Human enchancement. Should it be done?

[brainstorm]

And my point is, we might not have a world to live in. That is a possibility, however unlikely. Hence the caution I wrote earlier.

It doesn't make any sense to live as if the world might be annihilated. What makes more sense is to live sustainably, as if the world will continue on indefinitely and hope that if you create a sustainable enough culture it might actually never annihilate itself.

 

[DanP]

And my point is, we might not have a world to live in. That is a possibility, however unlikely. Hence the caution I wrote earlier.

rofl. Dont hide under the bed just yet :P

 

[nismaratwork]

Entertaining a possibility in no way implies giving up. Brainstorm, DanP, you're creating a straw man based on Newai simply pointing out one of a myriad of possibilities.

 

[DanP]

Entertaining a possibility in no way implies giving up. Brainstorm, DanP, you're creating a straw man based on Newai simply pointing out one of a myriad of possibilities.

Really ? Don't tell :P Ok, ill let the two of you worry that the world will end then. When it happens, please send me a memo.

 

[Anonymous217]

Really ? Don't tell :P Ok, ill let the two of you worry that the world will end then. When it happens, please send me a memo.

You just reinforced his argument.

 

[DanP]

You just reinforced his argument.

Yeah, the end of the world draws near. Phear computers, robots and enhanced humans.

Btw, who would win? Ninja or Pirates ?

 

[nismaratwork]

OK, make that Straw MEN.

 

[ThomasEdison]

Strange that this thread went in an entirely different heading than what I assumed the OP meant.

Eyeglasses and breast surgery are not what I consider meant by the op.

Even in a world of people with poor vision there are many who are born with good vision. The people given glasses do not attain superior vision to the naturally born "normal" vision people.

An enhancement to me would mean: hawk like vision, ultraviolet spectrum, nightvision; more than what is considered perfect.

I think an argument for or against steriods is closer to what was mentioned.
When steriods are used in professional sports they up the ante to practically impossible limits for a non user.

An ethical dilemna would be raised when a normal average or healthy individual appears inferior next to an enhanced person and can not compete in the workforce, sports, or simply gains a stigma for remaining natural.

For example a marksmen competing wearing glasses or artificial eyes that give telescopic vision. Not simply 20/20.

Glasses may not cause a dilemna because I would assume everyone could put them on or take them off. Surgery, however, might seem a bit unfair, especially if this surgery had risks and side effects.

That is how I view steriods. It isn't because they give gains (or because they appear artifiical) that I have an ethical argument against their use. It is because the effects of steriods appear ultimately harmful in the long term. I am not comfortable with a world where people have to choose whether or not to harm themselves severely to remain competitive.

To me the ethical problems are when the enhancement has unfortunate side effects or longterm health problems.

 

[DanP]

That is how I view steriods. It isn't because they give gains (or because they appear artifiical) that I have an ethical argument against their use. It is because the effects of steriods appear ultimately harmful in the long term. I am not comfortable with a world where people have to choose whether or not to harm themselves severely to remain competitive.

Using or not steroids is a personal choice. You shouldn't be phased by it at all.

Steroid or no steroids, top level athletics is risky and more often than not , an unhealthy enterprise. You just have to accept those risks if you want to compete.

 

[nismaratwork]

Using or not steroids is a personal choice. You shouldn't be phased by it at all.

Steroid or no steroids, top level athletics is risky and more often than not , an unhealthy enterprise. You just have to accept those risks if you want to compete.

Very true... people seem to often forget that pro athletes are cashing in their future health for the glory of 'today', regardless of steroids.

 

[brainstorm]

What about nutritional supplements? Why is it excessive to inject hormones intravenously but not to consume amounts of vitamins and proteins that allow the body to enhance itself naturally beyond what would be possible by consuming unrefined foods at normal levels? I think you could even say that consuming large quantities of meat and dairy are an enhancement of a natural human diet which probably traditionally included small amounts of meat and dairy, if any, depending on availability. On the other hand, maybe for people living in extensive pastures meat and dairy were not as scarce as were grains and complex carbohydrates, so maybe it is eating large portions of pasta, rice, etc. for fuel to engage in more extensive training that is the "enhancement" of modern agriculture and food-distribution.

