Transhumanism and its Ethical Implications

Michelle Ewens

February 28, 2011

 Transhumanism and its Ethical Implications 2

Transhumanism seeks to further the development of humans through technological

means. Nanotechnology and advanced artificial intelligence can one day alter humanity by

enabling people to increase their intelligence, improve their physical health and appearance, and

eradicate disease. People may one day be able to live indefinitely and no longer have to work.

Nanorobots and nanofactories will manufacture products and materials by building materials

from the atomic level, without the aid of a human hand, and with such precision that it

identically replicates the original work. Human intelligence can be enhanced radically through

molecular engineering, emotions can be replicated or squashed at will by encoding chemical

reactions into the body, and everything we need or desire can be created freely. Imagine the

abundance and the possibilities of such a future. Some experts believe that this technology will

be harmful to humanity while others insist that it will benefit us and the world in which we live.

“Transhumanism is in favour of technologies and other means which could be used for

enhancement of human intellectual, physical, and emotional capacities” (Bostrom 2001). It can

be argued that human virtues are achieved through hardship and hard work, so if people were

given everything they wanted, then they would be worse off than they are now. This paper will

explore the future implications that this new technology will have on the human race and discuss

the ethical ramifications of its potential uses.

In the near future, life as we know it may forever change its course. When the creatures

of the earth become the creators, will there be a grand plan? If so, who has the right to play
TRANSHUMANISM 3

God? These questions of morality are often raised by religion. More than seventy-five percent

of the population in the United States is Christian with the majority of its followers being

Catholic. Pope Benedict endorsed stem cell research saying, "It deserves endorsement and

encouragement when it happily merges scientific knowledge, the most advanced technology, and

ethics that respect the human being at every stage of life” (Glatz, 2006). While religious

ideologies vary across cultures, the central theme of playing God often is deemed as an immoral

act by those who follow traditional doctrines. If scientists continue to boldly venture into this

field without stopping to think of the ethical implications that such technology will incur and go

ahead without a plan, it may become the final act of hubris that will lead to the downfall of man.

Pope Benedict endorses molecular technology which respects the human being at every stage of

life, but history has shown that humans don’t always respect life regardless of its technological

capabilities. To assume that governments will not use this technology to harm certain

populations of people is not realistic since history shows that they have neglected to respect life

in the past when it served their own national interests. In theory, anything can be made to appear

like a great idea. However, practical applications often will reveal the shortsightedness of

theoretical ideas that were made with even the best intentions. Stem cell research opponents

claim that we should not play God, but nevertheless this technology will continue to be funded

for military purposes for the safety of national interests.

In the past ten years the United States government spent billions of dollars in

nanotechnology research. Beginning in 2001, the annual federal budget for this field of science

was 494 million dollars. In 2010 the budget grew to 1.64 billion. The United States is making

nanotechnology a priority because it has major implications for national security, green energy,
TRANSHUMANISM 4

medicine, and agriculture. It is the fastest growing industry in history; surpassing the technology

boom of the late 1990’s. Major Universities around the world are also investing heavily in this

new nano research. Corporations provide much of the funding to institutions around the world to

help them create improved products and advance their technology.

DARPA recently funded a research program to create an artificial brain. “By

incorporating nanotechnology in the construction of the hardware, and neural networks into the

software, the team plans to create a tiny artificial brain with the same abilities as an organic

brain” (Nicks, 2010). In order for artificial life to be considered intelligent, it must be able to be

aware of its environment and learn how to interact with it. Scientists have already invented tiny

robots to crawl into our bloodstream to clean arteries and combat viruses, although it is not a

popular treatment today. It is possible that they will use these nanorobots to interact with our

DNA. Japanese scientists have already created an artificial DNA. They are now working on

nanorobot brains. “Nanorobots floating around in your bloodstream could keep your coronary

arteries from clogging, but they also could release drugs on command, making you, say, literally

love Big Brother” (Reynolds, 2009). The technology race is more like a web in which

information systems are entangled with one another. Military research must cross all cultures in

the attempt to seek the most knowledge.

Eric Drexler, the engineer who popularized molecular nanotechnology, believes that

humans will one day be able to live for thousands of years. He kept silent about this concept for

years because he struggled with the philosophical dilemma of its future ramifications. It wasn’t

until the physicist who helped develop the atomic bomb, Richard Feynman, began publically
TRANSHUMANISM 5

speaking about this concept that Drexler came forth with his own findings. “Eric had agreed with

him (Feynman) 100 percent: Sooner or later people were going to figure out how to do things

with the atomic building blocks; it was only a matter of time” (Regis, 1995). After hearing

Feynman speak at MIT in 1979, Drexler decided to finally share his theories about

nanotechnology with the world. In his book Engines of Creation he wrote, “My greatest concern

is that the emergence of this technology without the appropriate public attention and

international controls could lead to an unstable arms race” (Drexler, 1985). It is important to

acknowledge the harm nanotechnology could cause as well as the benefits it could bring to

people. While it is not possible to predict the future, it is possible to reasonably assume that

humans will continue to behave in ways in which they have in the past.

