Now to Princeton University in new jersey for a look at the bioethics of medical technology aimed at enhancing the physical and mental capabilities that human beings. This is about an hour and a half. We turn rather abruptly from the prescientific to the scientific, from the Human Experience of the human to the scientific account of man, simplifications and what we imagine to be its implications. In book seven, chapter one of the metaphysics, aristotle says, quote, in fact the thing that has been sought both anciently and now and always and is always perplexing is what is being, end quote. 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 always exist, what is human being . Our panelists are christopher tollison, distinguished professor of philosophy at the university of south carolina. Charles rubin come associate professor of Political Science at Duquesne University and author of the clips of man, Human Extinction in the meaning of progress. Adam kuiper of the ethics and Public Policy center, editor of the new atlantis. Thank you berry match. It is a pleasure to be here. Unlike most of the panelists so far, i am not a former student. In fact, i was introduced yesterday morning. I feel the need to ask permission. Can i claim leon . Okay. Even though im not a student, i did feel a special kinship with leon yesterday. My wife and i homeschool our children and i was very surprised to hearing them describe so accurately at the end of the q a session are high school curriculum, firstyear bible. [laughter] i might be on cspan, so im not going to say more about that. [laughter] so, our panel title is bioethics in the transhuman future. In the email to me, brad wilson also threw into the subject heading the posthuman future, just for good measure. The question i will ask today is what you posthuman and transhuman mean . I am going to argue that they have no meaning, no condition that could be described in either of these ways. All the conditions that see these names are read during possibilities, deficient human conditions or amplification, but not changes of human nature that already exist. Everything in category c. Is, i think im intrinsically permissible, but some of it might be impermissible because of its side effects and much of it is impermissible and approach. The way it is reasonable to expect weekend achieve are themselves often morally impermissible and that all suggest that the end something familiar about her likely future. It turns posthuman and transhuman are thought to refer to a kind of being descended from or perhaps caused by or created by human beings, but no longer of that species. We consider generations now and imagine various modifications and transformations of our descendents to the point at which looking forward, we are no longer willing to say that those descendents are humane. This is the possibility that i denied because everything falls into one of those three categories ive mentioned. Spavone imagined possibilities that seem to me to be instances that are the following. The first, which leon yesterday referred to as the big enchilada , just by nature gets capitalized when i wrote it down as better posthuman defendant will be a mortal. The second related or posthuman descendents may primarily be forms of information downloaded onto various platforms. Third, our descendents might be transformed over time by succession of prosthetics or brain computer interfaces to the point that their intelligence is that some artificial pit or posthuman future would be the future of a certain kind of machine. Now, if there entities that many of these resorts, they legitimately deserve to be postor transhuman if as i think human beings are living animals and have material beings from his farm is nevertheless an immaterial and intellect and soul, which itself is not identical to the person any of us is. The description of ourselves as is the essence of what we are a rational animals. Anything not a rational animal can be one of us and none of the three possibilities mentioned would or could be rational animals or they would not be one of us. So could they constitute a different kind of person, rational beings that were not rational animals . The answer to this is no poor i dont recognize the three dont recognize these three imagine outcomes has real possibilities. No material persons could by their nature be a mortal because we are bodily beings and does contain the inevitable seeds around decay and decline peers to no animal in this world is immortal and no immortal thing in this world is an animal or indeed any material being at all. Later could a principal or person in principle be replicable or Downloadable Software because persons are certain medieval thought and some contemporary personal thought incommunicable. The communicability of persons concerns their intrinsic uniqueness into the circular argument like this. Persons cant be replicated because they are unique because they are persons. The idea can be linked to the idea of Human Dignity i found and reason and choice. Choice is by its nature on replicable and nonexchangeable. The choice that you make can always only be your choice and it couldnt be inherited by a cloner repeated by realization of a piece of software multiple platforms. Anything not numerically identical to you, that is not the very same living organism as you that thinks its made a choice you made is in error an error in fact the compromises they been economy saddling the consequences of the choice the mother made into which it is not consented under allusion. Since no person is communicable, deity of replicable persons, downloadable persons is an illusion. But it is also probably the only possible way to think about immortal persons since no material being can be immortal. The project of keeping them is obviously a miracle, but the project of keeping persons in a state of pure information is conceptually incoherent. There are no possible beings who could reasonably be called transhuman two men who would be to send from us. I think these reasons also rule out future machine persons have been Artificial Intelligence scenarios. Merely material things are replicable and not capable of free choice and rational thought that they