Technology is advancing at an exponential rate, bringing tremendous benefits as well as new ethical challenges. Fields like artificial intelligence (AI), biotechnology, robotics and nanotechnology are reshaping society in profound ways. While innovation promises to improve life, it also poses risks if not guided by ethical principles. This article examines key tech ethics issues surrounding AI, biotechnology and the future of human nature. It highlights concerns about safety, bias, transparency, dual use and genetic engineering, and discusses frameworks to align new technologies with human values. Though complex, establishing shared ethical norms is essential to direct science and technology toward the greater good.
The Pace of Technological Change
The speed of scientific progress has accelerated dramatically in recent decades. Computing power doubles every couple years, enabling new capabilities in AI. DNA sequencing and gene editing tools like CRISPR allow rapid genetic engineering. These exponential advances can outpace ethical deliberation and regulatory safeguards. Well-intentioned innovations may have unforeseen consequences, necessitating principled technology governance. Prominent technologists have raised concerns about mass unemployment from automation, lethal autonomous weapons and artificial general intelligence surpassing human-level capabilities. While the timeline of such scenarios is debated, their disruptive potential warrants ethical risk assessment. Guiding innovation toward benefits, not harm, is an urgent priority.
Artificial Intelligence Ethics
AI systems are achieving human-like capabilities in vision, speech, game-playing and more. Yet considerable work remains to develop AI that is beneficial, ethical and aligned with human values. Several issues emerge:
Safety and Control – Advanced AI could be difficult to understand, predict and control. Measures are needed to ensure AI remains under human supervision and tested for safety across contexts.
Bias and Fairness – Like humans, AI systems can discriminate based on sensitive attributes like race and gender. Detecting and removing bias is an active area of research.
Transparency and Explainability – Complex machine learning models can behave as “black boxes”, obscuring how decisions are made. Explainable AI aims to make systems more understandable and accountable.
Autonomous Weapons – Concerns exist about loss of human control over life-and-death decisions with military AI/robotics. More than 30 countries have called for a ban on lethal autonomous weapon systems.
Job Loss – While hard to predict, automation could transform economies and labor markets over time. Managing this transition ethically and sustainably is critical.
Aligning AI with Human Values – Going beyond narrow intelligence, general AI aims to exhibit wisdom and judgment. Instilling human ethics and values like empathy and integrity remains an open technical challenge.
To address these issues, organizations like the IEEE, Partnership on AI, AI Now Institute and the Future of Life Institute have drafted principles and guidelines to steer AI toward beneficial outcomes. Continued multidisciplinary efforts are needed to shape the future of AI responsibly.
Biotechnology and Bioethics
From gene editing to synthetic biology, biotechnologies enable unprecedented manipulation of life. While promising remedies to health conditions, they also raise ethical concerns:
Genetic Engineering – Editing the human genome could remove mutations that cause disease. However, making heritable changes risks unintended effects passed to future generations.
Enhancement – Using biotech to boost strength, cognition or other traits beyond medical need intersects debates on fairness, human nature and social impacts.
Chimeras – Mixing human and animal biology challenges moral boundaries between species. Ethical rules likely depend on the extent of human neural cells injected into animal brains.
Clone and Pregnancy – Reproductive cloning to create genetic copies raises moral, safety and identity concerns. Artificial wombs could also shift reproductive norms and practices.
Access and Equity – Depending on regulation and cost, life-extending therapies could widen inequality if available only to the wealthy. Equitable access to health benefits of biotech is desired.
Weaponization – Advances like gene drives, pathogens and bioweapons require ethical review to prevent misuse by states and terrorists.
Transhumanism – This intellectual movement aims to enhance physical and mental capabilities through methods like genetic engineering, AI implants and brain-computer interfaces. Critics contend this utopian vision understates risks of human augmentation technologies.
To guide responsible innovation of biotech, bioethics draws on principles like autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence (“do no harm”) and justice. Ongoing public deliberation can shape policies on thorny issues like altering the human genome. Though defining ethical limits is complex, the field of biotechnology would benefit from shared principles on risks like designer babies, weaponization and inequality.
