Arnold Kling's article on the coming age of neurological enhancement is worth reading if only because for all his eloquence in describing the likely possibilities, he is unable to articulate a coherent argument against such targeted enhancements:
I cannot articulate what makes me feel this way. Intellectually, I know that we are bound to see the day -- perhaps we are already there -- where a laboratory-developed stimulant is safer and more effective than caffeine. In that case, my prudishness will be hard to justify.
Kling's honest admission is refreshing. Even for those of us uncomfortable with the idea of such radical re-definition of the human, there is a vague sense of dissatisfaction with the host of arguments against such tinkering. Strip away the rhetorical devices and they all seem to boil down to unarticulated intuitions. Similarly we are filled with a sense of dread. We are all too aware that intuitions are powerless to stop the incremental spread of the various enhancements that will change 'the human' forever.
Comments