Society Should Impose Temporal Limits on Technological Enhancement - Essay Example

In the field of contemporary technological innovations, human enhancement is one of the most ambiguous trends. In fact, the scope of literature arguing its advantages and disadvantages is so huge that it is hard to comprehend the starting point from which to analyze this issue. In particular, the discussions on technological enhancement appear in social, political, medical, ethical and other studies; thus, the extent of this problem is not limited by only one discipline. In this context, it is hard to provide an appropriate social response to its development. In addition, it is not clear whether this reaction is needed. Consequently, the essay defends the statement that society should impose temporal limits on technological enhancement before it will catch up contemporary changes, as it is already impossible to stop the popular use of technological improvements on the body. In particular, it contains the definition of technological enhancement, supplemented by the analysis of its scope with all the clear and problem areas in its contemporary usage. Therefore, the incapability to cope with technological enhancement by using modern social and political limits becomes evident. To start with, the subject of enhancement and its connection to technology is crucial. In short, enhancement is an act that improves human body that is not “clinically ill, as defined by medical specialists” (Esposito, 2005, p. 2). In other words, human enhancement can be considered as a superficial improvement on the human body; nevertheless, the degree of this transformation can be much greater than of any other intrusion in human body. Precisely, Bruce (2007) defines four levels of human enhancement impact: enhancement as an internal change of state or degree, permanent influence, technological enhancement, and the involvement opposed to therapy (p. 9). In addition, the issue of human enhancement has both practical and theoretical dimensions (Bostrom and Savulescu, 2008, p. 2); however, in the case of current research practice is more important as it means certain social outcomes. By opposing human enhancement to therapy, it is common to argue that enhancement is used in order to overcome the normal healthy state of the body (Bostrom and Roache, 2007, p. 1). In this case, the distinction between ‘making better’ and ‘improving’ (Bruce, 2007, p. 10) is a cornerstone. Even though the line between these processes is blurring, it causes a serious moral debate on the very idea of human enhancement as an artificial act that destroys “the traditional aims of medicine” (Brey, 2008, p. 169). In this context, human enhancement challenges most of the common beliefs on destiny and nature in moral and ethical fields. In addition, current analysis of this concept includes the broader framework of technological development. In fact, the evolution of biomedical sciences (Bostrom and Savulescu, 2008, p. 1) and the improvement of contemporary life based on technological innovations make certain innovations in body structure and reactions possible. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the biopolitics of enhancement (Bostrom and Savulescu, 2008, p. 1) as a specific area of the public discussion on this issue. Similar to the political sphere, in the dimension of biopolitics there exist numerous groups having opposite vision towards the problem of human enhancement in contemporary world. For instance, there exists a special movement of transhumanists; in particular, they represent an idea of limitless of the technological enhancement. Therefore, it is evident that opposing interests struggle for the authority; in this case, there are different opinions on human enhancement. Precisely, either it is believed to be solely productive or as the one which the government should ban by imposing limits. So, the area of technological enhancement is constantly debated due to the current grey areas in its affections, the extent of its potential influence, and opposing attitudes towards its strengthening in society. Furthermore, the extent to which technological enhancement has conquered the contemporary world is tremendous. However, the impact of technology on improving human bodies is even more noticeable. In the given context, the influence of the technology on the body structure is two-fold. On the one hand, the improvement of personal traits appears. Among the basic human enhancement technologies visible in the daily life, Coenen et al. (2009) mention improvement of concentration disorders and anti-depressants usage (p.10-11). Then, Miah (2011) supplements this list with cosmetic surgery like botulinum toxin (botox) and coffee drinking as the action directed on the personal improvements (p. 211). However, the strongest advantage provided by technological human enhancement is the longer life expectancy comparing to the previous human generations (Bostrom and Roache, 2007, p. 3). In this context, curing of the most severe contemporary diseases like cancer or heart problems can improve the duration of human life in average (Bostrom and Roache, 2007, p. 4). Moreover, the longevity means that the quality of life in the last years is much higher in terms of physical and mental capacities (Williams, 2006, p. 4). Actually, this effect of technical enhancement is taken for granted by contemporary societies as it brings more joy to people’s longer lives. In a broader context, Bostrom and Roache believe that these types of human enhancement do not bring any serious social changes (p. 7). Nevertheless, the European societies are highly preoccupied with the problem of technological enhancement due to the deep comprehension of certain social duties, meaning the assistance to everyone who needs personal medical treatment (Boar and Fisher, n.d., p. 16). In other words, the limits of technological