- The paper correctly points out that there is a continuum between standard medical technologies and “enhancements”, and that each needs to be treated on its merits, scientific / medical as well as “religious” / moral. The author doesn’t seem swayed by the “no playing God” lobby, as an a priori argument against transhumanism1. He points out that some of the claims are too fanciful for theological reflection. He sees no reason why helpful developments shouldn’t be encouraged, provided the risks, side-effects and diversion of funds from more urgent matters are taken into account. He seemed (to my mind) too ready to accept the use of performance-enhancing drugs for exams and such-like2. He points out that no amount of improvement and longevity is enough – but (cateris paribus), more is surely better.
- Compare with
- "Regis (Ed) - Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition: Science Slightly over the Edge", and
- "Grossman (Lev) - 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal".
- A useful link:- Link (Defunct) ("CSC WG - Human Enhancement – A Discussion Document")
Footnote 2: Two issues –
- What are exams for? … at least partly to compare people’s abilities and application – so we need a level playing field (as in sports).
- Can such enhancements be used continually, without side-effects – if so I agree that they are a “good thing” – though not for exams for the reason given above. But continual use may not be healthy.
Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)
- Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2018