| Part of a series on |
| Human enhancement |
|---|
 |
(De facto) germline interventions |
Somatic interventions |
Opposition
|
Morphological freedom refers to a proposedcivil right of aperson to either maintain ormodify their own body, on their own terms, throughinformed, consensual recourse to, or refusal of, available therapeutic or enablingmedical technology.[1]
The term may have been coined bytranshumanistMax More in his 1993 article, “Technological Self-Transformation: Expanding Personal Extropy”, where he defined it as "the ability to alter bodily form at will through technologies such as surgery, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, uploading". The term was later used by science debater and futuristAnders Sandberg as "an extension of one’s right to one’s body, not justself-ownership but also the right to modify oneself according to one’s desires."[2]
TheMassachusetts-headquartered charity, theFreedom of Form Foundation, was founded in 2018 to advocate and fund scientific research furthering progress on morphological freedom, the tools required to achieve it and its general acceptance in society at large.[3][non-primary source needed]
According totechnocriticDale Carrico, the politics of morphological freedom imply a commitment to the value, standing, and social legibility of the widest possible variety of desiredmorphologies andlifestyles. More specifically, morphological freedom is an expression ofliberalpluralism,secularism,progressivecosmopolitanism, andposthumanistmulticulturalisms applied to the ongoing and upcoming transformation of the understanding of medical practice from one of conventional therapy to one ofconsensualself-determination, viagenetic,prosthetic, andcognitive modification.[citation needed]
According to authorsCalvin Mercer andTracy J. Trothen there is tension between religion andtranshumanists, particularly theAbrahamic traditions, with regards to morphological freedom. While religion generally recognizes the need to heal people and improve their situation from a medical perspective they are generally hesitant to promote a wholesale modification of the body as they see it ultimately belonging toGod.[4]
| Contributors | |
|---|---|
| Subcultures | |
| Themes | |
| Derivative genres | |