enhancement and the attitude on its role are diverse in different social circumstances. However, some products created by technological enhancement have already proved their universal usefulness. For instance, contact lenses and computer software by improving some elements of our lives encourage further technological involvement in human enhancement. As Bostrom and Roache (2007) define this phenomenon, “all technologies and tools would constitute enhancements in that they give us capacities to achieve certain outcomes more easily or effectively than we could otherwise do” (p. 2). However, to the date it has severe medical problems; as a result, contemporary society cannot accept its contradiction with human rights and safety (Human Rights First, 2013). Nevertheless, technology contributed to human enhancement as the whole phenomenon makes it possible for the huge step forward in human development to appear. In fact, several modern scientific works generally defend the potential of technological enhancement regardless to the ambiguity of its current shortcomings (Evans-Brown et al., 2012, p. 127). In particular, it either enables or facilitates goal achievement faster than ever before. For instance, Wagenaar (2006) in his case study shows that in some criminal trials human enhancement provided a significant improvement in the weak by its nature human memory. Thus, the technical enhancement even on the current stage provides an opportunity to overcome most of the human imperfections; however, current pace of technological improvement promises even broader perspectives. Finally, several problem areas feed all the unresolved discussions in the field of technological enhancement. In general, all of these cases refer to the field of genetic enhancement in Glenn’s classification (2013, p. 247) and cause deeper changes in internal body structure. To start with, Williams (2006) showed that in the field of technical enhancement economic growth is struggling with political and ethical issues. Therefore, all the presented cases reflect this tendency; in particular, they show that researchers have different opinions on the extent to which technological enhancement of human body is relevant and safe. In general, Bostrom and Savulescu (2008) define the most morally problematic sides of enhancement; precisely, it is reproduction, either negative or positive selection, and sports case study (p. 10-13). As for reproduction, planned destruction of embryos causes criminal insult in public; even though, in some countries it has been already legalized (Boer and Fischer, n.d.., p. 247). In this case, it is visible that the level of countries’ development is not equal, and it leads to different degrees of public debate. As for contemporary sport life, enhancement of athletes is rather a problem than a useful improvement. It is widely seen that several steroid tests prelude each serious competition; precisely, they serve for disqualification of some athletes due to the unnatural physical state of their organisms. However, in a scientific field this issue is not that clear as it is in practice. As Savulescu, Foddy and Clayton (2004) consider the drug enhancement, the attempt to exclude drugs from the contemporary sport life is already impossible; in fact, human creativity make its use inevitable (p. 668). Nevertheless, Bostrom and Roache (2007) indicate the fact that all the competitions have a strict framework based on biological characteristics (like gender or weight) (p. 9). Consequently, neglecting these limits with the help of drug enhancement completely destroys the ability to provide fair and safe struggle between contestants in its current definition. However, enhancing our daily cognitive activity with the help of relatively safe stimulators like coffee, medicine and vitamins has no objections only after numerous medical researches and similar debates. In this context, it had been always hard to measure the degree of effectiveness in the case of drug enhancement of mental health (Bostrom and Roache, 2007, p. 12). In addition, Bostrom and Roache (2007) rise an extremely important issue of the proper goal setting in the case of drug enhancement (p. 10). In other words, the perspectives of spectators, analysts, and sportsmen are different and require a compromise in the final decision on the degree of allowed enhancement. In this field, the interest of European community is visible in the number of research reports that appeared recently (Boer and Fischer, n.d.; Bruce, 2007; Coenen et al., 2009). As Boer and Fischer (n.d.) believe, such an interest rises because “Europe has been something of a forerunner in establishing a structured way for dealing properly with human rights and ethical issues linked to spectacular development in science, technology and medicine since the 1950s (p. 5). On another side of the problem, Williams (2006) discusses the appearance of “the business of enhancement” (p. 3) as a financially powerful area that wants to protect its investments in research and development of technical enhancement. Thus, political struggle based on different economic interests appear. In its turn, government can adopt different sanctions like criminal offence, civil fines, special regime for enhanced people, moral disagreement or use any other public instruments (Cohen, 2013, p. 653-655). In the context of resistance to these acts, ethical problem of ‘inevitability’ in technological development appear (Bruce, 2007, p, 11). In fact, it is a deeply political phenomenon, as it creates an environment where all the actors find their efforts helpless in front of this historical transformation. Because of this hidden battle, numerous configurations of identities in different societies show up and cause diverse internal purposes of people to change. For instance, Brey (2008) believes that technological enhancement is dangerous for personal