Редактирование: Criticism of transhumanism (раздел)

== The view that improving human morality is much harder than transhumanists suppose ==

The criticism expressed in the previous subsection can be extended as follows. A critic may acknowledge that transhumanism wishes to apply moral reasoning and social and political checks against misuse of technology. However, the critic may assert that the task of improving human nature is much harder than transhumanists suppose. Transhumanists, in this analysis, are likely to overreach their capabilities, with disastrous unintended consequences.

For example, [http://www.metanexus.net/essay/facing-challenges-transhumanism-philosophical-religious-and-ethical-considerations Leda Cosmides asserts] that the biological underpinnings of human personality are "exquisitely well-designed mental mechanisms that have been engineered by the evolutionary process to solve problems of survival and reproduction". If true, any attempts to alter these biological underpinnings would likely have unintended deleterious side-effects, regardless of the positive motivation of the people making the changes.

A similar criticism is expressed by [http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/23/transhumanism/ Francis Fukuyama, 2009]:

<blockquote>
Transhumanism’s advocates think they understand what constitutes a good human being, and they are happy to leave behind the limited, mortal, natural beings they see around them in favor of something better. But do they really comprehend ultimate human goods? For all our obvious faults, we humans are miraculously complex products of a long evolutionary process — products whose whole is much more than the sum of our parts. Our good characteristics are intimately connected to our bad ones: If we weren’t violent and aggressive, we wouldn’t be able to defend ourselves; if we didn’t have feelings of exclusivity, we wouldn’t be loyal to those close to us; if we never felt jealousy, we would also never feel love. Even our mortality plays a critical function in allowing our species as a whole to survive and adapt... Modifying any one of our key characteristics inevitably entails modifying a complex, interlinked package of traits, and we will never be able to anticipate the ultimate outcome...

The environmental movement has taught us humility and respect for the integrity of nonhuman nature. We need a similar humility concerning our human nature. If we do not develop it soon, we may unwittingly invite the transhumanists to deface humanity with their genetic bulldozers and psychotropic shopping malls.
</blockquote>

Moreover, these critics may accept and approve certain types of improvement of human circumstances, such as education, healthcare, and agriculture, whilst opposing any changes at a more fundamental level in the human makeup (such as genetic engineering of the human germline). These latter changes are viewed as too fraught with difficulty.

However, changes to the human germline have been occurring throughout human history (and prehistory), via natural genetic mutation and variation. The transhumanist proposal is to follow careful scientific and technological processes, to find ways to extend and magnify the positive changes that have already occurred.

Transhumanists acknowledge the risk of unforeseen negative consequences from these changes. However, transhumanists also point to the risk of negative consequences of keeping human nature unchanged. For example, [http://blog.oup.com/2012/08/unfit-future-moral-enhancement/ Julian Savulescu and Ingmar Persson argue as follows] (emphasis added) in favour of "moral bioenhancement":

<blockquote>
Our moral shortcomings are preventing our political institutions from acting effectively. Enhancing our moral motivation would enable us to act better for distant people, future generations, and non-human animals. One method to achieve this enhancement is already practised in all societies: moral education. Al Gore, Friends of the Earth and Oxfam have already had success with campaigns vividly representing the problems our selfish actions are creating for others – others around the world and in the future. But there is another possibility emerging. Our knowledge of human biology – in particular of genetics and neurobiology – is beginning to enable us to directly affect the biological or physiological bases of human motivation, either through drugs, or through genetic selection or engineering, or by using external devices that affect the brain or the learning process. We could use these techniques to overcome the moral and psychological shortcomings that imperil the human species. We are at the early stages of such research, but there are few cogent philosophical or moral objections to the use of specifically biomedical moral enhancement – or moral bioenhancement. ''In fact, the risks we face are so serious that it is imperative we explore every possibility of developing moral bioenhancement technologies – not to replace traditional moral education, but to complement it. We simply can’t afford to miss opportunities.''

We have provided ourselves with the tools to end worthwhile life on Earth forever. Nuclear war, with the weapons already in existence today could achieve this alone. If we must possess such a formidable power, it should be entrusted only to those who are both morally enlightened and adequately informed.
</blockquote>

In summary, this criticism gives undue emphasis to the risks of causing problems to humanity by attempts to improve human nature, and fails to give enough attention to the risks inherent in keeping human nature unchanged. As such, the criticism unjustifiably privileges the [[precautionary principle]], whereas transhumanists instead propose the [[proactionary principle]].

A similar argument is made by [http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/07/31/the-moral-imperative-for-bioethics/JmEkoyzlTAu9oQV76JrK9N/story.html Steven Pinker, 2015]:

<blockquote>
Biomedical research... promises vast increases in life, health, and flourishing. Just imagine how much happier you would be if a prematurely deceased loved one were alive, or a debilitated one were vigorous — and multiply that good by several billion, in perpetuity. Given this potential bonanza, the primary moral goal for today’s bioethics can be summarized in a single sentence: "Get out of the way".

A truly ethical bioethics should not bog down research in red tape, moratoria, or threats of prosecution based on nebulous but sweeping principles such as “dignity,” “sacredness,” or “social justice.” Nor should it thwart research that has likely benefits now or in the near future by sowing panic about speculative harms in the distant future...

Some say that it’s simple prudence to pause and consider the long-term implications of research before it rushes headlong into changing the human condition. But this is an illusion.

First, slowing down research has a massive human cost. Even a one-year delay in implementing an effective treatment could spell death, suffering, or disability for millions of people.

Second, technological prediction beyond a horizon of a few years is so futile that any policy based on it is almost certain to do more harm than good... treatments that were decried in their time as paving the road to hell, including vaccination, transfusions, anesthesia, artificial insemination, organ transplants, and in-vitro fertilization, have become unexceptional boons to human well-being.

Biomedical advances will always be incremental and hard-won, and foreseeable harms can be dealt with as they arise. The human body is staggeringly complex, vulnerable to entropy, shaped by evolution for youthful vigor at the expense of longevity, and governed by intricate feedback loops which ensure that any intervention will be compensated for by other parts of the system. Biomedical research will always be closer to Sisyphus than a runaway train — and the last thing we need is a lobby of so-called ethicists helping to push the rock down the hill.
</blockquote>

Note this is not an argument to push ahead with all forms of biomedical experimentation regardless of potential consequences. Instead, there is a clear obligation to anticipate foreseeable harms, and to deal with them in a timely manner. However, this principle should not be extended to a state of hyper-caution regarding potential unforeseen harms. That's because inaction (slow progress with biomedical research) also involves foreseeable harms.