Enhancement

Fanny Cradock · 08-05-2011 7:23pm #1

Ethical questions arising from the inevitable advancement of knowledge in the area of human enhancement have played on my mind ever since I saw Donal O'Mathuna give a talk entitled Medical Ethics and What it Means to be Human.

The term "enhancement" means many things to many people. There isn't one agreed definition as far as I know. While I'm not against the idea of exploring advancements in terms of health care, I must admit that I feel some disquiet when I hear some of the Utopian "wishes" or aspirations that are at the heart of the research. For example, I look to the spectre of transhumanism as something that could produce some frighting divisions in an already divided world.

I'm primarily interested in the view of Christians on what enhancement means in the context of Christianity. I personally make two very broad sub-category distinctions.

1) The area of health care
2) The area of augmentation of abilities (intelligence, strength, beauty or whatever).

It seems to me that the first category (health care) is broadly about working within the framework of the genus Homo sapien. ("Let's work with what we have".) Whereas the latter is about breaking that mould and making a new kind of man. This is big business. And I think it is something we should all be aware of because it is not something that is going to disappear.

If people have never considered the question then there is an interesting panel discussion here (for and against). I also notice that The Science Gallery on Pearce St is running a series called Human + - albeit one that is seemingly talking about enhancement from only one perspective.

AhSureTisGrand · 08-05-2011 9:05pm

Is the second category not "working with what we have" also? I would only say otherwise if we were creating a new being from scratch

Fanny Cradock · 08-05-2011 10:01pm

Having an IQ of 300 or running 100m in 6 seconds isn't within the bounds of naturally occurring possibility for humans, I would think. Not dying of cancer is. That is where I draw a very rough line. But I'm hoping that my sub-categories - however imperfect they may be - aren't the main issue here. Rather, I'm predominately asking Christians what they think about enhancements in light of Christianity. It's a very big question.

A few thoughts...

Even if we take the latter sub-category (curing certain diseases etc.) as an achievement that would likely be considered a noble endeavour by most people, I wonder what knock-on effects extended life could have on economies, health-care systems and natural resources on a planet that is forecast to have a population of about 10 billion humans by 2050. Could extending life actually cause more needless human suffering (not to mention other species) in the poorer parts of the world?

Other potential issues to think about might be the morality of the commodification (and therefore the privatisation) of enhancements. For example, what happens to the people who can't or wont pay to have themselves or their children enhanced? Could they be considered lesser humans in comparison to an enhanced individual who is demonstrably superior?

Many have pointed out that the notion of Imago Dei lies at the heart of Judaism and Christianity. That is to say, we are all created in the image of God, and are therefore of intrinsic value whatever our abilities. (Whether every Christian has recognised this is not really the point of this thread.) The ever excellent Vinoth Ramachandra expands on this idea in relation to a basis for civil rights [URL="Western Myths About Pluralism: The Real Basis of Civil Rights"]here[/URL]. If we are dealing with a post-Christian world what if people flatly reject this?

AhSureTisGrand · 08-05-2011 10:07pm

Fair enough. What would you make of it when artificial legs for amputees become better than real legs? Should those who can afford it be allowed swap their natural legs for superhuman ones?

I'm not sure myself but my answer is somewhat irrelevant as a non-Christian

PDN · 08-05-2011 10:50pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Having an IQ of 300 ... isn't within the bounds of naturally occurring possibility for humans, I would think.

Speak for yourself, dumbass! :pac:

CerebralCortex · 08-05-2011 11:11pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ethical questions arising from the inevitable advancement of knowledge in the area of human enhancement have played on my mind ever since I saw Donal O'Mathuna give a talk entitled Medical Ethics and What it Means to be Human.

The term "enhancement" means many things to many people. There isn't one agreed definition as far as I know. While I'm not against the idea of exploring advancements in terms of health care, I must admit that I feel some disquiet when I hear some of the Utopian "wishes" or aspirations that are at the heart of the research. For example, I look to the spectre of transhumanism as something that could produce some frighting divisions in an already divided world.

I'm primarily interested in the view of Christians on what enhancement means in the context of Christianity. I personally make two very broad sub-category distinctions.

1) The area of health care
2) The area of augmentation of abilities (intelligence, strength, beauty or whatever).

It seems to me that the first category (health care) is broadly about working within the framework of the genus Homo sapien. ("Let's work with what we have".) Whereas the latter is about breaking that mould and making a new kind of man. This is big business. And I think it is something we should all be aware of because it is not something that is going to disappear.

If people have never considered the question then there is an interesting panel discussion here (for and against). I also notice that The Science Gallery on Pearce St is running a series called Human + - albeit one that is seemingly talking about enhancement from only one perspective.

