Essay Example on the Next Decade: Human Augmentation & Global Challenges

Introduction

The next decade will certainly see the world face a myriad of global challenges that, if not addressed in time, will create or present new quandaries that will potentially make it difficult for global progress. As controversial as some challenges are, they have the potential to contribute positively to human life. One of the most controversial future world challenges is the idea of human enhancement through various dimensions and for various reasons. The notion of human augmentation tougher with performance enhancement is as old as human history. People have gone greater heights in attempts to have not only longer life spans but also increase numerous capabilities, including physical and mental aptitudes. The advancement in the technological and medical fields has revolutionized how scientists see the future of humanity. Genetic engineering, for instance, has enabled scientists to develop technology that can edit human deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) (Almeida & Diogo, 2019). Artificial intelligence has also provided scientists with an alternative with which they can alter human thinking, among other potentialities. Over the last few years, a notable development in terms of genetic human modification technology has been Crispr (Almeida & Diogo, 2019). This DNA modification technology is meant to carve out diseases, including genetic-related malfunctions and cancer out of the equation. While this sounds desirable, questions remain if this technology can take a dark ethical turn and make human enhancement a eugenics issue or project like that of producing 'designer babies' whose well-selected embryos determine the physical and mental characteristics(Masci, 2016). This paper presents particular aspects of genetic modification as a future global challenge due to its possible repercussions and ethical issues for humanity.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Major Players' Stance and Involvement

The proponents of human modification technologies have come to a general irrefutable consensus that enhancing human beings enables them to surpass human limitations through the use of technology. Such alterations allow people to live healthier, longer, and happy lives. They also augment human capacity to think and perform extraordinarily well due to physical and mental boosts (Almeida & Diogo, 2019). However, the repercussions of human modification seem to outweigh the benefits from the perspective of ethics and interference with human essence. Various groups of people hold varied opinions concerning this issue. The transhumanists who believe in the use of technology to enhance human beings posit that technology is a blessing as far as this purpose is concerned. Genetic engineers have asserted that human enhancement from the genetic to phenotypic levels can project human capabilities beyond their current levels allowing people to exploit their full potential. Genetic engineers also believe that these technologies can accord humans a percipient control of their biological functions (Almeida & Diogo, 2019). The bioconservatives argue that human essence must be conserved and protected because of the belief that there is an intrinsic value in the preservation of the natural nature of human life. According to ethicists, human enhancement through the use of technology can interfere with human evolution processes (Douglas, 2014). The economists and politicians hold that human enhancement can create employee efficiency at work but can also greatly cause multiple and social tensions. The employee wellbeing would be affected through an augmented lifestyle. Also, the improvements can increase performance and delay retirement creating an imbalance between retirement and youth employment. The majority of those opposing bioenhancement argue that it could be used to create deliberate harm to other people by increasing the efficiency or effectiveness of persons deliberately involved in harmful activities (Almeida & Diogo, 2019). Sports experts believe that the unenhanced individuals could be placed at a disadvantage in terms of the competitive effects of bio-enhancers; for instance, sportspersons using such enhancers can outcompete those who do not use them hence unfairness in competitions (Lopez Frias, 2018).

Popular Opinion on the Issue

Public awareness of the implications of human enhancement requires an open discussion. Public opinion on human enhancement or genetic modification is not common as compared to the raucous voices of the experts and scientists in this area. However, few of the popular discourses on this issue hold that natural selection should be the primary route for human beings rather than bio-enhancers or alteration of human DNA unless in very specific occasions. Surveys conducted by the World Economic Forum Global Future Council, in collaboration with other bodies, reveal people's perceptions and feelings on this topic (Dijkstra & Schuijff, 2015). On the continuum of the application of human enhancement to improve or restore vision, most respondents (94 percent) find it appropriate, while views are divergent on its use in joints replacement. A strong majority (83 percent) of Americans are in support of gene editing to eradicate diseases or suppress disease-causing genes (Whitman et al., 2018). However, most people are against non-therapeutic interventions that make people more intelligent or stronger. Most American adults support the use of vision enhancers beyond normal. Another notable opinion from the public is that most people do not prefer the enhancement to be delivered via an implantable device irrespective of what type of enhancers it is. Most male adults (72 percent) prefer the use of enhancers as compared to only 55 percent of female adults (Dijkstra & Schuijff, 2015). According to these opinions, the future of humanity appears to be a huge challenge as far as human augmentation is concerned because of the various implications that come with it. The list of fears includes abuse of technology, especially against the poor, unequal access, and loss of diversity or uniqueness in people.

