The discussion of these developments limits itself as a rule to individual values.
That brings an important political question at the table.
How to develop and implement human enhancement technologies in a socially responsible way?
We are an engineering project ourselves.
An important engine behind this development is the combination of nano-, bio-, information, and cognitive technology.
This interaction leads to two megatrends: Biology becomes technology and technology becomes biology.
In the natural sciences, a revolution has occurred in the area of materials.
A DNA strand, for example, is almost two nanometers (or two-millionths of a millimeter) thick.
Nanotechnology laid the groundwork for the computer revolution.
In turn, those computers make it possible to make better materials and machines.
That way nanotechnology and information technology spur each other on.
In this way, a cybernetic loop arises between the physical and digital worlds.
This leads to the statement that biology is increasingly becoming technology.
Germline technology is a typical example of this trend.
This leads to the statement that technology is increasingly becoming biology.
Examples of this second trend are artificial intelligence and android social robots.
It’s free, every week, in your inbox.
The Rathenau Insituut, therefore, speaks of an intimate technological revolution.
Traditionally, this debate focuses on invasive medical technologies that work inside the human body.
What does it mean to be human in the 21st century?
Besides that, consider persuasive technology: information technology designed to influence human behavior.
Or a smart bracelet that monitors perspiration and heartrate and vibrates if the wearer displays aggression.
The wearer has learned by means of a role-playing game that aggressive behavior doesnt pay off.
Consequently, it is expected that he or she will avoid similar behavior in the real world.
When does the concept of technological paternalism become relevant?
Can persuasive technology further weaken an already weak will?
Is it morally permissible to influence peoples behavior even for the better without their knowledge?
Just like invasive technologies, non-invasive technologies raise questions about privacy, as well as bodily and mental integrity.
Do users really remain in control of their own data?
Do we have the right to remain anonymous, to opt-out of being measured, analyzed, and coached?
And how could we, in a world full of sensors?
The rise of facial and emotion recognition, in particular, makes this a pressing question.
But technology can also have unintended side-effects.
Through the increasingly intensive use of technology, our abilities begin to change.
Other competencies might be reduced (deskilling).
Such changes in the human condition transcend the level of the individual.
They touch upon collective questions and values and demand public debate and, where necessary, political consideration.
Examples of classic questions are: is human enhancement an individual right?
Can people decide for themselves whether they want technological enhancements?
In The Techno-Human Condition, Braden Allenby and Daniel Sarewitz argue that such an approach is inadequate.
Allenby and Sarewitz posit that the current debate over human development frequently remains on the instrumental level.
The posthuman person is not a self-made man, but a person designed by others.
The mass deployment of human enhancement technology will also have effects although hard to predict on a global level.
In addition to this biology becomes technology scenario, Harari presents a technology becomes biology scenario.
The Dutch discussion of germline technology shows that this often does not happen.
So far collective interests play a negligible role in that debate.
In the current debate, the pragmatic approach we know from the medical-ethical regime still dominates.
In this debate, a lot of attention is paid to the international position of the Netherlands.
The country doesnt want to fall behind as a knowledge economy.
A traditional risk-benefit analysis is central to this.
Third, significant emphasis is placed on strengthening reproductive autonomy.
An absolute condition for that collective search is a well-developed technological citizenship for all citizens.
Technological citizenship emancipates the regular citizen in relation to the experts and developers of technology.
The role of institutions
Education plays a central role in the promotion of technological citizenship.
And that begins with primary and secondary education.
Here lies a clear role for the government.
It adds two new fields to the curriculum: digital literacy and citizenship.
In 2018 development teams are getting started making those fields a reality.
But education is not enough.
To make their citizenship a reality, people need institutions.
Without suitable administrative institutions, technological citizenship is an empty shell.
It must be possible for rights and duties to be democratically demanded, fixed, and implemented.
For such a vision, further knowledge development is necessary.
When it comes to our natural environment, the central concept is ecological sustainability.
It required many years and the discovery of new knowledge to give qualitative and quantitative meaning to this concept.
Concepts such as human dignity and human sustainability require much greater research and consideration.
Finally, citizens must be able to trust that user interests come first when businesses develop new technological products.
Privacy by design has become a core principle of new European privacy regulations.
This article is republished fromNextNaturebyIra van Keulen and Rinie van Est, Rathenau Instituut, under aCreative Commons license.
