Is Radical Enhancement of the Human Species Ethically Justified Term Paper

Is Radical Enhancement of the Human Species Ethically Justified - Term Paper Example To discuss on this topic, this essay shall compare and contrast two texts; ‘Humanity’s end’ by Nicholas Agar and ‘Better than human’ by Allen Buchanan. Arguments for this paper get based on the works of the two authors who get to provide a little more insight into bioethics. In ‘humanity’s end’, Agar argues against radical enhancement of the human species. He explains the destructive consequences that may arise out of radical enhancement of the human species. In his book, Agar argues against the ideas proposed by four radical enhancement thinkers (Agar 11). He explains that the results of radical advancement may have more negative outcomes than positives proposed by the four thinkers. Agar argues that some radical enhancements, especially germline engineering, may end the human species. In ‘better than human’ Allen Buchanan argues for radical enhancement. He proposes that human beings should become open to the idea of getting better than they already are since the human body design does contain flaws. He argues that radical enhancements could make the human species smarter, stronger, have more stamina, live longer and have better memories. Buchanan argues that people reject biomedical enhancements due to a poor understanding, misleading information or false assumptions (Buchanan 19). In his book, Agar argues against radical enhancement by claiming it has the potential to destroy human species. Agar argues that radical enhancement technology may re-speciate human beings (Agar 46). He claims the advances made by technology can define a new breed of human species. This species will pose a threat or endanger the already existing human species that belongs to Homo sapiens. Agar argues that there is no evidence that creation of post humans through radical enhancement will share values, relationships or culture with humans. There is the possibility that gene mutations may occur later and significantly a ffect the enhanced species. Meanwhile in his book, Buchanan arguing for radical enhancement postulates that making small changes to the structure of humans does not mean that the entire human structure gets changed. He also argues that alterations to the human species do not entirely mean that it would have a negative effect to the species. He states that these alterations become simply targeted at creating and improving the performances of current human capacities (Buchanan 65). He views enhancements as a means of relieving pain and suffering from human lives and not species endangerment. Enhancements according to Buchanan will be a way of improving the quality of human life. According to Buchanan, radical enhancement makes human life to be easier. He argues that through radical enhancement, human beings get to be able to improve their operation capacities. He argues that radical enhancement will increase human intelligence, physical strength, and lifespan (Buchanan 139). Buchanan questions why humans should be against these advances when they are only going to improve their life. He argues that radical enhancement will make life become more convenient for humans. Arguing against these advances, Agar pinpoints that human beings may in the process loose a valuable human experience. By increasing human intelligence levels and lifespan there is the possibility that human beings will delete experiences of great value from their lives (Agar 140). Increasing human in