Personal Opinion

From a personal perspective, human enhancement technologies present a revolutionary opportunity for people to rid the human species of undesirable traits and diseases through gene editing and genetic engineering. When used for the right reasons, human augmentation should not scare humanity because the benefits are remarkable, especially because of the emergent strains of diseases, including certain types of cancer and genetic maladies. A future without diseases is an ultimate utopia for all, with people bearing exceptional intelligence and new ways to do things. The major areas of concern should be how these technologies would be regulated and monopoly diffused. Some institutions responsible for these enhancers could be tempted to sell to the highest bidder pitting the race for an enhancement between those with heavy pockets. The resultant negative effects of enhancers in the society would be massive and chaotic as selfish and malicious individuals might use the technology for crime or ill intentions. Important to note is that the technology would be so expensive that the poor would not access it. For instance, Spark Therapeutics, a company dealing with such kind of technology for the future, announced that revolutionary gene therapy for blindness would cost $850, 000 per person (Almeida & Diogo, 2019). Consequently, the expensive nature of these technologies could breed a coercive environment whereby people compete to voluntarily enhance themselves to become better than others. Another angle of viewing the implications of enhancement technologies from a personal point of view is the fact that it can undermine harm aversion and increase liabilities pertained to permissible harm. It could eventually change what it means to be human.

Remedies

One of the remedies of coping with future impacts of human enhancement as a global challenge is to formulate appropriate policies that will govern or regulate how the technologies will be used on people (Douglas, 2014). It is important not to coerce anyone to enhance themselves; freewill, willingness, and affordability should take precedence. Future governments will be required to sit at a roundtable with the enhancement labs or institutions to create regulatory grounds on which the augmentations will take place (Almeida & Diogo, 2019). Core to these decisions will be policies governing the whole process of bioenhancements, including the regulation of costs. Strong precautionary principles should be used to assess risks, and serious risks should mean that the project is stopped irrespective of the benefits. Medical experts should be at the forefront of dealing with or regulating enhancement issues and implementation of policies developed for the same purposes, as well as addressing possible side effects (Douglas, 2014). There should be an increased and comprehensive discourse on the societal needs and norms and their association with human enhancement technologies.

Conclusion

In summary, human enhancement refers to the non-medical application of biomedical technologies to augment human mental and physical capabilities so that they can perform beyond the natural limits. Human enhancement technologies are multifarious and target many aspects of multiple dimensions of human improvement. The advancement in the field of medicine and technology has led to an increase in the possibilities of future human improvements. In as much as the reasons are advantageous to people, the future of humanity is seemingly in danger because of the possible undesirable implications of these technologies. This issue presents a future global challenge for which the world should be ready; otherwise, humanity will partially lose some of its elements.

References

Almeida, M., & Diogo, R. (2019). Human enhancement. Evolution, Medicine, And Public Health, 2019(1), 183-189. https://doi.org/10.1093/emph/eoz026

Dijkstra, A., & Schuijff, M. (2015). Public opinions about human enhancement can enhance the expert-only debate: A review study. Public Understanding Of Science, 25(5), 588-602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514566748

Douglas, T. (2014). The Harms of Enhancement and the Conclusive Reasons View. Cambridge Quarterly Of Healthcare Ethics, 24(1), 23-36. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0963180114000218

Lopez Frias, F. (2018). The use of performance-enhancing technologies in sports through Nicolas Agar's "truly human enhancement" approach. Performance Enhancement & Health, 6(2), 44-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2018.04.001

Masci, D. (2016). Human Enhancement: Scientific and Ethical Dimensions of Genetic Engineering, Brain Chips, and Synthetic Blood. Pew Research Center Science & Society. Retrieved 3 March 2020, from https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/07/26/human-enhancement-the-scientific-and-ethical-dimensions-of-striving-for-perfection/.

Whitman, D., Lathan, C., Love, J., Bavelier, D., Schuerle, S., Rainville, G., & Skufca, L. (2018). What Americans Think of Human Enhancement Technologies. Scientific American Blog Network. Retrieved 3 March 2020, from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-americans-think-of-human-enhancement-technologies/.