I'm not a christian, but I wonder if you'd kindly permit me to give my two cents especially in the light of the fact that I'm a transhumanist. One of the main proponents of Transhumanism is Ray Kurzweil but he, like I, doesn't really think there is any need for the term transhumanisn or H+ as from the very moment way we did something like design glasses we've been enhancing ourselves. It's what we do. We see problems we don't like, we learn about the problem domain and then fix the problem.
To put a line between what we currently have in terms of medical technology and what we could have is completely arbitrary, the fact that we live on average twice as long as our pre industrial age ancestors in the western world implies enhancement.

Fanny Cradock · 08-05-2011 11:35pm

PDN wrote: »

Speak for yourself, dumbass! :pac:

I'm a little short of that mark.

Fanny Cradock · 08-05-2011 11:57pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I'm not a christian, but I wonder if you'd kindly permit me to give my two cents especially in the light of the fact that I'm a transhumanist. One of the main proponents of Transhumanism is Ray Kurzweil but he, like I, doesn't really think there is any need for the term transhumanisn or H+ as from the very moment way we did something like design glasses we've been enhancing ourselves. It's what we do. We see problems we don't like, we learn about the problem domain and then fix the problem.

Just to clarify that this thread is open to everyone. I'm particularity interested in a Christian perspective though.

"Enhancement" is a slippery word. As I previously said, evidently it means different things to different people. My own view is that reading glasses are not an enhancement as I intend to use it here for the obvious reason that they are a tool that attempt to restore the wearer's vision to something approaching normative leves in humans. In other words, you wear glasses if your sight is deficient. Enhancing intelligence far beyond what could be considered normal or even possible in a unguided sense (possibly with some fundamental manipulation of the genome that results in a permanent change) doesn't strike me as being the same as using tools to aid us.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

To put a line between what we currently have in terms of medical technology and what we could have is completely arbitrary, the fact that we live on average twice as long as our pre industrial age ancestors in the western world implies enhancement.

It might imply enhancement but it doesn't mean it. Given the correct diet and living conditions (no 14 hour shifts in a coal mine) I would have thought that most people from Industrial Revolution times would experience considerably longer lives.

Festus · 09-05-2011 12:54am

Enhancement doesn't mean anything in the context of Christianity unless you mean how can science enhance a human to be more Christian.

That bits easy, remove the Protestant gene and leave the Catholic gene

That's a joke, no need to go all moddy now!

Enhancement only has a meaning in the context of science in general and medical science in particular in this case.

Would having larger breasts or a longer thicker .... I won't finish that, anyway you know where it's going - increase your chances of getting into Heaven? (rhetorical)

The answer is remarkably simple. God gave us our bodies, our minds and our soul. You can enhance you body naturally with exercise, you mind with education and your soul with prayer.

If you enhance your body artifically you are essentially playing God with yourself.

If you seek to enhance the body of another - gene therapy as part of in-vitro fertilization as an example - you are not only playing God but are also on dangerous ethical territory.

As the mind is essentially a function of the body - electrical and chemical impulses through nerves in the brain - the same argument applies. While you can enhance the mind naturally there are limits and to go beyond them requires intervention of an artificial nature.

We know there are limits to the mind. We unlike the angels do not have perfect knowlegde. To seek to improve upon what God made in His own image and likeness is at the most basic level breaking the first commandment.

CerebralCortex · 09-05-2011 9:37am

Festus wrote: »

The answer is remarkably simple. God gave us our bodies, our minds and our soul. You can enhance you body naturally with exercise, you mind with education and your soul with prayer.

If you enhance your body artifically you are essentially playing God with yourself.

I think you're quite obviously arbitrarily drawing lines between what is an artificial and natural enhancement when in fact enhancement is just enhancement. When I lift weights and ingest engineered nutrients to stimulate tissue growth, how is that any different from getting gene therapy to do the same job? At most less sweat!

Festus wrote: »

If you seek to enhance the body of another - gene therapy as part of in-vitro fertilization as an example - you are not only playing God but are also on dangerous ethical territory.

Why? If you mean selecting for traits which will give your child advantages in life, then guess what that is the most natural thing in the world for parents to do, and we do it when we select partners to have children with.

Festus wrote: »

As the mind is essentially a function of the body - electrical and chemical impulses through nerves in the brain - the same argument applies. While you can enhance the mind naturally there are limits and to go beyond them requires intervention of an artificial nature.

We know there are limits to the mind. We unlike the angels do not have perfect knowlegde. To seek to improve upon what God made in His own image and likeness is at the most basic level breaking the first commandment.

I think the main problem for the non-naturalistic world views with enhancement is the fact that it changes the questions about life or being human away from questions which religions purported to have answers for.

