I might have an idea. A different one.
Those who are opposed to human enhancement cite various reasons: a failure to appreciate the giftedness of life; a lack if humility; hubris; a lack of appreciation for human dignity. They talk of 'disgust' at changes to human nature and the manipulation of the organism or the mid through biomedical means. They seem to feel that human nature has some kind of sanctity.
Those in favour accuse the bioconservatives of 'status quo' bias. They claim that they cannot articulate real reasons and hence resort to disgust. They feel that the antis are sneaking in religious or metaphysical claims which have no place in rational discourse. They want people to be free to be smarter and healthier, happier and more moral. They have a Millian belief in the value of individualism and 'experiments in living' (yup, 'On Liberty' is still oh-so relevant). They feel that the free market will allow for financial expenditure on research and development and that enhancements will then become affordable enough to benefit all humanity and we'll all be so much better off.
Some have concerns about risks - will there be downsides we haven't anticipated? About justice - will the enhanced become a higher class and create even greater social inequality? About egalitarianism - shouldn't such enhancements only be allowed when everyone can have them? Or at least when the poor can have them subsidised? Or maybe the poor should have them first to level-up the playing field?
And then there are transhumanists who have a vision of a glorious future in which all post-humans or transhumans are perfectly moral, happy beyond our wildest imaginings, exceptionally clever and creative and maybe immortal. Oh. Wait a minute. Doesn't that sound rather like heaven? I might need to consult my Milton or my Dante because, in all honesty, I'm a bit confused. These computer programmer types with their utilitarian calculuses and their sci-fi minds seem to have a vision of the future that's pretty similar to that of Mediaeval Christianity...
So I want to argue that in a secular, disenchanted age, these people have found something that inspires awe and it is this wild vision of an idealised transhuman future.
There is little philosophical literature on awe and wonder, but rather of lot of current psychology and sociology. I want to argue that a search for meaning and the conceptualisations that seem to follow logically on from thinking about enhancement have led to an epiphanic vision with the force to inspire great minds.
But that doesn't make it sane.
Comments