A Ban on Human Enhancement: Upholding Human Dignity in the Age of Artificial Inequality

Rasim Huseynov

Managing Editor of Seamless Trade and International Trade Consultant at Tevolution Ltd

This article argues for the outright prohibition of elective human–machine enhancement technologies—particularly those related to cognitive, neurological, or physical augmentation. While therapeutic applications may be morally justified, enhancement for competitive or elective purposes introduces profound threats to human dignity, equality, and moral freedom. It should be treated with the same legal and ethical gravity as the sale of human organs: a practice that exploits inequality and commodifies the human body.

Illustration depicting a futuristic digital interface merging with the human brain

1. Introduction: A Sea of Change Humanity is approaching a turning point. Technologies once confined to science fiction—neural implants, brain-computer interfaces, cognitive enhancements—are rapidly becoming feasible. Figures like Elon Musk champion the idea that merging with machines is essential to remain relevant in the age of artificial intelligence. Yet this so-called progress carries a hidden cost: the erosion of what it means to be human.

2. The False Freedom of Enhancement Proponents of enhancement often cloak their arguments in the language of freedom and autonomy. But this freedom is misleading. In a world of economic disparity and competitive pressure, the choice to enhance is not truly voluntary. Once enhancement becomes possible, individuals will be compelled—by social expectations, job markets, and institutional norms—to participate or be left behind. This is coercion in disguise. We must recognise that choice made under pressure is not choice at all.

3. The Organ Sale Analogy Most societies prohibit the sale of human organs, even by willing donors, on the grounds that it exploits the poor, commodifies the body, and violates shared ethical values. The same logic applies to human enhancement. Permitting elective neurotechnological augmentation turns human beings into products in a competitive market. Like organ sales, it is the vulnerable who will be most affected—those who feel they have no other choice.

4. Human Dignity and the Limits of Technological Power The dignity of the human person lies in being an end in themselves, not a tool for market efficiency or technological experimentation. Philosophers from Kant to Schweitzer have emphasised the intrinsic worth of human beings. Elective enhancement, however, recasts the human body and mind as upgradable components. This mindset undermines the moral and existential foundation of human rights. Not everything that can be done should be done. A truly ethical society is one that chooses restraint over domination.

5. The Threat of Artificial Inequality The legalisation of human enhancement would herald the arrival of a new cognitive aristocracy—an elite class augmented by wealth and technology, separated from the natural human majority. This will not only deepen existing inequality but transform it into a permanent, biological underclass. The essence of equality under law and shared human experience would be irreparably fractured. The social contract would collapse into a race to optimise.

6. Therapeutic Use vs. Enhancement It is important to distinguish between therapeutic use and enhancement. Technologies that restore lost functions—such as helping paralysed individuals walk or restoring vision—can be morally justified within strict ethical frameworks. These applications aim to return individuals to a baseline of natural human function. Enhancement, by contrast, seeks to exceed this baseline and redefine human capability. The line is not always clear, but the moral distinction must be maintained.

The moral distinction between therapy and enhancement is equally urgent in the field of genetic engineering. Consider the use of gene-editing technologies like CRISPR: when used to correct life-threatening conditions such as cystic fibrosis or sickle cell disease, gene therapy serves a therapeutic and compassionate purpose. However, when applied to select for intelligence, physical traits, or behavioral tendencies, it crosses into the domain of enhancement. This creates a market logic that treats children as designer products and turns genetic difference into a form of social hierarchy. As with machine-based enhancement, genetic enhancement must be prohibited not because we reject science, but because we affirm human dignity.

7. Policy Proposal: A Legal Prohibition Just as we outlaw the sale of organs to protect the vulnerable and preserve dignity, we must ban elective human enhancement technologies that go beyond therapy. This includes:

• National legislation outlawing non-therapeutic brain-computer interfaces and cognitive enhancement implants

• International agreements setting shared ethical red lines

• Public funding restrictions and oversight boards to enforce compliance The time to act is now—before enhancement becomes normalised and resistance becomes impossible.

  
  

8. Conclusion: A Call for Moral Leadership The merging of humans and machines is not inevitable. It is a choice—and with that choice comes responsibility. We can choose a future that respects the boundaries of our nature and upholds the dignity of every human being. Or we can surrender to a false vision of progress that reduces people to programmable parts in a global machine. The true measure of civilization is not how far we can go, but whether we know when to stop.