Chapter 6: Enhancing You — The Future of You: Can Your Identity Survive 21st Century Technology? (2021)

Chapter 6: Enhancing You. In Bernard Williams' 1970 paper, The Self and the Future, he sets out a thought experiment. Imagine you are a prisoner and your captor tells you that you are going to be tortured tomorrow, but he also tells you that you will not directly experience or remember it as your mind will be replaced with someone else's beforehand. Despite that caveat, most of us would still be scared for our physical self. As Williams put it, 'No amount of change in my character or beliefs would seem to affect substantially the nastiness of tortures applied to me. Correspondingly, no degree of predicted change in character and beliefs can unseat the fear of torture which, together with those changes, is predicted for me.' That being the case, perhaps our identity is not associated only with our mind, as suggested by Locke in Chapter 5. Indeed, we are reminded of the physicality of identity by the touching stories that surround successful transplant operations. Sadly, many of the healthy organs required for such operations come from young people who have been killed in some kind of accident, and it is common for the donor's relatives to say that they feel their loved one is still present in the world thanks to the transplant. As one bereaved parent put it, After using a stethoscope to listen to their little boy's heart beating in another child's chest, part of him is still going to be living on, and that part of their child's identity is contained in the tangible, physical organ that remains very much alive. There is nothing especially surprising about the way we associate our physical makeup with our sense of identity. If asked to differentiate ourselves from others, it is natural to point to our age, gender, and height, and the colour of our eyes, hair, or skin. Indeed, this association is perhaps stronger than ever thanks to one of the most significant scientific breakthroughs in modern times: the publication in 2003 of a fully sequenced human genome. Often described as the body's instruction manual, your genome is the sequence of over 3 billion genetic variants that give you your biological uniqueness. There is a copy of it in every healthy cell in your body. And to a greater or lesser degree, it determines your eye colour, height, propensity to disease, and even how long you may be able to stay on this earth. In some cases, analysis of your genome can also be used to detect any predisposition you might have for a specific disease, or to predict how well you will respond to a particular medical treatment. It is, in a sense, a treasure trove of data on what makes you, you. And data is what lies behind the drive towards ever more precise and personalised healthcare. We have already seen a huge increase in the amount of personal biological data that we can capture, store, and analyse about our bodies. Today, thanks to the advent of wearable technology, wireless communication, and data processing power, we can keep this kind of information flowing and updating throughout every minute of every day. Giving us new insight into our patterns of behaviour, and the way that our decisions and our surrounding environment affect our health over time. Chris Dancy, often referred to as 'the most connected man on earth' due to the amount of wearable tracking technology he uses, believes that this is changing the way we think about our identity.

'I realised very quickly,' he says, 'that my identity was being captured and catalogued and narrated in so many ways and moments, and those moments were data-rich.' Wearables are popular not because they are counting steps, but because they are showing you who you are.

Given the trend for data-driven healthcare, and the fact that the cost of sequencing a whole human genome has fallen dramatically from $10 million in 2006 to somewhere around $500 today, it is no surprise that people are being encouraged to have their genetic data assessed to understand their own genealogy, propensity to disease, and personal wellbeing. Thanks to services such as ancestry.com and 23andMe, there is a growing market for direct-to-consumer testing to enable anything from tracing a family tree, determining paternity, or quantifying your risk of developing a degenerative disease such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. As the Nuffield Council on Bioethics noted in its submission to the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee in April 2019, quote, 'Developments in commercial genomics can provide tools to enable people to take more responsibility for their health,' adding that it has the potential to, quote, 'allow early intervention, give more personal control over one's health, save public healthcare resources, and alert relatives to important genetic conditions or predispositions.' To find out more, I decided to take a genetic test which incorporated hormonal and nutritional analysis. With Pippa Campbell, a UK-based nutritionist and practitioner in functional medicine, whose popular information-packed posts about health, wellness, and nutrition attract many fans on Instagram. She partners with a company called LifeCode GX to offer DNA testing via a simple cheek swab and a support package covering a variety of targeted tests. I found the results of my analysis fascinating and feel far more informed about how my particular body works, especially in relation to my liver and my adrenals. I learned, for example, that although my oestrogen levels are dropping, what is being produced is not being eliminated in the right way, and that my body is finding it hard to detoxify it, partly because of a particular mutation in one of my genes. Coupled with the discovery that my oestrogen receptors are too sensitive, this means that I now know not to ever undertake hormone replacement therapy. It would simply flood my body with additional oestrogen that I can't detoxify, which would be the very worst thing for me. Following my analysis and armed with DNA-informed advice on food, nutrition, and supplements, I lost nearly 2 stone. And according to Pippa, there can be advantages where it comes to mental health advice too. A lot of psychiatrists are now training with LifeCode GX, she says, which have some very specific genes that help us understand medications and painkillers and how quickly different people detoxify them. Then the psychiatrist can use these reports to understand what will work and what dosing to prescribe. This is the kind of personalised health analysis I think we all want, and that national governments would do well to offer their citizens. In the UK, the NHS's Long Term Plan does envisage a more personalised care model, and such an approach is being piloted in some parts of England. But it is focused on the management of existing illnesses rather than a preventative health programme. In the long run, it is surely more economical to provide individuals with their own analysis and design personalised nutritional, supplemental, and fitness programmes for each, rather than spending billions telling everyone not to eat too much and to get on a bike instead of taking the car. In 2012, the UK government announced the launch of the 100,000 Genomes Project, an ambitious scheme to sequence the genomes of 100,000 NHS patients, both children and adults, something that no one in the world had yet attempted. By December 2018, it had reached its goal, amassing a huge amount of genomic data, with a particular focus on patients with rare diseases and some common kinds of cancer. The primary aim of the project was not to provide diagnostic benefits to the patients who took part, but to provide a research resource that would help scientists harness the power of genomics to the benefit of all future patients. It was an enormous undertaking, but it also involved a good deal of ethical complexity. For example, parents whose child was participating in the project could, for the first time, opt to find out not only whether their child had the genetic variants associated with their specific condition, but also whether they had variants relating to their susceptibility to other diseases. And this has raised questions about how this kind of data could and should be used. Not least because the same technology could pave the way for parents and practitioners to embark on the production of genetically designed offspring. Joyce Harper, Professor of Reproductive Science at University College London, has worked in the field of in vitro fertilisation and specifically pre-implantation genetic testing for about 25 years. She explains that when embryos are created in the lab, they are also tested for any genetic disease that the parents could carry, so that only embryos free from disease are transferred back to the mother. In some cases, where there are viable embryos of both sexes, a couple may also be given the option to select the sex of their child. Professor Harper thinks that in the future, just as adults can pay commercial firms to have their genome sequenced today, every embryo may have its genome sequenced so that decisions can be made about what characteristics, traits, and skills that parents are looking for in their child.

Speaking at an Oxford University Union debate, she highlighted some of the issues involved by using the example of two concert pianists who want a child with perfect pitch. 'Perhaps it would be possible in the future to only select the embryos that are carrying absolute pitch,' she said. 'But what if that child doesn't ever want to play piano?

What if they want to be a footballer instead?' As she points out, we all know parents who force their own expectations onto a child, but this would take it to another level. We are presented with a similar scenario in Hacking Darwin, a book by Jamie Metzl, who was appointed in 2019 to the World Health Organisation Expert Advisory Committee on Human Genome Editing. Metzl asks us to imagine a scene in a fertility clinic of the future, where an IVF patient and doctor are discussing how far the pre-implantation genetic testing of her embryo embryos should be taken. The conversation moves from an everyday discussion about single gene mutation disorders like Huntington's disease or cystic fibrosis to the less ethically straightforward notion of influencing traits such as gender and hair colour. And based on his belief that we will eventually know much more about the effects of multiple genes working together, Metzl then takes the discussion into even more complex territory. Such as IQ. Surely, he suggests, any parent would want to give their child the best possible chance in life by giving it advantages such as a high IQ.

According to Metzl, the decisions we would make in such a scenario are likely to be motivated by loss aversion. If you had the chance to increase your child's future chances in all these ways and more, wouldn't you do it?

