Human Enhancement

So I originally posted the below text in The Military Thread, as the report has an emphasis on human enhancement being used for military purposes. But I feel that this is something that could very well have its own thread for discussion.

This is the Greenwall Report, published today.

I'm having trouble finding people with both the interest in the subject, and the will to read the actual report, but let me sum it up a bit for y'all.

The Greenwall Report is a report on the future and ethics of human enhancement. It makes an effort to define what human enhancement is in the first place, but mainly has a focus on performance enhancing medications, physical augmentation(prosthetics, exoskeletons, microchips implanted within the body, etc) as well as things like gene therapy and just about anything in that vein. They have trouble defining it, and rightly so, as there are emergent technologies that are either in experimental stages or on the cusp of being in experimental stages soon from such a large variety of fields and disciplines.

Stop and think about this for a second.. Several accredited and well regarded institutions are talking things that only a few years ago would be thought of as science fiction, and feel that it is pertinent to discuss the ethical and moral ramifications of these technologies. These things are eminently real. Let that sink in for a minute. Genetic manipulation, prosthetics that may very well surpass our natural limbs that we are born with, and superior enhancements to our most basic physiological traits are real and in the domain of intellectual discussion.

This report initially tries to stay focused on the ethical ramifications of these technologies in regards to the military, which is logically the first place that they will show up. But it can't help but wander off into the implications of the effects of these technologies on our civilization as we know it. The words "eminent human enhancement revolution" are being said by well regarded scholars without a hint of sarcasm or fantasy.

This is absolutely amazing, and this report has got me to think about something that has been right in front of us for a while now, but rarely really talked about. Regardless of if we like it or not, we're right on the cusp for the baseline roll out of what will very likely become the next steps in human evolution, not by nature, but by our very own hands.

I don't even have the words for it. This report is essentially a bunch of great minds trying to wrap themselves around even beginning to form the question of "What is human enhancement?"

What is enhancement versus therapy? Is there a difference between a child born with brittle bone syndrome being given an exoskeleton(a reality btw, a hospital in france crafted a simplistic exoskeleton for a child suffering from this disease using just a 3d printer) versus a soldier with an exoskeleton for the purposes of being able to carry 200 pounds of gear without feeling any exertion while hiking through the Hindu Kush? The question of this philosophical comparison is huge, and the bigger question remains as "Is there a moral/ethical dilemma to this? What about when it stops just being exoskeletons, and starts being the genetic manipulation of stripping an unborn child of a life threatening disease they would otherwise be born with, versus using the same practices to give birth to children who are fundamentally enhanced to be faster, smarter, and stronger than a natural born child?"

There are so many questions that this topic evokes, which really aren't getting the attention that they deserve from things that could be as society-altering as this.

1. Would these things make someone "less than" or "more than" human? By what standard do we judge a persons "humanity"?

2. Would the possible advantages of many of these technologies lead to the disenfranchisement of the majority? The inevitable people who could not stay competitive and afford enhancements? Could we be looking at a Gattaca situation?

3. How would such a thing be regulated, if at all? And could it be argued that regulation is restricting the human right to thrive and improve? Few can see a problem with these practices being used as therapy for the sick or afflicted, but for a healthy person utilizing this technology to enhance themselves above baseline levels of performance for the human race, do they have an inalienable right to do so?

edited 2nd Jan '13 12:57:10 AM by Barkey

Inevitably, the answer to the first will be "both." Whether gene manipulation or cybernetic limbs, the recipients will be judged harshly by their detractors and fawned over by those who wish to emulate them. Hopefully it will end with us collectively defining a persons "humanity" by their actions and their words, not by the metallic content of their outer layer or the density of their muscle fibers.

To some degree, this is inevitable. At least at the very beginning of this technology, the only people who are going to have them are the guinea pigs and the rich. Whether it would get expanded out to the rest of the population will depend heavily on how quickly it can become affordable. Ironically, I expect that'll screw over America, because all of these enhancement techniques require experienced health care professionals, which are quite pricey on their own, so I expect it'll be easier for socialist England to enhance all their people than capitalist America - we'll want people to pay for their own, while universal socialist healthcare means the state will enhance everyone.

