Human enhancement ethics

[Doddibot]

As some 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 ( http://www.transhumanism.org/resources/faq.html))

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.

In other words, we're talking about those controversial bioethical issues - stem cells, designer babies, cyborgs, clones, immortality and even uploading your mind to a computer.

Many transhumanists, like myself, will naturally spend much time thinking on the societal and ethical implications of this viewpoint.

I’m interested to hear your views on this issue, and if possible the reasoning behind it.

To get you started, I propose two (three actually, but you can probably only answer two) questions to consider.

1. Do you believe that it is ethically acceptable for someone to enhance themselves through technological means? (if yes, go to 2a. If no, go to 2b)
2.
a. If you consider it ethical, would you opt to be enhanced yourself, if it was proven to be biologically safe?
b. 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?

[murray]

If you are choosing the enhancement for yourself, it is perfectly acceptable in my view. I think the root of our fear of human enhancement is our natural fear of becoming inferior. It's the same reason many, but not all are against genetic engineering. Who wouldn't be afraid of being outclassed physically, mentally, and possibly emotionally? I'd have this fear myself, but just because you are afraid of falling behind doesn't mean you have a right to keep others from doing so. It's like saying someone can't go to an Ivy League school because they will be academically superior to those who go to community colleges.

There are valid concerns, such as what might happen once the military starts doing this to soldiers. I have my own reservations about this since I'm not very big on war, but this may be the way the private sector gets hold of this sort of technology. It's already happening with prosthetic limbs here in the U.S. due to Iraq, and they have advanced by leaps and bounds due to the huge demand nowadays. I don't think it will take many more years before artificial limbs are just as good, and better not longer after, compared to what we have naturally. I just wish it didn't take a pointless war to cause these advances.

The real increase in human ability from things like this is still years away, but I think it will be mature by the time I'm dead. If I could get a prosthetic body that is equal or better than my natural one, I'd say go ahead and put my brain in a bucket and cram it in the head. I'd even go for single enhancements, so long as the costs and risks involved were outweighed by real benefits in my daily life.

Really, this is no different from plastic surgery or breast implants. It's just a matter of degree. Some would say it's wrong because it's not natural, but I don't hear them complaining so loudly about a porn star's DDD moneymakers that have more silicon than the computer I'm typing this on. Even contact lenses are considered prosthetics and do technically enhance your sensory ability.

I'm kind of a transhumanist as well, but I think we're going to start seeing the lines between man and machine start to blur. Machines will start to look and act more like us (not quite there yet, but ten years ago even this was said to be decades away (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ak3coBKBC0)) and we will start to become increasingly mechanized ourselves. The future won't be an us vs. them sort of thing like the Terminator series or The Matrix, but more like Ghost in the Shell or Neuromancer.

There is the real possibility of an underclass forming from those who can't afford these procedures or are unwilling to go through with them, but even cars and computers were the domain of the rich until prices fell off a few decades after they started coming into use. If this is a medical issue, it is probably going to be seen as elective, but there aren't many people who can't afford what prosthetic limbs we have today. The more hardcore procedures would probably be out of reach, but now I'm getting into economics rather than ethical concerns.

Long-winded, but I like this topic. :beer:

[Rabid]

I'm all for human enhancement in moderation. Using stem cell research to eliminate genetic illnesses such as cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, and sickle cell anemia seems like one of the most logical things we could do. A couple thousand embryos sacrificed to save the lives of millions is more than worth it- besides, how many frogs and crayfishes and whatnot have science classes dissected for educational purposes? This is just on a greater scale- embryos in a trade for better knowledge of the human genetic module. With stem cell research, we could eliminate painful diseases and save lives. It is beyond me why anyone wouldn't want that.

A lot of the possibilities you mentioned wouldn't appeal to me. However, I have to stick with my typical liberal philosophy of saying that if someone else wants to do something, then it's their right to do so and I can't stop them. Just because I don't want to become immortal doesn't mean that I have the right to stop you from doing it. I'd never want to become immortal, personally- watching everyone I grow close to die and knowing that I could never follow them would just be too much pain to bear. However, I would consider stem cell research that could benefit me or my future children- for example, heart disease runs in my family, so I'd love to enhance myself to take it out of my DNA and make sure that I can't get it.

I think cyborgs are a very interesting idea. Mechanical servants... it could turn out very well for the human race, but the only things to worry about are the typical sci-fi robot uprising and the possibility of robots becoming superior to human beings. How cool would it be to have cyborgs do grunt work like work at fast food restaurants and serve as janitors? It may sound insensitive, but not many humans want these jobs and cyborgs probably wouldn't have feelings or emotions. They would just be computers. It shouldn't be that complicated.

Designer babies... I don't know if I'd design my child's genetics. Perhaps if doctors could tell me what genetic conditions they could inherit (heart disease, breast cancer, etc.) I might choose to genetically alter them so that these diseases could be eliminated, but I don't know about choosing their coloring and whatnot. If other people want to go for it, then fine, but I wouldn't. The only problem with this is that soon people will be genetically altering their children into superhuman beings who are perfect, and then those who can't afford this or those who are behind the times would be left behind. It's tough. As long as we're not creating superheroes, I don't have a problem with it.

All in all, it's a slippery slope, but it's definitely something I'd love to learn more about. Just imagine the possibilities! I'd love for the government to rethink Bush's veto of stem cell research- if we can eliminate life threatening diseases, we should really jump on it before more people die. Although there are some precautions to be taken with human enhancement, I think it could be highly beneficial to the human race in general.

[Doddibot]

There is the real possibility of an underclass forming from those who can't afford these procedures or are unwilling to go through with them, but even cars and computers were the domain of the rich until prices fell off a few decades after they started coming into use.
There are still those who don't want cars or computers. The Amish for example. Enhancement will probably be rejected by more people again.

I think cyborgs are a very interesting idea. Mechanical servants... it could turn out very well for the human race, but the only things to worry about are the typical sci-fi robot uprising and the possibility of robots becoming superior to human beings. How cool would it be to have cyborgs do grunt work like work at fast food restaurants and serve as janitors? It may sound insensitive, but not many humans want these jobs and cyborgs probably wouldn't have feelings or emotions. They would just be computers. It shouldn't be that complicated.
I think you are confusing cyborg with android.
The only problem with this is that soon people will be genetically altering their children into superhuman beings who are perfect, and then those who can't afford this or those who are behind the times would be left behind. It's tough. As long as we're not creating superheroes, I don't have a problem with it.
How is that a problem?

[Rabid]

I think you are confusing cyborg with android.

Ah, crud. Guess I've seen I, Robot too many times :).

How is that a problem?

Perhaps I'm just reading into the situation too much. To me, having humans crawling all over the planet with superpowers just seems a little excessive. I've probably just seen too many comic book movies, but to me that seems more like a genetic mutation than a genetic enhancement. Some people might not be able to properly harness their power and could cause damage; some might use it for destructive means. I might be dramatisizing the situation and there's no guarantee that people will be manipulating fire, going invisible, having superhuman strength and the like, but it's a definite possibility. I guess, to me, superpowers seem like something that should stay in the comics and the movies rather than come to life. Maybe we're not meant to be that powerful.

[Doddibot]

Ah, crud. Guess I've seen I, Robot too many times :).
Will Smith's character was a cyborg.
Some people might not be able to properly harness their power and could cause damage; some might use it for destructive means.
I doubt that argument will ever work. Guns are still legal in the USA, and they are designed entirely for destructive means. Surely something that could, occasionally, be used for destructive means would stay legal. Hell, even a crowbar can be used for destructive means, and I can still get those.
Maybe we're not meant to be that powerful.
Meant by whom or what?

[Rabid]

Will Smith's character was a cyborg.

I was thinking the robots. All this science jargon confuses me.

I doubt that argument will ever work. Guns are still legal in the USA, and they are designed entirely for destructive means. Surely something that could, occasionally, be used for destructive means would stay legal. Hell, even a crowbar can be used for destructive means, and I can still get those.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. I have no problem with guns and crowbar possession being legal- that's a basic right and it should be legal. And, should certain events transpire, I suppose that having superpowers should be a fundamental right as well- after contemplating it, it does seem somewhat tyrannical to prohibit someone from being what they want to be. I can see your argument and I do suppose that having superpowers wouldn't be all that bad- it's just not something I would personally choose. I don't think I would want that much responsibility, let alone the burden of such power, on my shoulders.

What is it they say in Spiderman? "With great power comes great responsibility?" I guess that people with superpowers would just have to be responsible and take that to heart.

Meant by whom or what?

Not a divine being or a superior entity. Not by a god, not by Mother Nature, not by any of that. I was thinking not meant to be that powerful simply by natural design. Although, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. There's so much about the body we don't know... we could very well have superpowers buried deep within our DNA and we're not even aware of it. Hyperthought by M.M. Buckner (great sci-fi read- I highly recommend it) definitely elaborates on that theory.

Gah, here I go contradicting myself...

[SilentPsycho]

The only worry about this I have is who decides what should be improved upon? Who gets to decide whether something is a syndrome or a disorder, and what should be done about it? People see things differently, and someone who decides to advise a parent to change their child because of a minor disability may not have realised that the child may not want to change.

For example, I have ADHD. It means I'm different from most people; I think differently, I act differently, and I feel differently. It may be annoying at times, especially with the medicine and the trouble I have, but it's part of who I am, and I like me the way I am. What if someone decides they want to improve me because I am not what they consider 'normal'. This is one reason why I will always be against designer babies.

Try reading this - http://within.autistics.org/iandthey.html .

Although, on the other hand, superpowers would definately be interesting, and would be something I would stand up in line for. Maybe they will lead the world to recognise it's differences and to harmonise. Or we could all just blow ourselves up.

I suppose my feelings on this are mixed, and depends on exactly what route the advances are travelling.

[Rabid]

The only worry about this I have is who decides what should be improved upon? Who gets to decide whether something is a syndrome or a disorder, and what should be done about it? People see things differently, and someone who decides to advise a parent to change their child because of a minor disability may not have realised that the child may not want to change.

