A review of Truly Human Enhancement

Institute of Biomedical Ethics

4/1/15

A review of Truly Human Enhancement Dr. Johann Roduit | @johannroduit uzh.academia.edu/JohannRoduit Book Symposium Truly Human Enhancement by N. Agar (MIT Press 2014) The American Philosophical Association Pacific Division Eighty-ninth annual meeting April 1, 2015 Westin Bayshore, Vancouver, BC, Canada


Context

4/1/15


INTRODUCTION

4/1/15


Thesis of the book

ü  The main thesis of the book is that it is important to take into consideration the “significance of differences in degree of human enhancement. Its guiding idea is that human enhancement is a good thing, but one that it’s possible to have too much of it” (1)

ü  “This book endorses some moderate enhancements but rejects radical enhancement” (2)

ü  Novelty: focus on the degree of enhancement, not merely the mean or the goal of enhancement ü  e.g.: too much memory can be problematic for humans

4/1/15


Focus of this review

1.  Radical enhancements: are they different than an addition of moderate enhancements over a long period of time?

2.  Between bioconservatives and transhumanists: Agar’s view 3.  Anthropocentric ideal vs. objective ideal: can one remain agnostic

regarding which ideal is better to endorse?

4.  Transformative changes: could we also speak of positive radical human enhancement?

4/1/15


1. RADICAL ENHANCEMENT

4/1/15


Radical enhancement – problems of definitions

ü  Agar admits that the definition of radical enhancement is vague (29) ü  But even if we were to accept moderate enhancements, it seems that

over time, we might end up with some sort of radical enhancements, maybe without even being aware of it

ü  moderate enhancements + moderate enhancements + time = radical enhancement

ü  It might be better to speak against enhancement that would transform Homo sapiens into an other species, while having some flexibility in defining Homo sapiens over time (not as a fixed entity)

ü  As we will see later, it might not be necessary to introduce this new notion of radical enhancement, if we simply distinguish between enhancement driven by an anthropocentric or an objective ideal

4/1/15


2. BETWEEN BIOCONSERVATIVES AND TRANSHUMANISTS

4/1/15


Where are the limits? (1)

ü  Enhancement is a matter of degree. Like bioconservatives Agar wants some limits to enhancement. More ≠ better

ü  Agar uses similar arguments as bioconservatives, but on a different scale. However, in both cases: the limit of enhancement is to be found in what is to be considered human

ü  But Agar differs in his understanding of what is means to be human, with bioconservatives

ü  The bioconservatives rely on an “anthropocentric ideal” in order to argue against enhancement. Agar relies on an “anthropocentric ideal” to argue against radical enhancement, while endorsing moderate enhancement

ü  One wonders whether it makes sense to reject all forms of human enhancement. Shouldn’t bioconservatives favor enhancement of bioconservatives values?

4/1/15


Where are the limits? (2)

ü  All camps in the debate (even transhumanists) should agree that there are limits to (human, animal, transhuman, posthuman, etc …) enhancements ü  e.g.: some enhancements might be detrimental to the posthuman

ideal ü  Where do we puts those limits? When we speak of human enhancement,

it does makes sense that the anthropocentric ideal (or the human ideal?) gives us those limits.

4/1/15


3. ANTHROPOCENTRIC IDEAL VS. OBJECTIVE IDEAL

Can we remain agnostic regarding which ideal to endorse?

4/1/15


Two ideals drive the enhancement project

ü  Agar distinguishes between two ideals that drive human enhancement ²  the anthropocentric ideal ²  the objective ideal (Kurzweil, Bostrom)

4/1/15


The objective & anthropocentric ideals

ü  “I do not intend to reject the objective ideal in favor of some version of the anthropocentric ideal” (27-8)

ü  “Radical enhancement brings the objective and anthropocentric ideals into conflict” (33)

Ø  So, why doesn’t Agar explicitly endorse an anthropocentric ideal approach, while rejecting an objective ideal approach?

