Shedd
The Vitruvian Man Revisited: Human augmentation technology’s effect on how humans define
what is a human and how it may change society’s morality.
Jesse Bernard Shedd
“Sir, Lieutenant La Forge's eyes are far superior to human biological eyes, true? Then
why are not all officers required to have their eyes replaced with cybernetic
implants?” (Roddenberry 1989) This quote from Lieutenant Commander Data, a fictional
character on Star Trek: The Next Generation, asks if a human is necessarily a better human if he
or she has been augmented. This is the very question asked by modern scholars who consider
the near future technology of biomedical devices. Biomedical technologies have the potential to
change humans not only physically but morally as well. This is because biomedical technology
can be used to augment humans physically which could redefine what is a human. Redefining
what society understands as a human, could have far reaching moral implications. The
supporters of using biomedical technologies to augment humans are known as transhumanists.
These people maintain that through human augmentation, the definition of a human would
change along with the expansion of the circle of society’s morality. The counter position,
supported by bioconservatives, finds that changing the definition of a human would hinder
society’s morality. Through academic papers written by both sides, one begins to understand
how both sides believe human augmentation via biomedical technologies could change the
definition of a human and its moral implications on society.
To understand the debate between the bioconservatives and transhumanists, one must first
understand more about human augmentation and the relationship society has with technology.
Shedd 2
Throughout time, technologies have been developed to enhance the human condition. These
technologies engage in a relationship of fear and fascination with humanity. While technology
offers the promise of a better future with it’s mastery, it also presents the potential of extinction
(Graham 2003). However, biomedical technology is different from these earlier technologies.
Biomedical technology could allow humanity to enhance the human condition by changing the
human physically, which is more personal than earlier technologies, which were external to
humans. By adding nano-chips, manipulating genes, or various forms of prothesis, biomedical
technology could change what was once a physically and mentally limited human into a cyborg
only limited by the augmentations available. The creation of cyborgs could effect how society
defines who is a human which could in turn effect societies morality. Current universal concepts
that dictate biomedical science in relation to humanity claim:
Intrinsic equality of human beings: Article 10 states the fundamental equality of all
human beings in dignity and rights is to be respected so that they are treated justly and
equitably; Article 11 states no individual or group should be discriminated against or
stigmatized on any grounds, in violation of human dignity, human rights and fundamental
freedoms.
Respect for human life: Article 2c states one of the aims of the Declaration is to
promote respect for human dignity and protect human rights, by ensuring respect for the
life of human beings, and fundamental freedoms (Jotterand 2010).
These two rules suggest that as society progresses forward into the biomedical era, what
is most important to consider is not the potential biomedical devices have for humanity but rather
a human’s dignity, rights, and freedoms. Though the universal concepts above, human dignity is
Shedd 3
placed above all else. However, as discussed below, many consider humans who are augmented
to not be humans, and thus, human dignity does not apply to augmented humans. This provides
a deeper question for bioconservatives, and transhumanists when questioning human
augmentation and its potential effects on societies morality.
This question changes the how one should view human augmentation. It should not just
be viewed as a biological change, but a cultural one as well. “Culture, as learned and taught, is
significantly a domain of imagination: imagination conceives of that which is not actual, orients
its intentionality upon that which it perceives, and brings it into actuality” (Hefner 2009).
Human augmentation changes humans physically, however, this is only half the change that
needs to occur. Humans need to change culturally as well so that society’s morality accepts both
humans and unaugmented humans. When examining the stance taken by bioconservatives and
transhumanists, one must take into account how each view the potentials for change physically
as well as culturally.
Transhumanism finds that human augmentation will change humans physically and
culturally for the better. Well known transhumanist, Nick Bostrom, expresses that safe
biomedical technologies can allow one to, “legitimately reform oneself and one’s natures in
accordance with humane values and personal aspirations” (Bostrom 2005). This fundamental
idea to transhumanism comes from the understanding that human nature is biocultural.
Theologian and transhumanist, Philip Hefner, states “biocultural human nature constructs the
idea of humans as a creator as a way of interpreting both experiences of human nature and
evolutionary scientific understanding of Homo sapiens” (Hefner 2009). This means that it is
human nature to enhance the human condition and shape the social and biological evolution of
Shedd 4
humanity. Attempting to prohibit our ability to create, and change “is not only an exercise in
futility, but it is anti-human” (Hefner 2009). This understanding of human nature effects all the
other aspects of transhumanism, and portrays the idea as a pro-human movement. The
transhumanist understanding of human nature also influences the comprehension of cultural and
technological development.
