. While the advances we have made so far have yet to match those imagined by Sci-Fi writers they have also helped inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers to dream of bigger things then what is initially debated among academia.

What we see now in the media in regards to Bioengineering are Dreams and Nightmares of the potential consequences but they are also the harbinger of things to come, things we can no longer avoid.

In the end, cheer up. We should be resurrecting Wooly Mammoth's soon which is pretty cool and we might get super powers out of the deal.

I love the future and The Wonders of Bio-Technology.

If we end up going down that road, it will yet another thing that the super-rich elite has that gives them an unfair advantage over the regulars. They already have plenty of edge as it is. The regulars are forced to eat total crap, so they have a dietary and biological advantage in that aspect. The regulars are forced to go to public schools, that have been in a steady decline in quality for a long time now, that is an intellectual advantage I suppose. For now that is evened up by the internet, but for how much longer will we be allowed that? Then there is the brainwashing most regulars are subjected to through TV and also passed from person to person in our societies. "Can't fight city hall. Can never get ahead." Etc etc. Young regulars have that crapped pounded into their head constantly. It's sad.

Now imagine when we have to compete with the enhanced super-elite offspring. What a nightmare. Kids of famous athletes getting enhanced bodies. Stuff like that. Enhanced humans will be the best at everything, the regulars will have nothing but leftover scraps, if there are any

reply to post by TKDRL


Oh come on. That might happen sure, but if you consider the tract record of things like nuclear power then it's just as likely that we will have some sort of "incident" and mutate or be genetically spliced with animals and what not.

This is the stuff super heroes are made of, and who doesn't want to be a hero?

reply to post by WhiteAlice

For one thing, who holds the right to decide the best course for humanity?

Interesting concepts for sure.

Short answer: Nobody holds the right.

Most of these ideas are interesting and all, but most are emanating from many hierarchies that tend to lean politically Left and generally support some kind of ultra NWO agenda.

Mechanical and electrical technology advancements are are great, but not human.

We must beware because every scientific boondoggle has been the result of 'highly educated' people in protected positions in ivory towers.

The Human race has developed many genetic psychiatric and psychological mutations that seem to produce a class of people that think they know better.

I say 'verify, then trust'

Thorneblood
reply to post by TKDRL

 

Oh come on. That might happen sure, but if you consider the tract record of things like nuclear power then it's just as likely that we will have some sort of "incident" and mutate or be genetically spliced with animals and what not.

This is the stuff super heroes are made of, and who doesn't want to be a hero?

Might? It probably would as we do live in a capitalist society. In a way, it'd be like clothing. Whereas the wealthy can afford the finest of wools, the average person is more likely to wear a wool blend or synthetic. Quality has always been at multiple price points in a capitalistic society. There's IKEA lamps and Tiffany lamps. The Kias and the Lamborginis. I can't see how this specific thing would be any different. In terms of bioengineered eugenics, that would mean that the wealthy would-be parents could afford the genetic information for an Einstein-like character while the average family, if they could afford the service at all, may not be able to do better than perhaps the local chemistry professor. How long do you think the rich have to sit on a transplant list? How long was Cheney on it and who got bumped so that he could live? I tend to agree with TKDRL's argument and I think that there is a whole lot of things that we could look at that reinforce that potential outcome.

Btw, really liked the fact that you got the import of why I brought up the sci fi shows. The number of trans-humanist derived tv shows out there is pretty entertaining although they are sci fi shows. The odds of someone developing a way to make a human being fly (without wings, no less) is highly improbable. Regenerative? Maybe. They do propose the dreams and nightmares of altered humanity fairly well however and frequently in conjunction with each other. In shows like Alphas and Heroes, there are those altered humans that are "good guys" and some that are very, very bad. Despite the implausibility of some of the abilities, I do think they pose some significant ethical questions. Whereas yes, we may be able to create human beings with the ability to do amazing things in the future, it can also turn out very, very badly. You could have a legion of Einsteins or a legion of Unabombers. Extreme, perhaps, but even that reflects reality somewhat. James Holmes was exceptionally bright as was Adam Lanza.

Plus there is the ethical consideration of what it would mean to a child that had been genetically manipulated? How would they feel? How would their parents view them? In what way would it shape the child's outlook on the world in general to know that they were not made through an act of love but manufactured? On that thought alone, I'd be more likely to side with regular natural selection taking place and the use of enhancements to be the individual's choice as it is their life after all.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Most of what you just described resembles the movie Gattaca, which was based entirely upon a regular man's attempts to infiltrate and advance in a genetically "superior" society and we know how that ended.