identity; in his opinion, it provides supernormal modifications in human minds and organism structures (p. 170). Precisely, Bruce (2007) also discusses this question of “what are there normative characteristics which we identify about being human,” and “which to change would diminish our humanity” (p. 11). In this context, the teleological failure is evident, because people in their majority rather care about their appearance than perceive the life as a God’s gift and the value itself (Bruce, 2007, p. 12). In the given circumstances, Brenner (2012) determines the future type of conflict as the struggle between groups of “enhanced” and “standardized” people (p. 47); therefore, presence of current limits in society in the near future will inevitably refer to the older type of ethics and morality and will not be objective. For instance, there exists a huge scope of literature arguing these issues in terms of “common good” (Hauskeller, 2010, p. 38); however, this agenda setting defends the present structural order and is unable to represent the contemporary pace of development. Consequently, all the limits created in this field of senses cannot work for a long time and should be either rejected or replaced by those based on the completely new ethical system. In order to sum up, it is evident that the development of technological enhancement is faster than the social ability to implement it into the current theoretical and ethical frameworks. In fact, the enhancement is the process of improving the body; however, the degree of this transformation ranges from the temporal stimulation of certain body processes to the complete change in human body. Moreover, the extent to which human enhancement is instructed into the social life is impressing. In fact, all the people currently use different types of technological enhancement to their bodies. Nevertheless, the subtype of genetic enhancement is still a debated one due to its contradiction to contemporary ethical beliefs. In addition, political struggle also takes place and complicates the resolution of this conflict. However, it is evident that the completely new ethical system should be introduced before the group of “enhanced” people will reach its critical mass. After that, all the contemporary moral values will be conservative and not objective. References: Bostrom, N. and Roache, R. (2007). Ethical Issues in Human Enhancement. [online] Future of Humanity Institute. Available at: http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/ethical-issues-in-human-enhancement.pdf [Accessed 29 Dec. 2014]. Bostrom, N. and Savulescu, J. (2008). Introduction Chapter. [online] Human Enhancement Ethics: The State of the Debate. Available at: http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/human-enhancement-ethics.pdf [Accessed 30 Dec. 2014]. Boer, T. and Fischer, R. ed., (n.d.). Human Enhancement: Scientific, Ethical and Theological Aspects from a European Perspective. Strasbourg: Church and Society Commission of the Conference of European Churches. Brenner, S. (2012). Humans and Humans+: Technological Enhancement and Criminal Responsibility. [online] Papers.ssrn.com. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2360756 [Accessed 31 Dec. 2014]. Brey, P. (2008). Human Enhancement and Personal Identity. In: B. Olsen, J. Selinger and E. Riis, ed., New Waves in Philosophy of Technology. New Waves in Philosophy Series, 1st ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.169-185. Bruce, D. (2007). Human Enhancement? Ethical Reflections on Emerging Nanobio-technologies. NanoBio-Raise Co-ordination Action in the Science and Society Framework 6 Research Programme of the European Commission. Expert Working Group on Converging Technologies for Human Functional Enhancement. Edinburgh: Edinethics Ltd. Coenen, C., Schuijff, M., Smits, M., Klaassen, P., Hennen, N., Rader, M. and Wolbring, G. (2009). Human Enhancement: Study [pdf]. Brussels: Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA). Available at: https://www.itas.kit.edu/downloads/etag_coua09a.pdf [Accessed 31 Dec. 2014]. Cohen, I. (2013). What (if anything) is Wrong With Human Enhancement? What (if anything) is Right with It? Tulsa Law Review: Health Law Policy – Honoring the Work of Einer Elhauge, 49 (3), pp. 645-691. Esposito, M. (2005). Ethical Implications of Pharmacological Enhancement of Mood and Cognition. Penn Bioethics Journal, 1 (1), pp. 1-4. Evans-Brown, M., McVeigh, J., Perkins, C., and Obe, M. (2012). Human Enhancement Drugs: The Emerging Challenges to Public Health. Liverpool: JMI. Hauskeller, M. (2010). Human Enhancement and the Common Good. AJOB Neuroscience, 1 (3), pp.37-39. Human Rights First. (2007). Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality. [pdf]. Washington, DC: Physicians for Human Rights and Human Rights First. Available at: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/07801-etn-leave-no-marks.pdf [Accessed 31 December 2014]. Miah, A. (2011) Ethical Issues Raised by Human Enhancement. In: F. Gonzalez, (ed). Values and Ethics for the 21st Century. Madrid: BBVA, pp.199-231. Savulescu, J., Foddy, B., and Clayton, M. (2004). Why we should allow performance enhancing drugs in sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 38 (6), pp.666-670. Williams, E. (2006). Good, Better, Best: The Human Quest for Enhancement. Summary Report of an Invitational Workshop Convened by the Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law Program American Association for the Advancement of Science. [online] Washington, DC: Advancing Science Serving Association. Available at: http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/HESummaryReport.pdf [Accessed 31 Dec. 2014]. Wagenaar, W. (2008). Enhancing Memory in the Criminal Trial Process. In: L. Zonneveld, H. Dijstelbloem, and D. Ringoir, ed., Reshaping the human condition. The Hague: Rathenau Institute. Pp. 65- Read More