Transhumanists’ understanding of human nature as biocultural, also shapes the stand
point’s thoughts on technological development. Tranhumanism assumes that culture and
technology develop unilaterally (Antipov & Koldomasov). This means that as a culture
develops , technology develops with it and vice versa. To think of this in terms of human
augmentation, biomedical technologies will develop with cultural changes. By this, the
definition human culture will change to include augmented humans as humans become
augmented. Thus, to a transhumanist, there are few negative moral implications associated with
augmenting humans because the circle of human culture’s morals will just expand to cover both
augmented humans and unaugmented humans (Bostrom 2005). Transhumanists believe that this
is possible by pointing out that modern societies are composed of a diverse population of many
different ability levels, and that augmented humans would only expand the understanding of
human dignity and rights, rather than overlap current human rights (Bostrom 2005). Even though
discrimination already exists in modern societies, expanding society’s moral circle will change
the nature of discrimination. To a transhumanist this means the nature discrimination would
change to be based on ability level of a person rather than physical characteristics. Through
these understandings one finds that from a transhumanist perspective, biomedical technology
will have few ill effects on society. This is because human nature maintains that humans need to
Shedd 5
progress technologically, in order to develop culturally and morally. For example, the
technological advances in human augmentation could change the nature of discrimination, to
make it based on ability level rather than physical characteristics. However, Bioconservatives
contend that this is too optimistic of an outlook on society’s moral outcome from human
augmentation.
Bioconservatives’ stance on human augmentation is that biomedical technology should be
tempered, due to the potential dangers it poses to human’s cultural morality. At the basis of this
argument is the belief that all humans have a certain “essence” (Fukuyama 2004) that is derived
from human nature. Fukuyama understands “essence” as a “loosely connected cluster of
recognizable properties that make up the abstract idea to which we attach a general name such as
human” (Hauskeller 2011). This “essence,” along with universal human rights, gives one the
ability to allows humans to maintain equal rights and dignity with each other (Fukuyama &
Stock 2002). By augmenting a human through biotechnology, one would not only be altering the
human’s anatomical structure, but modifying the human’s “essence” as well. Because a human’s
“essence” is the basis for equal human rights and dignity, bioconservatives find that changing it
will negatively effect human rights and dignity. According to Francis Fukuyama, this change in
the nature of human rights and dignity will create “a basic social divide between the augmented
and the unaugmented,” (Fukuyama & Stock 2002). The moral implications of human
augmentation are thus, in the bioconservative mindset, a world in which augmented humans are
afforded more dignity and rights, than unaugmented humans. This is because physical
augmentations change human “essence” in such a way that humans will become unequal.
Furthermore, because augmented humans would be allotted more rights than unaugmented
Shedd 6
humans, a basic class divide would be created between the augmented and unaugmented.
Bioconservatives’ basis for this theory of social divide is also argued through historical patterns
of technological change. Daniel McIntosh writes in the Journal of Human Security,
In history, technological change has rarely been smooth or rational. The standard model
of such change consists of three stages: invention, innovation, and diffusion. Invention is
the idea and the demonstration of its feasibility. Innovation is the process by which the
invention is brought into use. Diffusion is the spread of the innovation into general use.
(McIntosh 2008)
McIntosh is expressing that initially biomedical technologies, after proven safe and
useful, would be too expensive for everyone to afford. This means that only the wealthy few
would have the means to be augmented. Furthermore, the wealthy could also afford the latest
and greatest biomedical technologies, which to bioconservatives, would give the wealthy an
unfair competitive advantage in society. This reinforces the bioconservative view that there
would be a class divide, because the wealthy would have an unfair advantage acquiring
biomedical technology. The negative repercussions for human society morally, however, only
present half of the bioconservative stance.
Bioconservatives also argue that augmenting humans could lead to unaugmented
becoming obsolete. When examining the potential of human augmentation technology one must
consider nature as well. Charles Rubin claims that augmenting humans will be a detriment to
human welfare because “there is no particular reason to think that our successors will have any
more care for such of us as may remain” (Rubin 2009). This maintains the bioconservative
notion that augmented humans would not have any need to preserve unagumented humans. This
is because augmented humans would likely shape the world to better fit augmented human
needs. Being unaugmented would become a hinderance to surviving in a world of augmented
Shedd 7
humans. This would in turn reshape human rights and dignity to favor augmented humans over
unaugmented humans. Boiling down the bioconservative’s stance on human augmentation, one
finds that allowing the use of biomedical technologies to augment humans would cause
unaugmented humans to become obsolete.