4/1/15


Why not take a stand for an “anthropocentric ideal”? (1) ü  How can Agar say that he is against radical enhancement, and yet

refuses to “reject the objective ideal in favor of some version of the anthropocentric ideal”?

ü  Is the “objective ideal” really a legitimate way to evaluate human enhancement?

ü  When we speak of human enhancement, can we really say that a characteristic X (X = cognition, memory, etc.) is better, without referring to a human (anthropocentric) ideal, or a posthuman (post-anthropocentric) ideal? (e.g. If they were an object with more memory than humans, it does not follow that humans should appropriate the attributes of this object)

ü  In other words, it seems that the objective ideal should fall back into an anthropocentric ideal. If not, we are merely improving object and not subject anymore (whether the subject is human, animal, transhuman, or posthuman)

4/1/15


Why not take a stand for an “anthropocentric ideal”? (2) ü  Why doesn’t Agar reject the objective ideal approach? ü  This approach after all encourages radical enhancement, which is the

type of enhancement he also rejects

4/1/15


4. TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGES

Can we have a positive radical transformative change?

4/1/15


Transformative change

ü  “A transformative change alters the state of an individual’s mental or physical characteristics in a way that causes and warrants a significant change in how that individual evaluates a wide range of their own experiences, beliefs, or achievements” (5-6)

ü  “Body-snatching, cyberconversion, and Borg assimilation warrant significant changes in how an individual evaluates a wide range of his experiences, beliefs, or achievements. Experiences that were formerly good – the feeling of love, for example, become bad” (9)

4/1/15


Questions

ü  “In this book I present radical enhancement as a negative transformative change – it changes for the worse the way we evaluate the experiences, beliefs, and achievements that constitutes our lives” (15)

ü  Couldn’t we make a case that some radical enhancements might be positive, such as baptism in some religious instances (e.g. Saul’s conversion to Paul)?

ü  Or instead of using the example of body-snatching, cyberconversion, and Borg assimilation, could we use a different analogy of X-men, Superman, Spiderman, where the radical change can be seen in a positive light?

ü  It seems that if we were to do so, our views of radical enhancement would change

4/1/15


CONCLUSION

4/1/15


Specific questions

1.  Can a series of moderate enhancements become radical enhancements over time?

2.  Transformative changes: Can’t we have a positive transformative change, which could also be considered a radical enhancement?

3.  Objective vs. anthropocentric ideal: Why not take a stance and arguing against the “objective ideal” view, which seems to be the ideal responsible for encouraging radical enhancement?

4.  Would it be morally acceptable to enhance/transform from one “anthropocentric” ideal to a third type of ideal, namely an “animal” ideal or a “posthuman” ideal?

4/1/15


Conclusion (1)

ü  Agar is right: there are different degrees of enhancements, and when we speak of human enhancement, we can evaluate it from an anthropocentric ideal. This allows some room to improve humans, while also establishing some limits given by our anthropocentric ideal

ü  However, I wonder whether looking at different ideals driving different enhancement might be more important than looking at the degrees of enhancement. The ideal will determine the mean, the goal and also the degree of enhancement

4/1/15


Conclusion

ü  Furthermore, I wonder why Agar does not explicitly reject an objective ideal approach, as it seems to be the ideal responsible for pushing towards radical enhancement, which Agar disagree with

ü  One could reject the objective ideal as an insufficient ideal that does not take into consideration the well being of human (subject) as a whole, but only focus on the betterment of specific capacities (object) and could lead to some dis-enhancement

ü  Despite this criticism, I find Agar’s position one of the most convincing in the debate, navigating between the bioconservatives (who reject all enhancements) and transhumanists (who rely on an objective ideal)

4/1/15


Thanks

Dr. Johann Roduit | @johannroduit uzh.academia.edu/JohannRoduit

4/1/15

A review of Truly Human Enhancement

Documents

Transcript of A review of Truly Human Enhancement