**1. Introduction**

The phenomenon and ethics of "voting" will be explored in the context of "human enhancements", which, for purposes of this analysis, are broadly defined as intentional modifications of a person who is accepted prior to the enhancement as genetically human, of any possible type of modification or combination of types.<sup>1</sup> Enhancements may be made with or without the consent of the enhanced human. For example, an enhancement could be made prior to birth (or prior to the age at which consent is recognized as valid) or could be forced on the human. Or an enhancement could be made with consent by, or at the request of, the enhanced human. In most cases, the enhancement is perceived as a way to "improve" the human, such as by improving their physical, mental or emotional abilities, but the analysis herein does not require that the enhancement actually be an improvement under any ranking theory or particular perspective. Enhancements can also be permanent or temporary.

In Section 2, "voting" will be examined for enhanced humans who fall into two broad categories—those with moderate enhancements, where the "humanity" of the enhanced

**Citation:** Blodgett-Ford, S.J. Human Enhancements and Voting: Towards a Declaration of Rights and Responsibilities of Beings. *Philosophies* **2021**, *6*, 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/ philosophies6010005

Received: 12 November 2020 Accepted: 23 December 2020 Published: 14 January 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

<sup>1</sup> For purposes of this analysis, a descendant of a "human" (*Homo sapiens*) who was genetically or otherwise altered to such an extreme that they would no longer commonly be perceived to be "human" (or who no longer even had an organic embodiment) is still defined as an "enhanced human". However, in Section 3, we will propose to eliminate the requirement of "humanity" in voting rather than using such a "Grandfather Clause" approach and instead broadly extend voting rights to all living beings and all conscious beings.

person is not seriously in question, and those with extreme enhancements, where humans who lacked similar enhancements would likely question the "humanity" of the enhanced human. The question of who has the right to vote and how they can vote will be explored primarily in the context of voting in the United States at the federal level. Existing patterns of discrimination around the globe would likely continue substantially "as is" for humans with physical and mental enhancements who are viewed as "still human." For the "beyond human" category of enhancements, the established rules and practice of voting are likely to be directly challenged. For both moderate and extreme enhancements, humans who are not enhanced (or are less enhanced) may be disenfranchised if certain enhancements become prevalent among the voting population.

In Section 3, voting by enhanced and non-enhanced humans will be examined using an extension of a theory of engagemen<sup>t</sup> articulated by Professor Sophie Loidolt that emphasizes the importance of legitimization and justification and "facing the appeal of the other" to determine what is "right" "from a phenomenological first-person perspective [1]. Seeking inspiration from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 [2], voting rights and responsibilities will be re-framed from a foundational working hypothesis that all conscious and all living "beings" (including enhanced and non-enhanced humans) should have a right to vote directly. Representative voting should be considered as an admittedly imperfect alternative where direct voting is not possible, such as due to communication limitations, or as an additional option to direct voting, in the case of a group that suffers from historic systematic discrimination. Finally, the framework in which voting occurs, as well as the processes, temporal cadence of voting, and role of voting in the overall architecture and functioning of government, should be seen as provisional pending a "to be determined" approach (or approaches) designed, modified, refined, abolished and rebuilt from scratch as needed, with the participation from as diverse a group of beings as possible. Voting in a particular structure of governance has not been legitimized if it is delivered by fiat "as is" to those beings who were excluded from participation in the design and ratification of such structure—whether because they were enhanced to an extreme level or because they were not enhanced/less enhanced. Applying an extension of Loidolt's framework, we must recognize the urgency that demands the impossible with openness to that universality in progress (or universality to come) that keeps being constituted from the outside.

### **2. Discussion—Human Enhancements and Voting—Moderate and Extreme**

Common assumptions about who has the right to vote and what "voting" involves warrant careful examination to see what they reveal, what they hide, and what they can tell us about biases that might exist against enhanced humans (or non-enhanced humans) who are perceived as "other" or "lesser" than those who hold political power. For purposes of this analysis, the meaning of "enhanced" shall be any intentional modification of a human being, whether done prior to birth (e.g., through genetic engineering of human embryos), or after birth, such as through implants, chemical enhancements, or other modifications. While such enhancements are often intended to be efforts to "improve" the human being who is enhanced, either with or without the consent of the enhanced person, for purposes of this analysis there will be no effort to assess whether such enhancements are actually an "improvement" or "benefit" to the enhanced human, to their family, to any broader group, or to society generally. One person might view an increase of intelligence as an "improvement" while another might view it as a negative change if the enhancement was only to computational abilities or analytical intelligence without any corresponding increase in capacity for empathy, compassion or "emotional intelligence." Similarly, a person who was born as a female biologically and then underwent surgery to become male might view it as an improvement for themselves as they felt their body reflected their true identity more accurately, but another person might view the loss of child-bearing capacity as a negative. As a final example, someone who values an idealized "normative" "able" human body might view an enhancement to a human body that brings that body closer

to their ideal norm as an enhancement, while a person who embraces diverse forms of embodiment and living might consider such a modification as a negative.<sup>2</sup>

The present analysis of voting and human enhancements is agnostic as to the benefits of enhancements. We assume that enhancements (for better or for worse) are already occurring and are likely to occur in the future, potentially with greater variations, increasing numbers and extremity, and may be permanent, semi-permanent or reversible at will. In this context, we explore the effects of biases in the history of voting in the United States, using the examples of ancestry and gender, and consider how they might continue for both moderate and extreme human enhancements.

