7 replies to this topic

[Ghostrider]

http://neuroethics.s.....0Enhancement"

I think the main reason some people are against cognitive enhancement and other forms of transhumanism is not because they are genuinely concerned about what others do to themselves, but instead the more selfish reason of fear of competition.

[Centurion]

I'd be more afraid of transhumanist adaptations becoming an expensive luxury for the rich. Market forces would surely make this a probable outcome.

[Utnapishtim]

I find this neuroethics article overwhelmingly collectivist and statist in its outlook...
To be frank it sickens me.


"Regulatory agencies might find their responsibilities expanding into considerations of
lifestyle’ benefits and the definition of acceptable risk in exchange for such benefits"

WHY does this have to be defined collectively? Why must WE agree on acceptable risks instead of deciding on the basis of our individual circumstances temperaments and inclinations? Incidentally, regulatory agencies will "find" nothing of the sort. It will only occur if they actively choose to impose their will upon the private choices of others. The regulator is not a passive party here. It is a potential predator.

"Safety is a concern with all medications and procedures, but our tolerance for risk is
smallest when the treatment is purely elective."

Who is this we and WHY do I have to be a part of it? Reading this article I get thoroughly sick of having my interests defined for me by the ever present WE

"At the same time, improving our natural endowments for traits such as attention span runs the risk of commodifying them."

Ethicist drivel at its finest.. such vague fears are always voiced before attempting to justify a transfer of autonomy from the individual to the group.

"However, when we improve our productivity by taking a pill, we might also be undermining the value and dignity of hard work,"

If WE think unnecessarily hard work is so damn dignified why don't WE take our ass off to an amish community rather than attempt to impose our vision of what is dignified on others?


"Continuing our current laissez-faire approach,with individuals relying on their physicians or illegal suppliers for neurocognitive enhancement, risks running afoul of public opinion, drug laws and physicians’ codes of ethics."

Good old socialist group think... People WANT their choices taken away so its important that the government performs this vital service for them.

“The question is therefore not whether we need policies to
govern neurocognitive enhancement, but rather what
kind of policies we need.”

Translation: The question is NOT if we will exercise authoritarianism in restricting individual choice(of course we will) but just what the best way of imposing our power on other people is.

Edited by Utnapishtim, 19 August 2006 - 04:04 AM.

[Utnapishtim]

I highly recommend that people read the original article the opening post links to. It illustrates EXACTLY the mentality we are up against as life extensionists. Although in this case it relates to cognitive enhancement, it takes little imagination to guess how its author would feel about something as socially disruptive as life extension.

[Ghostrider]

WHY does this have to be defined collectively? Why must WE agree on acceptable risks instead of deciding on the basis of our individual circumstances temperaments and inclinations? Incidentally, regulatory agencies will "find" nothing of the sort. It will only occur if they actively choose to impose their will upon the private choices of others. The regulator is not a passive party here. It is a potential predator.

Yes, if people were consistent in their beleifs, I do not think transhumanists would have anything to worry about. However, I fear that there will be double standards applied. If people were consistent in their beleifs, I think the legal standards put in place by Roe-vs-Wade firmly state that other individuals have no matter in determining what one can and cannot do to one's body. Clearly there have been no laws to place restrictions on cosmetic surgery. I wonder what the author of that article thinks about abortion. Should people collectively decide under which cases abortion should be allowed? Should people collectively decide which types of cosmetic surgery should and should not be performed? I fear that the legal system could engage in double standards. But if they do, then one will just need to go to Korea or China for the treatments. The author is correct though that those nations which do not choose to embrace real cognitive enhancement technologies, will likely fall behind economically.

[doug123]

I highly recommend that people read the original article the opening post links to. It illustrates EXACTLY the mentality we are up against as life extensionists. Although in this case it relates to cognitive enhancement, it takes little imagination to guess how its author would feel about something as socially disruptive as life extension.

Ghostrider:

Thank you for posting this.

Utnapishtim: can you post a link to the "original article" to which you refer?

[Utnapishtim]

Nootropikamil. I was just referring to the Neuroethics piece ghost rider linked to.

[xanadu]

Utnap, you are exactly right. The garbage in that article is typical of the fascist mentality that tries to take away all freedom of choice from the individual and put it in the hands of beaurocrats. If I better myself it might disadvantage some lazy bum so better pass a stupid law stopping people from bettering themselves. Might as well do away with schools under that theory. Educated people make lazy bums look bad so do away with the schools.