Transhumanism, abbreviated as H+ for humanity plus, is a politically and emotionally charged word that scientists are referring to as the augmentation of the human condition though technology, primarily to enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capabilities. Neurological enhancements both thorough neural implantation and neural pharmaceuticals are one of the prime components of the H+ movement that are generating a lot of attention in the scientific community.
The subject of neurological enhancements, or any enhancements on the human condition for that matter, has generated intense debate and concern. Proponents on both sides of the issue cite bioethical arguments of equality while some argue that neurological enhancements are the logical next steps in human evolutionary history. The issue is such a hot debate that some radicals even argue that it could lead to the end of humanity itself, writing paper upon papers of different scenarios that involve humans being turned into mindless robots. Even great scientific minds like Stephen Hawking have entered the debate claiming “humans have entered a new stage of evolution”. We must judge the issue of transcending human biological constraints by taking into consideration many academic disciplines including bioethics, philosophy, politics, medicine, and sociological equality,
At its core, the Transhumanism movement of enhancing the human condition is an issue that involves a delicate balance between ethics and science; however, I argue that the potential benefit’s to society greatly outweigh the potential costs and thus neurological enhancements and the push to elevate the restrictions of human biology should be endorsed by society even if it involves the circumvention of some morals.
I believe cosmetic neurology is only the next logical step in the progression of modern medical science. Not only can neurological enhancements benefit those who have biological impediments preventing them from achieving their full potential but it can also allow “normal” people to transcend their biological limitations and further benefit society as a whole. we should not view our biology as being “fixed” in the sense that it is organically immutable. Natural selection has been acting on the enhancement of the human condition for millions of years, the addition of technology is only facilitating this evolutionary process in humans so more people can live happier and more fulfilling lives.
A study from the British Medical Association found evidence of an increase in cognitive function and an elevation in memory recall using a nootropic. Dr. Elliott R et al (2011) found that “in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving 28 healthy young men,” “methylphenidate was found to have significant effects on the performance of tests of spatial working memory and planning.” Working memory is a significant aspect of our learning process, and thus normal people are able to enhance their cognitive function and retain more information than they could without the assistance of an enhancer.
Elliot’s (2011) study found the following: “increase in working memory was greater in the subjects with lower baseline working memory capacity suggesting that some forms of cognitive enhancements may be of more benefit to those who have a lower starting point than those who already have a high level of functioning” (Elliott R et al 2011).
This suggests that cognitive enhancers could actually “level the playing field” in the game of college admissions, allowing those who are not as able to retain information compete with those who were just born with better memory. Evidence of increases in cognitive functioning and memory recall using drugs is compelling as Elliott and his team (2011) found that “in all of [their] tests, those who had taken Modafinil performed better than those taking the placebo”.
Similarly, brain implantation also facilitates the learning process by enhancing cognitive function. TDCS, in which electrodes stimulate brain regions, has been found stimulate active learning processes. Ross Anderson (2012) suggests that the particular mechanisms that make TDCS and other neurological implantations able to stimulate learning and cognitive function is attributed to the plasticity of the brain. He argues “neuroplasticity make[s] it easier for neurons to fire and form the connections that enable learning.” he further cites how ‘there are signs that the technology could improve language acumen, math ability, and even memory.” (Ross, 2012)
Transhuman technology like cognitive enhancers not only benefit “normal” functioning minds but also helps those with cognitive disabilities and those with neurological diseases. Prominent philosopher and bioethicist Allen Buchanan (2011) in his book Better Than Human, argues that “Biomedical enhancements can make us smarter, have better memories, be stronger, quicker, have more stamina, live much longer, avoid the frailties of aging, and enjoy richer emotional lives.” Henry Greely (2008), a bioethicist from Stanford University, similarly suggests that cognitive enhancers can “stave off normal and pathological age related cognitive declines.” With societies increased acceptance of transhuman technology and particularly cognitive enhancements, more development will go into developing better and safer drugs and methods for curing diseases like alzheimer’s, allowing us to not be chained down by the limitations of our neural anatomy.
Greely and Sahakian (2008) in their study found: “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 — ways that our uniquely innovative species tries to improve itself.” (Greely and Sahakian 2008)
One of the primary arguments against neurological enhancements is arguing that human augmentation is unnatural and against “human nature”.
This arbitrary socially defined deffiniton of “human nature” is flawed in that it ignores the most fundamental human want, self-progress. This argument is essentially saying the drive to improve oneself is not naturally occurring in humans, which is obviously flawed in its logic. Humans have been striving to improve themselves since their inception though processes of language and technology. Allen Buchanan (2012), a bioethicist at Duke University argues that the “drive toward enhancement is actually very much a part of human nature”. He further cites how humans have been enhancing themselves since the inception of intelligent society “by developing literacy and numeracy, and the institutions of science”. The age of information with the advent of the internet is a prime example of human augmentation.
In “Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution,” Francis Fukuyama (2002) argues that “the original purpose of medicine is to heal the sick, not turn healthy people into gods.” Fukuyama and many other like him represents a group that is against the transhuman movement, suggesting that increased use of neurological enhancements could “raise the standard of what is considered “normal”, performance and further widen the gap between those who have access to the medications and those who don’t”. The sociological aspect of economic inequality is consistently cited as an unavoidable negative consequence of human enhancement. Proponents argue that the economic system will further stimulate class tensions as those with the economic resources could afford to augment themselves with enhancements, making them more competitive and essentially rendering “non-enhanced” individuals fruitless in a society where productivity, competition, and efficiency, is key.