What one is able to see from both standpoints is that the core of the debate on human
augmentation hinges on the idea of human nature. Bioconservatives and transhumanists make
viable points about what could happen to society when biomedical technologies are used to
augment humans. However, these points are viable because these ideas are only speculating on
the societal implications of the biomedical technology; one does not know what will actually
happen. Both seem to agree, even though for different reasons, that basis for moving forward
into the biomedical age is to have a strong definition of human nature. For bioconservatives
human nature is fundamental to the points made about the potential societal effects. Human
nature to bioconservatives creates the human ‘essence’ which affords equal rights and dignity for
all humans. To transhumanists, having a modern idea of human nature will allow one to better
anticipate the changes to it brought on by augmentation. Human nature, according to
transhumanists is a call to create technology and improve the human condition. However, one
must also remember that even though transhumanists and bioconservatives find human nature to
be the basis in exploring the societal implications of human augmentation, human nature cannot
dictate how humans should or will behave. This is because human nature is an abstract concept
and it’s definition changes throughout time. Thus, one’s understanding of human nature in time
could change to support bioconservatism, transhumanism, or neither. However, in debate on the
societal implications of using biomedical technology to augment humans, one should use the
Shedd 8
bioconservative and transhumanist claims about the importance human nature, in conjunction
with the modern standards of bioethics detailed by Jotterand. Thus, to get the most accurate
view available, one should combine the two stance’s understandings of human nature and apply
it to the modern standards of bioethics. While this view gives one the most accurate view, it is
only accurate in present society. It defines how humans might behave after human augmentation
technology is introduced and not how humans will behave. Furthermore, it is important to
remember the bioconservative and transhumanist understanding of human nature could change
as well. By this, one finds human nature gives humans an “essence” that makes all humans
equal, while that same “essence” also calls humans to create; this works as long as these
creations do not violate modern standards of bioethics.
With a combined definition of human nature from the two stances in the context of
modern bioethical standards, one can begin to prepare for the biomedical era. Humans are
forever bound together through a common “essence” created by human nature that guarantees
humans equal rights and dignity. The same human nature that gives human’s “essence” calls
humans to create technology to better humankind. This definition allows bioconservatives and
transhumanists to better define how using biomedical technology to augment humans will
change society. Furthermore, a single definition allows for a simple application to modern
bioethical standards. There is no argument from either side that human augmentation via
biomedical technologies will change what defines human physically, or how society functions.
However, one is unsure if it would be positively or negatively society, because one does not
know if or how augmentation will effect human nature. It is important to remember that even
though both believe that human nature constructs society’s morality, it is humans that define
Shedd 9
human nature. Thus, through examining bioconservative’s and transhumanist’s thoughts that
human nature constructs society's morality, one can initially conclude that human augmentation
does concur with modern bioethical standards.
Through the progress of biomedical technologies, one is appealing to human nature by
allowing the creation of new technologies. By appealing to human nature one further allows the
‘essence’ that gives humans equal rights and dignity to continue to bind us together. Biomedical
technology could very well be that key to the future. It is not unreasonable to see how humans,
which are a flawed being, can use physical differences caused by biomedical technologies to
discriminate. It is also reasonable to hope that humanity can morally evolve past its old trends to
create equality for all sentient life. While both situations are possible, one can still dream of the
future utopian society exemplified by shows such as Star Trek, where all sentient life is afforded
the same rights and dignity. While transhumanists and bioconservatives can speculate what
human augmentation’s societal implications will be, only time can tell what will actually come of
it.
Works Cited
Antipov, M.A., Koldomasov, A.S.. Cyborgization of Mankind as a Display of Transhumanism.
Penza State Technological Academy
Bostrom, Nick (2005). IN DEFENSE OF POSTHUMAN DIGNITY. Bioethics, 19(3), 202-214.
Fukuyama, Francis, (2004). Transhumanism. Foreign Policy, September-October 2004, 42-43.
Fukuyama, Francis, Stock, Gregory (2002). The Clone Wars: A reason online debate. Reason,
34(2), 1-11.
Graham, Elaine L.,(2003). Frankensteins and Cyborgs: Visions of the Global Future in an Age of
Technology. Studies in Christian Ethics, 16(29), 31-43
Hauskeller, Michael (2011): Pro-Enhancement Essentialism, AJOB Neuroscience, 2:2, 45-47
Shedd 10
Hefner, Philip (2009). The Animal that Aspires to be an Angel: The Challenge of
Transhumanism. Dialog: A Journal of Theology, 48(2), 158-167.
Jotterand, Fabrice (2010). Human Dignity and Transhumanism: Do Anthro-Technological
Devices Have Moral Status?. The American Journal of Bioethics, 10(7), 45-52.
McIntosh, Daniel (2008). Human, Transhuman, Posthuman: Implications of Evolution-byDesign for Human Security. Journal of Human Security, 4(3), 4-20.
Persson, Ingmar, Savulescu, Julian (2010). Moral Transhumanism. Journal of Medicine and
Philosophy, 35, 656-669
Roddenberry, Gene. (Producer). (11 February 1989). The Measure of a Man [Star Trek: The Next
Generation]. United States: CBS Television Distribution.
Rubin, Charles T., (2009). The Call of Nature. Social Philosophy & Policy Foundation, 173-192