13
13
0
https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1003&context=phil_fac
“Ethics of Human Enhancement: 25 Questions & Answers” is a research study done in 2010, by a number of US universities supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) on the ethics of Human Enhancement technologies. The extensive report touches on defining true human enhancement and the ethics, advantages and disadvantages of genetically engineering human beings. If a human could fly, live underwater, hear through rooms, etc.( see pp 14, 21-23) — what would be the societal benefits and ramifications. For instance, would enhancing some people affect equity and equal access for “unenhanced humans”?
The 2010 report notes that human enhancement engineering is inevitable and soon. The question we could ask now, is, how far has all the genetic engineering activities come since that report? Also, how will genetically-changing people affect Ancestry and Geneology lines for generations to come ? For the religious, will people still be Human if their genes or genome are altered significantly?
(further study: CRISPR, gene editing, synthetic biology-engineering. Movie to watch : Borne Legacy.)
12/15/23 UPDATED LINK - The original 2009 version of this research report, which had the interesting alien-ish cover picture, is no longer available online, so I replaced a later 2010 version link. Thanks to SGT Mary G. for tracking down the 2010 version online.
“Ethics of Human Enhancement: 25 Questions & Answers” is a research study done in 2010, by a number of US universities supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) on the ethics of Human Enhancement technologies. The extensive report touches on defining true human enhancement and the ethics, advantages and disadvantages of genetically engineering human beings. If a human could fly, live underwater, hear through rooms, etc.( see pp 14, 21-23) — what would be the societal benefits and ramifications. For instance, would enhancing some people affect equity and equal access for “unenhanced humans”?
The 2010 report notes that human enhancement engineering is inevitable and soon. The question we could ask now, is, how far has all the genetic engineering activities come since that report? Also, how will genetically-changing people affect Ancestry and Geneology lines for generations to come ? For the religious, will people still be Human if their genes or genome are altered significantly?
(further study: CRISPR, gene editing, synthetic biology-engineering. Movie to watch : Borne Legacy.)
12/15/23 UPDATED LINK - The original 2009 version of this research report, which had the interesting alien-ish cover picture, is no longer available online, so I replaced a later 2010 version link. Thanks to SGT Mary G. for tracking down the 2010 version online.
Edited 9 d ago
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 7
7
7
0
This article raises some very interesting and thought-provoking questions.
Unsurprisingly, the debate seems to be ongoing: a quick search turned up an article published out of New York University last March (1) in response to the birth of twin girls in China who had been genetically modified for resistance to HIV, and another article out of King's College London from 2017 (2) on the ethics of cybernetic enhancement.
Interestingly enough, Ms. Pearlman (author of the cybernetic article) specifically attacks the value of distinguishing between therapeutic and enhancement uses of engineering, a point which the authors of Sgt Cecil's posted article spend nearly three pages discussing without coming to any clear conclusion. Personally, I concur with Ms. Pearlman's conclusion: "Clearly, it is not enhancement technology itself that is unethical, it is perhaps the intent of the use of the technology, and that any enhancement technology should be considered on its own merits".
It's very similar to the argument heard on both sides of the aisle in the United States regarding gun ownership: guns themselves are neither dangerous nor immoral. Access to them simply enables an individual to enforce their own will and/or morals more easily on others. Used in a righteous cause (e.g., to defend the innocent), a gun can be a powerful tool for justice. Used by criminals, just the opposite. I see cybernetic enhancements in a very similar light, and suspect that in the long run we will be looking at a very similar debate about their regulation: between those who want access to the advantages that come with cybernetic enhancement in order to protect themselves or enhance their own lives (and that of their families), and those who view such enhancements as a threat to anyone who do not possess them.
1 - https://www.futurity.org/genetic-engineering-ethics-2007972/
2 - https://medium.com/@lexikon1/the-ethics-of-experimentation-ethical-cybernetic-enhancements-48f9ad991769
Unsurprisingly, the debate seems to be ongoing: a quick search turned up an article published out of New York University last March (1) in response to the birth of twin girls in China who had been genetically modified for resistance to HIV, and another article out of King's College London from 2017 (2) on the ethics of cybernetic enhancement.
Interestingly enough, Ms. Pearlman (author of the cybernetic article) specifically attacks the value of distinguishing between therapeutic and enhancement uses of engineering, a point which the authors of Sgt Cecil's posted article spend nearly three pages discussing without coming to any clear conclusion. Personally, I concur with Ms. Pearlman's conclusion: "Clearly, it is not enhancement technology itself that is unethical, it is perhaps the intent of the use of the technology, and that any enhancement technology should be considered on its own merits".
It's very similar to the argument heard on both sides of the aisle in the United States regarding gun ownership: guns themselves are neither dangerous nor immoral. Access to them simply enables an individual to enforce their own will and/or morals more easily on others. Used in a righteous cause (e.g., to defend the innocent), a gun can be a powerful tool for justice. Used by criminals, just the opposite. I see cybernetic enhancements in a very similar light, and suspect that in the long run we will be looking at a very similar debate about their regulation: between those who want access to the advantages that come with cybernetic enhancement in order to protect themselves or enhance their own lives (and that of their families), and those who view such enhancements as a threat to anyone who do not possess them.
1 - https://www.futurity.org/genetic-engineering-ethics-2007972/
2 - https://medium.com/@lexikon1/the-ethics-of-experimentation-ethical-cybernetic-enhancements-48f9ad991769
Is it ethical to genetically engineer people? - Futurity
Given the news from China of genetically modified twins, what kinds of restrictions should there be on genetic engineering?
(7)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
When enhancing and empowering a human body, who decides who gets the upgraded bodies and who doesn’t? I also agree that such enhancements (are) a threat to anyone who does not possess them. The playing and accomplishment field will be so uneven. We are coming to the era in which we will see the genetically Enhanced lording over or exterminating the Unenhanced.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
Welcome to The Island of Doctor Moreau! At one time, human experimentation was frowned on, what's changed?
(6)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
Cpl (Join to see) Belief in God and Value of Human life has decreased ; Tech and the Occult are the almighty.
(3)
(0)
6
6
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google