Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Mind Matters News: The deadly dream of Human+ Look at the price tag…


Some are prepared to sacrifice actual humans now for the hope of future immortality:

But will this dream of Human+ end in nightmare? If we accept neo-Darwinian biology as the unimpeachable starting point for defining human personhood, transhumanists like Warwick are committed to some form of the following argument:

Premise 1: Evolving biological systems are the natural explanation for human personhood

Premise 2: Evolving biological systems are indeterminate

Premise 3: All emergent properties (mind, consciousness, soul, etc.…) are contingent on the evolving biological system

Premise 4: Any emergent property that is contingent on an indeterminate biological system is itself indeterminate

Premise 5: Human personhood is a contingent property of the human body

Conclusion: Therefore, human personhood is indeterminate

In premises 1 through 5, human personhood is taken as a contingent property tied to the process of evolution. If these premises are sound, then the definition of “human person” can freely evolve with each new phase in the transhumanist program of self-enhancement.

The moral implications are significant. Without a fixed and final definition of human personhood, there is no foundation for a fixed and final ethic of “human” rights. After all, writes Michael Tennison, “arguments for the moral impermissibility of enhancement fail when morality itself is the capacity to be enhanced.”1 Tennison’s admission may be jarring, but transhumanists consider the evolution of morality as a strength — not a limitation — of their mission.

J. R. Miller, “The deadly dream of Human+ Look at the price tag…” at Mind Matters News (January 30, 2022)

Takehome: Without a fixed and final definition of human personhood, there is no foundation for a fixed and final ethic of “human” rights.

You may also wish to read: Is transhumanism really a form of liberation? The central transhumanist doctrine is that the body can be dispensed with. What are the consequences? Post Millennial editor Libby Emmons asks, what horrors will we inflict on others if we have forgotten what it means to inflict pain and to suffer?

Again, the obvious is ignored. What is preventing any species from developing relatively superior capabilities if natural evolution is true? The answer: nothing. In fact we should expect it. Thus natural evolution whatever the process, is self limiting. Which means that Darwin’s ideas are self refuting. Meanwhile ID is chasing after the wrong counterproductive approaches. jerry
This seems awfully fancy. The genocidists aren't using multi-stage syllogisms to exterminate "TheHumanPerson", whatever that means. They simply need to kill everyone who isn't up to their standards. Now they have the power to do it, and arguing with syllogisms isn't going to take away their power. Enhancement isn't the core of the problem. Clothing and prosthetics and eyeglasses and ear trumpets have been around for thousands of years, and didn't contribute to genocide. There's no essential or moral difference between an ear trumpet and an electronic hearing aid and a cochlear implant. The implant doesn't unTheHumanPerson its user, whatever that means. polistra

Leave a Reply