People, and you at the top of that list, to thank above all for the inspiration. Thank you all. [applause] [inaudible conversations] more now from the recent conference at Princeton University called a worthy life finding meaning in america. The next panel focuses on bioethics and the potential for technology to advance the physical and mental capabilities of human beings. This is about one hour 45 minutes. We turn rather abruptly from the prescientific to the scientific come from the Human Experience of a human to the scientific account of man, its implications and what we imagine to be its implications. In book seven chapter one of the metaphysics aristotle says quote, in fact, the thing that is been sought both anciently and now, and always, and is always perplexing, is what is being . Does this question apply to the being that is asking to us . If so, and it seems so, then to paraphrase aristotle, the inquiry and perplexity in early times and now and always is this, what is human being . Our panelists are Christopher Tollefson come to see was professor of Philosophy University of south carolina, charles rubin, associate professor of Political Science duquesne university, and author of eclipse of man, human extinction, and the meaning of progress. Adam piper of the ethics and Public Policy center, manager of the new atlantis. Christopher. Thank you very much. Its a pleasure to be here. Unlike most of the panelist so far, im not a former student of leon. In fact, i feel the need to ask permission, can i call you leon . Okay. With that, even though im not a student i didnt feel a special kinship with leon yesterday. My wife and i homeschool our children and i was very surprised to hear him describe so accurately at the end of the q a session high school curriculum, first year bible. [laughing] but it might be at cspan so i will not say more about that. [laughing] so our panel titled is bioethics and the transhuman future. In an email to me, brad wilson also through into the subject heading the word post human future just for good measure. The question im going to ask today is what to post human and transhuman mean . Im going to argue that they have no meaning. There is no condition they could raise only be described in either of these ways. All the conditions that we see these names are either impossibilities, efficient human conditions, or amplifications but not changes of human nature as that already exist. Everything in category c is i think intrinsically permissible, but some of it might be impermissible because of its side effects and much of it is impermissible in approach. That is, the way it is readable to expect we get a cheap instances are themselves often more in principle. That also just at the end tells us something familiar about our likely future. The terms post human and transhuman thought referred to a kind of being descended from or perhaps caused by or created by human beings but no longer of that species. We consider our generations living out and imagine various modifications and transformations of our descendents to the point at which looking forward we are no longer willing to say those descendents are human. This is the possibility that i denied because everything falls into one of the three categories i mentioned. So three imagine possibilities that seem to me to be instances of a on the following. And the first which leon yesterday referred to as the big enchilada, just by nature gets capitalize when i wrote it down, is posthuman to send will be immortal. The second possibility is related to my posthuman descendents might primarily be forms of information i can be download onto various platforms. And third our descendents might be transformed over time by secession of neural prosthetics brain computer interfaces to the point their intelligence is in some important sense artificial. Our posthuman future with into the future of a certain kind of machine. If there were entities of any of these three swords they would legitimately deserve to be called host or transhuman it as i think human beings are living animals and hence material beings whose form is nevertheless, an immaterial and intellect so which is not identical to the person that any of us is. This description gives us the essence of what we are, rational animals. Anything that is not a rational animal cannot one of us and none of the three possibilities just mentioned would or could be rational animals. Therefore they would that be one of us. So then could they constitute a different kind of person . Rational beings that were not rational animals. I think the answer is no fight it recognize these three imagine outcomes as real possibilities. No material persons could by their nature be immortal because we are bodily beings. We thus contain inevitable seas of her own dk anticline. Said no animal in this world is immortal and no immortal thing in this world is an animal or indeed any material being at all. But now the could of principle or person rather in principle be replicable or downloadable as software because persons are as certain medieval theologians thought and some contemporary person was voted incommunicable. This idea the incommunicable of persons concerned their intrinsic uniqueness in an argument like this, persons cant be replicated because they are unique and they are unique because a person. The idea can be linked to the idea of Human Dignity as found in the capacity for reason and choice. Choice is by its nature on replicable and nonexchangeable. The choice that you make can always or can always only be your choice and it could be inherited a clone or repeated by the realization of a piece of software on multiple platforms. Anything not numerically identical to you, that is, not the very same living organism as you that thinks that is made a choice that you made is in error. An error in fact, the compromise is that beings autonomy saddling them with the consequences of the choice that another made into which it is not consented. Infants under an illusion. Now since no person is communicable the idea of replicable persons, downloadable persons is an illusion. But it also i think probably the only possible way to think about immortal persons that are