Editing Transhumanism (section)

=== Loss of human identity ===
[[File:Amish vs modern transportation.jpg|thumb|In the U.S., the [[Amish]] are a religious group most known for their avoidance of certain modern technologies. Transhumanists draw a parallel by arguing that in the near-future there will probably be "humanish", people who choose to "stay human" by not adopting human enhancement technologies. They believe their choice must be respected and protected.<ref name="Alexander 2000"/>]]

In his 2003 book ''Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age'', [[environmental ethics|environmental ethicist]] [[Bill McKibben]] argued at length against many of the technologies that are postulated or supported by transhumanists, including [[germinal choice technology]], [[nanomedicine]] and [[life extension]] strategies. He claims that it would be morally wrong for humans to tamper with fundamental aspects of themselves (or their children) in an attempt to overcome universal human limitations, such as vulnerability to [[aging]], [[maximum life span]] and biological constraints on physical and cognitive ability. Attempts to "improve" themselves through such manipulation would remove limitations that provide a necessary context for the experience of meaningful human choice. He claims that human lives would no longer seem meaningful in a world where such limitations could be overcome technologically. Even the goal of using germinal choice technology for clearly therapeutic purposes should be relinquished, since it would inevitably produce temptations to tamper with such things as cognitive capacities. He argues that it is possible for societies to benefit from renouncing particular technologies, using as examples [[Ming Dynasty|Ming China]], [[Tokugawa shogunate|Tokugawa Japan]] and the contemporary [[Amish]].<ref name="McKibben 2003"/>

[[Biopolitical]] activist [[Jeremy Rifkin]] and biologist [[Stuart Newman]] accept that biotechnology has the power to make profound changes in [[organism]]al identity. They argue against the genetic engineering of human beings because they fear the blurring of the boundary between human and [[Cultural artifact|artifact]].<ref name="Newman 2003"/><ref name="Otchet 1998"/> Philosopher Keekok Lee sees such developments as part of an accelerating trend in [[modernization]] in which technology has been used to transform the "natural" into the "artefactual".<ref name="Lee 1999"/> In the extreme, this could lead to the manufacturing and enslavement of "[[monster]]s" such as [[human clone]]s, [[human-animal hybrid|human-animal]] [[chimera (genetics)|chimeras]], or [[bioroid]]s, but even lesser dislocations of humans and non-humans from [[social structure|social]] and [[ecosystem|ecological]] systems are seen as problematic. The film ''[[Blade Runner]]'' (1982) and the novels ''[[The Boys from Brazil (novel)|The Boys From Brazil]]'' (1976) and ''[[The Island of Doctor Moreau]]'' (1896) depict elements of such scenarios, but Mary Shelley's 1818 novel ''[[Frankenstein|Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus ]]'' is most often alluded to by critics who suggest that biotechnologies could create [[objectification|objectified]] and [[anomie|socially unmoored]] people as well as [[untermensch|subhumans]]. Such critics propose that strict measures be implemented to prevent what they portray as [[dehumanization|dehumanizing]] possibilities from ever happening, usually in the form of an international [[ban (law)|ban]] on human genetic engineering.<ref name="Darnovsky Crossroads"/>

[[Science journalist]] [[Ronald Bailey]] claims that McKibben's historical examples are flawed and support different conclusions when studied more closely.<ref name="Bailey 2003"/> For example, few groups are more cautious than the Amish about embracing new technologies, but, though they shun television and use horses and buggies, some are welcoming the possibilities of [[gene therapy]] since inbreeding has afflicted them with a number of rare genetic diseases.<ref name="Stock 2002"/> Bailey and other supporters of technological alteration of human biology also reject the claim that life would be experienced as meaningless if some human limitations are overcome with [[enhancement technologies]] as extremely subjective.

Writing in ''[[Reason (magazine)|Reason]]'' magazine, Bailey has accused opponents of research involving the modification of animals as indulging in [[alarmism]] when they speculate about the creation of subhuman creatures with human-like intelligence and brains resembling those of ''[[Homo sapiens]]''. Bailey insists that the aim of conducting research on animals is simply to produce human [[health care]] benefits.<ref name="Bailey 2001"/>

A different response comes from transhumanist [[personhood theory|personhood theorists]] who object to what they characterize as the anthropomorphobia fueling some criticisms of this research, which science fiction writer [[Isaac Asimov]] termed the "[[Frankenstein complex]]". For example, [[Woody Evans]] argues that, provided they are [[self-aware]], human clones, human-animal chimeras and [[biological uplift|uplifted animals]] would all be unique persons deserving of respect, dignity, rights, responsibilities, and [[citizenship]].<ref Name="Evans 2015"/> They conclude that the coming ethical issue is not the creation of so-called monsters, but what they characterize as the "[[wisdom of repugnance|yuck factor]]" and "[[Human exceptionalism|human-racism]]", that would judge and treat these creations as monstrous.<ref name="Hughes 2005"/><ref name="Glenn 2003"/> In book 3 of his ''Corrupting the Image'' series, Douglas Hamp goes so far as to suggest that the Beast of John's Apocalypse is himself a hybrid who will induce humanity to take "the [[Number of the beast|mark of the Beast]]," in the hopes of obtaining perfection and immortality.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Hamp |first=Douglas |title=Corrupting the Image 3: Singularity, Superhumans, and the Second Coming of Jesus |publisher=Eskaton Media Group |year=2022 |isbn=978-1-63821-417-5 |location=USA |pages=129–130}}</ref>

At least one [[public interest]] organization, the U.S.-based [[Center for Genetics and Society]], was formed, in 2001, with the specific goal of opposing transhumanist agendas that involve transgenerational modification of human biology, such as full-term [[human cloning]] and [[germinal choice technology]]. The [[Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future]] of the [[Chicago-Kent College of Law]] critically scrutinizes proposed applications of genetic and nanotechnologies to human biology in an academic setting.

{{anchor|Genetic divide}}