Wouldn't not giving your child these possible advantages at this stage be tantamount to disadvantaging it later in life? Because every other parent in a similar position would most likely be opting to enhance their child's traits, talents, and life changes at this stage too. Right now, these are hypothetical questions, but the scenario that Metzl presents to us is nonetheless a plausible one. We need to consider what effects these kinds of decisions will have on the way we think about identity. Is it desirable or even ethical to design a person in this way, choosing features and characteristics for them that will affect not only who they are, but how they think about themselves. On the one hand, the idea that we could use genetic intervention to write a child's future can be seen as a way of opening up that child's opportunity to live a more fulfilling, rich, long, and healthy life. But on the other, it has the potential to close down future possibilities. There may be characteristics that parents today might perceive to be valuable and to fit our present-day norms that in the future their children might come to regard as a disadvantage. As Joyce Harper muses, will parents become like programmers designing their children around particular characteristics that they desire? What about if we have fashions like the body shape of the Kardashians, but then when the children grow up, these fashions are no longer in mode? Will the children sue their parents for lack of judgment? American futurist Roy Amara came up with what is known as Amara's Law. It states the tendency to overestimate the short-term effects of technology and underestimate the long-term effects. So while there is plenty of water to go under the bridge before individuals are faced with making such decisions, not least because we are only just beginning to understand how our genomes work, we should start considering the longer-term implications now. It is one thing, for example, to try to fix a disease caused by a mutation in a single gene, or to alleviate functional problems that might be caused by genetic pathways. But as futurist Dr. Ian Pearson explains, the vast majority of human traits are governed by a much more complex genetic picture. The problem is that most things in your body aren't just covered by one gene. They're caused by the interactions of a number of genes. That number could be 2, or it could be 20, or it could be 200, and in most cases we just don't know. It's quite easy to discover that a particular gene is associated with eye colour or hair colour. It is not very easy to know whether that gene might be involved in anything else as well, he explained. Despite these complexities, scientists have succeeded in developing biological techniques to identify and characterise genomic targets and then make edits to those target cells. More than one technology exists to carry this out, but one in particular has stolen the limelight. It's called CRISPR, which stands for Clustered Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, or more technically CRISPR-Cas9, where Cas stands for CRISPR-associated protein. Pioneered by Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, earning them the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2020. The CRISPR technique makes use of the Cas9 protein to add and remove genes from the cells of living organisms, and it does so in a way that has proved efficient, accurate, and, to quote, 'easy to use'. Perhaps too easy. In 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui claimed to have used CRISPR-Cas9 to edit the genes of two foetuses in order to give them resistance to HIV. More than that, he had gone on to implant both foetuses, leading to the birth of twin girls, the world's first gene-edited humans. Given that the CRISPR technique is still in the earliest stages of basic research, He Jiankui's decision to use it for reproductive purposes was a gross violation of ethics, regulations, and laws, and it provoked outrage from experts around the world. Jiankui has since been fired from his job, and sentenced to 3 years in prison. But perhaps he has given us a glimpse of a possible future, whether it's one we want or not. Back in the West, technology is changing the way we think about some of the most fundamental aspects of reproduction, sex, and gender, both as individuals and as societies. And this, in turn, is changing the way we think about identity. Take, for example, Martine Rothblatt, the American entrepreneur and top-earning CEO of the biopharmaceutical industry, in 2018. She believes that technology is putting paid to what she calls, to quote, 'the age-old apartheid of sex', that we will one day stop labelling people as male or female at birth. How so? Because, in her view, to quote, 'Sex lies at the heart of biology, and yet in transcending biology, technology has given us an explosion of sexual identities, end quote. We are living in a world where more and more people, like Rothblatt, are questioning the traditional binary approach to gender labelling. Transgender people, for example, have a gender identity or expression that differs from the sex they were assigned at birth, and medical science has now made it possible for transgender people to transition from one sex to another. But while people can make a great many changes to their biology, they cannot yet adopt different reproductive abilities. So while pregnancy is possible for a transgender man who has undergone female-to-male transitioning, as long as there is a functioning uterus, ovaries, and vagina, it is not yet possible for a transgender woman following male-to-female transitioning. However, that too might change in the future. In 2017, a US woman successfully gave birth to a baby after receiving a uterus transplant, and a further 15 women are known to have had the same surgery since, with 8 giving birth, all in Sweden. It is still early days for this form of surgery, and there are considerable potential complications for mother and baby, but it opens up the possibility that the same treatment might one day be available to implant a uterus and then a baby in a transgender woman. The implications of this would be huge and would undoubtedly spark a great deal of serious discussion and debate at a societal level, But what would it mean for our purposes? How would it affect the way we think about individual identity? We got a taste of the questions we will have to wrestle with back in 2007, when transgender man Thomas Beatie hit the headlines as, in the words of the press, 'the pregnant man'. As many asked at the time, after he successfully gave birth to a baby girl, can someone capable of giving birth be considered male? Is Thomas the baby's father?

