NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay modification of the Human form. Is it right or wrong? As in the replacement of lost, or hell just removing a limb with a mechanical version. Or modification of the human genome to create a better form of human offspring.

In short my question is: Is the extreme modification of the human form in the interests of creating a new type of human in any way right or wrong?

I think it's a damn good idea. You?

Wrong

Edit: to clarify, only the modifcation of the human genome is actually what I regard to as wrong. It's too dangerouse, too easy to abuse, and against human rights. Unless of course it can be justified because of the nature of the genome which may be defficient.

Like practically every other act, it is amoral.

I'm all for biocybernetics, though I still feel wary of eugenics. The former can be used at any stage, potentially by anyone, and can even be a conscious choice for the recipient, whereas the latter is not only involuntary but also leaves many irreparably inferior people behind.

EDIT: w00t! Post 3k! ^^

Are you talking about manufacturing a human being from the embryonic stage or allowing a human adult to modify him or herself? I'd have problems with the former, but not the latter.

Fine, but I don't want politicians with hypno laser eyes.

Mixed feelings.

As long as it is completely by choice, or due to medical reasons, I am for it, but I am, on the other hand, strongly against goverments using this sort of technology to either control, and, or, "improve" the populace..

Seriosly slippery slope, this subject is *nods*

Mixed feelings.

As long as it is completely by choice, or due to medical reasons, I am for it, but I am, on the other hand, strongly against goverments using this sort of technology to either control, and, or, "improve" the populace..

Seriosly slippery slope, this subject is *nods*

I think its extremely slippery, it's far far far far to easy to abuse.

I guess its alright you can hardly stand in the way of progress, just don’t come whining to me when your child uses his laser vision to burn the house down

Though we can hardly have this kind of debate right now maybe in 200 years…maybe

edit: *gives NSG welcome :fluffle: to Ozzmunia*

I think it's a damn good idea. You?Yes. Such things beyond the control of the affected individuals should hardly be left to a government of the current kind to decide, though. A mad scientist meritocracy would do.

As long as people can do it voluntarily, I have no problem with it. It seems like a very good idea, IMHO. Personally, I can't wait until human augmentation becomes widespread. I am a strong supporter of cybernetics and human enhancement, and I would definitely like the possibility of

I plan to gradually replace my body parts as they age, until I can move to more machine parts and eliminate dependence on biology forever. With the proper technology (and a lot of money), I'll be able to overcome the limitations of biology while still retaining the benefits of having biological parts. Eternal youth, perfect health, enhanced sensory and mental ability, and not to mention total control over when and if I die are all possible with this technology.

But then again, I'm also a very strong Transhumanist, so obviously I am biased towards that side. However, it has to be voluntary unless absolutely vital to health or survival.

I think its extremely slippery, it's far far far far to easy to abuse.
Sadly I agree..It's so damned easy to slip some sort of mind control into these sorts of things..

As long as people can do it voluntarily, I have no problem with it. It seems like a very good idea, IMHO. Personally, I can't wait until human augmentation becomes widespread. I am a strong supporter of cybernetics and human enhancement, and I would definitely like the possibility of

I plan to gradually replace my body parts as they age, until I can move to more machine parts and eliminate dependence on biology forever. With the proper technology (and a lot of money), I'll be able to overcome the limitations of biology while still retaining the benefits of having biological parts. Eternal youth, perfect health, enhanced sensory and mental ability, and not to mention total control over when and if I die are all possible with this technology.

But then again, I'm also a very strong Transhumanist, so obviously I am biased towards that side. However, it has to be voluntary unless absolutely vital to health or survival.

Sounding a bit Vader-esque there. :D

Are you talking about manufacturing a human being from the embryonic stage or allowing a human adult to modify him or herself? I'd have problems with the former, but not the latter.

"Augmentation" implies improving upon something that already exists, so I would say it's the latter. The former is more along the lines of eugenics, which I strongly oppose.

Sounding a bit Vader-esque there. :D

I find your lack of faith disturbing....

But then again, I need to live for a long time to realize my ultimate business plan:

I'm going to turn Io in to a planet-sized smelter and manufacturing plant for producing metals, machinery, and robots from raw materials in the asteroid belt, and I'll need a long time for that to have any chance of succeeding. And I also need to turn Enceladus in to my private mansion-planet...that'll take a while too.

"Augmentation" implies improving upon something that already exists, so I would say it's the latter. The former is more along the lines of eugenics, which I strongly oppose.

It would be pretty damn hard to modify the whole human genome without altering it at embryonic stage.

It would be pretty damn hard to modify the whole human genome without altering it at embryonic stage.

Augmentation is adding to or changing the body rather than altering the genetic code; genetic engineering is something else entirely, and falls more under the category of eugenics.

Putting in metal joints and bones, replacing ordinary blood with nanorobots that fulfill a similar function but with greater oxygen capacity, or replacing old/damaged organs with new, artificial or cloned organs are all examples of augmentation.

Augmentation is adding to or changing the body rather than altering the genetic code; genetic engineering is something else entirely, and falls more under the category of eugenics.

Putting in metal joints and bones, replacing ordinary blood with nanorobots that fulfill a similar function but with greater oxygen capacity, or replacing old/damaged organs with new, artificial or cloned organs are all examples of augmentation.

Well IMO that would be horrible for me, it would be like loosing my humanity and replacing it with bits of metal.

Oh and for the record, augmentation actually means expanding, making larger ;)

Augmentation as Vetalia describes it is perfectly fine, as long as it is voluntary and does not involve the government forcing some poor bloke into "Terminator"-hood.

Altering the genome is an entirely different story. While I am usually skeptical of government regulation of private industry or research of any sort, if genetic tampering is to take place, it must be heavily regulated. If done properly, it could save everyone a great deal of pain. On the downside, it could potentially lead to explosive population growth due to the curing of genetic ailments. However, morally and ethically speaking, that's no excuse not to act on research related to correcting errors in the genome that lead to such diseases.

I've always wanted a prehensile penis. Is that wrong of me?

Well IMO that would be horrible for me, it would be like loosing my humanity and replacing it with bits of metal.

I always considered my humanity to be something far more than my body, so it doesn't bother me. After all, the cells in my body today aren't the same ones I had 12 months ago, yet I am still the same person...all I'm doing this time is replacing them with something different and better.

Oh and for the record, augmentation actually means expanding, making larger ;)

I have no doubt that there will be people using this technology to make -certain parts- larger. What those are, are, of course, up to your imagination.

Augmentation of the Human form.
Completely voluntary. This refers to the replacement of a lost or ineffective limb, or organ. Or perhaps the creation of an entirely new organ. One could feasibly also bio engineer an entirely new type of organ. This augmentation is not just Mechanical Bionics, but also the genetic engineering of new body parts for a new human race.

Augmentation of the Genetic form.
Mind control via genetics is impossible with our current knowledge and even when we have gained said knowledge, iffy. Mind control brings up the idea of a human genetically engineered to follow orders. This is pure fiction. A human is a product if nurture not pure biology. A human in my opinion ius a human because deep down he knows that there are some things that you just don't do. That being said any gene engineered human would undergo rigerous moral education to indoctrine him or her with a strong sense of ethics.

I'm too old to become a Space Marine, hence nobody else should be able to!

As for converting others into servitors - hey, why not? If they fulfill their purpose then... :D

I have no doubt that there will be people using this technology to make -certain parts- larger. What those are, are, of course, up to your imagination.

For the first time in history clowns will be able to fill their own shoes!

Only the human Genome can be modifed. Thus a human embryo cannot be modified, but must be modified before it even reaches its first cellular divide. A human cannot be converted to a servitor. A servitor can be designed and trained but not converted.

I for one am not a fan of transhumanism. But I'd be more than happy to aid such a group in it's goals if they were to aid me in creating a new, better kind of human.

Only the human Genome can be modifed. Thus a human embryo cannot be modified, but must be modified before it even reaches its first cellular divide. A human cannot be converted to a servitor. A servitor can be designed and trained but not converted.

Yeah, you could, maybe you could modify a human's genes to make require a certain amino acid that only you have, making that human totally dependent upon you.

[/merciless rip-off from jurassic park]

And said human could find another nastural source of said Amino Acid. Read jurrasic park. The Dinosaurs began consuming plants that were abundantin thier required amino acid thus allowing hem to survive, if limiting thier territories...

I've always wanted a prehensile penis. Is that wrong of me?

Yes.

For the first time in history clowns will be able to fill their own shoes!

But that will just start an arms race of clown shoes...eventually, we'll need tents just to hold the shoes!

The first space elevator will be constructed entirely of 1km long clown shoes.

I see nothing wrong with it.

I for one am not a fan of transhumanism. But I'd be more than happy to aid such a group in it's goals if they were to aid me in creating a new, better kind of human.

That's what most of them do support. Now mind you, I would prefer to go even farther and simply eliminate as much of my biology as possible (for practical reasons) rather than just focus on upgrading what I have. Of course, the only concern I have is that "transcending" (the trans- stem of the word transhumanism) carries connotations of superiority that I reject.

I see a person choosing to remain biologically human as equal to a person who chooses to enhance themselves, provided they make a fully informed decision and aren't denied such an opportunity due to ignorance or fearmongering.

Well one is effectively transcending human biological limits when they decide to remove themselves from a flesh body. I don't believe the technology to create an android that can feel all the things a human can will be available for a very long time. Thus forcing anyone seeking transcendance of human frailties to assume a form with very few human like senses. Thus forcing these brave and determined people to wait many decades, perhaps centureies before they can experince truly human physical sensations again...

Well one is effectively transcending human biological limits when they decide to remove themselves from a flesh body. I don't believe the technology to create an android that can feel all the things a human can will be available for a very long time. Thus forcing anyone seeking transcendance of human frailties to assume a form with very few human like senses. Thus forcing these brave and determined people to wait many decades, perhaps centureies before they can experince truly human physical sensations again...

Well, what I plan to do is wait; I'll probably go gradually, replacing at first the most basic parts and gradually work my way up to the nervous system as more technologies become effective and available. It's going to be a long term, constant process, since there are still a lot of technological and economic barriers to large-scale human augmentation. It's not going to be instantaneous by any stretch of the imagination.

I've always wanted a prehensile penis. Is that wrong of me?

I wish I had a prehensile penis. The uses are unlimited.

I feel icky knowing that dophins have prehensile penii.

Every bit of me that fails is going to be replaced. Once there's nothing left but a central nervous system, I'll look into brain downloading techniques!

This is assuming that the person undergoing the changes is fully consenting, and that none of this is made mandatory by the state or other authority:

I don't find anything "wrong" with mechanical augmentation, but that's not where my interest is.

When the means to change adult DNA on a bodywide scale is developed, I want to change mine. I obviously think doing so is 100% morally right (assuming that I have full control over what those changes are). It's my DNA, not some piece of collective property. So legally and ethically speaking, I should have the right to recode my own DNA (or have it recoded, although I'd rather do it myself) in any way I see fit!

I'd have just as much of a problem with a government trying to prevent me from changing my own DNA, as I would with them trying to make me change it. The border would beckon, in either case.

I wish I had a prehensile penis. The uses are unlimited.

I feel icky knowing that dophins have prehensile penii.

Fact: Somewhere, someone is having sex with a dolphin even as you read this.

If I can have laser eyes and if my penis can extend and retract, then I am all for it.

As with many above, I think it's OK as long as there's a choice in the matter. Note that this would include some things usually considered on the shady side, such as augmenting commandos into Ivan Drago or Motoko Kusangi style supersoldiers; but ONLY if voluntary and done on a non-discriminatory basis.
I personally can't see myself getting "therapied" though:rolleyes:; unless I felt a) an unusually overwhelming need to keep my intelligence/soul around on this Earth for whatever reason, and/or b) my relations were emotionally in no way prepared for my passing just yet. Otherwise, it just doesn't strike me as fair to those in my family who died/will die before this stuff hits the market, since those options certainly weren't around when I was born (1982). It would literally be "cheating Death;" morally as well as factually, you know?
My children, however, could knock themselves out. Nanotech-limbs, gene-resequencing; as long as it doesn't bankrupt me or turn them into real-life Khan Singhs I'm cool with it.;)

Okay modification of the Human form. Is it right or wrong? As in the replacement of lost, or hell just removing a limb with a mechanical version. Or modification of the human genome to create a better form of human offspring.

In short my question is: Is the extreme modification of the human form in the interests of creating a new type of human in any way right or wrong?

I think it's a damn good idea. You?

Three things:
First, as long as the individual consents, no problem.
Second, where does one draw the line of exterme modification. To take an example that affects me personally, how about poor vision. Most people would agree that eyeglasses are OK. (Most people wouldn't even consider them an augmentating modification.) LK corrective surgery is more invasive, but even then most people wouldn't be opposed. I understand there have already been experiments with microchips that allow the blind to regain some vision. It's just a hop, skip, and jump from there to artificial eyes, at least in the philosophical perspective.
Finally, personally, I think it really depends on the purpose. Society places far too much emphasis on personal apperance. Too many people enghage in otherwise meaningless "augmentation".


Wrong

Edit: to clarify, only the modifcation of the human genome is actually what I regard to as wrong. It's too dangerouse, too easy to abuse, and against human rights. Unless of course it can be justified because of the nature of the genome which may be defficient.

And how do we define defficient? What about recessive genes that provide positive traits to heterozygous genotypes and negative ones to homozygous genotypes? How about traits for which there is no concensus?

Well IMO that would be horrible for me, it would be like loosing my humanity and replacing it with bits of metal.

Oh and for the record, augmentation actually means expanding, making larger ;)

How do you view binoculars? How about eyeglasses? And one more - what about augmentations that may be classified otherwise - dying one's hair or stimulating/trimming hair growth, for examples.

Yes.

Just checking. :)

It's too dangerouse, too easy to abuse, and against human rights.

How is it against human rights? I would see denying somebody this choice as being against human rights.

LOL, and I thought this thread was going to be about, "NOOOOO! YOU CAN'T MAKE YOUR BREASTS BIGGER/SMALLER!"

i think genetic manipulation of humans should only be used to exterminate serious geneticaly transmitted diseases.
other modifications like plastic surgery are fine, as long as it's free choice (i wouldn't do it though)

Whats the point of modifying an Adult's genetic structure. An adult cannot develop anymore physically than he already has. Therefore the genetic modifications would only be passed dow to his offspring. So it would make more sense cost effectively to modify his spermatzoa production organs. There is no point in modifying a human who has already been born geneticly unless you want to modify said humans offspring.

If people are willing to pay for it, sure.

If people are willing to pay for it, sure.

So an action is right so long as people are willing to pay for it? Fascinating moral system you have there.

So an action is right so long as people are willing to pay for it? Fascinating moral system you have there.

It's the only one that makes sense, where people's choices are involved. Otherwise, one way or another, you're forcing your morality on them.

And that's one of the few things that are really wrong.

It's wrong.

I would expect to see people who argue breeding out homosexuality as unethical would maintain the same stance across the board.

But "right" and "wrong" only matter to those whom it does not affect, and this goes for anything. You make a decision and weigh the consequences, and let history sort out the rest.

As long as it is voluntarily, it's okay! Augmenting the child genetically? why not!

Okay modification of the Human form. Is it right or wrong? As in the replacement of lost, or hell just removing a limb with a mechanical version. Or modification of the human genome to create a better form of human offspring.

In short my question is: Is the extreme modification of the human form in the interests of creating a new type of human in any way right or wrong?

I think it's a damn good idea. You?
No, augmentation of the human form is not "right" or "wrong."

I wouldnt mind transfering my mind into a computer network and having genetically grown bodies (they wouldnt be conscious, instead of brains they would have storage chips for my mind, so they would be cybenetic in that sense) for me to inhabit for every day of the week.

Wait that sounds a bit creepy. Ah what the hell

That sounds like an interesting experiance.

Eugenics=bad
Prosthetics=ok

So an action is right so long as people are willing to pay for it? Fascinating moral system you have there.

Assuming that I have morals? Why should Moral values have any bearing on a legal issue? Not every person has the same moral values and I do not wish to see someone impress their values upon me.

Any action should be legal that does not hurt someone else. This does not hurt anyone, so if they are willing to pay for it no law should be passed against it.

Eugenics=bad
Prosthetics=ok

That's generally where I draw the line, except when it comes to genetic screening for diseases and things like that. If those can be corrected early on in order to avoid complications later in life, I'd probably support them. But genetic engineering to make kids good at sports, smarter, or more attractive are way beyond anything I'd support.

Even then it's a little risky. I prefer to only perform these kinds of changes on people capable of consenting.

It's the only one that makes sense, where people's choices are involved. Otherwise, one way or another, you're forcing your morality on them.

Not really. Saying "what you're doing is wrong, and this is what is right" does not force anyone to do anything. It merely informs them of the perceived moral quality of their action.

If, however, a person uses political, social, or physical power to impose their moral views on another person, then that would be forcing your morality on them.

And that's one of the few things that are really wrong.

Fortunately, you of course will be kind enough to refrain from imposing that moral belief on me.

Assuming that I have morals? Why should Moral values have any bearing on a legal issue? Not every person has the same moral values and I do not wish to see someone impress their values upon me.

Any action should be legal that does not hurt someone else. This does not hurt anyone, so if they are willing to pay for it no law should be passed against it.

The OP was asking whether augmentation was "right or wrong" rather than whether it should be legal or illegal. It is a moral question, so why are you answering it if you have no morals?

The legality is really a very different question, and one we agree on the answer to.

Fine by me if it is post-natal engineering. Nothing immoral about it.

I've always wanted a cyborg arm.

Okay modification of the Human form. Is it right or wrong? As in the replacement of lost, or hell just removing a limb with a mechanical version. Or modification of the human genome to create a better form of human offspring.

In short my question is: Is the extreme modification of the human form in the interests of creating a new type of human in any way right or wrong?

I think it's a damn good idea. You?

I wouldn't go messing around with the stuff.

I'm pretty sure I'll be needing my hip replaced so I don't walk with a fucking limp for the rest of my life.

Okay modification of the Human form. Is it right or wrong? As in the replacement of lost, or hell just removing a limb with a mechanical version. Or modification of the human genome to create a better form of human offspring.

In short my question is: Is the extreme modification of the human form in the interests of creating a new type of human in any way right or wrong?

I think it's a damn good idea. You?

I dont think it can be wrong for it's own sake.
It can be abused and that would be wrong.

Black and White the subject is not.

Fortunately, you of course will be kind enough to refrain from imposing that moral belief on me.

Absolutely. Consider me entirely off of your moral compass.:D