Fanny Cradock · 09-05-2011 12:25pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I think the main problem for the non-naturalistic world views with enhancement is the fact that it changes the questions about life or being human away from questions which religions purported to have answers for.

I don't agree. The morality grey areas that surround enhancement and an uncertain future - almost always framed as a Utopian dream or Dystopian nightmare - are my main problems. That people might live longer, run faster or be more intelligent aren't things that necessarily address the big questions about existence.

homer911 · 09-05-2011 1:12pm

Have you been watching "Limitless"??

Fanny Cradock · 09-05-2011 1:23pm

Me? No. I guess it covers a similar topic?

CerebralCortex · 09-05-2011 1:50pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't agree. The morality grey areas that surround enhancement and an uncertain future - almost always framed as a Utopian dream or Dystopian nightmare - are my main problems. That people might live longer, run faster or be more intelligent aren't things that necessarily address the big questions about existence.

But they do provide evidence that our prior assumptions were wrong about the human condition. Would you agree? On the point of "Utopian dream or Dystopian nightmare", but any H+ individual worth listening to you would agree with that.
You might find this site interesting on the subject of civilisation changing technology. Also lesswrong.com.

Fanny Cradock · 09-05-2011 2:03pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

But they do provide evidence that our prior assumptions were wrong about the human condition. Would you agree?

What do you mean by human condition? What prior assumptions are you referring to? What evidence?

Morbert · 09-05-2011 2:25pm

It will be interesting (assuming I am alive) to see how our behaviour will be augmented. Would society embrace augmentations that would make us more charitable, religious, kind, selfless etc.? These would be the simplest augmentations to manufacture (In a way, we already do this with drugs). I could see scenarios where criminals receive mandatory behaviour augmentations.

CerebralCortex · 09-05-2011 2:34pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What do you mean by human condition? What prior assumptions are you referring to? What evidence?

Well things like human being defined as having a special essence/soul which makes them unique, for example that conciousness is not amenable to science. Indeed with new technologies we'll soon find out either we are arrangements of matter or not. I tend to believe it's quarks all the way down and I imagine that new technologies used to understand human cognition will probably bolster that belief or destroy it. I'm open to both scenarios.

Fanny Cradock · 09-05-2011 2:36pm

The panel discussion in the OP briefly addressed this question. One of the panellists mentioned some research that concluded people should have to undergo mandatory enhancement for certain traits.

CerebralCortex · 09-05-2011 2:54pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The panel discussion in the OP briefly addressed this question. One of the panellists mentioned some research that concluded people should have to undergo mandatory enhancement for certain traits.

You think that's a problem? Also why would they have to? I'll have to listen to the talk I guess.

homer911 · 09-05-2011 3:00pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Me? No. I guess it covers a similar topic?

..A drug to make our brains work faster - but I think it kills him in the end (haven't seen it myself)

Fanny Cradock · 09-05-2011 3:12pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well things like human being defined as having a special essence/soul which makes them unique...

The soul or spirit is immaterial. I'm not sure how enhancement of a physical body could comment on it. I really don't want to have the argument that says science automatically abrogates the notion of God. I think it's silly. You don't. Let's leave it there.

You think that's a problem? Also why would they have to? I'll have to listen to the talk I guess.

I personally didn't make any comment on it. But I could see it being a problem if a person (or groups of people) didn't want to undergo compulsory modification. Perhaps the paper is mentioned by name.

CerebralCortex · 09-05-2011 3:29pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The soul or spirit is immaterial. I'm not sure how enhancement of a physical body could comment on it. I really don't want to have the argument that says science automatically abrogates the notion of God. I think it's silly. You don't. Let's leave it there.

All I was saying that science/technological developments could show that human behaviour is the result of the evolved kludgey brain and nothing else and that would challenge the non-physicalists position quite strongly. I never mentioned anything about a creating being. If the human is just material and person-hood can be augmented (enhanced?), what are the implications? I think this is an important question.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I personally didn't make any comment on it. But I could see it being a problem if a person (or groups of people) didn't want to undergo compulsory modification. Perhaps the paper is mentioned by name.

Yes that would be a big problem.

Zombrex · 09-05-2011 3:45pm

In a lot of ways we are already being augmented by technology. When was the last time you used a dictionary to check the spelling of a word, sat down and worked out a sum, or actually read a map. Things like smart phones are become external brains. I would see the development in this area in the near future to be linking these things closer to our physical brains, removing layers of interfaces. You can imagine in 25 years time you will think "What is the capital of France" and "Paris" will just pop into your head, without having to have learned that.

