An electrically powered exoskeleton suit currently in development by Tsukuba University of Japan.

Human enhancement refers to any attempt to temporarily or permanently overcome the current limitations of the human body through natural or artificial means. The term is sometimes applied to the use of technological means to select or alter human characteristics and capacities, whether or not the alteration results in characteristics and capacities that lie beyond the existing human range. Here, the test is whether the technology is used for non-therapeutic purposes. Some bioethicists restrict the term to the non-therapeutic application of specific technologies — neuro-, cyber-, gene-, and nano-technologies — to human biology.^[1][2]

Technologies[link]

Human enhancement technologies (HET) are techniques that can be used not simply for treating illness and disability, but also for enhancing human characteristics and capacities.^[3] In some circles, the expression "human enhancement technologies" is synonymous with emerging technologies or converging technologies.^[4] In other circles, the expression "human enhancement" is roughly synonymous with human genetic engineering,^[5][6] it is used most often to refer to the general application of the convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (NBIC) to improve human performance.^[4]

Existing technologies[link]

• Reproductive technology
  • Embryo selection by preimplantation genetic diagnosis
• Physically:
  • Doping
  • Performance-enhancing drugs
  • Plastic surgery
  • Powered exoskeleton
• Mentally:
  • Nootropics

Emerging technologies[link]

• Human genetic engineering
• Neural implants

Speculative technologies[link]

• Mind uploading
• Exocortex

Ethics[link]

While in some circles the expression "human enhancement" is roughly synonymous with human genetic engineering,^[5][6] it is used most often to refer to the general application of the convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (NBIC) to improve human performance.^[4]

Since the 1990s, several academics (such as some of the fellows of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies^[7]) have risen to become cogent advocates of the case for human enhancement while other academics (such as the members of President Bush's Council on Bioethics^[8]) have become its most outspoken critics.^[9]

Advocacy of the case for human enhancement is increasingly becoming synonymous with “transhumanism”, a controversial ideology and movement which has emerged to support the recognition and protection of the right of citizens to either maintain or modify their own minds and bodies; so as to guarantee them the freedom of choice and informed consent of using human enhancement technologies on themselves and their children.^[10]

Neuromarketing consultant Zack Lynch argues that neurotechnologies will have a more immediate effect on society than gene therapy and will face less resistance as a pathway of radical human enhancement. He also argues that the concept of "enablement" needs to be added to the debate over "therapy" versus "enhancement".^[11]

Although many proposals of human enhancement rely on fringe science, the very notion and prospect of human enhancement has sparked public controversy.^[12][13][14]

Many critics argue that "human enhancement" is a loaded term which has eugenic overtones because it may imply the improvement of human hereditary traits to attain a universally accepted norm of biological fitness (at the possible expense of human biodiversity and neurodiversity), and therefore can evoke negative reactions far beyond the specific meaning of the term. Furthermore, they conclude that enhancements which are self-evidently good, like "fewer diseases", are more the exception than the norm and even these may involve ethical tradeoffs, as the controversy about ADHD arguably demonstrates.^[15]

However, the most common criticism of human enhancement is that it is or will often be practiced with a reckless and selfish short-term perspective that is ignorant of the long-term consequences on individuals and the rest of society, such as the fear that some enhancements will create unfair physical or mental advantages to those who can and will use them, or unequal access to such enhancements can and will further the gulf between the "haves" and "have-nots".^[16][17][18]

Accordingly, some advocates, who want to use more neutral language, and advance the public interest in so-called "human enhancement technologies", prefer the term "enablement" over "enhancement";^[19] defend and promote rigorous, independent safety testing of enabling technologies; as well as affordable, universal access to these technologies.^[9]

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Human enhancement

• Enhancement Technologies Group
• Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies
• Humanity+
• RTÉ’s Big Science Debate 2007
• Human Enhancement Study (European Parliament STOA 2009)
• Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group (Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo)
• "Ethics of Human Enhancement: 25 Questions & Answers" (an NSF-funded report), August 31, 2009