Why are medical tools that enhance human beings morally troubling?

[N.T.A.O ChangeOfHeart 死の剣]

This issue has always upset myself to become paranoid towards this subject. I'm curious what you all think about this subjective thought.

Human enhancement has emerged in recent years as a b topic in ethics. With continuing advances in science and technology, people are beginning to realize that some of the basic parameters of the human condition might be changed in the future. One important way in which the human condition could be changed is through the enhancement of basic human capacities. If this becomes feasible within the lifespan of many people alive today, then it is important now to consider the normative questions raised by such prospects. The answers to these questions might not only help us be better prepared when technology catches up with imagination, but they may be relevant to many decisions we make today, such as decisions about how much funding to give to various kinds of research. Enhancement is typically contra-posed to therapy. In broad terms, therapy aims to fix something that has gone wrong, by curing specific diseases or injuries, while enhancement interventions aim to improve the state of an organism beyond its normal healthy state. However, the distinction between therapy and enhancement is problematic, for several reasons.

First, we may note that the therapy-enhancement dichotomy does not map onto any corresponding dichotomy between standard-contemporary-medicine and medicine-as-it-could-be-practised-in-the-future. Standard contemporary medicine includes many practices that do not aim to cure diseases or injuries. It includes, for example, preventive medicine, palliative care, obstetrics, sports medicine, plastic surgery, contraceptive devices, fertility treatments, cosmetic dental procedures, and much else. At the same time, many enhancement interventions occur outside of the medical framework. Office workers enhance their performance by drinking coffee. Make-up and grooming are used to enhance appearance. Exercise, meditation, fish oil, and St John’s Wort are used to enhance mood.

Second, it is unclear how to classify interventions that reduce the probability of disease and death. Vaccination can be seen as an immune system enhancement or, alternatively, as a preventative therapeutic intervention. Similarly, an intervention to slow the aging process could be regarded either as an enhancement of healthspan or as a preventative therapeutic intervention that reduces the risk of illness and disability.

Third, there is the question of how to define a normal healthy state. Many human attributes have a normal (bell curve) distribution. Take cognitive capacity. To define abnormality as falling (say) two standard deviations below the population average is to introduce an arbitrary point that seems to lack any fundamental medical or normative significance. One person might have a recognizable neurological disease that reduces her cognitive capacity by one standard deviation (1σ), yet she would remain above average if she started off 2σ above the average. A therapeutic intervention that cured her of her disease might cause her intelligence to soar further above the average. We might say that for her, a normal healthy state is 2σ above the average, while for most humans the healthy state is much lower. In contrast, for somebody whose “natural” cognitive capacity is 2σ below the average, an intervention that increased it so that she reached a point merely 1σ below the average would be an enhancement. As a result, an enhanced person may end up with lower capacity than even an unenhanced person with subnormal cognitive functioning; and therapeutic treatment may turn a merely gifted person into a genius. In cases like these, it is hard to see what ethical significance attaches to the classification of an intervention as therapeutic or enhancing. Moreover, in many cases it is unclear that there is a fact of the matter as to whether the complex set of factors determining a person’s cognitive capacity is pathological or normal. Does having a gene present in 20% of the population that correlates negatively with intelligence constitute a pathology?

Having a large number of such genes might make an individual cognitively impaired or even ********, but not necessarily through any distinctive pathological process. The concepts of “disease” or “abnormality” may not refer to any natural kind in this context. These concepts are arguably not useful ways of characterizing a constellation of factors that are normally distributed in a population, as are many of the factors influencing cognitive capacity or other candidate targets for enhancement. A concept that defined enhancement as an improvement achieved otherwise than by curing specific disease or injury would inherit these problems of defining pathology.

Fourth, capacities vary continuously not only within a population but also within the lifespan of a single individual. When we mature, our physical and mental capacities increase; as we grow old, they decline. If an intervention enables an 80-year-old person to have the same physical stamina, visual acuity, and reaction time as he had in his twenties, does that constitute therapy or enhancement? Either alternative seems as plausible or natural as the other, suggesting again that the concept of enhancement fails to pick out, in any clear or useful way, a scientifically significant category.

Fifth, we may wonder how “internal” an intervention has to be in order to count as an enhancement (or a therapy). Lasik surgery is a therapy for poor vision. What about contact lenses? Glasses? Computer software that presents text in an enlarged font? A personal assistant who handles all the paperwork? Without some requirement that an intervention be “internal”, all technologies and tools would constitute enhancements in that they give us capacities to achieve certain outcomes more easily or effectively than we could otherwise do. If we insist on an internality constraint, as we must if the concept of enhancement is not to collapse into the concept of technology generally, then we face the problem of how to define such a constraint. If we believe that enhancements raise any special ethical issues, we also face the challenge of showing why the particular way we have defined the internality constraint captures anything of normative significance.

