ABSTRACT
One of the most commonly expressed objections to enhancement is on grounds of fairness. Opponents believe that allowing human enhancement will lead inevitably to unfairness, inequality and injustice:
‘Improved’ post-humans would inevitably come to view the ‘naturals’ as inferior, as a subspecies of humans suitable for exploitation, slavery or even extermination. Ultimately, it is this prospect of what can be termed ‘genetic genocide’ that makes cloning combined with genetic engineering a potential weapon of mass destruction, and the biologist who would attempt it a potential bioterrorist.
(George Annas, 2002)The first victim of transhumanism might be equality.… Underlying this idea of the equality of rights is the belief that we all possess a human essence that dwarfs manifest differences in skin colour, beauty and even intelligence. This essence, and the view that individuals therefore have inherent value, is at the heart of political liberalism. But modifying that essence is the core of the transhumanist project. If we start transforming ourselves into something superior, what rights will these enhanced creatures claim, and what rights will they possess when compared to those left behind?
If some move ahead, can anyone afford not to follow? These questions are troubling enough within rich, developed societies. Add in the implications for citizens of the worlds poorest countries for whom biotechnology’s marvels likely will be out of reach and the threat to the idea of equality becomes even more menacing.
(Francis Fukuyama, 2004)These would be mere consumer decisions – but that also means that they would benefit the rich far more than the poor. They would take the gap in power, wealth and education that currently divides both our society and the world at large, and write that division into our very biology.
(Bill McKibben, 2003)