Or mother? Or both?

Or neither? Perhaps as these traditional labels begin to fall short, we will have to define motherhood and fatherhood by something other than the chromosomes and sex organs of the person involved. Some argue that we will talk less about nouns and more about verbs such as mothering and fathering, actions that can be carried out by all, regardless of gender or sex. Or perhaps we'll need some new vocabulary to transcend biology altogether. Certainly Martine Rothblatt, a self-declared transhumanist, has talked about technology liberating us from our biology in relation to, though not confined to, our sex and gender. Ideas about transhumanism have been around for about a century. They were first advanced in 1923 by the British geneticist J.B.S. Haldane. Who was interested in how the field of genetics could, over time, be used to alter human characteristics. But evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley is generally considered to be the founder of the field, after publishing an influential essay in 1957 on the future of humanity. At the time, of course, there were growing fears that humanity may not have much of a future, thanks to the heightening political and military tensions of the Cold War. And it was in the aftermath of the Cold War that transhumanist theory began to translate into intentional policy. According to Professor Steve Fuller, one of the world's foremost academic proponents of transhumanism, this tipping point came with the publication in 2002 of a report called Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance. By the US National Science Foundation and Department of Commerce. Examining the potential for the fields of biotechnology, information technology, nanotechnology, and cognitive science to improve our mental and physical performance, the report recommended that such endeavours should become a national priority. This is the transhuman moment, says Professor Fuller. Pointing also to the influential Converging Technologies Report published by the EU in 2006. Both reports focus on how we can harness technology to enhance the human condition, whether it's helping people to live longer and healthier lives, or seeking to make populations immune to the threat of biological warfare. And in Fuller's interpretation, that is what transhumanism is about. A way to enhance our humanity, to prolong our life in a way that ensures we aren't holding ourselves back and squandering our potential. It is founded on the principle that humans are not just one of many species in nature, but a privileged kind of species capable of much more resilience and progression than any other. And if we have that capability, why wouldn't we use it? Given that transhumanism is all about redefining what it means to be human, it obviously has a great deal of relevance to the question of identity. Professor Fuller points in particular to the idea of morphological freedom, which he describes as the idea that human beings have the right to be in whatever form they want. Explaining what this means, Professor Fuller suggests that we might think of our physical bodies as just one possible platform for living our lives, and that we could consider the possibility that we can migrate across platforms in order to enhance or extend our existence. "If you want to upload your mind, you can do that. If you want to stay in your own body, you can do that. It's a very ontologically tolerant position," he said. It certainly seems as if the tide of public opinion is turning that way. A survey carried out by market research and insight company Opinionium in 2020 suggested that 63% of people in Western European countries would consider augmenting their bodies with technology, with most believing that it would improve their quality of life. My own point of view is that many of the people born into the world today will, by the middle of the century, actively identify as transhumanists. One of them, I strongly suspect, will be the baby boy born to technology entrepreneur Elon Musk and musician Grimes, in May 2020. Announcing the birth, the proud parents revealed that they were calling the boy X Æ A-12. Admittedly, no one seems to know how to pronounce this, including Musk himself, but at least Grimes explained what each of the symbols mean via Twitter: X is the unknown variable. Æ, my Elven spelling of AI, love and/or artificial intelligence. And 812 is the precursor to SR-17, our favourite aircraft. No weapons, no defences, just speed. Great in battle, but non-violent. If ever there has been a transhumanist baby name, then this must