For example, I have ADHD. It means I'm different from most people; I think differently, I act differently, and I feel differently. It may be annoying at times, especially with the medicine and the trouble I have, but it's part of who I am, and I like me the way I am. What if someone decides they want to improve me because I am not what they consider 'normal'. This is one reason why I will always be against designer babies.

Try reading this - http://within.autistics.org/iandthey.html .

Although, on the other hand, superpowers would definately be interesting, and would be something I would stand up in line for. Maybe they will lead the world to recognise it's differences and to harmonise. Or we could all just blow ourselves up.

I suppose my feelings on this are mixed, and depends on exactly what route the advances are travelling.

I understand what you're saying about "curing" ADHD. My brother has autism and it's part of who he is. It has provided for a lot of struggles, but without it, he wouldn't be him. I don't like the idea that you can cure and medicate things like ADHD and autism. It's not something to cure- it's just another difference to appreciate. Like you, I can't help but wonder if higher ups would want to eradicate things like autism, ADD, and ADHD. The thought of it scares me, to be honest.

[triplea_SC]

I'm for the use of stem cells, but only to help those who are disabled. Stuff like designer babies, cyborgs, clones, immortality and uploading your mind to a computer? No, fuck that. I'm 100% against any of it. If this ever becomes an issue in my life time, I will fight to end it. I believe it's none of our business to be making "Human 2.0", especially a "Human 2.0" that only a few people can afford and has the possibility of becoming standard.

Also, to RabidAngel: "However, I have to stick with my typical liberal philosophy of saying that if someone else wants to do something, then it's their right to do so and I can't stop them?" Are you an individual or are you a slave to your ideology? That's like saying "I should let companies drop benefits from their workers, I don't like it, but it's their right." Artificial human enhancement along these lines does impact society in a negative way, it's pretty much allowing the creation of superhumans for those that have the money to buy it.

[FurryPanda]

Just because I don't want to become immortal doesn't mean that I have the right to stop you from doing it. I'd never want to become immortal, personally- watching everyone I grow close to die and knowing that I could never follow them would just be too much pain to bear. However, I would consider stem cell research that could benefit me or my future children- for example, heart disease runs in my family, so I'd love to enhance myself to take it out of my DNA and make sure that I can't get it.
As of now its fundamentally impossible to be immortal. Your brain will keel over and die around age 150 regardless of how fit and artificial the housing for it is.

I'm for certain types of human enhancement.
If you have a medical conditon, such as diabetes, CP, or any of a number of genetic diseases, then you should be able to get stem cells to repair it. It's not that different from getting a transplant, except there's a lot less chance of rejection than with a transplant and it [stem cells] would be a heck of a lot more helpful to more people than transplants ever could be.

I'm a bit more wary of prosthetics. If you get dismembered somehow and science can give you back your limb and the muscle control and strength you enjoyed previously (I'm not sying it can now, I'm saying IF it could) taht would be fantastic. But what about when you age? If the rest of your body is declining into old age and you still have an artificial arm that is like an average twenty year old's, that's just wierd. I think the same thing about old ladies with breast implants, before you ask.

As to strictly voluntary, has-no-basis-in-anything-but-wealth-and-desire enhancements, I'm against it. Just becasue I have a couple of grand to kill does not mean that I should go ahead and get artificial superpowers. What would be the point? Doctors would always keep it expensive, insurance would never cover it (no one comment on that last sentence, its my skepticism not anything with the debate), and for what? An oppurtunity to cheat in athletics? An oppurtunity to be a freak if you ever move to a poorer neighborhood? An oppurtunity to die if your anesthesiologist has a bad day? I say again what's the point?

[SilentPsycho]

I don't like the idea that you can cure and medicate things like ADHD and autism.

With me, it depends on the situation. My medicine helps me settle down and concentrate, but it has a whole load of side-effects, but if I need that medicine to focus on something specific that I'm not interested in, like the assignments I SHOULD be doing right now, then I will take it. But to take it constantly and have my brain in constant hyper-tension mode, as well as all the other side-effects? Not good.

[Sizza]

No, I do not. If we do those thing listed above(except the stem cell thing), we stop becoming human and turn into something else, something that I find sickening.I'm against perfectly healthy people modifying their bodies and mind.
Also, that would make even bigger gaps between humans, those who can afford to do all this will, and they will become some sort of superhumans, while the rest is just normal. While that in itself might be acceptable, the "superhumans" will most likely make super-babies(by picking their genetics), and thus creating an all new, super social class that is so great and fantastic that they'll own everything and rule everything while the rest, the normals, would probably become dirt-poor slaves. Sounds unnecessarily negative probably, but that's what I fear would happen.
So, yes I would fight against this disgusting horror
However, using stem cells to cure serious diseases, I find that all right, but nothing more

[danielb1]

In theory, I fully support enhancement of the human race, or even development of true artificial intelligences. We're kinda fragile, and different enhancements may well be necessary to live on other worlds.

In theory. The problem is: what if things go wrong. A group of networked cyborgs could become a groupmind, or perhaps slaves to a nasty government (imagine North Korea with cyborg tech....). Genetic engineering, if offered on only a limited basis, may create either a 'superclass' of world-conquering superpeople or an 'underclass' of 'normals'. Or how about what happens when your nanites catch a computer virus?

I'd say I'm still all for human enhancement, but it could have devastating consequences if it happens the wrong way. The problem: who can be trusted, if anyone, to do it right? Governments? Hell no! Businesses? No. Universities? Maybe, but they've got their problems too and are open to influence by governments and/or businesses. Maybe the first 500 people in the phone book? :P

[Doddibot]

No, I do not. If we do those thing listed above(except the stem cell thing), we stop becoming human and turn into something else, something that I find sickening.
Why do you find it sickening? Surely, if you are afraid only of the consequences, sickening wouldn't be the right word - scary or dangerous would be. Sickening seems to imply that you have a gut reaction against it; it disgusts you in some way.

Now, tell me: if you met someone who admitted to being a genetically-modified child and had a neural prosthetic enhancement, would that person disgust you? What would you do?

You can't very well outlaw the existence of a certain people because they don't fit your version of humanity. That's akin to eugenics - specifying how someone should be and enforcing it.

I believe it's none of our business to be making "Human 2.0", especially a "Human 2.0" that only a few people can afford and has the possibility of becoming standard.
Ok, and I believe that Human 2.0 is not only acceptable, but desirable.

So, we each have our beliefs. Shall we move on to providing reasons behind them?

[palabravampiress]

1. Do you believe that it is ethically acceptable for someone to enhance themselves through technological means? (if yes, go to 2a. If no, go to 2b)
2.
a. If you consider it ethical, would you opt to be enhanced yourself, if it was proven to be biologically safe?
b. 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?

Humans have been using available technology to modify themselves and their environment for as long as humans have existed. Isn't that what we feel sets us apart from the other animals - that we use reason to manipulate circumstances and material to suit our needs? That is what makes us such an incredibly adaptive and successful species! My eyeglasses are unnatural enhancements that take advantage of the best technology lenscrafters has to offer. Without them, I would be blind for all intensive purposes. With them, I can see this computer screen and type to you fine people. If someone could offer some sort of stem-cell or genetic therapy based solution to cure my color blindness so that I could see the same colors that you folks see, I would save up the money and do it. I wouldn't think of it as being any different ethically than using lenses to sharpen my vision. I think people should always be free to develop and use new technologies. "Free" is the key word - no one should be forced. The problem here isn't the technology, it's the human tendency for the strong to take advantage of the weak. As long as new technologies are not used to deprive citizens of their rights, then I've got no problem with introducing them to the public. Anyone who would use force in either direction - for or against new technology - would be in the wrong (at least in the U.S.) for using force to deprive people of freedom of choice.

[Doddibot]

If someone could offer some sort of stem-cell or genetic therapy based solution to cure my color blindness so that I could see the same colors that you folks see, I would save up the money and do it.

Yes, but curing (reverting to whatever 'normal' is) isn't the issue. Perhaps a more pertinent question to consider would be if you would save up to be able to cure another colour-blindness, one that all humans have - not being able to see in infra-red or ultra-violet.

[palabravampiress]

Yes, but curing (reverting to whatever 'normal' is) isn't the issue. Perhaps a more pertinent question to consider would be if you would save up to be able to cure another colour-blindness, one that all humans have - not being able to see in infra-red or ultra-violet.

Curing is the issue, because what we're talking about is banning certain technologies that could be used to cure or assist based on the fact that they could also be used to enhance. I would use the technology to see color. Someone else might use it to see UV rays. I think it is wrong to limit the development of or access to new technologies simply because we are afraid of what others *might* do with those technologies. For me, it all goes back to freedom. I should not have the power to decide to what extent my neighbor takes advantage of new technologies; likewise, my neighbor (in the form of the voting public and then the government) should not have the power to decide the same for me.

[murray]

Stuff like designer babies, cyborgs, clones, immortality and uploading your mind to a computer? No, fuck that. I'm 100% against any of it. If this ever becomes an issue in my life time, I will fight to end it. I believe it's none of our business to be making "Human 2.0", especially a "Human 2.0" that only a few people can afford and has the possibility of becoming standard...

Artificial human enhancement along these lines does impact society in a negative way, it's pretty much allowing the creation of superhumans for those that have the money to buy it.

So people can't improve themselves through these means just because other's can't or won't do it? Let's ban focused athletic training because some people are in too poor health to exercise or too lazy. Why not get rid of Harvard while we're at it, since some can't afford the academic opportunity or just want to party college away.

I'm as liberal as they come, but even I will acknowledge that complete equality would be negative and is impossible in the first place. Society needs people with "superhuman" abilities to advance, since the average Joe with an IQ of ~100 looking for the cheapest paper towels in Wal-Mart probably won't be the man who cures cancer or comes up with a new philosophy that rivals the work of Plato.

What was once the advantage of the wealthy always makes its way into lower social classes with time. Electricity? Decent healthcare? Opportunity for a decent education? All of these were once exclusive to the wealthy, and by your logic, none of these would exist. There are negatives such as what you mention, but they are temporary, and we are all better off in the long run after they reach the lower social classes in time.

