Editing Transhumanism (section)

=== Socioeconomic effects ===
Some critics of [[libertarian transhumanism]] have focused on the likely socioeconomic consequences in societies in which [[economic inequality|divisions between rich and poor]] are on the rise. [[Bill McKibben]], for example, suggests that emerging human enhancement technologies would be disproportionately available to those with greater financial resources, thereby exacerbating the gap between rich and poor and creating a "genetic divide".<ref name="McKibben 2003"/> Even [[Lee M. Silver]], the biologist and [[science writer]] who coined the term "[[reprogenetics]]" and supports its applications, has expressed concern that these methods could create a two-tiered society of genetically engineered "haves" and "have nots" if [[social safety net|social democratic reforms]] lag behind implementation of enhancement technologies.<ref name="Silver 1998"/> The 1997 film ''[[Gattaca]]'' depicts a dystopian society in which one's social class depends entirely on genetic potential and is often cited by critics in support of these views.<ref name="Hughes 2004"/>

These criticisms are also voiced by [[criticism of libertarianism|non-libertarian]] transhumanist advocates, especially self-described [[democratic transhumanist]]s, who believe that the majority of current or future [[social issues|social]] and [[environmental issues]] (such as [[unemployment]] and [[resource depletion]]) must be addressed by a combination of political and technological solutions (like a [[guaranteed minimum income]] and [[alternative technology]]). Therefore, on the specific issue of an emerging genetic divide due to unequal access to human enhancement technologies, bioethicist James Hughes, in his 2004 book ''[[Citizen Cyborg|Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future]]'', argues that [[progressivism|progressives]] or, more precisely, [[techno-progressive]]s, must articulate and implement public policies (i.e., a [[universal health care]] [[voucher]] system that covers human enhancement technologies) to attenuate this problem as much as possible, rather than trying to ban human enhancement technologies. The latter, he argues, might actually worsen the problem by making these technologies unsafe or available only to the wealthy on the local [[black market]] or in countries where such a ban is not enforced.<ref name="Hughes 2004"/>

Sometimes, as in the writings of [[Leon Kass]], the fear is that various institutions and practices judged as fundamental to civilized society would be damaged or destroyed.<ref name="Kass 2001"/> In his 2002 book ''[[Our Posthuman Future]]'' and in a 2004 ''[[Foreign Policy (magazine)|Foreign Policy]]'' magazine article, political economist and philosopher [[Francis Fukuyama]] designates transhumanism as the [[world's most dangerous idea]] because he believes it may undermine the egalitarian ideals of [[democracy]] (in general) and [[liberal democracy]] (in particular) through a fundamental alteration of "[[human nature]]".<ref name="Fukuyama 2004"/> Social philosopher [[Jürgen Habermas]] makes a similar argument in his 2003 book ''The Future of Human Nature'', in which he asserts that moral autonomy depends on not being subject to another's unilaterally imposed specifications. Habermas thus suggests that the human "species ethic" would be undermined by embryo-stage genetic alteration.<ref name="Habermas 2004"/> Critics such as Kass and Fukuyama hold that attempts to significantly alter human biology are not only inherently immoral, but also threaten the [[social order]]. Alternatively, they argue that implementation of such technologies would likely lead to the "naturalizing" of [[social hierarchy|social hierarchies]] or place new means of control in the hands of totalitarian regimes. [[AI]] pioneer [[Joseph Weizenbaum]] criticizes what he sees as [[misanthropic]] tendencies in the language and ideas of some of his colleagues, in particular Minsky and Moravec, which, by devaluing the human organism per se, promotes a discourse that enables divisive and undemocratic social policies.<ref name="Platt 1995"/>

In a 2004 article in the libertarian monthly ''[[Reason (magazine)|Reason]],'' science journalist [[Ronald Bailey]] contested Fukuyama's assertions by arguing that political equality has never rested on the facts of human biology. He asserts that [[liberalism]] was founded not on the proposition of effective equality of human beings, or ''de facto'' equality, but on the assertion of an equality in political rights and before the law, or ''de jure'' equality. Bailey asserts that the products of genetic engineering may well ameliorate rather than exacerbate human inequality, giving to the many what were once the privileges of the few. Moreover, he argues, "the crowning achievement of the Enlightenment is the principle of tolerance". In fact, he says, political liberalism is already the solution to the issue of human and [[posthuman]] rights since in liberal societies the law is meant to apply equally to all, no matter how rich or poor, powerful or powerless, educated or ignorant, enhanced or unenhanced.<ref name="Bailey 2004"/> Other thinkers sympathetic to transhumanist ideas, such as [[Russell Blackford]], have also objected to the appeal to [[traditional values|tradition]] and what they see as [[alarmism]] involved in ''Brave New World''-type arguments.<ref name="Blackford 2003"/>

==== Cultural aesthetics ====
In addition to the socioeconomic risks and implications of transhumanism, there are indeed implications and possible consequences in regard to cultural aesthetics. Currently, there are a number of ways in which people choose to represent themselves in society. The way in which a person dresses, hair styles, and body alteration all serve to identify the way a person presents themselves and is perceived by society. According to Foucault,<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|jstor=20010374|title=Pragmatism, Artificial Intelligence, and Posthuman Bioethics: Shusterman, Rorty, Foucault|journal=Human Studies|volume=27|issue=3|pages=241–258|last1=Abrams|first1=Jerold J.|year=2004|doi=10.1023/B:HUMA.0000042130.79208.c6|s2cid=144876752}}</ref> society already governs and controls bodies by making them feel watched. This "surveillance" of society dictates how the majority of individuals choose to express themselves aesthetically.

One of the risks outlined in a 2004 article by Jerold Abrams is the elimination of differences in favor of universality. This, he argues, will eliminate the ability of individuals to subvert the possibly oppressive, dominant structure of society by way of uniquely expressing themselves externally. Such control over a population would have dangerous implications of tyranny. Yet another consequence of enhancing the human form not only cognitively, but physically, will be the reinforcement of "desirable" traits which are perpetuated by the dominant social structure.<ref name=":1" />