metta8 saidHow Science Can Build a Better You
How far would you go to modify yourself using the latest medical technology?
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.