Ethics and Morals of Human enhancement

[CutsieMarie89]

how about open heart surgery and eyeglasses?

Eyeglasses usually help return God's creation to it's former glory. Braces however, straightens teeth beyond what normal straight teeth look like. That is definitely enhancing God's creation.

 

[DiamondHearts]

I don't believe the posters understand exactly what is being discussed. We are not talking about medical technologies to help human beings restore vision or to help in surgery using a laser to to burn tumor cells and hemorrhoids. We are discussing the emotional, mental, and physical (non-medical) alteration of the human to 'enhance' it.

I oppose it from both a religious standpoint and an ethical standpoint. As I stated earlier, there are no needs for enhancement as God has created human beings in a great form and blessed us with control over the natural world. God has allowed us this Earth and our meddling has polluted and corrupted it. We will sooner or later realize that the natural way in which human beings have lived throughout centuries is the best for human mental, spiritual, and physical growth and also for our continued survival. Is nothing sacred to man, not even his own body?

Furthermore, government, especially those sliding into right-wing and fascist ideologies as we see today, will use such methods to control the populace. They would control human cognitive processes, or atleast highly influence it, if they are not already doing this. By keeping human beings unaware of their spiritual and benevolent nature and absorbed in music videos, sitcoms, cartoons, sports games, and detached from what is important, political mobilization to stem the tide of injustice which has swept the world. As one hundred human beings are killed a month by unmanned predator drones in Pakistan-Afghanistan, will this be the end of human civilizations outside of what these strong governments desire? We were just cannon fodder for the elite of this world? If we remain distracted, how many more will perish from this Earth!

 

[John99]

"Braces for teeth"

numerous birth defects are corrected, which to me is a positive thing. afa as eye glasses i think children are born with poor eyesight and that gets corrected but i am not sure about that. people who are strict religious probably may not use life saving technology in the event of natural failure. such as a bad heart etc.

Imagine: we could create true paradise. Eliminate hatred, eliminate anger, eliminate depression and create pure ecstasy, pure orgasm, pleasure, and happiness, and maintain this state forever. We might even discover how to create simulated realities to better engage us in paradise.

here is where i disagree because the human brain seems to have mechanisms in place that would prohibit this.

 

[John99]

STILL the human brain is incredibly comlpex and in order for there to be positives we many need negatives for which to compare them to.

 

[John99]

put another way: if you live in a room full of flowers and never smell anything bad then you would get sick of the smell of flowers or after awhile the smell would lose its appeal. now if you come from a room that smells very badly and walk into the room of flowers then it is instantly a satisfactory experience.

 

[Norsefire]

It's impossible to improve the creation of God. All attempts are futile.

Why? The "creation of God" seems to be so highly incompetent. I want better.

Furthermore, our society is witness to the fact that the human mind, without God's guidance, can easily become corrupted and the consequences are bad for humans, plants, animals, and the Earth. God has created all living things with His Mercy and benevolence, why must we corrupt the Earth? Live peacefully with nature and God will bless humankind.

Define "corrupted"

The problem is not if individuals willingly opt for self-improvement but if society decides to mandate it for others whether they want it or not.
Also why do you assume anger is negative? Or even depression? These moods are designed to let us know something is wrong.

I know. They definitely serve a psychological and biological role...however if we solve the problem of scarcity and, with nanotechnology, build self-sustaining systems, these roles are irrelevant so there is no point in keeping around the "negativity"

I think the world void of all bad or all good is simply boring. How can you actually 'enjoy' a constant state and not be bored?

Boredom is an undesirable condition that we would remove from human consciousness. Therefore the constant state would consisitently remain exciting.

After a while you would not feel the 'ecstasy' at all as there is nothing to compare it with, constant elevation is actually a plateau in feeling, a one dimension of mood.

See the above. And furthermore, if not a pure and constant ecstasy, then we can create things like in the "Matrix" and everyone can have their own fantasy, paradise land.

This sounds crazy, but eventually the technology will be here.

There is also the chance that it would leave a society without ambition and productive effort as there isn't anything to strive for, it would also leave you prey to predators. A happy person in a constant state of ecstatsy who doesn't feel anger or hate will not have the cues as when to fight or when to protest...like dodo birds!

Obviously, we would do this after we have solved all problems and created self-sustaining systems to care for us.

I can imagine the dirth in artists as there is nothing to feed off, no inspiration and no agony. To rid yourself of the latter negates the former. Actually there would be no need to have them at all, no need to create anything. Bye Bye literature.

Not necessarily; we could simply, as I said, create paradises as simulated realities tuned specifically to your desires, likes and dislikes

Norse, quite brilliantly I may add, speaks of this:

Why thank you

'...but at that stage we could even tamper with human nature itself: human emotions, human "morality", human social systems, human instinct. We would have the power to alter the very consciousness of the human.'

I say he does so brilliantly because even though he askes questions no one bothers to critically think anything through, everyone is simply 'game' (I love that expression, people being 'game'), on the idea. Jump on board its great! Not one critical 'yeah but what about this...' Anyway besides Diamond who rejects the idea on religious grounds, no one even bothered to consider what he was speaking of.

Of course they did. Diamond and a few others.

It amazes me that although the signs are there, the history is there that people can still take any utopia seriously at all, we had communism, jim Jones and David Berger's 'Family' where people were also offered the same promises as above:

Except those were failures because human nature itself remained the same (incompatible with utopia). I am speaking of using technology to engineer ourselves for a paradise.

'Living in 'paradise' (this promise itself should send red flags)
'Perfect world'
"Elimination of all perceived negatives 'hatred' 'anger' 'depression'

And like these other 'answers' to human life and nature, he then shares a vision of the world as becoming "pure ecstasy, pure orgasm, pleasure, and happiness" and states it can be maintained 'forever'.

With technology, it virtually can be.

What he has inadvertently proven is that men are not gods in nature but sheep. Promise them the impossible and they will follow the idea without any question, criticism, ethical guildelines or legalities.

What's wrong with the idea?

There is no proof that we can change man's consciousness but if we could is he still 'himself' and is he still 'man' or has he 'transcended' that state ie.Transhumanism. You may just as well cease to be in your goal towards self-enhancement especially if the goal is changing ones ability to feel and adding physical abilities above what is possible in a human being. But maybe that's ok, fine but at least ask what the terms are.

It would be up to the individual.

Transhumanism is fine as a philosophy but using it in society necessitates dialogue. For example the world is what, 6 billion strong. Who has access to these advancements? Will you create an elite class based on financial means? In which case you'll have Paris Hilton and her ilk ruling over you. Will you create a class structure based on human slaves and the evolutionary enhanced? How do you introduce transhumanism without killing the notion of man? Or maybe this is desirable, maybe we are fed up with man and want to 'transcend' our humaness, our humanity.

It will be what you want it to be- because through technology, it can be.

here is where i disagree because the human brain seems to have mechanisms in place that would prohibit this.

Such as?

put another way: if you live in a room full of flowers and never smell anything bad then you would get sick of the smell of flowers or after awhile the smell would lose its appeal. now if you come from a room that smells very badly and walk into the room of flowers then it is instantly a satisfactory experience.

This is an aspect of the brain that we would tweak; therefore, the constant state of ecstasy would never lose its excitement.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Norsefire: I know. They definitely serve a psychological and biological role...however if we solve the problem of scarcity and, with nanotechnology, build self-sustaining systems, these roles are irrelevant so there is no point in keeping around the "negativity"

We are a long from solving the problem of scarcity and self-sustaining systems. Actually I would say that the self-enhancement technology will probably progress at a faster rate than solving those problems worldwide. There are 6 billion of us after all. And say that we did solve these issues, what makes you think its interesting for development to rid the world of anger? Anger is necessary to the mode of survival that allows us to fight necessary enemies whether they be physical or ideological. There's more to this but I'll wait til they come up. I am not opposed to enhancement but when it comes to society as a whole and our 'consciousness' or personal morality well then I tread very slowly. Skeptic I guess. And no I would not want that removed from my being
The negative and positive go hand in hand Norse. Every solution creates problems of their own you are aware of that I believe. If you create an environment where say hate, anger and depression are no longer needed from an evolutionary point of view then why eradicate them at all? I mean evolution would, over tine, destroy them from the being as they would not be necessary in a utopia. Also you assume that everyone worldwide would want these personal traits removed from their being and this wouldn't be the case at all. So what would you do with a society where half of its inhabitants do not feel anger or hate and the other half does? Wouldn't look to good for those who no longer have these instincts would it. There are also a number of people, especially artists, who self-actualized because of feelings of inadequacy, depression, insecurity, strife especially. They learned how to cope and perservere becoming stronger from it and this all becomes fodder for their work, fodder for individual expression and creativity, sometimes we are not defined by the positive but the negative aspects of life. Suffering can yield things (positive things) that being in a comfortable state cannot. Comfort can yield superficial, mediocre individuals who lack internal strength or motivation because they have never had to overcome anything, they are soft. A society too soft to overcome any hazard will not survive for too long and there is no way to insure that some other force will not challenge or intervene in this neat 'paradise' you speak of.

Norsefire: Boredom is an undesirable condition that we would remove from human consciousness. Therefore the constant state would consisitently remain exciting.

Who is we? You cannot insure in real time given everyones different make up that you can keep a constant state of excitement. Like I said before what kind of society would NEED their citizens to be in a constant state of excitement? It would lead to malfunction, any state in constantcy would malfunction. We are still creatures of nature and nature doesn't allow for constant anything.

Norsefire: See the above. And furthermore, if not a pure and constant ecstasy, then we can create things like in the "Matrix" and everyone can have their own fantasy, paradise land. This sounds crazy, but eventually the technology will be here.

What would be the purpose of this? If we are living in our own private paradise we would not be in contact with reality nor each other because my private paradise might resemble an aggressive dionysian state of being and not people picking daisy's from their garden and smiling all day. Its not realistic as you describe it at all. Having the technology is one thing but creating paradise is another and I am not worried about the technology being available but how and for whom and controlled by whom. There was a time when living in air conditioned environments, using high speed means of travel, unlimited access to entertainment, high tech household devices, plastic surgery and progress in treating disease would make life a paradise and it has not.

Norsefire: Obviously, we would do this after we have solved all problems and created self-sustaining systems to care for us.

Again you assume we are close to that and in actuality we are not. Not for 6 billion and counting were not.

Norsefire: Not necessarily; we could simply, as I said, create paradises as simulated realities tuned specifically to your desires, likes and dislikes

Who would work? Who would 'sustain' the environment? What are you going to do with a bunch of lazy pleasure seeking individuals who may not see work as relevant in their 'paradise'?

 

[John99]

"Such as?"

the human brain has methods of dealing with changes and makes adjustments for them. unless they are actual physical changes and not chemical. still this would be very difficult to accomplish. i guess one way to look at it is if it aint broke dont fix it. there is an aspect of my personality that likes to be somewhat melancholy so i assume other feel this way as well.

"

Imagine: we could create true paradise. Eliminate hatred, eliminate anger, eliminate depression and create pure ecstasy, pure orgasm, pleasure, and happiness, and maintain this state forever. We might even discover how to create simulated realities to better engage us in paradise."

we are dealing with equal aND opposite actions so it is hard to say, if it can even be done, if the results would be desirous.

suppose you couldnt hate or get angry? the problem is that there are circumstances which occur naturally and not created by other humans where these emotions are necessary.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Norsefire: Of course they did. Diamond and a few others.

Only Cutsie after Diamond. But that's irrelevant what is disturbing is having someone not dig deeper before they decide its a social benefit, not actually critically thinking through something, most didn't even bother exploring the issue even if they were in favor for it which we all should if we are ever to avert disaster.

Norsefire: Except those were failures because human nature itself remained the same (incompatible with utopia). I am speaking of using technology to engineer ourselves for a paradise.

You assume the humans who create or rather control such technologies are not corrupt. Can you assure yourself and others that there would be no corruption by design on the part of the people who control the technology? Since when did you think people would be willing to have 'power' removed from their aims?

Norsefire: With technology, it virtually can be.

There are nuances to happiness that technology cannot solve nor provide. Like I said a constant state of anything would eventually malfunction. Technology has never provided perfect results for society so how can you re-assure people that it can now?

