Transhumanism In Frankenstein

Transhumanist ideals and human enhancements find themselves under great scrutiny again and again because of ethical concerns over whether humanity should possess the capability to alter what it naturally is. Bioethical attacks jump on new and controversial procedures and are quick to compare them to the experiments of the Nazi Mengele or the fictional Victor Frankenstein. The two are quite similar, performing unnatural experiments kept away from the public eye. Both played God in their own ways, but only because their actions were deliberately gruesome and unnecessary in nature. It is not truly understood if these scientific tragedies and those similar are performed for the sake of experimentation with a dangerous lust for what is seen as
medical torture, or ultimately for the physical advancement of mankind as an entire race. Whatever the reason, both instances real and fictional form the strongest counterargument that by experimenting with and performing bodily replacements and augmentations, man is effectively playing God and meddling where he should not dare to go. Scientific knowledge should only be used for the betterment of society.
The argument holds more weight than bioethical, legal, and theological debates against augmenting mankind, but still loses ground due to the fact that not all human augmentations are severe in nature. Recreational bodily modifications have been gaining popularity in the 2010s, partially due to the video game franchise Deus Ex. The transhumanist futurist society of the mid-21st century that it depicts is not too far off from our own. British tabloid newspaper The Sun accidentally ran an about the game due to the fact that its realistic issues are extremely similar those that society faces today. In it, biotechnology and human augmentations have become the norm (Factor Tech). Political and ethical controversy surrounding “augs” has sparked riots and caused a severe schism between those for and those against human augmentations. Our society is not nearly at this point, but the severity of bioethics getting in the way of scientific progress is nothing short of ludicrous. Recent price gouging in the biomedical field has also caused great debate as to whether medical and science firms not only have the right to develop new technologies and forms of treatment, but if they should have the capability to grant or deny necessary treatments based off of
price. A recent example of this is the raising of a thirty-year-old HIV treatment drug by 5,000%, effectively denying treatment to millions worldwide. The company at fault for this, Turing Pharmaceuticals, defended its gouge by stating that the increased price will fund future research (Kelleher). CEO Martin Shkreli has since been arrested for charges of security fraud. This is an example of how playing God is an accusation that halts scientific progress, and is only situationally applicable to the actions of greedy CEOs denying their product to the general public (Leuty). Biotechnology has evolved so much that it now impacts the average consumer not only from a medical stance, but also a recreational one. Recreational biotechnical implants range from NFC chips and magnetic implants to more highly sophisticated implants such as optical augmentations that record video and even act as a visual aid for the blind (The Verge). The fact of the matter is, humanity every right to advance itself with the technology it creates. Biotechnology is much more than just Frankenstein-esque experimentations. Scientific progress benefits the sick, the disabled, and even the consumers, thereby benefitting the human race as a whole. What right does man have to play God?
What right does man have to accuse another of such a dastardly feat? It is nearly an undoubtable fact that one day man and technology will form a unity and biotechnology will become integrated into everyday life. Man has no right to play God, but man also has no right to attack every technological breakthrough with controversy and radical accusations. “Playing God” is a cliché that has become all too common in the present day. Man has every natural right to alter and improve itself as a race through biomedical augmentations. It is inevitable that technological breakthroughs will have widespread effects on the fields of biology and physiology. Biotechnological developments will also lead to grave changes in global commerce and consumerism within a span as short as the next 20 years. Theological and ethical arguments against replacing the natural human form do not possess the factual backing, nor the rationale, to effectively make the accusation that man is “playing God” with its inevitable biotechnologies and procedures. The human body has near-unlimited capabilities as a biotechnological receptor, and the possibility that this will become a reality is up to society. If humanity can accept the technologic lifestyle it is destined toward, then ethical debates and moral rationales will finally stop getting in the way of scientific
progress.