Depending on which words are used to describe it, the idea of enhancing human intellect and physiology beyond their current capabilities are often met with rejection based on ethical grounds. Compared to other emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, human enhancement may seem distant and undemanding of our immediate attention, yet recent developments allude to the contrary. As of today, humanity is able to conduct reproductive enhancement via embryonic selection and artificial gamete generation. We can alter our appearance with cosmetic surgery, replace missing body parts with neuroprosthetics, and install medical implants. Every day, we are being mentally assisted by electronic devices – some of which are wearable – to store and manage information. Most of these current applications are used for the purpose of healing or remedying the body to a societally accepted standard, but humanity remains either fearful or cautious of going beyond that standard. That is what distinguishes current human enhancement from transhumanism; the philosophical notion that the human condition should not be restricted to its current limitations and instead be expanded with the use of technology. In an age of rapid developments in genetic engineering and neurotechnology, society might have to deal with the idea of what it means to be physically human sooner than anticipated. In fact, several enhancement technologies already exist: genes can be edited with the CRISPR/Cas system, neural implants have been used to treat movement disorders, accessible fabrication of biomaterials is made possible with 3D bioprinting, and researchers have figured out a method to connect implants to Wi-Fi. Whether society accepts anything more than treatment is becoming a more relevant discussion, with major backlash already occurring even towards well-meaning applications. One example is Genspace, a non-profit community biolab that was deemed unethical by many despite its advocacy for ethical biohacking. Another example is cochlear implants, which some in the deaf community view as an affront to their culture, feeling like a “minority threatened by the hearing majority.” Such conversations open up multiple avenues of nuance: the need to define a human standard, the cultural, political, and social ramifications, and the tangible repercussions of a resulting uneven playing ground between individuals, both physical and mental. With recent claims by Chinese scientist He Jiankui regarding the world’s first gene-edited babies and the ensuing outrage, this topic seems more pertinent than ever.