There are and always has been people with abilities bordering on superhuman. Einstein, Edison, da Vinci, and Lance Armstrong just to name a few, each with abilities the overwhelming majority of people could never match naturally. It takes people like these to advance our society in all areas, and allowing the average person to reach this level would cause what would essentially be another Renaissance, not to mention the overall increase in overall health and freedom for people to choose their path in life.

The only real concern I have with this whole topic is designer babies. I'm against parents creating a child for a specific purpose, such as becoming a talented singer or athlete. It's bad enough when parents force it on a kid already, since I believe our course in life should be our own choices alone. I'm not against genetic manipulation to prevent diseases or to increase overall abilities, it's just the focused, one-track customization that I'm absolutely opposed to. If you choose to do such a thing to yourself voluntarily, fine, but not to another person without their valid consent.

[Fayreview]

Curing is the issue, because what we're talking about is banning certain technologies that could be used to cure or assist based on the fact that they could also be used to enhance. I would use the technology to see color. Someone else might use it to see UV rays. I think it is wrong to limit the development of or access to new technologies simply because we are afraid of what others *might* do with those technologies.

I agree, entirely colourblindness whilst not too serious a problem it is limiting, colourblind people can't do police work for instance so anything that could help colourblind people and help them get along in the world shouldn't be stopped by people who just want to mess about with their eye sight.

On the full issuse i can see why people may want to change their body and believe it is ethically viable whilst i persoanlly wouldn't consider anything that major.

[Doddibot]

Curing is the issue, because what we're talking about is banning certain technologies that could be used to cure or assist based on the fact that they could also be used to enhance. I would use the technology to see color. Someone else might use it to see UV rays. I think it is wrong to limit the development of or access to new technologies simply because we are afraid of what others *might* do with those technologies. For me, it all goes back to freedom. I should not have the power to decide to what extent my neighbor takes advantage of new technologies; likewise, my neighbor (in the form of the voting public and then the government) should not have the power to decide the same for me.
I think if there is to be a restriction on these technologies, it will probably allow cures but prohibit enhancement. That's why I said that curing was irrelevant. However, you bring up an excellent point that the government should not be able to decide how you are to be and prevent you from changing yourself.

[Safyre420]

Wow I'm surprised nobody brought up preventing homosexuality. But I see it like this, if we(as humans) can genetically alter unborn children then yes it will cause plenty of good to be a worthy cause but it will also cause way more bad, ie religious groups pressuring people to prevent homosexuality and other "abominations" because it doesn't fit "their" religion. Also as stated before you'll have the people that would try to create superhumans, which in itself could be a whole world of bad. Also with stem cell research, they use eggs that were destined to be destroyed but religious groups don't seem to like that idea for some strange reason that I can't imagine, so what exactly is the harm in it?

[Doddibot]

But I see it like this, if we(as humans) can genetically alter unborn children then yes it will cause plenty of good to be a worthy cause but it will also cause way more bad, ie religious groups pressuring people to prevent homosexuality and other "abominations" because it doesn't fit "their" religion.
As opposed to pressuring people into *not* doing it because it doesn't fit their view of morality. Which form of pressuring and mandating will be allowable?

Also as stated before you'll have the people that would try to create superhumans, which in itself could be a whole world of bad.
Ever watch The Incredibles. Remember what Syndrome says? "Everyone can be super! And when everyone's super...no one will be."

Also with stem cell research, they use eggs that were destined to be destroyed but religious groups don't seem to like that idea for some strange reason that I can't imagine, so what exactly is the harm in it?
I think that needs an entire thread in itself.

[Safyre420]

As opposed to pressuring people into *not* doing it because it doesn't fit their view of morality. Which form of pressuring and mandating will be allowable?


If one group pressures another group will also pressure, if no group pressures then there's no pressuring going on. But it's been in my experience that the fanatical religious groups push and pressure anything and everything that doesn't fit their view which causes lots of unnecessary struggling and fighting. And I only used religious groups as one example as it was the first that came to mind.

[nixie_SC]

weather you like it or not, enhanced human are already running around amongst us.

breast augmentations is one, lips augmentations, body sculpting, braces, fake teeth, steel bone thing to mend bone fracture, tattoo although minor is also a way of enhancing the human body. I think it is an inevitable thing and its growing with the world.

in my opinion the question is how do we make it common / affordable for everyone :)

I want MUTANT ABILITY weeeee!

[Doddibot]

in my opinion the question is how do we make it common / affordable for everyone :)

I guess it could be the same as with education and state-supported vaccines. If indeed some particular enhancement is considered vital for people to have, just as the ability to read may be considered vital, then the government will have to support those.

All the others will probably be left to consumer choice and the free market.

[Fayreview]

but it will also cause way more bad, ie religious groups pressuring people to prevent homosexuality and other "abominations" because it doesn't fit "their" religion. Also as stated before you'll have the people that would try to create superhumans, which in itself could be a whole world of bad.


What you mention isn't religion it's Natzism the majority of people with religious beliefs are happy to let others be... you are tarring everyone with the same brush. But i can see what you mean when talking about extremists.

(I'd like to point out my agreement about "extremists is my atheist point of view I am sorry to anyone who it upsets.)

[triplea_SC]

So, we each have our beliefs. Shall we move on to providing reasons behind them?

Your FAQ says something along the lines of "we believe in people's individual happiness". If people could improve what should be natural abilities completely artificially as long as they had the money to do so, then natural abilities mean jack shit. Competition would be based completely on who has the most artificial upgrades. For instance: Joe Schmoe had amazing artistic ability at an early age but nobody gives a shit because Bob Brown who was originally a talentless prick upgraded himself to Bob Brown version 9.32a. Why should people hire Joe for a job when they can hire Bob and his machine-like abilities? People will have no choice, they will have to upgrade in order to survive or survive in a wilderness that's constantly being eaten up because these superhuman immortals who are reproducing need more room to expand.

With that said, there will simply be no incentive for people to stop upgrading themselves. We would live in a society where it is the richest who succeed and get these wonderful "benefits" the most. Perfect us, and we're no longer human. And then I read this part of your FAQ: "The important thing is not to be human but to be humane." To me, that says you people don't give a shit about humanity, what you really care about is an idea dictating what actual humanity should be. What you transhumanists want are the extinction of real human beings to make way for these posthuman abominations so we'll live in a world without pain, war, sickness, death, freedom, choice, or a soul. You may disguise your true intentions with sugary words like "happiness" and "freedom" and if anyone ever makes a rational argument against your utopian dream you dismiss it and reply with "we've considered the possibilities and we're working on it".

And to all you ideological slaves who say "Oh but it's just an alternative that people should have to make themselves happy". Would you say people should have the right to be happy, even if the thing that makes them happy systematically forces others to fundamentally change their bodily make-up? Transhumanism is nothing more than stripping people of their individual natural abilities and humanity, but then again that's probably something you don't care much about, not when there are great apes who need to be given personhood.

Murray: I didn't know services and the fundamental alteration of human beings were the same thing. The problem with the people you listed is that they all did these amazing things within their natural human abilities. If everyone was Plato, nobody would give a shit. Inspiration would be practically non-existant.

[Doddibot]

Your FAQ says something along the lines of "we believe in people's individual happiness". If people could improve what should be natural abilities completely artificially as long as they had the money to do so, then natural abilities mean jack shit. Competition would be based completely on who has the most artificial upgrades. For instance: Joe Schmoe had amazing artistic ability at an early age but nobody gives a shit because Bob Brown who was originally a talentless prick upgraded himself to Bob Brown version 9.32a. Why should people hire Joe for a job when they can hire Bob and his machine-like abilities? People will have no choice, they will have to upgrade in order to survive or survive in a wilderness that's constantly being eaten up because these superhuman immortals who are reproducing need more room to expand.
Yes, people will have far more choice than they already do. You mentioned natural abilities - those aren't chosen. You just get them, more or less randomly. Why should you have the right to tell Bob to remain a slave to the lack of talent nature bestowed him?!

As for the reproduction, why would a person who can live to 400 be reproducing faster than normal people who can't reproduce beyond the age of 40? If anyone is going to be reproducing too fast, it will be the un-enhanced.

With that said, there will simply be no incentive for people to stop upgrading themselves.
You could get tired of it. There is no incentive to stop learning and gaining more education either, but few can be bothered gaining more than one bachelors degree. But who really cares if people don't stop. Why would you want them to?

To me, that says you people don't give a shit about humanity, what you really care about is an idea dictating what actual humanity should be.
Nonsense. You're the one saying that we won't be human if we go through with a particular enhancement, so I'd say you're dictating what humanity should be. We merely want to be allowed to become what we think humans could be.
What you transhumanists want are the extinction of real human beings to make way for these posthuman abominations so we'll live in a world without pain, war, sickness, death, freedom, choice, or a soul.
We don't want to eliminate human beings. Why would we? We just want the option to exist for everyone to modify themselves to become what they want to be. If anything, there is more freedom and choice in this view than we already have.

You may disguise your true intentions with sugary words like "happiness" and "freedom" and if anyone ever makes a rational argument against your utopian dream you dismiss it and reply with "we've considered the possibilities and we're working on it".
I never said that yet.

Would you say people should have the right to be happy, even if the thing that makes them happy systematically forces others to fundamentally change their bodily make-up?
Of course. We already allow people to become college educated because that makes them happy, and now to become a lawyer or doctor you are forced to undergo this sort of training. We allowed people to fill in official forms over the internet, and now the elderly have to learn to use the internet because all the official forms are there (and branch offices are closing). As a society, everything we do affects others.

However, we are not forcing them. Pressuring, perhaps. They can still choose not to be enhanced. They can still choose not to go to college. They can still choose to fill in forms by hand. It's just a bit harder for them.
Transhumanism is nothing more than stripping people of their individual natural abilities and humanity
Well, that's a misrepresentation. We are not stripping anything. We are just giving to others what only the few had before. Only a few people could run the 100m in less than 10 seconds - with these enhancements, those speeds will be common at school football games. Why keep these abilities for mother nature to assign to anyone, if we can let everyone benefit from them?
If everyone was Plato, nobody would give a shit. Inspiration would be practically non-existant.
So you want to keep the gifts that Plato and other had to the lucky few, rather than let the entire of humanity benefit if they so choose?

