Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T01:41:36.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Amplio, Ergo Sum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2018

DAVID R. LAWRENCE
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

This article aims to explore the idea that enhancement technologies have been and will continue to be an essential element of what we might call the “human continuum,” and are indeed key to our existence and evolution into persons. Whereas conservative commentators argue that enhancement is likely to cause us to lose our humanity and become something other, it is argued here that the very opposite is true: that enhancement is the core of what and who we are. Using evidence from paleoanthropology to examine the nature of our predecessor species, and their proclivities for tool use, we can see that there is good reason to assume that the development of Homo sapiens is a direct result of the use of enhancement technologies. A case is also made for broad understandings of the scope of enhancement, based on the significant evolutionary results of acts that are usually dismissed as “unremarkable.” Furthermore, the use of enhancement by modern humans is no different than these prehistoric applications, and is likely to ultimately have similar results. There is no good reason to assume that whatever we may become will not also consider itself human.

Keywords

human enhancementcognitionposthumanevolutionpersonhoodhuman naturemoral value
Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 27 , Special Issue 4: Clinical Neuroethics , October 2018 , pp. 686 - 697
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. I have explored (and opposed) this concept of “post” elsewhere: Lawrence, D. The edge of human? The problem with the posthuman as the ‘beyond’. Bioethics 2017;31(3):171–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar It seems reasonable that any being we may become will also count itself, and should be counted by us today, as being simply “human.”

2. McDougall, I, Brown, F, Fleagle, J. Stratigraphic placement and age of modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia. Nature 2005;433(7027):733–736.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. Nitecki, M, Nitecki, D. Origins Of Anatomically Modern Humans. New York: Plenum Press; 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. See note. 1.

5. Lawrence, D. More human than human. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2017;26(3):476–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Taylor, C. The Concept Of A Person. Philosophical Papers, Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1985, at 97.Google Scholar

7. For a more thorough exploration of this concept see See note 5 Lawrence 1985.

8. See note 1.

9. There is some debate in palaeoanthropological circles as to whether an intermediate species existed. Potential examples include Homo cepranensis and Homo antecessor. Bermudez de Castro, J. A hominid from the lower Pleistocene of Atapuerca, Spain: Possible ancestor to Neandertals and modern humans. Science 1997;276(5317):1392–5;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Manzi, G, Mallegni, F, Ascenzi, A. A cranium for the earliest Europeans: Phylogenetic position of the hominid from Ceprano, Italy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2001;98(17):10,011–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

10. Dawkins, R. Archaic Homo sapiens. In: The Ancestor’s Tale. Bostrom: Mariner; 2005:62–6.Google Scholar

11. This is, of course, figuratively speaking. It may well be that the visitor is hostile, much as certain largely uncontacted tribes are known to aggressively reject outsiders. However, we still recognize these tribes as human, and would no doubt treat them as such if possible.

12. Spoor, F, Gunz, P, Neubauer, S, Stelzer, S, Scott, N, Kwekason, A, et al. Reconstructed Homo habilis type OH 7 suggests deep-rooted species diversity in early Homo. Nature 2015;519(7541):83–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

13. See, for example: Singer, P, Cavalieri, P, eds. The Great Ape Project: Equality Beyond Humanity. London: Fourth Estate;1993;Google Scholar Emiliano Giménez, S. Orangutan granted controlled freedom by Argentine court. CNN. 2016; available at: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/23/world/americas/feat-orangutan-rights-ruling/ (last accessed 17 July 2017;Google Scholar The Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc., on Behalf of Tommy, v. Patrick C. Lavery. 518336, State of New York Supreme Court 2014; available at http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2014/518336.pdf (last accessed 14 July 2017); Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Stanley. N.Y. Slip Op 31419, State of New York Supreme Court 2015; available at http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2015/2015-ny-slip-op-25257.html (last accessed 17 July 2017); McKinley, J. Judge Orders Stony Brook University to Defend Its Custody of 2 Chimps. Nytimes.com. 2015; available at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/nyregion/judge-orders-hearing-for-2-chimps-said-to-be-unlawfully-detained.html. (last accessed 17 July 2017).Google Scholar