There's pretty much only two ways for it to be regulated - private sector, which in the US means the rich get it and the rest of us are screwed; or government, which means the loudest special interest groups will get it and the rest of us are screwed. As for the "right to thrive and improve," I don't believe anywhere has that as a right, even all of the equality legislation is there simply to give everyone the chance to try, not a guaranteed success. While it's quite likely that enhancement will, at least for a while, lead to a heavily uneven playing field, I'm not sure I can agree that banning or restricting it grants everyone the right to thrive.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

The UK also has a much smaller population than America. Take into consideration some small but rich place like UAE can afford this faster and on a more inclusive scale than America.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

I don't think that the NHS would expand its remit to covering enhancements. The NHS has too many money problems right now for me to envisage an extensive universal enhancement project. One thing that I think might escape Americans is that whilst the NHS as an institution is there to ensure that everyone in the country has access to essential medical care, it does not cover "vanity" treatments, which this would likely come under. The . Sure, I can see private clinics like BUPA doing this sort of thing, but the NHS?

edited 2nd Jan '13 8:34:06 AM by pagad

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.

Actually, anywhere that places a higher premium on preventative care rather than treatment, I would see adopting some form of these. Screen for anyone with any kind of risk factor, then upgrade them. Presumably, at least with gene therapy, the costs of doing the procedure will be less than the costs of treating people of diseases that crop up in 'normal' people. Cybernetics maybe not, since as with anything mechanical, there's going to be upkeep and maintenance that the average person can't/won't do.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

We already do 'human enhancement' to some degree. That is, I'm wearing eye enhancement (otherwise known as glasses) right now.

My grandmother had artificial hips which were stronger than her originals. Deaf people get fitted (if they wish) with cochlear implants.

The implications from the stuff we already do is that it will proceed on a case by case basis. Cochlear implants are already individual choice; some people are choosing to reject them as a treatment for deafness. Similarly, there was all that discussion over Oscar Pistorius' artificial limbs and whether they were giving him an advantage.

It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.

I'm all for transhumanism, so long as it can be done safely. Anyway, to answer your three questions:

1. My hope would be that it would make them more than human. Humans aren't perfect, not even close to perfect. We should try to correct our own flaws, and if technology can help us with that, so much the better. The idea of respecting 'humanness' as having innate value is silly, it makes no more sense than a bacterium respecting 'bacteriumness' as having innate value. We are not coincidentally at some special 'peak' beyond which moral value begins to drop again with additional development, and I find it kind of shocking and depressing that so many people believe we are.

2. That's possible. The main concern being that the early transhumans would use their new abilities to hold the normal humans back and thereby carve out a larger piece of the pie for themselves. I don't think this is terribly likely to continue in the long run, but it could certainly be a problem temporarily, and we can (and should) take steps to guard against it.

3. I would absolutely argue that regulation would be a violation of our right to improve ourselves. Consider the ways we already improve ourselves, such as education, physical fitness, etc. These things can certainly improve us beyond 'baseline levels of performance', depending on how you define that term. But when we argue about it, we argue about how to help more people get better education or more exercise. We don't argue about whether to put limitations on how much education and exercise people are allowed to get. Furthermore, to tie this in with point 2, we don't want to have a situation where certain physical and mental enhancements that allow the elite to oppress the masses are allowed, but the cognitive enhancements necessary to overcome human greed and prejudice are banned in the interest of maintaining an authoritarian status quo.

I think one of our main sources of hope for a benign transition is that the first people to receive cutting-edge experimental enhancements are likely to be the scientists inventing them. Scientists and doctors have a much better track record of being concerned with the well-being of humanity than rich tycoons do, and so it will be better for everyone if the former can be around to keep an eye on the latter.

edited 2nd Jan '13 11:17:14 AM by Meklar

Join my forum game!

Chesterton best encapsulates my thoughts about attempts at "transhumanity":

Before would-be transhumans try to surpass humanity, it would behoove many of them to actually become versed in it, or to show some interest in becoming so.

