In addition, it is not clear whether this reaction is needed. Consequently, the essay defends the statement that society should impose temporal limits on technological enhancement before it will catch up contemporary changes, as it is already impossible to stop the popular use of technological improvements on the body. In particular, it contains the definition of technological enhancement, supplemented by the analysis of its scope with all the clear and problem areas in its contemporary usage. Therefore, the incapability to cope with technological enhancement by using modern social and political limits becomes evident.
To start with, the subject of enhancement and its connection to technology is crucial. In short, enhancement is an act that improves human body that is not “clinically ill, as defined by medical specialists” (Esposito, 2005, p. 2). In other words, human enhancement can be considered as a superficial improvement on the human body; nevertheless, the degree of this transformation can be much greater than of any other intrusion in human body. Precisely, Bruce (2007) defines four levels of human enhancement impact: enhancement as an internal change of state or degree, permanent influence, technological enhancement, and the involvement opposed to therapy (p. 9). In addition, the issue of human enhancement has both practical and theoretical dimensions (Bostrom and Savulescu, 2008, p. 2); however, in the case of current research practice is more important as it means certain social outcomes. By opposing human enhancement to therapy, it is common to argue that enhancement is used in order to overcome the normal healthy state of the body (Bostrom and Roache, 2007, p. 1). In this case, the distinction between ‘making better’ and ‘improving’ (Bruce, 2007, p. 10) is a cornerstone. Even though the line between these processes is blurring, it causes a serious moral debate on the very idea of human enhancement as an artificial act that destroys