Transhumanism.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1806958' date='Mar 14 2009, 10:39 AM']The allegory of the tower of Babel is not such a good pick to justify this transhumanism.

My objection relates to human nature, if man has power sooner or later he will abuse it, what is to prevent transhumans from either being discriminated against in the future by 'Pure' humans or, indeed, vice versa? I like the fable presented in gattaca, whereby people have their features, skills and such forth chosen at birth. This was done to eliminate genetic disease. 'Alleviating human suffering' (I am of course taking out the obvious moral objections to eugenics here and using the fable for an objective standpoint of how this croutons can go very badly), but by trying to change, control WHAT humans are to make them better, they had created a caste-system society with fascistic undertones.

By trying to augment the human body with things that most definately were not meant to be there in the first place, (artificial stuff), you are, in effect, playing God. You are trying to 'perfect' humanity in your own terms. Medical science? I have nothing against, Augments when neccesary? Again I have nothing against. Augments as a public choice? The line I draw starts here. The research can continue and develope for all I care, but I don't want unlimited access to such technology to the public. We WILL abuse it. Sides, it would only be a matter of time before such technology is also militarised, cyborg armies anyone?

Call me reactionary, or close minded all you like, but I adhere to the reality of human nature. Give us power, sooner or later, we will abuse it unless it has constraints. And augments definately mean power, albeit, in a much more physical sense.

The key difference between this 'God-like' technological advancement and that of the last century is primarily that this advancement is screwing around with human beings themselves. Because when you think about it, Space is just another sea, and spacecraft just a different kind of boat. Comparing this to that is like comparing apples and oranges, its a completely different kettle of fish.[/quote]

The comparison with Babel (like my implication in the OP of Christ's imminent return) was deliberate and intended to provoke controversy and caution in regards to the topic(s).

Re: your last paragraph - what about preventative medication? You ingest completely synthesized technology that makes you immune or resistant to a given disease or disorder. What about bullet-proof vests? Why would it be wrong to reinforce your skin cells with a defensive nanotechnology? What about sunblock? Etc. Countless examples could be provided.

[Tufsoles]

I don't mind machines will help us in futhering our advancement but how far is too far?

[Galloglasses' Alt]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1807016' date='Mar 14 2009, 02:43 PM']The comparison with Babel (like my implication in the OP of Christ's imminent return) was deliberate and intended to provoke controversy and caution in regards to the topic(s).

Re: your last paragraph - what about preventative medication? You ingest completely synthesized technology that makes you immune or resistant to a given disease or disorder. What about bullet-proof vests? Why would it be wrong to reinforce your skin cells with a defensive nanotechnology? What about sunblock? Etc. Countless examples could be provided.[/quote]
And where is the line drawn? It basically Genetic perfection through unnatural means. nanotechnology I'm not entirely against, because with such things there is always the possibility that the nanos won't stay in your system forever, I really can't imagine machines that small lasting very long in any respect. Altough the possibility of self replicating nanos causing a sort of artificial cancer worries me slightly. but again: Cyborg armies. Just because they don't happen to have a torso made from pig iron doesn't neccesarily mean they're all that different.

Preventitive medication, like getting shots, i'm not entirely against, if you mean injecting nanos into the system to encourage the growth of natural immunity cells to a specific disease, I'd possibly relent. [i]As long as the buggers aren't gonna stay there.[/i]

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1807090' date='Mar 14 2009, 05:07 PM']Preventitive medication, like getting shots, i'm not entirely against, if you mean injecting nanos into the system to encourage the growth of natural immunity cells to a specific disease, I'd possibly relent. [i]As long as the buggers aren't gonna stay there.[/i][/quote]


So you're against permanent aids or enhancements for the handicapped? What do you think of the brain-wave implants that are allowing paralyzed people to psychically play videogames and surf the web?

[Galloglasses' Alt]

What did I say before? I am NOT agaisnt augments in the case of where they are obviously needed. In the terms of the handicapped, I have no qualms, nanos to help fix a Mental or even a brain deficiency? I have no qualms. Putting nanos into healthy people in case of such things I have qualms. Again, thats another form of genetic purification through unnatural means. If it was some kind of serum, chemical, biological or otherwise that fixed the problem I wouldn't have the same qualms. Augments should be treated like most medical drugs, its there in case you need it, not if you want it. It should not become a commodity.

Implants to help the paralysed surf the web and such like? Sounds interesting but at the same time kind of sad. I'd be more interested in augments that cured them of whatever paralysis they have rather then brain implants.

Edited March 15, 2009 by Galloglasses' Alt

[Socrates]

[Galloglasses' Alt]

We are the Borg. Resistance is futile.

*Zaaaaaaaaaaap*

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1807016' date='Mar 14 2009, 11:43 AM']The comparison with Babel (like my implication in the OP of Christ's imminent return) was deliberate and intended to provoke controversy and caution in regards to the topic(s).

Re: your last paragraph - what about preventative medication? You ingest completely synthesized technology that makes you immune or resistant to a given disease or disorder. What about bullet-proof vests? Why would it be wrong to reinforce your skin cells with a defensive nanotechnology? What about sunblock? Etc. Countless examples could be provided.[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
again from the document Human Persons Created in the Image of God:
[quote]82. The right fully to dispose of the body would imply that the person may use the body as a means to an end he himself has chosen: i.e., that he may replace its parts, modify or terminate it. In other words, a person could determine the finality or teleological value of the body. [b]A right to dispose of something extends only to objects with a merely instrumental value, but not to objects which are good in themselves, i.e., ends in themselves.[/b] The human person, being created in the image of God, is himself such a good. The question, especially as it arises in bioethics, is whether this also applies to the various levels that can be distinguished in the human person: the biological-somatic, the emotional and the spiritual levels.

83. [b]Everyday clinical practice generally accepts a limited form of disposing of the body and certain mental functions in order to preserve life, as for example in the case of the amputation of limbs or the removal of organs. Such practice is permitted by the principle of totality and integrity (also known as the therapeutic principle).[/b] The meaning of this principle is that the human person develops, cares for, and preserves all his physical and mental functions in such a way that (1) lower functions are never sacrificed except for the better functioning of the total person, and even then with an effort to compensate for what is being sacrificed; and (2) the fundamental faculties which essentially belong to being human are never sacrificed, except when necessary to save life.

84. The various organs and limbs together constituting a physical unity are, as integral parts, completely absorbed in the body and subordinate to it. [b]But lower values cannot simply be sacrificed for the sake of higher ones: these values together constitute an organic unity and are mutually dependent.[/b] Because the body, as an intrinsic part of the human person, is good in itself, [b]fundamental human faculties can only be sacrificed to preserve life.[/b] After all, life is a fundamental good that involves the whole of the human person. Without the fundamental good of life, the values – like freedom—that are in themselves higher than life itself also expire. Given that man was also created in God’s image in his bodiliness, he has no right of full disposal of his own biological nature. God himself and the being created in his image cannot be the object of arbitrary human action.

85. [b]For the application of the principle of totality and integrity, the following conditions must be met:[/b] (1) there must be a question of an intervention in the part of the body that is either affected or is the direct cause of the life-threatening situation; (2) there can be no other alternatives for preserving life; (3) there is a proportionate chance of success in comparison with drawbacks; and (4) the patient must give assent to the intervention. The unintended drawbacks and side-effects of the intervention can be justified on the basis of the principle of double effect.

86. Some have attempted to interpret this hierarchy of values to permit the sacrifice of lower functions, like the procreative capacity, for the sake of higher values, like preserving mental health and improving relationships with others. [b]However, the reproductive faculty is here sacrificed in order to preserve elements that may be essential to the person as a functioning totality but are not essential to the person as a living totality.[/b] In fact, the person as a functioning totality is actually violated by the loss of the reproductive faculty, and at a moment when the threat to his mental health is not imminent and could be averted in another way. Furthermore, this interpretation of the principle of totality suggests the possibility of sacrificing a part of the body for the sake of social interests. On the basis of the same reasoning, sterilization for eugenic reasons could be justified on the basis of the interest of the state.[/quote]

more on therapeutic nature:
[quote]92. Therapeutic interventions serve to restore the physical, mental and spiritual functions, placing the person at the center and fully respecting the finality of the various levels in man in relation to those of the person. [b]Possessing a therapeutic character, medicine that serves man and his body as ends in themselves respects the image of God in both.[/b] According to the principle of proportionality, extraordinary life-prolonging therapies must be used when there is a just proportion between the positive results that attend these therapies and possible damage to the patient himself. Therapy may be abandoned, even if death is thereby hastened, when this proportion is absent. A hastening of death in palliative therapy by the administration of analgesics is an indirect effect which, like all side-effects in medicine, can come under the principle of double effect, provided that the dosage is geared to the suppression of painful symptoms and not to the active termination of life.[/quote]

[cmotherofpirl]

What determines one's humanity? The heart, the brain, or the soul?
I would say the soul.

These discussions are not new
I've just finished reading a short story "Last Rites" about a Catholic robot written by Charles Beaument in Oct 1955, published by If:Worlds of Science Fiction Magazine .
Its published in "The Pseudo-People: Androids in science fiction, edited by William Nola c.1965 Berkley Medallioin Books