More handpicked essays just for you.
Guidelines for a social problem essay
Guidelines for a social problem essay
Introduction to Research Methodology
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
When did being human become not good enough? Transhumanism theories strive toward the perfect human, a posthuman, which can be achieved through modern technology. In the opinion of transhumanists, humans are constantly subject to change and their calling is to transcend their body and brain in order to reach their full potential. While this may have positive effects for the people involved, such as immunity toward hereditary diseases, Down syndrome for example, the question arises what is considered ethical in these practices. Three ethical issues arise when considering transhumanism. Firstly, should we extend our mortality and take away the chance for another human to live life on this earth to the fullest? Secondly, once the human race is perfect, we will not know what makes us unique and gives us our personality. Thirdly, the ability to breed perfect humans brings with it the possibility of a subspecies, due to the affordability of the specific technology. Finally, the need for enhancement comes down to parents wanting the best for their children, but it soon ends up being about their child being perfect.
At first glance, transhumanism is an impressive and fascinating idea, for it intends to enhance the human in order to guarantee them a better life, thus making endless improvements and upgrades the goal. (Mossman, 141) There are different types of transhumanism ranging from technologies that are already accessible such as different medical and pharmaceutical technologies that enable better physical and cognitive abilities, to scenarios that are far in the future if not completely science-fictional such as “discarding the human body entirely and uploading the human consciousness unto artificially intelligent “immortal” machi...
... middle of paper ...
...shumanism and its Critics. Philadelphia: Metanexus Institute, 2011. Print.
Mossman, Kenneth L., and Hava Tirosh-Samuelson. Building Better Humans? : Refocusing The
Debate On Transhumanism. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2012. eBook Collection
(EBSCOhost). Web. 16 Apr. 2014.
Sandel, Michael. The Case Against Perfection. The Atlantic Monthly, 2004. Article.
Shusterman, Neal. UnSouled. New York: Simon & Shuster, 2013. Print.
Shusterman, Neal. UnWholly. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012. Print.
Shusterman, Neal. Unwind. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007. Print.
Verdoux, Philippe. "Transhumanism, Progress And The Future." Journal Of Evolution &
Technology 20.2 (2009): 49-69. Academic Search Complete. Web. 20 Apr. 2014.
Vinod, Hrishikesh D. Newborn Sex Selection and India’s Overpopulation Problem. New York:
Scientific Research, 2012. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.
Smith, Wesley J. "The Trouble with Transhumanism." The Center for Bioethics and Culture RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.
Children grow up watching movies such as Star Wars as well as Gattaca that contain the idea of cloning which usually depicts that society is on the brink of war or something awful is in the midsts but, with todays technology the sci-fi nature of cloning is actually possible. The science of cloning obligates the scientific community to boil the subject down into the basic category of morality pertaining towards cloning both humans as well as animals. While therapeutic cloning does have its moral disagreements towards the use of using the stem cells of humans to medically benefit those with “incomplete” sets of DNA, the benefits of therapeutic cloning outweigh the disagreements indubitably due to the fact that it extends the quality of life for humans.
Using science to modify humans, and better ourselves is becoming more of a reality every year. The term transhumanism can be defined as, a method to increase human’s physical and mental capacities using science (Koch, pg 686). It’s an idea that has been around for as long as humans. Humans will always strive to better themselves, and with new advances in technology and bioengineering this becomes more of a reality. The best examples are simple technologies like pacemakers, or prosthetics. They help people to live better. There are certainly more transhumanist technologies that will be developed to help the human race. However, there are many ethical issues related to transhumanism as well. Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment is a piece of literature written by Nathaniel Hawthorne. It
The issue then becomes how to consolidate the old and the new. Common ground must be found. Sandel provides us with a potential solution, and it comes back to the respect for the giftedness of life. Being a good athlete, a good performer, or a good parent comes down to this idea. It is about accepting and appreciating what life has provided for you. Through discipline and hard work, one can strengthen the body, but with significant respect in hand. For a child, there must be a careful balance between loving and challenging it. The genetic lottery is something we all participate in. Overriding this system nature has provided for us would be a deep moral violation. On what grounds would we be able to judge humanity if take complete control of it? Nobody is perfect. Accepting that opens the door to the appreciation for life.
The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of the 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 through 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.
Seven-foot, blonde haired, blue-eyed super-humans bearing the swastika and marching in perfect Aryan rhythm, bred to be smarter, stronger, superior. This is a typical image when people hear the word eugenics, but there are two distinct branches: negative eugenics, which looks at removing undesirables and degenerates from society, and positive eugenics, which looks to promote the positive hereditary traits within society. In this essay I will Look at both sides of the eugenics argument in order to find a conclusion.
