Human Modification

Debate serious and interesting topics, rant about politics or pop culture, or otherwise converse in essay form about your opinions. The rules of conduct here are a little stricter.
User avatar
Yet Another Harshad
Posts: 464
Joined: 2008.09.26 (13:23)
NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/lord_day
MBTI Type: INTJ

Postby lord_day » 2009.04.30 (01:47)

I think the two arguments against human modification, which were something like 'we would become dependent on it' and 'it may only be available to the rich', could both have been used when electricity was first used outside of laboratories. Yet where would we be now without it? I'm sure at first only the rich people could afford electricity in their homes, and I'm sure we are completely dependant on electricity to run our daily lives, but this doesn't make it a bad thing does it?
Image

Maxwell Smart
Posts: 99
Joined: 2009.04.26 (14:57)
NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/Alex777
Location: Secret Base....Of Pizza

Postby Alex777 » 2009.04.30 (03:18)

lord_day wrote:I think the two arguments against human modification, which were something like 'we would become dependent on it' and 'it may only be available to the rich', could both have been used when electricity was first used outside of laboratories. Yet where would we be now without it? I'm sure at first only the rich people could afford electricity in their homes, and I'm sure we are completely dependant on electricity to run our daily lives, but this doesn't make it a bad thing does it?

Very good point, I think that is a perfect example. I mean who cares if we depend on it? Human Modification would do so much good for us.
Image

Vampire Hunter D Sig by 29403 ^,...,^

User avatar
Boeing Boeing Bone!
Posts: 755
Joined: 2008.12.23 (05:44)

Postby Amadeus » 2009.04.30 (04:39)

lord_day wrote:I think the two arguments against human modification, which were something like 'we would become dependent on it' and 'it may only be available to the rich', could both have been used when electricity was first used outside of laboratories. Yet where would we be now without it? I'm sure at first only the rich people could afford electricity in their homes, and I'm sure we are completely dependant on electricity to run our daily lives, but this doesn't make it a bad thing does it?
I've already addressed the socio-economic elements in my previous post dispelling both the 'available to the rich' and 'eventually when it becomes free/inexpensive'.
People write to me and say, "I’m giving up, you’re not talking to me." I just write them a simple message like, "Never give up," you know? And it changes their life
http://greenbrown.bandcamp.com

Maxwell Smart
Posts: 99
Joined: 2009.04.26 (14:57)
NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/Alex777
Location: Secret Base....Of Pizza

Postby Alex777 » 2009.04.30 (05:13)

Well my thought is this, Human Modification would do more help then harm. Although it could become a problem if people are split about it causing all kinds of political fights and the such. Which could get worse. Families might get divided over the ethics. And lets not get started when religon comes into play.
Image

Vampire Hunter D Sig by 29403 ^,...,^

User avatar
Boeing Boeing Bone!
Posts: 762
Joined: 2009.02.20 (12:23)
NUMA Profile: http://www.nmaps.net/user/Seneschal
MBTI Type: ISTJ
Location: London, UK

Postby Seneschal » 2009.04.30 (20:18)

scythe33 wrote:
cheesemonger wrote:
scythe33 wrote: But there was nothing good about eugenics from the beginning. Also, slippery slope fallacy.
Yes, we can tell that what they did was wrong, but Hitler thought what he was doing was right. Yes, he was a nutcase, but the point is that it only takes one person to misuse their power for all kinds of problems to arise.
This does sound like the slippery slope fallacy, but I would argue that there isn't anything illogical in presuming that humanity might misuse technology: after all, we've already subverted the intended purposes of dynamite, aeroplanes and nuclear power...
Nuclear weapons have been perhaps the greatest asset to peace in history. I'm willing to bet that without the threat of mutually assured destruction, we would have had an all-out war with the Soviet Union in the '50s or '60s.

As Wilkie Collins wrote in 1870:
I begin to believe in only one civilising influence—the discovery one of these days of a destructive agent so terrible that War shall mean annihilation and men's fears will force them to keep the peace
Airplanes have revolutionized modern soceity, and dynamite (and high explosives in general) has more peaceful uses than destructive ones.

I can't imagine someone arguing that any of those were an overall negative for humanity.

Also, it is the slippery slope fallacy, because "sounds like" isn't an argument.
I'm not arguing that my examples are bad things, I'm arguing that they have been misused. Obviously aeroplanes are very useful modes of transport and dynamite provides a safer alternative to gunpowder in mining (I'll admit that nuclear power wasn't a great example, so I'll stick with these two). However, the fact is that humanity subverted the intended purpose of aeroplanes and of dynamite and used them to drop bombs on people and blow shit up.
scythe33 wrote:The eugenics example still doesn't work, because it wasn't a promising idea taken too far. Eugenics at any level are bad, primarily because they violate a person's right to consent to medical treatment. Surely that's not what you're arguing here?
My argument was that humanity has a tendency to corrupt the purposes of technology and use it for their own ends. Although it is your opinion, and mine too, that eugenics shouldn't ever be encouraged, clearly there are those who disagree. Furthermore, selective breeding is employed by many people worldwide, albeit on animals, for example dog and horse owners, who breed their animals for specific purposes.

Maybe people won't get carried away with genetic engineering, and thus eugenics will never be employed, but on the basis of inductive reasoning (humanity is inherently selfish), I would argue that the probability of eugenics being used is quite high.

That said, as many people have pointed out, the medical advances have the potential to be enormous, so I'm in two minds about this one.

I wonder whether this debate is going to wander anywhere near reproductive cloning, since that's closely related to genetical engineering.

User avatar
The Konami Number
Posts: 584
Joined: 2008.09.25 (21:40)
MBTI Type: INFP

Postby Snuggletummy » 2009.05.01 (01:44)

Even though I'm more sharing my opinion rather than opinion. I'm all for it. Now I can have a tail, wings, and horns. I will be THE most badass human on the planet. That, and I want to be Harder, Better, Faster, and Stronger.
Image
Cracked.com wrote:All video-game characters are in fact made of cotton candy. This theory, and only this theory, can explain the cat-like hydrophobia shared universally by their kind. How else are we to believe that Frogger, a frog, is killed instantly on contact with water?

User avatar
Queen of All Spiders
Posts: 4263
Joined: 2008.09.29 (03:54)
NUMA Profile: http://www.freeWoWgold.edu
MBTI Type: ENFP
Location: Quebec, Canada!

Postby SlappyMcGee » 2009.05.01 (01:56)

Snuggletummy wrote:Even though I'm more sharing my opinion rather than opinion. I'm all for it. Now I can have a tail, wings, and horns. I will be THE most badass human on the planet. That, and I want to be Harder, Better, Faster, and Stronger.

You won't be the most badass if everyone has it. :/
Loathes

User avatar
The Konami Number
Posts: 584
Joined: 2008.09.25 (21:40)
MBTI Type: INFP

Postby Snuggletummy » 2009.05.01 (20:33)

SlappyMcGee wrote:
Snuggletummy wrote:Even though I'm more sharing my opinion rather than opinion. I'm all for it. Now I can have a tail, wings, and horns. I will be THE most badass human on the planet. That, and I want to be Harder, Better, Faster, and Stronger.

You won't be the most badass if everyone has it. :/
True, but at least I can tell myself I am.
Image
Cracked.com wrote:All video-game characters are in fact made of cotton candy. This theory, and only this theory, can explain the cat-like hydrophobia shared universally by their kind. How else are we to believe that Frogger, a frog, is killed instantly on contact with water?

User avatar
The Konami Number
Posts: 586
Joined: 2008.09.19 (12:27)
NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/Atilla

Postby Atilla » 2009.05.02 (02:46)

cheesemonger wrote:I'm not arguing that my examples are bad things, I'm arguing that they have been misused. Obviously aeroplanes are very useful modes of transport and dynamite provides a safer alternative to gunpowder in mining (I'll admit that nuclear power wasn't a great example, so I'll stick with these two). However, the fact is that humanity subverted the intended purpose of aeroplanes and of dynamite and used them to drop bombs on people and blow shit up.
I think this is an excellent example. Because, as you have pointed out, aeroplanes are friggin' useful and if someone stepped up tomorrow and said "We need to ban aeroplanes because they can only lead to people getting bombed" most of society would regard that person as an idiot. The same applies to genetic modification - yes, some douchebag will almost certainly try to misuse it, but that's happened with every technology since the stone axe. There's also the fact that immoral lunatics aren't particularly concerned about your disapproval and will probably try to develop it themselves and abuse it, even if the rest of society won't touch it. Not to mention that we could completely annihilate human civilization with nuclear weapons if we wanted, so it's difficult to see how much worse genetic modification could make things in that regard. I suppose we could use it to oppress people instead of annihilating them, but we've been oppressing people for thousands of years now without the need for any special equipment.

User avatar
Hawaii Five-Oh
Posts: 923
Joined: 2008.09.27 (16:29)
NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/RadiumFalcon
MBTI Type: ENTJ
Location: California
Contact:

Postby Radium » 2009.05.02 (02:50)

I think it's going to happen inevitably.. and that's a good thing. All we can do is hope that these modification aren't used for.. EVIL
spoiler


Maxwell Smart
Posts: 99
Joined: 2009.04.26 (14:57)
NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/Alex777
Location: Secret Base....Of Pizza

Postby Alex777 » 2009.05.03 (06:49)

Radium wrote:I think it's going to happen inevitably.. and that's a good thing. All we can do is hope that these modification aren't used for.. EVIL
That would be nice. But it will be used for evil. I mean it will be used for good too, but even if an idea isn't evil there is one fact that will never change: some people are evil. And thats all it takes for an idea to be used in evil ways.
Image

Vampire Hunter D Sig by 29403 ^,...,^

User avatar
Antonio Banderas
Posts: 1703
Joined: 2008.09.26 (13:56)
NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/donfuy
MBTI Type: ISTP
Location: port

Postby Donfuy » 2009.05.04 (15:19)

Let us all be Ironman and kill every bad boyz.


Seriously though, I'm rethinking and starting to... uh... think that this might be a good thing (too many "th").


I think that this would lead to "too much persons" (in a lack of a better expression) on earth, meaning that I'd rather spend more time on space traveling and "space conquering" development than on this. --> wait, perhaps we could modify our body to be best suited to the... things in "THE OUTER SPACE".

=/
Image

User avatar
Albany, New York
Posts: 521
Joined: 2008.09.28 (02:00)
MBTI Type: INTJ
Location: Inner SE Portland, OR
Contact:

Postby jean-luc » 2009.05.16 (18:44)

I think that overall it's a good thing, and that we shouldn't hold off on it because of the potential risks. That said, I think it's definitely a field where international regulations should be put in place by scientific bodies (preferably not by governments).
-- I might be stupid, but that's a risk we're going to have to take. --
Image
Website! Photography! Robots! Facebook!
The latest computers from Japan can also perform magical operations.

User avatar
Global Mod
Global Mod
Posts: 1416
Joined: 2008.09.26 (05:35)
NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/scythe33
MBTI Type: ENTP
Location: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Postby scythe » 2009.05.17 (05:00)

Snuggletummy wrote:Even though I'm more sharing my opinion rather than opinion. I'm all for it. Now I can have a tail, wings, and horns. I will be THE most badass human on the planet. That, and I want to be Harder, Better, Faster, and Stronger.
(also, you want your girlfriend to have a tail and ears on the top of her head)
As soon as we wish to be happier, we are no longer happy.

User avatar
Retrofuturist
Posts: 3131
Joined: 2008.09.19 (06:55)
MBTI Type: ENTP
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Postby t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư » 2009.05.17 (08:59)

scythe33 wrote:
Snuggletummy wrote:Even though I'm more sharing my opinion rather than opinion. I'm all for it. Now I can have a tail, wings, and horns. I will be THE most badass human on the planet. That, and I want to be Harder, Better, Faster, and Stronger.
(also, you want your girlfriend to have a tail and ears on the top of her head)
HOT. Let's get on this.

