“Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above.”

―Rose Sayer, "The African Queen"

Humans have used technology to improve their capabilities since before the beginning of civilization. Our tools have come a long way from the simple clothes and spears used by hunter-gatherer societies. The computers, cars and cell phones that we take for granted today are beyond the wildest dreams of what our ancestors could have imagined. And the march of technological progress shows no signs of stopping. The science and technology news website Futurism can clearly attest to that, having reported on everything from ambulance drones to stickers that can wirelessly charge smartphones to a technology that can provide water during droughts.

Cutting-edge technologies can provide much-needed help to people with physical disabilities. Paralyzed patients are now able to control a robotic arm with their minds, stand up, walk, ride a bike and even play the guitar. Those who suffer from the horrifying condition known as "locked-in syndrome," which traps them in their body unable move or communicate, now have a way to communicate using a device that reads their brainwaves.

Integrating technology into the body has significantly improved the lives of these people. But why stop at patients with physical disabilities? Why not use integrated technology to improve the lives of whoever wants an improved life?

The belief that technology should be integrated into the body to give people capacities beyond the "natural limit" that they were born with is called "transhumanism." As an intellectual movement, it has started to gain serious attention in recent years, according to Google Ngrams (which tracks the frequency of words in books over time):

Adherents of transhumanism, such as the 2016 presidential candidate running on a transhumanist platform, believe that the human condition can be improved by the application of technology. For them, "it's only human nature" will no longer be an acceptable excuse since we will increasingly have the ability to fix the problems of human nature. As our biological components are replaced by technogical ones, some transhumanists have said that humans could eventually change so much that they could be described as "posthuman beings."

While transhumanism is gaining popularity, it has a long way to go before it gains the approval of the American public. About half of Americans thinks that human enhancement "crosses a line" by "meddling with nature." However, as I pointed out last week, "natural" does not mean "good" in any sense of the word. There may be valid objections to transhumanism, but "it ain't natural!" is not one of them.

Another proposed objection to transhumanism is that, under the current economic system, expensive technological enhancement could give the rich an unfair competitive advantage in the job market. Americans see this as an even bigger concern than "meddling with nature," since around 70 percent think that human enhancement technology will increase inequality. First of all, it has nearly always been true that expensive technology has given the rich a competitive advantage over the poor. But in order to sell expensive technology, the rich have footed the bill to make that technology cheaper through efficient mass-production:

"The fact that the rich are greedy can work in our favour. It will be like penicillin[:] in the beginning the rich wanted it so much [that] they footed [enormous] bills, [and] this helped it develop. Eventually it was cheap [enough] that it could save the lives of those who really need it. If we made sure these were cheap before they were available [then] it would cost us a fortune in tax[es]. Let the rich foot the bill[,] I say."

Second of all, inequality is not worse than equality by necessity. If there are two impoverished people and suddenly one of them strikes gold (literally or metaphorically), is the other one's life suddenly worse because the first one's improved? It is better to have one wealthy person and one impoverished person than two impoverished people.

Finally, the idea of transhumanism increasing inequality is valid if the current economic system, which provides money almost exclusively in exchange for labor, continues. Fortunately for us, it probably won't. The implementation of a basic income guarantee or a guaranteed minimum income would go a long way to alleviate existing wealth inequality, and could help to counteract any negative economic effects of transhumanism — especially if we reach a post-scarcity economy where money becomes unnecessary.

If the optimism of the transhumanists proves to be accurate, then we have a limitless future to look forward to as we transcend the boundaries of nature.

For more information on this subject, check out some of the following resources:

TV Tropes: "Transhuman"

SciShow: "Will You Be Iron Man?"

Reddit: /r/transhumanism

Futurism: "Here's What the Future of Human Modification Might Look Like"