The issue I would see with these things can again already be seen today, over reliance on technology and helplessness when the technology doesn't work. The idea that I never have to learn anything again is great until the internet connection in my brain goes down and I end up not knowing a single thing and, more importantly, not having developed the learning skills to learn a single thing. There is more than just the information, there is also the skill to acquire information. Working out a maths problem manually or looking up a fact in a book is not simply about the answer but the process required to do it.

Likewise with physical augmentation. Serious consideration must be given to idea like we can all run much faster with these enhancements but we can't move at all while they are not functioning. There are trade offs these that need consideration beyond just how they will improve our lives, but how not having them working will make us suffer.

My 2 cents, Fanny not sure if that is exactly what you were asking for.

CerebralCortex · 09-05-2011 3:57pm

Wicknight wrote: »

The issue I would see with these things can again already be seen today, over reliance on technology and helplessness when the technology doesn't work. The idea that I never have to learn anything again is great until the internet connection in my brain goes down and I end up not knowing a single thing and, more importantly, not having developed the learning skills to learn a single thing. There is more than just the information, there is also the skill to acquire information. Working out a maths problem manually or looking up a fact in a book is not simply about the answer but the process required to do it.

One could imagine technology that could imprint learning onto our v1.0 brains to the limit of that brains capabilities or perhaps to the limits of v2.0 brains.

Wicknight wrote: »

Likewise with physical augmentation. Serious consideration must be given to idea like we can all run much faster with these enhancements but we can't move at all while they are not functioning. There are trade offs these that need consideration beyond just how they will improve our lives, but how not having them working will make us suffer.

True indeed but an augmentation can be as simple as making sure that all my mitochondrial DNA is expressed from the cell nucleus. The differnce in function would be seamless but I wouldn't have to worry about the mitochondrial aspects of aging.

Fanny Cradock · 10-05-2011 3:17pm

Wicknight wrote: »

When was the last time you used a dictionary to check the spelling of a word, sat down and worked out a sum, or actually read a map.

Oddly enough, I did all those in the last few days. But if we are going to define "enhancement" to mean the use of any tool, then it is irrelevant whether you got a map out of the glove compartment from your car or from a chip in your brain. Indeed, one could even say that the ability to do maths (as opposed to use a machine to do it for you) is itself an enhancement. But, of course, I don't agree with this definition. It's just too slippery.

Wicknight wrote: »

My 2 cents, Fanny not sure if that is exactly what you were asking for.

I was looking for more of a theological input in general from people. But it seems the Christians aren't biting. So fire away.

Zombrex · 10-05-2011 3:26pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Oddly enough, I did all those in the last few days. But if we are going to define "enhancement" to mean the use of any tool, then it is irrelevant whether you got a map out of the glove compartment from your car or from a chip in your brain.

I think that is the thing though, enhancements are going to be traditional tools that are more closely embedded into our bodies so that we notice less and less that we are using a tool. For example auto-correct spell checking, or Auto-search on Google happens without you even thinking you need to use a tool to check the spelling of the word you just misspelt.

The issue I would see is that the more "without thinking" the tool becomes the more we do not understand really what we are doing and cannot cope without the automatic notion of the tool.

This isn't a particularly new issue, though it is one we are confronted with more and more as technology takes a more and more prominent place. But for example I wear glasses as people have for hundreds of years. I'm very short sighted but without them I probably would have developed the skills necessary to survive. As it is if my glasses were lost I would probably walk under the first bus.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I was looking for more of a theological input in general from people. But it seems the Christians aren't biting. So fire away.

That is all really. You can feel confident that us baby eating immoral atheists have ethical concerns as well.

Fanny Cradock · 27-05-2011 1:37pm

By way of an oblique counter argument against technocracy and the bright future promised by the incorporation of computers into our lives, BBC2 are running a documentary series with the wonderful title All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace (based on this poem) (iPlayer link - UK only). Part one was sometime last Monday (I think). It's created by Adam Curtis (Power of Nightmares etc.) so it is worth a watch.

CerebralCortex · 27-05-2011 1:39pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

By way of an oblique counter argument against technocracy and the bright future promised by the incorporation of computers into our lives, BBC2 are running a documentary series with the wonderful title All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace (based on this poem) (iPlayer link - UK only). Part one was sometime last Monday (I think). It's created by Adam Curtis (Power of Nightmares etc.) so it is worth a watch.

:mad:

Fanny Cradock · 27-05-2011 2:01pm

Why so angry?

CerebralCortex · 27-05-2011 2:02pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why so angry?

Can't watch the video

Fanny Cradock · 27-05-2011 2:08pm

Ah well...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8JA9Qs2Mho

I'm sure it will be up on YT soon enough.

Enhancement

Comments