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

Peering into the Future: AI and Robot brains

Can blogging be academically valuable? 7 reasons for thinking it might be

Primer on Nuclear Fusion and Photos from the People’s Climate March (Sep, 21, 2014)

On Wellbeing, Bliss and Happiness

Enhancing Virtues: Intelligence (Part 4): Brain Machines

The World Transhumanist Association (WTA)


ieet books

A History of Life-Extensionism in the Twentieth Century
Author
Ilia Stambler


comments

AmbassadorZot on 'Why and How Should We Build a Basic Income for Every Citizen?' (Sep 22, 2014)

Peter Wicks on 'Is Anarchy (as in Anarchism) the Golden Mean of the future?' (Sep 22, 2014)

instamatic on 'Is Anarchy (as in Anarchism) the Golden Mean of the future?' (Sep 21, 2014)

Peter Wicks on 'Review of Ilia Stambler’s “A History of Life-Extensionism in the Twentieth Century"' (Sep 21, 2014)

Peter Wicks on 'Is Anarchy (as in Anarchism) the Golden Mean of the future?' (Sep 21, 2014)

Kris Notaro on 'Review of Ilia Stambler’s “A History of Life-Extensionism in the Twentieth Century"' (Sep 21, 2014)

Kris Notaro on 'Is Anarchy (as in Anarchism) the Golden Mean of the future?' (Sep 21, 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


Why and How Should We Build a Basic Income for Every Citizen?
Sep 16, 2014
(12231) Hits
(6) Comments

Enhancing Virtues: Caring (part 1)
Aug 29, 2014
(5413) Hits
(1) Comments

An open source future for synthetic biology
Sep 9, 2014
(4649) Hits
(0) Comments

MMR Vaccines and Autism: Bringing clarity to the CDC Whistleblower Story
Sep 14, 2014
(4463) Hits
(1) Comments



IEET > Life > Access > Enablement > Innovation > Implants > Health > Vision > Futurism

Print Email permalink (1) Comments (2840) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


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



Ray Kurzweil

Huffington Post Impact

Posted: Dec 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



Listen/View


Print Email permalink (1) Comments (2841) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


COMMENTS


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?




YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Parallel universes: scientists ponder evidence of their existence

Previous entry: First map of the human brain reveals grid-like structure between neurons

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,
56 Daleville School Rd., Willington CT 06279 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376