I respect the cynical view, i even acknowledge it as a possibility but i don't accept that it is a certainty yet. As you have pointed out there are many ethical concerns worthy of consideration but there are also religious and cultural aspects at work that simply haven't been acknowledged yet. This sort of research and advancement has to be done, and it has to be done now. We cannot afford to allow China or Syria (as examples) to gain the upper hand in this area and we should be at least in part devoted to the positive potential of Bio engineering instead of focusing solely on the negative qualities of it. Like nuclear power, or anything really, it has the potential for great good and great evil in equal measure.

As for the notion that it will be a "rich man's" only service. Well that is just Cars and Computers to me. Home computers are a relatively recent development in our society and since the time of their initial release have steadily grown more powerful while at the same time becoming cheaper and cheaper. Now we have them in our cell phones and tablets. There will always be a price to pay for tech, but it may not always be as extravagantly priced as you think. Cars on the other hand have been around for decades, have largely remain unchanged and are still priced at ridiculous levels for what is ultimately a very, VERY, common tool.

Safe to assume that in some corners of this blue planet much of this has been achieved and yes with/for those with means.

Superheroes? Perhaps, perhaps not. I guess the argument really comes down to, do we want to live as a creature of this earth trying to be and move in harmony? , which we don't do now anyway. Or separate ourselves further, roll the dice and hope for the best. Destroy the planet and move to the next.

Maybe that's what we've been all along. We sure as hell dont seem to fit the "circle of life" and if its only because we overbred than that would be a huge humdinger against the all mighty. I was a huge comic book fan and would love nothing more than to emulate my childhood heros but lets face it, this wouldn't be for the useless eaters, it would be used to further divide and enslave us.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


My opinion:
Bio-engineering and cybernetics are inevitable. For humanity to expand to the stars, they are probably necessary (think resistance to radiation, or neural implants to speed up reaction time or hold entire databases worth of knowledge).

The best way to go about it is carefully and in full view of the world. Making it illegal will only make it dangerous and the realm of backroom "doctors" tinkering.

Personally I'm waiting for increased longevity, radiation resistance and neural implants. I want the stars, and a longer life to enjoy them in.

reply to post by Thorneblood


National security is an important concern; however, that's also where individuals like Kaczynski, Holmes, Lanza along with a decent number of others comes into play. It's rare but high iqs can have some dreadful effect. Part of the reason why these particularly effective kinds of killers are so rare is because there aren't that many like them. They are, by nature of their IQ, somewhere within the top 1-3% of the US population in terms of IQ. It's only a pool of around 3-6 million that they may emanate from. What happens when you bump everybody's IQ up? Smarts don't guarantee an increase in security, especially internally. Just this last year, there was a presentation at an academic conference in Texas titled "Scary Smart". It's not to say that smarts make criminals. It simply makes them more effective.

Let's go with your computer example as a good chunk of the population has at least one computer now so it's a common tool. However, not all computers are created equal and what kind of computer a person has and what its capable of is purely dependent on how much they spend on it. For example, I have a $5000 Digital Storm computer. New video game coming out? No problem. My rig can run it. Now, I have a whole lot of friends, on the other hand, who have a lot of older computers that have lesser graphic cards, less RAM, lesser processing power and so on. New game coming out? Well, they usually message me to see if whatever game I'm playing can be played on theirs (apparently, they are incapable of net searches on the subject lol). My having a $5000 computer provides me with a distinct advantage in optionality and performance capabilities than their $800 Dells. Not all computers are created equal and heck, even mine is getting behind on the times as far as computers go...

Even in computers, there are price point advantages that can essentially lock a person out from a choice, even if it's something as insignificant as a video game. This kind of human enhancing tech will be the same way. You'll have those with the latest and greatest tech while the rest get the knock offs.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Except the second half of the "High IQ" killer equation is that many of those with high levels of intelligence are often ostracized from normal society because of who they are and its effects on those people are both positive and negative. There might be millions of people in this range in our country, but there aren't millions of mass shooters running around decimating communities. There are likely far more stupid killers out there then smart ones after all. Boosting IQ's can work both ways, yes we can make smarter killers but we can also balance that by ensuring that the relative level of intelligence of those surrounding them is equally high.

Just because you are smarter doesn't mean your morality is somehow more deficient, many of the kids you referenced has serious mental issues that can't be completely tied to their IQ.