"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones

Personally I always found the Internets hard on for transhumanism to be cringeworthy. It's not going to happen any time soon.

edited 2nd Jan '13 2:27:49 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

Agreed on that one. But given that this time it's a scientific report this time (not the first one btw: there are heaps of papers talking about this subject) I think we can consider this as an exception.

Also, if we're including drug enhancements we have it now for sleep, not to mention performance enhancing drugs for (cheating) in sports.

Also, scientists are more concerned about whether to develop such technologies as opposed to "ok, we have it now. What are we going to do about it?" Which seem to be more prevalent to normal people when they bring up the subject.

On transhumanism: I always disliked the term "human enhancement" which indicates that there is a "better" form of life. I prefer to call it "human alteration".

Besides, bear in mind that even machines today are highly specific in their task: an airplane can fly, but it's not going to beat a race car in a ground race, for example. Whether it is possible to make the human body "better" in every single possible way is questionable.

edited 2nd Jan '13 2:47:39 PM by IraTheSquire

Hmm...You know, I think we ought to have a thread on disability and the disability right movement.

I vowed, and so did you: Beyond this wall- we would make it through.

1) Depends on which definition we're attaching. If we're using human as a synonym for personhood, I ascribe to the general scifi raised notion that if it's got the intelligence to understand the concept of personhood and demand its rights as such, it should be afforded them. If we're going with humaness as the dna/phsyical structure, I can't say I really care the loss of such a thing is nothing to regret.

2) Possibly, but I'm okay with that.

3) a)The most likely form of regulation is something similar to ISO where it's a fixed standard that everyone sticks to because standardized parts are good things.

b)Limiting it would depend on how the enhancement is conducted (reprogrammed virii for instance are dangerous, implanted circuitry is not) which would likely be as effective as current regulation of such.

c)I consider them to have said right. Primarily because I consider the body to be a personal piece of property and any changes made to it can and should be done at the preference of owner. In addition, I would compare trying to prevent it to being the same thing as trying to prevent a person from going to the gym if they're at a certain level of physical fitness. That said, I have no doubt that such legislation will arise since reality and morality rarely pass on the same side of the street.

Edit: Incidentally, I suspect that integrated cybernetic musculature are less likely to happen for jobs as integrated control ports since you can keep the majority of the machinery at the "office", use a standardized set of a machines with each driver, and a near universal control interface. Compare the ports on a computer from the nineties to a modern one, almost everything on the modern one is either A) USB or B) backwards compatible stuff just in case.

edited 2nd Jan '13 5:05:50 PM by Deboss

Fight smart, not fair.

On a large scale, no, it's not happening any time soon. But the fact remains that we are finally getting to the point where we are starting to take the first, tentative steps into the field. Dabbling our toes in the water so to speak before diving in. And as such now is probably the time to start think about how we're going to handle things as opposed to afterwards, when we've already taken the plunge to extend the metaphor.

And just how the hell makes wanting to tinker with the human body to alter functions (ultimately with the intention of surpassing the limits on flesh and blood) make a person less moral than one who doesn't? That's ultimately nothing more than a gigantic Appeal to Nature, making the unsubstantiated claim that there is something special and privileged about humanity in its current form and that it's wrong to try and change that.

Well guess what, it's going to happen sooner or later. We are not immune to evolution and the forces of chance and natural selection. Slowly but surely we will change from what we are now, that's inescapable. What we will end up as no one knows, especially since our capacity for technological innovation has quite clearly outstripped the speed at which evolution can work on a species with our long lifespans and slow maturation.

Given that I would argue that transhumanism is in fact the more moral option. Not only does it give us a choice rather than leaving things up to the blind whims of chance and the impartial indifference of population genetics, it also gives us an out. It prevents our own ability to shape the world around us from changing selection pressures in such a way that sends our entire species down an evolutionary dead end, doomed to whither and die on the vine.

And even ignoring such long term, distant concerns, in the more immediate future the pre-cursor technologies have massive potential to enhance the quality of life for millions, if not billions of people. There are issues to address, yes. The potential for the cost, especially in the early days, of creating a wealthy 'enhanced' ruling class vs a poor and working class 'baseline' social divide needs to be guarded against. Ethical considerations of previously impossible scenarios need to be pondered.