Sixth, even if we could define a concept of enhancement that captured some sort of unified phenomenon in the world, there is the problem that is ourselves to accept this concept that might take over the world some-day.

 

[Braydon]

You copy pasted that from something didn't you? Get rid of most of it, nobody wants a 10 page op.

Anyway to me it seems there are two main things people fear about artificial enhancements, the first is that they will begin to define you, you'll become more machine than man, not really much to say on the matter though, you'd kinda have to take it on a case by case basis to decide if it's to big a change to a person.

Anyway second and more likely problem is that people who couldn't afford these procedures, or didn't want them. would not be able to compete in a world full of augmented jackasses, really only thing I can think of to solve that is to be careful who you go improving, no one wants a newer better hitler running around.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Holy manifesto, batman! Got a TL;DR version for any of those points? I'll try to work through some of it later, but this is not an OP, this is a small novel.

 

[N.T.A.O ChangeOfHeart 死の剣]

You copy pasted that from something didn't you? Get rid of most of it, nobody wants a 10 page op.

Anyway to me it seems there are two main things people fear about artificial enhancements, the first is that they will begin to define you, you'll become more machine than man, not really much to say on the matter though, you'd kinda have to take it on a case by case basis to decide if it's to big a change to a person.

Anyway second and more likely problem is that people who couldn't afford these procedures, or didn't want them. would not be able to compete in a world full of augmented *******es, really only thing I can think of to solve that is to be careful who you go improving, no one wants a newer better hitler running around.

More-so in some content but like a few sentences, the person really impressed myself so I had to use some of this work. So to clarify yes, some content was pasted due to it had a stronger metaphor than my own metaphor, if that offends you then my apologies. "no one wants a newer better hitler running around" that was a simplified but simple and brilliant aspect to fathom towards this subject. Thanks.

 

[_Keno_]

I definitely don't consider any enhancements or life-extending methods to be inherently bad. Should it matter to me if someone becomes more machine than man, if it's their choice? I don't see any problem with that unless they are attaching guns into their wrists or recording devices into their eyes. As long as might right not be shot or not be recorded without permission is intact (and other rights), I don't really care.

If a human wants to stop from aging in a universe where there is room for everyone (which there probably is, we just can't find anywhere to send people), I really don't care about that either. Nothing is inherently immoral about that unless they are sapping life from someone else.

I really only care about the practical aspects such as limiting food and space.

The 'appreciation of meaning in a short life' may not be another person's viewpoint, and therefore my own view that 'life should probably be short and sweet' shouldn't have any affect on someone else's/

 

[Sehnsucht]

More-so in some content but like a few sentences, the person really impressed myself so I had to use some of this work. So to clarify yes, some content was pasted due to it had a stronger metaphor than my own metaphor, if that offends you then my apologies. "no one wants a newer better hitler running around" that was a simplified but simple and brilliant aspect to fathom towards this subject. Thanks.

If you copied and pasted a large part of another person's text, you should at least credit them, and state for the record that this is not in fact your own work (or at least, point out what are and aren't your contributions). To do otherwise skirts the line of plagiarism (if not crossing it outright), and that's not a habit I would encourage in anyone.

Holy manifesto, batman! Got a TL;DR version for any of those points? I'll try to work through some of it later, but this is not an OP, this is a small novel.

I daresay he's the new Sehnsucht.

As for the OP, I'll indulge in some general thoughts on the topic, until a more condensed version comes out.

So, on posthumanist trends:

As with @ _Keno_ above me, I find modifications to the human being through technology to not be at all worrisome. Because technology is a tool, and tools must be wielded to do anything, good or ill; the ethical concern rests thus not in the tool, but how it is applied.

I also hold that it is actions that possess moral value. Whether a person does or doesn't use cybernetic/medicinal/genetic enhancements could only be of concern if A) such (post)humans perform unethical acts as a result of these augmentations, and if B) these augmentations are not being done with the consent of the end user(s).

Things may change greatly over time. Humans will likely change greatly over time. Yet so long as we hold to basic principles of ethics -- autonomy, consent, agency, etc. -- I welcome the posthuman generation.

Perhaps later, I'll scour the OP text proper to see if there are any salient points to examine. Because while it's fun to write huge walls of text, it's not quite so fun to scour through them.

