Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The Hastings Center is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Hastings
Center Report.
http://www.jstor.org
ESSAYS
The
Literature
Critical
Reaches
Mass
May-June2007
by
longer unambiguously
dards."5This leads to the questionsof what our currentstandardsfor humanity are and whether they should be trusted.
One of history'slessonsis that seemingdifferentdoes not suffice to make someone nonhuman.Europe'sage of exploration
led to many encounters between humans who struck each
other as so strangeas to belong to differentspecies. If we are
to avoid mistakeslike these, we need definitionsof humanity
and posthumanitythat look deeperthan appearances.
Francis Fukuyama thinks
that we should acknowledge
genes as markingthe boundaries
of humanity. He says "every
member of the human species
possesses a genetic endowment
that allows him or her to become a whole human being, an
endowment that distinguishesa
human in essence from other
types of creatures."'The idea
that one is human by virtue of
possessing a genome that gives
rise to traits typical of humans
may correctly classify posthumanizing technologies that
work by modifyinggenes. But it
seems to misclassifyposthumanizing technologies that work
without modifying genes. A descendant of ours modified with
multiple cybernetic implants,
after the fashion of the Borg
from Star Trek:The Next Generation,may be posthuman at
the same time as being geneticallyindistinguishablefrom humans.
Lee Silverimaginesa futurein which geneticallyenhanced
GenRich people become so differentfrom unenhancedNaturalsthat interbreedingis no longerpossible.7I suspectthat the
idea of reproductiveisolation may be a more promisingdefinitional starting point than the possession of a human
genome. Accordingto the biologicalspeciesconcept, a species
is a collection of individualsthat interbreedor are capableof
doing so and do not breedwith individualsbelonging to differentbiologicalgroups.Posthumanitywill have arrivedwhen
we have beings whose enhancementsisolate them reproductively from humans. Breedingbetween posthumansand humans may be physiologicallyimpossiblebecauseof genetic or
cyberneticalterations.Or it might simply be the case that we
find each other so profoundlyrepellentthat interbreedingis
mutually unthinkable. We can imagine that this repulsion
could be much more profound than that resultingfrom the
racistthinkingto which humansseem susceptible,creatingre-
Youngclaimsto find
Simon
support for transhumanism
Transhumanists
are not
from evolutionarytheory,8and
he goes on to suggest that another term for transhumanism
is "evolutionary humanism."
Young'sintuition appearsto be
that since evolution is taking
humans toward posthumanity
anyway,it can'thurt to give it a
push. For him, evolution is essentiallya processof "complexification." He says that as conscious products of the evolutionary process,we humans are
imbued with a "Will to
Evolve."9It is the Will to Evolve
that gives rise to a moral imperative to become posthuman.
Young chides bioconservatives
for wanting to leave humanity
"astatic speciesgoing nowherefast-forever."''
Attempts to extract moral claims from the evolutionary
process are risky, and these risks grow when dealing with
somewhatpoetical interpretationsof the evolutionaryprocess
such as Young's.Accordingto a more prosaicdefinition, evolution is simply change in gene frequencies.While they do
hope to ban certainways of controllingthe human gene pool,
bioconservativescertainlydo not seek keep the human gene
pool entirely static. A global ban on posthumanizingtechnologies would leave our species subject to the same evolutionarypressuresfor changeas always.
Evidenceof the dangerof drawingmoralconclusionsfrom
evolutionarypremisescomes from the fact that, while Young's
poetical interpretationof evolution presentsposthumanityas
its goal, one could just as easily look at the evolutionary
processand extracta bioconservativemoral.Although change
is essentialto the evolutionaryprocess,it is, paradoxically,antitheticalto evolutionarysuccess.A speciesfails in evolutionary terms by going extinct. One way to go extinct is to have
no descendents.But anotherway to go extinct is to have descendentsthat areso differentas to count as differentspecies.
marginalized,technologyobsessedTrekkies.
They
presenttheirview about
May-June2007
13
For example, the dinosaur species Archaeopteryxis undeniably extinct even though birds,which might be descendeddirectly from Archaeopteryx,are found on every continent.
Youngworriesthat humanitymay be headednowhere.But by
protectingus from the technologies of genetic modification,
bioconservativesmay be interpretedas strivingto protecthumanity againstevolutionaryfailure.I imagine that most bioconservativeswill find this evolutionaryparsingof their position unfamiliar-indeed, those whose bioconservatism is
basedon religiouspremisesarelikelyto rejectit outright-but
it does suggest that facts about evolution support no view
about the moral advisabilityof posthumanity.
Procreative Liberty and Transhumanism
much debated notion of procreativelibertymay offer
The
a less
fanciful route to
posthumanity.
philosophically
Transhumanistsare foremost among those arguing that parents should be free to use genetic technologies to enhance
their children'scharacteristics.GregoryStockproposesthat we
view the technologiesthat will enable the selectionof modification of our genetic constitutions as germinal choicetechnologies." Ronald Bailey indicates his liberalleanings in his
selection of the title LiberationBiologyfor his defenseof transhumanism.12His form of liberalismis of the libertarianvariety. He combines defenses of individual choice regarding
posthumanizingtechnologieswith skepticismabout a role for
the state.JamesHughes'sfusion of transhumanismwith social
democracy differs; he emphasizes individual freedom but
wants to allow the state to correctinequalitiesin accessand to
discourage individuals from making bad choices.13 Despite
their differences,these writersare unified by a confidencethat
the choiceslicensedby procreativelibertywill eventuallymake
us posthuman.They predictthat parentsfreeto enhancetheir
children'sintellects, physicalconstitutions,and life expectancies will choose to do so.
But the connection betweenposthumanityand procreative
libertyis less obvious than transhumaniststend to assume.For
example, transhumanists present IVF as a forerunner of
posthumanizingtechnologies.'4But there is a differencebetween a technology that gives children to people suffering
from infertility and technologies of genetic enhancement.
imply a
Being free to have childrendoes not straightforwardly
to
in
that
freedom to change them ways
happen pleaseyou.
Although John Robertson, the most prominent advocate of
procreative liberty, does defend genetic enhancement, he
thinks that it should be recognizedas an extensionof procreative libertyratherthan among the core interestsprotectedby
it.15
Advocates of enhancement as a procreativeliberty and
transhumanistshave a common foe. Bioconservativesdisplay
the same hostility towardthe suggestionthat prospectiveparents should be free to enhance their childrenthat they do toward transhumanism.One reasonfor this opposition is that
they, like transhumanists,think that a freedom to enhance
But there is actunecessarilytakes us towardposthumanity.16
14
to avoidthis
of
way
possiblefragmentation society
Onewould
be to find something to say to those who insist
that theirconception of the good life is not transhuman.Nick
Bostrom thinks that the values of bioconservativesmay turn
out to be posthuman without their being awareof it. They
may just be ignorant of their desire to genetically enhance
their children.
Bostrom explainsthat "oureverydayintuitions about values are constrainedby the narrownessof our experienceand
the limitationsof our powersof imagination,"continuingthat
"someof our ideals may well be
located outside the space of
modes of being that are accessible to us with our current bioTo show
logical constitution."22
how our valuesmight be covertly posthuman,he enlistsa dispositional theory of value, according to which "something is a
value for you if and only if you
would want it if you were perfectly acquainted with it and
you were thinking and deliberating as clearlyas possibleabout
it."23 The dispositional theory
allows for adjustments of our
valuesin responseto blind spots
in our knowledge. Consider a
music lover who has never listened to Bach'sB-minor Mass.
The Mass may be among his
musicalvaluesif it were the case
that he would enjoy it were he
to be acquaintedwith it. The dispositionalaccount enables
Bostrom to say that posthumanvaluesthat seem beyond our
comprehensionmay neverthelessfall within the ambit of our
currentdispositions.Not even GarryKasparovcould graspthe
basicprinciplesof eight-dimensionalchess,but presumablyhe
would enjoy it werehe fully acquaintedwith it. The samemay
be true for moderatelygifted chess players.If we were to be
properlyacquaintedwith the hideously complex symphonies
produced by posthuman composers, we would find them
beautiful ratherthan unintelligiblerackets.Posthumansymphonies are, therefore,among our musical values. It seems
only rightthat we should seek to modify ourselvesand our descendentsso as to betterappreciatethese things that we value.
But there is something a bit odd about Bostrom'sexpansion of our values.The dispositionaltheory helps us to accept
some things with which we may be unfamiliaras values. But
it also instructs us to reject some of the values that we currentlycreditourselveswith. For example,you may pronounce
yourself a fan of Wagner'sRing Cycle after listening to the
couple of minutes of "Ride of the Valkyries"featuredin the
movie Apocalypse
Now. Yetif exposureto the full fifteen hours
Despiteprotestationsto the
contrary,transhumanists
takepride in achievements
that are meaningless
except
to humanityby reference
suchas writingfine books
defendingtranshumanism.
May-June2007
15
Theuniversalvalueof
preventingand curing
diseaseis not inconsistent
with valuinghumanity.
Thereis nothingspookily
posthumanaboutsomeone
reachingold age without
succumbingto cancer.
May-June2007
1. World Transhumanist
Association,"Transhumanist
FAQ,"
accessed
http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/46/,
March27, 2007.
2. Ibid.,http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/56/.
3. Ibid.,http:ll//www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/56/.
4. Ibid.Followhttp:ll//www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA
for
theWebsiteof theWTA.Information
aboutHughes's
radioshowcan
be foundat http:l//ieet.org/index.php/IEET/csr.
Stock's
andFukuyama's
dissonant
canbefoundin G. Stock,Redesigning
takeson posthumanity
Humans:
OurInevitable
Genetic
Future(Boston,Mass.:HoughtonMifFuture:Consequences
flin, 2002) and E Fukuyama,OurPosthuman
ofthe
Revolution
StrausandGiroux,2002).
(NewYork:Farrar,
Biotechnology
May-June2007
17