Human enchancement. Should it be done?

[CuriousArv]

For a little I have been wondering about whether it is better for humanity to embrace human enchancement technologies. I can't come to any conclusion, because there seem to be valid arguments on both sides.

Valid For: quality of life can improve because people see the world a little more correctly and with less social bias in their thinking..far as I can tell.

Valid Against: Rich can afford it and division between rich and poor becomes larger...

Looking at resources on the internet on the topic, this appears to be a fairly complex issue and people who can attempt answers that hold ground appear to be philosophers. So I thought this was a good place to start a discussion on the topic. Care to share your musings?

 

[out of whack]

Nobody? Alright then, let me muse first.

Yes, I'm all in favor of human enchantment, it's wonderful. No one should get burned at the stake for it.



Happy Year of the Pig!

 

[CuriousArv]

here is a link for people who want to get informed on this topic.

http://www.bioethics.gov/topics/beyond_index.html

Personally I am going to share the view that enchancement takes away the value of human willpower to overcome odds. Hopefully willpower is not encapsulated in a gene.

Neurotechnology, nootropics and gene therapy are areas I briefly skimmed over and each area is full of incredibely interesting questions. Studies here can uncover so much knowledge about the risks of 'playing god'. So for the sake of curiosity and gaining better information about what we are dealing with, I fully support research efforts.

 

[D H]

Are the existing enhancements to the caveman's life acceptable? Eyeglasses and prosthetics, vaccines, calculators and computers, books and maps, deodorant, perfume and cologne, fancy clothes and push-up bras? None of these are natural. They all act to enhance our life and increase our likelihood of passing on our genes to our progeny.

We have been playing god ever since we invented clothing, fire, clubs, and stone axes. We are just a whole lot better at it now.

Where do you draw the line?

 

[Thrice]

Should and should not are irrelevant. It will happen & the sense of morality will change to reflect the times. As it always has.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Valid Against: Rich can afford it and division between rich and poor becomes larger.

I wouldn't consider that valid. By that reasoning, no one should eat. Anyway you won't get my reading glasses without a fight.

 

[CuriousArv]

ok the question really becomes how? what model and morality should society adhere to?

 

[verty]

I think the fundamental point is that education should always be paramount. Information should be freely accessible, etc. Ignorance is never good. Lying to someone in order to help them is wrong and it should not be done.

 

[thehacker3]

I think the fundamental point is that education should always be paramount. Information should be freely accessible, etc. Ignorance is never good. Lying to someone in order to help them is wrong and it should not be done.

Sorry to resurrect this thread after 3 years but what do you mean when you say lying to someone in order to help them is wrong? I can think of a million cases in which lying to someone is necessary to help them..

 

[nismaratwork]

Should and should not are irrelevant. It will happen & the sense of morality will change to reflect the times. As it always has.

I think the debate ultimately begins and ends here... with the technology will come the desire to use it. We can only hope that we exercise restraint and adhere to best practices in medicine, and still seek to first, do no harm.

 

[brainstorm]

Probably the issue of breast augmentation surgery vs. penis enlargement should have its own thread. The question is whether it's unfair to either men or women that breast enlargement is not only possible but common whereas penis enlargement is still experimental (as far as I know) and it is still taboo (maybe only in my perception but not others). Maybe sexual enhancement wasn't the main point of this thread, though.

 

[nismaratwork]

Probably the issue of breast augmentation surgery vs. penis enlargement should have its own thread. The question is whether it's unfair to either men or women that breast enlargement is not only possible but common whereas penis enlargement is still experimental (as far as I know) and it is still taboo (maybe only in my perception but not others). Maybe sexual enhancement wasn't the main point of this thread, though.

Penis enlargement seems very odd in the absence of micropenis or some similar issue. Breast enlargement is an unfortunate cultural phenomenon... men do not just like large breasts, proportionality is effected, and it's just a rough procedure however you look at it. I know a lot of guys who think they look great, but for myself, and at least as many guys, fake breasts (or enhanced... whatever) are either a turn-off (visually) or at least not a turn-on.

I don't know how women feel about penile enlargement... is there an aesthetic there, or is it purely a functional issue? My gut says it's almost entirely for the benefit of the man's confidence, but that's a hell of a solution to that, no?

Anyway, sexual enhancement definitely wasn't the point of the thread, BUT, it's by far the most common kind of surgical AND chemical enhancement out there, so it should be.

 

[D H]

BUT, it's by far the most common kind of surgical AND chemical enhancement out there, so it should be.

