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 and early times and now and always is at this, what is human being . Er our panelists are christopher tollefsen, dissing a professor of Philosophy University of south carolina. Charles rubin, associate professor of political science,e duquesne university, and author of the eclipse of man humanion extinction and the meaning of progress. Adam keiper of the ethics and Public Policy center, editor of the new atlantis. Christopher. Thank you very much. Its a pleasure to be here. Unlike most of the panelists so far im not a former student ofo leon kass. So i feel the need to ask permission do i call you leon . Okay. Ou leo but that down. Nevertheless, even though im not a student i did feel a special kinship with leon w yesterday. My w my wife and i homeschool our children and i was very surprised to hear him describe so i could at the end of the qa session our high school curriculum, first you bible g] [laughing] but this might get cspans im not going to say more about that. [laughing] so our panel title is bioethics and the transhuman future. In an email to me brad wilsonls also threw in the subject heading the word posthuman future just for good measure. The question im going to ask today is what you posthuman and transhuman mean . Im going to argue that they have no meaning. There is no condition that could really be described in either oe these ways. All the conditions that we see these names are either a comma impossibilities, b, deficient human conditions foresee amplifications but not changes of human nature. 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 ways regional to expect we could receive instances of c are often think of more impermissible. And that i will suggest at the end tells us something familiar likely future. The terms posthuman and transhuman i thought 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 our generationsen living out and imagine various modifications and transformations of our descendents to the point at which looking forward were nor longer willing to say that those descendents are human. This is the possibilities that i denied because everything falls into one of the three categories i mentioned. S so three imagine possibilities the seem to be to be instances of a are the following. And the first which leon referred to as the big enchilada, just by nature gets capitalized when i wrote it down, is that i posthuman descendents will be immortal. The second possibility is related our posthuman descendents might primarily be forms of information, downloadt onto various platforms. And third our descendents might be transformed over time by a succession of neural prosthetics for brain computer interfaces to the point their intelligence is in some importance artificial. I posthuman future we didnt be the future for certain kind of machine as a possibility. If there entities of any of these they would legitimately deserve to be called post or transhuman if as i think human beings are living animals andled material beings whose form is nevertheless, an immaterial and intellective soul which is self not identical to the person that any of us is. The description of results gives us the essence of what we are, rational animals. Anything that is not a rational animal can be one of us and none of the three possibilities just mentioned would or could be rational animals. Or they would not be one of us. So then could he constitute a different kind of person . Rational beings that were not rational animals. A i think the answer is no for i dont 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 the amoun amende seeds of her own dk and decline so no animal is mortal and no in mortal thing in this world is an animal or indeed any material being at all. But neither could he principal or person rather in principle be replicable or downloadable asas software because persons are a certain medieval theologians thought and some contemporaryte personal is put it incommunicable. This idea of the incommunicable to a persons concerned their intrinsic uniqueness and circular an argument like this, persons can be replicated because they are unique and they are unique because they are persons. The id 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. A choice that you make can always or can always only be your choice and it couldnt be inherited by 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, th that thinks its made a choice that you made is an error. An error in fact, the compromises that beings autonomy saddling them with the consequences of the choice that another made and to which it isa not consented. It lives under an illusion. Since no person is communicable the idea of replicable persons downloadable persons or multiple realize persons as an illusion but it is i think probably the only possible way to think about immortal persons that are descended from us since no merely vitriol being can be immortal. The project of keeping material beings alive fo forever just ses to me obviously primerica but the project of keeping persons in the state of pure information i think is conceptually incoherent. So far our fourth there are no possible beings who could reasonably be called transhuman or posthuman would be descended from us. I think these reasons also rule out future Mission Persons as envisioned in Artificial Intelligence scenarios. Merely material things are replicable and theyre not capable of free choice andth rational thought since they are entirely determined by the laws of nature. Im not really worried about the rise of machines, although i found many of the movies that are based on that premise enjoyable. [laughing] so the idea, the things rather that are envisioned that really would be posthuman, thinking to future and think of something that really would be reasonable to describe as posthuman, immortal persons are persons that are not rationalh beings i think are, in fact, impossibilities. Let me mention one other impossibility related to certain ways to those i just discussed. D