descended from us and snow Building Material being can be immortal. The project of keeping maternal beings of my forever just seems to me obviously chimerical but the project of keeping persons in a state of pure information i think is conceptually incoherent. So the art apostle beings who could reasonably be called transhuman or posthuman who would be descended from us. So, the idea, the things that really would be post human, ever thinking into the future to something that would be reasonable to describe as post human, they are in fact possibilities. One other possibility has argued that the possibility for any human enhancement should be moral and enhancement, making humans more poorly developed. Otherwise the new powers we would develop would be used for ill with bad consequences. We would still be bad people but smarter bad people. The project, morality is about having an upright will and this isnt something that can be made to be the case for another person. The attempts to make human beings moral or more moral can succeed. What about b . Their modifications to human beings that are conceivable and will be realized by some accents in the future. Prospects that are viewed as unambiguous benefits are not the thought of in that way. The most plausible, maybe, because in some cases its already actual concern human reproduction. Reproduction without sex is a reality with ivf babies. There are those who would like to see this process moved forward to be the norm both ethically and descriptively. Those who have children should do so effectivel intentionally. Failure to do so is a violation of social responsibility that most people will agree that the best way to have children is the one which puts as much power as possible in the hands of parents and the doctors to bring about desired results. Among the extreme proponents argue avenues of pursuing these basic goods are always impermissible. Those that threaten to degrade them as a side effect are to be treated with great suspicion. It directly threatens the good of marriage. There are threatening possibilities. They noted the possibility of using drugs or other techniques to block painful memories in the seems that good with knowledge and personal activity. Use of drugs, one can imagine enhancements are interventions that could be distorted of of these goods, deliberately creating human beings i couldnt see or hear would be an attempt to deprived capabilities that will be contrary to the good of health. By creating artificial boundaries between persons or by destroying natural but essential boundaries between persons, Virtual Realities and simulation technologies threatened to do the former. Efforts to make human beings more transparent as in some forms of imaging threaten to do the latter. In a rolling humanism, it erodes the self. These are technologies and not directed forms of evolution but maybe they could be made into direct forms of evolution. No longer they need to worry about the ability to pursue human goods such as friendship. If they were to erode that they would be intrinsically wrong but if it was only a side effect of something that was good in another way there would be reasons to view it as dehumanizing and no reason to think of it as transcending the human condition. Still, fluidity is this category that indicates the existence of category c, forms of enhancement that are possible and not posed or trans human. Is there any principle of way of identifying that boundary or things to be weary of things in that category. I think theres both. The first is rudimentary and in the need of refinement. Enhancement to aspects of our body including our brains that are instrumental to our pursuit of basic goods are in themselves permissible. We consider a range of physical enhancements that might be possible, stronger, smarter, faster human beings, all these are possible ways of enhancing the human that would be conducive to the pursuit of genuine human goods. They might involve toward any of or all of these states and we have no reason to mourn that situation. There are some great areas. Ill mention one. The human form and human face are capable of great beauty. Could human beings be modified in ways that enhance the beauty. I think they could. My argument would be permissible. Could they be modified for the worst aesthetically, yes. Some of the possible motivations make the project intrinsically immoral. The desire to make human beings ugly, and the attempt to modify the human to be reptilian or Something Else all seem to be denials of that good and so intrinsically, impermissible. There will be a great area for the sake of the beautiful and what falls in the category of the most basic case of tattooin tattooing. Returning to the general question of enhancing that which is instrumental to the pursuit of the good, in a sense it seems fairly wideopen. We could enhance them in the future in many ways that would come in the short and long run augment the realization of basic human goods. Even if we did this radically to the extent not currently imaginable, we would not be changing our nature. They are rational animals and of her descendents are rational and living beings, as they would need to be, then they would also be human beings, however different from us. Rather than sowing the seeds for the post human we would be amplifying our capabilities. The field ought not to be quite open for two reasons. First, as i pointed out, side effects are always an issue. It can bring side effects that have moral countries that should be avoided. What effect on competition and sport wouldnt have which is a familiar instance. The general difficulty of even knowing what are the possible side effects of global enhancements makes responsible research in this area very difficult, almost to the point. [inaudible] then there is the second reason. Its difficult for me to imagine significant progress being made on the project of genetically improving human beings that doesnt involve research, experimentation with human embryos in ways that are morally wrong. Whats wrong includes all research on embryos and those suffered by embryonic human beings. Embryos should be treated as Research Subjects in the absence of their consent