 

[N.T.A.O ChangeOfHeart 死の剣]

If you copied and pasted a large part of another person's text, you should at least credit them, and state for the record that this is not in fact your own work (or at least, point out what are and aren't your contributions). To do otherwise skirts the line of plagiarism (if not crossing it outright), and that's not a habit I would encourage in anyone.



I daresay he's the new Sehnsucht.

As for the OP, I'll indulge in some general thoughts on the topic, until a more condensed version comes out.

So, on posthumanist trends:

As with @ _Keno_ above me, I find modifications to the human being through technology to not be at all worrisome. Because technology is a tool, and tools must be wielded to do anything, good or ill; the ethical concern rests thus not in the tool, but how it is applied.

I also hold that it is actions that possess moral value. Whether a person does or doesn't use cybernetic/medicinal/genetic enhancements could only be of concern if A) such (post)humans perform unethical acts as a result of these augmentations, and if B) these augmentations are not being done with the consent of the end user(s).

Things may change greatly over time. Humans will likely change greatly over time. Yet so long as we hold to basic principles of ethics -- autonomy, consent, agency, etc. -- I welcome the posthuman generation.

Perhaps later, I'll scour the OP text proper to see if there are any salient points to examine. Because while it's fun to write huge walls of text, it's not quite so fun to scour through them.

Ah, alright, I'll clarify my innocence and somewhat slander content. If this makes any sense, I simply amalgamated his words with my words in some chunks of the sentences. I'm not certain why you are pestering over this fatuity of words. If this situation creates any clear positive outcome, I am taking an advanced Philosophy class (B1A). I can understand content quite hurriedly. I'm a person that enjoys a complex paradox of some sort, the situation makes me ravel my mind into understanding the concept. My apologies if I have written too much for this concept.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Ah, alright, I'll clarify my innocence and somewhat slander content. If this makes any sense, I simply amalgamated his words with my words in some chunks of the sentences. I'm not certain why you are pestering over this fatuity of words. If this situation creates any clear positive outcome, I am taking an advanced Philosophy class (B1A). I can understand content quite hurriedly. I'm a person that enjoys a complex paradox of some sort, the situation makes me ravel my mind into understanding the concept. My apologies if I have written too much for the concept.

My comment wasn't a reprimand or anything of the sort. It was merely a brief suggestion of Internet etiquette. When online, it's always better to credit people whose work you share elsewhere (whether with a link or a name-drop or whatever), than to not do so at all. If I'd ever want to share something you wrote, I might link to your original post/source, cite your username, or perhaps even ask you for permission (not out of legal obligation, but just as an advisory courtesy).

Though the Debate Hall has a bit higher of a standard than simple etiquette norms. By presenting that text, you a presenting a case; yet you note that the text isn't (in part) your own, so you are presenting someone else's ideas. As a result, people here will have a reason to suspect whether you understand, or can defend the material you shared, since it's not necessarily the product of your own reasoning.

So for the DH specifically, it is doubly useful to cite your sources -- even if it's just some bloke's text you found somewhere. While the DH is a lot looser nowadays in decorum, we might as well try to hold to some kind of presentation standard.

Anyway, enough about all this. Let the discussion resume.

 

[Sucumbio]

Great topic coh, glad you're back. Collapse tags are your friend

Ot i personally believe that scientific and mechanical enhancements are fair game unless you're not supposed to be enhanced for whatever spiritual religious etc reason. Or if it's illegal such as entering the Olympics with antigravity boosters in your feet or what have you.

 

[N.T.A.O ChangeOfHeart 死の剣]

My comment wasn't a reprimand or anything of the sort. It was merely a brief suggestion of Internet etiquette. When online, it's always better to credit people whose work you share elsewhere (whether with a link or a name-drop or whatever), than to not do so at all. If I'd ever want to share something you wrote, I might link to your original post/source, cite your username, or perhaps even ask you for permission (not out of legal obligation, but just as an advisory courtesy).

Though the Debate Hall has a bit higher of a standard than simple etiquette norms. By presenting that text, you a presenting a case; yet you note that the text isn't (in part) your own, so you are presenting someone else's ideas. As a result, people here will have a reason to suspect whether you understand, or can defend the material you shared, since it's not necessarily the product of your own reasoning.

So for the DH specifically, it is doubly useful to cite your sources -- even if it's just some bloke's text you found somewhere. While the DH is a lot looser nowadays in decorum, we might as well try to hold to some kind of presentation standard.

Anyway, enough about all this. Let the discussion resume.

Affirmative, I shall grant you your wish. I've processed to encounter with some edition towards my ginormous post, my condolences severely and ultimately apologize. I have seemed to have buried out of the burrow then processed to stick my head back into the burrow and dig once more however non compulsory. I'll processed to finish the edition at a later time; however, the humongous rant "novel" has become shrunken and admissible to read.

