Season 3, Episode 13: Back to the Future

Not only has an experimental treatment allowed Bob to regain his sight, but it seems that the treatment has awakened a long dormant “sixth sense” within him. Olivier Roth – the man responsible for the smiley faces in connection with the engineered smallpox and magnetobacteria in previous episodes – has taken Bob to a secret location. With cells from Bob’s brain, Roth hopes to “change humanity [and] evolve the species.”

In this final installment of ReGenesis: Science & Society for Season III, guest author George Dvorsky explores some of the issues around the use of scientific and medical advances for the development of new or enhanced capabilities and capacities in humans.

Therapy or enhancement?

At what point does a medical intervention become an enhancement? Should people be allowed to modify themselves and their offspring beyond what is “naturally” possible? Could some biotechnologies alter individuals to such an extent that they can no longer be considered human? And if so, what problems could this pose for people and society?

These are a few of the many questions raised in the ReGenesis episode, “Back to the Future,” in which one of the characters, Bob Melnikov, begins to acquire capacities that go beyond what is considered normal human functioning. Specifically, he experiences a transformation of sorts when a dormant gene awakens within him, which enables him to better sense his environment and the moods of people around him. He develops improved chemosensory capacities – the ability to better ‘smell’ the pheromones of others.

As a result, Bob can better sense the emotional state of people around him; this ‘sixth sense’ also enables him to better empathize with those people. The change is so pronounced that he is considered to be “genetically evolved to a higher state of being.” Consequently, he is seen by Olivier Roth as a genetic saviour of sorts – the carrier of “seeds to a new generation” from which human malice and ambivalence could conceivably be eradicated.

The transhuman condition

The scenario as presented in this episode brings to mind the futuristic vision of the transhumanists – a group of thinkers and activists who contend that humanity can and should use advanced biotechnologies to extend and enhance human capacities.

More specifically, transhumanists advocate increased funding and awareness for research into radically extending healthy human lifespans. They favour the development of medical and technological means to improve such things as memory, concentration, intelligence and physical capacities. They argue that all people should have the option to use such means to enhance various dimensions of their cognitive, emotional and physical well-being. Transhumanists consider these types of advancements as natural extensions of the traditional aims of medicine and technology to improve the human condition.

To this end, transhumanists are supportive of research into human genomics, biogerontology (the study of the causes of aging), cognitive pharmaceuticals, stem cells and other regenerative medicines. A number of these ‘transhumanistic’ biotechnological possibilities were showcased in this episode, including gene therapy employing viral transmission of genetic data, the regeneration of Bob’s optical nerve, and the acquisition – or creation – of an entirely new sense.

Looking ahead to the future, transhumanists consider the potential for technologies such as cybernetics, nanotechnology and artificial intelligence to significantly alter the human species. They envision radically advanced ‘transhumans’ and ‘posthumans’ who live indefinite life spans and who have cognitive capacities that vastly exceed our own.

Utopia or dystopia?

Yet, as David remarks to Bob in this episode, in considering enhancement, humans don’t know if they’re “stepping into a puddle or an abyss.”

Needless to say, the transhumanist vision is not shared by all. A growing number of critics of transhumanism warn that the changes to humanity envisioned by transhumanists would be far too risky and potentially harmful, not just physically but also socially; for example, some argue that only the rich and powerful would have access to and stand to benefit from these technologies, which could intensify social stratification and drive people apart.

Others contend that transhumanism threatens humanity’s very ‘nature’ or ‘essence’– an intangible and delicate characteristic that has allowed us to remain co-operative, compassionate and social creatures. It is through our flaws, struggles and deficiencies, they argue, that humans find value and meaning in life.

Yet, the notion that human nature can be by-passed or controlled by certain types of interventions is nothing new. During the totalitarian experiments of the 20th century, it was thought that social institutions, authoritarian eugenics, and the control of information could create a veritable utopia – or at the very least a vastly better world. But intrinsic human nature, it would seem, has a tendency to trump even social engineering.

Thus, it should come as no surprise that, at the dawn of the biotech revolution, humanity’s very nature is once again being re-evaluated. As suggested in this episode, changes to human behaviour could vastly improve the ills of society. “We will change humanity, evolve the species,” claims Roth, the renegade activist. No longer content to affect change through social initiatives and interventions, he and his clandestine organization work to alter humanity’s genetic constitution in hopes that “better” people will create a better society.

An issue of choice

These are complicated issues. Change can be challenging, but it isn’t necessarily a bad thing. And through advances in medicine and biotechnology, some changes are inevitable. The question is, how can we ensure that these changes are undertaken in the most humanitarian and productive ways?

One thing that is certain is that people should not be coerced into undergoing any types of radical “treatments” or alterations. The idea of a centralized and imposed vision for humanity runs contrary to the transhumanist vision. Rather, transhumanists rally around the rights of individuals to decide what they feel is right for themselves and their offspring.

Ultimately, it is an issue of choice.

-- George P. Dvorsky

About the author

George Dvorsky serves on the Board of Directors for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. He is also the Advisory Chair for the online science and technology magazine, Betterhumans; Co-Founder and President of the Toronto Transhumanist Association; and, the producer of the Sentient Developments blog and podcast, available at http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com. Mr. Dvorsky also served as conference chair for TransVision 2004, the World Transhumanist Association’s annual conference.

More food for thought

Q: What is the difference between therapy and enhancement? What kinds of “enhancements” are available to people today?
Q: Transhumanists envision a future of radically advanced people “who live indefinite life spans and who have cognitive capacities that scarcely resemble our own.” Do you think this is likely? Do you think this is desirable? Why or why not?
Q: The author states that “transhumanists rally around the rights of individuals to decide what they feel is right for themselves and their offspring.” What do you think? Should people be allowed to decide for themselves what is best? Or should society – through laws and regulations – put limits on what choices are available to individuals?

Want to read and learn more?

To learn more about transhumanism, visit these sites:
http://www.transhumanism.org/
http://www.betterhumans.com

For more on human enhancement, visit:
http://www.thehumanfuture.org/themes/human_enhancement/background.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_enhancement