we should welcome with open arms the rich possibilities of technologically enhancing our bodies. just so long as we don't all end up looking, and thinking, and acting the same
there is no clear distinction between the way we use technology to make ourselves well and how we might use it in future to become superhuman. photograph: allstar
if you could choose the colour of your child's eyes, what colour would you choose? if you could rebuild damaged leg cartilage and, in doing so, make it stronger and more flexible than any natural biological substance, would you? what if you could take a pill that would allow you to concentrate intensely over a short and crucial period in your life, when distraction could mean the loss of something very important, like somebody's life?
these decisions and many others like them are now upon us and they have reached the attention of the european parliament. over the next few months, meps will establish an advisory committee on all aspects of human enhancement, the first committee of its kind.
meanwhile the us has gradually been transforming health care into enhancement care and, perhaps by implication, losing sight of basic healthcare needs. in a world that is increasingly concerned about technological domination and dependence, we are becoming enhancement junkies. we nip here, tuck there, whiten our teeth, reduce the width of our waists, and even go on game shows for the chance of winning expensive, invasive cosmetic surgery. what is it that people seek by undergoing such transformations?
i think it has something to do with what i call the accumulation of biocultural capital. the expectation is that such alterations will make us wealthier in some sense. this might take the form of actual monetary gain. for instance, if we have better eyesight, we might be in a stronger position to access certain professions where this is important, such as being a pilot or an astronaut. we might even become a better golfer, which might explain why tiger woods had lasik eye surgery.
in other cases, the capital we acquire is cultural when we buy into the idea that by sculpting our bodies in a particular way we enhance our attractiveness to others. of course, we have always dabbled in this area. we make ourselves presentable before important meetings, or when going on dates, altering our body odour with cologne, removing blemishes with make-up and so on. however, today's technology takes this desire to a completely new level. nowadays we can lengthen our legs, chemically enhance our mental ability and perhaps even genetically modify ourselves to become stronger, faster or more resilient to wear and tear.
critics of such practices point to their irreversible or invasive character. they note that the fashions we covet when altering our appearance are ephemeral and we might find ourselves worse off rather than wealthier by pursuing them. others are concerned that we will modify ourselves to such an extent that we will lose all sense of our fragile humanity. becoming a diy superhero could rob us of some essential quality that has to do with being vulnerable.
should we continue to embrace this dramatic move towards the posthuman, or outlaw radical technological transformations? one of the difficulties is that there is no clear distinction between the way we use technology to make ourselves well and how we might use it to become better than well, or superhuman. so, when it comes to imagining how the technology might progress, our relentless pursuit of health might already commit us to enhancement. we might even be enhanced already.
we are a remarkably modified species, from the sophisticated clothing we wear to the laser eye surgery we utilise. we have always been beings in transition. we also bring a large amount of aesthetic content to our new technological culture. whether it is the size of our breasts, the length of our legs or the colour of our makeup, we adopt new ways of altering ourselves to make them our own, to give them personal integrity and meaning.
one of the difficulties is that we cannot know in advance what precise aesthetic content will emerge from any given body modification or how such an alteration will be interpreted over time or, indeed, over our lifetimes. this is part of the risk we take when buying into any lifestyle enhancement. consider tattooing, for instance, which has become a remarkably personalised practice over the years. what does the tattoo of a 20-year-old mean to that same person when they are 80 years old? like other body modifications, tattoos have gone through numerous social and cultural shifts and today they are practically a mainstream body modification. some would say they still signify deviant behaviour, though in a much more modest sense than they did when we used tattooing to brand criminals. tattoos are also a great example of our willingness and desire to experiment with our bodies.
should this uncertainty about what we will gain – or lose – from enhancements make us more reluctant to use them? far from it. instead, we should find more ways to support their responsible use. technology is not value-laden. the practice of cosmetic surgery per se is not a good reason to be concerned about the particular culture of use we see among us. if we want to foster a more enlightened use of the technology, we have to begin with culture, not with the technology itself.
here we get to the crux of the issue: the ways in which we utilise technologies of body or mind modification will always be informed by our broader cultural values, but, more significantly, cultural trends. this is why we need to take hold of such innovations and, through our use of them, question what we consider to be beautiful, or what would count as an enhancement to humanity.
