While your argument basically holds for the outlier points of either an individual or an entire society, I have to worry about both the ethics and practicality of enhancement in all that middle ground, where some people have it and others don’t. The entire drive toward egalitarianism since the Enlightenment has been based on the growing realization/acceptance that “born poor” doesn’t mean “born stupid”. That IS the American Dream. The first large-scale implementation of enhancement, whenever it comes, will almost inevitably benefit the rich first, making an objective fact out of what was once unfounded snobbery. The ethical questions that matter in this discussion have little to do with whether enhancements for an individual are right or wrong in the abstract, and almost everything to do with how (or whether?) to gain their benefits without permanently screwing the offspring of everyone in the bottom 9/10 of the earnings charts.

Firstly, I disagree that it is a major argument against human enhancement. I have never heard that argument before (granted, I have never heard of a lot of things which you probably have) and I can’t see any reason why anyone would argue in such a way. Arguing against augmentation because it is ‘unnatural’, I can understand.

Secondly, I disagree with the idea that most enhancements won’t be beneficial if everyone is enhanced, for 2 reasons.
Any enhancement must be beneficial. The benefit is not compared to other beings, but to the state that existed prior to the enhancement. Increased strength (for example) is good in and of itself. Even if someone were to enhance their muscles to be stronger than others in competition, then everyone followed suit and they lost their competetive edge, they would still be stronger. A clear benefit.
Like your example of the benefits of increased intelligence being amplified by everyone being smarter, such an effect can happen with most enhancements simply because they would become the new norm. The more in common we have with others, the easier it is to cooperate. Intelligence is not unique in this sense.
You hint that the benefits of some enhancements are reduced when everyone has it, but this is not so. Everyone else being stronger would be a benefit to me, just as my increased strength would benefit others.

The only enhancements that I can see potentially being reduced by becoming common are those to do with beauty.

P.S. Your scifi->sci argument could be rebutted with any number of tales, including “Odd John”.

“Giftedness” is a gift that we must give, but doing it by artificial means is jumping the gun. Special nurturing and non-pressuring early teaching will give most children and babies skills that will render them “Incredibles” right here in our reality.

Giftedness is every baby’s birthright, but not as much due to heredity as it is the “special effect” of a caring, careful teacher or parent.

I think this post is probably right on, unless there are inherent negatives to intelligence that I’m not considering. But it seems to me that any difficulties from being intelligent in this society are a result of difference, not of intelligence itself. Same goes triple for gifted/talented programs–the reason they aren’t treated well is because those people aren’t common enough to need help to get up to speed!

He possessed an even greater intelligence than Andrew Wiggin and had ‘super powers’ thanks to the turning of Anton’s Key.

@Alice, ljconrad, RMcMillan: Generally, we consider being around other intellectually curious and inventive minds to be stimulating. Most GT programs are, in part, a way to isolate those children with one another so that they are protected and encouraged. The current state of our education system is not an indictment of my argument, sad though it may be.

@JimJ: What you just described are general purpose goods. They benefit the person even out of a social context. As noted, being enhanced improves my personal pursuits, like skiing and banjo playing.

As you pointed out, the “if everyone is special, no one will be” argument proceeds from the evaluation of enhancements only in context of competition between humans. As you pointed out also, such things may also be evaluated in the context of human cooperation.

However, might not enhancements provide an intrinsic value to the recipient taken completely apart from its effect on the recipient’s societal position, either cooperative or competitive?

To take your first example enhancement, height, yes it would be a competitive advantage right now for someone to enhance their child to be taller (up to a point). And it is also true that if enhancements became common enough that everyone had them, the competitive advantage would decrease even as the cooperative advantage increased.

But, in addition to either of these advantages, the child is herself taller. She can reach the stuff in the cabinet above the fridge. She can see over obstructions more often, she can probably run faster, probably hit harder. These things are intrinsic advantages coming with her greater height, and would aid her even if she became a hermit and lived her entire adult life in a wilderness.

Someone will probably point out that being taller (or any proposed enhancement) also has disadvantages (otherwise evolution would have maxed us out in that category already, right?). True, but beside the point, which is not “taller is better”, but “taller may be better even though everyone is tall”.

For a current example of enhancement that displays this perfectly, look at eyesight enhancement. In our society, individual enhancements bringing eyesight to nominal levels (including glasses, contacts, and surgery) have neared 100%. Still, it is to a boy’s competitive advantage to have his vision corrected if necessary. It is also to his society’s cooperative advantage. But even aside from such social advantages, corrected eyesight is intrinsically of value to the boy.

If nothing else, when he is older, it will be nice to enjoy the sight of a pretty girl across the street, instead of a blurry girl-shaped figure.

We have been teaching and developing to mediocrity. Cognitive enhancement is teaching to potential. Genius potential can be enhanced exponentially with recognition, support, and tools.
….we human beings face a lot of existential threats. We have our current challenges such as climate change, over-population, the looming health care crisis, and the ever present threat of global nuclear war (forgot about that one for a while there, didn’t ya?); not to mention the improbable but possible future-threats of asteroid impact, AI uprising, or alien invasion. Having more rather than less great minds to work together to solve these problems could be the difference between human survival and extinction. DEVELOPMENT of potential and utilization of tools will provide the means to meet the challenges.