Abstract
With the rapid progress and considerable promise of nanobiotechnology/neurosciences there is the potential of transforming the very nature of human beings and of how humans can conceive of themselves as rational animals through technological innovations. The interface between humans and machines (neuro-digital interface), can potentially alter what it means to be human, i.e., the very idea of human nature and of normal functioning will be changed. In this paper, I argue that we are potentially on the verge of a paradigm shift in terms of the ends and goals of techno-science and its applications in the biomedical sciences. In particular, the development of brain-computer interfaces could reconceptualize the very notion of what it means to be human. Hence, we should not limit our reflections of applications in terms of therapy and enhancement but also include an examination of applications aiming at the alteration of human nature. To this end I will first delineate the potential paradigm shift and then map out four distinct clusters of concerns in relation to the brain-computer interface. Finally, I argue that our moral and philosophical reflections should follow a procedural model based on managed consensus due to our pluralistic context.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
I recognize the ambiguity of the term “normal” with reference to human nature. I use the term “normal” in this paper as referring to a set of abilities within biological boundaries.
For further discussion on the concept of human nature see the special issue of The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, volume 28, edited by Kurtz Bayertz [2].
“Metaman [beyond, and transcending, humans]…is on the verge of significantly altering human form and capacity. This prospect is so new that few have fully recognized it and confronted its larger implications. We need to do so, because understanding the effect of Metaman’s evolving technologies on human beings adds perspective to troubling medical and philosophical issues we now face.” [26, p. 150]
“The Singularity will allow us to transcend these limitations of our biological bodies and brains. We will gain power over our fates. Our mortality will be in our own hands. We will be able to live as long as we want (a subtly different statement from saying we will live forever). We will fully understand human thinking and will vastly extend and expand its reach…The Singularity will represent the culmination of the merger of our biological thinking and existence with our technology, resulting in a world that is still human but that transcends our biological roots. There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine or between physical and virtual reality” [15, p. 9].
For instance, the legal systems of some Europeans countries such as France, Spain, Great Britain and the Netherlands do not recognize ownership rights so that individuals can do as they wish concerning their bodies (especially with regards to its commercialization) [2, p. 133].
I am indebted to Yaron Ezrahi [7, pp. 19–28] for these three conceptions of freedom as principle of order.
As Habermas puts it “By entering into a process of moral argumentation, the participants continue their communicative action in a reflexive attitude with the aim of restoring a consensus that has been disrupted. Moral argumentation thus serves to settle conflicts of action by consensual means” [10, p. 67].
References
Baillie HW, Casey TK (2005) In: Is human nature obsolete. MIT, Cambridge
Bayertz K (2003) Human nature: how normative might it be? J Med Philos 28:131–150
Berger TW, Glanzman DL (2005) Toward replacement parts for the brain: Implantable biomimetic electronics as neural prostheses. MIT, Cambridge
Berger TW, Brinton RD, Marmarelis VZ, Sheu BJ, Tanguay AR (2005) Brain-implantable biomimetic electronics as a neural prosthesis for hippocampal memory function. In: Berger TW, Glanzman DL (eds) Toward replacement parts for the brain: implantable biomimetic electronics as neural prostheses. MIT, Cambridge
Boorse C (1975) On the distinction between disease and illness. Philos Public Aff 5(1):49–68
Carmena JM et al (2003) Learning to control a brain-machine interface for reaching and gras** by primates. PLoS Biology 1(2):193–208
Ezrahi Y (1990) The descent of icarus: Science and the transformation of contemporary democracy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Fukuyama F (2002) Our posthuman future. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York
Glannon W (2007) Bioethics and the brain. Oxford University Press, New York
Habermas J (1990) Moral consciousness and communicative action. MIT, Cambridge
Jotterand F (2006) The politicization of science and technology: its implications for nanotechnology. J Law Med Ethics 34(4):658–666
Jotterand, F. (2008) Ethics and nanotechnology: toward a procedural integrated model. In: Zoloth L, Flory M (eds) The social scale: the weight of justice. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (submitted)
Juengst E (1998) What does enhancement mean. In: Erik P (ed) Enhancing human traits. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, pp 29–47
Kurzweil R (1999) The age of spiritual machines. Penguin, New York
Kurzweil R (2005) The singularity is near: when humans transcend biology. Viking, New York
MacIntyre A (1981) After virtue. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame
McKenny GP (1997) To relieve the human condition: bioethics, technology, and the body. State University of New York Press, Albany
Parens E (1998) Is better always good? The enhancement project. In: Erik P (ed) Enhancing human traits. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, pp 1–28
Parens E (2005) Authenticity and ambivalence: toward understanding the enhancement debate. Hastings Cent Rep 35(3):34–41
Polikov VS, Tresco PA, Reichert WM (2005) Response of brain tissue to chronically implanted neural electrodes. J Neurosci Methods 148:1–18
Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2002) Converging technologies for improving human performance. Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. National Science Foundation, Arlington
Sade RM (1998) Genetic enhancement technology, ethics, and public policy. J S C Med Assoc 94(9):411–415
Santhanam G, Ryu SI, Byron MY, Afshar A, Shenoy KV (2006) A high-performance brain-computer interface. Nature 442:195–198
Shenoy KV, Meeker D, Cao S, Kureshi SA, Pesaran B, Mitra P, Buneo CA, Batista AP, Burdick JW, Andersen RA (2003) Neural prosthetic control signals from plan activity. NeuroReport 14(4):591–596
Siep L (2003) Normative aspects of the human body. J Med Philos 28:171–185
Stock G (1993) Metaman: the merging of humans and machines into a global superorganism. Simon and Schuster, New York
Stock G (2002) Redesigning humans: our inevitable genetic future. Houghton Mifflin, Boston
Acknowledgment
I would like to thank Jeffrey Bishop for his helpful and insightful comments on an early draft of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jotterand, F. Beyond Therapy and Enhancement: The Alteration of Human Nature. Nanoethics 2, 15–23 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-008-0025-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-008-0025-z