Comments on: Transhumanism http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3725 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Ben http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3725&cpage=1#comment-2974 Ben Wed, 08 Feb 2006 17:24:58 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3725#comment-2974 "Transhumanism" is not the evil some would suggest. Would anyone argue that offering recombinant insulin to your diabetic cousin or a hip-replacement to your grandmother is unethical. And yet genetic engineering and bioengineering have been and still are to some extent portrayed as unethical technologies. Just as disease is natural, aging, accidents, and a less than desireable pedigree are also natural. "Unnatural" solutions to these problems are not evil just because humans invented them. Some might argue, "but transhumanism is the enhancement of human nature, not the reparation of failing organs." But curing a child's hereditary cancer is enhancing that individual's human nature. Afterall, he was born with that predisposition. Or, suppose that you injure your knee in a car accident and must have it replaced, only to find that your mechanical knee functions better than your pre-injury knee (unlikely). Do you feel guilty because your nature has been enhanced? Have you committed an unconscious sin by defying nature. Others will say, "when life-enhanicing technology is available, only the wealthy will benefit" and they would be right. But this is the case with a lot of "life-enhancing" technology, at least in the time immediately following the commercial release. iPods, botox, cars, private jets, etc. are all examples of technology that enhance the lives of those fortunate enough to be able to afford them. It is not unjust that many people can't benefit from having an iPod video, just unfortunate. Certainly, a population living longer and healthier creates some societal challenges (challenges with which government has not acted responsibly so far). But this is common of all change (both the new challenges and inadequate or inappropriate government response). Unlike some change that occurs at once, however, life expectancy will not increase twenty years overnight. We can rest assured that such change as "transhumanism" requires will occur slowly enough to allow gradual societal acceptance. “Transhumanism” is not the evil some would suggest. Would anyone argue that offering recombinant insulin to your diabetic cousin or a hip-replacement to your grandmother is unethical. And yet genetic engineering and bioengineering have been and still are to some extent portrayed as unethical technologies.
Just as disease is natural, aging, accidents, and a less than desireable pedigree are also natural. “Unnatural” solutions to these problems are not evil just because humans invented them.
Some might argue, “but transhumanism is the enhancement of human nature, not the reparation of failing organs.” But curing a child’s hereditary cancer is enhancing that individual’s human nature. Afterall, he was born with that predisposition. Or, suppose that you injure your knee in a car accident and must have it replaced, only to find that your mechanical knee functions better than your pre-injury knee (unlikely). Do you feel guilty because your nature has been enhanced? Have you committed an unconscious sin by defying nature.
Others will say, “when life-enhanicing technology is available, only the wealthy will benefit” and they would be right. But this is the case with a lot of “life-enhancing” technology, at least in the time immediately following the commercial release. iPods, botox, cars, private jets, etc. are all examples of technology that enhance the lives of those fortunate enough to be able to afford them. It is not unjust that many people can’t benefit from having an iPod video, just unfortunate.
Certainly, a population living longer and healthier creates some societal challenges (challenges with which government has not acted responsibly so far). But this is common of all change (both the new challenges and inadequate or inappropriate government response). Unlike some change that occurs at once, however, life expectancy will not increase twenty years overnight. We can rest assured that such change as “transhumanism” requires will occur slowly enough to allow gradual societal acceptance.

]]> By: Mark Bahner http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3725&cpage=1#comment-2973 Mark Bahner Wed, 08 Feb 2006 16:51:50 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3725#comment-2973 "The big question is who will bring human enhancement and life extension into the mainstream." It's already in the mainstream! How many people in the U.S. have cardiac pacemakers? Artificial or non-human heart valves? Multiple bypass heart surgery? Multiple arterial stents? Regarding "enhancement"...how many people have laser eye surgery (so they don't need glasses or contacts)? Drugs to treat depression? Insomnia? “The big question is who will bring human enhancement and life extension into the mainstream.”

It’s already in the mainstream! How many people in the U.S. have cardiac pacemakers? Artificial or non-human heart valves? Multiple bypass heart surgery? Multiple arterial stents?

Regarding “enhancement”…how many people have laser eye surgery (so they don’t need glasses or contacts)? Drugs to treat depression? Insomnia?

]]> By: Brad Hoge http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3725&cpage=1#comment-2972 Brad Hoge Wed, 08 Feb 2006 16:17:22 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3725#comment-2972 We may be living in times Aldous Huxley could only imagine. Predictions about the conflict between seemingly inevitable trends in science and technology and our struggle to maintain our humanity have been argued about for quite some time, but similar to Malthusian predictions of overpopulation have seemingly been forestalled by parallel advances in governance and policy. Can this tenuous balance be maintained? Have we already crossed the threshold? Will we cut off our noses to spite our faces? Tune in tomorrow, same bat time, same bat place. We may be living in times Aldous Huxley could only imagine. Predictions about the conflict between seemingly inevitable trends in science and technology and our struggle to maintain our humanity have been argued about for quite some time, but similar to Malthusian predictions of overpopulation have seemingly been forestalled by parallel advances in governance and policy. Can this tenuous balance be maintained? Have we already crossed the threshold? Will we cut off our noses to spite our faces? Tune in tomorrow, same bat time, same bat place.

]]> By: PR http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3725&cpage=1#comment-2971 PR Wed, 08 Feb 2006 11:54:40 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3725#comment-2971 You might like to check out a new book: Designer Evolution: A Transhumanist Manifesto, Simon Young (Prometheus Books, New York, 2006) Publisher: http://www.prometheusbooks.com/catalog/book_1785.html Amazon Books: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591022908/002-0934247-8290402?v=glance Book Website: http://www.wcukdev.co.uk/simonyoung/ Blog: http://thetranshumanist.blogspot.com/ Info: designerevolution@btinternet.com You might like to check out a new book:
Designer Evolution: A Transhumanist Manifesto, Simon Young (Prometheus Books, New York, 2006)

Publisher: http://www.prometheusbooks.com/catalog/book_1785.html

Amazon Books: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591022908/002-0934247-8290402?v=glance

Book Website: http://www.wcukdev.co.uk/simonyoung/

Blog: http://thetranshumanist.blogspot.com/

Info: designerevolution@btinternet.com

]]>