Transhumanism And Eugenics Proposals

Transhumanism and Eugenics proposals

After having analyzed Ortega’s philosophy and his supposed vision of transhumanism, I will expose, on the one hand, which I think is consistent with what Ortega would say, in the face of that future that promises transhumanism;to achieve its final goal of wanting to reach a human species, which takes control of its own biological evolution, and, which creates a successor race, a posthuman species, with an apparent life full of happiness – considering “children to the pre -designed letter”, That would be theory, pain, suffering, the biological limitations of the body, death … – -. And on the other, I will show the responses to Orteguian approaches, as could make a defender of transhumanism.

The fundamental points of this thesis are reflected in the first precept (or first paragraph of the declaration on the principles of transhumanism, which begins by saying:

“In the future, humanity will change radically because of technology. We foresee the viability of redesigning the human condition, including parameters such as the inevitable aging, the limitations of human and artificial intellects, undesirable psychology, suffering and our confinement to planet Earth ”.

In this framework, this influential current is determined to fulfill the desire to improve human nature – its limitations and prolonging its existence through application of reason, science and technology – with three promises, which, with itscorresponding guarantees of freedom, are based on the following:

• The promise that will facilitate that technologies for "improvement" or human enhancement should be widely available (cognitive freedom).

The Orteguiana optics would consider that, at the outset, it does not seem that there is an desire for domain and control;Therefore, it would not intranquilize Ortega. For them, the biological limitations of the human being such as suffering, death, aging or diseases are undesirable, but avoidable aspects thanks to technological advances.

•  The promise that individuals must have the right to transform their own bodies as they want (morphological freedom).

Orteguian thought estimates that he would affirm that, the human being cannot be treated as a means but always only as an end. Since, scientific progress must be aimed at preserving freedom and respecting the principle that every human being has inalienable dignity. Therefore, progress, unlike progression, is not affordable to value, a figure, but to valuation, and this would always be estimated in the whole of human life.

However, that vision that the human being has an intrinsic value and the values are measured according to the other values to be sacrificed to obtain them, it is far in this time of transformations. Today the human being stops putting "in his own hands" – and, therefore, ceases to be able to possess and master his nature – to self-manufacture in order to try to make himself something better thanks to the modern technique. To the human being, these days, a moderate genetic improvement is not enough to feel better;but it goes more, and follows the imperative of not continuing in the same way and transforming through technology, becoming an observer and meter of itself as a natural object of study in a market. Which is disrespect for human dignity by modifying its essence. The technique is understood as the application of sets of specific strategies, coordinated practices, ordered and methodical actions aimed at the transformation of a passive subject that realizes the possibility of change to an active one that directs its will in search of the same

In parallel, Ortega would think that it also implies a loss of freedom, because, replacing the ends with the means of the application of biotechnologies that give way to the transhuman, the human condition is modified and, therefore, the biological limits are transferred,And people end up subordin and subject to cultural ideals, which involve a program of life, desire and sociability.

In response to this criticism, transhumanists see the very concept of the natural as an obstacle to "progress" or, rather, to the technical-scientific advance, since it prevents the use of biotechnologies development opportunities,that, being ends in themselves, imply an improvement in the biological and social conditions of life, as well as an extension of life as long as we want. And if such improvement was hindered, because it was not well to end human nature, we would be opposing lives, avoiding diseases or improving physical or cognitive characteristics;And, therefore, we could not practice medicine, which is born, in part, as a reaction against death evil to remain alive and healthy during as long as possible.

C. The promise that parents must have the right to choose which technologies wantin the sense of enhancing its genetic, physical and intellectual qualities, socially desirable (reproductive freedom).

From an Orteguian perspective, it could be interpreted, that, the new biotechnological dependence that gives way to the vision of a new posthuman life, ends up being an erroneous vision of freedom;Well, biological alterations imply an excessive extension of the field of human action, and, therefore, a tendency to crave and master the nature of the human being. Therefore, a moral problem of being playing to be God, not considering social unfeasibility – that they consider that everything is accessory to the horizon already designed of "improvement" and, therefore, unquestionable – and go beyond therapy-Yo.and., Of negative genetic engineering or negative eugenics -, as negative eugenics has a therapeutic purpose, it has therapeutic purposes, and, therefore, the first step that a new approach is a new approach to medicine to the disease to the disease. In consists, concrete, in identifying malformations or pathologies through prenatal diagnosis to proceed to the elimination of defective babies that are born with malformations through eugenic abortion (the disease is avoided by removing the patient) eliminating). Children born with anomalies are seen by society as a lack of responsibility, by parents, for not having avoided them with abortion. This type of eugenics was very popular in Nazi Germany. Sterilization was considered an instrument of great relevance.

Positive genetic engineering – known as positive improvement eugenics lies – will serve our purposes and to satisfy our desire to achieve the perfection of [3: the positive eugenics of radical improvement has perfect purposes, and, therefore, a second step that involves agenetic modification of the germinal line or genotype of embryos (this reformulation of the genetic code of stem cells is transferred to the genotype of the patient’s descendants) to move from the prevention of the disease to the improvement of the child. Specifically, it consists in selecting the genetic characteristics to be implemented in a woman’s uterus and, thus, create improved human embryos, building future "more perfect" children. This eugenics project has never been tested in humans and has given rise to these possible future scenarios. In China, things are already being done to get a posthumanism.] physical or cognitive abilities to see us above average.

