Logan Hagen
Bartlett
WR122
09 Dec 2015
Rise of the Metahuman: Should We Enhance?
For thousands of years mankind has obsessed with overcoming our bodily limitations. As far back as ancient Sumeria, we have the story of Gilgamesh, a man who was more intelligent, stronger, and more handsome than most humans. Fast forward a few centuries and we have Hercules, strongest man in the world, performer of heroic deeds. Throughout our history we 've had heroes, villains, and gods that are able to so much more than mere mortals. Even if you look at our literature today, we still have heroes who can do so much more than us normal, unmodified humans can do. Humanity has an obsession with being more than human. Emerging technology such as bionic
…show more content…
Several of these tools are used not just for everyday use, but for treating disorders, injuries or disease, which is a very important distinction in this debate.
When dealing with the morality of making ourselves more than human we need to draw a line between therapy and enhancement. Several proponents of the human enhancement argument, or transhumanists, are rather loathe to separate the two for a few reasons. Currently, modern medicine practices several methods of treatment that can be considered enhancements, as there is nothing currently wrong with the patient so there is technically nothing to treat. This includes things like vaccines, preventative care, and cosmetic surgery. (Bostrom, Roache 1) Another is that we treat things that are intrinsic to the person, such as a genetic or mental disorder. We use things such as chemicals or surgery to bring the person to a level as close to “average” human as possible. Their personal baseline of their physiology is brought up to speed with humanity and they tend to live happier lives. However, even though the argument is quite sound, human nature is much more complex. While we hopefully like to celebrate others ' individuality, we still want to strengthen those we see as weak, while at the same time maintaining our own superiority. This is where the fundamental difference between therapy and enhancements lie. While we want everyone to be
The level of technology that concerns the health of people in the United States has grown dramatically in the last twenty years. With this new wave of advanced technology numerous controversies have risen up into the public eye. At the top of this list, in health technology is the materials and methods used in keeping humans alive. There are many different viewpoints on how far technology should be allowed to go. Technology cannot effect the patient’s way of life.
Sandel does a wonderful job of refuting many of the common arguments against genetic enhancement before presenting us with his own case which revolves around three negative outcomes he thinks will come as a result of human genetic enhancement. Sandel argues that the first negative outcome, is a severe reduction in human humility, which he claims is necessary human emotion. He argues against what he calls “the drive to mastery” (27); since we would have complete control over our genetic makeup, and could manipulate it to our liking, we would no longer have to be grateful to some higher power
Savulescu in "Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement" suggests that we have an obligation to enhance. His core argument can be interpreted as threefold: The right thing to do to enhance, the consistency that comes with the enhancement, and there is no difference between enhancement and treating diseases.
In fact, according to Brock, "treatment of disease that restores normal human function is typically and uncontroversially assumed to benefit persons" (pg. 617). I personally agree with Brock's argument, if genetic engineering could restore the autonomy of individuals suffering from diseases or traits that act as constraints on general human function, then it should be supported. In this regard the author depicts the opposite side of the spectrum, a likely venue for perfectly healthy individuals to seek enhancements, past what is typical for humans. It’s questionable whether or not these enhancements would be taken as a form of competitive advantage against other individuals. Personally, I believe that enhancements like these could be detrimental to
Have you ever wondered what it would be like if everyone was smart, athletic, and beautiful? Well, recently, scientists have been experimenting with human DNA to make a “better” person. Mostly all of these embryos died off, and those who lived were the same as your average human (OI) . I do not believe it is morally right to use human DNA and genes to alter the appearance and abilities of people. Although people may argue otherwise, I know that this is not right.
Do you think that we should change the DNA and genes of a human to make a “better” person? “Better” as in genetically modified. A genetically modified human is a human whose genes were changed before the person was born to make them “better” or more able to do things. Also, people deciding what genes should be altered in a human could be a very bad idea (Doc. 1). Medical News Today said, “Genes are a set of instructions that determined what the organism is like, it’s appearance, how it survives, and how it behaves in its environment.” Who is to decide what a “better” person is? I think that it is wrong to change the genetics of a person and that we shouldn’t proceed with this.
