Print • Email • permalink • (21) Comments • (3637) Hits •  subscribe • • • • • •

---

All’s Fair in Botox and Evolution

Akansha Bhargava

Akansha Bhargava
Ethical Technology

Posted: Jul 20, 2010

---

Print • Email • permalink • (21) Comments • (3638) Hits •  subscribe • • • • • •

This seems to make sense.  But one important difference between tattoos and CPS is that one’s partner or potential partner recognizes when a person has been inked but not necessarily if s/he has undergone CPS.  So there could be an issue of deception with CPS (and perhaps acne treatment, Lasik, etc.) that doesn’t exist with tattoos.

Imagine a man with a nose job—let’s call him “Michael.”  He meets a woman who’s attracted to men with certain shapes of noses.  She doesn’t know why she’s attracted to some noses and not others…just some biological compulsion.  But she does want to have kids who have, in her estimation, “cute noses.” 

At what point in the relationship does Michael disclose that he’s had a nose job, potentially derailing the relationship?  If too early, then his partner might not be able to see Michael’s other qualities, which may be so redeeming that she forgives the natural nose.  Or if he discloses later, his partner may already be emotionally vested in the relationship and would feel guilty about breaking up over a nose job, though she strongly prefers her future kids to not have Micahel’s genetic nose.

Your article suggests that Michael never needs to disclose this fact, since “all’s fair” in evolution: as long as Michael can propogate his genes, nevermind deception or disappointment to his partner, then that’s ok. 

That doesn’t seem right to me…though I don’t know yet whether this commits me to saying that people ought to disclose any fact about themselves to potential partners that might matter to them, e.g, some childhood trauma that made them incapable of intimacy or fearful of roller coasters.  I suppose this is why people typically talk to each other before committing to a relationship.  And if some personal fact really doesn’t affect yor partner, then perhaps there’s no reason to disclose it.  But CPS seems to something that would matter, to the extent that we pair up based on attractiveness to mate and other qualities.

Procreation being what it is there’s no guarantee the woman in question would get children with the nose she wants, unless of course we take genetic engineering into account.

Your point about deception is well taken though.  Deception in other matters (pretending to be wealthy when we are not, lying about our past actions) is rightly condemned by most people.  Fundamentally CPS is no different as a person is essentially lying about their genetic profile. 

Should people tell their potential partners about any modifications they’ve had?  I don’t know.  Most relationships already suffer from a crippling lack of honesty so I’m not sure adding another factor to the equation really changes matters.

@ Matt -

Agreed.  But though there’s no guarantee that any genetic trait will be passed along through procreation, odds go down dramatically if only one or no parent has a desired trait.

And failing to disclose any CPS is not only potentially dishonest, but it also may affect the lives of future children.  Not disclosing CPS and health issues doesn’t just merely give one’s kids weird noses (which may affect their prospects of finding a partner as well as their relationship with the parent who doesn’t find such noses attractive) but also perhaps serious health conditions that the CPS or non-disclosure was supposed to cover up, such as propensity for skin cancer or some hereditary disease.  It is not unreasonable for a person to wish for a family that is as free from such risks as possible, even to the extent that s/he would not select a mate based on medical profiles.

It could be some non-disclosure or deception is acceptable, e.g., makeup.  And some CPS may be so trivial that it need not be disclosed.  But where to draw the line?  I don’t see that it’s defensible to say that no CPS ever needs to be disclosed.  Yes, CPS does deliver benefits (self-confidence, etc.) to the individual, but when other individuals are involved, the moral calculus also changes.

In the consumer world, the saying is caveat emptor, or “let the buyer beware.”  But even businesses have a moral duty and legal duty to not engage in fraud and to disclose relevant risks.  It seems that we should uphold this minimal standard when it comes to something far more important than shopping: our relationships and future generations.

Thus, if person A marries person B because B looks really good with makeup, then A would have no cause to complain if B doesn’t look good without makeup—A should have looked past the marketing/fancy packaging and done some due-diligence.  But if it turns out that B suffers from a serious condition that will cause her to be incapacitiated or that may be passed onto her kids, then non-disclosure would seem to be not only fraud but also a potential cause for real harm (financial, emotional, etc.).

Needless to say, I have thought about this ALOT.

If you’ve ever read William Gibson’s Cyberpunk novels, or watched Shirow Masamune’s Ghost in the Shell, you’ve seen a very possible look at where we may be heading in the near future.  While like all cyberpunk, it tends to dramatize the darkest sides of human nature, in both we see a world where mankind has embraced technology to the extent that most all of society has at least some cybertechnology embedded within them, even if it’s only to the extent of having a communications system embedded in their ear.  It’s a world where organic and inorganic are almost completely interchangeable, and the question of man or machine becomes blurred.