surely be it. Naming a newborn using mathematical symbols, fantastical languages, and military machinery may seem like a mere gesture, but I think it hints at the way in which innovative people with unusual sensibilities are starting to envisage a different type of future human, a more technological being. It is certainly a first, and perhaps the world isn't ready for it. The baby's name was later changed to XAEAXII when it fell foul of state law in California, which states that only the 26 letters of the English alphabet can be used to register a name on a birth certificate. Another case, perhaps, of our governance structures lagging behind and restricting our human potential. The idea of a more technological human has long been a staple of science fiction, but the truth is that such humans are already living among us. Kevin Warwick, for example, is a long-time cyborg, a professor of cybernetics at Reading University in the UK. In 1998, he became the first person in the world, as far as we know, to have a silicon chip surgically implanted in his body. He saw it as a permanent smart card that would never be lost or stolen because it had become part of his self. And he imagined that it could one day include information about his blood type, National Insurance number, qualifications, and even criminal convictions or speeding fines, creating a biological version of the kind of digital identity credentials that we discussed in Chapter 1. At the time of the surgery, Warwick was quoted as saying: Human intelligence needs to keep up with the intelligence of machines. If we implant silicon chips into humans, humans can stay ahead. And speaking in December 2019 on the Futures podcast hosted by science communicator Luke Robert Mason, he reiterated that he couldn't see a reason why he wouldn't be chipped from birth. Just as an RFID chip as a passport has benefits, you might need an upgrade from time to time. 'But it would be good to have it at birth. As a person develops at birth, they develop with that new sense as though it's always been there,' he said. He then went even further, saying that he believed it was human nature to embrace such technology. To quote: 'People will say, well, I have the right to upgrade as an individual, to upgrade if I want an implant like this, to have some of those abilities.' And humans, from when humans first appeared, have gone on to improve ourselves. We started to fly, we drive cars, we have all sorts of technology, so humans will go for it. Humans will go for the upgrade. One man who has already opted for the upgrade is Nicholas Badminton, a futurist in Canada, who decided to get a microchip implanted into his arm. Manufactured by a company called Dangerous Things, the chip can be used to connect the key fobs on swipe cards, password readers, and other devices through passive RFID. When I spoke to him, Nicholas told me that he doesn't even notice that the chip is there. He said, "The idea of implanting a microchip is more than just the current idea of turning a human into an access control device, key code, URL, Bitcoin cipher, or otherwise. It's the beginning of a journey towards Human 3.0, where we may realise true human biological symbiosis with technology and develop the abilities to upload information, augment our intellect and extend our bodies, physical abilities, or become biological depositories of data. When it comes to enhancing our bodies, I think it's likely that the initial technology of choice will be smart glasses rather than implanted chips. One of the other questions in the poll conducted by Opinionium asked what physical attributes people would most want to enhance, and while 40% of respondents opted for overall physical health, The most popular area for specific improvement was eyesight at 33%. I think this demand might help to make smart glasses the gateway tech to augmented humans. Unlike a smartphone in your pocket, they would always be on your face, surveying the environment, capable of recording and storing all you see and hear, and even uploading clips straight to your social feed. But while many of us find this kind of technology exciting to talk about, we are less inclined to get into a discussion about who would own the hardware and software involved, or the wealth of associated data. In the same way that the fictional Tyrell Corporation asserted ownership of its bio-enhanced quasi-human replicants in the Blade Runner films, it is quite possible that a technology-enhanced human will have very little independence from the corporation that will own and enable his or her enhancements.