Image
[spoiler="you know i always joked that it would be scary as hell to run into DMX in a dark ally, but secretly when i say 'DMX' i really mean 'Tsukatu'." -kai]"... and when i say 'scary as hell' i really mean 'tight pink shirt'." -kai[/spoiler][/i]
spoiler

Image


User avatar
The Konami Number
Posts: 584
Joined: 2008.09.25 (21:40)
MBTI Type: INFP

Postby Snuggletummy » 2009.05.22 (18:20)

Tsukatu wrote:
scythe33 wrote:
Snuggletummy wrote:Even though I'm more sharing my opinion rather than opinion. I'm all for it. Now I can have a tail, wings, and horns. I will be THE most badass human on the planet. That, and I want to be Harder, Better, Faster, and Stronger.
(also, you want your girlfriend to have a tail and ears on the top of her head)
HOT. Let's get on this.

Orgasmic Picture
We should get on this. Either way though, I would still love for this to happen, but I can guarantee that the first people to go through that will probably suffer some really crazy side effects like.. rage or something.
Image
Cracked.com wrote:All video-game characters are in fact made of cotton candy. This theory, and only this theory, can explain the cat-like hydrophobia shared universally by their kind. How else are we to believe that Frogger, a frog, is killed instantly on contact with water?

User avatar
Doublemember
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009.07.13 (06:20)
NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/Viil
Location: Olean, New York

Postby Viil » 2009.07.19 (07:11)

I think it would be awesome...
omnomnom

User avatar
Plus (Size) Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 2009.08.09 (02:43)
NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/
MBTI Type: ISTJ

Postby The_Juggler » 2009.08.09 (03:03)

You know I saw a thing some time ago about a blind woman that had her sight restored by an experimental "bionic eye".

edit: forgot the links. I wish I could find the exact thing I was watching but this is pretty much the same thing.
http://thefutureofthings.com/news/1152/ ... sight.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... d-see.html

It really looked like the freakin borg, but it was a series of light sensors set to stimulate certain parts of her brain. It allowed her to see close objects as white spaces in her "vision". It's not sight, but is enough that she doesn't need a service animal to get around.
Pretty much the closest thing that exists to a real "bionic eye".

Anyway - I think it was on 60 Minutes - the show went on to talk about how much trouble she got from religious and political fanatics; all because she underwent a dangerous and experimental surgery to restore her lost sight.
Said she was no longer welcome in her church because of this.




edit:
I just remembered that I heard a story from one of my friends at another college.

A guy at his school did his senior project on IR Transmitters implanted underneath the skin. The project was to show the plausibility to have an electronic "key" implanted underneath the skin that would unlock doors and such via IR transmission. Some new cars are unlocked this way instead of a traditional key.

Anyway in addition to his report and such, as part of the project he actually went to a piercing sorta place and had an IR transmitter implanted under his own skin - in his forearm I think. The transmitter would be picked up by a number of devices and they would unlock when he got near them.

And for his innovative and above and beyond motivation he received a fail result on his senior thesis and was placed on some sort of academic probation. He had committed an act "unbecoming of a higher education student" by undergoing a bodily modification as part of a school project.
This grotesque and lewd behavior was simply unacceptable.

I think he transferred to a state university and got his BS degree in an extra semester.





What is it about this kind of human modification that stirs people up so much? Some people and groups are very much opposed to this kind of medical technology.
Image

User avatar
The Dreamster Teamster
Posts: 80
Joined: 2009.06.23 (22:32)

Postby McP » 2009.08.11 (02:42)

ive never understood how the slippery slope concept is inherently a fallacy. calling it a fallacy has always seemed like a way to make something seem like it wont go wrong.
#John Frusciante#My Smile Is A Rifle#

My smile is a rifle
Won't you give it a try?
So we like the way we dance baby
When notes come to you
I know i love you
You're all i see

My smile is a rifle
And what are you?
My smile is a rifle
I'm pointing it at you
My smile is a rifle
You'll know when you bring me in from the rain

User avatar
Plus (Size) Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 2009.08.09 (02:43)
NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/
MBTI Type: ISTJ

Postby The_Juggler » 2009.08.11 (04:59)

McP wrote:ive never understood how the slippery slope concept is inherently a fallacy. calling it a fallacy has always seemed like a way to make something seem like it wont go wrong.
The slippery slope argument is a fallacious argument because it draws conclusions based on speculative information.



Slippery slope is a fallacy in two ways:

To say - A leads to B leads to C leads to D - is conjunction fallacy. The improbability of A, B, C, and D happening all in conjunction approaches infinity the closer it gets to the end.

