The Importance Of Human Enhancement

In Nathan Copeland’s medical case earlier of quadriplegia, the brain surgery that used bioenhancement technology involved therapy. Andrew Lustig, the author of the article Enhancement Technologies and the Person: Christian Perspectives, defines both accordingly, saying that “therapy is generally defined as the prevention or cure of disease, or as the restoration [of oneself]…to normal physiological function. Enhancement is defined as the alteration of individual (or group) characteristics, traits, and abilities (both health- and non-health-related) beyond a measurable baseline of normal function.” Therapy is focused on the restoration of our integrity while assisting natural physiology, whereas enhancement is focused on alteration of our physiology for selfish benefit. For example, say a man had amnesia and lost the ability to focus due to a car accident. It would be natural for one to desire to restore his memory in order to enable himself to remember things that he has forgotten, and he would take prescription medications to do so. This series of medications would be classified as therapeutic bioenhancement and would be morally justifiable because of the intentions to bring his health back to normal. If, however, an otherwise headlong person decided to simply use medication originally meant for those with Alzheimer’s or narcolepsy to improve his or her cognitive function, we

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

First of all, Savulescu presented to the readers the idea of “If we do not choose to enhance ourselves, it is wrong.” In the article he used the neglect parents as an example, and if the parents neglect their child’s stunning talent and choose to raise their kid as a normal person, they are making a very wrong decision. Also, Savulescu presented that biological enhancement can bring a big solution to the problem of poverty, and if us humans do not take actions onto introducing the enhancement to the world, it is a very wrong decision. Therefore, for the better goods of the future generations, and for solving many world’s biggest problems, genetic enhancement is the only right thing to do.

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

Should human genetic modification be allowed in today’s society? Many experiments with genetic modification on plants and animals involved trial and error. While there was success in the research, there also existed the cost of many errors. Scientists soon want to move onto the next step – genetic modification in humans. The human aesthetic could soon be in the hands of men. Recent advances in technology and research through other life forms have allowed us to consider this vast advancement in genetic modification. In studies of genetic modification, scientists rarely have 100% efficiency. We need to approach the concept of genetic modification in humans with caution. The magnitude of the advancement is immense; therefore, we need to approach this concept at a gradual pace. If we ignore these precautions, we risk human lives and deformities in the name of science. Exploring the possibilities of genetic modification is important to the future of science.

Technology is developing every day. The automobile was revolutionary, and then they introduced the plane. Cell phones can connect us with people around the world. Self-driving cars are in development today! Revolutionary inventions are the expectation nowadays, but a new discovery is sparking controversial questions in the science world. Is it acceptable to alter a baby’s genes to make it a better human? Genes are the instruction book of the body, and they determine everyone’s attributes and how people act in their environment (Medical News Today). Some people say that everyone is different for a reason, and others think customizing the genes of children was meant to happen. Altering an infant’s genes is acceptable to prevent hereditary diseases, but the line should be drawn at making an artificially smarter, stronger, or prettier human.

The morality of genetic enhancement (GE) differs from person to person. The stance Michael J. Sandel’s takes is that eugenics and GE has no morality. He states in his work, “The case against Perfection”, that manipulating ones genes makes one less human; since, humans are not perfect which is what makes one human and by designing a perfect person one is taking away their humanity. He thinks eugenics are morally problematic in the cases of abortion; in which the mother would be free to determine if she would like to abort the baby by looking at its genes for illnesses, physical appearance and sex, this would test and even change ones moral values. Sandel is opposed on the quest of perfection due to the fact that one is not looking at the big picture, human life is a precious gift. He argues that one’s faults and quirks are what makes one unique from the other seven billion people on earth. And if one takes away what makes one who they are and becomes the perfect person there will be no originality since many would want to also become perfect. Imagine how many parents would want their child to become the next Einstein or Shakespeare. The freedom to become one’s own person would be taken away. For example, a boy that was GE to love soccer and no other sport and a boy that gets to pursue whatever he chooses, the other boy never had the opportunity or liberty to choose what sport he would like he was programed to love soccer for the rest of

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

In the story, it would be acceptable to use biotechnological enhancements only if society was turned from a dystopian to a Utopian, meaning they would lift up the ungifted to bring equality to everyone, while at the same time giving them an advantage. A place where society does not take time to make each person who is advanced

In the first portion of Sandel’s paper titled, The Case Against Perfection, Michael Sandel discussed the moral and ethics debate surrounding the notion of in the future designing our offspring by altering their genes prior to conception. Within his argument, Sandal focuses on four main arguments surrounding the following realms of enhancement: muscles, memory, growth hormone treatment, and reproductive technologies (Sandel 52). Firstly, Sandel argues that genetic modifications in improving muscles whether it be to aid in the elderly population, a majority whom struggle with immobility and must rely upon medical devices such as wheelchairs, walkers, or are restricted to their homes and consequently often have a decreased quality of life.

In an ever-increasing technological world, many scientists and researchers are now trying to revolutionize the human body through genetic enhancement. Genetic enhancement is defined as the transfer of genetic material intended to modify one or many non-pathological human traits.

In Nicholas Agars reading ‘A Pragmatic Optimism about Enhancement Technologies’, his first major concern is how everyday individuals have been misinformed regarding the reality of enhanced technology works. Agar believes Hollywood is responsible for the illusion surrounding cloning, believing that Hollywood uses films such as “Star Wars: Attack of the Clones and Star Trek: Nemeses”, (Agar 20) imply the idea that under the control of military forces clones “ have the potential to replace humans with a race of: ‘emotionless zombies” ,(Agar 20). Agar’s style of approaching this argument is very analytic, which is the way he wants his audience to interpret his reading. He believes it is crucial to understand the science behind human enhancement

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

Author Chuck Klosterman said, “The simple truth is that we’re all already cyborgs more or less. Our mouths are filled with silver. Our nearsighted pupils are repaired with surgical lasers. We jam diabetics full of delicious insulin. Almost 40 percent of Americans now have prosthetic limbs. We see to have no qualms about making post-birth improvements to our feeble selves. Why are we so uncomfortable with pre-birth improvement?” Despite Klosterman’s accurate observation, there are reasons people are wearisome toward pre-birth enhancement. Iniquitous practices such as genetic engineering could lead to a degraded feeling in a child and conceivably end in a dystopian society, almost like the society Adolf Hitler had in mind. In the minds of