Skip to content

What does it mean to be “a human”?

Somewhere between technological advancement as a tool to augment human intelligence and pharmaceuticals to improve focus and alertness, we have to ask ourselves: what does it mean to be a human? Or do we classify all advancements as simply extending humanity? We have, after all, expended much of our effort over the last 3000 years building tools to extend the physical limitations of the human body. Are we any less human when we use technology (and pharmaceuticals) to extend our mind? Can we view technology as a means to perfect the human mind?
Brain Gain paints a somewhat depressing picture of using cognitive enhancers in college and work. Will the academic world eventually have it’s own “baseball steroids” scandal? Or are the rules different when we apply enhancement to cognition instead of running/hitting/jumping/swimming?

This was written by gsiemens. Posted on Tuesday, April 21, 2009, at 1:48 pm. Filed under Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

One Comment

  1. Ken Allan wrote:

    Kia ora George!

    Thanks for the link to Margaret Talbot’s post.

    I have recently read and commented on Britt Watwood’s post, The Friends Question. He cites a video by Pattie Maes who talks of the future use of technologies to enhance awareness and other cognitive aspects of thinking.

    Being a chemist by degree (2 actually) I often feel that our chemical technology tends to get worse press than that for the equivalent digital technology when it comes to enhancing human performance. I guess my baggage is serving me here, for I lived through times when calculators were banned from examination rooms and other sanctions on digital equipment that have since been (and are being) relaxed and dispelled.

    My question to do with the chemical aspects of body enhancement is, where do we draw the line?

    The athletic and sport arenas are littered with this associated business. And it’s not just limited to humans. Yet many valid techniques that were used way back are now being labelled as ‘illegal’. I put it down to the influence of the narcotic drug misuse and associated customary sanctions, that it is too easy to label a substance and call abuse when it is used for a valid purpose.

    Some of these (sports) banned substances are actually naturally occurring as are many neuroenhancing substances. But I can see where it may take us. Are we to look forward to degrees being rescinded because a blood or urine test performed on the candidate proved positive for a known neuroenhancer? Should we move further and ban coke (the soft drink :) coffee or autolysised yeast extracts or any other such substances just because some people find that imbibing these foods helps them to learn and think?

    I say, ‘get real!’ Human beings have (presumably) evolved to metabolise all sorts of naturally occurring substances and utilise them various different ways in the body (and mind).

    I’m not advocating some sort of liberalism here. It’s not an issue of classes of narcotics. It’s to do with performance, and how this can be achieved either through techniques other than simply exercise (whatever form that takes) leading to brain fitness.

    Catchya later

    Tuesday, April 21, 2009 at 9:27 pm | Permalink