Along with the advancement of science and technology, the quest for enhancement that can complement and modify human nature towards a better-than-well state is becoming a reality. One of the most tenacious criticisms of enhancement rests on the understanding that a persons’ nature should remain unmediated, thus, advocating the authenticity of human nature. Scholars against this bio-conservative critical position state that it is a conceptual mistake to derive “ought” from “is”. If the latter indication is valid, it is essential for bio-conservatives to present values, principles, and arguments that can refuse enhancement in alternative ways. In contrast, if advocates of technological progress (techno-progressives) want to lend a robust support to enhancement, they should present persuasive arguments rather than merely critiquing the lacunae in bio-conservative arguments. In this survey paper, we focus on contentions put forth by the techno-progressives against the bio-conservatives in attempting to justify enhancement, We especially scrutinise the case made by James Hughes, who advocates the convergence of technological progress and democratic social change.