Wednesday, February 22, 2012

T,R 8:25am

31 comments:

Diego Pinzon said...

“...That means that, unless they harm someone else directly, you should be able to do as you please.”

This is where I begin to sway from my stance that transhumanism should not be blocked by any means by laws, politics, or religion. There is little way of knowing whether transhumanism will in fact not harm someone else directly unless you regulate the hell out of what you can do to become transhuman. It brings me a cognitive dissonance.

My proposed protocol for allowing say “cognitive drug X”, which for my purposes is a pill that would make a human a “superthinker”, is that the FDA will have to regulate and mandate how this drug is made, who can take this drug, who can sell this drug, who can prescribe this drug, and so on. So we see here where I am at odds with my stance that I am PRO-transhumanist.

If I stand by “my body; my choice,” as I do, than how am I capable to in the same breath say that the drug needs to be regulated by a governing body which by definition is an agency who sets standards to control what people can or cannot do???

Lets make this example real for a minute. Say for instance there are no regulations and a teenager has been taking “drug X” so they can do better in school. They get straight A’s and graduate Summa Cum Laude. They grow up and take an unfortunate turn in the opposite direction and become schizophrenic. Now this person who is a superthinker has an incredible cognitive ability but a distorted reality. It can easily be said that if a normal human being with schizophrenia makes decisions based on their view of reality, than a superthinker with extraordinary thinking abilities will make even more extreme decisions based on an even more distorted reality. Potentially bringing great harm to the people around them.

It brings me back to my point; I would love the right to take this drug and become a superthinker, but without knowing who else is taking this drug and for what purposes, or if I will even go crazy while I am taking it, than it scares the hell out of me.

Granted, a counter argument would be to say that this same drug can have a chemical in it that would prevent the mind from losing stability and not “go crazy.” Then you would need to add an agent to the pill which will keep the person from using their great ability to gain power and oppress other humans, it will have to suppress racist tendencies in case a racist takes it, it would have to reduce violent tendencies in case a mass murderer takes it, and so on and so on. But this wouldn’t be possible without some sort of regulating entity.

“...it depends on the nature of those conditions whether the directions of the modifications effected shall be upward or downward.”

I love this quote.

atRifF said...

Interesting argument, Diego.

Nelson Bermudez said...

I think people do things without rationalization. They go with the trends and don't realize how unconscious they truly are. In my opinion once something starts to physically harm or change you; you shouldn't do it. And if you can't stop from doing it moderation is key. But you should NEVER let yourself go to the substance, or harsh change.

Anonymous said...

I would say that I'm moderately transhumanist, but very biocentric. I do not believe that humans are more important or "special" than any other of Earth's organisms. I don't believe that our death is any different than the death of a dog, or fish, or ant, for that matter. I believe that our arrogance, as a specie, has caused more problems than it has solved. We, as humans, think we can solve every problem, fix everything (whether it is broken or not), and have greater worth than everything around us.

The topic of transhumanism that I have the most conflicting beliefs, but feel very strongly about is voluntary amputation.

First, how do we differentiate what is necessary or isn't morally-conflicting from what is purely superficial or is morally conflicting? I was a passenger in a car-accident that left me in a coma for 6 weeks and with a paralyzed left-arm. I would love to have a bionic left-arm that was just as capable as my left-arm was before the accident. But what if this bionic arm is more capable than a human's arm (it is outrageously strong, it doesn't tire, it doesn't need blood & oxygen to feed the muscles, etc)? Then, if I have this "superior" bionic arm, why shouldn't everybody be allowed to have a "superior" bionic arm, even though they have two fully functional human arms? This is where we arrive at a major dilemma. What is beneficial and what is detrimental? What is morally right and what is morally wrong? What is necessary and what is "going to far"? How do we go about answering these questions?