Restrictions on voting in the United States have been used to systematically discriminate against humans viewed as "other" or "lesser", in large part to preserve the established distribution of wealth and power. Similar patterns of discrimination can be seen in many other countries—currently and historically, including, just as a few examples, systematic and intentional disenfranchisement of indigenous peoples in Australia, Canada and Japan [7–9]. There is a risk that such discrimination would continue substantially "as is" for humans with physical and mental enhancements who are viewed as "still human." In addition, humans who are not enhanced or who are less-enhanced may be disenfranchised if certain enhancements become so prevalent that they are the "new normal."

For "beyond human" or "no longer human" types of enhancements, the established phenomenon of voting is likely to be directly challenged by extreme physical and/or mental enhancements, including hybrid organic/inorganic humans and mental enhancements such as a "networked consciousness" or an "extended mind." For example, it has been hypothesized that "consciousness does not originate from a single brain section" and instead "originates globally" [10]. If so, it is possible that there could be an enhanced human in the future whose "consciousness" arose from a network of organic and inorganic elements that were distributed (physically) in various locations, potentially even among different human embodiments. Such enhancements would put serious pressure on the United States model that being human is a necessary condition for voting,<sup>3</sup> both for elected human representatives as well as on votes for particular laws or amendments. Finally, in the case that either moderate or extreme enhancements, such as those contemplated in the DARPA (United States Defense Advanced Research Agency) program, became common among the voting population, non-enhanced or less-enhanced humans may be viewed as disabled or less-abled humans, and they may (legally and in practice) be denied the right to vote [12,13].

For purposes of this discussion, human enhancements may include any intentional physical and/or mental modifications of a human being, made either before birth, such as through gene editing or embryo selection, or after birth, whether by the human being or by another person, with or without the consent of the enhanced human. The term "cyborg" will also, at times, be used to refer to an enhanced human who has a physical or mental enhancement that includes an inorganic component, such as a prosthetic or

<sup>2</sup> See [3] (quoting dancer, artist and poet Neil Marcus "Disability is not a 'brave struggle' or 'courage in the face of adversity', disability is an art. It's an ingenious way to live."). Consider also the esteemed composer Molly Joyce, who has to compose without using her left hand, and "has carved a unique sound as a composer by treating disability differently: not as an impediment but as a wellspring of creative potential [4]." An additional example of an "ideal" body relates to skin color. In many countries, due to a legacy of racism, a lighter skin color is viewed as an "improvement" and may objectively benefit the person having such skin color, including in employment opportunities and advancement. Consider the practice of skin bleaching in Jamaica. In his analysis of the practice, Professor Christopher Charles concluded that "self-hate" was not the primary driver for skin lightening in Jamaica and noted that reasons for skin lightening were more nuanced: "Some Black Jamaicans recognize the color and racial distinctions in society. This should not be viewed as self-contempt. It is borne out by their experience that the Blacker one is, the less status and privilege one has in the society. They recognize the reality of contemporary Jamaica. They do not necessarily accept it [5]." In the United States, caste-based discrimination allegedly is occurring in the technology industry [6] ("The lawsuit notes that the employee is Dalit Indian and that he has a darker complexion than non-Dalit Indians.").

<sup>3</sup> Non-human corporations and other legal entities that are "persons" under the law can still have influence one election results even though they cannot vote. See the United States Supreme Court decision in the *Citizens United* case against the Federal Election Commission [11], in which the Court held that limitations on spending for political campaigns by groups, including corporations and labor unions, violate the Constitutional First Amendment right to free speech.

wearable enhancement or a neural implant. We will consider moderate enhancements first, then turn to extreme enhancements.

### *2.1. Moderate Human Enhancements—"Still Human"*

In this section, we will consider voting by people who have been physically or mentally enhanced through moderate enhancements and are still recognized as "human". Such enhanced humans could have a wide variety of physical and/or mental enhancements, or combinations thereof, which could also in theory be malleable throughout their lifetime. For example, physical enhancements could result in an enhanced human being, or appearing to be, of a different ethnicity or ancestry, gender (or genders) or age. Enhancements could also lead to heightened or modified sensory perceptions, such as being able to touch, taste, smell, see, or hear in a different manner than a non-enhanced human. Enhancements could also allow the human to communicate via wifi and or access the Internet directly, such as via neural implants.

In all such cases, in this category of moderate enhancements, the enhancements cannot be so extreme that the person with the enhancements is perceived in their society as being no longer human or inhuman. What would "voting" mean for such enhanced humans? The answer is not clear, and could depend on whether the enhancements were made prior to birth or after birth and whether they were such that the person was characterized as "lesser" or "other" than those humans who were entitled to vote—or who were more able to vote due to enhancements.

The right to representation in governmen<sup>t</sup> (and the lack of such representation in the English Parliament) was one of the core reasons the American colonists revolted against England. Taxation without representation was viewed as tyranny.<sup>4</sup> Based solely on this aspect of United States history, it would be easy to conclude that any person who was required to pay taxes to the United States federal government, enhanced or not, would be entitled to vote in United States elections. This simple rule could mean that a human who was physically enhanced and "still human" would have the right to vote if they paid taxes in the United States, regardless of whether they were citizens of the United States or even physically located in the United States.

However, the historical and current phenomenon of voting in the United States greatly deviates from such a simplistic model. Instead, it reflects systematic efforts over hundreds of years—and continuing to the present—to deny the right to vote to those viewed as "other" or "lesser" than the group(s) controlling the wealth and power of the United States—initially wealthy white men from England and later wealthy white women as well<sup>5</sup> [15].