Depending upon the intentions of those who have access to this technology, it can be

used to free everyone so that there is no longer a rich and poor division of classes, or it can be

used to deepen the gulf between the fortunate ones and unfortunate ones. The Utilitarian

approach to this will seek to find out who will benefit from this technology. According to this

philosophy, if the greatest number of people will benefit from a certain course of action, then it is

a morally sound course to take. However, what if the majority of the people are uncooperative

by nature, and unfit to live harmoniously in such a free society? Competitiveness may have

served humans in the past, but in the future, these same traits are undesirable because it promotes

self-interest.

If people were technologically enhanced with greater intelligence they could possibly

develop virtues which would make them more peaceful and caring toward each other. The desire
TRANSHUMANISM 6

for power may decrease as the human consciousness expands. The goal of transhumanism after

all is to become enlightened. Assuming that people will want to increase their intelligence to

become enlightened, they will choose to endow themselves with such traits. If this were to occur

in a normal person of average intelligence, he would become gifted with knowledge overnight.

The affect that this would have on the psyche could pose a risk to the psychological well being of

the person. To have a sudden personality change would break down the ego. This break down

sometimes manifests as a psychosis. The sudden onslaught of remorse, and gained insight can

cause psychological suffering. A personality change like this is bound to come with challenges.

The way in which the transformed individual relates to his family, friends, and the world will be

changed forever.

Rather than succumb to the growing pains of enlightenment, some people may simply

choose to have fun and enjoy themselves. Some may choose to be physically enhanced so that

they can be more attractive or athletic. While the two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, it is

human nature to avoid pain and seek pleasure. If a person doesn’t need to work, there is no real

need for education. The numbers of people that will pursue knowledge for knowledge’s sake

will most like decrease. Evolutionary biologist Garret Hardin believes that a world in which the

masses have all of their material necessities met would be dreadful: “Most of the people involved

in the Los Angeles riots had all the necessities of life, what they don’t have is an interest in life.

We deprive them of work. Basically I think activity- I won’t say ‘work’- activity is the primary

requirement for human existence” (Regis, 1995). Aristotle also thought that happiness was not

found in amusement. If the world were filled with unhappy people, they would probably seek

ways in which to fill the void with all sorts of mischief.

TRANSHUMANISM 7

In such a free society where people do not have to work and have all of their material

desires met, it is possible that they will just want more. Very wealthy people can be just as

dissatisfied as the poor. For some people, the more they get the more they want. Imagine if the

majority of people could have whatever they wanted right now. Sadly, it doesn’t seem realistic

that the majority of people today would strive to better humanity. It is more likely that they

would seek to gratify whatever immediate desire they have and the desire itself could grow

insatiable. The survival of the fittest philosophy rationalizes such self-interested acts. Survival of

the fittest is an amoral fact of life. Pop culture glorifies this “winner attitude” sort of behavior as

though it is desirable to be better than others. This sort of competitive drive cannot coexist

harmoniously in a free society and those who have this instinct may not choose to eliminate it. It

is not ethical to force people to change unless they are deemed as being insane. Our textbook

states that the definition of insanity is not having the ability to know right from wrong. The

relativist would argue that morally speaking terms of right and wrong vary from person to

person. Perhaps the relativist is insane for not having a firm grasp of right and wrong. In the

future, perhaps self-serving people will be labeled as insane and forced to undergo technological

enhancement.

Perhaps humans will one day evolve beyond their instincts and egos. “Post-humans” are

people who surpass humans intellectually and physically through molecular engineering. While

genetically enhanced people may conjure up images of robots, they may prove to exert more free

will than non-enhanced humans. People who select their own genetic traits will no longer be

limited by what nature bestowed upon them at birth.

TRANSHUMANISM 8

Perhaps this knowledge should remain secret until the day comes when humanity evolves to

become more altruistic and less egotistical.