[palabravampiress]

Your FAQ says something along the lines of "we believe in people's individual happiness". If people could improve what should be natural abilities completely artificially as long as they had the money to do so, then natural abilities mean jack shit. Competition would be based completely on who has the most artificial upgrades. For instance: Joe Schmoe had amazing artistic ability at an early age but nobody gives a shit because Bob Brown who was originally a talentless prick upgraded himself to Bob Brown version 9.32a. Why should people hire Joe for a job when they can hire Bob and his machine-like abilities? People will have no choice, they will have to upgrade in order to survive or survive in a wilderness that's constantly being eaten up because these superhuman immortals who are reproducing need more room to expand.

With that said, there will simply be no incentive for people to stop upgrading themselves. We would live in a society where it is the richest who succeed and get these wonderful "benefits" the most. Perfect us, and we're no longer human. And then I read this part of your FAQ: "The important thing is not to be human but to be humane." To me, that says you people don't give a shit about humanity, what you really care about is an idea dictating what actual humanity should be. What you transhumanists want are the extinction of real human beings to make way for these posthuman abominations so we'll live in a world without pain, war, sickness, death, freedom, choice, or a soul. You may disguise your true intentions with sugary words like "happiness" and "freedom" and if anyone ever makes a rational argument against your utopian dream you dismiss it and reply with "we've considered the possibilities and we're working on it".

Don't you think this is kind of an extreme worst case scenario sort of thing? First of all, the idea that the elite might have some sort of "power" that the rest of society lacks is not a new idea. In ancient Hindu society, each caste was (and is to a much lesser extent) thought to have certain abilities that justified its placement in the hierarchy, with the Brahmans (sp?) at the top having priestly powers that the rest of the classes lacked. Actually, the idea of the ruling class having divine powers or the divine right to rule is pretty common all through history. Countless emperors and kings retained their power by alleging divine ancestry. In feudal Europe, the situation was similar. Kings derived their power by divine right and were crowned by popes and bishops. The church basically ruled the continent. In more recent times, Western society developed and exported the idea of meritocracy, by which people use their natural abilities to achieve wealth and power commensurate with their abilities. In this model, we compete against one another and we use artificial means quite often - whether those artificial means manifest in the form of "connections," education, surgery, or other connections gained by luck, wealth, influence, or strategy. My point here is that I don't see the world going to hell in a hand basket just because the model changes slightly. Humans always pick one thing to set apart as elite. Why not move from meritocracy to technocracy just as we once moved from theocracy to meritocracy? People will adapt, just as they did before. Having to adapt is not necessarily a bad thing.

That said, I got a little lost with the human/humane part of your post. I really don't think most people have malevolent intentions toward you know - their species. As far as the idea of "a world without pain, war, sickness, death, freedom, choice, or a soul," goes, well, I'm not sure how curing physical ailments or even enhancing the average human so that we are smarter or faster or stronger or something is going to lead to the end of pain, war, sickness, death, freedom, choice, or the existence of the soul. We are a long way off from completely re-engineering the human. Even if we could do it, we humans are pretty proud of what we imagine to be our biological superiority. We imagine there is something special that sets us apart from the rest of the animals and we revere great apes and other primates as being higher or more complex just because they are similar to us. Given that pride, I doubt we'd ever want to deviate from the basic blueprint so as to qualify as something other than human. Granted, we may change from homo sapiens sapiens to homo sapiens super or something, but that seems to happen by itself in nature, anyway, so I don't think that would be anything too dire. Honestly, I think you'd see the following: pretty, strong, healthy, intelligent people continuing to inflict pain, war, etc. upon one another; bacteria and other infectious agents adapting to our new enhancements just as they now adapt to our medicines; freedom and choice remaining the province of society and its supporting structures, not biology; and the whole soul thing remaining as much a mystery as its ever been. I just don't think your dystopia is the logical outcome of human enhancement.

And to all you ideological slaves who say "Oh but it's just an alternative that people should have to make themselves happy". Would you say people should have the right to be happy, even if the thing that makes them happy systematically forces others to fundamentally change their bodily make-up? Transhumanism is nothing more than stripping people of their individual natural abilities and humanity, but then again that's probably something you don't care much about, not when there are great apes who need to be given personhood.

I guess I would be one of those ideological slaves you mention. My answer is yes - people should have the right to the pursuit of happiness even if others don't like it. The fact that the upper classes instituted and took advantage of education has made some basic level of education mandatory and is even systematically rendering advanced education mandatory for achieving an average standard of living. The result of increased education has been to improve the average standard of living for everyone, hasn't it? It would sound crazy to say that the rich should not have the right to spend their money on education. In much the same way, it sounds a little extreme to say that the rich should not have the right to spend their money on other forms of enhancement just because it might push other classes in that direction. As an individual and a citizen of the U.S., I am free to make my choices regarding education or even enhancement without regard to you or any other person or body of persons. I am not so certain that you or any body of people in opposition to my choice have the right to make that decision for me, though - even if it is for the supposed benefit of society.

[triplea_SC]

Yes, people will have far more choice than they already do. You mentioned natural abilities - those aren't chosen. You just get them, more or less randomly. Why should you have the right to tell Bob to remain a slave to the lack of talent nature bestowed him?!

Well, that's a misrepresentation. We are not stripping anything. We are just giving to others what only the few had before. Only a few people could run the 100m in less than 10 seconds - with these enhancements, those speeds will be common at school football games. Why keep these abilities for mother nature to assign to anyone, if we can let everyone benefit from them?

Because Bob's ability upgrade himself in almost every aspect just because he has a few 10 grand will be interfering with the lives of others who don't want to have these upgrades as you yourself indirectly stated later in your post.

As for the reproduction, why would a person who can live to 400 be reproducing faster than normal people who can't reproduce beyond the age of 40? If anyone is going to be reproducing too fast, it will be the un-enhanced.

You missed my point. People who are living to be 400 simply put aren't going to be dying for a while. Because more people aren't dying and more people are being born and getting said ability to not die. Because reproduction isn't the span of a person's life.

You could get tired of it. There is no incentive to stop learning and gaining more education either, but few can be bothered gaining more than one bachelors degree. But who really cares if people don't stop. Why would you want them to?

You forget that the very enhancements you want to be reality are likely not to be as time consuming as education. No medical operation has ever lasted longer than the time it takes to get a bachelor's degree.

We don't want to eliminate human beings. Why would we? We just want the option to exist for everyone to modify themselves to become what they want to be. If anything, there is more freedom and choice in this view than we already have.

Yeah, freedom and choice until the heads of corporations make such upgrades practically mandatory due to the nature of some jobs. Don't tell me that's not forcing people to upgrade.

I never said that yet.

The context of my sentence would dictate that I wasn't referring to only you.

Of course. We already allow people to become college educated because that makes them happy, and now to become a lawyer or doctor you are forced to undergo this sort of training. We allowed people to fill in official forms over the internet, and now the elderly have to learn to use the internet because all the official forms are there (and branch offices are closing). As a society, everything we do affects others.

The difference between these things is that with the elderly using computers, they aren't being forced to fundamentally alter their body.

However, we are not forcing them. Pressuring, perhaps. They can still choose not to be enhanced. They can still choose not to go to college. They can still choose to fill in forms by hand. It's just a bit harder for them.

A bit harder? Yes of course, because going up against a virtual machine is a "bit harder".

So you want to keep the gifts that Plato and other had to the lucky few, rather than let the entire of humanity benefit if they so choose?

Why of course not, if it's for the good of humanity I believe people should have the right to have these freedoms so we can all live in a world of personal choice and freedom except with de facto mandatory surgical upgrades.

http://www.disneyfriends.net/modules/coppermine/albums/userpics/pictures/bambi/Bambi/normal_bambi22.jpg

*glee* :anime:

palabravampiress:

The fact that the upper classes instituted and took advantage of education has made some basic level of education mandatory and is even systematically rendering advanced education mandatory for achieving an average standard of living. The result of increased education has been to improve the average standard of living for everyone, hasn't it?

Education and surgical enhancement fundamentally aren't the same, quit comparing them.

[Doddibot]

Because more people aren't dying and more people are being born and getting said ability to not die. Because reproduction isn't the span of a person's life.

My point was that there will be less people being born. Do you really think the birth rate would stay more or less the same if people didn't have to have kids before they reach 40-something?
The difference between these things is that with the elderly using computers, they aren't being forced to fundamentally alter their body.


Sounds to me like this sort of thing disgusts you. What is the difference between controlling a computer with your hands and controlling it with your brain? What is the difference between having your computer on your desk, in your pocket or in your brain? It's only a matter of degree.

Education and surgical enhancement fundamentally aren't the same, quit comparing them.
Ok, one involves surgery, the other doesn't. How on earth does that change it?

Education can be thought of as a really, really slow and non-invasive surgery. Or, you could think of surgical enhancement as a really quick and invasive education.

Either way, the comparison is valid when it comes to your points about companies making certain enhancements (college education, experience etc) mandatory. And the rich getting better enhancements than the poor.

The only difference I can conceive of is the invasiveness, which may be morally revolting to some. Which, from my guess, is really the main reason why you don't agree with me.

[triplea_SC]

My point was that there will be less people being born. Do you really think the birth rate would stay more or less the same if people didn't have to have kids before they reach 40-something?

Common sense would dictate that allowing longer years to live so you can be "happy", especially in an age where you can upgrade your eye sight so you can see colors you nor any man for that matter has seen or even cared about before (which in all honesty is dumbest reason I've heard to ever support such enhancements) and your artistic ability, the age at which a woman (or man) could be pregnant would be raised as well.

Sounds to me like this sort of thing disgusts you. What is the difference between controlling a computer with your hands and controlling it with your brain? What is the difference between having your computer on your desk, in your pocket or in your brain? It's only a matter of degree.

I might be contradicting myself with an earlier statement but I use this example to reply to your argument of "it's only a matter of degree": what's the difference between a man having sex with a woman and a man having with a barn animal? I mean it's only a matter of degree right?

There's a huge difference: having a computer in your desk or pocket is completely external as opposed to in your brain which not only begins to blur the line between human and machine, but is very difficult to remove if even possible and has the possibility of surrendering your every thought to onlookers as I believe mentioned later in your post.

Ok, one involves surgery, the other doesn't. How on earth does that change it?

Education can be thought of as a really, really slow and non-invasive surgery. Or, you could think of surgical enhancement as a really quick and invasive education.

Either way, the comparison is valid when it comes to your points about companies making certain enhancements (college education, experience etc) mandatory. And the rich getting better enhancements than the poor.

Wrong. With education, you take what you want. You can educate a religious fanatic about evolution but that doesn't mean that person will begin supporting evolution as the basis by which we see all these different kinds of fauna today. Surgery on the other hand is far more direct. The surgery itself is far more dangerous and the result is usually permanent but if reversable will likely leave some problems that are permanent.

The only difference I can conceive of is the invasiveness, which may be morally revolting to some. Which, from my guess, is really the main reason why you don't agree with me.

You know, because my other reasons which I actually stated and elaborated on aren't reasons why I disagree with you.

Invasiveness is actually a reason I haven't thought of until you mentioned it.

[Doddibot]

Common sense would dictate that allowing longer years to live so you can be "happy", especially in an age where you can upgrade your eye sight so you can see colors you never seen or cared about before (which in all honesty is dumbest reason I've heard to ever support such enhancements) and your artistic ability, the age at which a woman (or man) could be pregnant would be raised as well.
That's my point.

Many women today are waiting until they are in their 30s to have children, and even then probably just because they know they can't wait much longer. If they could in fact wait longer, say a century longer, they probably would. So the birth rate would decline.

There's a huge difference: having a computer in your desk or pocket is completely external as opposed to in your brain which not only begins to blur the line between human and machine, but is very difficult to remove if even possible and has the possibility of surrendering your every thought to onlookers as I believe mentioned later in your post.
Ok, there is clearly a difference. But it is still just a matter of degree. I can draw a parallel between this and eyeglasses. Spectacles are an external enhancement of vision. Those were then reduced to contact lenses, a much more portable and invisible external enhancement. Now, the enhancement is often internal, in the form of laser eye surgery.

So it will be with computers.
Wrong. With education, you take what you want. You can educate a religious fanatic about evolution but that doesn't mean that person will begin supporting evolution as the basis by which we see all these different kinds of fauna today. Surgery on the other hand is far more direct.
Yes, a form of more direct and more rapid education. You can choose which education you want to learn, and you can choose which enhancement you want to have. Still not seeing any fundamental difference.
The surgery itself is far more dangerous and the result is usually permanent but if reversable will likely leave some problems that are permanent.

Education isn't completely reversible either. Those who have been inculcated as children will still have a sliver of those teachings in their personality in later life, even if they tried so hard to remove them.

[triplea_SC]

That's my point.

Many women today are waiting until they are in their 30s to have children, and even then probably just because they know they can't wait much longer. If they could in fact wait longer, say a century longer, they probably would. So the birth rate would decline.

That's an awful argument. Provided that people aren't still toddlers when they're 21 (which would probably be unlikely as a purpose of "immortality" on the FAQ you linked is to give people more productive years of their life), there are many women who get pregnant only a few years after the age consent. Knowing their life span and how fast it is in comparison for their children to grow than before, they're bound to have more.


Ok, there is clearly a difference. But it is still just a matter of degree. I can draw a parallel between this and eyeglasses. Spectacles are an external enhancement of vision. Those were then reduced to contact lenses, a much more portable and invisible external enhancement. Now, the enhancement is often internal, in the form of laser eye surgery.

So it will be with computers.

You like to draw comparisons between two fundamentally different things, don't you? Instead of confronting my arguments directly, you decided to draw another irrelevant comparison.

For the record, laser eye surgery is supposed to correct eye sight to human biological limits (20/20 vision). For that reason, I have no qualms against it as it's not a radical alteration of what's already established as standard by mother nature.

Yes, a form of more direct and more rapid education. You can choose which education you want to learn, and you can choose which enhancement you want to have. Still not seeing any fundamental difference.

Education isn't completely reversible either. Those who have been inculcated as children will still have a sliver of those teachings in their personality in later life, even if they tried so hard to remove them.

Views can change, bodily modifications don't. With education, you can learn about all sorts of different views and remember them for years, but which ones you actually use are up to you, it has no physical grip on you as opposed to a bodily modification which is supposed to work in sync with the rest of your body. How can you not see the fundamental difference?

[Doddibot]

That's an awful argument. Provided that people aren't still toddlers when they're 21 (which would probably be unlikely as a purpose of "immortality" on the FAQ you linked is to give people more productive years of their life), there are many women who get pregnant only a few years after the age consent. Knowing their life span and how fast it is in comparison for their children to grow than before, they're bound to have more.
As you already have mentioned, we will be able to control the fertility of women if we can do these amazing genetic enhancements and the like. So, we should be able to prevent ovulation or pregnancy from ever occurring unless desired by the woman. This should then drastically reduce the number of woman having children at such a young age.

For the record, laser eye surgery is supposed to correct eye sight to human biological limits (20/20 vision). For that reason, I have no qualms against it as it's not a radical alteration of what's already established as standard by mother nature.
Somehow what's natural is good, and what isn't natural is bad? That's complete nonsense.

So you can enhance up to this point *here*, but no further? Why not?

Views can change, bodily modifications don't. With education, you can learn about all sorts of different views and remember them for years, but which ones you actually use are up to you, it has no physical grip on you as opposed to a bodily modification which is supposed to work in sync with the rest of your body. How can you not see the fundamental difference?
If you want to get rid of or change a modification, you can. If you want to get rid of a memory or part of your personality - that is a lot harder. Can't you see the difference?

[triplea_SC]

As you already have mentioned, we will be able to control the fertility of women if we can do these amazing genetic enhancements and the like. So, we should be able to prevent ovulation or pregnancy from ever occurring unless desired by the woman. This should then drastically reduce the number of woman having children at such a young age.

How many women exactly would want to make it so they lose a particular freedom concerning the function of their own body? Aren't you transhumanists all about freedom of choice? I realized you mentioned choice in that statement but why would a person who's apparently all about "personal freedom" be pressuring others to avoid making a particular non-harmful individual choice made avaliable by ludacrous technology they themselves are in favor of for the good of mankind?

So you can enhance up to this point *here*, but no further? Why not?

That's the entire debate, refer to my other reasons.

If you want to get rid of or change a modification, you can. If you want to get rid of a memory or part of your personality - that is a lot harder. Can't you see the difference?

Show me an operation reversing a sex change without any scars, please.

I didn't know education had to do with personality as well. Besides, and I thought I established this before: you take in everything from education, but what you actually agree with or even consider relevant is up to you. This is not the case with bodily modifications in which you have a modification and it's next to permanent. Also, I believe it was I that was originally arguing that education and bodily modifcation were two different things to begin with.

[Doddibot]

How many women exactly would want to make it so they lose a particular freedom concerning the function of their own body? Aren't you transhumanists all about freedom of choice?
The choice was entailed in this part.
...unless desired by the woman.
It could be as simple as taking a pill the week in which you are attempting to conceive. By no means would I pressure women to do this, but I'm just observing that from current trends, I think most will do something like this.

That's the entire debate, refer to my other reasons.
But I don't see any real difference between curing (restoring to the realm of natural human ability) and enhancing (going beyond natural human ability).

Take one of the examples I used earlier - the ability to run. Undoubtedly, giving a person with an amputated leg the ability to run again will be considered curing. However, some top sprinters can run 100m in 10 seconds. Would it be enhancing or curing to give this amputee that ability, if it were possible (say by some advanced artificial legs)? Should we deliberately not give them that ability, and choose the slower speeds?

(If you opt to give them that ability, but no faster, then we will have a set of amputees eagerly watching the World Athletics Championships to see if a new world record is set, and then they can go get their bionic legs set slightly faster! But they can't be set faster than that....there is a moral boundary that you cross if you go any faster!)

Show me an operation reversing a sex change without any scars, please.
A sex change isn't really an enhancement operation (unless you think either males or females are superior). And besides, we're not talking specifically about current technologies, but future ones. I think once we get to the stage when we see these enhancements as commercially available , wounds from surgery will be insignificant.

This is not the case with bodily modifications in which you have a modification and it's next to permanent.
If I'm talking about replacing your natural genes, then why would it be impossible to replace the inserted ones with the natural ones? If I'm talking about replacing a limb with a bionic one that's better than the original, then why can't you replace that one with another that is indistinguishable from the original?
Also, I believe it was I that was originally arguing that education and bodily modifcation were two different things to begin with.
I was being facetious, by replicating your rhetoric.

[palabravampiress]

You two have been active since last time I visited the thread!

Triplea, with regard to your desire that I stop comparing education and enhancement, I must say that I cannot help but see similarities. Of course there are differences. I am not saying that the two are fundamentally the same; I am only saying that they can operate similarly in terms of economics. They are both products that are likely to benefit the wealthy before increased demand can lead to increased and more affordable supply. The desire to be competitive may lead large sections of the community feeling pressured to consume the product and underprivileged because they lack the means. I recognize that economic pressure is unpleasant, but it is certainly nothing new. Nearly all of the goods and services currently on the market were sold first to the wealthy and then to other classes in this way, and is there anyone who would seriously argue that the poor of developed nations do not enjoy a higher quality of life than the poor of developing nations? When I compare enhancements to education, I do so on the economic level. The economic dangers that you speak of are not limited to enhancement. If these dangers do not merit legal limitation of other goods and services, then why would enhancements be any different?

Common sense would dictate that allowing longer years to live so you can be "happy", especially in an age where you can upgrade your eye sight so you can see colors you nor any man for that matter has seen or even cared about before (which in all honesty is dumbest reason I've heard to ever support such enhancements) and your artistic ability, the age at which a woman (or man) could be pregnant would be raised as well.