These are valid views, and make us look at the hard realities of what we want our future to be, but almost invariably they utterly fail to deal with the very probable likelihood that not every person is going to chose to look like a standard human, or if they touch on the issue at all, it’s in a very limited way, such as gangster Cyborgs who rebuilt themselves into killing machines for the mob.  In most cases such changes are always shown in a bad light, the bad guy makes himself look monstrous while the good guy is always as human as possible.

Indeed, when he wrote Engines of Creation, K. Eric Drexler, the founder of the science of Nanotechnology, went out of his way to avoid any possible mention that people may choose to use such technologies to alter their appearance.  Nor is he alone.  It seems almost a universal agreement among both science fiction writers and scientists themselves to avoid any mention of human alteration.  If it is used in a plot, it is always done for evil purposes, or is an utter failure that drives people insane or kills them off in gruesome ways.  You can’t pick up a Michael Crichton novel without science “trespassing” on either god or nature’s turf, or read many other science fiction stories, manga, or graphic novels without running into the same view of “changing humanity is evil.”  Indeed the only exception to this I have read in recent years has been Adam Warren’s version of the Dirty Pair, where human “genetic upgrades” make up 90% of the population and come in just about any form you can think of.

Yet when you look at Second Life, and its population base, while it is nowhere near that sort of human/nonhuman balance, you do find a very high number of people who do not chose to look like a “vanilla” human.  Be it from something as simple as adding cat ears and a tail to full body remakes into a giant dragon, or from simple cybernetic implants to full robotic form, you will find customization is the name of the game.  It’s not just making a distinct look for oneself, or expressing individuality, so much as it is about being yourself.  Even among people like me, who collect and change avatars on a daily basis, we generally have a “main form” which they will most commonly wear.  Many people on SL don’t even go that far, but simply have a single avatar they always wear and never change once they have satisfied themselves on its appearance.

So, if in a world made almost completely by the populace non-humans are so very very common, why is the possibility of such modifications taking place in the real world such a seeming taboo?

The answer is simple: Fear.

Before you dismiss that as an overly simplistic answer, let’s look at some of the various issues raised in various media.  First is a fear of loss of identity.  Will you still be you if you can suddenly change everything about how you look?  If an ugly person suddenly becomes beautiful, will they suddenly suffer a radical personality shift?  What if they replace most of their body with cybernetics?  Will they even think like a human anymore? And if an ugly person can become beautiful, isn’t that “deception” since you can’t penalize them for their looks anymore? we place so many value judgements on appearance that a world of pretty people makes us fear being unable to tell the “villains” from the “good guys”.

From a government standpoint, there is more fear over identity, but in their case it is more about keeping track of people than fear of personality changes and personal identity.  How can a criminal be apprehended if he can change bodies, fingerprints, retina scans, etc?  For a corporation, how can you be sure that person with access to your company secrets is really who it’s supposed to be?

And what about gender swapping?  If changing genders is as easy as going to a store and getting a makeover what will happen to the traditional roles of male and female?  Of mother and father or son and daughter?  If a child wants to have a choice of gender, can we force them to choose?  And what about racial characteristics?  When black can be white or Hispanic or even Asian?  And what about those like my furry friends who chose animalistic forms?

At the base of all these questions and fears is the root fear xenophobia. Looking at a future so radically different as to include humans who chose to be other than human is outside of our experience, and difficult to conceive.  Even when sci fi tries to deal with non-humans seriously, you tend to end up with something like Star Wars, where even the aliens tend to think and act just like humans regardless of how they look.

So why, really, is the idea of non-human humans such a hard concept to visualize?  I would think it would be rather easy compared to the work of early sci fi writers who tried so very hard to create truly alien aliens.  We know how humans think, so what really might be different?

The answer is surprisingly little if you look at the world of Second Life.

That’s right.  Most people on SL probably don’t even think about the issues just brought up because they are fears, and the reality has shown that they are little more than tissues and cobwebs.

I have dozens of shapes, and I switch them at a whim, but regardless of what form I wear, my personality is the same.  The person I am inside my head is who everyone meets, and the exterior is little more than a convenience.  I couldn’t even tell you on a practical basis who is male or female outside of SL.  Many, like me, stick solely to a single gender, while others switch on a whim, and still others are both simultaneously.  There’s even hermaphroditic specific gender pronouns such as Hir.  And one thing I have never ever been asked in SL is what sex I am outside SL.  Considering the number of times I have been asked that in other MMORPGs, it’s odd when you consider the hyper-realism of SL.  You would think that more people would want to know if that naked dancer on a pole that they are trying to talk into a private room for cybersex is the gender that they appear.  Yet never in several years of playing has the question ever been asked.