The competition argument is however flawed in that it assumes education is a contest of heated revelry when in actuality, it is simply the acquisition of knowledge.
Buchanan (2011), a renowned bioethicist at Duke University, suggests that the fear of human augmentation and enhancement, “stem[ming] from the fear that cognitive enhancements might exacerbate social inequality by disproportionately advantaging elites”, is illegitimate and flawed.
In his study, Buchanan (2011) suggests: “some examples of previous cognitive enhancement technologies, like literacy and mobile phones, have diffused rapidly across classes after some initial period of monopolization by elites. Are there good reasons to think cognitive enhancement will follow suit?”
The purpose of education, although increasingly tainted by the competitive nature of undergraduate admissions, is to educate the public. Just as we use the processes of language, which lets not forget is very much a human design, to acquire knowledge, neurological stimulates are just another tool designed to make us better learners. Humans, therefore should not be limited to their biological limitations. I am not going to ignore the possibility that neurological augmentation could lead to mass class divide due to the possible inequality in the dissemination of the technology (pill or brain implant); however, the other side of the debate can not be disregarded either. Bachanan (2011) points out that “some cognitive enhancements will spread rapidly across socioeconomic lines” and thus ease class tensions between economic groups. He suggests that we have many human enhancements, the internet for example, that have blurred socioeconomic lines. The information age, though the development of mobil devices and the world wide web, has made a plethora of knowledge widely available to the public and is now being used to educate people in third world countries where there is a lack in adequate teachers.
Purely looking at the issue of nootropics in a biological and genetic context, many critics argue that pharmacological cognitive enhancements have negative physiological effects on the brain.
It is true neurological enhancements could have adverse effects on the biology of the brain, altering its neural processes, however, so does any environmental stimulus. Anything that stimulates the brain from watching a movie to listing to a song can alter the neural functioning of the brain. Thus, this argument falls apart on the basis that by isolating the physiological changes that can happen to the brain solely on drugs, we are ignore the most common form of negative physiological effects that can happen to the brain, environmental stimuli. Petersson (2000) maintains that “education and other conventional interventions” also “have physiological effects on the brain”. Furthermore, he argues that “conventional interventions often produce more permanent neurological changes than do drugs” and sites specific evidence of how “learning to read alters the way language is processed in the brain”.
Walsh provides compelling evidence that suggests: “Enriched rearing environments have been found to increase dendritic arborisation and to produce synaptic changes, neurogenesis, and improved cognition in animals (Walsh et al. 1969; Greenoug and Volkmar 1973; Diamond et al. 1975; Nilsson et al. 1999).
Greenoug and Volkmar found that environmental stimuli can actually create physical changes to the brains anatomy by neurogenesis and changes to synapses. Thus we can not simply assume drugs will harm the brain when other forms of common stimuli lead to such dramatic alterations already. Although neurological enhancements to cognition effects the brain, so do things like education, family, and mass media.
Cognitive enhancements have already penetrated the mass market through commonplace drugs like Adderall. There is significantly less objection when drugs or medical science is used to help those who are “neurologically deficient” in the sense that something is preventing them from achieving or performing at a normal “human” level. When we extend the usage of neurological enhancements to transcend this barrier society define as “human”, more conservative propionates in the debate argue that it becomes inhuman and unnatural. That is, by extending neurological enhancements to normally functioning humans to make them essentially better than human, we are developing inhuman technologies. However, how do we even define human to begin with? Not long ago, the average life expectancy was only around 50, and now, countless people are living past the age of 90 and even 100. The urge to improve oneself and push biological limitations is literally one of the forefronts of what makes us human.
pushing the limits of biology with transhuman technology and cognitive enhancements is simply the next logical progression into the future of medical science as biological constrains will always limit human capacity until we decided we want to change it.
Works Cited
Andersen, R. (2012, February 6). Why Cognitive Enhancement Is in Your Future (and Your Past). Retrieved August 7, 2015.
Bostrom, N., & Sandberg, A. (2009). Cognitive Enhancement: Methods, Ethics, Regulatory Challenges. Sci Eng Ethics Science and Engineering Ethics, 311-341.
Buchanan, A. (n.d.). (2011) Better than human: The promise and perils of enhancing ourselves
Cakic, V. (2009). Smart drugs for cognitive enhancement: Ethical and pragmatic considerations in the era of cosmetic neurology. Journal of Medical Ethics, 611-615.
Calland, A. et al, British Medical Association (2007) Boosting your brainpower: ethical aspects of cognitive enhancements
Fukuyama, F. (2002). Our posthuman future: Consequences of the biotechnology revolution. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Greely, H., Sahakian, B., Harris, J., Kessler, R., Gazzaniga, M., Campbell, P., & Farah, M. (2008). Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature, 702-705.
Petersson, K. M., Reis, A., Askelof, S., Castro-Caldas, A., & Ingvar, M. (2000). Language processing modulated by literacy: A network analysis of verbal repetition in literate and illiterate subjects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(3), 364–382.
Leave a Reply