@ Sucumbio

I appreciate the hospitality man, it's wonderful to spectate that you are now a moderator. I knew you would become a moderator you were flawless for this job. Once more I admire the credibility towards my subjective topic. I'm always interested in this type of stuff it's not just Hip hop he he. Thanks.

Edit: The barbaric novel has become eviscerated, the novel has now shrunken into basic paragraphs, right? Everything the man wrote or I changed has been deleted. Thanks.

 

[Sucumbio]

@ Sucumbio

I appreciate the hospitality man, it's wonderful to spectate that you are now a moderator. I knew you would become a moderator you were flawless for this job. Once more I admire the credibility towards my subjective topic. I'm always interested in this type of stuff it's not just Hip hop he he. Thanks.

Edit: The barbaric novel has become eviscerated, the novel has now shrunken into basic paragraphs, right? Everything the man wrote or I changed has been deleted. Thanks.

Much better, thanks. And well, okay, lol but to be fair I was a mod here previously just decided to jump back in due to the previous mod taking an indefinite break.

Ot his work is a component to the larger discussion. His 6 points are his arguments related to the issue of determination of a given procedure, either it is therapeutic, meaning a corrective action, or it is enhancement, meaning improvement over normal health. He then goes on ti supply and support examples of each.

So essentially that whole part could be collapsed into one thought however this only barely scratches the surface of the larger thesis (which I'm unsure as to what his is).

That said, we seem to all agree that either case is fair game... I attribute this to a fundamental shift in thinking in our population brought on by the availability of technology and by the popularity of such practices in fiction. Especially in comics and sci fi we see enhancements as bad, and so-called necessary prosthetics as good. I believe this is at the center of your sources concern. Whereas a limb replacement seems normal, installing a hard drive in your brain stem seems ghastly (unless they needed it due to brain damage). This dialogue becomes obvious when such an example demonstrates the dichotomy but also the inherent logical contradiction in people's attitudes towards these types of things.

 

[Claire Diviner]

To put it simply: There's nothing "morality"-related when it comes to medical enhancements. Honestly, if they can help the greater good in terms of making human beings healthier, then why would anyone have any quarrel over it?

The only ones who find it wrong on moral grounds are those who believe humans shouldn't "play God", but let's face it, in today's society, human beings may as well be gods, albeit severely flawed ones. But that's for another topic.

 

[Braydon]

The only ones who find it wrong on moral grounds are those who believe humans shouldn't "play God", but let's face it, in today's society, human beings may as well be gods, albeit severely flawed ones. But that's for another topic.

Oh lovely, a statement contrary to a lot of what has been said with absolutely no backing... Clearly I don't know how to debate because I think I see a problem with this.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Oh lovely, a statement contrary to a lot of what has been said with absolutely no backing... Clearly I don't know how to debate because I think I see a problem with this.

Here's one example.

http://www.gotquestions.org/playing-God.html

Back from a ban, and you're already starting trouble? Seriously?

 

[Braydon]

Here's one example.

http://www.gotquestions.org/playing-God.html

Back from a ban, and you're already starting trouble? Seriously?

One example, now proving there are no other arguments...

You're right though, how dare I start trouble by disagreeing with something that is blatantly untrue in the so called debate hall...

 

[Sucumbio]

Ok.. So how about we leave the snarkiness not here. Dats to both of yous. Carry on.

 

[N.T.A.O ChangeOfHeart 死の剣]

Much better, thanks. And well, okay, lol but to be fair I was a mod here previously just decided to jump back in due to the previous mod taking an indefinite break.

Ot his work is a component to the larger discussion. His 6 points are his arguments related to the issue of determination of a given procedure, either it is therapeutic, meaning a corrective action, or it is enhancement, meaning improvement over normal health. He then goes on ti supply and support examples of each.

So essentially that whole part could be collapsed into one thought however this only barely scratches the surface of the larger thesis (which I'm unsure as to what his is).

That said, we seem to all agree that either case is fair game... I attribute this to a fundamental shift in thinking in our population brought on by the availability of technology and by the popularity of such practices in fiction. Especially in comics and sci fi we see enhancements as bad, and so-called necessary prosthetics as good. I believe this is at the center of your sources concern. Whereas a limb replacement seems normal, installing a hard drive in your brain stem seems ghastly (unless they needed it due to brain damage). This dialogue becomes obvious when such an example demonstrates the dichotomy but also the inherent logical contradiction in people's attitudes towards these types of things.