As for your computer, well i am certain you didn't drop 5k on a system just to play games. You had a specific reason to spend that amount of money on a high end system because it reflected your personal needs. As such, some people will spend more on a Bio product than others because some people have more specific uses for it where as others simply want to take advantage of the technology to improve their own lives.

We could debate the merits of a 5k Super human against a 1k super human till the cows come home, but in the end the technology will continue to advance and eventually the 1k'ers will outnumber the 5k crowd even though the 5k crowd will have a better "system" (for now )

Consider it like this. What if instead of it being based on a "mass production" model in which everyone gets the same "Bio" product, it is based on an "Evolving Biology" model that simply augments and heightens each individuals natural genetic traits. Sure it might make more villains, but the heroes have always outnumbered the villains and always will. It is a question of how we each use that technology as opposed to what it can be used for, and i still believe we can use advances like this one for the betterment of humanity and not for its ultimate destruction.

Great thread. Great questions. You may find this site of interest, as well. 2045.com 2045.com...

From link:

Founded by Russian entrepreneur Dmitry Itskov in February 2011 with the participation of leading Russian specialists in the field of neural interfaces, robotics, artificial organs and systems.
The main goals of the 2045 Initiative: the creation and realization of a new strategy for the development of humanity which meets global civilization challenges; the creation of optimale conditions promoting the spiritual enlightenment of humanity; and the realization of a new futuristic reality based on 5 principles: high spirituality, high culture, high ethics, high science and high technologies.
The main science mega-project of the 2045 Initiative aims to create technologies enabling the transfer of a individual’s personality to a more advanced non-biological carrier, and extending life, including to the point of immortality. We devote particular attention to enabling the fullest possible dialogue between the world’s major spiritual traditions, science and society.
A large-scale transformation of humanity, comparable to some of the major spiritual and sci-tech revolutions in history, will require a new strategy. We believe this to be necessary to overcome existing crises, which threaten our planetary habitat and the continued existence of humanity as a species. With the 2045 Initiative, we hope to realize a new strategy for humanity's development, and in so doing, create a more productive, fulfilling, and satisfying future.
The "2045" team is working towards creating an international research center where leading scientists will be engaged in research and development in the fields of anthropomorphic robotics, living systems modeling and brain and consciousness modeling with the goal of transferring one’s individual consciousness to an artificial carrier and achieving cybernetic immortality.
An annual congress "The Global Future 2045" is organized by the Initiative to give platform for discussing mankind's evolutionary strategy based on technologies of cybernetic immortality as well as the possible impact of such technologies on global society, politics and economies of the future.

IMHO, this has been going on in one way or another, since Project Paperclip and the protection, rehabilitation and "importing" of Nazi scientists. Arguing it, therefore, has long come and gone. And many things, technology wise, make it frustratingly impossible not to accept it......
Tetra50

reply to post by Thorneblood


As someone in that upper portion, I do agree that having a greater peer group could potentially alleviate that sort of isolation. It's also why I made sure to point out that there are, in fact, millions of high iq people that aren't running around trying to kill everybody or have the motivation or amorality to do such a thing. That's why I made sure to say more effective killers in terms of body counts. I'd say that it definitely is a toxic combination of high iq, mental illness and societal isolation that creates them overall. However, mental illness isn't just confined to the highly intelligent but exists throughout the US population irrespective of IQ. Whereas evening the playing field would alleviate one of those compounding issues, it's not a guarantee that it will eradicate the overall issue. I'll concede that such an evening could have prevented someone like Eric Harris. However, the likelihood would be, as it has always has been, to push the envelope of intellect. Instead it would be more likely that those naturally born geniuses would still get augmented and most likely for reasons of national security. Have to have the smartest and the brightest...50 years of research behind that one for children with potential. Why stop at just a genius? They wouldn't and those children would still be isolated in that regard.

I didn't plunk down the $5k to get my rig but, if I had had the means, I probably would have spent it simply for the ability to play games. Great for distraction, stress release and hand/eye coordination. Keeps me sharp, too. lol Like the point of the $1k crowd outnumbering the $5k crowd though. Just have to ask what kind of havoc would it wreak in the in-between time? It took home computers maybe 15-20 years to catch on and become something relatively affordable and in everyone's home.