Not even close! Almost all children in the advanced world have their immunity artificially enhanced, for example. Another example, with some wikiscraping, about three times as many people undergo refractive eye surgery versus breast augmentation in the US.

The original post was about human enchancement technologies, not necessarily surgery. I would consider my eyeglasses to be a rather necessary enhancement for me. The very purpose of medical science is to enhance human conditions and is chock-full of what I would call "human enhancement technologies".

Clothing is yet another human enhancement technology. My winter clothes, for example, will come in handy in just a few months. While most women do not get breast augmentation surgery, lots of them do wear push up bras and the like. Those apparently do come in quite handy in reeling in the guys. We males also wear clothes to enhance our appearance. How is clothing not an example of a human enhancement technology?

 

[Proton Soup]

all i want to know is when is my brain getting an ethernet port, and will there be a danger of losing my ghost in the machine ?

 

[nismaratwork]

Not even close! Almost all children in the advanced world have their immunity artificially enhanced, for example. Another example, with some wikiscraping, about three times as many people undergo refractive eye surgery versus breast augmentation in the US.

The original post was about human enchancement technologies, not necessarily surgery. I would consider my eyeglasses to be a rather necessary enhancement for me. The very purpose of medical science is to enhance human conditions and is chock-full of what I would call "human enhancement technologies".

Clothing is yet another human enhancement technology. My winter clothes, for example, will come in handy in just a few months. While most women do not get breast augmentation surgery, lots of them do wear push up bras and the like. Those apparently do come in quite handy in reeling in the guys. We males also wear clothes to enhance our appearance. How is clothing not an example of a human enhancement technology?

Well under this, the greatest human enhancement is probably iodine in salt, and fortified breads. I don't disagree with you at all, and I should have said "cosmetic surgeries" instead... my bad. I realize that this thread is more about what Proton Soup is talking about, but when think of a human enhancement, I'm not thinking about "cooking food" in the list. Enhancement is definitely in a surgical/chemical/technological context in this thread... even vaccines prompt the body to respond and are not persistent, which I think excludes it from this thread.

Oh, I had no CLUE about the eye surgery however... I'm pleased, but surprised.

 

[brainstorm]

I don't know how women feel about penile enlargement... is there an aesthetic there, or is it purely a functional issue? My gut says it's almost entirely for the benefit of the man's confidence, but that's a hell of a solution to that, no?

Tastes and aesthetic preferences are as varied as appearances and body types itself. However, if you want to do some easy research into penis size preferences, all you have to do is read the personal ads on craigslist. These may not be representative per se' but there are certainly enough ads that express a desire for big(ger) ones. I can't believe I'm mentioning this in a physicsforum post but the fact is that it is relevant data and if you want to understand human behavior you can't shy away from the data because it's ridiculous or embarrassing.

 

[nismaratwork]

Oh my... has anyone noticed that the actual title of this thread is human "enchancement"? I think my magical items should count too.

I don't know... it's one thing for a guy to lie on craigslist or be seeking a bigg'un... it's another to have surgery on your johnson!

 

[brainstorm]

I don't know... it's one thing for a guy to lie on craigslist or be seeking a bigg'un... it's another to have surgery on your johnson!

If people have elective surgery on their faces, breasts, body fat, stomachs, scalps, and breasts for cosmetic reasons, why not have penis-enlargement surgery. If, in fact, larger penises seem to be BOTH more attractive aesthetically and are more fulfilling functionally, such surgery might be even more sensible than a hair-transplant.

The problem is that while breasts have a public aesthetic function, since their size/shape is visually apparent in most situations, penis size is really only visible/functional during sex or other situations that involve nudity, which for most people is limited, I assume. So while penis enlargements might provide a great deal of happiness to certain people in their very private lives, they wouldn't have the overall cultural effect that breast-augmentation has had since it has become popular.

 

[lisab]

If people have elective surgery on their faces, breasts, body fat, stomachs, scalps, and breasts for cosmetic reasons, why not have penis-enlargement surgery. If, in fact, larger penises seem to be BOTH more attractive aesthetically and are more fulfilling functionally, such surgery might be even more sensible than a hair-transplant.

The problem is that while breasts have a public aesthetic function, since their size/shape is visually apparent in most situations, penis size is really only visible/functional during sex or other situations that involve nudity, which for most people is limited, I assume. So while penis enlargements might provide a great deal of happiness to certain people in their very private lives, they wouldn't have the overall cultural effect that breast-augmentation has had since it has become popular.

