Human enhancement: Is it good for society?

[Michael Scally MD]

Human enhancement: Is it good for society?
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-human-good-society.html

Human enhancement technologies are opening up tremendous new possibilities. But they're also raising important questions about what it means to be human, and what is good or bad for our individual and collective well-being. These technologies are currently geared toward upgrading or restoring physical and psychological abilities for medical purposes. An application is surfacing, however, that is designed with another goal in mind: embellishing performance.

Although using this technology is very much an individual choice, it nevertheless has an impact on society as a whole. An international team of researchers headed by the University of Geneva (UNIGE), Switzerland, and Oxford University has been examining the ethical issues arising from these experiments. The research, published in Nature Human Behaviour, questions and highlights the conflict between individual and collective well-being, together with the important role governments have to play.

[Bavelier D, Savulescu J, Fried LP, et al. Rethinking human enhancement as collective welfarism. Nature Human Behaviour 2019. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0545-2

Human enhancement technologies are opening tremendous opportunities but also challenges to the core of what it means to be human. We argue that the goal of human enhancement should be to enhance quality of life and well-being not only of individuals but also of the communities they inhabit.]

 

[Old]

Human enhancement: Is it good for society?
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-human-good-society.html

Human enhancement technologies are opening up tremendous new possibilities. But they're also raising important questions about what it means to be human, and what is good or bad for our individual and collective well-being. These technologies are currently geared toward upgrading or restoring physical and psychological abilities for medical purposes. An application is surfacing, however, that is designed with another goal in mind: embellishing performance.

Although using this technology is very much an individual choice, it nevertheless has an impact on society as a whole. An international team of researchers headed by the University of Geneva (UNIGE), Switzerland, and Oxford University has been examining the ethical issues arising from these experiments. The research, published in Nature Human Behaviour, questions and highlights the conflict between individual and collective well-being, together with the important role governments have to play.

[Bavelier D, Savulescu J, Fried LP, et al. Rethinking human enhancement as collective welfarism. Nature Human Behaviour 2019. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0545-2

Human enhancement technologies are opening tremendous opportunities but also challenges to the core of what it means to be human. We argue that the goal of human enhancement should be to enhance quality of life and well-being not only of individuals but also of the communities they inhabit.]

"These technologies are currently geared toward upgrading or restoring physical and psychological abilities for medical purposes. An application is surfacing, however, that is designed with another goal in mind: embellishing performance."

Curious the 'dilemma' that restoring to 'normal' is ok but a little bit more than 'normal'/'common' is troublesome. Whereas the truth is that equality of ability is an illusion. Someone is always better and someone is always not-as-good whether it is athletics, art, math, etc.

To some extent this 'dilemma' is rooted in insecurity/envy. Not traits of science. Ironically if they really believe in evolutionary adaptation, then the expression "no holds barred" applies rather than concerns as to what is 'human' or 'humanity'.

"We argue that the goal of human enhancement should be to enhance quality of life and well-being not only of individuals but also of the communities they inhabit."

Another problem is the inconsistency of which Qol is applied. Perhaps it stems from the inability to define 'health' in the first place. For now, doctors are limited to viewing 'health' as 'absence of disease'. So enhancement over disease is ok but otherwise Qol is irrelevant.

As for "well-being" of a community ... that can be dangerous for easily individuals will be sacrificed for the greater-good.