Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Science fiction and human enhancement: radical life-extension in the movie ‘In Time’ (2011)

  • Scientific Contribution
  • Published:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

“We can all live forever as long as we don’t do anything foolish. Doesn’t that scare you? That maybe you’ll never do

anything foolish or courageous or anything worth a damn.”

– Sylvia Weis, In Time (2011)

Abstract

The ethics of human enhancement has been a hotly debated topic in the last 15 years. In this debate, some advocate examining science fiction stories to elucidate the ethical issues regarding the current phenomenon of human enhancement. Stories from science fiction seem well suited to analyze biomedical advances, providing some possible case studies. Of particular interest is the work of screenwriter Andrew Niccol (Gattaca, S1m0ne, In Time, and Good Kill), which often focuses on ethical questions raised by the use of new technologies. Examining the movie In Time (2011), the aim of this paper is to show how science fiction can contribute to the ethical debate of human enhancement. In Time provides an interesting case study to explore what could be some of the consequences of radical life-extension technologies. In this paper, we will show how arguments regarding radical life-extension portrayed in this particular movie differ from what is found in the scientific literature. We will see how In Time gives flesh to arguments defending or rejecting radical life-extension. It articulates feelings of unease, alienation and boredom associated with this possibility. Finally, this article will conclude that science fiction movies in general, and In Time in particular, are a valuable resource for a broad and comprehensive debate about our coming future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See http://scifimedhums.glasgow.ac.uk/journal-issue/ accessed Feb 08, 2017.

  2. For an overview of the debate on the ethics of human enhancement, see Juengst and Moseley (2016).

  3. For argument concerning safety, see Glannon (2002a, b).

  4. Interview with Aubrey de Grey, http://www.speculist.com/archives/000065.html, Accessed Feb 13, 2016.

  5. Interview with Aubrey de Grey, http://www.speculist.com/archives/000065.html, Accessed Feb 08, 2017.

References

  • Agar, Nicholas. 2010. Humanity’s End: Why We Should Reject Radical Enhancement. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Agar, Nicholas. 2014. Truly Human Enhancement: A Philosophical Defense of Limits. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Annas, George J, Lori B Andrews, and Rosario M Isasi. 2002. Protecting the Endangered Human: Toward an International Treaty Prohibiting Cloning and Inheritable Alterations. American Journal of Law and Medicine 28 (2–3): 151–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, Allen, Dan W. Brock, Norman Daniels, and Daniel Wikler. 2001. From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Childress, James F., and Tom L. Beauchamp. 2008. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Sixth edit. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Grey, Aubrey, and Michael Rae. 2008. Ending Aging: The Rejuvenation Breakthroughs That Could Reverse Human Aging in Our Lifetime. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Griffin.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeGrazia, David. 2005. Enhancement Technologies and Human Identity. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (3): 261–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eichinger, Tobias. 2011. Wer hat Angst vor Androiden? Aufklärungsmaschinen und bewegte Menschenbilder im Roboterfilm. In Das Gehirn als Projekt: Wissenschaftler, Künstler und Schüler erkunden unsere neurotechnische Zukunft, eds. Müller O, Maio G, Boldt J, et al., Rombach, 210–216.

  • Eichinger, Tobias. 2013. Jenseits der Therapie. Philosophie und Ethik wunscherfüllender Medizin. Transcript.

  • Elliott, Carl. 2004. Better Than Well: American Medicine Meets the American Dream. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erler, Alexandre. 2012. One Man’s Authenticity Is Another Man’s Betrayal: A Reply to Levy. Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (3): 257–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenton, Elizabeth. 2006. Liberal Eugenics & Human Nature: Against Habermas. The Hastings Center Report 36 (6): 35–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, Francis. 2003. Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. New York: Picador.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glannon, Walter. 2002a. Extending the Human Life Span. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (3): 339–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glannon, Walter. 2002b. Indentity, Prudential Concern, and Extended Lives. Bioethics 16 (3): 266–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 2003. The Future of Human Nature. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, John. 2000. Intimations of Immortality. Science 288 (5463): 59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, John. 2002. A Response to Walter Glannon. Bioethics 16 (3): 284–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, John. 2004. “Immortal Ethics.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1019: 527–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, John. 2008. Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hick, John. 1993. Disputed Questions in Theology and the Philosophy of Religion. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Huxley, Aldous. 1932/2006. Brave New World, Reprint ed. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juengst, Eric and Moseley, Daniel. 2016. Human Enhancement, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/enhancement/.

  • Kamm, Frances M. 2005. Is There a Problem with Enhancement? The American Journal of Bioethics: AJOB 5 (3): 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kass, Leon. 2003. Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness. In The New Atlantis, 9–28.

  • Levy, Neil. 2011. Enhancing Authenticity. Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (3): 308–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConnell, Terrance. 2010. Genetic Enhancement, Human Nature, and Rights. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (4): 415–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKibben, Bill. 2004. Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niccol, Andrew. 2011. In Time. USA: 20th Century Fox.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parens, Erik. 2005. Authenticity and Ambivalence: Toward Understanding the Enhancement Debate. The Hastings Center Report 35 (3): 34–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roduit, Johann A.R. 2016. The Case for Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Human Enhancement. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roduit, Johann A.R, Baumann, Holger and Heilinger, Jan-Christoph. 2013. Human enhancement and perfection. Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (10): 647–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roduit, Johann A.R, Baumann, Holger and Heilinger, Jan-Christoph. 2014. Evaluating human enhancements: the importance of ideals. Monash Bioethics Review 32 (3–4): 205–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roduit, Johann A.R, Heilinger, Jan-Christoph and Baumann, Holger. 2015. Ideas of perfection and the ethics of human enhancement. Bioethics 29 (9): 622–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandel, Michael J. 2007. The Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer, G. Owen, Guy Kahane, and Julian Savulescu. 2014. Autonomy and Enhancement. Neuroethics 7 (2): 123–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapshay, Sandra. 2009. Bioethics at the Movies, ed. by Sandra Shapshay. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svenaeus, Fredrik. 2009. The Ethics of Self-Change: Becoming Oneself by Way of Antidepressants or Psychotherapy? Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy 12 (2): 169–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Bernard. 1973. The Makropulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality. In The Problems of the Self, 82–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding was provided by Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (Grant No. 165222).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 30, 8006, Zürich, Switzerland

    Johann A. R. Roduit & Tobias Eichinger

  2. Department of Philosophy, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr. NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada

    Walter Glannon

Authors
  1. Johann A. R. Roduit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tobias Eichinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Walter Glannon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johann A. R. Roduit.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roduit, J.A.R., Eichinger, T. & Glannon, W. Science fiction and human enhancement: radical life-extension in the movie ‘In Time’ (2011). Med Health Care and Philos 21, 287–293 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-018-9831-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-018-9831-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation