Module VIII·Article III·~2 min read
Transhumanism: The Ethics of Human Enhancement
The Ethics of the Future: AI, Transhumanism, and Global Challenges
Turn this article into a podcast
Pick voices, format, length — AI generates the audio
What Does It Mean to "Enhance" a Human Being?
Medicine has always strived to return the sick to "normal". New technologies open up the possibility to go beyond the norm: cognitive enhancers (nootropics, neurointerfaces), genetic enhancement, radical life extension, merging with AI. Transhumanism is a philosophical movement that asserts: technological enhancement of humans is good—it is a continuation of what we have always done (glasses, vaccines, education).
Nick Bostrom, Ray Kurzweil—the main voices of transhumanism. Kurzweil predicts the "Singularity"—a moment around 2045 when AI will surpass humans, and the merger of humans and machines will change the very nature of existence.
Bioconservatism: Why Do We Need the "Human"?
Michael Sandel ("The Case Against Perfection"): technological enhancements undermine the values of acceptance, humility, and solidarity. If we can engineer a "better" child—everything about them becomes our choice and our responsibility. This is unbearably heavy.
Francis Fukuyama ("Our Posthuman Future"): "human dignity" is founded on human nature. If we radically alter this nature, we lose the basis for rights and morality.
The treatment–enhancement distinction: intuitively seems important—treating illness is right, enhancing beyond the norm is controversial. But drawing the line is hard: where does treating depression end and "enhancing" mood begin? Where does treating ADHD end and "enhancing" attention begin?
Justice and Access to Enhancements
If enhancement technologies are available only to the wealthy, this creates biological inequality: not just social, but built into bodies. This is a new kind of "biological aristocracy"—not by birth, but by capital.
Rawls behind a "veil of ignorance" would not know if he was rich or poor—but would know the risk of "biological lagging behind." The difference principle would require: enhancements available to all or available to none.
In practice: already now, pharmacological enhancers (Ritalin, modafinil) are widely used by students at elite universities as "smart drugs." This is the beginning of biological inequality, which will only increase.
Question for reflection: Would you take a "pill" to improve memory or reduce the need for sleep if it were safe? What would make this choice ethical or unethical for you?
§ Act · what next