The Viewpoint: Upgrading humanity: Technology, ethics, and opportunity

After yet another lengthy discussion on AI and the Magnificent 7, I recently challenged the team to think out of the box and come up with the next truly transformative theme. Not just another iteration of digital disruption, but something that could reshape markets, societies, and even the human experience itself.

The usual suspects came up: space exploration, the nuclear renaissance, the robot companion, but what really struck me was the idea that the next frontier might not be out there in the cosmos or deep in the lab, but within us. Human enhancement. Not just tools to help us, but technologies that change us.

For millennia, human progress meant building tools to overcome our limitations. Fire, agriculture, antibiotics, and education reshaped our lives, but left our biology untouched. Today, a new frontier is emerging, technologies that aim not just to aid us, but to alter us. We are entering the age of human enhancement.

Human enhancement, in its broadest sense, is any intervention designed to improve human capabilities beyond the healthy ‘baseline’ set by nature. It can be restorative, as when prosthetic limbs restore mobility or cochlear implants restore hearing. But increasingly, the focus is moving to augmentation: limbs that are stronger than any human muscle, sensors that detect a broader range of stimuli than our natural senses, and drugs or neural interfaces that enhance memory or concentration. The underlying ambition is clear, to make us faster, stronger, smarter, healthier, and perhaps, longer-lived than evolution ever intended.

To my mind, one of the most striking examples of physical augmentation is the development of technologies that allow humans to see in the dark. Researchers have created prototype infrared-sensitive contact lenses using nanomaterials that convert invisible infrared light into visible wavelengths. These lenses, still in early stages, could one day enable wearers to perceive heat signatures, navigate in low-light environments, or detect signals invisible to the naked eye, all without relying on bulky night vision equipment. The potential applications range from military and rescue operations to medical diagnostics, but the broader implication is clear: enhancement is shifting from external tools toward more intimate, wearable interfaces. As these technologies evolve, they challenge traditional boundaries between human and machine, raising new questions about access, regulation, and the definition of normal human capability.

One of the most striking examples of physical augmentation is the development of technologies that allow humans to see in the dark.

At the same time, external augmentation remains a powerful frontier. Military exoskeletons, still largely in prototype, promise to let soldiers carry heavy loads over long distances without fatigue. In elite sport, debates about performance-enhancing drugs and high-tech prosthetics hint at the thin line between therapy and competitive advantage. Less visible, but no less significant, are the advances in cognitive enhancement. Nootropic drugs and brain stimulation techniques are already used by students, traders, and programmers to improve focus and working memory. Brain to computer interfaces, still in their infancy, could allow people to communicate directly with machines, turning thought into action without speech or keystrokes. It may come as little surprise that Elon Musk already has a company, Neuralink, which has implanted a device into a human brain enabling a paralysed patient to control a computer.

Then there is genetic modification. CRISPR and other gene-editing tools can correct disease-causing mutations, but they also raise the possibility of altering traits such as height, muscle composition, or even cognitive potential. The most controversial moment to date came in 2018, when Chinese scientist, He Jiankui, claimed to have edited the genes of twin girls to make them resistant to HIV, a medical goal, but one with profound implications for human germline editing. It is not difficult to imagine a future in which parents can select, or at least nudge, the genetic profile of their children toward traits they find desirable.

Longevity research offers another frontier. Companies such as Altos Labs (private) and Calico (a subsidiary of Alphabet) are exploring ways to slow, halt, or even reverse aspects of aging. Senolytic drugs aim to remove damaged cells that contribute to age-related decline. Gene therapies may reset cellular ‘clocks’ to a more youthful state. A genuine breakthrough here would reshape everything from pension systems to healthcare, with the investment implications rippling far beyond the biotechnology sector. L’Oréal, for instance, has partnered with biotech firms like SENISCA and Timeline to explore cellular rejuvenation technologies as part of its Longevity Integrative Science initiative.

A genuine breakthrough here would reshape everything from pension systems to healthcare, with the investment implications rippling far beyond the biotechnology sector.

These developments are fascinating, but they are inseparable from the ethical and moral questions they provoke. The first is fairness. If enhancement technologies are expensive, they risk creating a widening gap between the enhanced and the unenhanced, reinforcing inequality not only in wealth but in ability itself. Education and healthcare have long been seen as equalising forces in that they are intended to offer opportunity regardless of background. Yet in practice, access to both is deeply uneven, often shaped by income and geography. If human enhancement follows a similar path, left purely to market forces, it could amplify existing disparities rather than reduce them. The second is consent. Adults can choose to undergo enhancement, but genetic editing of embryos or children involves making irreversible decisions for people who cannot yet speak for themselves. The third is identity. How much change can we embrace before the concept of ‘human’ becomes something else entirely?

The debate also extends into questions of regulation. Should enhancements be treated like medical therapies, approved for safety and efficacy? Or should they be treated more like consumer electronics, left to the market unless they cause clear harm? In sports, governing bodies already draw strict lines to preserve fairness. In broader society, those lines are blurrier. One can easily imagine a patchwork of rules across jurisdictions, with some countries welcoming enhancement technologies and others banning them outright. This, in turn, could drive enhancement tourism, much as we see today with medical tourism.

For investors, human enhancement is both a technological frontier and a social risk. The opportunity side is obvious: if a company produces a safe, effective enhancement that millions of people want, the market could be enormous. The fitness and wellness industry alone is worth hundreds of billions of dollars; an enhancement that delivered measurable physical or cognitive gains could dwarf current supplements or wearables. The challenge is that the path from concept to adoption will be shaped by cultural attitudes, regulatory decisions, and ethical controversies, all of which can shift quickly.

The fitness and wellness industry alone is worth hundreds of billions of dollars; an enhancement that delivered measurable physical or cognitive gains could dwarf current supplements or wearables

We have already seen parallels in other sectors. Consider the rise of mRNA vaccines. For decades, the technology attracted interest but little commercial traction. The pandemic acted as an accelerant, moving the field from scientific promise to global deployment in under two years. In the process, it dramatically reshaped the valuations of the companies involved, with firms like Moderna and BioNTech seeing meteoric rises, followed by sharp corrections as the initial wave of optimism gave way to more sober reassessments. Something similar could happen with human enhancement if a triggering event, perhaps a breakthrough in treating neurodegenerative disease, or a major advance in extending healthy lifespan, changes public perception and regulatory appetite almost overnight.

There are also defensive considerations. If enhancement becomes widespread, industries from education to insurance will have to adapt. Universities might face pressure to distinguish between the achievements of enhanced and unenhanced students. Employers could find themselves navigating complex questions about whether to require, or forbid, certain enhancements for specific jobs. Insurers might have to decide whether to price policies differently for enhanced individuals. Each of these adjustments will create winners and losers among listed companies, some of which may not even see the disruption coming until it is upon them.

The most intriguing investment angle may lie in the infrastructure and platforms that enable enhancement. Advanced robotics and prosthetics will require precision engineering and materials science. Brain to computer interfaces will depend on advances in semiconductors, AI, and neuroimaging. Gene-editing therapies will need scalable manufacturing and delivery systems. Many of the companies working in these areas today are small and speculative, but the enabling technologies for example high-end imaging equipment, cloud-based AI analytics and specialised biotech manufacturing, are often scaled by established, profitable firms. For a long-term investor, these ‘picks and shovels’ sometimes offer a less volatile route into a theme.

Still, there is a broader, almost philosophical consideration. Human enhancement forces us to think about the kind of society we want to invest in. If enhancement amplifies inequality, undermines social cohesion, or leads to unintended harms, then successful companies in the space could become targets for regulation or public backlash. Conversely, enhancement done well in a safe and accessible way and with respect for autonomy could expand opportunity, extend healthy life, and increase productivity in ways that benefit the entire economy. In that scenario, the returns could be both financial and societal.

Human enhancement forces us to think about the kind of society we want to invest in

It is possible that human enhancement will follow a familiar arc: early hype, speculative booms and busts, and then a steady integration into everyday life, much as we saw with the internet and smartphones. The first wave may be controversial and niche, but over time the technology could become so normalised that it feels unremarkable. After all, wearing glasses or using a pacemaker were once considered extraordinary interventions; today, they are ordinary extensions of human capability.

Yet it is equally possible that enhancement will remain a battleground of ideas and ethics, with each new advance reigniting debate about what it means to be human. For the investor, that means watching not just the science, but the politics, culture, and values that will determine how far, and how fast, society chooses to go.

In the end, human enhancement is less about gadgets or genetic sequences than it is about ambition. It is the most intimate form of innovation, because it asks us to improve not just our tools, but ourselves. Whether we embrace it as a new chapter in human progress, resist it as a threat to our humanity, or muddle along somewhere in between, the forces it unleashes will shape markets, societies, and perhaps even the definition of human life itself.

I like to think that the ideas I’ve touched on won’t go mainstream until long after I’ve hung up my investment boots and that I can leave the ethical dilemmas and technological leaps to my younger, AI-assisted colleagues. But as change has a habit of sneaking up on us, who knows? With the right implant or neural tweak, I could still be doing this job 100 years from now. Though, for everyone’s sake, especially mine, let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.

For professional investors only.  This material is not suitable for a retail audience. Capital at risk. This is a financial promotion and is not investment advice. Past performance is not a guide to future performance. Reference to any security is for information purposes only and should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell.

The value of investments and any income from them may go down as well as up and is not guaranteed. Investors may not get back the amount invested. Portfolio characteristics and holdings are subject to change without notice. The views expressed are those of the author at the date of publication unless otherwise indicated, which are subject to change. Forward looking statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties,  Actual outcomes may be materially different from those expressed or implied.