are entirely determined by the laws of nature. I am not really worried about the rise of the machines, although i found many of the movies that are raised on that promise enjoyable. [laughter] so, the idea, the things that really would be posthuman, thinking of the future and something that would be reasonable to describe his posthuman, immortal persons or persons that are not rational beings are in fact impossibilities. One other impossibility related to what we just discussed, and julians alaska would admire a person have argued any human Enhancement Program should be moral enhancement come in making to be a more morally developed pcs. Otherwise the vast new powers who might develop would likely be used for ill with extremely bad consequences. Add people, but smarter bad people. This is also premarital. Morality in the final analysis about having analysis about how to operate well in this isnt something made to be the case for another person. Only ones own choices and act of self constitution can make one to be a person with morally upright character. The attempts to make the moral or more moral is one that by its own nature can succeed. What about beef. Modifications to human beings by the prophets of the posthumans that are conceivable and will be realized to some extent to the future. Prospects are ball veered prospects have all feared often as unambiguous benefits to human beings by defenders very think not thought of in that way. The most plausible maybe because in some cases are actual concern parameters of human reproduction is the specifically process. Reproduction without sex is reality with ivf babies comprising not an insignificant part of the population. Those would like to see the process moved forward to become more the norm both ethically and descriptively. Those who undertake in how children should do so responsibly from the screen not affect her children and eventually modifying embryos are game is ensure desired qualities. Failure to do so is viewed as a clear violation of moral responsibilities. Most people will agree that the best way to have children is one which puts as much power as possible into the hands of the parents and their doctors in order to bring about the desired results. Among the more extreme proponents of the posthumans, sometimes suggest or argue the process inevitably will or should give rise to human beings be nonreproducing species. Here utopian philosophy means dystopian fiction as pointed out. For a variety of reasons, but shouldnt think of a widespread loss of reproduction as again, even if it meant only healthy, smart, goodlooking children were the result. As has already been indicated to a certain extent the last days of the work that thinkers like leon, cs lewis, paul ramsey and many catholics give reason for thinking the activity of between loving spouses is the uniquely appropriate way for human persons to come to existence. The manufacture of persons is incompatible with their dignity as being what they should not miss the existence is to be called into being at well. Loving can proceed in the hope that it will come to fruition. This is incompatible with confidence that one will get 11 wants them to fester in the singular case or as i think in vitro fertilization is much more so thinking about the future of our species. Human beings to evolve in such a way that their reproductive capacities fall into destitute would be not in evolution but a disaster. So it is not a posthuman to use the word refined and lands work is not used posthuman. What makes a proposed enhancement beyond the side of the boundary between decided dehumanization and see it, that which is intrinsically permissible, even if that might be practically ill advised or amoral in its pursuit. Almost 10 years ago with Ryan Andersen in an article edited by adam keper, those basic goods of human flourishing. Such goods include life help, knowledge, work, play, friendship, marriage, personal integrity and religion. Each offers the foundational reason for action increments about what the other is. Each reflects an aspect of our complex nature which has potentialities pointing in many different directions. Hence enhancement proposals and projects, the point of which is to block, damage or destroy avenues the pursuit of basic goods we argued are always impermissible and those that threaten to be Greater Avenues to pursue it as a side effect or to be treated with great suspicion. Any effort to make us a nonreproducing species falls into the first category and directly threatened the good of marriage is the first the realization averted the good is to be found in children conceived in the marital act. They noted the possibility and other techniques to block painful memories that seems at odds with the goods of knowledge and personal integrity. Use of such drugs isnt even necessarily a step on the road to the posthuman, but one could imagine enhancements or interventions that could be distorted of these goods. Deliberately creating a line of human beings that couldnt see or hear, for example would be an attempt to deprive some persons of capacities intrinsic to our priority to seek knowledge and also be contrary to good health. Less directly, some proposals or possibilities we could imagine could destroy the boundaries between persons that enable friendship on one hand and unnecessary forms of privacy on the other. Some current or evolving technologies do this by creating artificial boundaries between persons or by destroying natural but essential boundaries between persons. Virtual realities and simulation technologies threaten to do the former. Efforts to make human beings more or even maximally transparent as in some forms of bureau imaging or threatening the latter. Eroding privacy, these technologies erode the sovereignty of the south that is necessary for self giving in the form of truthful communication and interpersonal trust. These are technologies and not direct forms of evolution, but could be made into direct forms of evolution. They dont need to worry about fact ton capacity to pursue human goods such as friendship. We are intended to erode the capacity intrinsically wrong but isnt only a side effect of something good in another way there would