After all, as consumers we are extremely lackadaisical about reading the terms and conditions for a new smartphone before we sign up to use it.

Why should it be any different in the future?

Perhaps you would opt to have a shiny new chip implanted without fully realising quite what you were agreeing to.

It might include having to pay for routine upgrades to keep your implant functioning properly, and allowing the company to make use of your data for commercial purposes. In a case such as this, who would have control of your data and the services that the technology enables—you or the corporation? Is this transhumanist, libertarian road really a route to freedom at all? In July 2020, the World Economic Forum published a report intriguingly entitled 'Shaping the Future of the Internet of Bodies', which sketched out all the different ways in which medical and non-medical enhancements might lead to a brand new set of governance challenges. On the question of how the data associated with these enhancements might be used, the report says, to quote, 'Some experts advocate a solidarity approach to health data governance, one focused on societal and community good. This shifts the focus to the shared societal benefits and responsibilities, which motivates people to share data for the collective and individual good. Biobanks are a good example for sharing biological data.' In other words, this suggests that, while it may not be deemed mandatory, there will be pressure on individuals from some quarters to make their biological data available to the technology platform or the state system 'for the common good'. Setting aside these potential future issues of governance, transhumanists have other hurdles to overcome before their ideas become more mainstream. Zoltán István outlined three main challenges that are preventing the transhumanist philosophy from becoming more widely accepted. The first, he said, is religion, which he thinks tells us, 'Don't touch the body, it's sacred.' But he is hopeful that the coronavirus pandemic might help people realise just how life-limiting it is not to prioritise science. The second is a lack of understanding of the technology that already exists today, and how quickly it is developing, which means that people are too quick to dismiss transhumanism as a science fiction. He said, for example, that 'people don't realise that by 2028 there's a very good chance that a quadriplegic in an exoskeleton suit will run dramatically faster than the fastest runner on planet Earth.' A third factor that Zoltán identified is the way that institutional conservatism serves to hold up technological advancement. Genetic editing could be beneficial for every single person alive, he said, Yet what you hear is that this is something dangerous, we need a moratorium on it, we need years of considering it. But such delays are harmful in themselves, according to Zoltán, who argues that by holding back from the use of genetic technology we are 'causing unnecessary deaths of 150,000 people every day'. It is a thought-provoking claim, but critics would argue that such caution is necessary when we are talking about technology that could lead to such a fundamental change in what it means to be human. One of the key issues for transhumanists to contend with is how the adoption of technology might lead to greater social inequality. In 2015, I attended the World Future Society conference in San Francisco, where I heard a talk by one of the most renowned futurists living today, Peter Schwartz. Talking about precisely this subject, Schwartz predicted that one of the biggest disruptions to take place over the next 100 years would be the speciation of the human species. Which he defined as the intentional differentiation, not just between species, but within species, to create a greater variety of forms. He said that he anticipated that the human species would, for the first time ever, be able to control its evolution, and that the next big evolutionary step would be how technologies such as genetic engineering could be used to increase the diversity of future populations. According to the website Space.com, this extraordinary vision of our future has since moved closer. In June 2020, it reported on the first summary results of a study conducted by scientists on how to genetically engineer humans capable of surviving a mission to Mars. The study, which concentrated on twin American astronauts Mark and Scott Kelly, was designed to explore the effect of space on our genetics. It did so by comparing Scott's DNA before and after he spent a year on the International Space Station with the DNA of his twin brother Mark, who spent the same year on Earth. Now, having uncovered various insights from those experiments, the team of scientists is exploring ways to mitigate the effects of long-term space travel, with one possibility being to combine human DNA with that of another species. Among the candidate species are some aquatic invertebrates called tardigrades, also known as water bears. Tardigrades have the resilience to survive in all sorts of extreme conditions, and the scientists are hoping to pinpoint whether there is something in their genetic makeup that helps them to better protect and repair their DNA. If so, it might be possible to transfer that trait to human cells so that astronauts can withstand, for example, the effects of exposure to radiation. And of course, that would not only be immensely helpful for space travel, but for other aspects of our lives here on Earth. As one of the lead scientists on the project puts it, 'It's not if we evolve, it's when we evolve.' But how will we evolve? And perhaps more importantly, which of us will get to do so? Once such technological enhancements become available, isn't it likely that they will only be available to the wealthy? This is already true of IVF treatment today, which in the UK, unless you are lucky enough to receive NHS funding, can cost around £7,000 per round, and around £5,000 to freeze your eggs. If genomic editing in search of preferred characteristics does become a trend, I imagine we can expect to see a similar pattern in terms of affordability. This then begs the question whether the wealthy will start to think of their prospective children as some kind of consumer choice, something to be customised with no