I believe that I should be allowed to have a fully-functioning bionic arm that can do as much as a human arm, but no more. I don't want my left, bionic, arm to have any sort of advantage over my right-arm. Anything beyond that, I feel is morally wrong; but why? Is everyone else going to agree with me that anything beyond normal is morally wrong? And, what is "normal"? Does this get to the point that it's considered plastic surgery. Is plastic surgery morally wrong? I've always been vehemently opposed to super-ficial plastic surgery, especially breast implants, but why? I've had major plastic surgery in an attempt to reconstruct my face with titanium plates, rods, and screws after that same automobile accident. So, why is it that I feel it is morally acceptable that I've had plastic surgery to reconstruct my face, but it isn't morally acceptable for a woman to get larger breasts? Is it not for superficial reasons that my face was reconstructed (although I did not make that choice, I was in a coma)? These kind of contradictions come back to the duality of man, and the longer man is around, the more of these problems we will have to confront, and these decisions can drastically alter the course of humans and human existence.

-Blair Mrachek

Anonymous said...

I would say that I'm moderately transhumanist, but very biocentric. I do not believe that humans are more important or "special" than any other of Earth's organisms. I don't believe that our death is any different than the death of a dog, or fish, or ant, for that matter. I believe that our arrogance, as a specie, has caused more problems than it has solved. We, as humans, think we can solve every problem, fix everything (whether it is broken or not), and have greater worth than everything around us.

The topic of transhumanism that I have the most conflicting beliefs, but feel very strongly about is voluntary amputation.

First, how do we differentiate what is necessary or isn't morally-conflicting from what is purely superficial or is morally conflicting? I was a passenger in a car-accident that left me in a coma for 6 weeks and with a paralyzed left-arm. I would love to have a bionic left-arm that was just as capable as my left-arm was before the accident. But what if this bionic arm is more capable than a human's arm (it is outrageously strong, it doesn't tire, it doesn't need blood & oxygen to feed the muscles, etc)? Then, if I have this "superior" bionic arm, why shouldn't everybody be allowed to have a "superior" bionic arm, even though they have two fully functional human arms? This is where we arrive at a major dilemma. What is beneficial and what is detrimental? What is morally right and what is morally wrong? What is necessary and what is "going to far"? How do we go about answering these questions?

I believe that I should be allowed to have a fully-functioning bionic arm that can do as much as a human arm, but no more. I don't want my left, bionic, arm to have any sort of advantage over my right-arm. Anything beyond that, I feel is morally wrong; but why? Is everyone else going to agree with me that anything beyond normal is morally wrong? And, what is "normal"? Does this get to the point that it's considered plastic surgery. Is plastic surgery morally wrong? I've always been vehemently opposed to super-ficial plastic surgery, especially breast implants, but why? I've had major plastic surgery in an attempt to reconstruct my face with titanium plates, rods, and screws after that same automobile accident. So, why is it that I feel it is morally acceptable that I've had plastic surgery to reconstruct my face, but it isn't morally acceptable for a woman to get larger breasts? Is it not for superficial reasons that my face was reconstructed (although I did not make that choice, I was in a coma)? These kind of contradictions come back to the duality of man, and the longer man is around, the more of these problems we will have to confront, and these decisions can drastically alter the course of humans and human existence.

-Blair Mrachek

Anonymous said...

in my reli....NO, in my BELIEF there;s a saying since our goal is to be like christ then that also means that our body should also be like christ and that we shouldn't put toxins or torture it, like surgery, etc.those are the etremties. there's also a saying that our bodie dosen't belong to us which is to say that our life is not ours but the choices we make with it is. to some extent that should cover "my body, my choice" on my part. on the other parts i do think that what we do to our bodies affects other people as well either positively or negatively,

ex: say a famous rapper decides we wants a certain haircut, then the people that are infuenced by him also want that haircut, whter it looks nice or ridiculous but because that rapper has fans that are influenced by him they decide to change their hairstyle. - there;s more just lazy.
the most important part about "my body,my choice" is the thinking that a person is alone. we may think that our choice isn't affecting anybody, but in actuality its probably affecting people more than you know!!, which is what called a "society" cause if that was the case things like:

1. people weaing their pajamas to a job interview or school
2.people breaking the snack machine
3. suicidees commiting suicide wherever
and so on. and one last thing... "my body,choice" is the reason why some people say" i don't care what you do as long as it doesn't affect me" or something like that.