Post humanism emphasizes how humans have changed in the way we understand ourselves, and how we perceive our relationship to society and to the natural world. Transhumanism has gone a step further, believing that we must realize our potential to change what we are, that through the use of technology, we can actually transmute into something more than our present selves (Bognar, 2012). With the passing of each century, the connection between the human relationship to the natural world continues to change. In addition, our perception of the natural world changes too. Repeatedly, we emphasize what makes each human special, as well as what sets each of us apart, not only from each other, but from the natural
Advancement of the human race through technology is the goal of evolution and is the reason human beings are on earth. The ability to allow future generations to reach their full potential through technology should be the goal of all human beings. The two main criticisms to this argument are, first it is considered unnatural, and secondly it is considered to be “playing god”. Transhumanists dismiss the claim of unnatural because most of what human beings do with any technology is unnatural, yet these uses are accepted as benefits, not harms (Post, 2004). As for the second concern most transhumanists consider themselves agnostics or atheists so playing god is not a legitimate concern for them. The issue is one of great concern to people...
...r, human genetic engineering is not immoral; the failure to use such a technology is truly what is unjust. To negate the resolution is to turn a person away from a possible cure, from a chance to prolong life. I have shown that human genetic engineering can improve the health of the society by both curing disease and prolonging live. Both benefits are worthy goals of any just society. These possible benefits of genetic engineering, those of curing disease and prolonging life, outweigh any possible "side-effects" that may occur with the development of any new technology. But we must remember that we do not rush into any new technology; human genetic engineering will be done carefully as with any technology, so that we may maximize the benefits of such a great gift to society. For these reasons, I affirm the resolution, "Human genetic engineering is morally justified."
Imagine that you are able to teleport to the not too distant future. In this world you discover that disease and poverty are no longer causes for human suffering, world hunger has become eliminated from society, and space travel is as easy as snapping your fingers. Cryonics, nanotechnology, cloning, genetic enhancement, artificial intelligence, and brain chips are all common technologies at a doctor’s office. You gasp as a friendly sounding electronic voice cries out, “Welcome to the future Natural!” You are unsure of whether being called a Natural is an insult or not, so you feign a half-hearted hello at the posthuman in front of you. Getting over the initial shock you ask the posthuman, “Who are you?” The posthuman gives an electronic sounding chuckle and shakes his head. He replies, “I am a Posthuman, and you Natural, are in Utopia. Welcome.”
The two controversial topics discussed below share a single goal: to enhance the quality of life of a human individual. The first topic, transhumanism, is a largely theoretical movement that involves the advancement of the human body through scientific augmentations of existing human systems. This includes a wide variety of applications, such as neuropharmacology to enhance the function of the human brain, biomechanical interfaces to allow the human muscles to vastly out-perform their unmodified colleagues, and numerous attempts to greatly extend, perhaps indefinitely, the human lifespan. While transhumanist discussion is predominantly a thinking exercise, it brings up many important ethical dilemmas that may face human society much sooner than the advancements transhumanism desires to bring into reality. The second topic, elective removal of healthy limbs at the request of the patient, carries much more immediate gravity. Sufferers of a mental condition known as Body Integrity Identity Disorder seek to put to rest the disturbing disconnect between their internal body image and their external body composition. This issue is often clouded by sensationalism and controversy in the media, and is therefore rarely discussed in a productive manner (Bridy). This lack of discussion halts progress and potentially limits citizens' rights, as legislation is enacted without sufficient research. The primary arguments against each topic are surprisingly similar; an expansion on both transhumanism and elective amputation follows, along with a discussion of the merit of those arguments. The reader will see how limits placed on both transhumanism and elective amputation cause more harm to whole of human society than good.
Transhumanist claim the individual can plan their own life. Transhumanist value autonomy: “Transhumanist place a high value on autonomy, the ability and right of individual to plan and choose their lives”(World Transhumanist Association). The right for an individual to “plan” their own life through genetic engineering is terrifying. Ethical people should not have the power to genetically enhance or themselves or others. Genetic enthusiasts may not use genetic engineering right. People genetically enhance themselves without any cause. Planning every single commodity in any person's life creates too much power. Great power corrupts the individual. Genetic engineering yields power that any person should not
...ciety. Society would be opening a Pandora’s Box by unleashing genetic enhancement. Francis Fukuyama (2004), a professor of international political economy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, urges society to consider humility when regarding genetic enhancement, “If we do not develop it (humility) soon, we may unwittingly invite the Transhumanists (GE) to deface humanity with their genetic bulldozers and psychotropic shopping malls (p. 2). How we respond to the upcoming events and policies regarding genetic enhancement in the future will forever change our lives. If we do not act accordingly society as we know it could be devalued to what Francis Fukuyama suggested. Genetic enhancement will lead to no bio-diversity and bring an end to our long and prosperous evolutionary phases. Would you want to leave this turmoil for future generations?
“The common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights - for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture - is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights is not defended with maximum determination.” -- Pope John Paul II
In Fukuyama’s short writing Transhumanism, he describes his view on what transhumanism is in the modern-day and he describes problems with the current economy, the possible repercussions of a world with transhumans, and possible side-effects of becoming a trans- human. It would not only affect society by having cyborgs and robotic super humans walking around, but he says that there would need to be a massive change in the government and the laws. There would have to be a defining line that stated the difference between a trans human and a regular human being; he then begins to ask very serious questions that would have to be answered about the sanity and safety of creating transhumans. I will break down his published writing with three topics; Outdated Infrastructure, Physiological effects of biomedical surgery, and apocalyptic transhumans.