Scientist are researching genetic modification for many reasons. Some people think we are not good enough the way we are, and want to create a ‘perfect’ person. We have been given the ability to learn how to heal sickness and fix wounds with science. However, we have a responsibility to use this information wisely. We have been created with unique gifts and those gifts are important to the enhancement of life. Likewise, while researching about the Author of “The Perfect Stranger”, Amy Sterling Casil, I have discovered that she also has similar feelings about the gifts that we have all been given. We need to consider a few things as we review Casil’s story “The Perfect Stranger”. First, medical advancement is a great thing. Next, we need to make sure we are taking responsible steps while advancing and not creating even more division in our society. And lastly, we need to make sure we don’t lose our diversity and unique qualities. Although, some people believe genetic modification is what we need to better the human race, in actuality genetic modification can be dangerous, because overstepping our boundaries will produce something that is no longer authentic or that is unable to relate on a genuine level.
The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have increased the average human lifespan and improved the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to alter humans by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This technology gives rise to the question of how this new technology ought to be used, if at all. The idea of human enhancement is a very general topic, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am referring specifically to the use of genetic intervention prior to
If true equality can never fully excist than genetic engineering or biotechnological enhancements for the ungifted is unnecessary because it is impossible to make everyone equal. If it was possible we would end up in the same place as the characters in Harrison Bergeron. which was not a society of where everyone was equal. One can argue the positives and negatives of using science to change the ungifted but it all comes down to why do it? To make them feel more equal? Than you have to ask, Equal to
According to author Michael J. Sandel in his piece, “The Case Against Perfection,” the main ethical problem with genetic enhancement does not have anything to do with human autonomy. Rather, Sandel believes that the “deepest moral objection to genetic enhancement lies less the perfection it seeks than in the human disposition it expresses and promotes” (Timmons, 505). In other words, genetic enhancement is morally questionable because of how it affects our attitudes toward human beings. He claims that each case began as an attempt to treat
My first argument against Genetic enhancement is about the safety of the technology used. Is it safe to use? There are several safety concerns about the technology, all of which lie within the physical alteration of the gene. Genes are very specific and will only work correctly in certain ways. Although scientists may know a fair deal about genes, do they know about the consequences if their technology were to fail? One of the risks directly involved with their technology is the technique of introducing a gene at a random place in the genome. By doing this the gene could interrupt another sequence of genes that are vital for survival. It could also alter the effect that the gene has. The gene might have the effect wanted, such as an increased intellect, but it may also introduce an unwanted effect. This became apparent in 2001 when Joe Tsien genetically altered mice to have a high memory capacity. The mice were able to learn very quickly and were able to retain more information but at what cost? The mice also had an extremely high sensitivity to pain: something that a human being wouldn’t be able to live with. Do you think that’s fair? Would you be willing to sacrifice your quality of life for an enhanced learning capacity? I know I wouldn’t. But what is more unfair is that the embryos, who are the ones who are going to be enhanced, don’t have a choice in the matter. What about the children’s
They are also used in revision surgeries, which correct or improve the result of an original surgery.
Athletes: Is this new era something we have never seen before? The Olympic motto is, “citius, altius, fortius,” which is latin for, “Faster, Higher Stronger”, and athletes have fulfilled this motto rapidly, with countless record breaking numbers in just the past decade. However, a recent debate has arisen with the question, “Are athletes really becoming bigger, stronger, faster, and better?” Many people don’t agree with this idea that athletes have revolutionized.
Over the course of many centuries, medical technology has developed to a great extent. Studies show that recent equipment has evolved more in the last ten to twenty years than in the past thousand years. Before human time, people learned to treat themselves by just using natural substances. Now-a-days, our hi-tech systems in the medical field have been created for the most effective tools for a high level of patient care. While they advance the tools, it will then allow for quicker diagnosis, less pain, and fewer costs, which in the end will help save more lives. Some people are accepting that modern technology can buy them more time to live while others might find it quite alarming because they fear
Most of the auto factories have partial automated assembly lines, but what could be interesting to managers and marketers is to enhance the humans, can you remember Steve Austin the 6 million dollars man, the bionic woman Jamie Summers, how bizarre during the seventies early eighties to imagine such humans, but not it’s a fact, will the management remains the same dealing ordinary with someone partially extraordinary ... that’s the question to be answerd!