-Andy Ermilus

Charles V. Davis, Jr. said...

Transhumanism, as I see it, will be the demise of mankind. This "belief" that altering the natural human state for the sake of technological advancement is truly preposterous and quite bothering, indeed. I am speaking from a religious standpoint when I say this but the Bible and other versions of God's word say we were all created in His liking. If we start to modify our appearances (.i.e. bionic arms, prosthetic cyber brains, gender reassignments, etc.) we would be showing how ungrateful we are and how much we don't appreciate the lives we’ve been given. This entire transhumanism idea will create a society of robots. Seemingly, there will be no individuality, no expressionism, no creativity and certainly no HUMAN-like qualities. The world would come to an artificial period of design and manufacturing. Everything about everyone would be a total lie and disgrace to the human race as we know it. With adaptions like this I can only hope future generations are equipped to deal with these changes and, pray they learn to live in such a strange world.

Jonathan Kohn said...

Transhumanism is anything but an intellectual movement. Humans are just a bunch of corrupt bums who live their lives seeking the good opinion of others. Transhumanism is just a modern liberal approach to "fixing" the fact that an individual is not as perfect as his peer. If a student is a little hyper and cannot work as quickly as his peers, just give him a pill. Cant sleep? Take a pill! We have turned into a society of euphemisms, we are afraid of reality and instead of approaching it head to head, we just dodge it with words or actions. Take the word "poor", you hear that word and you feel it, liberals have replaced it with the "economically disadvantage". Its a simple as this, we have established a system that conceals imperfection. There is no shame in imperfection. Instead of finding a way around the imperfection how about we use some reason and logic to fix the problems we are facing and not distort it with silly language.

Cami029 said...

I believe that in a way yes we do have a right to do what we want with OUR bodies, but there should be a limit to that. If it harms us or causes harm to the ones around us then I don't think that we should do just "anything." If someone wants to have a surgery to enhance their looks, or get a tattoo, or lets say get an abortion, then yes it is that persons "right" to do what they please with "their" bodies.

Anonymous said...

I was watching a show called, "Taboo" and a women wanted to become a paraplegic. There are many people all around the world who are born with no function of their legs or get into an accident causing there leg to be amputated meanwhile there are people such as this women who want to loose the ability to walk. She believes that she was born to never use her legs that she faked a accident to make it look like she is a paraplegic. Eventually she had a surgery to remove any function on her legs. Does this make any sense? No, but that isn't for anyone to say. The real question is, is it effecting anyone? No it is not and if it is not then let it be. Like the post said "My body, my choice". Although it is weird, some people like different things.
-Rebecca Soza

Nadine Moltimer said...

"My body, my choice". True, it is your body and your choice. On the other hand there is a limit. Iv'e always lived by this rule if i have to harm someone or something to get my way then it is morally wrong. Yes, I strongly believe that individuals take "My body, my choice" to the extreme. For example there are certain pills prescribed to those individuals who have been injured and indeed need those pills to help regulate pain. Then you have other people who take this quote to the next level and find a way to get these pills for their personal usage. Meaning addicts who need them to get high, to feel good. That is taking it to far and is abusing the purpose of the pills. Not only is that person commiting a crime that person is also harming those around him\her. You tend to become another person under the influence. If you think that getting high is the only reason why people are taking unprescribed drugs then think again because there are people out there who seem to think that it makes them smarter and can not function without it.

Elizabeth G said...

