Editing Transhumanism (section)

=== Ethics ===
{{Humanism}}
Transhumanists engage in [[interdisciplinary]] approaches to understand and evaluate possibilities for overcoming biological limitations by drawing on [[futurology]] and various fields of ethics.{{citation needed|date=December 2017}} Unlike many philosophers, social critics, and activists who morally value preservation of natural systems, transhumanists see the concept of the specifically natural as problematically nebulous at best and an obstacle to progress at worst.<ref name="Bostrom, Sandberg 2002">{{cite web |author=[[Nick Bostrom|Bostrom, Nick]] |author2=[[Anders Sandberg|Sandberg, Anders]]| title = The Wisdom of Nature: An Evolutionary Heuristic for Human Enhancement |website=Nick Bostrom |date=2007| url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/evolution.pdf| access-date=September 18, 2007}}</ref> In keeping with this, many prominent transhumanist advocates, such as Dan Agin, call transhumanism's critics, on the political right and left jointly, "[[Bioconservatism|bioconservatives]]" or "[[neo-luddism|bioluddites]]", the latter term alluding to the 19th-century [[luddite|anti-industrialisation]] social movement that opposed the replacement of human manual labourers by machines.<ref name="Hughes 2002"/>

A belief of counter-transhumanism is that transhumanism can cause unfair human enhancement in many areas of life, but specifically on the social plane. This can be compared to steroid use, [[Doping in sport|where athletes who use steroids in sports have an advantage over those who do not]]. The same disparity may happen when people have certain neural implants that give them an advantage in the workplace and in education.<ref name="Tennison 2012"/> Additionally, according to M.J. McNamee and S.D. Edwards, many fear that the improvements afforded by a specific, privileged section of society will lead to a division of the human species into two different species.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|jstor=27719694|doi=10.1136/jme.2005.013789|pmid=16943331|pmc=2563415|title=Transhumanism, medical technology and slippery slopes|journal=Journal of Medical Ethics|volume=32|issue=9|pages=513–518|year=2006|last1=McNamee|first1=M. J.|last2=Edwards|first2=S. D.}}</ref> The idea of two human species, one at a great physical and economic advantage over with the other, is troublesome at best. One may be incapable of breeding with the other, and may by consequence of lower physical health and ability, be considered of a lower moral standing than the other.<ref name=":0" />

[[Nick Bostrom]] has said that transhumanism advocates for the wellbeing of all sentient beings, including [[non-human animals]], [[Extraterrestrial life|extraterrestrials]], and artificial forms of life.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Transhumanist Values |url=https://nickbostrom.com/ethics/values#:~:text=Transhumanism%20advocates%20the%20well-being,and%20religious%20intolerance%20are%20unacceptable. |access-date=2022-12-21 |website=nickbostrom.com}}</ref> This view is reiterated by [[David Pearce (philosopher)|David Pearce]], who advocates the use of biotechnology to eradicate suffering in all [[sentient beings]].<ref name="The Hedonistic Imperative">{{Cite web |title=The Hedonistic Imperative |url=https://www.hedweb.com/ |access-date=2022-12-21 |website=www.hedweb.com}}</ref>