Well, yes, I only stated the introduction since everything else was plagiarized so I agreed to the person's wish and carefully took out everything that I hadn't written in the previous "novel" or into my own words. Thanks for understanding and continuing to this debate. Furthermore, I'm baffled towards the inactivity of this subjective topic.

Here's how I see it, if someone wants for example another eye, leg, hand whatsoever that was used to remake the person to actually look like a human and not a "freak", then that is fine; however, building a robotic arm or a half human half cyborg or anything that is unnatural then no. Like what Braydon wrote, "no one wants a bigger better Hitler". Thanks.

 

[Sucumbio]

The question of morality is subversive unfortunately. It requires an initial statement of believing that humans should either not toy with nature, or that we should leave things as God intended. I find this also ends up cyclic in reasoning, because it's been well established that IF one were to believe in theistic morality, that one must also believe that our advances in science are directly the result of our God given intellects, so who's to say we're not meant to use that gift for our own enhancements.

 

[Braydon]

The question of morality is subversive unfortunately. It requires an initial statement of believing that humans should either not toy with nature, or that we should leave things as God intended. I find this also ends up cyclic in reasoning, because it's been well established that IF one were to believe in theistic morality, that one must also believe that our advances in science are directly the result of our God given intellects, so who's to say we're not meant to use that gift for our own enhancements.

Except that that's not the argument I've been putting forth, and not the only argument against augmentation. There are repercussions to creating super humans. For instance if you allow anyone to install a hard drive in their brain that allows them vastly superior memory, what happens to people who are unable to afford the procedure or unwilling to have their brain tampered with? They would fall behind, if you didn't have a hard drive in your head you couldn't hope to be as successful in your career, you might even be outcast socially.

Also if you go around making super humans on demand, you will make super villains. It's inevitable that if you just give away power people will abuse it.

 

[Sucumbio]

Morality of Medicine is indeed interesting... This seems to be part of a greater concern that we face now, affordable health care. Should it be that only the insanely rich get to have all the crazy expensive but effective treatment? Meanwhile poor people have to receive stabilization treatment if they can even get that. Cure becomes subjective in a sense. I find that the higher the cost the fewer people will actually receive it. So therefore things like augments could definitely lead to the rich becoming unstable in terms of power balance... Moreso than money alone skews things.

 

[N.T.A.O ChangeOfHeart 死の剣]

Except that that's not the argument I've been putting forth, and not the only argument against augmentation. There are repercussions to creating super humans. For instance if you allow anyone to install a hard drive in their brain that allows them vastly superior memory, what happens to people who are unable to afford the procedure or unwilling to have their brain tampered with? They would fall behind, if you didn't have a hard drive in your head you couldn't hope to be as successful in your career, you might even be outcast socially.

Also if you go around making super humans on demand, you will make super villains. It's inevitable that if you just give away power people will abuse it.

That's how I feel with my Link. He's a Cyborg, I've created a monster. I couldn't resist. I agree with you man completely; however as long as it is taken this far about hard drives put into the Cerebrum, battery charged legs and so much silly ideas that only mankind could come up with and invent.

Now reconstruct a missing Limb and so forth that is "humane" and not "inhumane".

 

[Braydon]

Now reconstruct a missing Limb and so forth that is "humane" and not "inhumane".

Yes of course there's no problem reconstructing a missing limb, so long as you don't give it the strength to punch a hole through a tank or a megaman style arm cannon.

 

[N.T.A.O ChangeOfHeart 死の剣]

Yes of course there's no problem reconstructing a missing limb, so long as you don't give it the strength to punch a hole through a tank or a megaman style arm cannon.

Mhm precisely oh I forgot to mention, my apologies for not responding back towards my introduction presentation assistance, I got a solid A- which was pretty good actually, I manged to pass with a A- grade. I could of received an A+ but I went off topic somewhat; however, the rest towards clarity and so forth was flawless. Thanks for the help man.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Except that that's not the argument I've been putting forth, and not the only argument against augmentation. There are repercussions to creating super humans. For instance if you allow anyone to install a hard drive in their brain that allows them vastly superior memory, what happens to people who are unable to afford the procedure or unwilling to have their brain tampered with? They would fall behind, if you didn't have a hard drive in your head you couldn't hope to be as successful in your career, you might even be outcast socially.

Well, that makes more sense. I'd say the idea is to not make super humans, but in today's society, everyone wants to be a god (I'm really not speaking for every individual, mind you).

There is one thing I would like to point out: The matter of cost is a problem, sure, but given enough time, the technology would have been easier to develop and more widespread to where the cost wouldn't be as high (though I'm sure no one of lower class would still afford it, unless they has god-tier insurance coverage).

