The advent of humans augmented in their physical and cognitive capacities thanks to artificial intelligence and robotics is a source of hope for all those who need to be "repaired", after an accident or an illness. But it also worries specialists, for whom it will inevitably lead to requests for the improvement of individual capacities. For if the generalization of the wearing of orthoses to get up when one is paralyzed or to multiply one's strength in difficult tasks is judged positively, research intended to restore vision will have to be monitored if it involves monitoring the activity of certain neurons. Some answers with Anne Cambon-Thomsen, emeritus research director at the CNRS, who will participate in a round table on this incandescent subject as part of MedInTechs on March 13 and 14, a show of which Le Point is a partner.
The Point: Repair or increase: what inspires you about this theme?
Anne Cambon-Thomsen: The border seems blurred to me. It is not easy to determine a list of things to fix and another of things to increase. It takes thought. If it's about improving athletic performance, it's augmentation. If there are medical reasons, when you put on a hip prosthesis for example, it's repair. Asking the question is already a good thing.
Hasn't the human always sought to augment himself?
To answer your question, let's take the example of tools. A tool, manipulated by a human, facilitates certain tasks, but does not modify the human himself. Wielding a hammer is much more effective than pressing with your finger, but you don't change your body. So I wouldn't equate tool and human modification. Augmenting a human means going beyond the natural abilities an individual has. If everyone wants to possess the same abilities as the others, not only will we not succeed, but we will lose our diversity and somewhere our richness, which makes our humanity.
Will advances in technology make it possible to manufacture humans capable of increased performance?
For a number of things, technologies can give abilities beyond what one naturally has, but I don't think that's desirable. In my view, trying to be yourself by gaining new abilities through outside intervention is a vast illusion. If you want to be happy, for example, I'm not sure that having extraordinary abilities will help you. Artificialization is not synonymous with self-fulfilment.
By limiting the possibilities of augmenting the human, don't we risk also reducing those of repair?
There is a difference between limiting the increase in standard abilities, which generally exists in a given society, and the help that can be given to a person via different technologies to precisely be able to live in this society. It is with this thread that we can find a balance.
MedInTechs on March 13 and 14. Find all the information here.
