NanoEthics

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 289–304 | Cite as

Nanotechnology, Enhancement, and Human Nature

Original Paper

Abstract

Is nanotechnology-based human enhancement morally permissible? One reason to question such enhancement stems from a concern for preserving our species. It is harder than one might think, however, to explain what could be wrong with altering our own species. One possibility is to turn to the environmental ethics literature. Perhaps some of the arguments for preserving other species can be applied against nanotechnology-based human enhancements that alter human nature. This paper critically examines the case for using two of the strongest arguments in the environmental ethics literature to show that nanotechnology-based human enhancements are impermissible: 1) Our species, like many other naturally occurring species, has aesthetic value. So, nanotechnology-based human enhancements that alter our species should be prohibited. 2) Our species plays valuable ecological roles. Nanotechnology-based human enhancements that alter our species are likely to interfere with our species playing our ecologically valuable roles. So, such enhancements should be prohibited. Neither argument, ultimately, proves conclusive. The paper concludes, however, that considerations underlying both arguments may show us that some nanotechnology-based human enhancements are impermissible.

Keywords

Nanoethics Nanotechnology Enhancement Species Ecosystem Evolution Human nature 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Ben Jantzen, Clark Glymour, Fritz Allhoff, Sarah Wright, Jason Matteson, John Farnum, Andy Norman, Kris Dahl, and an anonymous reviewer for discussion and/or comments. She apologizes to anyone she has so carelessly forgotten to mention.