Wow, I wasn't aware there was a cultural effect of breast augmentation! What is it?

 

[haxtor21]

back to the OPs topic... I think that we are destined to get there considering how relatively fast our technology is evolving. I can imagine the future being gene manipulation and ultimately extending life by many many years. The problem that I see is that this will create a even larger gap between the rich and the poor, thus history will keep repeating itself. Even further down the line i can see we will all kill each other, then the roller coaster of humanity will start all over again from scratch.

Gee if only we could all live like Gods how nice this world would be.

 

[brainstorm]

Wow, I wasn't aware there was a cultural effect of breast augmentation! What is it?

Are you kidding? Are you oblivious to the degree to which the female figure graces every possible media image? I would venture to say it peaked with the use of computer animation to augment them for Lara Croft in the Tomb Raider movie, but I believe I read an article a while ago that women entering university actually worry about being stigmatized if they don't augment. That means that it has become a standard expectation for them to be big. Hopefully, this has or will eventually lead to appreciation for other aspects of figure than breast-size, which I think it has. Still, I wonder what will ever get women and men over the fascination with large penises since these are more hidden and taboo to seek (at least outside of craigslist).

 

[Oerg]

maybe the OP is referring to enhancements where there will be a positive financial outcome. Say a procedure for modifying genetic code such that the person involved is smarter, or having any other desired trait that would result in a more financially rewarding life. Except that this procedure is expensive, so the rich get richer and the poor would not be able to afford such an enhancement.

 

[D H]

Since the OP started this thread almost three years ago and since the OP was last active about two years ago, it is a bit difficult to ascertain and verify the original intent (if any) of this thread.

My point is that we crossed that bridge ten thousand years ago or so when humans first started splinting bones, performing trepanning, wearing clothes, and farming. Everything after those initial first steps is a difference of degree, not kind.

That said, the degrees have gotten rather large in the last 150 years or so. We live in a completely different world than that of 1860. The world of 1860 was not all that different from the world of 1710 or 1560. Yes, we had had some rather important revolutions in the US and in France, but subsistence farming was the standard way of life in 4000 BC, in 1560, in 1710 and even in 1860. Today less than 2% of the US population lives on farms, and the farmers of today (at least in the developed world) are anything but subsistence farmers.

 

[DanP]

For a little I have been wondering about whether it is better for humanity to embrace human enchancement technologies. I can't come to any conclusion, because there seem to be valid arguments on both sides.

Valid For: quality of life can improve because people see the world a little more correctly and with less social bias in their thinking..far as I can tell.

Valid Against: Rich can afford it and division between rich and poor becomes larger...

Looking at resources on the internet on the topic, this appears to be a fairly complex issue and people who can attempt answers that hold ground appear to be philosophers. So I thought this was a good place to start a discussion on the topic. Care to share your musings?

Human enhancement is already being done. Plastic surgery for example. So yeah, it;s practical.

I have nothing against it. If you can make a better "you", go doit.

 

[Newai]

I would caution another perspective to this. As long as we can avoid a singularity-marriage to human technological modification and enhancement, we might be okay. But I can see a future where people have access to cheap modifications and are able to do extraordinary things. On a limited level, we already have that with computers; one miscreant can write a little virus and bring down networks. So, with that in mind, I leave you all with the inevitable question, "What would Steve Austin do?" I just hope the next Steve Austin has a good heart.

 

[DanP]

I would caution another perspective to this. As long as we can avoid a singularity-marriage to human technological modification and enhancement, we might be okay. But I can see a future where people have access to cheap modifications and are able to do extraordinary things. On a limited level, we already have that with computers; one miscreant can write a little virus and bring down networks. So, with that in mind, I leave you all with the inevitable question, "What would Steve Austin do?" I just hope the next Steve Austin has a good heart.

Doesn't matter. Augmented felons, augmented law enforcers. Things won't change much :P

 

[Newai]

Doesn't matter. Augmented felons, augmented law enforcers. Things won't change much :P

It does matter. Things will change a lot. It only takes a few, or one, to wreak havoc on a large scale, even with "augmented law enforcers." After all, law enforcement is largely responsive, not preventative.

 

[DanP]

It does matter. Things will change a lot. It only takes a few, or one, to wreak havoc on a large scale, even with "augmented law enforcers." After all, law enforcement is largely responsive, not preventative.

With this thinking, we can as well go all to sleep and call it quits. For any progress in sciences and technology has the potential to be used as a weapon or otherwise misused.Human enhancement happens before our eyes. Sports is an area where this usually happens in a natural way and during a long time spawn, but nevertheless is an enhancement process. Its hard to imagine for many how much more stronger and faster are those athletes compared to a "un-enhanced" human.

