The very notion and prospect of human enhancement and related issues arouse public controversy. The human enhancement debate is, for some, framed by the opposition between strong
bioconservatism and transhumanism. The former opposes any form of human enhancement, whereas the latter advocates for all possible human enhancements. But many philosophers hold a more nuanced view in favour of some enhancements while rejecting the transhumanist carte blanche approach. Transhumanists argue that parents have a moral responsibility called
procreative beneficence to make use of these methods, if and when they are shown to be reasonably safe and effective, to have the healthiest children possible. They believe this responsibility is a moral judgment best left to individual conscience, rather than imposed by law, in all but extreme cases. In this context, the emphasis on freedom of choice is called
procreative liberty. Some authors consider humanity already transhuman, because recent medical advances have significantly altered our species. But this has not happened in a conscious and therefore transhumanistic way. From such a perspective, transhumanism is perpetually aspirational: as new technologies become mainstream, the adoption of still unadopted technologies becomes a new shifting goal. Giuseppe Vattino, a member of Italy's parliament, believes transhumanism will make people "less subject to the whims of nature, such as illness or climate extremes".
Feasibility In a 1992 book, sociologist Max Dublin pointed to many past failed predictions of technological progress and argued that modern futurist predictions would prove similarly inaccurate. He also objected to what he saw as
scientism,
fanaticism and
nihilism by a few in advancing transhumanist causes. Dublin also said that historical parallels existed between
Millenarian religions and
Communist doctrines. Transhumanists and other supporters of human genetic engineering do not dismiss practical concerns out of hand, insofar as there is a high degree of uncertainty about the timelines and likely outcomes of genetic modification experiments in humans. But
bioethicist James Hughes suggests that one possible ethical route to the genetic manipulation of humans at early developmental stages is the building of computer models of the human genome, the proteins it specifies and the tissue engineering he argues that it also codes for. With the exponential progress in
bioinformatics, Hughes believes that a virtual model of genetic expression in the human body will not be far behind and that it will soon be possible to accelerate approval of genetic modifications by simulating their effects on virtual humans. stated that "changing the genetic identity of man as a human person through the production of an
infrahuman being is radically immoral", implying, that "man has full right of disposal over his own biological nature". The statement also argues that creation of a superhuman or spiritually superior being is "unthinkable", since true improvement can come only through religious experience and "
realizing more fully the image of God". Christian theologians and lay activists of several churches and denominations have expressed similar objections to transhumanism and claimed that Christians attain in the afterlife what radical transhumanism promises, such as indefinite
life extension or the abolition of suffering. In this view, transhumanism is just another representative of the long line of
utopian movements which seek to
create "heaven on earth". On the other hand, religious thinkers allied with transhumanist goals such as the theologians Ronald Cole-Turner and
Ted Peters hold that the doctrine of "co-creation" provides an obligation to use genetic engineering to improve human biology. At least one
public interest organization, the U.S.-based
Center for Genetics and Society, was formed, in 2001, with the specific goal of opposing transhumanist agendas that involve transgenerational modification of human biology, such as full-term
human cloning and
germinal choice technology. The
Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future of the
Chicago-Kent College of Law critically scrutinizes proposed applications of genetic and nanotechnologies to human biology in an academic setting.
Socioeconomic effects Some critics of
libertarian transhumanism have focused on the likely socioeconomic consequences in societies in which
divisions between rich and poor are on the rise.
Bill McKibben, for example, suggests that emerging human enhancement technologies would be disproportionately available to those with greater financial resources, thereby exacerbating the gap between rich and poor and creating a "genetic divide". society already governs and controls bodies by making them feel watched. This "surveillance" of society dictates how the majority of individuals choose to express themselves aesthetically. One of the risks outlined in a 2004 article by Jerold Abrams is the elimination of differences in favor of universality. This, he argues, will eliminate the ability of individuals to subvert the possibly oppressive, dominant structure of society by way of uniquely expressing themselves externally. Such control over a population would have dangerous implications of tyranny. Yet another consequence of enhancing the human form not only cognitively, but physically, will be the reinforcement of "desirable" traits which are perpetuated by the dominant social structure. The major transhumanist organizations strongly condemn the
coercion involved in such policies and reject the
racist and
classist assumptions on which they were based, along with the
pseudoscientific notions that eugenic improvements could be accomplished in a practically meaningful time frame through selective human breeding. Instead, most transhumanist thinkers advocate a "
new eugenics", a form of
egalitarian liberal eugenics. One transhumanist solution proposed by Bostrom to counter existential risks is control of
differential technological development, a series of attempts to influence the sequence in which technologies are developed. In this approach, planners would strive to retard the development of possibly harmful technologies and their applications, while accelerating the development of likely beneficial technologies, especially those that offer protection against the harmful effects of others.
Simone and Malcolm Collins, founders of Pronatalist.org, are activists known primarily for their views and advocacy related to a secular and voluntaristic form of
pronatalism, a stance encouraging higher birth rates to reverse
demographic decline and its negative implications for the viability of modern societies and the possibility of a better future. Critical of transhumanism, they have expressed concern that life extension would worsen the problem of
gerontocracy, causing toxic imbalances in power. The Collinses lament that
voluntarily childfree transhumanists who "want to live forever believe they are the epitome of centuries of human cultural and biological evolution. They don’t think they can make kids that are better than them." ==Groups and organizations==