 

[DanP]

What about nutritional supplements? Why is it excessive to inject hormones intravenously but not to consume amounts of vitamins and proteins that allow the body to enhance itself naturally beyond what would be possible by consuming unrefined foods at normal levels? I think you could even say that consuming large quantities of meat and dairy are an enhancement of a natural human diet which probably traditionally included small amounts of meat and dairy, if any, depending on availability. On the other hand, maybe for people living in extensive pastures meat and dairy were not as scarce as were grains and complex carbohydrates, so maybe it is eating large portions of pasta, rice, etc. for fuel to engage in more extensive training that is the "enhancement" of modern agriculture and food-distribution.

Because you could chew supplements all day long, it won't make you stronger. On the other hand, a 6 week cycle of certain androgen steroids superimposed over your max-strength / power cycles *will* yield results. Visible results.

 

[Proton Soup]

i just realized that Meg Griffin's supposedly useless superpower of growing her fingernails really fast would have helped me a couple of years ago. i crushed my left index finger, and it is only just now starting to look mostly normal. would some of you bionerds get on that, STAT? don't make me scratch you.

 

[nismaratwork]

i just realized that Meg Griffin's supposedly useless superpower of growing her fingernails really fast would have helped me a couple of years ago. i crushed my left index finger, and it is only just now starting to look mostly normal. would some of you bionerds get on that, STAT? don't make me scratch you.

I'll still take telekinesis...

 

[ThomasEdison]

Using or not steroids is a personal choice. You shouldn't be phased by it at all.

Steroid or no steroids, top level athletics is risky and more often than not , an unhealthy enterprise. You just have to accept those risks if you want to compete.

I don't disagree with that. Steriods push that limit even further in addition to the harm that they cause.

I don't want to be tricked into taking a side against their personal use because my honest opinion is that if the information is freely available and assuming people are informed enough to make their own choices they can take any harmful substance they want or harm themselves in any fashion they want. I am certainly not interested in defending people from themselves.

Where I have a problem is when entire institutions or organizations endorse the abuse of drugs or (in the future) more severe modifications. I am not saying that happens yet. Although I remember stories of forms of speed being sanctioned in wars. If I were serving and my whole squad was jacked up on speed and I was expected to do it too by my superiors this adds an entirely worse factor along side simply fighting a war..or what if I were deemed insubordinate for not ingesting speed like everyone else? I know that war is terrible but when the soldiers are expected to be exposed to harmfull substances like agent orange, radiation or anything else they are exposed to or expected to consume without knowing the facts I find that particularly sinister. That is not a situation I think our troops or anyone should be in.

I hope my distinction between personal choice and institutional command is clear. Don't even bring up coffee.. there is certainly a difference between Meth and coffee.

I work in construction and just about everyone in the trades understands that ultimately we sacrifice our bodies for our jobs and this is without any steriods to lift more or speed pills to perform better (I'm sure there are exceptions to speed.) People already do cash in their youthful functioning bodies in the working trades without enhancement. Their knees, backs, joints etc.

If we were required or encouraged by an employer to ingest a harmfull substance to enhance our work performance and drive our bodies even further... I would have severe issue with that.

I know that people love to blend all things together in internet arguements like for example: There is no difference between eating meat and steriods, or also.. Coffee and sugar is no different than Meth or Crack. I hope when people do this they are just being snarky and are aware that they have no leg to stand on. There are distinctions and differences in this world. The world is so much more complex than: coffee equals meth. Lines can be drawn and distinctions can be made otherwise why bother with ethics or morality at all?

 

[Upisoft]

Welcome to the Borg collective. That would take care for the social problems troubling the OP.