14. Boehm, C. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press; 1999, at 198.Google Scholar

15. Gibbons, A. Ancient island tools suggest Homo erectus was a seafarer. Science 1998;279(5357):1635–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Leakey, R. Origins Reconsidered. London: Anchor; 1992, at 257–8Google Scholar

17. Oldest stone tool ever found in Turkey discovered. ScienceDaily. 2014; available at https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141223084139.htm. (last accessed 17 Feb 2018).

18. Bekoff, M. Awareness: Animal reflections. Nature 2002;419(6904):255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

19. Locke, J. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1979:112–22.Google Scholar

20. Nietzsche, F. (trans. Wayne, T). Ecce Homo. New York: Algora Publishers; 2007, at 117.Google Scholar

21. Proctor, D, Williamson, R, de Waal, F, Brosnan, S. Chimpanzees play the ultimatum game. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2013;110(6):2070–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

22. Riedl, K, Jensen, K, Call, J, Tomasello, M. No third-party punishment in chimpanzees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2012;109(37):14,824–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

23. Goodall, J. Through a Window: My Thirty Years with the Chimpanzees of Gombe. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 2010, at 128–9.Google Scholar

24. Nell, V. Cruelty’s rewards: The gratifications of perpetrators and spectators. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2006;29(3):211–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

25. Beauchamp, T, Frey, R. The Oxford Handbook Of Animal Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2014, at 232.Google Scholar

26. Anthony, D. The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2010, at 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. Semaw, S Rogers, MJ, Quade, J, Renne, PR, Butler, RF, Dominguez-Rodrigo, M, et al. 2.6-Million-year-old stone tools and associated bones from OGS-6 and OGS-7, Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. Journal of Human Evolution 2003;45(2):169–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

28. Toth, N, Schick, K. Overview of Paleolithic archeology. In: Henke, H, Hardt, T, Tatersall, I, eds. Handbook of Paleoanthropology, Volume 3. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2007, at 1944.Google Scholar

29. McPherron, SP, Alemseged, Z, Marean, CW, Wynn, JG, Reed, D, Geraads, D, et al. Evidence for stone-tool-assisted consumption of animal tissues before 3.39 million years ago at Dikika, Ethiopia. Nature 2010;466(7308):857–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

30. Pierce, J. A review of tool use in insects. The Florida Entomologist 1986;69(1):95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31. Boesch, C, Boesch-Achermann, H. The Chimpanzees of the Taï Forest: Behavioural Ecology And Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000, at 192.Google Scholar

32. Smolker, R, Richards, A, Connor, R, Mann, J, Berggren, P. Sponge carrying by dolphins (Delphinidae, Tursiops sp.): A foraging specialization involving tool use? Ethology 2010;103(6):454–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33. Emery, N. Cognitive ornithology: The evolution of avian intelligence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2006;361(1465):23–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

34. Finn, J, Tregenza, T, Norman, M. Defensive tool use in a coconut-carrying octopus. Current Biology 2009;19(23):1069–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35. Bernardi, G. The use of tools by wrasses (Labridae). Coral Reefs 2011;31(1):39–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36. Dinets, V, Brueggen, J, Brueggen, J. Crocodilians use tools for hunting. Ethology Ecology & Evolution 2013;27(1):74–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37. Möglich, M, Alpert, G. Stone dropping by Conomyrma bicolor (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): A new technique of interference competition. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1979;6(2):105–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38. Whiten, A, Goodall, J, McGrew, WC, Nishida, T, Reynolds, V, Sugiyama, Y, et al. Cultures in chimpanzees. Nature 1999;399(6737):682–5;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Panger, M, Brooks, A, Richmond, B, Wood, B. Older than the Oldowan? Rethinking the emergence of hominin tool use. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 2003;11(6):235–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39. Reardon, S. The humanity switch. New Scientist (AU/NZ) 2012;(2864):10–1.Google Scholar

40. I have here rather simplified the “descent of man,” which is rife with disagreement and multiple theories. For example, it is not entirely clear that H. habilis and H. erectus were not in fact simultaneously descended from a common ancestor, rather than being sequential species.