Future of Human Nature
At the frontier of tech and ethics is debate on the essence of humanity. If technologies can augment minds and extend lives, does this change what it means to be human? Some key perspectives have emerged:
Humanity+ – This transhumanist view seeks to enhance human characteristics and exceed natural limits using advanced technology. It aims to improve life but downplays risks like dehumanization.
Bioconservatism – From this stance, human life and nature have intrinsic value that should be preserved. Radically enhancing or redesigning humanity is seen as unethical.
Middle Path – Between these extremes, many ethics experts advocate responsible, incremental integration of technologies to maximize benefits and address risks proactively.
Regardless of position in this debate, technologies like AI and biotech will interact in complex ways with social forces to shape the future of humanity. A thoughtful, evidence-based approach is needed to guide this transition wisely.
Principles for Technology Ethics
Facing an array of emerging tech issues, what shared principles can offer guidance? Several frameworks have been proposed:
The Asilomar AI Principles developed at a landmark 2017 conference outline commitments to research, ethics and values, safety and beneficence. Signatories include leaders from Google DeepMind, Facebook AI Research and other major organizations.
Looking more broadly at technology ethics, the Pentagon has adopted 5 principles to guide adoption: responsible, equitable, traceable, reliable and governable (or “RE2TG”). Critics note need for external oversight, not just internal ethics.
Drawing from bioethics, CRISPR pioneer Jennifer Doudna argues for “WISE” use of new tools: that applications be warranted, inclusive, supported (by public discussion) and ethical.
The IEEE General Principles of Ethical Autonomous and Intelligent Systems document advocates transparency, accountability and algorithmic bias testing as responsibility principles.
While no framework is definitive, they represent constructive starting points on challenges tech ethics must grapple with in years ahead.
Governance of Emerging Technologies
Beyond voluntary industry guidelines, governing development poses challenges. Western governments tend to avoid outright bans on technologies like human cloning. Exceptions exist, like prohibitions on reproductive cloning in dozens of nations due to moral objections. However, restraints on scientific inquiry must be balanced with risks of pushing research underground or overseas.
In general, science is overseen through systems like:
- Research Ethics Boards – These review panels at institutions approve and monitor studies to protect human and animal subjects.
- Funding Incentives – Governments or philanthropists can direct money toward or away from technologies they deem ethical priorities.
- Regulation – Federal agencies like the FDA oversee areas like gene therapy, setting rules that balance innovation and public safety.
- International Governance – The Biological Weapons Convention prohibits developing biowarfare to attack humans, animals or crops. However, oversight remains limited.
- Public Engagement – National ethics councils, consensus conferences and foresight exercises allow inclusive deliberation on social challenges and policy options around new tech.
- Industry Self-Regulation – Technology companies and associations can voluntarily adopt safety practices, ethics boards and professional codes of conduct to align innovation with values.
A comprehensive approach likely involves all these mechanisms and more. Yet governance debates persist around mitigating risks of AI, biotech and other exponential technologies.
Case Study 1: Gene Drives
Imagine a genetic technology that could alter or eliminate entire species. Welcome to the world of gene drives. These constructs spread engineered genes rapidly through wild populations, potentially able to stop diseases, remove invasive organisms or extinguish mosquitoes transmitting malaria. But ecological change of this scale, intended or not, raises ethical alarms.
CRISPR gene drives force targeted genes to nearly 100% inheritance rate. Once released into a population, drives spread rapidly in the wild, intentionally altering genetics of whole species. Supporters contend they could remove invasive rodents plaguing islands or insects spreading deadly illnesses. However, unintended consequences could be severe, causing extinctions and disrupting ecosystems.
An accidental gene drive release resulting from lab containment failure could have irreversible impacts. This poses what bioethicist Kevin Esvelt calls “a civilization-scale problem”. Even experts concede difficulty predicting ripple effects across environments. Does our responsibility to aid public health and biodiversity justify this power to alter life permanently? Who should decide, and based on what evidence and principles?
While gene drives look nearly inevitable to advance given falling gene editing costs, Esvelt and colleagues advocate responsible development. They propose “daisy drives” which burn out after a number of generations to limit harm from mistakes. They also call for open science, community guidance and phased testing on remote islands to contain first uses. Whether stakeholders can cooperatively govern this genetic “chain reaction” power remains uncertain. But the novel risks posed by gene drives demand ethical foresight.