Another issue would be the population. Give all humans extended lives to - say - 200+ years, at the rate we've been reproducing, the world could very well be crowded within enough generations, unless we somehow master either colonizing other planets, or digging underground and creating subterranean civilizations.

Also if you go around making super humans on demand, you will make super villains. It's inevitable that if you just give away power people will abuse it.

That goes without saying, but then we'd have military and possibly law enforcement with as much technological backing as said villains in not much a different way we have militarized terrorists and armed forces, so it should theoretically balance itself out.

 

[Braydon]

Mhm precisely oh I forgot to mention, my apologies for not responding back towards my introduction presentation assistance, I got a solid A- which was pretty good actually, I manged to pass with a A- grade. I could of received an A+ but I went off topic somewhat; however, the rest towards clarity and so forth was flawless. Thanks for the help man.

No problem, also nice A.

Well, that makes more sense. I'd say the idea is to not make super humans, but in today's society, everyone wants to be a god (I'm really not speaking for every individual, mind you).

There is one thing I would like to point out: The matter of cost is a problem, sure, but given enough time, the technology would have been easier to develop and more widespread to where the cost wouldn't be as high (though I'm sure no one of lower class would still afford it, unless they has god-tier insurance coverage).

Another issue would be the population. Give all humans extended lives to - say - 200+ years, at the rate we've been reproducing, the world could very well be crowded within enough generations, unless we somehow master either colonizing other planets, or digging underground and creating subterranean civilizations.

That goes without saying, but then we'd have military and possibly law enforcement with as much technological backing as said villains in not much a different way we have militarized terrorists and armed forces, so it should theoretically balance itself out.

Well that's the general idea, but it goes beyond just cost. What if someone doesn't want to be altered, but employers are only hiring people with a computer in their brain who can simply download information and skip on training and the like. Someone could be forced to alter themselves, change who they are against their will.

Oh, and I don't really see a problem with people living 200+ years, I think technology will open up new possibilities long before we run out of space, even now there is plenty of land on earth which isn't used, and we can build higher or deeper.
As technology improves maybe even underwater, or floating on water. I think travel to other planets will be possible before space really becomes too big an issue here.


Also I really do see it helping villains, the technology of the military may increase, but civilians haven't ever really became less vulnerable. Back before explosives were common terrorism would have been near impossible, now it's easy enough to bomb civilians, I think augmentation could only make it worse.

 

[Sehnsucht]

If advancements in medical technologies elevate the risk of super-villains, are those advancements to blame?

If it is indeed human nature to be corrupted by power, then the issue is with human nature. A gun is otherwise inert unless a finger pulls the trigger, after all.

Advancements in technology in any kind usually tend to increase and expand what is possible for people to do -- including the ways we can harm and kill each other. So there is indeed an increasing risk for bad things to come about new medical technologies.

There is also an increasing risk for beneficial things to come of it. It all depends on how we use and steer these advancements in the short and long term. One might disavow these advancements as a preventative measure against the rise of super-villainy and other harmful eventualities, but in so doing, one also denies any benefits that could spring from the pursuit of these advancements.

It is the human being that needs consideration -- that needs work, needs change. If power corrupts us, why? Can we do anything about it? Is it possible to have power, yet not be corrupted by it? How might we attain such a state? These, I think, are questions that have more priority, over questions of whether we should or should not pursue certain technologies.

And this is why ethics will become increasingly important, since the potential for what we can do will also increase. Just because we may (for instance) extend our lifespans, augment ourselves with cybernetic implants, and so on doesn't mean we should abandon our ethical principles. The rigour of our ethics will need to be proportional to the extent of what it is possible for us to do, individually and collectively -- since ethics concerns precisely what we can and should do.

Otherwise, things would very well risk spiralling out of our control. Which I imagine is something very few would want.

 

[Sucumbio]

I'm reminded of the Manhattan Project. Such terrible responsibility. And yet it pretty much led to everything we count on today. Computers, the Internet, all this grand technology. I'd like to think that investigating the applications of biomedical research and human enhancement would NOT lead to something as devastating as Hiroshima, but you can never tell, I suppose.

 

[Braydon]

@ Sehnsucht
I'm guessing you're against gun control?

Anyway doesn't matter much anyway because even if it was perfectly safe it doesn't change the bigger issue. What happens to people who are unable or unwilling to be artificially altered?

 

[Sehnsucht]

@ Sehnsucht
I'm guessing you're against gun control?