This evidences, that couples who use these novel techniques do not get so close towards a search for happiness, but rather to a tireless search for improvement;Or, rather, to a promising aspiration of remakeing human nature, eliminating equality among all human beings. In parallel, such an use also implies a deprivation of the freedom of children by parents and also a threat to our freedom;that is, to our ability to act freely, by virtue of our own means and efforts, as well as to consider ourselves responsible.

In defense of criticism of forming a new elite, transhumanism argues, that, if we admit that negative eugenics can be applied morally acceptable in therapeutic functions to avoid the "defective" offspring of unwanted genetic characteristics – such as disease,an accident or a disability – there should not be, in principle, a moral conviction for its application to radical improvement –I.and., to positive eugenics–. And they add that, the most understandable would be not to import the moral acceptance of the application of new gene editing technologies, in those situations in which the distinction between the therapeutic and the improvement is very doubtful.

Even in this headquarters it remains to say that, some transhumanists believe that this pretended human transformation sponsored by transhumanism would not be desirable. 

However, supporters argue that the postheman would not be a way to survive. In the same way, the extension of life does not seek so much and yes;Well, aging must be avoided because it is poor health and then, they already believe and launch their main motto that death will be an elusive destiny. But in the face of this, it argues what sense does it have to live more, because it will not what our finitude compensates us to make our lives something with a meaning? It would be asking what we live. Then, the doubt is in itself the immortality is desirable and if it will mean an improvement in our life that will make us happier.

Supper and foot notes

Taking into account all the above about these 3 promises of transhumanism, we can conclude and say that many of its purposes, in theory, are positive: then, we see how,

Reason, science, technology and society itself constitute a type of control, which in return frees us from ignorance, fatigue, pain and disease. 

Therefore, these proposals, which encourages this fashion ideology, present a new paradigm of human development based on a gleaming future. Now, reality shows us, as in practice, they have their serious deficiencies: then, we discover that they intervene in the live – which is no longer aware -. Therefore, the main problem lies in directly attentive against human nature. It could even be said that this strategy of transhumanism leads us to deep contradictions, since the individualistic-merchandise logic leads to options taken, to a large extent, by partial interests, not leading to a global benefit from human nature with respect to human nature. And this reflects an unjustified social fear of the cuts of freedom when considering that it should not be limited for anything or anyone.

However, the objective of transhumanism is reached: denying the reason and personal reality of the human being, as well as exalting technologies as a scrubb of the human. Therefore, this transformation announces a double target:

On the one hand, from the irrationality that assumes voluntarily, it yearns to suppress what so far understanding as a human nature with the use of biotechnologies, which imply for themselves, the incorporation of "radical improvements";that it can be said, that they despise the human corporeality – biologically "imperfect" -. Because, they lead to treat an irrational subject – which wishes, which has interests and fears;which is part of the physical world and its conscious nature is physical – as an object of scientific speculation, quantifiable just like physical phenomena. And it also implies a strict abolition of human integrity, which seeks to deprive it of the manifestation of its essence through the natural body.

And this is so, because improvement technologies, being linked to the promises of transhumanism promises, have the obligation to deny the identity of the person with their body to be able to establish such postulates of their apologists. That is, they only intend to reduce human reality, including their social and cultural dimensions, to biochemical processes, of which we would be unconscious replicators, destroying all intentionality, motivation and will. The anthropological result of this will be a person without body.

Considering everything, this advance in genetic improvement, which enables progress in the biotechnological field, would justify the legitude of euthanasia – based on eliminating fetuses that present congenital anomalies – and endless eugenics, which would leave manyVictims along the way, as can be seen today with the embryonic selection and on the other, intends to free the human being of his human condition with a technological position;that it should be noted, which breaks to the rationality of the scientific method, granting science the saving role: to create a new humanity other than the current human being, detached from normative instances that impose what is to be done and where to go. Therefore, the real danger will be that it leads to exceed the human being of his ability to control his life, as a sovereign agent that belongs to her. Their values, customs and consciences remain stagnated in the abuses of power and in barbarism.

Consequently, when wisdom remains in the hands of the system, it leads to snatching the human being from its ability to create knowledge for an ethical judgment on the technical and scientific development process;Particularly, on the use of new gene editing technologies. In the midst of everything, it seems that the best thing will be to use common sense, which would tell us, that, that human action, increasingly weakened, should be rescued;And, the best way would be, that the human being regained confidence in his moral capacity, with the intention that, instrumental reason does not consume the existence of the human being. Along with that, the critical theory of ideologies would be based on an attempt to distrust this self-regulated technoscientific progress or, rather, for denaturing these social relationships that seem governed by the categories of domain, oppression and need. 

Therefore, technological progress urgently needs moral progress – such as human autonomous action – and, for this, we must have a human being confident about the power of philosophical reason to achieve reality, because, only reason is capable ofto distinguish the plans from different knowledge and make their moral capacity compatible with the realization and progress of technology within human culture.

It is, therefore, in obtaining desirable progress, the true possibilities offered by science and technology must be taken into account. In the same way, we need to exercise, with respect to the current technological revolution, true individual freedoms – this is, to live according to liberal or enlightened values – to protect the values we appreciate and build a more tolerant society, thus demolishing the domain and domain andControl of natural selection, which is the force that has created us.