According to Bostrom, "human enhancement technologies should be made widely available",  as they would offer enormous potential for improving the lives of human beings, without "dehumanizing" them: for instance, improving their intellectual and physical capacities, or protecting them from suffering, illnesses, aging, and physical and cognitive shortcomings.
If the actual brain mass is larger than expected, then the extra mass is available for higher-level cognition. People all over the world are drawn to images of that type of landscape regardless of the environment they actually live in.
Adults can walk over uneven terrain and navigate around obstacles to get where they are going without giving much conscious thought to the process, having learned the skill as small children. At the same time as facilitating the raising of offspring, social instincts counterbalanced innate aggression.
Imagine a set of cards, each with a letter on one side and a number on the other. Should you throw him onto the track, thereby saving five at the expense of one? On the one hand, empirical facts do not contain normative statements, otherwise they would not be purely empirical.To do so is to give up pretensions to a commanding knowledge of what human beings are really like. Conversely, unfavorable variations tend to die out over time. If the evolutionary process directs us towards this universal pleasure, we have an egoistic reason for being moral, namely that we want universal happiness. Children who are bored in school because the instruction modality does not suit their learning style, and who are not permitted to heal the boredom by talking and laughing, grow up to be less inquisitive than they would otherwise be. Enhancements can infringe upon our accepted norms of meritocracy and fairness, create hierarchies and divisions between the enhanced and the non-enhanced, as well as bring about ethical concerns regarding accountability and addiction in some cases. In comparison with traditional essentialist view, the "causal essentialist" view does not accomplish the taxonomic role of human nature the role of defining what it is to be human. Insights from neuroscience revealed some surprising perspectives on human emotionality, cognition and morality. Humans in all cultures love stories. Evolutionary psychology is not the whole answer, of course, but if there is an evolutionary explanation for how some human trait came to be, that adds to the evidence in favor of it being a universal trait, part of human nature, essentially human. How could humans ever judge an action to be ensuring long-term survival? Could not human beings have moved beyond their biological roots and transcended their evolutionary origins, in which case they would be able to formulate goals in the pursuit of goodness, beauty, and truth that "have nothing to do directly with survival, and which may at times militate against survival?
At this point we can say that it is clear that human beings are valuable to themselves and other human beings. Those who avoided group disapproval garnered the benefits of living in a group — it is easier to acquire food, shelter and a mate in a group than to do so alone — and lived to pass that kind of behavior on to their offspring.
Descriptive ethics outlines ethical beliefs as held by various people and tries to explain why they are held.Emotional empathy has its roots in bodily mimicry, as one individual unconsciously mimics the facial expression of another. Wilson avoids the naturalistic fallacy in Sociobiology by not equating goodness with another natural property such as pleasantness, as Darwin did. As explained by Allen Buchanan ,  the literature against human enhancement is characterized by two main concerns: that "enhancement may alter or destroy human nature" and that "if enhancement alters or destroys human nature, this will undercut our ability to ascertain the good", as "the good is determined by our nature". Another part is the structure of the eye itself. Functionally, genes pass traits from generation to generation. A wealth of neuroscience research points to the shifting nature of moral decision-making, and that we cannot be consistently moral or immoral irrespective of circumstances. He shocked Western civilization with his Second Discourse by proposing that humans had once been solitary animals, without reason or language or communities, and had developed these things due to accidents of pre-history. Neurophilosophy has practical implications for governance and policy-making: understanding the neurochemical underpinnings of human nature, our frailty and malleability, as well as our hardwiring for survival are critical for devising appropriate governance paradigms that correspond to the attributes of our nature. Everyone agrees that an adequate understanding of human nature is necessary in order to ensure that moral judgments square with the facts on the ground. In this view, the mind is at birth a "blank slate" without rules, so data are added, and rules for processing them are formed solely by our sensory experiences. Michael Ruse , for instance, argues that morality is a "collective illusion of the genes, bringing us all in It is merely a fact of life that those with favorable variations tend to have more offspring than those without, each of which in turn have the favorable variation. We are only predisposed insofar as we have a deeply ingrained predisposition for survival and for pursuing actions that have a survival value. They become docile and resigned to their position. According to Wilson 4 , "sociobiology is defined as the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior.