Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human Enhancement Ethics
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 1 of 52 (406109)
06-17-2007 1:42 AM


As many of you may be aware, many of my beliefs are similar to those of a transhumanist. For those not conversant in futurist terminology, this is the definition (from the World Transhumanism Association’s FAQ)
quote:
The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.
Many transhumanists, like myself, will naturally spend much time thinking on the societal and ethical implications of this viewpoint.
I have recently noticed that objection to human enhancement is quite correlated with creationism. Many of the people I debate evolution with are also opposed to human enhancement, and I have been considering why.
Firstly, I think that if someone has accepted the idea that a human being is the special creation of a perfect divine power, then we are somehow perfect (and thus transhumanist efforts can only make things worse). And, even if we aren’t considered perfect, there is the opinion that only divine intervention can help us be better in any way. In contrast, if one believes that humans are the product of natural (and imperfect - many ”new-age’ beliefs insist that natural is perfect than technological, and so transhumanism clashes with those beliefs too) processes, then there is no reason why we cannot change it, as we would only be directing our own evolution.
Secondly, the idea of the soul, while not solely restricted to creationists, is also not particularly congruent with transhumanism. As the soul is not a physical entity, it cannot be improved upon by physical means such as genetic engineering or cybernetics. However, if one believes that the entire of human consciousness is controlled by a physical brain, then there is nothing but technological limitations in the way of enhancing it.
I have a quote from the Vatican document titled “Human Persons created in the Image of God” to back up these last two points:
quote:
Enhancement genetic engineering aims at improving certain specific characteristics. The idea of man as “co-creator” with God could be used to try to justify the management of human evolution by means of such genetic engineering. But this would imply that man has full right of disposal over his own biological nature. Changing the genetic identity of man as a human person through the production of an infrahuman being is radically immoral. The use of genetic modification to yield a superhuman or being with essentially new spiritual faculties is unthinkable, given that the spiritual life principle of man - forming the matter into the body of the human person - is not a product of human hands and is not subject to genetic engineering. The uniqueness of each human person, in part constituted by his biogenetic characteristics and developed through nurture and growth, belongs intrinsically to him and cannot be instrumentalized in order to improve some of these characteristics. A man can only truly improve by realizing more fully the image of God in him by uniting himself to Christ and in imitation of him. Such modifications would in any case violate the freedom of future persons who had no part in decisions that determine his bodily structure and characteristics in a significant and possibly irreversible way."
Lastly, if one believes in an afterlife, then perhaps life extension technology will not be considered ”good’. In a sense, science would offer to supplant religion as the sole offerer of eternal life, and with physical immortality as a possibility, I fear the religions may feel threatened that their promise of spiritual immortality will not be contemplated.
I’m interested to hear your views on this issue, and if possible the reasoning behind it. I think I know most of your religious views, and no doubt they will ”come out in the wash’.
To get you started, I propose two (three actually, but you can probably only answer two) questions to consider. Do you believe that it is ethically acceptable for someone to enhance themselves through technological means? If you consider it ethical, would you opt to be enhanced yourself, if it was proven to be biologically safe? If you don’t consider it ethical, would you resort to force (political, legal or martial) in order to ensure that these modifications don’t occur?
(Social Issues I think)
Edited by Doddy, : fixed quote box
Edited by Doddy, : fixed link
Edited by Doddy, : fixed other link

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by ogon, posted 06-17-2007 10:38 AM Doddy has replied
 Message 5 by jar, posted 06-17-2007 1:21 PM Doddy has not replied
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 06-17-2007 5:39 PM Doddy has replied
 Message 11 by ikabod, posted 06-18-2007 7:18 AM Doddy has replied
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-21-2007 5:31 PM Doddy has replied
 Message 17 by Phat, posted 06-22-2007 3:31 AM Doddy has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 52 (406136)
06-17-2007 10:29 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
ogon
Member (Idle past 6129 days)
Posts: 70
Joined: 05-13-2007


Message 3 of 52 (406140)
06-17-2007 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doddy
06-17-2007 1:42 AM


my attempt at a reply
Do you believe that it is ethically acceptable for someone to enhance themselves through technological means?
The term ”ethically acceptable’ might mean different things to different people but I understand it as ”should we do something because we can?’ should we clone animals because we can? should we clone people because we can? these questions quickly spring to mind as I think they relate to the particular question.
Should we then, enhance ourselves because we can? For no other particular reason than ,because we can. For me, ”we can’ rings alarm bells. The ”we’ in this case will be the people with the means to carry out such actions. And I’m pretty sure the ”we’ in this case doesn’t include anyone reading this post. If such an enhancement were possible the ”power’ to use it would be in the hands of people who would have no regard for the lives of you or I. Perhaps as guinea pigs maybe.
I could see how a person who values humanity from a religious viewpoint might object strongly to such enhancement. Taking something God has created, and if you are a Christian, ”in his own image’, and trying to enhance it would be unthinkable. If a personal God has your life mapped out for you including your life span on earth, would you really want to meddle and jeopardize what God has planned for you in the afterlife? Would you really want to show up late?
But a person who agrees with Nietzche that God is dead, in that His existence is irrelevant to his or her own life and the majority of mankind on Earth, then enhancement might not be such a problem to live with. So a person with the power, they would have no one to answer to, and means to enhance with no religious beliefs would find it ethically acceptable.
At this moment in time with the worlds population just around the corner from doubling in numbers I would have to say it is not ethically acceptable to enhance peoples lives. If I read the proposition correctly in that it involves lengthening the life span of humans. To me it conjures up pictures in black and white of what certain individuals in power were trying to attempt during world war two. The perfect race living for as long as they wanted is not going to remain science fiction for ever and that worries some people but unfortunately excites others.
If you don’t consider it ethical, would you resort to force (political, legal or martial) in order to ensure that these modifications don’t occur?
We live in a world where these things, human enhancement, could already be happening. We also live in a world where 'reason' is the last resort when it involves the actions and the will of ego maniacs. Resisting force is invariably met with force. And ”my force is bigger than your force’ unfortunately means I wouldn’t have the means to halt such developments as human enhancement.
ogon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doddy, posted 06-17-2007 1:42 AM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 06-17-2007 11:20 AM ogon has not replied
 Message 9 by Doddy, posted 06-17-2007 7:44 PM ogon has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 4 of 52 (406148)
06-17-2007 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by ogon
06-17-2007 10:38 AM


We already are doing it.
Should we then, enhance ourselves because we can?
Every medical procedure that you undergo from dealing with flus to broken bones to major disease is an enhancement. We are already doing it on a massive scale in this country, and the benefit has been that more people are reaching old age than before or in other countries where such technologies are not so fully used.
My life has recently been enhanced by a major life prolonging enhancement, and there was absolutely no question in my mind whether to take it or not: the alternative was a painful early death from untreated cancer.
Creationists that argue against life enhancement but that get medical attention are being hypocrites (again), not that that is unusual.
Taking this to the logical conclusion would mean doing what we can with diet and medication and prosthetics to have a productive and enjoyable old age, and critical to this is the maintenance or improvements to mental facilities.
Where I have some ethical trouble is with maintaining a body as a living shell when the mind is gone. The problem being the slow decline over years that this takes: where do you draw the line? When all recognition of the world and family are gone? Do we do the same for mental patients? Or do we let the families decide, let them chose when the time is right?
To me the major research needs to go into dementia, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and the like before embarking on increasing overall age, so that all elderly can enjoy the same benefits.
I also firmly believe that stem cell research is critical for this.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ogon, posted 06-17-2007 10:38 AM ogon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Doddy, posted 06-17-2007 7:29 PM RAZD has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 5 of 52 (406175)
06-17-2007 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doddy
06-17-2007 1:42 AM


seems simple
Do you believe that it is ethically acceptable for someone to enhance themselves through technological means?
Of course.
If you consider it ethical, would you opt to be enhanced yourself, if it was proven to be biologically safe?
That would very much depend on the enhancement and the cost/value determination I make. For example I have never considered getting a nose job or plastic surgery, but then I don't have to look at myself either.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doddy, posted 06-17-2007 1:42 AM Doddy has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 6 of 52 (406203)
06-17-2007 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doddy
06-17-2007 1:42 AM


Uncomfortable
I have no religious objections to your proposal. I have no belief in the soul or afterlife. I entirely accept that the physical brain as the root of consciousenss, persoanlity etc. and that without it these things cease to exist.
I can see no reason to necessarily equate unnatural with 'bad' or unethical and no reason to equate natural with good or ethical.
Despite all of that I find myself slightly uncomfortable with what you are advocating.
Do you believe that it is ethically acceptable for someone to enhance themselves through technological means?
In itself I have no direct ethical problem with enhancement in principle. However there are so many potentially social side issues that very probably would have ethical consequences that in practice I belive it is a socially ethical question.
Who has access to enhancement? Who doesn't? Who or what decides who does and does not have access? Is that which makes this decison fair, practical, prejudiced etc? Can enhancement be made available to all? Should enhancement be made available to all? What happens to those that cannot or choose not to be enhanced? Do social constructs such as laws and organisations differentiate between those that are enhanced and those that are not? Is it even possible not to differentiate? Can enhanceds and non-enhanceds co-exist peacefully? etc. etc. etc. The list of questions is almost endless. Such a thing would potentially turn society on it's head.
There are just so many social consequences that have an ethical component to them that the simple question of whether or not it is ethical to personally undertake the physical act of enhencement is frankly neither here nor there.
It would be a giant can of unpredictably wriggling worms.
If you consider it ethical, would you opt to be enhanced yourself, if it was proven to be biologically safe?
I would honestly like to think not but if I were closer to incapacity and death or surrounded by enhanced humans I can see that I might not be so sure........
would you resort to force (political, legal or martial) in order to ensure that these modifications don’t occur?
I think I would naively try to stop the distribution of access to enhancements being based on wealth alone. But the pragmatic cynic in me says that these would fail and that wealth would ultimately dictate access.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doddy, posted 06-17-2007 1:42 AM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Doddy, posted 06-17-2007 7:18 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 7 of 52 (406207)
06-17-2007 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Straggler
06-17-2007 5:39 PM


Re: Uncomfortable
Straggler writes:
Who has access to enhancement? Who doesn't? Who or what decides who does and does not have access? Is that which makes this decison fair, practical, prejudiced etc? Can enhancement be made available to all? Should enhancement be made available to all? What happens to those that cannot or choose not to be enhanced?
There are a lot of questions, but consider also that it is nigh on impossible to prevent such technologies from arising. If, for example, the western governments elect to ban all enhancement technologies (somehow dividing them from therapeutic technologies), then they will still be available on the black market. So, who will now have access to them - the rich who can afford to fly over to a country where the technology is legal and pay the exorbitant prices, or the poor?
Quite simply, the only way to ensure the most fair distribution is to encourage it like the computer industry. Sure, to begin with only the rich could have access to computers, but eventually it filtered down to the poor. If a universal healthcare system (I don't know if the USA has one, but Australia does anyway) covered this technology, then we would also give this technology a chance to be accessed by all.
Straggler writes:
Do social constructs such as laws and organisations differentiate between those that are enhanced and those that are not? Is it even possible not to differentiate? Can enhanceds and non-enhanceds co-exist peacefully? etc. etc. etc. The list of questions is almost endless.
Yes, there will be those who opt not to be enhanced. But, there will be far fewer if the technology were banned. So, instead of a few wealthy people living like X-men, the majority of the world will be able to access this technology.
I'm not sure that in early days, it will be possible to differentiate most enhanced people from just naturally gifted people, but I think later days will see that change. Whether there is conflict between the two depends on the numbers involved. If more people are disgusted by the idea than opt to adopt it, then it is perhaps likely that some sort of small scale conflicts will arise. But, I don't see any reason why a small set of unenhanced people can co-exist peacefully with the enhanced, in much the same way that the disabled co-exist with us (and, as with that analogy, there are going to be some who discriminate).
Straggler writes:
Such a thing would potentially turn society on it's head.
Yes, it will. Which is why it is important that we discuss it now.

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 06-17-2007 5:39 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 8 of 52 (406208)
06-17-2007 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
06-17-2007 11:20 AM


Re: We already are doing it.
RAZD writes:
Creationists that argue against life enhancement but that get medical attention are being hypocrites (again), not that that is unusual.
They also tend to denounce eugenics, but little do they realise that banning enhancement is in fact akin to eugenics, in that the government would be specifying a certain 'way of being' and limit your freedoms in order to obtain that image of an 'ideal' human.
RAZD writes:
To me the major research needs to go into dementia, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and the like before embarking on increasing overall age, so that all elderly can enjoy the same benefits.
I think that even the most hardcore creationist would agree to research in dementia etc. So, it's not really worth discussing.
However, some (I think Aubrey de Grey was one) have argued that ageing is itself the cause of those sort of diseases (well, maybe not Parkinson's), and so a cure for ageing will quickly lead to a cure for age-related debilities. If you don't ever become physically older than 25, will you still get dementia and Alzheimer's?

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 06-17-2007 11:20 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 06-17-2007 8:10 PM Doddy has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 9 of 52 (406209)
06-17-2007 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by ogon
06-17-2007 10:38 AM


Re: my attempt at a reply
ogon writes:
And I’m pretty sure the ”we’ in this case doesn’t include anyone reading this post. If such an enhancement were possible the ”power’ to use it would be in the hands of people who would have no regard for the lives of you or I.
Why would it be? Why wouldn't it just be like going to get a heart transplant? The only way that criminals would be the only ones to have this technology would be if the technology was criminalised.
ogon writes:
...a person who agrees with Nietzche...
Interesting you should mention Nietzche, as his concept of an "—bermensch" as set out in 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra' is very similar in some ways to a transhuman (just a bit more sudden and mean, with more metaphysical overtones).
ogon writes:
At this moment in time with the worlds population just around the corner from doubling in numbers I would have to say it is not ethically acceptable to enhance peoples lives. If I read the proposition correctly in that it involves lengthening the life span of humans.
Life span is also directly correlated with birth rate (after a 35 year lag - increase life span, wait 35 years, and birth rate declines). I think it people can wait until they are 400 before they have kids, they probably will.
Maybe also we may need to restrict population growth, but I hope people will be sensible enough to see that themselves, lest we need to colonise other planets.
ogon writes:
To me it conjures up pictures in black and white of what certain individuals in power were trying to attempt during world war two. The perfect race living for as long as they wanted is not going to remain science fiction for ever and that worries some people but unfortunately excites others.
Godwin's Law.
I'm afraid that simply because the Nazis may have been interested in it doesn't make it wrong.
And, the idea of a perfect race, as I stated in my post above, is present in the idea of banning the technology (thus keeping us in our current "perfect" state).
ogon writes:
And ”my force is bigger than your force’ unfortunately means I wouldn’t have the means to halt such developments as human enhancement.
It's perhaps possible, but it may involve the resistance mounting a serious war and setting back the course of biotech and biomedical science, plus permanently keeping such research under their thumb, as perhaps may occur in fundamentalist Islamic nations.
Edited by Doddy, : grammar

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ogon, posted 06-17-2007 10:38 AM ogon has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 10 of 52 (406211)
06-17-2007 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Doddy
06-17-2007 7:29 PM


Re: We already are doing it.
I think that even the most hardcore creationist would agree to research in dementia etc. So, it's not really worth discussing.
That makes it non-controversial and much more likely to get done. Unless of course we cure the "god-disease" in the process as well ... .
... and so a cure for ageing will quickly lead to a cure for age-related debilities. If you don't ever become physically older than 25, will you still get dementia and Alzheimer's?
I think we will find that these are due to accumulations in the brain of proteins that block, disrupt or destroy brain cells, and that this may be as much an environmental\chemical issue as it is age. If so it would tend to be age non-related, just show up in old age due to the accumulation.
"AGE" is such a catch-all that it is hard to pin down what anti-aging would involve ... skin care? wrinkles? something to prevent the failure of various and sundry organs? magic cancer bullets? Having been through what I just recently did, I'd still rather lose my body than lose my mind. Prolonging body life before prolonging mind life would not be my first, second or third choice.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Doddy, posted 06-17-2007 7:29 PM Doddy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by DorfMan, posted 06-18-2007 10:21 AM RAZD has not replied
 Message 13 by Taz, posted 06-18-2007 4:21 PM RAZD has not replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 11 of 52 (406242)
06-18-2007 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doddy
06-17-2007 1:42 AM


Do you believe that it is ethically acceptable for someone to enhance themselves through technological means?
as has been pointed out , this already happens in so many ways , from improving ones food supply via chemicals and geneticly enginnered plants , to seletive preventive health care and health plans , to improving ones personal enviroment ....
if you are talking direct additions or suppliments to ones body . be it a nerual intereface , cybernetic limb , of a geneticly enhanced liver , a genetically reprogrammed kidney , or some form of prolonging active life beyond the current norm ..this raises social more than ethical questions ....
would "enhanced" people have the same rights ..
a runner with cyber legs , would they be allowed in the olympics??
a person applying for a computer operator job who can "jack" in ,do they get referance or is that discrimination ??
if you get to live for 200 years how many years must you work and pay tax before you earn a state pension and get OAP benifits ??
i think any real ethical question would get swamped by the real world issues.
the ethicis i feel would come down not to who could do it .. but who could not for reasons of money , avaiblity of the tech , and/or if such tech only work on a restricted genetic profile , in other words , how would it divide up the population , would it create a new racial/geographical divide .. and yes i think it would in the current world , as well as dividing peoples on religioous grounds .
Thus the ethical question would prevent easy passage of such technology.
All that being said i am in favour of such advances and see no ethical block to it .
If you consider it ethical, would you opt to be enhanced yourself, if it was proven to be biologically safe?
yes .
If you don’t consider it ethical, would you resort to force (political, legal or martial) in order to ensure that these modifications don’t occur?
if i disagreed i would hope current laws could be modified to deal with its in the same way , drugs , guns , chemicals , et al are controled and regulated ..hmm i see where you are going ..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doddy, posted 06-17-2007 1:42 AM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Doddy, posted 06-19-2007 12:24 AM ikabod has not replied

  
DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 12 of 52 (406252)
06-18-2007 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by RAZD
06-17-2007 8:10 PM


Re: We already are doing it.
quote:
Unless of course we cure the "god-disease" in the process as well ... .
I have the 'god-disease' and I'm opposed to stifling research regardless of where it takes us. Good and bad will always exist. We must cherish life and prolong it to the best of our abilities. That is my understanding and belief, with the help of the 'god-disease', from which I will not waver, ever, the understanding and the 'god-disease'.
Edited by DorfMan, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 06-17-2007 8:10 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 13 of 52 (406275)
06-18-2007 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by RAZD
06-17-2007 8:10 PM


Re: We already are doing it.
RAZD writes:
"AGE" is such a catch-all that it is hard to pin down what anti-aging would involve ... skin care?
How about we devise a procedure or treatment that prevents the root cause of aging, which is DNA damage? What you've described is nothing more than treating the symptoms.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes![/size]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 06-17-2007 8:10 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 14 of 52 (406307)
06-19-2007 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by ikabod
06-18-2007 7:18 AM


ikabod writes:
would "enhanced" people have the same rights ..
a runner with cyber legs , would they be allowed in the olympics??
Possibly.
The Times & The Sunday Times
ikabod writes:
a person applying for a computer operator job who can "jack" in ,do they get referance or is that discrimination ??
Well...I'd imagine they could get that modification recognised, just as the model with a boob job can get that recognised.
ikabod writes:
if you get to live for 200 years how many years must you work and pay tax before you earn a state pension and get OAP benifits ??
I would imagine that the seniors benefits would be much like disability benefits, so you have to prove that you are too old to work (shouldn't be to strict, as there will be plenty of people on the planet to take your place).
ikabod writes:
i think any real ethical question would get swamped by the real world issues.
It is all part of the problem I alluded to earlier, where society could be radically changed. I just don't think the current democratic capitalism will be able to work, but never underestimate the power.
ikabod writes:
if i disagreed i would hope current laws could be modified to deal with its in the same way , drugs , guns , chemicals , et al are controled and regulated ..hmm i see where you are going ..
Indeed. I fear there may be bloodshed before these technologies appear, but perhaps I have just watched too many sci-fi flicks.

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ikabod, posted 06-18-2007 7:18 AM ikabod has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 52 (406652)
06-21-2007 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doddy
06-17-2007 1:42 AM


Enhancing what?
quote:
The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.
Many transhumanists, like myself, will naturally spend much time thinking on the societal and ethical implications of this viewpoint.
Improvement suggests that something is inherently wrong. Are speaking about our physical attributes to be improved upon, or are you suggesting that we could somehow alter our definitions of morality?
Do you believe that it is ethically acceptable for someone to enhance themselves through technological means?
I think you first need define what you mean by "enhance." Are you talking about cyborgs here, or surgically implanting a microprocessor in someone's brain to think faster, etc.
If you consider it ethical, would you opt to be enhanced yourself, if it was proven to be biologically safe? If you don’t consider it ethical, would you resort to force (political, legal or martial) in order to ensure that these modifications don’t occur?
Again, I can't really answer that without first understanding what enhancement means.

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doddy, posted 06-17-2007 1:42 AM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Doddy, posted 06-22-2007 1:02 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024