Now before you think SL is all about sex, remember that I work as a stripper in a club.  It’s not the sole basis of SL, but it is an interesting place to watch the interactions of people.  There’s surprisingly little concern over gender roles, deception, race, or any of the other “divisions” we enforce IRL.

Nor is there as much concern over *species* as you’d suspect.  There was in the early days, but the number of people with prejudices causing problems has dropped enormously over the relatively few years SL has existed.  In my early days, I can recall numerous “greifer” attacks made against the club where I worked, yet in the two years since then, they’ve all but become rumors heard about happening elsewhere.  I get harassed by the Horde more in World of Warcraft than I ever get hassled about my appearance in SL, even if I am the sole non-human in a mainstream club.  Indeed, surprising numbers of “humans” have a furry AV tucked away in their inventory for costume parties, which is by and far the most popular way to draw a crowd to a club.  I make most of my SL income from costume contests and tips dancing, and spend a lot of my time analyzing fashion trends.  Animal Ears and Tails are becoming a huge rage.

So what does this tell me?  That a lot of the fears of changing humanities appearance are based on erroneous assumptions.  The exploration of those fears makes for excellent stories, but bears little resemblance to reality.

Given that a similar ability is granted to humanity at large outside of cyberspace, be it by Nanotech, Biotech, Cybertech, or whatever, what does Second Life seem to indicate is likely to occur?

Following the initial introduction of such technology, it’s likely we’re going to see an enormous number of copies.  As a recent article I read put it, “the world will be filled with 8 foot tall Brad Pitt Clones with Arnold Swartzenegger bodies, and endless copies of Nicole Kidman.

It’s quite likely to be true, to start.  It’s a universal desire to be beautiful, strong, and attractive.  We look to our media stars to define these things for us. We’re undoubtedly going to see a million Angelina Jolies, Brad Pitts, Marilyn Monroes, Tom Cruses, and every other media icon from the entire history of film.  It will likely be the rage at the beginning.

But if it can be done once, what’s to stop it from being done a hundred thousand times?  Why assume that people will be happy with everyone looking like the latest media icon?

There will be the start, when a few start, and there might be some controversy, but it will likely be controversy of the sort generated by tabloids.  “So and So used a controversial new plastic surgery technique to make themselves look like X!”

And like face lifts and who got a boob job, we’ll shrug and go, so what?  We’re already familiar with current methods of plastic surgery, and what real controversy is there anymore?  So a new technique of plastic surgery exists, it’s pretty meaningless.

Then we’ll start to see more and more, “New technique can make anyone look however they want!”  “New Techniques can make man into female!”  “New techniques can make Man look like Cat!”

Oh, wait… haven’t we already seen those headlines?

From there, we’re likely to see the beginning of a gradual increase of people who have changed themselves to look different, first from those who are already inclined to do so.  Transexual surgery is almost commonplace today, but regulated because if it’s irreversibility.  If a technique were in place that worked equally well in both directions, psychologists will likely begin prescribing it, knowing that if their patients find it to be the incorrect choice for them that they would be able to reverse it.

From there, it’s a short step to prescribing it for other cases, such a minimum improvements for the unattractive who have developed extreme psychological issues because of it, to gradually becoming a treatment for general insecurity and lack of self esteem.

At the same time, it will become more and more common as a treatment in Hollywood, or among those who are the idle rich, or in the public eye, gradually becoming common enough that it’s likely to found everywhere, as just another plastic surgery office.

At the same time, as computers become more and more miniaturized, portable, and internetworked, we’re going to become more and more used to seeing each other not only as our physical forms, but as our online Avatars as well.  With the advent of OpenSim systems, and the likelihood that a lot of new MMORPG’s will begin interfacing with these Virtual spaces, and allow you to use your personal Avatar in the game world, people will become more and more used to associating your AV with the physical you.

Indeed, if Virtual overlays become commonplace, and as video contact lenses are already in development, it’s probably inevitable, we will probably become used to seeing your AV IN PLACE of your physical body.

At which point, the ability to change your physical body will start to seem a more and more attractive idea to a larger and larger proportion of the population.  When you’re used to interacting with Valkyrie Ice, the 7 foot Amazon succubus, your brain is going to have a harder time accepting her as a big brawny guy than it will accepting her as a 7 foot tall white haired demoness.

So, as I see it, a majority of these fears we currently have are going to be sidestepped, because the technology for radical body alteration will have already been anticipated by Virtuality, and it all started in Second Life.

And all those Brad Pitt clones?  A few will always exist, but the vast majority will get bored of looking like every one else, and like so many people in Second Life, will likely begin to look either like an idealized version of themselves, or something completely, radically different, once they realize that there’s no limits, and that they can change their mind whenever they feel like it.

After all, it’s only an Avatar. The “real you” is the person behind the appearance.

I agree with Patrick that CPS would seem to be something that would and should matter. This is something that will be potentially revealed in the pairs offspring. It’s best not to get surprises in your baby you weren’t expecting i.e. Michael’s large nose and run the risk of getting questions of who the baby looks like.

Akansha, I like your piece. One of the things that is important in this discussion are the psychological benefits of getting CPS and being fully informed of these. Which includes not just the person getting the CPS, but those around them that will also be affected by the changes. While you are correct, CPS “can dramatically affect quality of life” this is one of the areas that people need to consider. Take for instance Heidi Montag’s life since her dramatic transformation. The changes were not limited to her, they extended farther out to those around her. It’s a great hot topic for gossip and serious discussion.

@  Akansha…

Well said.. any treatments cosmetic or otherwise, that help people gain confidence and improve their quality of lives is to be advocated. Although I do not personally find body piercing or tattoos or even big boob jobs attractive myself, if a person gains confidence and is able to more fully fulfil their aspirations in life, then good luck to them. We are all prone to judging people on their looks, which is mostly an evolutionary trait and can be quite uncontrollable, despite believing whole-heartedly that we do not.

As far as deception is concerned, then if you fall for someone and you wish to progress with a relationship, then honesty is the best policy and normally wins the day. Most of us do not wait until the wedding vows to profess ..“By the way darling, I need to tell you this, I used to be a man/woman?”.. “OMG!”

That said, if someone has a personal reason not to declare they had a previous conjoined twin removed, or some other birth defect, or other, that they truly find disturbing or distressing to talk about, even to a loved one, then so be it. In this case is this really deception?

I think the point you are all overlooking in the deception issue is that WHY DOES IT MATTER WHEN THE CHILD CAN JUST AS EASILY RECEIVE APPEARANCE ENHANCEMENT?

We are rapidly making physical appearance MEANINGLESS and just as rapidly making it possible to remove all harmful genetic defects from the gene pool.  While I am against genetic trait manipulation of the unborn, why should a child who is capable of choosing for themselves what they wish to look like be prevented from doing so if morphological changes can be done safely repeatedly without harm?

Right now, CPS is not a perfect science, as we are still not to the point that we can do repeated surgeries without damage, but as we are likely to develop stem cell techniques in the very near future that will allow almost all surgeries to be done non-invasively, and without damage, or even scaring, why would even base genetic code matter?

The failure of vision here is assuming that CPS will be perfected, but that like today, it is a one time, one way procedure, and that will not be true by the time frames in which CPS will have become so cheap and affordable that everyone can use it. Additionally you have made the assumption that only a few individuals would use it, where as based on my experiences in environments in which morphological freedom does exist, it is likely to be a universal phenomena, with everyone using it to some extent. Thus it is likely to be assumed that EVERYONES appearance is by choice, and the focus will be on personalities.

That said, if someone has a personal reason not to declare they had a previous conjoined twin removed, or some other birth defect, or other, that they truly find disturbing or distressing to talk about, even to a loved one, then so be it. In this case is this really deception?

Non-disclosure is different, but related to, deception.  Deception involves an intent to mislead, such as a lie or changed appearance—so merely failing to tell the whole truth doesn’t count as lying or deception, but it could still be wrong. 

If the issue not disclosed is something that potentially matters to your partner (e.g., if you had a sex change operation) or could affect your kids (e.g., you were a conjoined twin and thus pass along that risk), then I think it ought to be disclosed, whether or not it is difficult for you to talk about (because it’s not all about you).  Not disclosing an important issue would be dishonest in a non-trivial way and thus would be wrong, at least in my off-the-cuff analysis.

WHY DOES IT MATTER WHEN THE CHILD CAN JUST AS EASILY RECEIVE APPEARANCE ENHANCEMENT?

Well, besides the financial cost, there are risks and pain from surgeries (at least today and for the foreseeable future).  There may also be self-image and other issues.  And it seems you’d only be postponing if not perpetuating the deception issue, i.e., your kids’ kids may suffer the same issues and costs.

Thus it is likely to be assumed that EVERYONES appearance is by choice, and the focus will be on personalities.

Why is it better to focus on personalities rather than appearance?  Is personality a better signal of health, vitality, or some other evolutionary advantage than physical appearance?  Doesn’t personality also change with time, as does the body?  Anyway, personalities can be modified, e.g., Prozac today.  As long as we’re indulging in fantasies about the future, we might as well stipulate that personalities can easily go through wholesale changes, just as you suppose bodies will be able to…

@ Patrick…

I get your meaning regarding deception, but I do not feel that people in relationships would be that cynical as to deceive each other, at least not in a relationship based on trust. A relationship based on fear, (of your love rejecting you), would be more grounds for deception or withholding cosmetic or even genetic past histories.

If a partner knowingly had a serious hereditary illness such as Hepatitis or was even diagnosed as HIV then you could say this was deceptive or even naïve to the importance of such disclosure, yet I’m sure this does not apply here?

Not to put a downer on this debate… here is a link to a UK Channel 4 program I am watching at this very moment.. Regarding botched cosmetic surgeries. The most alarming thing here is the number of early teens that see their own bodies and image as in need of surgery even now?

Warning.. this is graphic stuff… watch it at your own risk!! [not for the squeamish!]

“The Ugly face of beauty”

“With the increasing popularity of cosmetic surgery in the UK, Dr Christian Jessen shines a spotlight on the industry and comes to the aid of women who have fallen victim to botched operations”

>> http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-ugly-face-of-beauty

@Patrick

And you are still assuming that such genetic risks cannot be removed from the gene line, or from any children created from that gene line.  Again, you are using a line of reasoning inconsistent with the likely advances that will be concurrent with universally available CPS and morphological freedom. Namely: Genetic disease being removable, and genetic “heritage” becoming a matter of personal choice.

For an example, let’s use myself.

Given the advances likely to be in place by the time I can assume the succubus form in my Avatar, my genetic code, while unlikely to carry the “additions” of horns hooves tail etc, I do expect that my “genetic code” is likely to have been subjected to the most basic of “genetic fixes” by exchanging my “y” chromosome for an “X” while stemcell technology is likely to have provided me with the proper reproductive organs, making my original “status” as male of absolutely no importance in my ability to “reproduce” as a female.

As technology advances and those “additions” become able to be retro modded to my DNA, via nanotech or highly advanced biotech, then I could indeed “pass along” my appearance to descendants… BUT WHY SHOULD I ASSUME THEY WILL WANT TO KEEP THEM?  They can manipulate their own DNA at will as easily as I can.

It’s this that you are failing to take into account.  You are viewing CPS from the perspective of someone trapped in the Genetic Lottery in which we are bound today, assuming that all people will ALWAYS be trapped similarly, DESPITE the very premise that CPS enables people to be freed from that exact same trap.

@ Patrick.

Why personalities? Because Personalities are a Social phenomena, and involve social skills, and as such are better indicators of compatibility than “appearance” 

In a world in which everyone can look like they want, and in which “reproduction” is optional (which it ALREADY IS if people would just use the available tech, but which advancing technology is finding multiple solutions to ensuring it’s Optionability) then Social factors will become a better indicator of “relationship” potential, vs pure “sexual attraction”

Why do I say this?  Because I have OBSERVED IT HAPPENING.  This is what has occurred over four years of personal observation in SL. People who first arrive try hard to make their forms match their “RL” bodies.  But over time, they begin to make “improvements” Do you really think that every person in SL is really a 6 foot plus DD or a 7 foot Body Builder?  No, but those are the “attractiveness” stereotypes we are accustomed too. So on the whole, people negate those “physical defects” that they perceive in their appearance, and form relationships on personalities.

This isn’t “conjecture” It’s observed behavior.

@ Valkyrie:

It’s not so much that I’m assuming that such genetic risks cannot be removed from the gene line—God knows that a lot of my research trades on speculations about the future.  But I’m simply not assuming we have that capability, as a conservative/responsible way to do scenario planning and talk about policy/ethics today.

I’d agree that, if the future brings techno-utopia, then many or all of our old ways of thinking will probably go out the window (if windows still exist in the future, as opposed to see-thru walls).  But that’s another conversation than how humans are, act, and expect today.

On your last reply, you don’t address my main point: why does it matter if we focus on personalities, if personalities can be easily changed in the future?  (I agree that relationships today are stronger if based on personalities.)

@ Cygnus:

I don’t know that cynicism is the root cause of deceiving others in one’s relationships—could be more about a need for love and fear of rejection.  Any which way, I think there’s still a lot of deception going on in relationships, especially in the delicate early stages.  Again, if we’re talking about what’s real today, humans are still hardwired to select mates based on health/fitness signals, which include wealth, though (luckily for me) not exclusively.

@ Patrick..

You are far too modest! And finally you admit to your conservative tendencies.. ;0]

Love.. yes… and fear of rejection.. yes.. what hope for humanity?

Again lots of good points here on human minds, aspirations of morphological freedom, much suffering due to cravings and pursuit of acceptance, (by others).. and yet underneath all this.. I see only confusion about Self.. “who am I?” No really.. help me to define myself through what I am to what I “think” I really am? (one step closer to the purely spiritual).

I like your comment about windows.. and in my vision of the “future” there are no windows, (or spoons), the matrix is real, (if not already so), and uploaded minds can be absolutely any thing?… or more to the point “no thing” at all, merely mind.. and who knows the final merging of these minds may even dispense with individuality itself? God created, or God realised?

Akansha is going to be livid that her article has been dragged so far off track here.

Anyways, you seem to be more open to treatment for psychological anomalies than purely physical ones? Surely there are many psychological traits that are both hereditary and not so easy to treat with simple drugs. I’m thinking Schizophrenia, (conjoined twins of the mind?) “I forget to tell you honey, the rest of my family are axe murderers but fear me not? I’m sure the kids will turn out OK?”

Can you really ever know your partner/spouse/lover so completely that they never have some secret from you? Be it a fling, a flirt, an affair, and old flame.. even whilst you are together? Do you aspire to know someone “so completely” that you become as “one” with them? I do.. I hope you do too? For this to happen we must have faith and trust in our relationships and accept any past failures or misrepresentations and loving deceit and see it for what it really is? Fear of rejection is one answer, maybe shame, (that vile self-loathing) is another?

@patrick.

I assume a technological level consistent with the needed technology to enable morphological freedom. I also write about future tech, but I view it from a holistic approach, looking at not just the single development, but at ALL developments that seem to be following the same trends.

Thus, by the end of the decade, I see the strong likelihood of basic genetic therapy enabled by the fast analyzing methods being developed currently in labs combined with the zinc fingers DNA cutting techniques and the creation of massive genetic databases through such projects as Tinkercell. All of these are in the lab right now, and are likely to be available commercially by the end of the decade, if not sooner.

That covers the ability to “edit” DNA on a very basic level, able to remove such genetic “flaws” as those which cause inheritable diseases, and such minor “fixes” as splicing in an X chromosome in stead of a Y.  Not one bit of it is far fetched thinking based on where we currently stand with these technologies.

From the CPS stand point, we are rapidly finding hundreds of methods to use stemcells, from repair of heart tissue, to growing organs on “scaffolds” to printing them in a “bioprinter” capable of making entire tissues.  Stem cells are already in use for CPS in breast augmentation, cosmetic repair of missing tissue, and numerous other minor cosmetic uses, including “blood rejuvenation”  Again, nothing I talk about is farfetched based on precisely where we are already at today technologically speaking.  It’s in the labs, just not on the street yet.

Then I also take into account another technology, VR. I discussed previously that VR will be a catalyst pushing developments in CPS as people become used to interacting daily not only in person, but as their VR Avatar.  That was the entire POINT of posting my long original reply in this thread.  That VR will lead to demand for Morphological freedom. There are hundreds of other factors I could throw in as well, including political and social trends, economic conditions, and thousands of other scientific endeavors which all seem to contribute towards the technological developments I see making morphological freedom a reality as soon as the end of the decade, but which are far more peripheral.

Therefore, knowing what I do about were we are technologically speaking today, I cannot see your view as “conservative/responsible” but as “denialist/ rejectionist.” in that you fail to take into account the true “full picture” and thus base your questions on an extremely narrow and unlikely set of assumed conditions: i.e. that morphological freedom will occur in an environment in which it is minimally available, socially problematic, and in which “genetic reproduction” is the sole consideration for “mating” all of which are untrue even in today’s environment.

They are valid questions, don’t get me wrong, but they depend on so many narrow assumptions that their validity becomes of dubious value in determining courses of action. 

As for why personalities matter?  Because your personality is NOT your physical appearance. As some of the studies above show, physical appearance can lead to changes, I know, because I have been observing this phenomena for over four years in both myself and others. As a long term SL resident, I went through a similar change, but it was not due JUST to changing my appearance, but due to the fact that MY CHANGED APPEARANCE ALLOWED THE REAL ME TO COME TO THE FORE.

IRL, we humans are caught in a daily web of deception. Our being trapped in the genetic lottery has forced all of us to assume masks that reflect our physical bodies, regardless of who we really are.  If we are physically weak, we will never be a “Jock” and even attempting to “act like one” will lead to further social rejection if you don’t have the DNA to back it up.

And if you do have the DNA to be a jock? God forbid you be like me, and prefer being an artist and an intellectual rather than a linebacker. 

The Genetic lottery forces us all to adopt social roles that are stereotyped by our physical appearance. But CHANGE THAT APPEARANCE, and you free the person from having to “live out” that stereotype. They get to take off the mask of “other peoples” expectations based on physical appearance, and become who they really are inside.  Does this equate to a “personality change”?  While it might seem so to an external observer, to those who have experienced it, very few of the people I know and have talked to see it as such. They almost universally feel that it is a “liberating” of their real selves from the tyranny of physical stereotyping dictated by the genetic lottery.

Thus, while personality may be a factor subject to change, it is a subjective, not objective factor. Because it is subjective, it relates far more to self identity and who a person choses to be.  Thus, personality is likely to be a much stabler indicator of “self identity” than a body which can assume multiple possible forms. We seek to preserve that “inner self’s” stability at all times.  Even manic depressives I know have a “core self” that they seek to “return to” as a result of therapy.

So to specifically answer your question, nothing in current research indicates that “personality” will become “flexible”.  Mood may be, body may be, but “core selves” are the root of self identity, and their “destruction” destroys the “sense of I” that we call consciousness. I therefore do not see radical personality changes ever becoming commonplace, and far more likely to become a replacement for capital punishment, like Bab 5’s “The Death of Self”. Morphological freedom enables personalities to remove limitations that previously existed due to appearance, but it does not change the “Core I” of the person FROM THAT PERSON’S PERSPECTIVE, it simply enables them to BE who they have always been, but had to hide due to social stereotyping based on appearance.

@ Valkyrie:

I have to confess that I have a difficult time following your comments, but it sounds to me that you’re confident enough to place a bet.  Propose a plausible (verifiable/accountable) process, clearly state your prediction and timeline (you said by end of the decade), and name a reasonable amount—let’s say to be donated to IEET—and I’m in. 

@ Cygnus:

You’re right…it’s rude to hijack Akansha’s excellent article as much as we have already.  So I’ll stop here, except to say that I think we agree on a lot of things.  And that I’m about to take Valkyrie’s money…

@Patrick

You must have missed the post about how I’m broke, XD If I had the financial resources to make a large bet, I would indeed make one, but I will stretch as best I can and make one within my means of $100 US dollars?  This will of course depend on whether US currency retains value that long. If my two predictions are correct, you will donate 100 in my name to IEET, and if it is not, I will make one in your name. If only one of them comes true and the other does not, shall we split the difference and both make a $50 donation?

As for the bet?  I would be willing to bet that by 2020 we will have two solid, definite technologies. 

The first is personal VR devices, advanced “iPhones” that enable people to interact with both the real world and VR simultaneously using a visual HUD overlay (lenses or contacts). This encompasses all of the “metaverse” interactions described in the “Metaverse overview” here: http://www.metaverseroadmap.org/overview/

The second solid definite technology I would be willing to bet on? Controllable stem cell therapies which will enable such medical “miracles” as creating new organs for transplants, repairing bodily injuries without scarring, repair of nerve damage, and among other CPS applications, the ability to create fully functional (as in full reproductive capability) opposite gender conversions, male to female and female to male, using bioprinters or scaffolding to create the alternative organs needed out of the patients own stemcells.

so to sum up, personal (i.e. portable) VR/AR devices and Directed Stemcell treatments that can enable gender conversion with fully functional reproductive abilities. These are both technologies I have seen so much evidence towards their development that I believe they will be realities by the end of the decade, and both are dependent on multiple enabling technologies, such that a lack of their enabling technologies will delay them significantly.

@ Valkyrie:

You got yerself a bet!  (I’m broke too.)  I wouldn’t usually bet against your first prediction, but I think that the second is too optimistic. 

To be clear, let’s say that these technologies need to be available by Jan 1, 2020 in the US—agreed?  Let’s also call it US$100 with whatever the COLA (cost-of-living adjustment) is between now and then—ok?  Hopefully, neither of us will still be broke by then.

How shall we enforce this bet?  You know who I am, but as far as I know, no one knows who you really are.  I don’t need to know, but perhaps you can confirm your identity to Mike Treder @ IEET or at least designate a known and accountable representative.  (Related side-bet: Will there be online privacy in 10 years?)  Unfortunately, www.longbets.org doesn’t accept bets that small.