Cosmetic surgery is another place where augmentations have a large impact in our day to day life. You can correct natures flaws.

After all, we go to schools / expensive colleges and learn from our life experiences to better ourselves. We do sports to better ourselves physically. Artificial human enhancement would be just another minor step in this direction.

 

[nismaratwork]

With this thinking, we can as well go all to sleep and call it quits. For any progress in sciences and technology has the potential to be used as a weapon or otherwise misused.


Human enhancement happens before our eyes. Sports is an area where this usually happens in a natural way and during a long time spawn, but nevertheless is an enhancement process. Its hard to imagine for many how much more stronger and faster are those athletes compared to a "un-enhanced" human.

Cosmetic surgery is another place where augmentations have a large impact in our day to day life. You can correct natures flaws.

After all, we go to schools / expensive colleges and learn from our life experiences to better ourselves. We do sports to better ourselves physically. Artificial human enhancement would be just another minor step in this direction.

There is the cost of military combat worthy enhancements... I would expect, as with firearms and explosives, to see police get it first and more. Yes, some criminals have cut down AK-47s, but except for major insurgencies, its the military and police that have the kit and the training. I suspect the same will be true of "cybernetic" type enhancements.

 

[DanP]

There is the cost of military combat worthy enhancements... I would expect, as with firearms and explosives, to see police get it first and more. Yes, some criminals have cut down AK-47s, but except for major insurgencies, its the military and police that have the kit and the training. I suspect the same will be true of "cybernetic" type enhancements.

if cyber-implants come to pass in the future, probably the costs of implementation will be initially out of reach for the vast majority of humans.


Even a garbagety plastic surgery, how many persons you know who would doit and cannot afford the costs of implementation ? I know several.

 

[mugaliens]

I can't afford it, but I don't begrudge those who can. After all, they (or their families) worked either harder, smarter, or both to get where they are. Let 'em enjoy their spoils.

 

[brainstorm]

I can't afford it, but I don't begrudge those who can. After all, they (or their families) worked either harder, smarter, or both to get where they are. Let 'em enjoy their spoils.

Why does there need to be legitimation through merit for people to enjoy the spoils of their power? Why can't power be sufficient legitimation for its own exercise. I.e. whether or not they worked harder, are smarter, or whatever, they have access to the privileges that others don't. You can question the legitimacy of it all you want but why should it be otherwise? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely - and corruption is its own consequence.

 

[Newai]

With this thinking, we can as well go all to sleep and call it quits. For any progress in sciences and technology has the potential to be used as a weapon or otherwise misused.


Human enhancement happens before our eyes. Sports is an area where this usually happens in a natural way and during a long time spawn, but nevertheless is an enhancement process. Its hard to imagine for many how much more stronger and faster are those athletes compared to a "un-enhanced" human.

Cosmetic surgery is another place where augmentations have a large impact in our day to day life. You can correct natures flaws.

After all, we go to schools / expensive colleges and learn from our life experiences to better ourselves. We do sports to better ourselves physically. Artificial human enhancement would be just another minor step in this direction.

We're not resigning or quitting. You're right about how technology and its future will make our lives better. There's no arguing there.

I'm only looking at the impact of especially advanced technology and how idiots would easily access and wield it:

Doesn't matter. Augmented felons, augmented law enforcers. Things won't change much :P

Welcome to the nuclear age. We can now annihilate the entire living planet in one day. Iran, NKorea, China, Pakistan, India, and many others, are MAD as it is. A government also enforces law, and that means using the latest, greatest technologies. Unfortunately, there's no guarantee that a government's leader isn't batshat insane.

Your point isn't a comforting one.

 

[DanP]

Welcome to the nuclear age. We can now annihilate the entire living planet in one day. Iran, NKorea, China, Pakistan, India, and many others, are MAD as it is. A government also enforces law, and that means using the latest, greatest technologies. Unfortunately, there's no guarantee that a government's leader isn't batshat insane.

Your point isn't a comforting one.

Im not here to comfort you or hold your hand :P Nor is the government and it's leaders. My point is , get used to whatever world you'll have to live in.

 

[Newai]

Im not here to comfort you or hold your hand :P Nor is the government and it's leaders. My point is , get used to whatever world you'll have to live in.

And my point is, we might not have a world to live in. That is a possibility, however unlikely. Hence the caution I wrote earlier.