The Ethics of Human Enhancement: Technology, Identity & Society

Hello, hello, and welcome back to IntelligentPod—the show where we dig into the big ideas shaping our world and break them down into stories, science, and strategies you can actually use. I’m your host, Sophie Lane, and I am so glad you’re joining me today. If you’re new here, welcome to the IntelligentPod family. And if you’re a regular listener, you know we love to tackle the kinds of questions that keep curious minds buzzing. Today, I’ve got one for you: what does it mean to be human, and what happens when technology starts to blur the lines? That’s right—today’s episode is all about the ethics of human enhancement technologies. Now, before you picture a sci-fi future with cyborgs and superhumans, let’s ground ourselves in reality. Human enhancement technologies are already here, and they’re getting more sophisticated every day. From gene editing and neural implants to cognitive enhancers and wearable tech, we are living in an age where the tools to upgrade our bodies and minds are no longer the stuff of fantasy—they’re science fact. But just because we *can* enhance ourselves, does that mean we *should*? What are the ethical lines we need to draw? And how do we make sure that the promise of better living doesn’t leave us with bigger problems? Let’s dive in. Let’s start with a clear definition. When we talk about human enhancement technologies, we’re looking at a broad spectrum. It can be as simple as corrective glasses or as complex as CRISPR gene editing. Some enhancements aim to restore lost functions—think cochlear implants for people with hearing loss. Others go beyond repair and venture into improvement, like using nootropics to boost memory or implanting chips that let you interact with computers just by thinking. A quick stat for you—according to a 2023 Pew Research Center survey, 72% of Americans believe that brain chip implants to enhance cognitive function will be routine within the next 50 years. That’s not a fringe belief. That’s mainstream, and it shows just how much this technology is on our collective radar. Let’s make this a bit more relatable. Imagine you’re a high school student, and you have the option to take a pill that makes you remember everything you read for the next 24 hours. Would you do it? What if your classmates are doing it and you’re not? Does it feel like an advantage or does it start to feel like a necessity? These are the kinds of questions we’re grappling with as a society. Now, let’s look at this from a few different perspectives, because as with most big ethical questions, there are no easy answers. First up: the psychological perspective. There’s an argument that human enhancement could increase wellbeing. Think about someone who’s paralyzed and regains mobility through a brain-computer interface. That’s transformative in the best way. But there’s a flip side—what does it do to our sense of self if we start upgrading ourselves like we upgrade our smartphones? Where do we draw the line between “me” and “my technology”? There’s also the risk of what psychologists call “hedonic adaptation”—the idea that once we get used to an enhancement, it stops making us happier and just becomes the new normal. So, if everyone is enhanced, are we really better off, or just running faster on the same treadmill? Let’s shift gears to the scientific perspective. Technologically, we’re making huge strides. Take CRISPR, the gene-editing technique that allows us to make precise changes to DNA. In 2018, a Chinese scientist, He Jiankui, announced he had edited the genes of twin girls to make them resistant to HIV. This was a watershed moment, but it was also met with overwhelming condemnation from the scientific community. Why? Because the long-term effects are unknown, the consent process was questionable, and it opened a Pandora’s box of ethical dilemmas. A landmark academic study published in *Nature* in 2019 surveyed 4,000 scientists worldwide. The majority agreed that while gene editing could be justified to treat severe diseases, using it for enhancement—like boosting intelligence or athletic ability—was ethically problematic and should be banned for now. The consensus? Just because we have the tools doesn’t mean we have the wisdom to use them wisely. Now, let’s zoom out and look at the cultural perspective. Societies differ in how they view enhancement. In some cultures, altering the body is taboo; in others, it’s embraced. Think of cosmetic surgery in South Korea versus traditional views on bodily integrity in some Indigenous communities. There are also questions of access and inequality. If enhancements are expensive, do they become the privilege of the wealthy, creating a new divide between the “enhanced” and the “unenhanced”? Or, as some fear, will there be pressure for everyone to enhance just to keep up? Let me share a real-life anecdote that brings these questions home. In the 2016 Summer Paralympics, German long-jumper Markus Rehm, who uses a carbon-fiber prosthetic leg, jumped farther than the Olympic gold medalist that same year. This sparked a debate: is his prosthesis an unfair advantage, or just a different kind of ability? Should technology that “levels the playing field” be embraced, or does it risk redefining what it means to compete as a human? These are not just theoretical questions. They touch on our values, our identity, and our vision for the future. So, what can we do about it? How do we navigate the ethical minefield of human enhancement in our daily lives? Here are a few actionable steps to consider. First, stay informed. The technology is evolving fast, and the best way to make good decisions is to know what’s out there. Follow reliable news sources, read up on the basics of gene editing, brain-computer interfaces, and cognitive enhancers. Remember, you don’t need to be a scientist to have an informed opinion. Second, have conversations. Talk to your friends, your family, your colleagues. Ask them how they feel about these technologies. Would they use them? Why or why not? The more we talk about these issues, the better equipped we are to set ethical boundaries that reflect our shared values. Third, think critically about what “enhancement” really means to you. Is it about fixing what’s broken, or about pushing beyond natural limits? How do you feel about the idea of a “level playing field” versus the freedom to choose your own path? There’s no right answer, but reflecting on your own beliefs can help you navigate these choices if—and when—they arise. And finally, advocate for responsible innovation. Support policies and organizations that prioritize safety, equity, and transparency in the development of new technologies. If you’re voting, look for candidates who take these issues seriously. If you’re in a position to influence decisions at work or in your community, champion a thoughtful, ethical approach. Let’s take a moment to recap. Today, we’ve explored the ethics of human enhancement technologies—their promise, their pitfalls, and the profound questions they raise about what it means to be human. We’ve looked at perspectives from psychology, science, and culture, and we’ve talked about ways you can engage with these issues in your own life. As we wrap up, I want to leave you with a thought: every generation faces choices about how to use the tools at its disposal. The technologies we create reflect our values, our hopes, and sometimes our fears. The challenge—and the opportunity—is to use them wisely, so that we enhance not just our bodies and minds, but our shared humanity. Thank you so much for spending this time with me on IntelligentPod. If you enjoyed this episode, I’d be thrilled if you could leave a review—your feedback helps new listeners discover the show and keeps our community growing. For links to studies, articles, and more, head over to intelligentpod.com for the show notes. And as always, I love hearing from you—email me anytime at sophie@intelligentpod.com with your thoughts, questions, or ideas for future episodes. Stay curious, stay thoughtful, and I’ll catch you next time on IntelligentPod.