I brought up the color thing. I did not bring it up because I think it is inherently good to see colors other people cannot see. I brought it up as an example of a technology that could be developed for the purpose of curing and then later applied to the purpose of enhancing. Color blindness is genetic. It is caused by a common X-linked recessive gene. It is reasonable to imagine that with the development of gene therapies and the extensive use of stem cells, it might someday be possible to alter the genetic code and to "grow" new cone or rod cells containing this altered code in order to "fix" color blindness. If that were to happen, it is also likely that the next step would be to alter the genetic code so as to "fix" normal human blindness to other types of light (like UV or infrared). In bringing up color, I only wanted to point out that just because some technologies developed for the purpose of curing could then be used for enhancement does not mean that development of those technologies should be banned at the expense of those who might benefit from the curative powers of that technology. I'm not saying that I support enhancement because it would be fun to see UV rays. I'm saying I support enhancement because, regardless of whether or not some people might use it to see UV rays, it would be really nice to be able to pick out my clothes by myself.

Color sightedness is a relatively minor concern that I was using to illustrate a point. The same point could be made about any number of enhancements. Just because some people could opt for super-fast bionic legs does not mean that amputees should not be outfitted with new legs. Just because some people could use their implanted RAM drives to store memories beyond the normal limits of human ability does not mean that Alzheimer's patients should not be permitted to "back up" their memories and certain other brain functions before they disappear. Whether it's gene therapy, bionics, or even uploading, the same argument holds true: the fact that it could be used for ethically questionable purposes (not that I think of these purposes as ethically questionable, but some people do) does not mean that it should not be developed at all given its potential for use for ethically sound purposes.

[sayyadina_SC]

Uploading my mind to a computer!? Sounds scary. That should mean I had to empty my mind, right? (just kidding, were probably just talking a few kb. here...).
To me all of this is science-fiction. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the fact that some people seriously think some of this can be done. Ok, stam-cells, that can be done. And one can improve the mind and the body by various natural techniques, like "positive thinking" (or CBT) or "excersising", or "eating right". Thats as far as I go...
I saw that thing on TV, where a man (a professor actually, at some university in England) had a chip put in his arm, and one in his wife, so that he could experience her feelings of pain. Interesting if it works (he claimed it did), but still "science-fiction" to me... To answer your question, I honestly dont have a clue. I guess it depends on the situation. And I wouldnt mind having a "servo" (android) doing the chores around my house.

But as someone pointed out: the poor will be suffering, since they already are. The methods and therapies we know of today is still to expensive to common people.(plastic surgery in the 3:d world?) I cant see that change in the future, and I do think saving the planet is more important than improving someones eye-sight or whatever. We humans should set our priorities straight.

[Doddibot]

But as someone pointed out: the poor will be suffering, since they already are. The methods and therapies we know of today is still to expensive to common people.(plastic surgery in the 3:d world?) I cant see that change in the future, and I do think saving the planet is more important than improving someones eye-sight or whatever. We humans should set our priorities straight.
I agree that we should be doing more to help the poorer nations and environment, but I don't think medical science is where we should be making cutbacks. Probably televised sport, computer gaming or something would make more sense. After all, how will the NBL help the poor kids in Africa? How will playing the Sims 2 help the environment?

[sayyadina_SC]

I agree that we should be doing more to help the poorer nations and environment, but I don't think medical science is where we should be making cutbacks. Probably televised sport, computer gaming or something would make more sense. After all, how will the NBL help the poor kids in Africa? How will playing the Sims 2 help the environment?

If you and I quit playing the Sims 2, nothing will change anywhere. If politicians and organisations put their money into worthwile research-projects something may (change). I dont think cutbacks are the answer to anything, I was just thinking if were not facing the fact that the planet is dying, there will be no humans to cure, or enhance, in the future.
Sports? I dont know. I guess sports have a good influence on the third world, since they may participate in the events.

But I guess that is slightly offf topic, and maybe belongs in a different thread.
Just my view on the ethical aspects. If we had a healthy environment, maybe we would not need to enhance ourself so much, health would be free for us to tap into.... without akward costs or sci-fi .

[foolinthemoon]

too make this real short on my end, i believe if enhancing cures, remedies, or helps with living life better and longer, i think it's a good idea. I mean, we already have pace makers and stuff. I think if we could build an arm for someone who needed one and could connect the electrodes (bionic man/woman :lol:) to their nerves and it would act and react like a real hand I say go for it. There are obviously a long way to go and alot of bugs that would have to be worked out, but i think it's not a BAD idea.

I just think we should not become less that 75% human :)

[Doddibot]

I just think we should not become less that 75% human :)
Why not 74%?

[Lwerszva]

Why not 74%?

You have to draw the line somewhere.

[Doddibot]

You have to draw the line somewhere.
Why? What's wrong with being 50% human? Or 15% (just your brain)? Or 0% (uploaded your mind to a computer)?

[sayyadina_SC]

Why? What's wrong with being 50% human? Or 15% (just your brain)? Or 0% (uploaded your mind to a computer)?

To me, being human is being a part of nature (Im going on and on about that, I know...). Now, if there were no "nature" (trees, birds, oceans and shit), I wouldnt mind either to be uploaded to a computer and live in a completly alternative state of "life". Still, to me the process of life has a meaning. Being a part of the natural ways. Even dying, eventually. I just dont mind that. Or breathing. Or getting sick, and live with it. Or getting old, fat and ugly with wrinkless and warts. I always thought that was how it was-life. But sure, I can have a pacemaker, not just my brain in a jar.

[Doddibot]

To me, being human is being a part of nature (Im going on and on about that, I know...). Now, if there were no "nature" (trees, birds, oceans and shit), I wouldnt mind either to be uploaded to a computer and live in a completly alternative state of "life". Still, to me the process of life has a meaning. Being a part of the natural ways. Even dying, eventually. I just dont mind that. Or breathing. Or getting sick, and live with it. Or getting old, fat and ugly with wrinkless and warts. I always thought that was how it was-life. But sure, I can have a pacemaker, not just my brain in a jar.
Ok, I can understand that. It's your choice. But you wouldn't force everyone else to abide by that too, would you?

[sabrown100]

The only thing I say is "Brave New World".

[Doddibot]

The only thing I say is "Brave New World".
Could you elaborate? Which portions of that novel do you think would be ok, and which should be avoided?

[Conspiracey]

Designer Babies -

I actually thought about this today and decided i am against this. I see this as people largely changing another person before they are born. I am male, if i was told i was made male, when i was a female i wouldn't be happy. Don't get me wrong, i don't want to be a female. I geuss it could be how you make, say, a male baby. Would you take a fertalised egg (created in IVF probably) and, if female, take out an X chromosome (sp) and replace with a Y? I would consider that a kind of sex change. If that happened to me i would feel disturbed. I would feel part woman inside. What if i felt i wanted to become transexual and, 'go back to my roots' of my original gender? I'm not going into whether i agree with Transexuality or not (because i don't know yet) but i just think it would be a poblem. Another way of choosing the gender of a child i geuss is by selecting the fathers sperm with the Y chromosome. I think i still feel the same way about this. I would still be chosen to be male! Could, if this is allowed, lead to sexism? Parrents choosing to have only girls?

I will leed this onto Screening. Screening an uborn child for diseases ie Systic Fibrosis can only be a good/logical thing to do. I also agree with 'modifying' the fertalised egg to eliminate this risk in any way. This is not a sex thing, that people may want to change in later life, more of making you live longer and healthier.

Lets say designer babies are allowed to an unlimited degree. Would there be limitations? I can kind of see this becoming like CAS or upgrading your character in a RPG. May parrents end up compromising some features over others? Would this give the baby an unfair chance? Another point. Would everyone want/chose only the best in every area leading to at one point every person looking, behaving identicle? We need different types of people to do different types of things. Some things some people can do, some things others can't. Would/could people end up makign people made to do certain tasks? I think that would be horrible. Even more restricting.

Something i'm interested in are Sevants (wiki it). Savants are incredible people and i can only imagine what it must be like. Sadly, i think allot of Savants are also autistic. If we can figure out how to make people Savants without any side afects, should we? If so would this only be done to certain people, because this, like ultimate designer babies, would be making a baby expecting it to do a certain walk of life. There might be other isues with Savants, but that would be getting too specific.

Cloning. Cloning for the medical benifit has already been done right? These people are created for a task/reason apart from wanting another child, which could be unfair like i said earlier. Howether, i don't know how they are created. Do they have to be the same sex or anything? I'm on about the children made/born to heal a brothers/sisters illness/condition? If these are just babys made by the parrents in a normal way completely, i see no problem. They haven't been 'designed' in any way. I think the whole thing i have go to over the last few paragraphs is designer babies are bad in my books when made to none medicaly-benificial specifications. It plays a part in what they can do in life. Of course, a childs up-bringing can change what you can/can't do in life, but, to dodge that, that's not part of this discussion lol.



Cyborgs, nanites etc -

These could bring great medical benifits. Example, artificial limbs. Howether, although fictional, Irobot and Terminater (films) could would happen if this wasn't highly controlled. These are still fictional/fantasy at the moment anyway. On a side note, what about nanites for a mental gain. Wouldn't being a Savant be better than this. They have the ability to do the same if not more. Also, if we do have nanites running through our brain, we could easily be controlled i think by other things. End of side note. I think we need to avoid Technological Singularity by a very very very long shot, because of said films. Avoiding such development because of fictional events might seem silly, but remember at this stage such developments are also/still fictional themselves.

Cyborg or Human or Robot. How far must a human be injured/ill, before we end using availably technology to keep them allive? Like Will Smith in Irobot his whole left arm and part of the left side of his torso had to be re-built because of a car crash. It wasn't medicaly grown back or replaced, it is all robot/nanite or something. I think at some point we would need to draw a line, like we do currently with people on life support machines who are 'brain dead'. If not it could possibly get so bad as your brain/head on or in a computer. I think i may find it upsetting if someone was reduced to this state, no matter how mobile and lively their 'body' would be.

