Introduction
For centuries several studies have explored the regulation of human enhancement technologies. Human enhancement technologies are any technology that can enhance or improve a person’s physical, mental, or cognitive abilities. This includes various technologies such as gene therapy, stem cell therapy, neural implants, cognitive enhancers, prosthetics, and more. Human enhancement technologies have many potential benefits, such as improved physical and mental performance, increased lifespan, and improved quality of life. However, significant ethical and social concerns are also associated with using these technologies. So, while there are several advantages of using human enhancement technologies, there are several good reasons for the need to regulate human enhancement technologies. This essay will examine some of the ethical and social implications of human enhancement technologies which call for the need to regulate them. The reasons include ensuring that the potential benefits of these technologies are shared fairly and equitably, that they are not used for deceptive or malicious purposes, and that they are not used to replace or replace certain aspects of human life.
Ethical Implications of Human Enhancement Technologies
The most prominent ethical implications of human enhancement technologies are related to the fairness and equity of their use (Veit, 2018). These technologies have the potential to create a two-tier system in which those who have access to these technologies have an advantage over those who do not. This could lead to a situation in which those with access to these technologies are able to gain an unfair advantage over those without access, creating an unequal playing field for those who cannot afford the technologies.
In addition, there is the potential for people to use these technologies to become superhuman, leading to a scenario where people are judged and discriminated against because of their enhanced abilities (Machery, 2012). Hence, people with enhanced abilities are seen as being better than those without, creating a situation in which those without enhanced abilities are seen as inferior.
Finally, there is the potential for these technologies to be used to create designer babies, in which parents can choose their children’s physical, mental, and cognitive traits. Hence individuals with access to such technology may have an added advantage over others; for instance, individuals who have undergone botched surgery may have a better social life due to their high confidence.
Social Implications of Human Enhancement Technologies
In addition to the ethical implications of human enhancement technologies, several social implications need to be considered. The first is the potential social implication of these technologies, which would create an arms race in which countries and individuals compete to develop the most advanced technologies to gain an advantage over others (Machery, 2012). Thus, countries and individuals are developing more advanced technologies, increasing the cost and complexity of these technologies. Consequently, only the wealthiest and most powerful have access to these technologies, while developing nations will need access to these technologies hence causing unfair competition between nations.
Second, there is the potential for these technologies to be used for deceptive or malicious purposes. For example, these technologies could be used to create false identities or to hack into computer systems; hence, individuals or countries are using these technologies for malicious or deceptive purposes, which could have disastrous consequences.
Finally, there is the potential for these technologies to be used to replace or replace certain aspects of human life, such as work or leisure activities; hence certain aspects of life are no longer seen as necessary or valuable, leading to a decrease in the quality of life for many individuals. For instance, they can lead to a sense of purposelessness and a decrease in overall happiness as individuals no longer do what they enjoyed doing before.
Reasons to Regulate Human Enhancement Technologies
Given the ethical and social implications of human enhancement technologies, it is essential to regulate their use to ensure that they are used responsibly and ethically. The first reason to regulate these technologies is to ensure that the potential benefits of these technologies are shared fairly and equitably–this includes using the technologies responsibly. Regulating these technologies can also help to ensure that potential health risks are managed and reduced (Kass, 2003). Glannon suggests that bodily modifications are unlawful because they disadvantage consumers (2013). For instance, being physically attractive may provide a competitive edge that leads to better social outcomes, such as a better job, but not everyone can afford cosmetic procedures such as rhinoplasty; hence this creates inequality.
It is also critical to regulating the enhancement technologies to ensure they are not used for deceptive or malicious purposes. Measures include setting limits on the data that can be collected or used, ensuring that privacy and security measures are in place, and ensuring that the technology is being used in a way that is ethical and respectful of human rights. Additionally, regulating these technologies can help to ensure that they are being used in ways that are beneficial to society and not creating any negative externalities such as overreliance or deception. Finally, regulations can be set to encourage the development of technologies that are beneficial to humans, such as those that help to reduce poverty and inequality. Additionally, regulations should be in place to ensure that those using the technology are held accountable for any misuse or abuse. This can be done by instituting penalties for those who use the technology for malicious or unethical purposes or those who fail to adhere to the regulations. Further, it is important to ensure that the technology is being used responsibly and safely so that people’s privacy and data are being properly protected. This can be done by requiring companies to adhere to industry standards and best practices and to secure the data they are collecting and storing.
Finally, it is essential to regulate these technologies to ensure that they are not used to replace or replace certain aspects of human life. This can be done by setting limits on how these technologies can be used and by requiring that these technologies are used in a way that respects the value of human life (Kass, 2003). Regulating these technologies can help to ensure that they are used for their intended purpose – to supplement, not replace, aspects of human life. This can include setting limits on artificial intelligence, such as preventing it from being used in decision-making processes that humans would otherwise make. Furthermore, regulations can be developed to ensure that these technologies are used in a way that respects the value of human life, such as limiting the amount of surveillance or data collection that can be done. By regulating these technologies, we can help to ensure that they are used to improve, not replace, aspects of human life (Machery, 2012).
Conclusion
As a sum of my analysis, while there are several advantages of using human enhancement technologies, there are several good reasons for regulating human enhancement technologies. These include a) ensuring that the potential benefits of these technologies are shared fairly and equitably, b) ensuring that they are not used for deceptive or malicious purposes, and c) ensuring that they are not used to replace or replace certain aspects of human life. It is important that these technologies are used responsibly, ethically, and regulated to ensure that they are used in a way that respects the value of human life.
Reference
Glannon, W. (2013). Brain, body, and mind: Neuroethics with a human face. Oxford University Press.
Kass, L. R. (2003). Ageless bodies, happy souls: biotechnology and the pursuit of perfection. The New Atlantis, (1), pp. 9-28.
Machery, E. (2012). Reconceptualizing human nature: Response to lewens. Philosophy & Technology, 25(4), 475-478.
Quill, T. E., Lo, B., & Brock, D. W. (2008). Palliative options of last resort: a comparison of voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, terminal sedation, physician-assisted suicide, and voluntary active euthanasia. In Giving death a helping hand (pp. 49-64). Springer, Dordrecht.
Veit, W. (2018). Procreative beneficence and genetic enhancement. KRITERION-Journal of Philosophy, 32(1).
write