I'm not educated enough on the facts of guns and gun control to have any developed stance, but on a conceptual basis, I lean in favour of gun control, in the sense of having a framework of regulation for firearms.

Guns are tools, and it is people who trigger them. When someone murders another with a gun, we hold the person accountable, not the gun. Yet guns do possess a negative potential, a potential that is expressed if someone pulls the trigger for malicious ends. So it is in our interest to have some kind of means or system to regulate firearms, or at least minimize the risk for negative application as best we can. Part of this system can be legislative, but another can (and I would say should) include promoting cultural norms of responsibility with regards to firearms.

Similarly, medical advancements and technologies should be regulated to minimize potential negative applications, whether inadvertent or malicious. With guns as with cutting-edge medical tech, I think we can all agree that the ideal is to maximize benefit and minimize negative risk for as many people as possible.

The debate lies in how one goes about actualizing such a ratio, and how much regulation is needed. For guns, being overly restrictive risks inhibiting personal freedoms (such as those granted by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution), yet having little to no regulation means there's no real screening process, so anyone (including malicious parties) can more easily get a hold of firearms. I would by extension think that this balance in regulation could-and-should apply to medical technologies as well.

As a last note here, what made you suspect that I opposed gun control?

Anyway doesn't matter much anyway because even if it was perfectly safe it doesn't change the bigger issue. What happens to people who are unable or unwilling to be artificially altered?

It's indeed a vexing issue, since we're talking about the onset of posthumanist trends. These kinds of advancements entail the alteration of the human being itself in rapid and unprecedented ways. Genetic enhancements, longevity extension, cybernetic enhancements, etc. It marks the point where we assume command and direct our own evolution, where we had so far been coasting on the inertia of millennia of unguided selection.

If someone is unable or unwilling to undergo such alterations, then it would be unethical to force it upon them. Yet I surmise your concern is that a societal division will arise. Those who have augmented themselves physically and/or mentally, versus those who haven't. Will we witness the formation of a new societal stratum of super-humans, leaving vanilla humans in the dust? Are we to entrust these super-humans with greater authority and social leverage on account of their elevated faculties? What if such super-humans decide to assume command of society, thinking they know what's better for the rest?

I can't say what can or will happen. In my ideal envisioning, I see that everyone's autonomy and consent are respected. Those that do want enhancement can get it, and those that don't need not. But it is the trend of our species that we tend to march inexorably forward, especially in the development, proliferation, and incorporation of new technologies. Technologies which were at their time new and radical were accepted over the course of a couple of generations, and now permeate our society (well, in more developed nations, anyway).

So I thus imagine that over successive generations, more and more people will accept, and even pursue, this new posthuman paradigm, such that non-augmented humanity will gradually phase out, giving way to posthuman successors. Whether that takes decades or centuries or even millennia is anyone's guess. I would also posit that this is inevitable. The longer we as a species manage to survive, the likelier it becomes that we'll figure out ways to direct our evolution and have that self-direction become a constant in the human experience.

In short, I don't at all deny that concerns of second-class citizenship are very real in the context of posthumanist advancement. Yet whether non-augmented people suffer as a result of embracing new medical tech is up to us as a society, I would think. To say we shouldn't pursue these advancements because we risk second-class-ifying and alienating a segment of the population is to say we are incapable of approaching these advancements in a way that we don't create large societal schisms. And I don't see why we can't achieve such a state of affairs, if we collectively invest the required effort and consideration.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Anyway doesn't matter much anyway because even if it was perfectly safe it doesn't change the bigger issue. What happens to people who are unable or unwilling to be artificially altered?

Perhaps given enough time, those who refuse will live their lives (social status notwithstanding) until death, and we'll slowly come to a society where human beings are modified on the day of their birth, ultimately making everyone enhanced in some way (save for those in old tribes in remote areas, etc).

 

[Braydon]

Perhaps given enough time, those who refuse will live their lives (social status notwithstanding) until death, and we'll slowly come to a society where human beings are modified on the day of their birth, ultimately making everyone enhanced in some way (save for those in old tribes in remote areas, etc).

So it would be unethical to alter someone against their will, so we just wait until we get a chance to do it before they can object.

This also doesn't fix the problem at all because even if everyone was "enhanced" at birth it doesn't mean there won't be better enhancements for those who can afford them. There would always be better newer higher grade enhancements.

 

[Claire Diviner]

So it would be unethical to alter someone against their will, so we just wait until we get a chance to do it before they can object.

The same could be said about circumcision.

This also doesn't fix the problem at all because even if everyone was "enhanced" at birth it doesn't mean there won't be better enhancements for those who can afford them. There would always be better newer higher grade enhancements.