Case Study 2: Artificial Wombs
Replacing pregnancy with artificial wombs could transform notions of reproduction and maternal care. This emerging biotechnology aims to help premature babies develop to full term with lifesaving medical support. However, it provokes ethical debate on risks like designer babies, impacts on pregnant women and what defines essential humanity.
Artificial wombs provide fluid-filled external bioreactors mimicking the uterus. Premature lambs have survived in early versions. If proven safe and effective for humans, the technology could allow developing embryos or fetuses to grow outside the body from conception onward. Some even envision gene editing embryos in artificial wombs to “enhance” traits like strength, appearance or intelligence.
Proponents contend artificial wombs could reduce complications of pregnancy and empower new families. If biological reproduction separates from women’s bodies, it could enable transgender, nonbinary or single parents to raise genetically related children.
Yet detractors argue risks outweigh putative benefits. Artificial wombs could encourage unethical eugenic “perfection” of designer babies if used for non-medical reasons. They also threaten identity harms from commercializing reproduction. Further, technology substitution effects often pit efficiency against humanity. While premature infant survival is paramount, pregnancy and birth have deep psychological and bonding significance not easily replaced technologically.
This case shows technology and ethics inevitably shape one another. As human values drive certain innovations like artificial wombs, their very existence recasts ancient realms of pregnancy, reproduction and parenthood in previously unimaginable ways. The complex technosocial feedback loops amplify the need for wide ethical foresight.
Conclusion
Technology holds endless potential to uplift the human condition, yet also risks societal peril if not guided responsibly. Fields like AI and biotechnology underscore why ethics is essential, not optional, for progress. Shared values, wise governance and inclusive deliberation on risks can direct emerging capabilities toward human benefit, not harm.
By raising consciousness of technology’s moral implications, individuals and institutions become empowered to shape better futures. Though each innovation has uncertainties, humanity’s collective ethics should ultimately guide what futures we create. Our common hopes and principles can orient technology to enhance society and human potential on a sustainable planet. With care, wisdom and courage to ask difficult questions, we can walk this promising but precarious path together.
References
Humanity+. “Intro to Transhumanism.” Humanityplus.org. Accessed Sept 2023. https://humanityplus.org/transhumanism/intro/
Friends of the Earth. “Gene Drives.” FoE.org. Accessed Sept 2023. https://foe.org/gene-drives/
Hendricks M, et al. “Creating sustainable value with human-compatible AI.” In Proc of AAAI Symposium on Embedded Ethics and Machine Ethics. 2020.
Kurzweil R. The singularity is near: when humans transcend biology. Penguin. 2005.
Lyon DJ. Being human in the age of artificial intelligence. Abilene Christian University Press. 2021.
Mali S, et al. “Technological impact on nursing care: ethics of caring in the digital world.” Nursing ethics vol. 27,1 (2020): 3-6.
Metzinger T. Ethics washing made in Europe. Der Tagesspiegel. 2019.
Mulgan T. Ethics for a broken world: Imagining philosophy after catastrophe. Acumen Publishing. 2011.
Myhr AI, Traavik T. “Artificial womb technology and artificial enhancement: A different viewpoint.” Realizing Human Rights. Routledge, 2019. 185-201.
Peters MA. “Bio-informational capitalism.” Theoretical medicine and bioethics vol. 38,3 (2017): 245-265.
Sandberg A, Bostrom N. “Converging cognitive enhancements.” Annals of the New York academy of sciences vol. 1093 (2006): 201-227.
Sandler R. “Ethics and emerging technologies.” Ethics and emerging technologies. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2014. 403-426.
Sengupta J. “New technologies: Gene editing system CRISPR-Cas9 is a new tool for efficient human genetic engineering.” Yale J Biol Med vol. 90,4 (2017): 607.
Sullins J. “Ethics of embryo adoption and the Catholic tradition: Moral arguments, economic reality and social analysis.” Philosophy Study vol. 4,9 (2014).
