ASEBL Journal – Volume 13 Issue 1, January 201 8
to our definition of what it means to be human and to possess and employ moral
sense. I begin and end with quotes from current news articles to try and ground the
discussion in individual, “live” responses to the subject at hand, and as a gentle re-
minder to readers that necessary participants in the debate over human-directed evolu-
tion do not all reside within the bounds of professional academia.
A recent BBC news article asked 50 leaders in science, academia, business and gov-
ernment for their opinions on the greatest challenges confronting human society. One
of the most striking responses came from Joel Garreau, Professor of Law, Culture, and
Values at Arizona State University School of law:
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve talked to guys working on, oh,
something like massively increasing the number and power of mito-
chondria in human cells. And I’m like, you know that if you massive-
ly increase the amount of energy creation in cells, you’re talking
about changing what it means to be human, right? Are you intention-
ally trying to create supermen? And the answer every time is “Wow,
what a fascinating question, I never thought of that.” (Lufkin, 2017)
The quote is, of course, proffered by Garreau in order to shock the reader out of com-
placency, and the picture of enthusiastic researchers stepping blindly towards a post-
human future is unsettling. This is not to say that the whole biotechnology sector is
operating in a completely unreflective manner. Almost all the other people polled in
the BBC article who discussed similar issues of genetic technology and human en-
hancement stressed the need for “ethical reflection” and discussion to avoid abuse and
negative consequences. However, not one suggested a particular method for doing so,
or a terminology capable of covering such discussion. Current debates over human
enhancement too often fall into polarized, even caricatured stances. Overt or disguised
appeals to theological concepts of “natural limits” on human knowledge or human
abilities, on the one hand, vie against secular, utilitarian claims of the near-limitless,
risk-free advantages of such programs on the other.
When we examine claims for or against human genetic enhancement more closely, we
invariably find teleological claims standing behind them. For instance, by pursuing
human enhancement, we are overstepping our role, our purpose, as humans; we are
‘playing God without possession of divine wisdom or understanding.’ Attempts to
surpass human limits, however they may be defined, are not simply hazardous or of
uncertain consequences, they are existential errors. Or we claim that the purpose of
science, of human society, is simply ‘to better the conditions of human life,’ however
that life may be defined, or what might constitute improving it. Even seemingly facile
or outrageous claims like ‘we’re developing this technology because we can’ or ‘soon
we will be able to transcend the physical body entirely’ conceal teleological impulses.
The exercise and increase of our abilities and the pursuit of greater knowledge are as-
sumed to be moral goods in themselves and in furtherance of our positive human
tendencies to create and to improve ourselves.
These teleological claims are, of course, inextricably bound with the general question
of the teleology of the human species. What is the purpose of the human species as
one species of life among many others on earth? What is our purpose as self-
31