So IQ is not bogus when it proves your point, but is bogus when it doesn't. Got it. (Bite the IQ bullet or don't; going half way and then flip-flopping back an

So IQ is not bogus when it proves your point, but is bogus when it doesn't. Got it. (Bite the IQ bullet or don't; going half way and then flip-flopping back and forth is intellectually dishonest.) Additionally: "enhancement" seems like a bit of a bucket word. There are only a surface similarities between cellphones and AIDS cures, in that they help people. I mean, vaguely speaking, you're pushing the bounds of what humans are able to do; recall information more effectively, live longer, maybe fight disease. But then you end up broadening the category to "all technologies serve as enhancements" and vice versa, which stops describing the specific information that causes some people to be uncomfortable when they hear "enhancement". I would want to know what connotations about the word enhancement produce a split between the religious vs non-religious, and the spiritual vs the non-spiritual (the two are independent but correlated dimensions, believe me.) In this article the argument has been framed around "meddling with nature" which itself is kind of limiting the discourse. There's probably more to it.