References

  1. 1.
    Agar N (2001) Life’s intrinsic value. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allhoff F, Lin P, Moor J, Weckert J (2007) Nanoethics: The ethical and social implications of nanotechnology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barnet R, Cavanagh J (1996) “Homogenization of global culture”. In: Mander J, Goldsmith E (eds) The case against the global economy and for a turn toward the local. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, CA, pp 71–77Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barnosky A, Koch P, Feranec R, Wing S, Shabel B (2004) Assessing the causes of late Pleistocene extinctions on the continents. Science 306:70–75 doi:10.1126/science.1101476 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baylis F, Robert JS (2004) The inevitability of genetic enhancement technologies. Bioethics 18:1–26 doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2004.00376.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bharali D, Klejbor I, Stachowiak K, Dutta P, Roy I, Kaur N, Bergey E, Prasad P, Stachowiak M (2005) Organically modified silica nanoparticles: a nonviral vector for in vivo gene delivery and expression in the brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. doi:10.1073/pnas.0504926102
  7. 7.
    Bourassa S (1991) The aesthetics of landscape. Belhaven, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brady E (2003) Aesthetics of the natural environment. Edinburgh University Press, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brennan A (2002) “Moral pluralism and the environment”. In: Schmidtz D, Willott E (eds) Environmental ethics: What really matters, what really works. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 466–478Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buchanan A, Bock D, Daniels N, Wikler D (2000) From chance to choice. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carlson A (1979) Appreciation and the natural environment. J Aesthet Art Criticism 37:267–275 doi:10.2307/430781 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carlson A (1981) Nature, aesthetic judgment, and objectivity. J Aesthet Art Criticism 40:15–27 doi:10.2307/430349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carlson A (1997) On the aesthetic appreciation of Japanese gardens. Br J Aesthet 37:47–56 doi:10.1093/bjaesthetics/37.1.47 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carlson A (2000) Aesthetics and the environment. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carlson A (2008) Email correspondence. October 25, 2007Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carlson A, Berleant A (2004) “Introduction: The aesthetics of nature”. In: Carlson A, Berleant A (eds) The aesthetics of natural environments. Broadview Press, Ontario, pp 11–42Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carson R (1962) Silent spring. Easton, NorwalkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chambers E (2007) Long-circulation nanoparticles via adhesion on red blood cells: Mechanism and extended circulation. Exp Biol Med 232:958–966 http://www.ebmonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/232/7/958. Accessed October 10, 2007Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Croal L (2005) “FE(II) oxidation by anaerobic phototrophic bacteria: molecular mechanisms and geological implications”. Dissertation, California Institute of Technology. Available at http://etd.caltech.edu/etd/available/etd-06062005-011632/unrestricted/LRC_Thesis.pdf (accessed January 5, 2008)
  20. 20.
    Daniels N (1992) Growth hormone therapy for short stature: can we support the treatment/enhancement distinction? Growth Genet Horm 8(S1):46–48Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Diamond J (2003) “The last Americans: environmental collapse and the end of civilization”. Harper's magazine, JuneGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Donlan J, Greene H, Berger J, Bock C, Bock J, Burney D, Estes J, Foreman D, Martin P, Roemer G, Smith F, Soulé M (2005) Re-wilding North America. Nature 436:913–914 doi:10.1038/436913a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dyer K (2007). “This bird only exists in captivity”. KUSATV. Available at http://www.9news.com/life/programming/shows/weekends/kyleskritters/article.aspx?storyid=81156 (accessed November 2, 2007)
  24. 24.
    Ereshefsky M (1998) “Eliminative pluralism”. In: Hull D, Ruse M (eds) The philosophy of biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 348–368Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ereshefsky M (2007). “Species”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/#OntStaSpe (accessed January 4, 2008)
  26. 26.
    Fisher J (2001) “Aesthetics”. In: Jamieson D (ed) A companion to environmental philosophy. Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp 264–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2003) “Weighing the GMO arguments: against”. Available at http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo8.htm (accessed January 3, 2008)
  28. 28.
    Foreman D (2004) Rewilding North America: A vision for conservation in the twenty-first century. Island, Covelo, CAGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Freitas A Jr (1998) Exploratory design in medical nanotechnology: a mechanical artificial red cell, artificial cells, blood substitutes, and immobil. Biotech 26:411–430Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gardiner S (2004) Ethics and global climate change. Ethics 114:555–600 doi:10.1086/382247 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gehring V (2003) “Genetic prospects: Essays on biotechnology, ethics, and public policy”. Rowan and Littlefield, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Godfrey-Smith P (2003) “Functions: consensus without unity”. In: Hull D, Ruse M (eds) The philosophy of biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 280–292Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Graham S (2005) “Nanoparticles pass muster as vectors for gene therapy”. Science News (July 26). Available at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000DDC77-621D-12E5-A21D83414B7F0000 (accessed September 3, 2007)
  34. 34.
    Hansen K (2003) Does autonomy count in favor of labeling genetically modified food. J Agric Environ Ethics 17:67–76 doi:10.1023/B:JAGE.0000010845.31368.2f CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hargrove E (1992) “Foundations of wildlife protection attitudes”. In: Hargrove E (ed) The animal rights/environmental ethics debate: the environmental perspective. SUNY, New York, pp 151–184Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hargrove E (2002) Carlson and the aesthetic appreciation of nature. Philos Geogr 2:213–223Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Harris J (2007) Enhancing evolution: the ethical case for making better people. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hassoun N, Dahl K (2007) “Nanomaterials: reasons for big ethical consideration of little objects”. Carnegie Mellon University Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hassoun N, Wong D (Forthcoming). “Conserving nature; preserving identity”. In: Indigenous knowledge and cultural property: the ethics of cultural and environmental sovereignty and stewardshipGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hull D (1998) “On human nature”. In: Hull D, Ruse M (eds) The philosophy of biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 383–397Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jablonski D. Lessons from the past: Evolutionary impacts of mass extinctions. Colloquium paper presented at the National Academy of Sciences colloquium, “The Future of Evolution,” March 16-20, 2000, at the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center in Irvine, CA. Available at: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:df0MEHVYOMgJ:geosci.uchicago.edu/people/faculty/pdfs/PNAS01.pdf+to+the+conservation+biologist,+there+is+little+positive+to+be+said+about+extinction&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a
  42. 42.
