Creating superhumans

Wealthy tech investors want to enhance humanity

AI generated

The air in the lecture hall of Balliol College buzzed with quiet chatter on a cold December day in Oxford last year. Delegates at the Second Conference on Human Enhancement, a curated mix of scientists, ethicists and investors, were on the cusp of ratifying the first draft of a declaration of human enhancement. This foundational document, intended as the cornerstone of a new movement aimed at extending human limits, declares that enhancing oneself is not merely a right but, controversially in my opinion, also a duty. During the signing of the declaration, the soft strains of Elgar’s “Land of Hope and Glory” could be heard. One line in the chorus is: “God, who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet.”

The declaration and the conference itself were in support of a project called the Enhanced Games, which is planned for later this year. (It was also planned for last year but it does, nonetheless, appear to be gathering steam). The idea is that athletes can use any drugs, supplements, devices or methods that are legal (presumably in the jurisdictions that they live, work or train in). The games have the backing of the wealthy, techno-progressive investors such as Christian Angermayer and Peter Thiel. Athletes would be under close medical supervision for their safety. But also to gather data about the various enhancements used by athletes, which might prove useful later down the line.

A range of other wealthy tech entrepreneurs are investing in human enhancement.. They have grown up around science-fiction visions of the future and, in the words of Mr Thiel, and want “flying cars” and not “140 characters”. This is a call for bold change, not incremental and mediocre change. It is about living longer—or not dying at all—expanding one’s conciousness, settling on other planets, or becoming cyborgs (yes, really).

For example, Mr Angermayer invests in psychedelics as medicines but also believes in their potential for expanding human conciousness. Along with Mr Thiel he also invests in brain-computer interfaces through the firm Blackrock. Mr Angermayer describes himself as a “human maximalist”.

In the near term, enhancements that are discussed are drugs, supplements and compounds taken to improve performance, cognition or longevity (steroids, nootropics, NAD+, prescription drugs, peptides, hormones and GLP-1 receptor agonists). Brain-computer interfaces (non-invasive) are already available to treat depression, but have potential for treating anxiety and ADHD. The boundary between treatment with these devices, and enhancement may even turn out to be a narrow one.

Although invasive or implanted brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) remain experimental, their proponents have ambitious goals. These are not in helping those who are incapacitated—who are participating in trials of the devices—but in enhancing human capacity. This might be to remotely operate technology or, maybe, one day to augment memory. Indeed, the tech moguls dream of telepathy, or merging conciousness with AI. Mr Angermayer points out that the human experience is just a collection of electrical signals and, in the future, BCIs might be able to trigger sensory experiences in human brains (vision, sound, sensation) that can allow humans to experience “anything they desire”.

Much of the additional material that didn’t make it into my cover story in the latest edition of The Economist was about ethical issues arising from the movement for human enhancement. At is heart is the desire for a regulatory framework support research and development around drugs and devices that are designed to enhance humans rather than treat illnesses.

That is something of a shift in focus. All our regulatory systems are focused on treating or preventing illnesses. Allowing, say, a regulatory route for a drug to enhance human wellbeing is quite a step. Some will worry that this could detract research spending away from diseases like cancer, or Alzheimers or diabetes etc.

That is certainly a risk. But there is a counter argument. At the moment research into slowing aging or longevity is almost impossible. Aging is not viewed as a disease by regulatory agencies, one that needs to be treated, but instead it is a natural process. All is not lost, though, it has taken many years but a trial into whether metformin delays the onset of cancer and other conditions like dementia has been given a nod of approval by America’s drug regulator.

What is interesting here is that if you slow down aging, you may slow down the onset of age related diseases. This approach might gain more healthy years of life than, say, deveoping treatmets for each type of cancer, or trying to reverse demenia once it has started.

Some of the more challenging ethical questions concerned BCIs. Ownership of brain data, privacy of one’s thoughts and agency are leading concerns. There have been discussions about “neuro rights”, including the right to personal identity, free will, mental privacy as well as to access to these technologies, and protection against bias and discrimination.

Judd Rosenblatt, CEO of the Agency Enterprise Studio, a firm that makes software for BCIs has been worrying about the ethical implications of BCIs for a decade. Mr Rosenblatt, and others, worry a lot about agency (that users need to feel in control of their thoughts and actions). If a two-way BCI can detect your brain state, and then influence it with a small current directed at a part of your brain—perhaps to focus your attention—do you feel like you are in control of yourself? The rapid development of these technologies has seen the OECD, a club of mostly rich countries, issue a report in 2022 on the ethical, legal and policy questions.

Mr Rosenblatt says that BCIs could become as commonplace as smartphones one day, and says it will be important to build the technology with end-user agency and data ownership in mind. His firm is developing a technology called “homomorphic encryption” which allows computation to be performed on encrypted brain data, something that allows computers to train and improve their work as an interface, but while keeping a user’s thoughts and data anonymous and under human control.

Equality of access also comes up as a worry—as it does with all new technologies. Despite the fact that technology does tend to filter through societies and lift everyone up, the rapid pace and extreme nature of some of the interventions risk creating an elite class defined by their enhanced capabilities—what some term “liberal eugenics”. Bryan Johnson, who is famous for spending millions on his effort not to die, along with a team of scientists who tend to his every follicle, attracts a huge and one might think suprising amount of hate. It may be that some of this resentment is the ample resources he has dedicated solely to delaying his death—a profound inequality with the rest of humanity.

More broadly all this effort could lead to the monetisation of the biological self as individuals are sold improvements. The philosopher and professor of ethics Nick Agar, at the University of Waikato, New Zealand, describes it as “enhancement capitalism”--whereby enhancement will follow the money. We are probably mostly there anyway, with cosmetic surgery and dentistry, and designer clothing. Yet with government funding for health in America drying up under the new administration, the well-padded pockets of billionaires who want to remain young and healthy forever could become quite important in the next few years.

The quest for human improvement is not new; its roots trace back from early tools and clothing, to today’s smart watches and augmented reality. From ancient myths to modern movies our desire to transcend our limitations has long captivated us. And today’s futuristic visiosn appear increasingly attainable with curernt technological advancements and an expansionist new administration in America that has already claimed the Enhanced Games for the MAGA movement.

Yet beneath the glossy futurism is a complex mixture of unproven therapies, regulatory challenges, and philosophical dilemmas that could redefine human nature and dignity. Beyond the desire to hack, or engineer, human minds and bodies, as humans pursue more radical enhancements, philosophers and ethicists worry that rapid technological cahnges could disconnect humanity from fundamental experiences central to identity. It has happened already, our societies have become increasingly atomised by digital and social media, pulling us away from the human social experiences that nourish us. As ever our goals must be to make sure that the benefits greatly outweigh the harms and risks.

1. Dreams of improving the human race are no longer science fiction" Briefing, The Economist, March 20, 2025

2. "How to enhance humans" Leader, The Economist, March 20, 2025