two people have argued at the top priority for inhuman and har the program should be morere enhancement making human beingsg to be a more morally developed species but otherwise they say the best new powers we mightth develop would like to be usedpo for ill with extremely badith consequences. Would still be bad people but smarter bad people. The project come this project is also primerica. Morality is in the final analysis about having an upright will and is isnt something that can be made to be the case for another person. Only ones own choices and acts of self constitution to make one to be a person of morally upright character selfconstitua morally upright character. The attempts to make huey p. Hun beings more moral is one that by nature cant succeed. What about b . There are modifications or that are envisaged by the prophets of the posthuman that are conceivable. Prospects that, while viewed often as una as in the biggest benefits human beings by the defenders i think not best daughter in that way. The most plausible may be because in some cases actual concern the parameters of human reproduction as specifically sexual process. Reproduction without sex is a reality with ivf babies comprising not an insignificant part of the population of the developed world. Those who like to see this process move forward to become more of the norm both ethically and descriptively. Those who undertake to have children should do so responsibly, screening out defective children and eventually modifying embryos to ensure desired qualities. Failure to do so is viewed as a clear violation of moral responsibility. Social pressure being what it is most people will agree the best way to have children is one which puts as much power as possible the defense of thes payers and the doctors in order to bring about the desired result. Among the more extreme proponents of posthuman scum sometime suggested or argued this process inevitably will or should give rise to human beings becoming nonsexually reproducing species. Utopian philosophy apparently needs dystopian fiction as leon pointed out. For a variety of reasons we shouldnt think of a widespread loss of sexual reproduction a aa gain, even if it meant only healthy, smart, goodlooking children are the result. As has been indicated to a certain extent over the last two days of the work of thinkers like leon, cs lewis, paul ramsey and many catholics give reason for thinking that activity of sexual intercourse between loving spouses is the uniquely appropriate way for human persons to come into existence. The manufactured person in the lab is incompatible with their dignity is being what they should not miss the existence is to be called into being at well. Loving intercourse to proceed in the hope it will come to fruition but this is incompatible with havingng confidence that one will get what one wants. If thats true in the single case of owning, cloning or i think in vitro fertilization its much worse with thinking about the future of our species. For human beings to evolve in such a way that their sexual reproductive capacities fall into destitute would be not in evolution but a disaster for human fortune. Ou its not a posthuman but use when we find in leons work, its not posthuman, its a form of dehumanization. What makes the proposedent be enhancement be on this side of the boundary between the side of the humanization and c, that which is intrinsically permissible even if it might be practically illadvised or immoral in its pursuit. Almost ten years ago with Ryan Anderson and article edited by adam keiper, ryan and i argued the framework for answering this question is set by this basic goods better instituted of human flourishing. Such goods include life and a health, knowledge, aesthetic expense, work, play, friendshipi marriage, personal integrity and religion. Each offers the foundational reason for action, each reflects an aspect of our complex nature which has potential is pointing them in different directions. Dif hence, enhancement proposals and projects, the point at which is to block damage or destroy evidence of pursuit for these basic goods we argued are always impermissible. S those that threaten to degrade our avenues are pursued as a side effect are to be treated with great suspicion. Trea any effort to make of a nonsexual reproducing species falls into the first category. Directly threatens the good of marriage insofar as the realization of fruit of that good is to be found in trouble conceived in a marital act. There are other possibilities. The president s kelson of the possible if using drugs or other techniques the block painful memories. This seems at odds with the goods of knowledge and personal integrity. Use of such a drugs isnt maybe necessary a step on the road to the posthuman of one could imagine enhancement or interventions that could similarly be distorted of these goods. Delivery creating a life human beings that could not see or hear for example, would be an attempt to deprive some persons capacities that are intrinsic to our ability to seek knowledge and would also be contrary to consult. Less directly, some proposals or possible as we could imagine could distort the boundary between persons of navalt friendship on one hand and necessary forms of privacy on the other. Some current or evolving technology do this either by trading artificial boundaries between persons or by destroying natural but essential boundaries tween 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 no imaging or scanning threaten to do the latter. In eroding privacy these technologies also erode the sovereignty of the self that is necessary for self giving in the form of truthful communication and interpersonal trust. These are technology and not maybe directed forms of evolution but maybe they could be made into direct forms of evolution. They dont need to worry about their fact to pursue human could such as friendship. We are intended to erode the capacity they would be intrinsically wrong but even in the case with the motion was on a side effect of something thati was good in another way that would be good reasons to view the enhancement as dehumanizing and no real reason to think of it as transcending the humanin condition. Still, sort of fluidity is in this category indicates the existence of category c, a forms of enhancement permissible in themselves, possible, and yet in no real way post or transhuman. Is there any principled way of identifying that boundary . Other reasonable grounds in which to be wary of hospitals in that category . Theres both. As to the first my proposal which is rudimentary and the need of refinement, might be Something Like this, enhancements to aspects of our bodies including our brains thai are instrumental to our pursuit of basic goods are in themselves permissible. Er we consider a range of physical enhancement that might be possible, stronger, smarter, or fast to human beings, more fertile human beings, diseaseresistant human beings, all the possible ways of enhancing the human liberty would be conducive to the pursuit of genuine human goods. Moreover, you and things might evolve in time now to thwart any or all of these states and we would have no real reason to mourn that situation. There are probably very great areas here and ill mention juss one that i think his cunning interesting. The human human form and the human face are each and sometimes both together capable of great beauty. Could human beings be modified in ways that enhance the beauty . I think they probably could and by my argument that would in itself be permissible. Could they be modified for thee worst aesthetically . Again yes. Some of the possible motivations make the project intrinsically immoral. Hatred of the human form, the desire to make human beings ugly, the attempt in practice human beings are human beings and the attempt to modify the human to be reptilian or feline, for example. These all seem to me in fact, denials of that good, the good of human beauty and so intrinsically impermissible. But theres going to be a great area is simply too enhancement for the sake of a beautiful and its opposite plaintiff about what falls into this category. Me the most basic case of tattooing. Returning to the general question of enhancing, that which is integral to our pursuit of the good, in a sense the field seems fairly wideopen. We could enhance human things into the future in many waysin that would in the short and long run augment our capacity for the pursuit and realization of basic human goods. Yet even if we did this radically to the extent, to extend not even currently imaginable we would not be changing our nature. Human beings are rational animals and if our descendents are rational and living beings as they would need to be then they like us would also be human beings, however different from us. So rather than sowing the seeds for the posthuman we would be amplifying unnaturally givenllyi capacities. The field ought not to be quite so open for two reasons. First as a point out discussing the second category, side effects always an issue. Even if the intrinsically permissible can bring with it side effects the post more quandaries i avoided entirely many concerns are of the sort. What effect on competition in sport whether pursued only for some for all is a familiar instance of this. That general difficulty of evenc nothing what are the possible side effects of conceivable effc enhancements makes responsible research in this area very difficult almost to the point not a possibility. And then there is the second reason it gets difficult for me to imagine really significant progress being made on the project of genetically improving human beings that doesnt involve research, expectation with research on comic spearman tatian with individual interventions upon human embryos in ways that are morally wrong. Whats morally wrong includesch all research that ends the likes of the Embryo Research as performed upon. It also includes our research and interventions on embryos the purpose of which is not to rectify 30 diminishingng conditions suffered by those embryonic human beings. That is impious not be treated as Research Subjects in absence of their consent except whenen necessary to save their lives or otherwise help them to avoid radical deficiencies. The only kinds of permissible intervention on embryos are those of therapeutic intent to the exclusion of those that arel merely attempts to enhance. And again the boundary between enhancement and the therapy is notoriously vague and this is 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 seek the good and new superior ways which are not attempt to cure disease or alleviate disability, then those interventions should only be pursued with consenting human subjects. Some such a by the inheritable but i would suspect that most would not be. So if a guide and were to be followed i expect the path toward the modify but in no way transcended human being would be much lower than we might otherwise expect. Bu but heres my final point, i dont expect that Scientific Research will go forward only in morally permissible ways. So we are genuine enhancements are at issue as opposed tose futile attempts to create the impossible or perhaps wellintentioned but misguided attempts the resultingin deh dehumanization, then expect that in the future are distended situation will be this. Som. Some address many good thins enjoyed by those human beings will be the result of the immoral unjust and occasionally horrific actions of those human beings and testers. And that is not opposed or transhuman situation to be in at all. Thank you. Th [applause] charles rubin. I am honored to be included in these panels, honoring dr. Kass and, therefore, much appreciate the kind is of robbie and brad in inviting me. Unlike so many other on these panels, my facetoface contact with dr. Kass has been quite limited over the years. I thought i was going to win tha least contact with him, but i am nonetheless deeply and greatly 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 t