Spoor, F, Gunz, P, Neubauer, S, Stelzer, S, Scott, N, Kwekason, A, et al. Reconstructed Homo habilis type OH 7 suggests deep-rooted species diversity in early Homo. Nature 2015;519(7541):83–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

41. Lucy, Johanson D. (Australopithecus afarensis). In: Ruse, M, Travis, J, eds. Evolution: The First Four Billion Years. Cambridge MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 2009:693–7.Google Scholar

42. Sigmon, B. Bipedal behavior and the emergence of erect posture in man. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 1971;34(1):55–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

43. Ko, K. Origins of human intelligence: The chain of tool-making and brain evolution. Anthropological Notebooks 2016;22(1):5–22.Google Scholar

44. Pollard, E, Rosenberg, C. Worlds Together, Worlds Apart. New York: W. W. Norton; 2004, at 11Google Scholar

45. See note 44, Pollard, Rosenberg 2004, at 13.

46. Stone, L, Lurquin, P, Cavalli-Sforza, L. Genes, Culture, And Human Evolution: A Synthesis. Malden, MA: Blackwell; 2007, at 33.Google Scholar

47. Wrangham, R. Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human. New York: Basic Books; 2010.Google Scholar

48. Leonard, W. Food for thought: Into the fire. Scientific American 2002;287(6):106–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49. Gibbons, A. Food for thought. Science 2007;316(5831):1558–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

50. Organ, C, Nunn, C, Machanda, Z, Wrangham, R. Phylogenetic rate shifts in feeding time during the evolution of Homo. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2011;108(35):14,555–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

51. See note 1.

52. See note 47, Wrangham 2010.

53. Gibbons, A. Solving the brain’s energy crisis. Science 1998;280(5368):1345–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

54. Lin, P, Allhoff, F. Against unrestricted human enhancement. Journal of Evolution and Technology 2008;18(1):35–41.Google Scholar

55. Bostrom, N, Sandberg, A. Cognitive enhancement: Methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics 2009;15(3):311–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56. See note 54, Lin, Allhoff 2008.

57. Coenen, C, Shuijff, M, Smits, M, Klaasen, P, Hennen, L, Rader, M, et al. European Parliament Science And Technology Options Assessment: Human Enhancement Study (EP STOA). Brussels: European Parliament Directorate General For Internal Policies Department A: Economic And Scientific Policy; 2009.Google Scholar

58. See note 57, Coenen et al. 2009.

59. The ancient Greek as I understand it.

60. Tool. In: Soanes, C, Stephenson, A. Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006, at 1518, emphasis added.Google Scholar

61. van Schaik, C, Fox, E, Sitompul, A. Manufacture and use of tools in wild Sumatran orangutans: Implications for human evolution. Naturwissenschaften 1996;83(4):186–8.Google ScholarPubMed

62. Bostrom, N. A short history of transhumanist thought. Analysis and Metaphysics. 2006;5:63–95.Google Scholar

63. Allhoff, F, Lin, P, Moor, J, Weckert, J. Ethics of human enhancement: 25 questions & answers. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 2010;4(1):1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

64. National Academies of Sciences. International summit on human gene editing: A global discussion. 2016; available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK343651/ (last accessed 17 Sept 2017).Google Scholar

65. See note 5, Lawrence 2017.

66. Not only recognized, but on the day of writing, formally presented to the appropriate authorities to be adopted. Carrington, D. The Anthropocene epoch: Scientists declare dawn of human-influenced age. The Guardian. 2016; available at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/29/declare-anthropocene-epoch-experts-urge-geological-congress-human-impact-earth. (last accessed 16 Sept 2017).Google Scholar