On the immortality front. I think this depend on how it would be done. Natural death is the body degrading and becomign older over time. This is the whole body, the bones, the organs etc. You may make yourself look younger with cosmetics, but it's the inside that counts. How can we stop/reverse this? Would we want to. Would it be done by nanites? If so, they would have to go into the brain maybe? Maybe they need only go in untill their job is done, or simply the nanites dies when the job is done and our body naturaly flushes them out over time. i think if we wanted to become immortal, we would have to halt our body aging or reverse it. The longer we live, no matter how healthy we are, we become naturaly frail, loss/degrading of sense, we can do less and less things. We would need to get out of that. Once done, would we still be able to retire? Or would the government want us to carry on working? We, may want to work if we are staying young and fit. Also, what if someone wanted to stop being immortal, could they? It would depend how we stay young, stop the treatment? Could this be seen as suicide? Would we get bored of life?



I think that's the end of what i have to say. Just a note. The stuff in the 'Designer Babies' section. Allot of the stuff came from my secondary school education, so forgive me if it is wrong or innacurate. The rest is light research and opnion.

[Doddibot]

I am male, if i was told i was made male, when i was a female i wouldn't be happy.
Maybe you typed this wrong, but it doesn't make sense to me. If you were made male, how could you be female?
Would you take a fertalised egg (created in IVF probably) and, if female, take out an X chromosome (sp) and replace with a Y?
It's currently done via PGS (pre-implantation genetic screening). You fertilise a few eggs via IVF, then implant the ones of the desired gender.
I would feel part woman inside.
No, you wouldn't know the difference.

I would still be chosen to be male! Could, if this is allowed, lead to sexism? Parrents choosing to have only girls?
Well, in India it is leading to parents choosing only boys. But then within a generation, girls will be more valued and the selection will probably reverse. In a Western nation, it would probably be fairly equal.

I will leed this onto Screening. Screening an uborn child for diseases ie Systic Fibrosis can only be a good/logical thing to do. I also agree with 'modifying' the fertalised egg to eliminate this risk in any way. This is not a sex thing, that people may want to change in later life, more of making you live longer and healthier.
How much healthier? 1500 year lifespan? Healing major wounds within a day? What is the limit?

Lets say designer babies are allowed to an unlimited degree. Would there be limitations?
I don't see why there should be limits. Perhaps some would be grossly unethical (such as choosing to have a child without a functioning cerebellum), but otherwise I can't see a reason for limits.

May parrents end up compromising some features over others? Would this give the baby an unfair chance? Another point. Would everyone want/chose only the best in every area leading to at one point every person looking, behaving identicle?
Well, not every person has the same idea of the perfect child. Do you want supermodel thin, or curvaceous? Blonde, redhead, brunette, violet or visible only in the infra-red spectrum? Carefree or careful? Rational or superstitious? I think we shall still see variety, perhaps even more of the extremes.

We need different types of people to do different types of things. Some things some people can do, some things others can't. Would/could people end up makign people made to do certain tasks? I think that would be horrible. Even more restricting.
I can't see a reason to make people do things. We don't really do that now, why would we resort to that in the future when we can choose what we want to be (or what we want our children to be)?

Something i'm interested in are Sevants (wiki it). Savants are incredible people and i can only imagine what it must be like. Sadly, i think allot of Savants are also autistic. If we can figure out how to make people Savants without any side afects, should we? If so would this only be done to certain people, because this, like ultimate designer babies, would be making a baby expecting it to do a certain walk of life. There might be other isues with Savants, but that would be getting too specific.
I don't see a reason to declare the brain processes of a savant to be out of reach of a person, if they desire it and it can be done.

Cloning. Cloning for the medical benifit has already been done right?
No human has been artificially cloned (at least, not that anyone knows of). I don't think therapeutic cloning has been done (not sure - not my field), but that just involves the cloning of human stem cells. And of course, there are the natural clones - identical twins.

These people are created for a task/reason apart from wanting another child, which could be unfair like i said earlier.
People already do this, and we don't outlaw it. People have children to look after them in their old age, as a companion for their other children or just to even out the girl-boy ratio in their family. Lots of reasons, but they still love their kids.
Howether, i don't know how they are created. Do they have to be the same sex or anything?
Yes, unless there is an embryonic sex change method.
I'm on about the children made/born to heal a brothers/sisters illness/condition? If these are just babys made by the parrents in a normal way completely, i see no problem. They haven't been 'designed' in any way. I think the whole thing i have go to over the last few paragraphs is designer babies are bad in my books when made to none medicaly-benificial specifications. It plays a part in what they can do in life. Of course, a childs up-bringing can change what you can/can't do in life, but, to dodge that, that's not part of this discussion lol.
I don't see what is wrong with having designing a baby to have the same bone marrow or blood type, for example, to match another child. Just as long it is in the best interests of BOTH children. No exploitation.

Howether, although fictional, Irobot and Terminater (films) could would happen if this wasn't highly controlled.
These are AI (although Terminators were cyborgs, they were the opposite to what is being proposed. They were robots with human flesh - humans with mechanical flesh is more desirable from my POV).
On a side note, what about nanites for a mental gain. Wouldn't being a Savant be better than this. They have the ability to do the same if not more.
Perhaps initially, but neurons are pretty slow at transmitting signals in comparison to electronics. Perhaps this could see nanotech have an advantage, eventually, over biological brains.
Also, if we do have nanites running through our brain, we could easily be controlled i think by other things.
I don't think so. The parts of your brain responsible for free will won't be on many people's lists of things to mess with, and even if it is, there will be the nanotech equivalent of a computer firewall to prevent foreign access to your free will (while allowing them to mentally talk to you, for example).
I think we need to avoid Technological Singularity by a very very very long shot, because of said films. Avoiding such development because of fictional events might seem silly, but remember at this stage such developments are also/still fictional themselves.
True, we should be careful, but the singularity won't necessarily be as dangerous as those movies portray. I think going slowly and cautiously might be the best option.
Cyborg or Human or Robot. How far must a human be injured/ill, before we end using availably technology to keep them allive? Like Will Smith in Irobot his whole left arm and part of the left side of his torso had to be re-built because of a car crash. It wasn't medicaly grown back or replaced, it is all robot/nanite or something. I think at some point we would need to draw a line, like we do currently with people on life support machines who are 'brain dead'. If not it could possibly get so bad as your brain/head on or in a computer. I think i may find it upsetting if someone was reduced to this state, no matter how mobile and lively their 'body' would be.
Just a note, if you ever find me in a decapitated state, and you can preserve me in any way, please do it. Don't you dare give up on me, if there is a chance of me (i.e. just my brain, or even just my consciousness) making it through. I'm sure you'd feel the same way if your loved one was about to die.

On the immortality front. I think this depend on how it would be done. Natural death is the body degrading and becomign older over time. This is the whole body, the bones, the organs etc. You may make yourself look younger with cosmetics, but it's the inside that counts. How can we stop/reverse this? Would we want to.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to die just yet. Maybe later in life I will, but I don't want nasty mother nature (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) making that choice on my behalf.
Would it be done by nanites? If so, they would have to go into the brain maybe? Maybe they need only go in untill their job is done, or simply the nanites dies when the job is done and our body naturaly flushes them out over time.
Possibly. But perhaps we could get them to regrow. Then again, maybe a nano-cancer wouldn't be pleasant. Maybe an injection twice a year wouldn't be too bad.
i think if we wanted to become immortal, we would have to halt our body aging or reverse it. The longer we live, no matter how healthy we are, we become naturaly frail, loss/degrading of sense, we can do less and less things. We would need to get out of that.
Yep.
Once done, would we still be able to retire? Or would the government want us to carry on working?
Personally, I'd like to keep on working. Maybe the government would mandate that you could only spend 50 years in a particular field, and then you had to retire for twenty years or change fields.
We, may want to work if we are staying young and fit. Also, what if someone wanted to stop being immortal, could they? It would depend how we stay young, stop the treatment? Could this be seen as suicide? Would we get bored of life?
We could get bored with life. If you did, I guess you could knock yourself off. But then again, what if the injection that could cure boredom (making you satisfied with the slow, sedate pace of life) was just around the corner?

[Conspiracey]

Thanks for the reply. Had a feeling someone might pick it apart bit by bit like that.

[ElZorro]

1. Do you believe that it is ethically acceptable for someone to enhance themselves through technological means? (if yes, go to 2a. If no, go to 2b)
2.
a. If you consider it ethical, would you opt to be enhanced yourself, if it was proven to be biologically safe?
b. 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?

I wear eyeglasses. I take anti-allergy medication.

I think the key issue isn't enhancement vs. non-enhancement, but rather genetic modification of the germ line.

[Jacki_SC]

Well put it this way. Its pretty clear already that the technology for human enhancement will never become mainstream. If we remain a race that is fundamentally concerned with equality and basic human rights, we'll never evolve into a race that ignores these principles. If some John Scoffolos scientist were to announce one day that we would now be able to safely design our babies for the small price of 19,000 (or whatever amount of money), does anybody honestly think that we would all swallow this? Of course there would be uproar from religious groups (who despite their increasingly diminishing population as a minority have incredible power) and non-religious groups alike. Despite how intelligent and ready we think we are as humans, we do have a long, long, long way to go before this kind of technology will become a social and ethical norm. I don't disagree with it, I just have no hope in it.

[Doddibot]

I wear eyeglasses. I take anti-allergy medication.

I think the key issue isn't enhancement vs. non-enhancement, but rather genetic modification of the germ line.
Possibly. But from what I've read, both are problematic. Only somatic therapy is considered mundane (and legal).

[Alissa888]

Okay, so if by enhancements, we talking only using human genes, then surely it's just normal treatment and you might as well stop transplants and insulin injections.

If we're talking using animal DNA, then we kinda have to redefine our definition of 'human'. I.e. if it isn't 100% human DNA, should the person in question still be considered human? Alternatively, in we can work around not being 100% human DNA, chimpanzees had 98% DNA in common with humans. Should they have equal rights?

[Doddibot]

Okay, so if by enhancements, we talking only using human genes, then surely it's just normal treatment and you might as well stop transplants and insulin injections.