I agree with “my body, my choice”. I do not think any group effort can stop what some people want to do in this world. Personally, I’d like to move to a farm and grow my own food, and live and die humbly and peacefully. I don’t know why anyone wants to live forever. That actually sounds like hell. A lot of the “problems” we have these days make so many people seem like brats: “I’m going to die too young, I’m too young to have this baby, I want to be a different sex, I want to be smarter and more powerful”
I’m sorry but you are what you are. Own it and begin enjoying life and stop fighting everything. At the same time, if you choose to accept you’ll have a miserable existence unless you start seeking longer life spans, and synthetic intelligence, pills to fix things that don’t need fixing, and all sorts of unnatural things, who am I to stop you?
I agree that these transhuman methods can possibly affect other people so it’s not fair and might infringe on others rights. But, I feel that every person on this planet is a domino knocking the other over. Others constantly affect us positively and negatively, but that is a whole other subject.
So… yes! Be gay, get married to your partner, have an abortion if you want to, sell your body for sex, do every drug this planet has to offer, sign up for assisted suicide, or jump off a bridge if you want to. I personally don’t want to and don’t condone it. But if I wanted to engage, I wouldn’t want anyone to stop me. Just don’t drag anyone into your problems, and I won’t have a problem with it.
Some argue that these changes may cause human extinction… so what? This planet deserves a break from humanity… we’re greedy, and gross!

Elizabeth G said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Denise Monteiro said...

“My body, my choice.” I accept the fact that everyone should have the right to choose what they want for themselves. “Because you have the right to do something, you are also responsible for the results of that decision”.
“Transhumanism is a philosophy that analyzes and promotes the use of science and technology to overcome human limitations (intellectual, physical and psychological), and thus able to improve human condition.” But until when these changes will start to affect our lives? Shouldn’t we try to protect our somatic rights?
I think we should support the transhumanism in terms that it can help to change some issues that we now have, but I don’t think this technology will only be used for good things. Many of the technologies we have today, is used for wrong means, such as war and power over the less favorable.

Anonymous said...

I would think that I am a biblical transhumanist as it relates to the bible because the bible talks about the renewing of the mind coming to a higher level of understanding, transforming into a more perfect being not worldly, depending on the flesh, (physical) but rather spiritual, eternal . What I mean by spiritual is changing your natural instinct to a higher level of existent. Eternal is living for ever without weighted down by physical animalistic desires. Not just trying to outdo or out gain each other, but trying to exist in unity. The sprit and soul of a man must break free from the flesh and the instinctive nature of a creature. If we do not renew our minds we are forced to live and die as mealy an animal following the old paths and trails that leads to the old watering hole then from the watering hole to the old mass grave yard that all animals and creatures must go leading straight into extinction. Fear has limited the transhumanist , they have no dreams, ambitions or revelations, they are blinded in the mind limited in the possibilities of the possible evolution of human beings by basic human inner self development. I m not talking about any form of artificial intelligent or any drug , magic potion, magic smoke but simply changing the mind to incorporate the understanding that we can become immortal ,live forever a living soul. That’s if you believe the bible or that you have a soul. To many time and many different philosophers try to explain higher intellectual , intelligent super powered people that are the next generation of human evolution but it lack the realness of self and the compassion to include everyone else . what I am saying is that we can create a robot, a drug to try to induce someone’s brain to function better and faster, but that is still artificial we must attain this transformation not by a artificial stimuli but by the soul and the spirit of regeneration through are thoughts and our own cognitive abilities in turn puts everyone on the same playing field. Not a time capsule or stases pod but the reality that all flesh is corruptible and will fade away out of time into simple existence into the eternal after life. The modern transhumanist to me deals with only a selected few that could afforded the potion or spaceship because they think that there is no afterlife they fear that life will just cease to exist after death that normal people would destroy themselves without the aristocratic elite to lead the masses. So they such and invent more and more seeking looking for any fables and incantation to prolong their life believing that the world will cease to exist without them. Meanwhile the poor and needy have no choice but to desipare only leaving the brightest and the most philosophical ,richest ,half human half machine biotical (TREMNIATOR) to rule the earth.

Jonathan F said...

I would add to the "my mind, my body", as I do agree with this idea. Although we must first overcome abortion, same sex marriage, etc. before transhumanism can even be taken to the supreme court. But if you offer someone the possibility to have all these improvements to their body and mind, they would not feel as against it as they do with same sex marriage. I would say that as long as people are being screened, in terms of age and making sure the choice is a personal and legitimate one. In other words, is it external factors that are influencing your decision? are you free?

Luckily generations after generations people are becoming more open minded, is this evolution?

Queenlan Cherenfant said...

When it comes to transhumanism I am neutral to the idea but my question are what about those kids who are girls and feel as if they aren’t? Is that part of transhumsnism or physical changes would need to be done? Honestly why is it hard to just accept your human nature why strive to be something else? One thing about us humans is the fact that we are never satisfied with what we have, we always want better. I also have been doing some reading to further my knowledge on transhumanism and it mentioned the vision that transhumanists have . Imagine a world with no disease, no ageing, and no pain – a world where you might even live forever. This is their vision isn’t that unethical aren’t our bodies’ made to die? Life is necessary for death. I’m pretty sure trying to extend our life span isn’t healthy either.

Queenlan Cherenfant said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOv7E9T7pjQ

Ralph Bonnet said...

Ce sujet est le plus beau sujet qui s'est posté durant ce trimestre. Je ne pretend pas supporter le biocentrisme parce qu'il n'ya pas d'autre réflexion au centre de l'univers apart les hommes qui se font eux-memes l'éssence de cet entité. Je prend l'antithèse de ce texte et je le support automatiquement en appuiyant sur le 5éme commendement qui dit: "Tu ne tueras point" selon exode 20. Mankittrick dit: " my body, my choice" c'est vrai parce que c'est mon corps, mais si c'etait vrai, mon corps est ma possession pourquoi la police persiste a mener des investigations après une personne s'est suicidée! Ce que Munkittnick dit est vrai et logique, mais pourquoi acceptera modifier mon corps pendant que mes organes somatiques continues a produire les memes hormones. Everything is possible even the government don't give authorization to do it. Why change skin color? After that I can't walk in the sun.
Il n'ya pas de somatiques droits parceque tout ce que nous avons a éte creé par les hommes. Cela fais réference a l'enthropocentrisme. Je ne pretends pas classer le droit a la nourriture, de respirer, de dormir, de parler, comme étant des droits innés ou somatiques. Peut on dire reproduire est un droit somatique,... non! Parceque c'est notre volonté.

Ralph Leonard said...

This topic is the most beautiful subject which is posted in this quarter. I do not claim to support the biocentrism because there is no other thought in the center of the universe apart men who are themselves the essence of this entity. I took the antithesis of this text and I support automatically by pressing the 5th commendement that says "Thou shalt not kill" according exodus 20. Mankittrick said: "my body, my choice" is true because this is my body, but if it was true, my body is my possession was why police still investigate after a person committed suicide! What Munkittnick said is true and logical, but why accept change my body while my ongoing somatic organs to produce the same hormones. Everything is Possible Even The government do not give authorization to do it. Why change skin color? After That I can not walk in the sun. There are no somatic rights because all we have was created by men. This enthropocentrisme am referring to. I do not pretend to classify the right to food, breathe, sleep, talk, as their birthright, or somatic. Can be said is a right reproducing somatic ... no! Because it is our will.

Daniel Gonzalez said...

I'm torn on the issue of Transhumanism. The scientist inside me LOVES the idea of genetic and biological augmentation. How amazing would it be to have 4x zoom eyes with night vision? Pretty amazing. However, some irrational, illogical, possibly nostalgic part of me abhors the idea of dehumanization, preferring the relative disadvantages of natural human life to the illegitimacy of transhuman life. In addition, until we develop self-regenerating machinery, many of the mechanics behind transhuman life will be subject to frequent repairs and updates. This is neither a strong nor a convincing argument, and in all likelihood I will be working to produce the technology that will allow Transhumanism in the future, but this is just my personal Two Cents on the topic.

Anonymous said...

Desmond Ford said...

I would have to take the stance of opposing transhumanism. Though it is legally but not readily morally accepted in todays society the belief in, "my, body, my choice" is somewhat correct but morally wrong and unethical.

Personally, I believe transhumanism is deceiving. And by no means am I lobbying for the ban of transhumanism, but it is my belief that those who partake in altering themselves are lying to themselves and others. They are taking away the very essence of what makes them, them. That uniqueness is gone, their purity is tainted, they aren't real.

Interestingly, you can compare transhumanism to cheating. They both have similar characteristics, cheating is referred to as an immoral way to achieve a goal, likewise transhumanism can be viewed as transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to achieve a goal whether it be to gain and edge by enhancing the body by means of human intellect, physical appearance, and or psychological capacities.

For example, in baseball, players use performance enhancers to improve their game so they can compete at a higher level than the other players. As a result they become bigger, stronger, and faster and perform at levels their counterparts can't achieve unless they too alter themselves. This is yet another example of transhumanism. Here we can conclude that these players cheated their way to the top by altering the human condition. Which goes back to the point at hand, transhumanism is cheating.

Transhumanism can also be said to be wrong in a religious aspect. In Christianity it is viewed that we were built in the mold of GOD himself, your body is your own, but it is also said that we should treat the body as a temple and that in the end we will be held responsible for our actions.

On another note the body is not a canvass to do what you want built we make the choice do so anyway and way, because of public perception, and commercial influence. Most people who are pro-transhumanist and who choose to alter themselves do so to be accepted and to get ahead, whether it be to catch the eye of a special someone or to fit the mold in order to get a job or whatever.

In conclusion, I agree that society is ever-changing but in the times of our forefather's the idea of transhumanism is outrageous. So why is it so accepted now, why do we like to bend the rules and change the way things are?

Gloria Symister said...

Many people will coin different terns to describe things that will happen in these days. We cannot deny the fact that technology has increased greatly over the past decades. Who has given the wisdom to the guys behind this knowledge? There must be a greater being, all this knowledge, wisdom and wit did not come out of nowhere. As a christian and Bible beliving person I do not belive that every person on this earth will become transhuman. Yes, people can get new limbs, new heart, new eyes and so on but this world is not going to last that long for all of these plans to take place. When the Almighty sees that the children of men are going too far He will put in an appearance. Let us examine the phrase 'my body; my choice' this body is not ours it is on loan to so we must take of it with that mind set. The loaner can take the breath at any time He sees fit. Can transhumanism bring back someone after death. Yes it is your body, your choice but we need to care for this gift. If this is going to happen we will only have robot looking people walking around. That was not the design from the beginning. Adam was created in God's image and we were created in Adam's image. If we can believe in the philosophers and study their writings, we should be able to believe the words of God.

Scott said...

I believe that people should have the inherent right to do whatever they want to do with their own bodies. If a person wants to change his or her physical appearance or donate their body to science, then that is their right to do so. However, if a person decides to get tattoos over 90 percent of their body, along with multiple piercings and so on, they should not expect to be accepted by society as a whole. While it is their body and their choice, there are still going to be people out there with the opinion that such a look is unprofessional. I personally am very intrigued by the thought of half man, half machine creations walking about. With such technology being applied to the human body and mind, the possible benefits could be immeasurable. Humans could reach a new step in the evolutionary chain. However, if we were able to fuse a CPU with a human brain, which of the two would be in control? Would the result cease to be human? These are the kind of ethical questions that we need to address before moving forward with this technology.

Basil and Bread said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bethany Ferraro said...

If trans-humanism’s goal is to reduce disease, world poverty, and suffering, than I can not see how or why anyone could reject it. However, with all advancements in technology there are potential effects that cannot be foreseen if advancements are made as quickly as we have seen in medicine, communications, and science in the past fifty years. Where there is so much unknown knowledge as we expand with breakthroughs in science, it would be impossible to say that anyone could ignore the unpredictability involved.
What is most important is the responsibility taken towards researching all possible outcomes and how they can be handled, in order to advance carefully and responsibly. Certain risks are always at stake when testing for controlled outcomes and the benefits can always seem greater than the risks, but strict guidelines on how we treat trans-humanism is necessary to be sure that the benefits don’t cause additional or worse conditions.
One of the main control factors in leading science is where there is money involved. It is important to have an institution that is not driven by money or controlled by those in possession of it, otherwise the research and results of any testing or implication can be considered tainted with alternative motives. In these cases, it is possible for standards of ethics to be overlooked and corners to be cut in order to produce the results that were looked for by certain sponsors or people involved.
For as much as we discover in the world of science, there is just as much we will not discover until presented with the outcomes, and so it is imperative to humanity and all living species’ survival that precaution and responsibility is taken to expect the unpredictable.