except necessary when to save their lives or to help them avoid radical efficiencies. The only kinds of permissible interventions are those that are attempts to enhance. It seems to me essential that there are illicit interventions to enable us to seek the good in new and superior ways in which are not attempts to cure disease or alleviate disability than those interventions should only be. [inaudible] some would be inheritable but most wouldnt be. If this guideline was followed i expect the path toward the modified but no way transcended human would be much slower than we might otherwise expect. My final point, i dont expect Scientific Research will go forward only in morally permissible ways. Where genuine enhancements are at issue as opposed to futile attempts or wellintentioned but misguided attempts that results in dehumanization, i expect in the future our situation will be this, some and perhaps many good things enjoyed by those human beings will be the result of the moral unjust and occasionally horrific actions of those human beings ancestors, and that is not a post or trans human situation to be in. Thank you. [applause] i am honored to be included in these panels and much appreciate the kindness of robbery dash robbie and brad inviting me. Unlike so many others on this panel, my facetoface contact has been quite limited over the years. I thought i was going to win the least contact with him, but i am nonetheless the fully deeply grateful. I hope what im about to say does justice to the gratitude i feel to him, but i guess i also have to say that the peter lawlers is the other guy in these interior monologues, hes usually considerably less patient than mr. Kass, more critical, more likely to point out the weakness of my face but greatly valued for all that. Today we see wide interest in Ongoing Research and development of artificially intelligent robots as companions, as caregivers, as sexual partners. Japan has become famous, but itfor dealing developing caregiver robots to look after an aging population. Its happening all over. Indeed, the Scientific American blogs had a posting headline, grandmas little robot, machine that can read and react to social cues may be more acceptable companions and caregivers. I know this audience will appreciate the great caution of that formulation. They may be more acceptable as companions and caregivers. Meanwhile, it seems to be an truism that robots are the next big thing in the sex trade and creation of sex bots are ongoing. Results have quite a gap between the sensationalistic claims of headline and the actual achievements that are visible in photographs and videos that appear competing these stories on legitimate websites. [laughter] , but in nevertheless, the effort is ongoing and it is backed by powerful commercial and, in the case of the caregiving robots, medical motives. At the same time, there are impressive develop developments in Artificial Intelligence that has been highlighted a self driving cars, a program that plays go at the highest level, various highquality medical diagnostic systems that have come online. These are admittedly not examples of what is usually called strong ai which is Artificial Intelligence that shows Something Like the full range of the abilities of the human mind. Increasingly, these expert systems are developed through programming techniques that allow them to teach themselves which, to me at least suggest the possibility of developing far more wide ranging intellectual abilities at some point in the future. In short, given the notoriously rapid rate of development, in the longer term it may well be that an effort to create an artificial humanlike mind is not a full errand and already it could be matched with a virtual body, and onscreen body that, under limited circumstances, might be mistaken for human in and onscreen encounter, and in the not distant future, im confident these avatars will become yet more convincing. Talking to one of them will be like talking to someone you are escaping with. Real embodiment is further off than many of those working on the field seem to think. These people often seem to fall prey to a syndrome when promoting their own work, but i have no doubt of the ability of human ingenuity to ultimately try it as well. The achievement of a robot with a human like mind and a humanlike body would be a great advance from the perspective of those who advocate the trans human or post human future where intelligence is no longer bound to the constraints of the organic body that has been decreased us as they see it as the random process of evolution. Note that the drive for these humanlike robots has little to do with these trans human and post human aspirations. Now, in Popular Culture, it is very firmly established that the future includes the development of these kind of robotic beings and has been for some time. It is my understanding that a great many of those engaged in the development of ai and robotics cringe at the notion that either ai or the robot itself would have to be humanlike. A self driving car, for example, does not need a robot taxi driver at the wheel in order to work, and even the emotionally rich applications of Artificial Intelligence im speaking about would not have to push the boundaries. After all, we know people are already engaged in sex act with objects and dolls. Anyway, the tech blogs, many of the emotionally supportive robots that are being developed model human and animal interaction rather than human human interactions and their embodiments are part of that. Of course a nurse robot would not have to look like a human nurse to take a temperature or issue you your medications. Yet, i think we should note and take Popular Culture seriously because our imaginations do push and its our particular physicality that allows us to perform the many assistive functions that that same physicality calls for. Our bodies in our mind allow us to use the tools and play the many roles that human beings require of each other because we are minded and embodied in the way that we are. The familiar form of our physicality provides a potential to be pleasurable in and of itself. Popular culture has also wondered about them moral status o