The same could be said about the education system (namely college), among other things, such as jobs, current health care, etc. We all want everyone to be equally at the top, giving everyone the best thing at an affordable price, but it probably wouldn't happen. Whether one accepts it or not is irrelevant, but it is something that just is in this world.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

I apologize in advance if I repeat any points that have already been stated, I've only glanced through this thread, but wanted to throw in a thing here or there to add to the discussion. Also wanted to clarify, these are not necessarily my views on the topic, I simply want to see the responses from these arguments.

Anyways, on the argument against human enhancements:

I think the big argument is how far the technology can take humans: increasing lifespan, physical strength, mental power, even making our bodies more applicable to our daily lives. All of these are great things, but aside from the fact that it isn't natural, I think the big problem with this is the potential (and probably inevitable) misuse of these advantages. Even if 99.9% of people who have these enhancements use them morally and for the good of humanity, there will always be someone who abuses that power. With more power, more destruction can be caused. This is the really scary thing about said enhancements. One person can ruin it for everyone. I mean look at our lives today: just in the past few years alone there have been so many individuals who have commit atrocities. We have individuals bombing towns, hacking governmental information bases, doing under the table work in businesses, and so much more. Humans are already amazing appliances, but with these enhancements the potential for destruction will be amplified. Obviously there will be increased security measures, but security can only do so much.

Another big argument against human enhancements would be the issue of discrimination. Discrimination has always been, and will probably always will be one of the biggest problems with humanity. Even if we achieve actual equality among everyone, regardless of race, gender, religion, sexuality, age, etc., etc. etc....there will always be some form of discrimination somewhere. Hell, on these forums alone we can see signs of discrimination whether it's coming from the Melee elitists or the casuals. The fact of the matter is humans have preferences, and those preferences tend to develop "alliances" if you will. People who support their group, or alliance, tend to feel the need to assert their dominance or at least prove their importance. I am not claiming that everyone is like this, but a significant size of the population that reflects this activity does exist. Gangs, religious groups, terrorists, rights activists, governmental forces, are all prime examples of what I'm talking about. By enhancing ourselves, there would be a whole new form of discrimination of it's own: those who do enhance vs those who don't, those who use X to enhance themselves vs those who use Y to enhance themselves... A significant portion of people would not approve of this, whereas another group would go overboard with the supporting of their decision.

 

[kiteinthesky]

The same could be said about circumcision.

Lots of people would agree too. Penn and Teller made an episode of Bull****! condemning the practice. There are even anti-circumcision lobbying groups now.

The same could be said about the education system (namely college), among other things, such as jobs, current health care, etc. We all want everyone to be equally at the top, giving everyone the best thing at an affordable price, but it probably wouldn't happen. Whether one accepts it or not is irrelevant, but it is something that just is in this world.

The rebuttal presented has an underlying problem: just because one can apply a line of logic to many different problems doesn't make it OK to treat every single issue as the same. We have to treat these things on a case-by-case basis. Just because there is inequality in other aspects of society doesn't mean 1) we just accept those inequalities, lots of people have protested since time immemorial for educational and job equality, universal health care, and the like; and 2) the situations and the consequences would be the same. Arguably the consequences of enhancing the human body will be more extreme than for other social issues simply because of the very nature of the subject -- this is our bodies we're talking about, and major changes to it are largely permanent and irreversible.

 

[Claire Diviner]

The rebuttal presented has an underlying problem: just because one can apply a line of logic to many different problems doesn't make it OK to treat every single issue as the same. We have to treat these things on a case-by-case basis. Just because there is inequality in other aspects of society doesn't mean 1) we just accept those inequalities, lots of people have protested since time immemorial for educational and job equality, universal health care, and the like;

Just as people have protested against inequality in the workplace or the education system, so too can they protest either against technology-enhanced people, or for everyone to be enhanced equally. I never said we just accept those inequalities either - just that said inequalities exist in today's society.

and 2) the situations and the consequences would be the same. Arguably the consequences of enhancing the human body will be more extreme than for other social issues simply because of the very nature of the subject -- this is our bodies we're talking about, and major changes to it are largely permanent and irreversible.

While that's understandable, my argument assumes that enough time have passed where human enhancement has become the norm with little to no protest.

 

[kiteinthesky]

While that's understandable, my argument assumes that enough time have passed where human enhancement has become the norm with little to no protest.

That's just avoiding the issue, not actually addressing the questions Braydon brought forth. The discussion is centered around the present right before those types of technologies are introduced and his arguments deal with the ethical problems those technologies have now, you can't just hand-wave them away like that.