But that doesn't make advocates and eventual recipients of such things less moral than anyone else.

The thing is, according to the definition of human enhancement that is trying to be established in the Greenwall Report, those count as Therapy versus Enhancement.

The technology is the same, but they seem to want to define the term based partially on use. If you need this technology to stay competitive with people who are not enhanced, because you have an ailment of some sort, then it is a therapeutic use. My squad leaders artificial ball and socket in his right shoulder isn't an enhancement, because it was put in to keep him competitive with what could be considered normal human standards, since he had severely injured his shoulder several times over the years. However, if you could, say, replace a bone structure in your body that was working perfectly normally, and you replaced it with an artificial version because the artificial version was superior, then that would be an enhancement.

I don't really have an opinion on what the legal definition should be, or if we even need to define these technologies differently based on their use, but just to parrot what they discussed in the report, an enhancement needs to either be internal(say the artificial hips, or the cochlear implants, or even gene therapy) or if it is an external tool, has to be so convenient that it can be considered internal for every day use.(The example they gave was that currently, the SARCOS exoskeleton is clunky, big, requires a plugged in power source, but does massively boost the users strength. But it isn't something that is convenient enough to consider internal. They stated that if the augmentations of the SARCOS exoskeleton could be miniaturized to the point of normal clothing that you could wear throughout the day, that it could be seen as an enhancement as opposed to just a tool.

edited 2nd Jan '13 5:37:37 PM by Barkey

Man wearing AR glasses assaulted by McDonalds staff in France I would say there is a real danger of openly enhanced people being assaulted. Please read the artciles both pages there are details in it. There is also a picture with a guy I would describe as being in a hostile stance or position his body language is openly hostile. Barkey if you would take a peek and tell me what you think of it all.

also not the first time Mc Donalds Employees in France have done something like this

Who watches the watchmen?

Personally, I've never really understood transhumanism's fascination with replacing things that work perfectly fine. What's so wrong with the human body that you want to change it so drastically? Seems like it's today's Changeling fantasy, really, replacing the special family fantasy with the idea of becoming something other than what you are.

Wow, that cyborg eye looks clunky. Kind of reminds me of those oldstyle braces before they came up with the smaller and somewhat invisible ones.

Just because something works ok doesn't mean we cannot make it work better. I mean, sure bionic eyes are clunky, inefficient, and of lower quality than the organic eye, now, but we can't improve if we just give up and just go with the organic eye. If we work on it, enough, we can make something that's better than the human eye. Like, say, an eye that can adjust quicker to changing light levels, or an eye to replace blind people's eyes.

Eh, there are some obvious kinks to work out. But besides that, the main appeal for me personally is, why the hell not? >_> Though, I do feel transhumanists tend to make some problematic ableist normative assumptions...

I vowed, and so did you: Beyond this wall- we would make it through.

That's hardly a convincing argument, actually. Yeah, we can invent something to replace an eye in someone who's lost one, or for those who are born blind. (Though in that case you run into the fun issue of whether or not you should give those to a child or baby that can't make an informed health decision, or wait till they're adults, in which case their brain is going to have a hell of a time adjusting to imagery the brain hasn't learned to process. And of course there's a lot of blind people that will feel insulted by the idea they need to be "enhanced." )

Not to mention that evolution, that thing that made us what we are today, has done a pretty good job at making us our most efficient. Unless you want to make us see in spectrums we're really not meant to, I don't think you can actually make our sight more efficent.

Also, I only compared it to braces because I had to get some as a kid. (I had some serious weirdness with my teeth.)

edited 2nd Jan '13 8:01:51 PM by AceofSpades

So you don't think we should try and make our bodies function better? I mean, sure efficiency is selected by evolutionary pressures, but evolution doesn't magically make everything as efficient as they can be. All it does is make the most efficient thing in the system survive and propagate. We can make stuff more efficient. We can make stuff better. The human body is remarkably inefficient and has many unnecessary or just bad parts. Oftentimes solutions to stuff are in some of the more inefficient ways, for example, evolution solved the problem of cancer by creating the problem of old age. Sure, making eyes for the blind would be one of the things we could do, but it hardly has to be the only thing we do.

