Since
the beginning of human history this species has been augmenting its natural
abilities through the use of varying technologies; from language and plowshares
to fiber optic cables and cellphones, humanity has consistently sought to
broaden its capabilities through technological augmentation. As the ages have
passed human technology has increased in complexity and scope to the point
where existing technology operates at atomic and cellular scales.
Just
as all new technology is initially opposed, so too has biotechnologically
derived cognitive enhancement been opposed. From the fear of an enhancement
divide to the fear of impugning human dignity, opponents to cognitive
enhancement have argued that there are many dangers and pitfalls along the path
of human enhancement.
While
some explicit cognitive enhancement research has been done by hobbyists and
groups like DARPA, the preponderance of “enhancement” research has been done
for the purposes of “treatment” of “disabled” individuals. Drugs have been
developed to treat everything from Alzheimer's to Attention Deficit Disorder,
some of these treatments, when taken by normative individuals, show the
potential for cognitive enhancement.[1] It is the contentious
distinction between therapy and enhancement and radical vs moderate enhancement
that serves as the bright lines separating the two sides. Very little debate
exists around whether or not individuals who can be treated should be treated.
The debate arises when those who are perceived as “able” are given “treatments”
for those who are supposed to be “disabled”.
For
opponents of enhancement there is a clear distinction between therapy and
enhancement, even if it is not morally significant. “Norm Daniels, who has
argued for the use of quasi-statistical concepts of “normality”, argues that
any intervention designed to restore or preserve a species-typical level of
functioning for an individual should count as therapy and the rest as
enhancement.” For opponents of cognitive enhancement, this distinction between
therapy and enhancement is used to draw metaphorical lines in the sand
delineating what is acceptable by the medical profession and what is not. In
other words medical treatment should be withheld except for cases where
ableness has been diminished.
Proponents
of cognitive enhancement, as would be expected, tend to not see such a bright
line between enhancement and therapy. For Professor Nick Bostrom, a self
described Transhumanist, “there is the question of how to define a normal
healthy state. Many human attributes have a normal (bell curve) distribution.[2] The definition of a healthy
state being necessary to the distinction between therapeutic treatment and human
enhancement, Bostrom argues that to define abnormality as falling below a given
population average is to introduce an arbitrary point that seems to lack any
fundamental medical or normative significance.[3] From the enhancer
perspective, if there is no meaningful distinction between therapy and
enhancement, and there exists no limit on therapy, than there ought not exist a
limit on enhancement.
Argument
about the distinction between therapy and enhancement aside,the debate boils
down to a question of degree. Proponents of cognitive enhancement argue that
enhancement will enable humans to think “better” and live longer, and that this
will better equip humanity to solve challenging sociopolitical problems and
increase the rate of scientific discovery.[4] Because of this, proponents
argue that “Cognitive enhancing drugs, along with newer technologies such as
brain stimulation and prosthetic brain chips, should be viewed in the same
general category as education, good health habits, and information technology.”
[5] For them,
biotechnologically derived cognitive enhancement is not so much revolutionary,
as it is iterative. Trying to create arbitrary distinctions between treatments
serves no one from the enhancers perspective.
While
the appeal of cognitive enhancement appeals to some, the fear that those
enhancements might lead to an “Enhancement Divide,” similar to the Digital
Divide, leads opponents to question whether or not if individuals who are
unable to enhance might be significantly disadvantaged.”[6] In their minds, the very
real possibility that enhancements will be distributed via markets necessarily
means that the benefits of enhancement will not be equally or fairly
distributed; leading to something worse than a divided class society, a
genetically divided caste society.
In
a lecture at the London School of Economics[7] Professor Bostrom argues
that enhancements could be provided to the less well off through the publicly
financed NHS(the national health service) in the same way that existing
medicine, like Adderall, is provided. From his perspective the potential for an
enhancement gap between classes can be mitigated in the same way that the
digital divide has been bridged, namely through government transfers and
progressive taxation to fund enhancement programs.
