Extinctionof the SocialDarwinismCanard 239- A husbandandwifedecideto applyin-vitrofertilization,in whichsomeof the
wife’s eggsare removedfromher body.The removedegg is artificiallyfertilizedby
her husband’s sperm. - Whileit is still in a Petridish,scientistsgeneticallyalterthe fertilizedegg to immu-
nizeit, prenatally,fromdevelopinggeneticdiseasesin the future.Theycan also
providethis embryowiththe potentialto developspecificaptitudesas it matures
as an adulthumanbeing. - At leastone of the alteredembryosis thenimplantedbackintothe wifeor intoa
volunteeringsurrogatemother.^49
Thereare othertechnologicalmethodsof humanenhancement.An adulthumanbeing
mightdecideto mergehis fleshwithsomemachineryto enhancehimself,and becomea
cyberneticorganism(“cyborg” for short).^50 Nanotechnologyand the aforementionedbio-
technologymayalsobe used.Noticingthateugenicshad cometo be associatedwiththe
coercivegovernmentpoliciesthathe disavowedby the endof WorldWarTwo,World
WildlifeFundfounderJulianHuxley—brotherto AldousHuxley—cameup witha differ-
ent termfor peaceablehumanenhancement.He calledit trans-humanism.^51
In one importantrespect,I deemthe termtranshumanismmisleading.Those,suchas
CaliforniansocialactivistMaxMore,whoproclaimthemselves“transhumanists,” obsess
overhowtheywishfor peopleto employtechnologicalenhancementto sucha degree
that theyevolveintoan entitythat is longerhuman,but somehowbetterthanhuman.To
me, this reflectsa misunderstandingof whatit meansto be human.As we recallfrom
BooksOneand Two,technologyis merelythe exerciseof one’s rationalfacultyto reshape
the naturalenvironmentto improveone’s ownwell-being.Thus,to employtechnology
peaceablyin orderto engineera betterlife for oneself,one’s children,andone’s descen-
dentsis not a feat thattranscendshumannature.No matterwhatbiochemicalor physio-
logicalchangestechnologymayadministerto our descendents,to the degreethatthey
continueto be sapienttheycommensuratelycontinueto be human.Thatour descendents
maylookdifferentfromus doesnot renderthemnonhuman;it simplyrendersthema
newsortof human,andthereis nothingwrongwitheithertheyor us beingconsidered
fundamentallyhumanquahuman.Anyhow,I supportthe rightof anygrown-upto
participatein enhancementto the extentthatthe participationabidesby the principlesof
Lockeanfreedom.
Shoulda couplechooseto producechangesin the geneticcodeof theirchildren,it will
not followthat suchchangeswill be a permanentfixturein the germlinesof theirdescen-
dents.BiologistMarioCapecchiproposesa privatemethodof caution.As the default
positionis for humansto inherit43 chromosomes,Capecchisuggeststhat as an embryois
beinggeneticallymodified,an extrachromosomebe added.Withinthis chromosomeis
the geneticcodingfor the attributesthatthe parentsdesireto haveengineeredintotheir
child.As Capecchiunderstandsthatthatchildmayfindthesefeaturesto be unsatisfacto-
ry, he has the optionof havingthesesamegenes“switchedoff” whenhe himselfchooses
to engineerhis ownchild’s embryo.Thatis, althoughhe carriesthe genesfor the attrib-
utesthatdispleasehim,he can ensurethosesameattributeswillnot appearin his own
child.^52
Peacefulhumanenhancementhas enormousramificationsas far as the conceptof
biologicalevolutionis concerned.The termnaturalselectionhas alwaysbeenproblematic
in one respect.It is inappropriatelyanthropomorphicto say thatontologicalnature“se-
lects” particulargenesfor survivalin the wilderness,giventhat the wordselectrefersto a
consciousdecisionrenderedby an individual’s volitionalconsciousness.A privatevoli-
tionalconsciousnessis somethingthatthe Earthor wilderness,as a singleunit,has not
beenprovento possess.For thatreason,GabrielDoversuggestsa moreaccuratetermfor