The enhanced human

[Arathena]

The first round of human enhancement has begun. We are sculpting our bodies with silicone and scalpels to cosmetic purposes. We are altering our eyes to match the 'natural' standard, and in some cases exceed it. We are using steroids to enhance our bodies, and amphetamines to enhance our minds. These are primitive first steps, and we can't even decide if they're good, or bad - witness the sports spectacles over steroids.

The means to create a reproductively perpetuating, 'artificial' genetic structure have now been demonstrated in human cells - The fundamental cornerstone of true genetic engineering. Cloning and regeneration techniques are progressing apace - The ability to 'tear down' and rebuild a heart outside the body has been demonstrated in rats. It is a matter of time and research before we are able to manipulate the flesh freely.

The ability to direct machineryfrom electrodes implanted in a primate brain has been demonstrated. The ability to create sensory feedback from electronics to the human optic nerve has been demonstrated, and in general to snail neurons - the two fundamental cornerstones of cybernetic technology. Where the flesh is unrecoverable or undesirable, we will soon be able to replace the meat with metal.

If the laws were changed today, and chemical enhancement became legally available generally, to be administered by trained professionals, would you choose to use it? If not, would you be willing to support the availability of the choice for other people to enhance themselves?

When the option for you to replace parts of your body with machines becomes available, would you want to do it? If not, would you still support the availablity of the choice? When the ability to make your children (or more likely for our generation, your grandchildren) smarter, faster, and stronger from conception becomes available, would you want to choose to do so? Will you be willing to let others do so?

Would you still consider the people who do take up these options to be human? What's the dividing line? Is it biological, social, or something else entirely?

[Klast Brell]

I don't see it as any different than an amputee using a prosthetic limb. I doubt many would consider that un-human.

And in another way we all use one modification or another to the natural functions of our bodies. We add cold weather protection to our bodies with mittens scarves and hats. We make the soles of our feet incredibly durable by wearing shoes. We use calculators to perform feats of mathematics no one could have imagined a century ago. We move down the road at 55 miles an hour without getting tired and even fly through the air at hundreds of miles an hour.

I guess I don't see this as being that different from the abortion debate. once again we are merely trying to define what is human. Asking how much can be removed from a person before they cease to be human. How many pieces can you slice off and still have a human. How much can you take away before you are left with merely a clump of cells?

[Taxious]

If the laws were changed today, and chemical enhancement became legally available generally, to be administered by trained professionals, would you choose to use it? If not, would you be willing to support the availability of the choice for other people to enhance themselves?

I already plan to use/use a lot of "enhancements" offered and see no problem with it. If an individual has enough money to alter their body, I think they should have the right to do so depending on how dangerous the catalyst is.

When the option for you to replace parts of your body with machines becomes available, would you want to do it? If not, would you still support the availablity of the choice? When the ability to make your children (or more likely for our generation, your grandchildren) smarter, faster, and stronger from conception becomes available, would you want to choose to do so? Will you be willing to let others do so?

Yes and yes.

I've never bought into the idea that "natural is better". If a genetic boon were available while I was in the womb, I would hope that my parents would have administered it to me.

[Alluveal]

Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology. We have the capability to build the world's first bionic man. Steve Austin will be that man. Better than he was before. Better, stronger, faster.

That one is for Garrdor....

[Ddrak]

In the pure sense, there's nothing wrong with enhancing people. The problems come when you have a generally ignorant public at the mercy of a few corporations that provide such services and have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to providing real information about the safety and reliability of their procedures. While this is true for almost anything technical, there's a significant difference between Vista rebooting and your vision blue-screening and needing a few seconds to reboot. I don't even wanna know the implications of having your body rootkitted...

Dd

[Taxious]

I don't even wanna know the implications of having your body rootkitted...

rofl

[Kulaf]

Would I support people who want to enhance themselves.......I have one word......Gattaca.

With regard to amputees......look at the recent amputee that petitioned to be able to run in the olympics. Now imagine if his prosthesis gave him a mechanical advantage over a "normal" limb. Does he still get to run?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Would I support people who want to enhance themselves.......I have one word......Gattaca.

With regard to amputees......look at the recent amputee that petitioned to be able to run in the olympics. Now imagine if his prosthesis gave him a mechanical advantage over a "normal" limb. Does he still get to run?

Olympic qualification criteria has absolutely no bearing on the ethical argument of genetic manipulation.

I struggle with this, I really do. Genetic manipulation is truely an ethical "slippery slope" for me. Is it wrong to genetically alter someone's genome so they aren't prone to diabetes, cancer, sickle cell anemia, etc., etc? I would answer.. no, it isn't ethically wrong. But then, where does one draw the line? Do we draw it at "perceived" dysfunction and malady? And how do we define those deficiencies? What is a deficient human being? Is a crooked nose or brown eyes deficient? A height of less than 5'6"? A weight of more than 200 pounds on a 6 foot frame? A certain amount of melanin? Crooked teeth? Male patterned baldness? Size A tits? Where do we draw the line?

Truly, I have no answer in this question, and I spin around it, never seeming to get to the center. Yet my gut tells me we will use genetic manipulation for eugenics... and eugenics is the imposition of a perceived genetic phylogeny on a society. Something about that just doens't ring true to me, and I can't explain why.

[Kulaf]

Would I support people who want to enhance themselves.......I have one word......Gattaca.

With regard to amputees......look at the recent amputee that petitioned to be able to run in the olympics. Now imagine if his prosthesis gave him a mechanical advantage over a "normal" limb. Does he still get to run?

Olympic qualification criteria has absolutely no bearing on the ethical argument of genetic manipulation.

Perhaps.....if you narrow the scope of enhancing a human down to only genetic manipulation. But that is not the narrow scope of this thread.

[Rsak]

A bill long pushed by Kennedy and signed into law this week was dealing with anti discrimination when it comes to genetics (disorders, predispositions to cancers, etc).

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008May21/ ... on,00.html

It may not be the deathknell for a Gattaca world, but its the step in the right direction.

[Partha]

And it will be cheerfully ignored or subverted where possible by businesses and attempts to enforce it will be met with derision by Randroids.

[Ddrak]

Look Mr. B, an ANGEL!

[Garrdor]

He says you a brade runnah!

-- Tell him he's got the wrong guy.