To say - A leads to D - is Slippery Slope Fallacy. It ignores the possibility of a middle ground and makes the informal assumption that the chain of events between A and D are insignificant.



If we don't stop mechanical augmentation to humans, pretty soon we'll all be robots!
Hopefully there'll be awesome sex-bots though - yeah!
Image

User avatar
La historia me absolverá
La historia me absolverá
Posts: 2228
Joined: 2008.09.19 (14:27)
NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/maestro
MBTI Type: INTP
Location: Beijing
Contact:

Postby 乳头的早餐谷物 » 2009.08.11 (05:05)

The_Juggler wrote:To say - A leads to B leads to C leads to D - is conjunction fallacy. The improbability of A, B, C, and D happening all in conjunction approaches infinity the closer it gets to the end.
That doesn't seem right. For starters, wouldn't you be talking about a progression rather than a conjunction? If you've got a logically reasoned for why A will lead to B, and then B will lead to C, and so on, it's not at all fallacious.
M E A T N E T 1 9 9 2

Image

User avatar
Plus (Size) Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 2009.08.09 (02:43)
NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/
MBTI Type: ISTJ

Postby The_Juggler » 2009.08.11 (05:20)

ortsz wrote:That doesn't seem right. For starters, wouldn't you be talking about a progression rather than a conjunction? If you've got a logically reasoned for why A will lead to B, and then B will lead to C, and so on, it's not at all fallacious.
And you can make a logical progression from A to B, but when you place a series of these logical progressions together it becomes a conjunction and therefore conjunction fallacy.

Also after one iteration of A to B - you are using speculative information to base any future comparison. If A actually does produce B, we can't make any decisions until we see the factual result of B.



As example:
If I lose my sense of hearing it is probable that I will lose my job as a musician, if I lose my job I will probably lose my house, if I lose my house I will probably kill myself.

All comparisons after the first one are speculative in relation to the first comparison and are therefore speculative themselves.
Image

User avatar
The Konami Number
Posts: 586
Joined: 2008.09.19 (12:27)
NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/Atilla

Postby Atilla » 2009.08.11 (12:01)

All the comparisons are speculative including the first one, because you're saying things are probable. If the relation was "If a shape is a square, it will have four sides, and if it has four sides, it will not have three corners, and if it doesn't have three corners, it will not be my hat a triangle", it would be perfectly logical to conclude that if a shape is a square, it will not be a triangle.

The problem with the slippery slope argument is that it all too often involves assertions like "if I get a cut on my finger, things will spiral out of control, my bleeding will continue to increase exponentially, and eventually an ocean of blood will flow from my finger, cause the seas to rise, and thus bring about the end of civilization as we know it." Or "If a buy a lottery ticket, there's a chance that I might win, and then I could start my own private army and take over country. So, buying a lottery ticket will lead to me ruling the country".

In other words, the "slippery slope" isn't necessarily a fallacy... but people tend to forget that they have to justify all the intermediary points and the relation between them, or forget that just because something might happen doesn't mean it will - especially when you've just strung two dozen "mights" and "mays" together.

User avatar
Plus (Size) Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 2009.08.09 (02:43)
NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/
MBTI Type: ISTJ

Postby The_Juggler » 2009.08.11 (15:54)

Atilla wrote:The problem with the slippery slope argument is that it all too often involves assertions like...

...In other words, the "slippery slope" isn't necessarily a fallacy
Ok I stand somewhat corrected, and I did fail to mention that the slippery slope argument can be made valid if used properly - but it typically is not.

I *don't* want to start a political discussion, this isn't the place for it - but I hear exactly this argument in politics all the time.
It's always "if the government allows this and that, we'll be up to our knees in lizards in no time!"


So to move back into discussion - if you could have some sort of hyper-tech bionic implant, what would you want to have?
Image

User avatar
Queen of All Spiders
Posts: 4263
Joined: 2008.09.29 (03:54)
NUMA Profile: http://www.freeWoWgold.edu
MBTI Type: ENFP
Location: Quebec, Canada!

Postby SlappyMcGee » 2009.08.11 (16:09)

The_Juggler wrote: I *don't* want to start a political discussion, this isn't the place for it -

Actually...
Loathes


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests