The Ethical and the Natural -- Enhancement, Progress, and Responsible Decision-Making

Debates surrounding human enhancement and technological progress seem to be polarized, in part, on the basis of two conflicting definitions of natural:

1. That "Natural" refers to phenomena which would happen in the absence of human action or conscious volition.

2. That "natural" can be interpreted as basically anything that happens or comes into being as a result of life.

EDIT: Actually, I realize that I botched the second definition here -- rocks and volcanoes and weather and the formation of planets and stars are all "natural" but not "alive" or a result of life. I guess I'm just trying to say that I'd include "life" and the actions taken by living things under the umbrella of "natural". Or rather, I don't think the fact that something happens due to conscious volition of a sentient being somehow makes it unnatural.

Transhumanists and technological progressives would probably more commonly adhere to the second definition offered above. I once brought this second definition up during a discussion about the ethics of radical life extension, only to have someone inform me that using that particular definition was "nonproductive" and that it should basically have been obvious to me that the person I'd been debating with had an entirely different understanding of what "natural" meant.

I was rather surprised to hear this, because I quite honestly came to the second definition of "natural" and had no intention of playing what was referred to as semantic games in the discussion. Nevertheless, whether I intended "semantic games" or not, this is how it came across and I definitely thing it is important to address the issue of defining "natural" and possibly invoking other terms that may be more appropriate so as to avoid the confusion of using a word that means one thing in a particular person's lexicon, but something quite different in another person's lexicon.

As for the first definition above, I don't know of a better word to use than natural, but I do understand and, in essence, respect this definition and I think it has a place in terms of describing a certain class of phenomena. I will refer to this, for the sake of this discussion, as Nature (with a capital "N") while I'll refer to the second definition as "nature". The proper noun in the first case indicates the sense of reverence I've noted in some people when they come to their beliefs about what humans should and should not attempt to influence. These people are the ones likely to espouse what I've heard referred to as "deep ecology porn" -- the idea that, all things considered, the biosphere and possibly even the Universe would be better off without human influence. In a sense, this attitude evokes notions of guilt and original sin -- the viewpoint that a moral being must necessarily feel guilty for the inevitable disruption his or her existence presents to the surrounding ecology.

Now, as a transhumanist / technological progressive, I am extremely concerned about the environment, and do not deny that human influence can have (and has had) detrimental effects on the biosphere. I realize that a certain sort of balance is necessary for plants and animals (including humans) to survive and thrive, and that in some ways we have done grave harm to the Earth, and its lands and our fellow creatures. However, I don't think that this means that we should all commit mass suicide in this generation so that the biosphere can repair itself -- this would be just as illogical as saying that a person should kill themselves following a failed romantic relationship, or that you are obligated to knock down your entire house and start anew because you spilled a bucket of paint in the living room. There's no reason to apply absolutist and punitive responses to what should be a solvable problem.

I'm nearing the end of my third decade on this planet, and just in my lifetime I've seen a greatly increased cognizance of things like global warming, pollution, and waste. I remember recycling being dismissed as some kind of "hippie nonsense" by a lot of people back when I was in elementary school. I remember when people thought global warming was a hoax. I remember hearing quite a bit on the radio about how environmentalism was a threat to business. But now, there are large corporations realizing that they cannot wantonly pollute and that they are going to be held accountable for their effects on the biosphere. I work for one of these large corporations, and there is quite a bit of emphasis on, and encouragement of, environmental responsibility. The voices of those who noticed and pointed out the destruction of the environment are not going unheard, even by large, "impersonal" businesses. Not everyone has come around to an appropriate level of consciousness of these issues, but things are definitely getting better, not worse.

If things are getting better, then that should at least tell us that we as humans have the option, and the potential, to continue to progress technologically while at the same time being conscious of the effects of our influence and taking steps to mitigate harmful ramifications. This might indeed mean that we end up making a few mistakes and then cleaning up, but the solution to living peacefully with the rest of the ecosystem is not to eliminate our species. For all we know, human extinction might have serious and far-reaching detrimental effects that we could not possibly anticipate. Since we're here, and we're alive, the most positive solution seems to be to view our role on the Earth as something like that of a live-in caretaker. Yes, we benefit from being here and use resources to help us survive, but at the same time we think carefully about what we are doing, and why.

A call for technological progress must necessarily include a sense of responsibility. But it makes no sense to assume that, in all areas, we lack the appropriate judgement to exercise our conscious volition in a manner that is wise and beneficial. Just as humanity has the potential for evil and destruction, so do we also have the potential to plant forests and preserve wetlands and endangered animal species. When arguing about what is Natural, and assuming that respecting Nature is tantamount to non-interference, does it not follow that whatever we do consciously might therefore be construed as meddlesome?

As I interpret transhumanism, this philosophy would seem to suggest that not only are we as conscious beings capable of fixing our past mistakes, but also of making the world better and more hospitable to plants, animals, sub-ecosystems, and the overall biosphere. Right now, the world contains more evidence and examples of technological advancement than ever before -- but there are also areas that are far less polluted than previously. More technology, more progress, more knowledge, more exercising of human volition does not inevitably result in more destruction or even greater evidence of our supposed meddling.

Just as transhumanism can be applied in this way to environmental principles -- the idea that not only are we morally obligated to fix past transgressions but to look at means of avoiding similar mistakes in the future and working on ways to create a better and more hospitable earth for plants and animals alike -- it can be applied on the individual level, to individual sentient beings.