And I gave an example of how we could improve our eyes. We could allow them to adjust to sudden changes in lighting levels quicker.

edited 2nd Jan '13 8:13:20 PM by deathpigeon

One need only look at the eyes of other species to see that this is not the case. And the case is clear I think, that in general we can build things that outperform natural biology. Hypersonic planes rather than wings, computers that calculate billions of times faster than we can, on and on...Now, there's still many things where this is not the case, but I do believe this is a case of technology at present not being as advanced as it could be, rather than the inherent limitations of machines.

I vowed, and so did you: Beyond this wall- we would make it through.

I'm not against things like gene therapy and such. That has the proven value of being able to get ride of diseases and generally increase lifespan. I'm just skeptical of the value of cybernetic enhancements. It's cool science fiction, but no one's made an argument that really convinces me of the value of such.

Also, I'm severely weirded out by the thought that old age is a problem that needs to be cured. Death is a natural thing that happens. Avoiding it in its entirely is kind of futile, and people who talk about immortality just seem weird to me.

Hypersonic planes run us into the problem of what the human body is meant to withstand in terms of speed and such.

edited 2nd Jan '13 8:16:55 PM by AceofSpades

It's easy to want enhancement when we are all lacking somehow, even more for those of us who are under average standards.

I used to be a great athlete who was next in line to be a cop. Right after I graduate from the academy, I get my back broken by an idiot driver not paying attention. If I can have my spine back in the same condition prewreck, I'd jump on it in a heartbeat. But even better would be not just a normal spine, but full overhaul that would keep me strong until death! No bone loss, no arthritsis, the chance to be a strong and able mom to my kid for life, yep. I'll do it.

My father had cancer consume over 40% of his body in less than 6 months. If I could have transfered his conciousness into another body I would have done it in a heartbeat. I would still have a parent.

We mess with nature all the time. We use electricity to jump start hearts we can transfer between bodies. We use medicines and chemicals to artificially enhance, preserve, and attend the needs of the body.

Hell, I can buy a pill at Wal Mart that'll make someone shit their guts out just as easily as I can go to my local herb farm and mix up something that does the same effect.

How is fine tuning and upgrading any different?

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Cybernetic enhancement is not an improvement at the moment. However, there is the possibility that it can be in the future. We will never be able to find out if we can improve ourselves with cybernetic enhancement unless we try and make it into something that can be an improvement.

...Do you want to die? Do you want anyone to die? I see death as a problem to be solved just as much as old age. Actually, old age is a subset of the problem of death. I'm always kind of confused by the people who don't want to end death. Is death not a bad thing? Do we not want people to live? I know I want to live forever and I want everyone to live forever. I don't want people to die, so I want to solve the problem of death.

Yeah, have fun when people decide no one else can be born due to overpopulation then, deathpigeon. Death isn't a disease, it's what happens when the body can't continue on anymore. And the more we mess with the human body, the more ways the body will find to die. Things end. That's natural. And it's not a bad thing. I wouldn't say it's a good thing, it's just a thing that happens. (Also you're probably lucky that you didn't ask a suicidal person that kind of question.)

I was in the room when my own dad died. Because of cancer. (And partially stupidity, since he took so damn long to go see a doctor.) Would I like it if he was still here? Yes. I'm still okay with the concept of death. (Admittedly, death is one of the issues where religious and philosophical beliefs play a part, and therefore we're unlikely to agree.)

@Gabriel: If you wanted to replace your spine, chances are you'd have to replace a good deal of the rest of your skeletal structure simply to accomodate for the shiny new spine. Which sounds like it'd be ludicrously expensive even when you get to the point where it's safe and successful. And again, I've never been against recuperative procedures like prosthetics, or things that can fix things like Huntington's disease. But no one has proven to me that just "upgrading" for the hell of it is a good thing, or for anything more than vanity.

edited 2nd Jan '13 8:43:41 PM by AceofSpades