Enhancements would probably move more rapidly as it would become more of a competitive requirement in the workplace. If you have the choice between Bob who has the latest intraneural memory enhancing chip and Steve who has no enhancement, odds are, an employer is going to chose enhanced Bob. However, that would almost force people to get enhanced in order to make a living. What if people just liked being the way they are?

reply to post by tetra50


I'd say that it probably started even before Operation Paperclip. Sir Francis Galton was discussing the possibilities of breeding for genius, to put it very simplistically, in the 19th Century. I believe he was the father of the Eugenics Movement, which eventually led into the Nazi's adoption of Nietzsche's ubermensch. Research articles also showed that they were looking for physiological differences that generated enhanced ability. For instance, a research paper from the early 20th century was looking at aural cells of gifted musicians for those differences. We've basically gone from examination of cells to examination of the genome for those traits over the course of a hundred or so years.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Know I'm pushing the "crazy envelope," here, but after all it's why I'm here, WhiteAlice. I believe some of that, at least is a, shall we say, "time redux," time being circular and at this point, quite obviously repititous...

In other words someone plugged in the quantum comp long ago, and we haven't stopped spinning the vast repitition, yet.....some love it, as in The Fall, Repition, and some hate it....but per literature, music, everything that isn't applied science, it's obviously happening, whether proveable or not.

But that's another thread....don't wanna drift yours, so to speak, for it's a good one...
Tetra50

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Unfortunately there will come a point in which certain enhancements are required for work in certain fields. Neural connections to computers, vehicles. Various mods for athletes and celebrities, etc. They won't comprise the whole of the population tho, if anything they will be a minority for at least ten to twenty years if not much longer. Lets face it, be it caused by genetics or genetic manipulation, there are already those who are elevated above the rest of humanity for their natural gifts so it only stands to reason that even in a Bio engineered society this will still be the case. Life will go on, laborers will labor, cooks will cook, singers will sing. Some will be noticed and adored, some will feared, most will just be over looked and forgotten.

In the end it won't be entirely dependent on what mod's you have but how those mod's are used and how it affects each individual.

As for the normals? Well there will be outrage and hatred, naturally, there will be communities of naturals and communities of modded humans. Then there will be interbreeding between the two and eventually it will give way to a purely modified society. Most of this will occur in the most powerful nations and cultures while the Third Worlders suffer and slave. Not so different from today when you get down to it.

We can fear progress, we can even rebel against it, but we simply cannot avoid it any longer.

However, the likelihood would be, as it has always has been, to push the envelope of intellect. Instead it would be more likely that those naturally born geniuses would still get augmented and most likely for reasons of national security. Have to have the smartest and the brightest...50 years of research behind that one for children with potential. Why stop at just a genius? They wouldn't and those children would still be isolated in that regard.

Absolutely. Ask yourself this: If we can put your consciousness in another body, more durable, less diseaseable, do you really think we cannot fix all these other mental issues and/or isolation of the geniuises, whom instead of being marginalized, could be used to better our general situation? All of this, IMO, begs the question, so to speak. Surely, we all know this is possible. But thinking has become, in the current environment, a threat to national security.....if that isn't friggin skewed, I don't really know what is.

I'm not that big a fan of Ayn Rand, but that is applicable here, 'Atlas Shrugged," and I'm too lazy and can't remember the other one about Howard Roark, the architect, living in a dumbed down society, forced to not concentrate on skyscapers which hadn't happened, yet, but providing the tenements for those more "in need."

Don't get me wrong: I am sympathetic with those in need, every day, on the street and otherwise. But, it's been the excuse for "levelling" when levelling was destroying us as a species. Thererfore, I don't really expect anything different as to this particular goal and dogma accompanying it.....

But then, I've come to keep my expectations low, so I won't be too disappointed, later. Sorry for being the joyous voice of reason here. Insert sarcasm in my post wherever you feel it applied and/or wish.
Tetra

reply to post by tetra50


It is kind of funny, isn't it? On one hand, you have cognitive enhancement being a goal but on the other hand, a good chunk of our schools are underfunded and the a sizable portion of the students passing through will never be once taught to critically think. I guess the question becomes whether it's something that is interesting now because it's profitable or if it's something that really would be general populous. Reading the converging technologies paper, I don't think I'd ever be able to plug my brain into a work station and I don't even have a fear of needles. Overall, thinking is only a threat to national security when it's not in line with the government's principles. I don't think, however, yet that we've had any form of a thought police. More like thought gatekeepers at the worst and a whole lot of encouragement of a lack of thinking. Overall, kind of a duality there.

I don't think I've read Fountainhead (the Roark one). Reading the summary, it sounds like she read Russell's Scientific Outlook. Not going along with the game plan in thinking = expulsion into the masses.

Rather interesting stuff...