For instance, I am in favor of biotechnological and genetic research and the application of this research to the treatment of health problems and the enhancement of human experience. However, I do think that the focus of genetic and biotech should be on providing the opportunity for individuals to make choices in their own lives, not on imposing restrictions on what sorts of people are allowed to be born. As we apply environmental policies in a manner that integrates technology ethically into the biosphere (and recognizes that technology IS a part of the biosphere), we can also continue to learn the mechanisms behind and within living beings to enable individuals to help themselves and have greater control over their destiny than ever before.

Rather than assuming one has to be either a "bio-luddite" or a "eugenicist", it is better to evaluate issues on an individual basis and determine, on ethical grounds, what the best course of action would be. The solution to emerging technology, even risky technology, is not to avoid using it at all -- but rather to use it responsibly and cautiously.

For instance, it is one thing for a living person, who has gained a few years of experience in the world and made some decisions about their life goals, to decide that they'd like some sort of treatment or procedure that would enable him or her to run faster or store memories in a particular way. But it is quite another to attempt to genetically manipulate one's unborn offspring to form neural pathways at a particular rate, or grow to be a certain height, or have a certain skin color. A good cautionary principle in terms of genetic manipulation of any form might be: am I doing this because it will help me achieve my life goals, or because I am afraid or, or pandering to, some form of prejudice?

As I've noted before, I'm particularly concerned about the notion of possibly attempting to cure autism, and some have suggested that genetic research into the origins of autism should be focused on finding ways to deactivate these genes.

If we were successful at doing that, that would be a tragedy because the majority of challenges faced by autistic individuals are, in fact, prejudice-related rather than intrinsic.

A transhuman society that seeks to accept people who choose things like multiple extra limbs, green skin, eyeballs in very interesting places, super-accurate memory, and all sorts of other potential results of individually-defined enhancements (that will certainly necessitate biotechnological and / or genetic technology) must also be prepared to accept people who do not choose enhancements in any form, and people who are obviously autistic or disabled and who do not want to be cured. It doesn't make sense to suggest that people should be free to choose enhancements and that this is an expression of the respect of diversity, but that some things should be compulsory, and human society doesn't have room for some particular disabilities or differences.

Allowing autistic people to be born, and to opt to stay the way we are (for whatever that means) has nothing to do with the first, capital-N definition of Natural. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't "mess with Nature", it simply means that diversity and freedom need to encompass a much larger sphere than some might assume when first hearing about transhuman goals. In some ways, people on the autistic spectrum and with other things that are considered disabilities are actually optimized in certain ways for certain things.

People should most definitely feel free to assess their goals in life and choose post-birth enhancements that they feel would help them achieve these goals (or even things that come down to personal aesthetic preference, and there IS a difference between asserting an aesthetic preference and pandering to prejudice) -- but they should also respect that not everyone has the same goals or preferences. It is also extremely dangerous for an outside agent to start making judgements and assumptions about the subjective experience of another individual (i.e., "You don't know what you're missing!") This leads to the very sort of paternalistic thinking that transhumanism should seek to distance itself from.

After all, how do we know that rats don't pity us for lacking tails?

Right now my two main interests are transhumanism and autism, and in both these spheres of interest there seems to be a crowd of people who are intent on asserting that individuals do not have the right to judge and choose what is best for them. In the autism, or autistic, community, there are people who seek to champion cures and intensive treatments to supposedly eliminate the "tragedy" of the existence of autistic people. In the transhuman community (or at least in the "people who react to transhumanism" community), there are people who seek to suppress and halt efforts to extend the healthy human lifespan -- often on the basis of the assumption that individuals do not have the right to define the length of their own lives, because somehow their lives are going to be "less meaningful" and that people are going to "get bored".

It is striking how similar these arguments are -- the autism "curebies" as they're often referred to, and the anti life-extensionists. Both arguments are the assertion by an outside agent that because some individuals are not following a life path that meets someone's traditional idea of what a life should be, these people should have someone else's restrictions imposed on them, possibly by law. And in noting this similarity of argument, it is important to note that one might expect these groups to be enemies rather than allies, since one is seemingly championing the notion of little-n natural (the curebies, who would see science as an opportunity to "do whatever we can" to eliminate a certain type of person), and the other is thinking in terms of big-N Natural (the anti-life-extensionists, who see aging and death as an essential part of the human condition).

However, these two oppressive groups might not be united in their approach to defining natural -- but they are very closely united in the notion that all humans are somehow obligated to choose a particular kind of life and to be a particular kind of human, lest they risk not being permitted to adopt the mantle of "human" at all.

I still maintain that natural is something applicable to everything we do as human beings -- our consciousness and volition is the direct result of evolution and it is very natural for us to seek ways to increase our autonomy and transcend what we see as limits for our individual selves. And I also maintain that Natural -- when personified and referred to as a proper noun -- is not necessarily synonymous with "good". Aging and eventual death due to the effects of aging may be Natural, but to assert that this big-N Natural property somehow overrides the individual's desire not to die is unethical.

And respecting the rights of autistic people to exist as autistic people is not "good because it is Natural" but rather, good because it is ethical. Regardless of how a person defines natural and whether Nature is personified or viewed as an impersonal phenomenological force, it is clear that no definition is sufficient to allow us to be lax in determining the ethics of a situation.

Responsible transhumanism and technological progressive thought and policy seeks to consider cases of environmental effects and individual-level alteration not on the basis of whether it is natural in some sense, but whether it is good. And this is not easy, or quick, or something that can be figured out over a weekend. Rather it is to be an ongoing process of learning, discovering, discussing, assessing, and monitoring.