How Science Can Build a Better You. How far would you go to modify yourself using the latest medical technology?

  • metta

    Posts: 39144

    Nov 09, 2012 7:08 AM GMT
    How Science Can Build a Better You

    How far would you go to modify yourself using the latest medical technology?


    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/sunday-review/how-science-can-build-a-better-you.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 7:14 AM GMT
    Why would anyone want to modify perfection? icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 4:05 PM GMT
    The thought of doing better than what is physically possible does sound quite appealing.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Nov 09, 2012 5:08 PM GMT
    increase my killing power, eh?
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Nov 09, 2012 5:12 PM GMT
    Why not? I've always dreamed of being a cyborg.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 5:21 PM GMT
    Well, how about replacing some of the parts, before they wear out?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 5:33 PM GMT
    Eh. The only thing I can think of is a cybernetic eye. Detect heat signatures, monitor bodyheat of other people, identify friend/foe...gay/straight....

    I do not like the idea of medication/artificial ways of increasing intelligence. Very dangerous waters. How long before we simply transplant ourselves into an android shell?
  • imperator

    Posts: 626

    Nov 09, 2012 7:31 PM GMT
    metta8 saidHow Science Can Build a Better You

    How far would you go to modify yourself using the latest medical technology?


    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/sunday-review/how-science-can-build-a-better-you.html



    I have no moral objections to any degree of human enhancement. They're our bodies, they're ours to modify, and it wouldn't be "unnatural" (if that even matters-- to me it doesn't) because any expression of our animal intellect is natural. My only ethical concern would be the the 'economies' of modification-- I don't feel that it should be commercialized. The technology should be made as readily available to the disadvantaged as to the privileged (that is, free for anyone who wants to peacefully improve their lives through augmentation). It should also have failsafes built in first so that, for instance, civil authorities could remotely cut power to the bionic arms that Joe Shmoe is using to rob the bank. I know that sounds contradictory to the 'free for all' ethos suggested by my preferred egalitarian distribution model, but it isn't: it is the prerogative of the peaceful society that develops such technology to make sure it's used peaceably. I also think such failsafes should cut both ways-- combat augmentations to soldiers, for example, should be limited to working in the performance of duties approved by the population-- no 'supersoldiers' going to war unless the people they're charged with protecting consent to their deployment. Something similar should be in place for law enforcement.

    Basically I think that the technology of human augmentation-- since it's the product of a civil society's work-- should be available to benefit everyone in society equally, as long as they don't use it to undermine the same society that produced it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 7:55 PM GMT
    Forget upgrades, just upload my consciousness to a simulated reality where I can create/be anything I want.
  • kevmoran

    Posts: 1543

    Nov 10, 2012 4:33 AM GMT
    I'd be a total fan. Even in those dangerous android implant movies... the androids always seem pretty happy.