Stephanie Weisson said...

“Transhuman is a term that refers to an evolutionary transition from the human to the posthuman.” Although there are many arguments for and against this topic (legal and/or moral), I believe that one should at least try to view this from the perspective of a somewhat “betterment” of issues in the world today. However, as much as this progression/new idea could be used for the good, it can lead to the negative use of technology and we can become abusive of it. Nevertheless, I believe that there should be a limit (ex: something that might be detrimental to our bodies/us)

Nadia S. Diaz said...

Every human should have the right to do as they please with their own body as long as it does not affect any other person. Technology has its advantages and disadvantages as well. Personally, I believe trans-humanism should be used wisely. As in the medical field, technology could lead to the cure and prevention of diseases. The disadvantages in my opinion are when greed and power interfere and people use it negatively. If that’s the case, where are we leading our society?

Life is not easy as it is, so lots people are going to resort to different ways of enhancing their lifestyle and try to achieve happiness and enlightenment. So if marrying a person of the same sex or if modifying your body enhances your quality of life then go for it. Ideally, trans-humanism should be used for better living conditions.

Kirsten Rincon said...

The first thought that came to my mind after reading this post was "to each his own". That four word sentence pretty much summarizes my viewpoint on this matter of transhumanism. However, if I personally had to make the decision for all of man kind I would vote against it. I don't believe that trying to improve human mental and physical capabilities in order achieve ultimate perfection with the use of science and technology is something that is necessary. I believe that naturally, without any help, we can achieve the pinnacle of our abilities as human beings. But again, it's your body, your mind, and ultimately, your decision. It would be mind-boggling to reach the peak of your physical and mental capabilities and in many ways be able to become what we would call a superhuman but manipulating that by using science and technology feels almost like a cop out to me. I would rather apply that to the universes capabilities than to ourselves directly. Maybe it could be called transuniversism? Just a thought.

Isaac Camargo said...

Transhumanisim can do a lot of damage if it is not controlled properly. Though we all wish to live forever, logic dictates that everything has a beginning and an end. A human that can live forever can cause serious complications to the world and the way people live. Imagine a world three centuries from now where transhumanisim is in full affect but only limited to a very select few. The world has been conquered by a transhuman dictator that has a super robotic body built with armor shields that can live on forever. The rest of the humans are all slaves and do not have this technology or means of replicating it. Everyone is doomed for there is no way to defeat such a person or machine. This could go on for centuries. As Steve Jobs once said “Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new.” And I believe that to the fullest.

“My body, my choice” is not as simple as it may seem to be. The choices one makes can easily cause tremendous amounts of pain and suffering to other people even if at first the decision is only affecting the person who made the choice. Victimless crimes such as prostitution, gambling, and drug use tend to lead to violent and conventional crimes. For instance the drug user who is addicted to heroin can eventually lose his job because he cannot function properly. He then needs money to feed his drug addiction so he robs someone’s home, rob a gas station, or rob someone at gun point. Clearly then, there is a victim but it took a few steps to get there. Another example is someone driving without car insurance and gets into a car accident. The other person’s insurance company must pay for the damages. Every other policyholder then funds the costs of those damages and leads to policy price hikes. The choices we make that we think affect only us, in the long run can and usually affect many more people.

- Isaac Camargo

Anonymous said...

I am not the type of person that gets fired up because of a political discussion, but more of a person that sees both faces of the coin and judges from there. I agree with the idea of “my mind, my body” because it is free will. Governments stablish limitations on us that were not there at the beginning of time. Nature has its own rules and always find the way to restablish itself if there is a problem. However, we as humans with our laws and regulations, are breaking the law of nature and therefore not allowing that process of restablishment. I believe in survival of the fittest, and I know that if we would stop worrying about others and their problems and instead focus on ourselves, we would succeed as those people that did not care about their decisions would fail miserably. I do not agree with the idea that evolution signifies a constant tendency to increased perfection, instead think that evolution is just a process in which nature changes its habits in order to accommodate its individuals to its current factors and regulations.

Daniel Rincon