If we're talking using animal DNA, then we kinda have to redefine our definition of 'human'. I.e. if it isn't 100% human DNA, should the person in question still be considered human? Alternatively, in we can work around not being 100% human DNA, chimpanzees had 98% DNA in common with humans. Should they have equal rights?
Or, does being human even matter?

If we could modify some chimpanzees to be as intelligent as an adult human, even though they would not be human they surely deserve rights.

If aliens from another planet arrived that felt and thought like humans, they surely should not be killed like animals just because they are not humans. Same deal for robots that may achieve human-level thought.

It appears to me that giving rights to humans is just a shortcut for giving rights to a certain level of consciousness that humans appear be alone in having. So, shouldn't we really be looking at levels of consciousness rather than levels of humanity to determine moral worth?

[davious]

I don't have an ethical problem with adults getting gene therapy, or something like that to correct a problem, but I would draw the line at the "designer babies" usage. If you can genetically enhance your resistance to disease, correct eye problems, etc, that's okay with me...but, modifying genetics so that you have more aesthetically appealing children, giving them additional height, making them more athletic, or something like that, would be going too far, I think. There is a difference between a legitimate medical application of it, and cosmetic applications that serve no purpose other than to feed egos. I need glasses. I would love to be able to modify my genetics so that my eyesight went back to 20/20. But, at the same time, I don't see the need for a technique to turn my green-brown eyes blue.

[FurryPanda]

but, modifying genetics so that you have more aesthetically appealing children, giving them additional height, making them more athletic, or something like that, would be going too far, I think.

What about something middling? Say messing with an unborn babies metabolism to prevent obesity. That is definitely a health issue, but most people would choose to spend the money on it so that their kids wouldn't have to worry about being fatties (word choice intentional). Or what about cosmetic improvements that also provide health benefits? Like having darker skin, or at least much more melanin. That means you need less vitamin D and have a (somewhat) lower risk for skin cancer. It also makes you look really bronzed and tan easily as opposed to burning. So what do you think of exterior changes that do improve aesthetics, but also have a health purpose?

[davious]

I would say no to the changing metabolisms to prevent obesity, because honestly, obesity can be controlled through exercise and a healthy diet. Its already controllable, if people care enough to try. The thing about fixing eyesight, etc, is that its not really correctable. You can wear glasses or contact lenses, which can compensate for the problem, you can have lasik surgery or whatever, but, you are simply masking the problem, rather than actually fixing it.

I would also object to genetic "tanning", because its not really necessary. I would argue that our time would be better spent finding an actual cure for cancer, rather than giving ourselves genetic tans to lower the risk. The health benefits in your example are only secondary to the real objective of looking better. There are ways to combat skin cancer already that don't require genetic manipulation. Its called sunscreen. Plus, I would point out, that at least on Caucasian skin, pale is healthier than tan is. Tan skin is damaged skin.

[Daisie]

Plus, I would point out, that at least on Caucasian skin, pale is healthier than tan is. Tan skin is damaged skin.Well yeah, but if you're born with tan-colored (not tanned obviously) skin, through genetic manipulation or otherwise, then it's just as healthy.

Really, I would equate managing weight to managing eyesight. If you're naturally genetically predisposed to becoming obese, then diet and exercise would only mask that problem, right? Someone who is born with a slow metabolism or "obese genes" can be thin with effort, and someone who is born with bad vision can, through glasses/contacts or permanent surgery, see perfectly. What's the difference? You can't say that one is necessary while the other isn't.

I don't think it'll ever be ethical or feasible to limit what kinds of genetic manipulation is possible/legal. Sure, you can say medical is allowed but not cosmetic, but as Panda was saying, there can be a significant overlap between the two. What's more likely is an all or nothing situation when this technology becomes available.

[davious]

I can't equate weight management with eyesight. There are things you can do to prevent obesity, even if you are genetically inclined for it. Dieting and exercise eliminate the obesity, glasses and contact lenses are only temporary solutions. Take glasses or contacts off, the problem is still there. Obesity is manageable, though. You cannot control eyesight, you can control your weight through means that do not require genetic manipulation. Even if you genetically inclined towards obesity, it can be controlled externally. It might not always be easy, and for some, it will be just plain hard. But, is controllable. Eyesight cannot be controlled that way. I also have allergies, but since I can control that through external methods, medications, avoiding the triggers, I would be against genetically altering myself to combat that, as well. For some with potentially lethal allergies, it might make sense. I can control being around flowers for the most part, but others could accidentally eat a peanut product, and die from it. If its life threatening, and cannot be controlled externally (peanut allergies are mostly controllable by avoiding anything with peanuts, but, there is always the chance someone could ingest something completely accidentally, and have significantly more serious side effects than I get around my allergy triggers)

Basically, what it boils down to me, is legitimate medical procedure, or is it mostly for cosmetic purposes? I am not generally inclined to sign up for medical procedures that I don't really need, that don't actually cure anything, but merely make me look better. Its extraneous.

I would also point out that I offered no opinions whatsoever about the legalities of any of this...merely my own ethical boundaries. Where I would draw the line not to be crossed personally is not the same as where the line might be drawn legally. This is just how far I would be comfortable going with it.

[FurryPanda]

And actually, this just occurred to me. If genetic manipulation was done to a couple's baby, what about that baby's (eventual) children? (Probably easier with names- Bill and Mary have a baby Susie whom they do genetic manipulation on in utero. Susie has a baby, Lucy, after she's grown, who has inherited her mother's genetic manipulation, courtesy of Lucy's grandparents.) So in the example, does Lucy have any right to complain about the good genetics her grandparents forced on her mother? Would Susie's lover, Lucy's father have any right to complain? Cause Susie does, as has been said above, she didn't get to be herself, but if you think about it, neither did Lucy. So does she (Lucy) have a right to be upset about it? Is it even likely that she would?

Or alternatively if Susie got genetic manipulation as an adult so she looked nice as an older woman- say upping her metabolism, changing her hair color and skin tone, but on the genetic level so that its permanent- and Lucy did not inherit those traits (she wouldn't, as once a girl baby is born all her eggs- so what she passes on to her children- are already made) wouldn't Lucy feel pretty awful about it? It seems like a mean thing to do if a kid is expecting to grow up to look like their mummy but they don't have the genes for it.

I don't think that second scenario came out as clear as the first one, but if anyone wants to say what they'd think of the ethics in them, then I'd like to hear it.

[Alissa888]

Or, does being human even matter?

If we could modify some chimpanzees to be as intelligent as an adult human, even though they would not be human they surely deserve rights.

If aliens from another planet arrived that felt and thought like humans, they surely should not be killed like animals just because they are not humans. Same deal for robots that may achieve human-level thought.

It appears to me that giving rights to humans is just a shortcut for giving rights to a certain level of consciousness that humans appear be alone in having. So, shouldn't we really be looking at levels of consciousness rather than levels of humanity to determine moral worth?

The powers that be have a habit of making things easier for themselves and decided that if something has 100% human DNA, it's human and subject and priviledged to human laws and rights. If we change that and redefine what it means to be human using intelligence, how do we classify people in vegetative states of those born with incredibly low brain capacity?
Believe it or not, some chimps are actually more intelligent than some humans.

[Doddibot]

And actually, this just occurred to me. If genetic manipulation was done to a couple's baby, what about that baby's (eventual) children? (Probably easier with names- Bill and Mary have a baby Susie whom they do genetic manipulation on in utero. Susie has a baby, Lucy, after she's grown, who has inherited her mother's genetic manipulation, courtesy of Lucy's grandparents.) So in the example, does Lucy have any right to complain about the good genetics her grandparents forced on her mother?
Yes, just as Bill had a right to complain about inheriting baldness and a risk of heart disease from his parents.

Would Susie's lover, Lucy's father have any right to complain?
If Mary could complain about Bill's bald head, then yes.

So does she (Lucy) have a right to be upset about it? Is it even likely that she would?
She has the right to be upset about anything she dislikes about herself, and it's her body so she should be allowed to fix it in herself, or at least not pass it on to her children.

I can't see a reason why she would be any more or less upset about her body than normal people are, unless her personality had been modified to be perfectly fine with her body no matter the changes.

Or alternatively if Susie got genetic manipulation as an adult so she looked nice as an older woman- say upping her metabolism, changing her hair color and skin tone, but on the genetic level so that its permanent- and Lucy did not inherit those traits (she wouldn't, as once a girl baby is born all her eggs- so what she passes on to her children- are already made) wouldn't Lucy feel pretty awful about it? It seems like a mean thing to do if a kid is expecting to grow up to look like their mummy but they don't have the genes for it.
If Susie wanted to pass that on to Lucy, she would either modify her eggs or modify the embryo that will become Lucy, and after Lucy grows up let her choose whether she wants to keep it or not.

Nothing is genetically permanent. It may be easier to modify the few cells of an embryo rather than the millions of a grown body, but neither are impossible.

The powers that be have a habit of making things easier for themselves and decided that if something has 100% human DNA, it's human and subject and priviledged to human laws and rights. If we change that and redefine what it means to be human using intelligence, how do we classify people in vegetative states of those born with incredibly low brain capacity?
Believe it or not, some chimps are actually more intelligent than some humans.
Which is worse, killing a brain-dead human or killing a thinking, feeling alien being? Which is worse, killing a human embryo or killing a self-aware robotic intelligence?

These are the questions we must answer.

[Alissa888]

Which is worse, killing a brain-dead human or killing a thinking, feeling alien being? Which is worse, killing a human embryo or killing a self-aware robotic intelligence?

These are the questions we must answer.

Killing a thinking, feeling alien and killing a self-aware robot are worse in my opinion, but how do you measure those characteristics?

[Doddibot]

Killing a thinking, feeling alien and killing a self-aware robot are worse in my opinion, but how do you measure those characteristics?
Yes, that is very difficult.

In humans, the process would involve testing self-awareness by something like a mirror test (showing a mirror and seeing if the subject recognises the reflection as their own) or by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of the subject to see if brain areas correlating to self-awareness are active.

It would be far more difficult in a robot, because robots already exist that can tell themselves from others in a mirror, but they are not self-aware. And aliens might not even have vision, so who knows...

It's hard, but it's what matters.