While utilitarian ethics maintain that human actions should benefit the greatest number of

people, transhumanist philosophy does not place such emphasis on taking responsibility for the

welfare of the populace. They propose that it is the duty of each individual to strive toward

overcoming the self. The main difference between these two ethical perspectives is that

utilitarian ethics aims at achieving the greatest good for the greatest amount of people while

transhumanism aims at achieving self-ownership. What self-ownership, entails according to the

transhumanist, is self-transformation. This is a psychological process of integrating the body and

mind so that the end result produces a more virtuous human being, free from societal restraints of

cultural belief systems, and completely self-directed. “Every individual needs revolution, inner

division, overthrow of the existing order, and renewal, but not by forcing these things upon his

neighbours under the hypocritical cloak of Christian love or the sense of social responsibility or

any of the other beautiful euphemisms for unconscious urges to personal power” (Jung, 1912).

This individual revolution can be perpetuated through technological enhancement. Utilitarianism

places greater emphasis on societal duties, while transhumanism does not seek ways in which to

serve others because they view such concepts as a form of slavery. They place more value in

individual freedom than in societal duty. This does not imply that those individuals are self-

serving since the self is something which is to be overcome. “It may simply lead to a version of

transhumanism that champions the self-overcoming of the individual without an obligation to

TRANSHUMANISM 9

“the masses” (More, 2010). To be free from the limitations which enslave the mind and body

requires one to overcome his nature and to choose the traits he wishes to enhance.

Utilitarians could logically claim that humans should not seek such individual power

since it may not benefit the majority of people. While this may or may not be true, it could

reasonably be argued that by removing this power of self-transformation and instead instill laws

which promote behavior which certainly do benefit the majority of the population, this would be

the most ethical utilitarian course of action. Transhumanism, on the other hand, does not support

such removal of individual rights or freedoms regardless of how many people it benefits because

to do so would be an act of servitude.

If the grand plan of this new technology is designed to end war and poverty, those who

are characteristically prone to such competitive displays of power grabbing should not be

allowed to have access to post human technological advances. “Under conditions of

transhumanism, we are faced with a move toward a new individualism in which people actively

constitute themselves and construct their own identities” (Vita-Moore, 2000). How people

choose to construct their identity can greatly impact others, so it is vital that those people who

operate on a self-serving egotistical level not enhance their competitive nature further since it

would jeopardize the harmony which a free society seeks to create.

Through war and acts of greed, those people who operate from egoism will become

apparent and should be refused to enhance their evil nature through technological manipulation.

On the other hand, those who display altruistic behaviors will be selected for enhancement. This

plan ensures that the greatest potential of producing the most people who exhibit cooperative and
TRANSHUMANISM 10

altruistic traits can expand the evolution of human consciousness to reflect the ideals and values

which most people hold dear, but only a few truly exhibit. In the future, mankind can

realistically encompass all of our ideals, thereby propelling our species forward to explore the

universe while living in harmony with all of creation.

Since many people are unwilling to use non-technological advances to better themselves

and serve their fellow man, how can they be expected to better themselves and serve others if

given complete freedom? If people were allowed to have such freedom it would likely endanger

society and demand a great deal of surveillance of its citizens. Humans are currently operating

on the survival of the fittest operation which means we are still very primitive. It is probably not

wise for humans today to have these “godlike” powers.

Are humans ready to take the quantum leap forward in evolution so that all people on

earth can share its bounty of resources and knowledge? If the grand plan of this new technology

is designed to end war and poverty, those who are characteristically prone to such competitive

displays of power grabbing may use this technology to continue to exploit others for personal

gain. As long as humans continue to operate on this level of survival of the fittest, it seems

unlikely that nanotechnology will be used to benefit all of mankind. Technological advances in

this area inevitably will change the course of humanity, for better or worse.
TRANSHUMANISM 11

References

Bostrom, Nick. (2001), “Transhumanist values”. Version of April 18, 2001:

http://www.nickbostrom.com/tra/values.html

Bostrom, Nick. (2000). Transhumanist ethics. Retrieved on February 14, 2011 from

http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/transhumanist.pdf

Drexler, Eric. (1986). Engines of creation. Doubleday.

Glatz, Carol. (2006). Pope endorses adult stem cell research. Catholic news services.
Retrieved on February 28, 2011 from
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0605317.htm

Jung, Carl. (1912). "On the Psychology of the Unconscious" (1912). In CW 7: Two Essays on
Analytical Psychology P. 5 retrieved on February 27, 2011 from
http://oaks.nvg.org/individuation.html

More, Max. (2010) The overhuman in the transhuman. Journal of evolution and technology.

Volume 21 issue 1 January 2010 retrieved on February 27, 2011 from

http://jetpress.org/v21/more.htm

Regis, Ed. (1995). Nano. The emerging science of nanotechnology. Backbay.

Vita-Moore, Natasha. (2000). The transhumanist culture. Transhuman history. Create/recreate

the third millennium culture. Retrieved on February 14, 2011 from
http://www.transhuman.org/transhistory.htm