Norsefire: What's wrong with the idea? I said 'Promise them the impossible and they will follow the idea without any question, criticism, ethical guildelines or legalities." That's what's wrong with the idea. The implemental intricacies, social nuances and ethical ramifications
have not as yet been outlined. You offer only the broad utopian ideal.

Norsefire: It would be up to the individual.

Then it would not work. You only assume that people would opt for this without opposition. I say that some would and some would not and you would then have the problem of dealing with a society where some are pacified and other's are not...potential predators and malcontents to be sure but that's the least of it I think. What would be the political ramifications of this paradise?

Norsefiire: It will be what you want it to be- because through technology, it can be.

Nothing is ever as we would want it to be and that's the problem

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

My favorite passage from Brave New World:

"We prefer to do things comfortably." Said the Controller.

"But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin."

"In fact," said Mustapha Mond, "you're claiming the right to be unhappy."

"All right then," said the Savage defiantly, "I'm claiming the right to be unhapy."

"Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat; the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen tomorrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind." There was a long silence.

"I claim them all," said the Savage at last.

Anyway if you haven't read the book you should, it explains why Savage has come to this realization of freedom and what can go wrong in a controlled utopia.

 

[CutsieMarie89]

"Braces for teeth"

numerous birth defects are corrected, which to me is a positive thing. afa as eye glasses i think children are born with poor eyesight and that gets corrected but i am not sure about that. people who are strict religious probably may not use life saving technology in the event of natural failure. such as a bad heart etc.



here is where i disagree because the human brain seems to have mechanisms in place that would prohibit this.

I don't think most people are born with poor eyesight, I used to have perfect vision, that deteriorated quickly once I began puberty. But I agree with you I don't think the brain would tolerate constantly feeling happy. From an ethical standpoint unless someone opts for this enhancement I find it unethical to enforce it on everyone, to create a utopia. Who decides what will make everyone happy? Will these people also have this enhancement or will they have emotions to make decisions with? Can it be removed or are you born with it? I just fail to see how a state of pure elation would be a social benefit to everyone at all times in all situations. That seems more like hell than paradise. Like in that one Twilight Zone episode.

 

[DiamondHearts]

Why? The "creation of God" seems to be so highly incompetent. I want better.

It seems that what many people these days do not realize is that the purpose of human beings' lives are not physical, but spiritual in nature. The closer man is to nature, to the natural world, the more intune with his natural spiritual ascendancy and the more he will be at peace within himself. The less he thinks of himself as a superior being who has the right to do whatever he wishes (regardless of the adverse effect on him or those around him), it shall better serve his true purpose.

Define "corrupted"

Although I believe man is innately good and spiritual, he definitely has a predisposition to become corrupted with material things. Of these many pursuits, one is technology, if used in a fashion by attempting to 'play God' (which he can never do, by the way), the end result will be the corruption of the natural creation.

Furthermore, I am taking into account the effects which world elites and strong governments would have in this endeavor. Human beings exist, whether we accept it or not, in a very defined hierarchical and class based society. Governments, especially materialistic ones, are like organisms, which if fed with too much subservience by a weak populace, tend to slip into fascism, and opposed with strong protest, tend to lash out at critics rather than debate the issues. We have seen both in the Bush and Obama administrations. Although they are supposedly two sides of a spectrum, there is not much difference in the way in which they run their foreign policy and silence criticism. In certain areas, the Obama administration may be slightly moderate, whereas in other issues, such as Afghanistan-Pakistan, it is outright warmongering. With control of human altering technology (especially inr eagrds to propagation of its views and keeping humankind apathetic to other peoples' suffering), the control they have over citizens of the state and those outside of it, would be substantially increased.

It is a dangerous notion, but regardless of what I say, I am powerless to stop it. I just would like to say, 'I told you so,' with much regret.

 

[swarm]

There will be tampering aplenty, there already is.

The question is not where there will be tampering.

The question is shall the tampering be above board and available to all, or, shal it be in secret andavailable to the few?

 

[Orleander]

I don't believe the posters understand exactly what is being discussed.... We are discussing the emotional, mental, and physical (non-medical) alteration of the human to 'enhance' it....

Like Flowers for Algernon?