Support the IEET




The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.



Search the IEET
Subscribe and Contribute to:


Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view




whats new at ieet

Soylent Update Keto Version

Fermi Paradox & the Great Filter- Are We Likely Doomed?

Sherlock Holmes as Cyborg and the Future of Retail

Artificial Intelligence, Anthropics & Cause Prioritization

What is the Difference between Posthumanism and Transhumanism?

Building the Virtues Control Panel


ieet books

Virtually Human: The Promise—-and the Peril—-of Digital Immortality
Author
by Martine Rothblatt


comments

Rick Searle on 'The Problem with the Trolley Problem, or why I avoid utilitarians near subways' (Jul 29, 2014)

Ste4en on 'What is the Difference between Posthumanism and Transhumanism?' (Jul 29, 2014)

OC on 'The Maverick Nanny with a Dopamine Drip: Debunking Fallacies in the Theory of AI Motivation' (Jul 29, 2014)

CygnusX1 on 'The Problem with the Trolley Problem, or why I avoid utilitarians near subways' (Jul 28, 2014)

instamatic on 'Beauty Is Skin-deep—But That’s Where Genetic Engineering Is Going Next' (Jul 27, 2014)

instamatic on 'Why We’ll Still Be Fighting About Religious Freedom 200 Years From Now!' (Jul 27, 2014)

contraterrine on 'Radcliffe-Richards on Sexual Inequality and Justice (Part Two)' (Jul 27, 2014)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



JET

Transhumanism and Marxism: Philosophical Connections

Sex Work, Technological Unemployment and the Basic Income Guarantee

Technological Unemployment but Still a Lot of Work…

Hottest Articles of the Last Month


Nanomedical Cognitive Enhancement
Jul 11, 2014
(6063) Hits
(0) Comments

Interview with Transhumanist Biohacker Rich Lee
Jul 8, 2014
(5930) Hits
(0) Comments

Virtually Sacred, by Robert Geraci – religion in World of Warcraft and Second Life
Jul 3, 2014
(4496) Hits
(0) Comments

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
Jul 5, 2014
(3730) Hits
(18) Comments



Comment on this entry

Ray Kurzweil, Google’s Director Of Engineering, Wants To Bring The Dead Back To Life


December 31, 2012

“Inventor Ray Kurzweil hopes to develop ways for humans to live forever, and while he’s at it, bring back his dead father. Behind him is the support of a tech giant. This month, Kurzweil, a futurist, stepped into the role of Director of Engineering at Google, focusing on machine learning and language processing.” - Huffpost



...

Complete entry


COMMENTS



Posted by jasoncstone  on  01/03  at  02:35 PM

Recently, I've been trying to reconcile my interest in human enhancement through technology with my deep respect for humanity as a natural phenomena and I'd like to propose a compromise. I propose that there be an "age of consent" at which "natural born humans" can elect for themselves if they would like to be "technologically augmented" (e.g. robotics, gene therapy, smart drugs, implants, etc.).

Necessary medical interventions would be available before that age and human rights theorist would need to define a working definition of what a "natural human" is so that we can better understand what we are seeking to preserve.

For instance, babies born from natural combinations of parents' genes through embryo selection may still be considered "natural humans". Those enhanced with artificial physiological or genetic features, especially those that could be transmitted to their offspring, may not be considered "natural humans" and a parent may be seen as violating the rights of their child if they were to modify their children in these ways.

Why shouldn't we ask that humans be born natural and that they be protected from whatever vulnerabilities that may entail until the age of consent? We already protect children from things like sex and alcohol. This seems like a natural role for a parent to play for a child and it preserves humanity as a natural phenomena with all it's unknown properties and potential. Perhaps the augmentations available in 100 or 1000 years will be very different from the ones that are available today. Why go about replacing the human phenomena with the first wave of fads in augmentation technology?

I think enhancement is a right that's hard to deny, but it should only occur with informed consent and it should not endanger the perpetuation of "natural humans". I think the ethical way forward is to cultivate human nature by guiding it towards expressions that minimize injury to oneself and others while preserving the somewhat mysterious properties imbued to us by nature. Modifying the human race to give it more utility and manageability is something like replacing grass with astroturf. Could there be any greater crime against humanity?





Add your comment here:


Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | AFRICAN FUTURES PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376