be good reasons to be the enhancement is dehumanizing and no real reason still, the fluidity of this category indicates the existence of category c. Of and enhancement possible and yet in no real way of poster transhuman. Is there a principled way of identifying the boundary . Any reasonable grounds in which to be wary of possibilities in that category. They think there is both. My proposal, which is rudimentary and in need of refinement might be Something Like this, enhancements to aspects of our bodies including our brains that are instrumental to our pursuit of basic goods are in themselves permissible. We consider range of physical enhancement that might be possible. Stronger, smarter faster human beings, more fertile human beings, diseaseresistant human beings are a possible way of enhancing the human that would be conducive to the pursuit of genuine human goods. Moreover, they might involve towards any or all of these states and would have no real reason to mourn that situation. There are probably very gray areas here and i will mention just one that i think is kind of interesting. The human form in the human day start each and sometimes both together capable of great beauty. Could human beings be modified in ways that enhance the beauty . They could and by argument, that would in itself be permissible. Could they be modified for the worst aesthetically . Again, yes. As some motivations here, they make the product intrinsically immoral. The desire to make human beings ugly, the attempt to deny in the human beings are human beings. And these all seem to me to be denials and are impermissible. The enhancement for the sake of the beautiful and its opposite disagreement about what falls into this category. The most basic. Returning to the general question of enhancing. In many ways in the short enron went out and are pursued for basic human goods. Yet even if we think of this radically to the extent not even currently imaginable, we would not be changing our nature. Human beings are rational animals and are living beings as they would need to be and they like us would also be human beings, however different from us. We would be merely amplifying our naturally given capacity. The field ought not to be quite so open for quite two reasons. As i pointed out in discussing the second category, side effects are always an issue in even intrinsically permissible could bring side effects that should obviously be avoided entirely. Many concerns of what effect on competition would enhancement but the capacities have good and knowing what the possible side effects of conceivable enhancement makes research very difficult and then there is the second reason. And doesnt involve research, experimentation with research on experimentation with an interventions upon human embryos in ways that are morally wrong. Its morally wrong here includes all research that didnt realize that the andreozzi research performance. Also include embryos and the purpose of which conditions suffered by embryonic human beings. That is embryos ought not to be treated as Research Subjects in the absence of their consent, et cetera necessary to save their lives and help them to avoid radical deficiencies. The only kinds of permissible therapeutic intent to those to enhance. The enhancement therapy is notoriously vague and also mentioned yesterday. It seems to me essential. If there are to be listed interventions in human beings that affect our individual or species as part of an attempt to enable us to speak the good and new superior ways which are not attempts to cure disease, then those interventions should only be pursued with subjects. Some such modifications may be inheritable, but i would suspect most wouldnt be. So the guideline were to be followed, i expect the past are modified but no way transcended human would be much lower than we might otherwise expect. Here is my final point. I dont expect the Scientific Research will go forward only immoral permissible ways. We are genuine enhancement that issue as opposed to futile attempts to create the impossible or perhaps wellintentioned but misguided attempt that resulted dehumanization. I expect in the future our situation will be this. Some good things enjoyed by those human beings will be the result of the immoral unjust and horrific action of those human beings ancestors. That is not opposed for transhuman situation to be in at all. Thank you. [applause] charles rubin. I am honored to be included in these panels honoring dr. Kass and therefore much appreciate the kindness of robbie and brad inviting me. Unlike so many others on these panels, my facetoface contact with dr. Kass has been quite limited over the years. I thought it was going to win the lease contact with him, but i am nonetheless deeply and gratefully indebted to him. His voice is one of those that i am in dialogue with in my head as i am writing the presentation like i am making for you today and i hope what im about to say does justice to the gratitude i feel for him. But i guess i also have to say that the peter lawlers voices the other. Hes the other guy in the interior monologues. Hes usually considerably less patient than mr. Kass. More critical, more likely to point out the weakness of my faith, but greatly valued for all of that. Today we see wide interest in an Ongoing Research and development of artificially intelligent robots as companions, caregivers , partners. Japan has become famous, for developing caregiver robots to deal with the ongoing deficit of its own citizens for looking after an aging population. But its happening all over. Indeed, just yesterday the Scientific American is a posting headline grandmas little robot. Machines that can read and react to social cues may be more acceptable companions and caregivers. And i know that this audience will appreciate the great caution of that formulation. They may be more acceptable as companions and caregivers. It seems to be academic future is. The robots are the next big thing in the sex trade and creation of sex bots is ongoing. Actual results so far have quite a gap between the sensationalistic claims that the headlines and the actual achievements that are visible in the photographs in the videos that appear a Com