sometimes, our use of them simply signals that we are part of some tribe, such as the tribe that can afford botox. for this reason we must also critically engage with how tribes are often created by commercial structures, through advertisements and long-standing relationships between pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies and the medical industries.
the kinds of enhancements we must seek for humanity should not lead us towards a world where we all aspire to look the same as each other, which is a criticism often levelled at the cosmetic surgery industry. rather, we should encourage human enhancements that amplify human variation. that's what i expect from human enhancement technologies and this is what humanity excels in, as the history of fashion reveals.
so, as the european parliament proceeds with its discussions about how best to govern this brave new world, we would do well to remember that the problem is not the proliferation of enhancement technologies, but this peculiar period where there are only a few options available to us. once we have access to the fullest range of human modifications, we will find less cause to mimic our favourite celebrity or, at least, our favourite celebrities will be much more varied in their appearance and their talents. instead of converging around a single notion of beauty, we will invent new forms of human beauty.
new functional possibilities will also transform our aspirations. if we were all able to run a 100m sprint in 8 seconds, we might value some other olympic event more highly or we might find more cause to value an activity that isn't an olympic event. alternatively, if we all had perfect pitch (a trait for which there is a rather simple genetic cause), we might invent some radical new forms of making music or, at least, destablise the dominance of certain musical genres, as the value of a perfect voice will be diminished.
these rich possibilities are likely to be enabled by a culture of enhancement and governing them will keep the european parliament busy for quite some time. of course, the meps unique problem will be how to develop policies that accommodate the entire spectrum of european values, so as to avoid the chaotic consequences of "enhancement tourism". once we have expanded the options as far as possible, we will be able to observe how the choices of technological enhancement are as rich and complex as the choices we make about other aspects of our identity.