    Jamieson D (2005) “Adaptation, mitigation, and justice perspectives on climate change: science, economics, politics, ethics”. In: Sinnott-Armstrong W, Howarth R (eds) Advances in the economics of environmental resources. vol. 5. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Juengst E (1997) Can enhancement be distinguished from prevention in genetic medicine? J Med Philos 22:125–142Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kitcher P (2003) “Function and design”. In: Hull D, Ruse M (eds) The philosophy of biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 258–279Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Krieger M (2002) “What’s wrong with plastic trees?”. In: Schmidtz D, Willott E (eds) Environmental ethics: What really matters, what really works. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 159–178Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Leopold A (1966) A Sand county almanac: With essays on conservation from round river. Ballantine Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Levinson J (2001) “Aesthetic properties, evaluative force and differences in sensibility”. In: Brady E, Levinson J (eds) Aesthetic concepts: Essays after Sibley. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 61–80Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Light A (2002) “Ecological restoration and the culture of nature”. In: Schmidtz D, Willott E (eds) Environmental ethics: What really matters, what really works. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 178–187Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lin P, Allhoff F (2006) Nanoethics and human enhancement: a critical evaluation of recent arguments. Nanotechnology Perceptions 2:47–52Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lloyd E (1998) “Normality and variation: the human genome project and the ideal human type”. In: Hull D, Ruse M (eds) The philosophy of biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 552–556Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Manson N (2002) Formulating the precautionary principle. Environ Ethics 24:262–274Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mathews F (2001) “Deep ecology”. In: Jamieson D (ed) A companion to environmental philosophy. Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp 218–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mathews F (2002) “Letting the world grow old: an ethos of countermodernity”. In: Schmidtz D, Willott E (eds) Environmental ethics: What really matters, what really works. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 221–230Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mayell H (2002) “Climate studies point to more floods in this century”. National Geographic News. Available at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/01/0130_020130_greatfloods.html (accessed January 30, 2006)
  55. 55.
    McPeake R, Pledger M “Beaver damage prevention and control methods”. University of Arkansas, United States Department of Agriculture, and County Governments website. Available at http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:OlCFSuxbVNUJ:www.uaex.edu/Other_Areas/publications/PDF/FSA-9085.pdf+beaver+eradication&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a (accessed October 4, 2007)
  56. 56.
    Mishler B, Brandon R (1998) “Individuality, pluralism, and the phylogenetic species concept”. In: Hull D, Ruse M (eds) The philosophy of biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 300–318Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Naam R (2005) More than human. Broadway Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Norton B (1987) Why preserve natural variety? Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Norton B (2002) “Fragile freedoms”. In: Schmidtz D, Willott E (eds) Environmental ethics: what really matters, what really works. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 501–505Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Norton B (2003) Searching for sustainability: interdisciplinary essays in the philosophy of conservation biology. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    O’Neill J (2001) “Meta-ethics”. In: Jamieson D (ed) A companion to environmental philosophy. Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp 163–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Outwater A (1996) “Natural history of beavers”. Excerpt from chapter 2 of Nature's hydrologists in water: A natural history. Available at http://www.shawsheen.org/Beavers/Natural_History_of_Beavers/natural_history_of_beavers.html (accessed October 14, 2007)
  63. 63.
    Quieroz K, Donoghue M (1998) “Phylogentic systematics and the species problem”. In: Hull D, Ruse M (eds) The philosophy of biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 319–347Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Rawls J (1999) Political liberalism. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Robert J, Baylis F (2003) Crossing species boundaries. Am J Bioeth 3:1–13 doi:10.1162/15265160360706417 Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Rolston H III (1995) Does aesthetic appreciation of landscapes need to be science based? Br J Philos 35:374–386Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Rolston H III (2002) “Feeding people versus saving nature”. In: Schmidtz D, Willott E (eds) Environmental ethics: what really matters, what really works. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp, pp 404–416Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Russow L (2002) “Why do species matter?”. In: Schmidtz D, Willott E (eds) Environmental ethics: What really matters, what really works. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 137–144Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Sadler B, Carlson A (eds) (1992) Environmental aesthetics: essays in interpretation. Western Geographical Series, vol 20. University of Victoria, British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Sagoff M (2003) “Genetic engineering and the concept of the natural”. In: Gehring V (ed) Genetic prospects: Essays on biotechnology, ethics, and public policy. Rowan and Littlefield, New York, pp 11–26Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Saito Y (1985) The Japanese appreciation of nature. Br J Aesthet 23:239–251 doi:10.1093/bjaesthetics/25.3.239 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Schmidtz D (2002a) “When preservationism doesn’t preserve”. In: Schmidtz D, Willott E (eds) Environmental ethics: What really matters, what really works. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 320–329Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Schmidtz D (2002b) “Natural enemies: An anatomy of environmental conflict”. In: Schmidtz D, Willott E (eds) Environmental ethics: What really matters, what really works. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 417–424Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Schmidtz D (2002c) “Are all species equal?”. In: Schmidtz D, Willott E (eds) Environmental ethics: what really matters, what really works. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 96–103Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Shue H (2002) “Global environment and international inequality”. In: Schmidtz D, Willott E (eds) Environmental ethics: What really matters, what really works. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 394–404Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Sepanmag Y (1993) The beauty of environment: A general model for environmental aesthetics, 2nd edn. Environmental Ethics Books, Denton, TXGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Thomas C, Cameron A, Green R, Bakkenes M, Beaumont L, Collingham Y, Erasmus B, Ferreira de Siqueira M, Grainger A, Hannah L, Hughes L, Huntley B, van Jaarsveld A, Midgley G, Miles L, Ortega-Huerta M, Peterson A, Phillips O, Williams S (2004) Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427:145–148 doi:10.1038/nature02121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    The United Nations (UN) (2008) “The UN works to protect endangered species”. Available at http://www.un.org/works/environment/animalplanet/beaver.html (accessed January 4, 2008)
  79. 79.
    University of Texas at Dallas (2007) NanoTech Institute Research. Available at http://www.nanotech.utdallas.edu/research/index.html (accessed October 4, 2007)
  80. 80.
    Varner G (1998) “In nature’s interests? Interests, animal rights, and environmental ethics”. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Wachboit R (1994) Normality as a biological concept. Philos Sci 61:579–591 doi:10.1086/289823 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Wachboit R (2003) “Normal humans, human nature, and genetic lessons”. In: Gehring V (ed) Genetic prospects: Essays on biotechnology, ethics, and public policy. Rowan and Littlefield, New York, pp 51–62Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Wetzell L (2006) “Types and tokens”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/types-tokens/ (accessed January 2, 2008)
  84. 84.
    Whyte I (2002) “Headaches and heartaches: the elephant management dilemma”. In: Schmidtz D, Willott E (eds) Environmental ethics: What really matters, what really works. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 293–305Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Willott E, Schmidtz D (2002) “Why environmental ethics?”. In: Schmidtz D, Willott E (eds) Environmental ethics: What really matters, what really works. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp xi–xxiGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Willott E (2004) Restoring nature without mosquitoes? Restor Ecol 12:143–153 doi:10.1111/j.1061-2971.2004.00392.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Wolf C (Forthcoming). “Anthropogenic climate change and intergenerational justice”. In: Gosseries A, Meyer L (eds.) Juice between generations. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of PhilosophyCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittburghUSA

Personalised recommendations