(Mike Treder: Maybe you can create a fundraising campaign around this and other such bets that folks can make?  We can move this over to email so to not clog up this article’s comment section…)

@ Patrick Lin

Valkyrie Ice has been my name for well over twenty years online, and will eventually be the name I will change to once I have the funding to do so.

I am also known as L.S. McGill,  Furry artist, and fanfic writer. http://www.fanfiction.net/u/42036/LSMcGill

My SL name is Valkyrie McGill.  Legally, I am known as “Lance”, a name I have grown to hate, which is why I do not use it.  Val, Valk, or Valkyrie is my preferred name, and the one I have used in nearly every forum I have ever participated in, including Sci.Nanotech, Nanodot, and a host of other scientific forums.

I don’t hide my identity intentionally, but I’ve rarely used it online. Google Valkyrie Ice, and every single link it returns that is not a picture of a valkyrie is likely to be one of my posts on one forum or another. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, Lance is the “genetic lottery” stereotype I am stuck playing.  Valkyrie is the “real me” L.S. McGill is only used on my Fanfiction.net account because when it was first registered, I had not yet decided to change my legal name and was seeking to link my writing with a previous publication of my artwork in the American Journal of Anthropomorphics.  Since I’ve decided to legally change my name once I can afford to do so, Valkyrie is the only name I have gone by.

Now the reason I included both bets is because I see them as tied together,  VR will drive the research that will enable morphological freedom, because we will desire to look like our avatars.  Additionally, the advances in electronics needed to create VR will enable a massive speedup of medical technological development, including stem cell control techniques, and “artificial organ” generation needed to create the reproductive organs for the opposite sex transformations.  Basically I see VR as one of the enabling technologies that makes morphological freedom an inevitability.

also, I will freely admit to hedging my bet, because I am aware of the current ability to change ovaries into testes via chemical signals, an experiment carried out on mature organs, as well as the recent publication of of a study about the successful creation of “artificial penises” from stem cells, which performed normally during intercourse. While this has only been done on rabbits so far, it indicates that the female to male side of the bet is nearly accomplished, and likely to be available well before 2020.

So feel free to think I am being overly optimistic. As I see it, I am stacking the deck in my favor by choosing these two particular developments.

> “Furthermore, attractive people generally find more attractive and successful mates, further increasing their chance of survival and passing down of traits.”

From my experience, I see the “ugly” families having more kids, overall.

On a different note, the following two sentences don’t contradict each other, do they?
> “It already has been proven that being more attractive has considerable advantage. “
vs.
> “First of all, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and is subjective with regards to culture, location and person.”

Thanks everyone for your comments!  I definitely agree with this argument about deception and disclosure.  I think Kristi made a very compelling argument in her paper and that is part of the reason why I took on this topic for a post.  I wanted to write about CPS in a way that was more lighthearted but also took into consideration the harder position to defend.  It is very easy to criticize CPS, but at the same time it can dramatically improve people’s lives and is not always bad. 

I do genuinely believe that if someone has a huge unsightly nose which results in constant stares and awkward attention they have a right to a nose job and freedom from judgment.  I think any spouse of said person would probably be supportive of their desire to change and see the humor in the situation. 

On the other hand I do think disclosing radical changes to one’s body is something that should be done with one’s significant other.  This is just common sense, and something that is essential for a healthy relationship.  I personally would go even farther and disclose genetic predispositions to disease to someone I plan on marrying but not all individuals feel the same way.  I any case deceit is something that exists with or without technology in all kinds of relationships and is not unique to this example.  Furthermore, this comes down to the character of the person you choose to be with.  If you’re superficial and marry someone only because you like the way they look, then perhaps it is your responsibility to delve further into their background to see if they changed themselves to become this way.  I believe that two honest individuals in a meaningful relationship would discuss these issues with each other. 

The important points I wanted to resonate are that informed consent and safety are the main ethical issues (in my mind) regarding CPS.  I.e. plastic surgeons should properly screen for individuals with body dysmorphic disorder and not continue to operate on them, or an individual should not be undergoing new procedures that either have not been properly tested or can cause serious complications without proper discussion of risks with their physician. 

I strongly believe in safety and precaution when it comes to new technology especially ones that will dramatically change us in ways that are not reversible.  I also think it is important to use discretion with genetic changes because we are limited in our understanding and do not know what consequences this may cause in the future.  I also think that just because we are unhappy with our genes does not mean we should give up hope.  We can take efforts to reverse their effects either through medication, gene therapy research, stem cells, or whatever else.  We just need to use caution and reason.

Next entry: IEET Announces Creation of Affiliate Scholars Group

Previous entry: The Making of the Unabomber