现在，我们运用技术使自己更健康，将来，我们运用技术让自己成为超人，其中并没有明确的区别。摄影：allstar
假如你能为自己的孩子选择眼睛的颜色，你会选择什么颜色？假如你能修复受伤的腿软骨，而且这样做还能使你的腿骨比自然的生物物质更强壮、更灵活，你会这么做吗？假如在你一生中某个短暂而关键的时期，分心可能就意味着失去某种非常重要的东西，比如某人的生命，而吃片药就能帮助你全神贯注，你会怎么样？
欧洲议会已经注意到了诸如此类需要我们做出的各种决定。在今后几个月内，议会会员们将首次创办一个顾问委员会，来解决有关人类美容方方面面的问题。
与此同时，美国已经逐渐变健康保健为美容保健，也许有意无意地忽视了基本健康保健的需要。在人们越来越担心技术统治和技术依赖的世界，我们正在成为美容迷。我们这里修修，那里整整；美白牙齿，缩小腰围；甚至为了赢得昂贵的侵入性整容手术而参加游戏表演。人们接受这样的整形究竟追求什么呢？
我认为这与我所说的生物文化资本的积累有关。从某种意义上说，我们做出这种改变所期望的是使自己更富有。而富有的形式也许会表现为真正的金钱收益。举例来说，如果我们的视力更好，那么，在争取某种职业时，也许就能处于更有利的位置，比如在争取成为看重视力的飞行员和宇航员的时候。如果视力更好，我们甚至能成为更优秀的高尔夫球员。也许这正是泰格·伍兹要做激光矫视手术的原因。
在其它情况下，当我们相信以特殊方式塑造自己的体形能够提高自己的魅力时，我们获得的资本就是文化。毫无疑问，我们一直在这个领域里做着偿试。在参加重要会议或赶赴约会之前，我们会把自己打扮得很漂亮。我们用科隆香水改变体味，通过化妆遮盖面部瑕疵等等。另一方面，当今的技术将这种愿望提到了一个全新的高度。如今，我们能够把腿拉长，能够用化学的方法提高心智能力，甚至能够修改自己的基因，使自己变得更强壮，更敏捷，或更不易受到生理损伤。
批评家们指出，这种方法具有不可逆性或者说侵入性。他们强调说，我们改变外貌所渴望的时尚只是暂时的，追求时尚有可能使自己更贫穷，而不是更富有。其他人则担心，我们会把自己改变得失去对脆弱人性的一切判断。自助成为一名超级英雄，可能会剥夺我们的某些与脆弱有关的基本品质。
我们应该继续接受迈向新人类的戏剧性行动，还是应该宣告激进的整容技术改革不合法？其中一个困难是，如何运用技术使自己更健康与如何利用技术使自己不仅更健康而且更漂亮、或者使自己成为超人之间没有明确的区别。因此，当提到设想如何革新这种技术的时候，我们对健康的不懈追求可能已经把我们托付给美容了。甚至可能我们已经经历美容了。
我们穿戴优雅的服饰、运用激光眼外科手术，是明显改良过的物种。我们一直处在转型之中。我们还为新的技术文化增添了大量的审美内容。无论是乳房的大小、腿的长短，还是化妆品的颜色，我们接受了改变自己的新方式，并使其成为我们自己的一部分，赋予它们完整的个性和意义。
难点之一是，我们无法精确地预知，任何特定的身体经过整形后会显露出什么样的审美内容，也无法精确地预知，随着时间的推移，或实际上在我们的一生中，这样的改变将如何表现出来。我们接受任何生活型态改善的同时，也就承担了这样一部分风险。我们来看看纹身。多年来，纹身已经成为非常个性化的美容实践。一个人二十岁时的纹身对于八十岁时的他来说意味着什么？正如其它整形一样，纹身经历了无数的社会和文化转变，如今它实际上已经成为主流的整形方式。尽管有人会说，纹身仍然有越轨行为的意味，但是，这比我们根据纹身判定罪犯已经温和多了。纹身也是我们通过身体实现个人意愿和渴望的很好例证。
我们并不确定从整容中会得到什么或失去什么，这会不会使我们更难以控制整容呢？远非如此。相反，我们应该找到更多有利于运用整容的可靠方法。不过，技术不是重点，因为整容手术本身并不足以令我们关注涉及自身的特殊文化的利用。如果我们想培育出更文明地运用技术的方式，就必须着眼于文化，而不是技术本身。
关键问题出现了：我们运用整容技术或改变心智能力技术的方式总会传达出更广泛的文化价值，不仅如此，更重要的是，它会传达出文化趋势。因此，我们必须控制住这种技术革新，并通过运用这些技术，探讨我们所认为的美丽是什么，探讨什么才是人性的提高。
有时，整容只不过表明我们是某类人，比如买得起肉毒杆菌毒素的那类人。出于这个原因，我们还必须通过广告，通过制药公司或生物技术公司与医疗行业之间长期存在的关系，深入研究通常商业机构如何创造出这些族群。
我们必须从整容类型中探索人性。整容类型不该将我们引向大家都渴望彼此外貌相仿的世界，那往往是整容手术行业遭到指责的一个方面。相反，我们应该支持扩大人类多样化的整容。我希望人类的整容技术能够做到这一点，正如时尚史所展示的那样，这是人性的优越之处。
如此说来，当欧洲议会就如何掌握这个美丽新世界展开讨论的时候，我们应该牢牢记住，我们面临的难题不是整容技术的增殖，而是在这个特殊时期，可供选择的整容项目只有几个。只要可以达到全方位的人类整容，我们就会发现模仿最喜爱名人的理由越来越少，或者，至少，我们最喜爱的名人外貌和才能更加多样化了。我们将发展人类美容的新形式，来取代趋向于单一的美容观念。
获得新功能的可能性也会改变我们的愿望。如果我们在百米短跑中都能跑８秒，也许就会更重视其它奥运项目，也可能找到更多的理由重视非奥运项目的活动。或者，如果拥有高音辨别力（出于相当简单的遗传原因的一种物征），我们可能会发明某种制作音乐的全新形式，或至少会动摇某些音乐流派的优势地位，因为完美音色的价值将被降低。
整容文化很可能会激发丰富多彩的可能性，而欧洲议会将在相当长的一段时间内忙于掌握这些可能性。毫无疑问，议员们面对的唯一困难，是如何制定适应整个欧洲价值观的政策，以避免“美容旅游”的混乱结果。只要我们尽可能拓展选择的余地，就能看到技术性美容的选择丰富多彩、复杂多样，就像我们为个人身份的其它方面所制造的选择一样。