expense spared. And if you aren't wealthy, well, your children will be left behind, unenhanced and potentially uncompetitive, struggling to match the biological advantages conferred on their more fortunate peers. In other words, this would be survival of the fittest, but where 'fittest' might refer to qualities that are as much technological in origin as they are biological. Another concern is that, in our money-orientated societies, every upgrade that people might opt for will in the end be designed to give them higher and higher productivity until in the end the technologically enhanced human becomes little more than a unit of capitalism, creating and producing and forever upgrading to keep up with their expected outputs. We saw in Chapter 2 that even a simple immunisation certificate has the potential to drive a wedge between different groups in society, between those who have some kind of technological access to what life offers and those who don't. Imagine how much of this kind of inequality would be magnified if there were different versions of humans within a society, some who have the resources to pay for their regular technology upgrades and some who don't. Suddenly, the idea of being 100% human would be seen as a disadvantage, an inferior form of being. Consider, too, the possibility that technologically enabled humans might one day be able to increase this gap by downloading additional educational abilities. Is transhumanism for us all, or just for a wealthy elite? Conversely, those who do choose to be technologically enhanced could face a different kind of disadvantage: the loss of privacy and personal freedom. Once you start weaving any kind of technology into your biological makeup, you are running the risk of that technology being hacked. Yuval Noah Harari outlined just such a scenario in an explosive speech in a meeting of the World Economic Forum at Davos in January 2020. If you know enough biology and have enough computing power and data, you can hack my body and my brain and my life, and you can understand me better than I understand myself. You can know my personality type, my political views, my sexual preferences, my mental weaknesses, my deepest fears and hopes. In the past, many governments and tyrants wanted to do it, but soon at least some corporations and governments will be able to systematically hack all the people. 'We humans should get used to the idea that we are no longer mysterious souls. We are now hackable animals. That's what we are,' he said. Asking his audience to imagine what would happen if this power were to fall into the hands of a 21st-century Stalin, Harari warned that if we do not grasp the 'new hell' of digital dictatorships quickly enough, we will find ourselves 'trapped with no way to escape.' It is a warning that we should take seriously. After all, governments already know more about us now than they ever did before, whether through surveillance or through the kind of genetic data that we willingly give up through health-driven initiatives such as the 100,000 Human Genome Project. But when does health management become citizen management? In June 2020, the New York Times reported that police in China have been collecting blood samples from men and boys, including those of preschool age, across the country to build up a genetic database of its 700 million-strong male population. The collection, storage, and use of genomic data in this way is illegal according to international law and even China's own criminal law, but the report also alleges that China's Ministry of Public Security began building a forensic genetic database as far back as 2003, and that it has been collecting DNA samples from those unconnected to criminal activity and without their consent since 2013. Setting aside the question of legality, what could be the purpose of collecting such a database? Perhaps it could be used for the speedy and accurate identification of criminals and so deter such behaviour. But it could also be put to much more sinister uses. Having such a comprehensive database would help enormously, for example, in the manufacture of viruses, bacteria, and other bioweapons to target specific groups. Not only that, but if a citizen's DNA were to be linked to their social credit score, the state would effectively have created a biological breeding score. Futurist Dr. Ian Pearson outlines a frightening scenario in which, he says, you might not be allowed to breed unless you've got particular genes the state wants, which would mean the government could decide what your population looks like. And this dystopian scenario could apply to any country in the world that is governed by an autocratic regime. If a government wanted to implicitly or explicitly favour or repress particular groups in society, Whether related to race, class, sexuality, gender, religion, immigration status, physical abilities, mental health, and even body shape and size, it might soon have the power to do so, more effectively than ever before. With a powerful genetic database, rapid advancements in genetic editing, the development of chemicals to target particular gene carriers, the outcome could be a population that expresses only the characteristics and traits that the state deems acceptable. Your identity would no longer be something that you can evolve for yourself over time, nor even anything your community can bestow on you. It would be whatever successfully survived the environmental conditions set by a malevolent state. It seems, then, that technology has the power to liberate our human identity from the constraints of our biological origins, that our human selves could be to become something more than human, something transhuman. But it also has the power to introduce a form of biological inequality so fundamental that we could evolve into subspecies that can barely relate to each other at all. At the heart of the matter is how we choose to look at identity, what it means to be human. How much of it is a biological construct, how much of it's social? And it's for that reason that I think we all need to engage with the new frontier being explored by the science of genetics today. We need to participate actively in the discussion and debate about how much of who we are is in our nurture and in our nature, and whether in the future we will need nature at all.