Transhumanism: A Dystopia for Socioeconomic Status

Transhumanism is a movement that advocates for the enhancement of human conditions, such as longevity (yay no aging), mood (motivation not depression), and cognitive abilities. This is accomplished through sophisticated technologies. For instance, antennas that allow humans to sense colors outside of visible light. I'm sure this sounds like a wonderful innovation, but can you imagine walking around with an antenna coming from your head? I couldn't. In addition, arguments suggest there are implications to socioeconomic status (SES) because of the prevalence of such technologies. These enhancement technologies will create a genetic divide that further widens the SES gap.

Every time a new iPhone is portrayed, almost every person wants this new fancy toy although it may not be vastly different from the one they currently have. On the contrary, this technology is disproportionately available to individuals of lower SES as they are not able to afford it. This is the same phenomenon that will be observed with the implementation of enhancement technology.

The wealth gap between rich and poor, even more so the racial wealth gap, is already a world of “haves” and “have nots” (like the show). Like the movie Gattaca, where social class is determined solely by genetic potential, we see the effects as the main character who was deemed “in-valid”, modifies his appearance to one of a genetically viable or “valid” individual. He was a “have nots” that assumed the genetic identity of another “have” individual in order to fulfill his dream. In this respect, implementation enhancement technologies will create more social hierarchies beginning before birth.

While there are arguments appeasing the likelihood and morality of transhumanist goals such as medical advances, implementation will only cause the technologies to become exclusive to the wealthy. The article states that not rendering public policies or social democratic reforms such as a healthcare plan with regards to the emerging technologies would develop a society of genetically pioneered “haves” and “haves not” as opposed to an income driven “haves” and “have nots”. Essentially means unequal access to the same enhancements. Individuals of lower SES might fall victim to obtaining less authentic forms of these enhancements in order to try and minimize this new form of inequality.

Many arguments appeal to the benefits of these emerging technologies, however, the implications presented by the arguments objecting to transhumanism are far more likely to occur. There is a reason why the fictional accounts depicting humans adopting enhancement technologies are dystopian. Creating a society in which transhumanism is prevalent without dystopia is not feasible. Now, learning more information about transhumanism, is it still an interesting movement you would like to subject yourself to knowing that it will only exacerbate social issues like the wealth gap? Like the saying, “an eye for an eye”, will you adopt a new cyborg eye for your old one?