While
some opponents fret over the potential for a divide in society, still others
worry about the potential for diminishing human dignity. “Before we too quickly
dismiss the idea of “human dignity” as romanticized and outdated, we need to
give it full consideration and ask whether that concept would suffer if human
enhancement were unrestricted.”[8] For these individuals the
idea of an intrinsic natural state holds great significance. For them, any
radical change in human cognitive abilities might necessarily entail the
adoption of new and challenging virtues contrary to existing human virtues. It
might, for example, mean the willful abortion of down syndrome babies or the
forced enhancement of at-risk individuals like the poor and indigent. This
potential for disrespecting “human dignity” stands as a barrier to accepting cognitive enhancements
for some.
For
proponents however, the view is that with cognitive enhancements it may well
turn out that some of the same knowledge used to facilitate cognitive
enhancements may allow for the development of what some have called "moral
enhancements."[9] From this perspective as
humanity becomes more cognitively capable, the ability to morally reason will
also improve. With improved moral reasoning and improved cognitive capabilities
proponents of enhancement feel that posthumans will be more morally minded and
more capable of following through on their moral prescriptions.
A final, and legitimate, worry of
opponents to cognitive enhancement is that the choice to abstain from
enhancement may not remain a viable choice for long. They fear that should the
majority decide that genetically enhancing one’s children’s intelligence or
pharmacologically enhancing one’s workplace productivity is the morally right
thing to do, not doing so will become as taboo as smoking or failing to
vaccinate one’s children.”[10] Given this potential, some feel, that
enhancement should not be undertaken at all for fear of creating an environment
where one does not have a choice but to become enhanced.
Proponents
point out that “Cognitive enhancement in the form of education is already
required for almost all children at substantial cost to their liberty, and
employers are generally free to require employees to have certain educational
credentials or to obtain them.”[11] Given this, they feel that
cognitive enhancements in the form of implants of pharmaceuticals are no
different, in so far as having costs or reducing personal liberty to choose not
to enhance. In the same way that children are required to be educated and
vaccinated so to ought they be required to accept minimum levels of
enhancement.
As
this writer see it, the arguments against enhancement fundamentally boil down
to arguments of degree. Must humans already chemically or physically enhance
their lives. They imbibe caffeine, nicotine, and other pharmacological agent
for the purposes of inducing focus and alertness or for reducing stress and
anxiety. They use machines of varying sizes and shapes to augment their
physical capabilities. Are they not enhancing themselves by ingesting these
substances and using these tools? If they are willing to accept a little boost
from a substance or tool, why not accept a longer lasting more profound
augmentation?
On
college campuses across the nation students are taking drugs like Adderall or
Modafinil, off label, to increase focus and enhance their cognition. Some
consider this to be cheating and have advocated for banning the use of these
kinds of substances like they were steroids. Yet their grades can be better and
they often more quickly assimilate the knowledge, the only difference is that
they are chemically enhancing their ability to acquire and retain the
information. This seems to be a good thing, smarter students today means better
researchers tomorrow.
Is
this not good for humanity? If side-effects are few and the prices are kept
reasonable does not the benefit of a smarter society outweigh the risks? Given
these drugs already exist for "enhancing" the disabled to the point
of ableness, why not take those who are able and make them more able?
Most
humans already use physical technology to enhance their natural abilities. Cell
Phones for example, despite texting, do enhance human communication, especially
over large distances. The difference between a cellphone and a neural implant
that connected one to the web seems to be one of degree. Why stop at tools that
are used temporarily when the technology to radically enhance human cognitive
capabilities exists? Human cognitive enhancement should not only be accepted,
it should be promoted.
“In a new study, to be
published online Thursday, Sept. 16, in the journal Current Biology,
researchers from UC Berkeley’s Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute and School of
Optometry found that study participants showed significantly greater benefits
from practice on a task that involved discriminating directions of motion after
they took donepezil.”
[7]Professor Nick Bostrom, Professor Anne Kerr. The
Ethics of Human Enhancement. Lecture at the London School of Economics.
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/videoAndAudio/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/player.aspx?id=1620
[8] Patrick Lin and Fritz
Allhoff. Against Unrestricted Human Enhancement - Journal of Evolution and
Technology - Vol. 18 Issue 1 – May 2008 – pgs 35-41
http://jetpress.org/v18/linallhoff.htm
[9] Henry Greely, Barbara Sahakian. Towards
responsible use of cognitive enhancing drugs by the healthy. Advance Online
Publication|doi:10.1038/456702a|
[10] Benjamin Storey. Liberation
Biology, Lost in the Cosmos. The New Atlantis Journal of Technology and
Society
.jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
