Kevin's Watch

We all know how integrated technology improved circuits and made computers possible, in the near future we will be able to fully integrate circuits into the human body enabling us to perform mental and physical tasks above and beyond our "natural" capabilities. Essentially what this means is we will be changing how we physically interact with the world which is what humans are always seeking to do. Who will have access to this technology will be determined my economics and politics in much the same way as now who has access to the internet or a car.

What will be interesting ethically and from a societal point of view is what will happen when we start altering our cognitive abilities, potentially enabling "perfect memory" or faster learning abilites.

What will happen to those who cannot afford it, or due to religious of ethical convictions decline to undergo such 'improvements' for themselves or thier children, and how will societies adapt to a change from within?

Already we are undertaking some very simple and non-ethically challenging applications of biotechnological integration, such as microchip implants in pets enabling them to be more easily registered and accounted for. How many people would be happy with an embedded microchip in thier bodies, for tax or voter registration for example, or as an alternate credit method?

personally, I'd like to see some kind of microchip tagging for convicted felons. Part of their 'parole' will be to remain ALWAYS traceable until they can prove their 'rehab' worked. But it should be implanted somewhere only surgery or laparoscopy can go (so they can't just 'cut it out' of themselves & go off to re-offend)

do I sound like a Nazi or what?

Actually, this kind of tagging would be the perfect way to keep tabs on CHILD MOLESTERS (ties in rather nicely with the other topic)

That's acceptable for as long as they're on parole only. Once that period is over, it will have to be removed, otherwise the whole idea of prison is a lie.

I think, Gil-Galad, that it will be a similar effect to what I think technologically enhanced longevity will cause. That the social gap between rich and poor will continue to widen until it creates revolution of a type.

The numbers of poor or working poor increase continuously, and discontent as social change always starts from the bottom up.

--A

Interesting question. Perhaps such technology would herald the point where the human race diverges, splits in two in the 'Darwinian' tree of evolution.

Babies would still be born human, without any implants, so evolution would not occur unless two groups appeared who decided to implant their children in different ways, and carried on doing so.

Genetic engineering is the one that could split humanity into two species.

Biotechnological augmentation is already here, it is only a matter of degree. Prostheses. Eye glasses. Hearing aids. Pacemakers. So of course we will go further, and leap the barrier from medical necessity to personal choice. Avid video gamers and avid ipod owners would probably all love it if they were more connected.

The interesting thing about biomechanical augmentation is that we are still essentially human underneath all of the technology. As such, there's really no evolution. But, more interesting to me, is that there is also less fear. At some very primitive level, we recognize that we are what we are, that these things we add to our bodies do not change the person inside.

In fact, what is happening is non-evolution. Homo sapiens sapiens remains exactly Homo sapiens sapiens. Instead of evolving to adapt, we stay as we are, and adapt by filling in the differences between what we are and what we want to be by mechanisms.

This is a way to own your own evolution. But there is also another way.

In the near future it will become possible to modify the human genome for specific purposes. Again, this is owning our own evolution. But most of us shrink from this path in fear. We would not all be Homo sapiens sapiens.

Pragmatically, the result will be the same. Our range of senses and capabilities will be extended. But one course is comfortable, and the other course is fraught with fear and therefore danger - it could make racism look like a picnic. (Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the fear is groundless.)

So my view of the future sees a war between these two camps. Those that wish to preserve the human genome and advance by biomechanical augmentation, and those that wish to advance the human genome to achieve similar ends.

And I believe that, ultimately, as long as we fear to become more than Homo sapiens sapiens, we won't reach our full potential. This is what makes the clash between these two camps inevitable.

Old Lady #1: When my ex-husband passed away, the insurance company said his policy didn't cover him.
Old Lady #2: They didn't have enough money for the funeral.
Old Lady #3: It's so hard nowadays, with all the gangs and rap music..
Old Lady #1: What about the robots?
Old Lady #4: Oh, they're everywhere!
Old Lady #1: I don't even know why the scientists make them.
Old Lady #2: Darren and I have a policy with Old Glory Insurance, in case we're attacked by robots.
Old Lady #1: An insurance policy with a robot plan? Certainly, I'm too old.
Old Lady #2: Old Glory covers anyone over the age of 50 against robot attack, regardless of current health.


Sam Waterston: I'm Sam Waterston, of the popular TV series "Law & Order". As a senior citizen, you're probably aware of the threat robots pose. Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel! Well, now there's a company that offers coverage against the unfortunate event of robot attack, with Old Glory Insurance. Old Glory will cover you with no health check-up or age consideration.

You need to feel safe. And that's harder and harder to do nowadays, because robots may strike at any time.

[ show pie chart reading "Cause of Death in Persons Over 50 Years of Age": Heart Disease, 42% - Robots, 58% ]

And when they grab you with those metal claws, you can't break free.. because they're made of metal, and robots are strong. Now, for only $4 a month, you can achieve peace of mind in a world full of grime and robots, with Old Glory Insurance. So, don't cower under your afghan any longer. Make a choice.

[ SUPER: "WARNING: Persons denying the existence of Robots may be Robots themselves. ]

Old Glory Insurance. For when the metal ones decide to come for you - and they will.

Humans have no essential nature. What is uniquely human about humans is that they can choose to be whatever they want. Heidegger said that existence precedes essence. We are uniquely aware of our own existence, and with this awareness comes the ability to choose what form that existence will take.

I don't see a future war coming out of this. Sure, the gap between rich and poor is growing (and will always do so), but this is only because the rich are getting Super Rich, not because people are getting poorer. The largest, most significant gap is the one between the poor-of-today and the poor-of-the-past. Even the poorest among us benefit from technology developed by/for the rich. Your local MRI machine saves rich and poor alike. Safety features of luxury cars eventually get cheaper and make their way down to us middle class mortals. Technology is getting better, cheaper, and more ubiquitous. The doomsday scenario being assumed by many is just plain false. It is contrary to reality.

There is already an extremely wide range of mental and physical abilities among humans. We seem to deal with this fine. Making this range wider won't present any NEW problems. We already see steroid-enhanced, plastic surgery enhanced people walking around in society, and revolutions don't follow in their wake. Designer drugs and plastic surgery are usually only affordable by sports stars and movie stars. Sure, we may make some nasty jokes about them, but revolution? No way.

Malik23 wrote:There is already an extremely wide range of mental and physical abilities among humans. We seem to deal with this fine.

Because no genetic engineering was involved. Consider cloning: how is that going over with people? Or genetic screening?

There is an extremely wide range of physiogomies among humans, too. This tends to lead to a lot of injustice and bloodshed.

We fear genetic tampering in way that we don't fear other forms of augmentating our physical bodies. I believe that deep down this is tied to monkey-brain like-us/not-like-us responses which are hard to control.

Wayfriend, you are right that we are riddled with irrational fears, and chief among them is the us vs them mentality.

And you are right that people fear genetic engineering. Hell, they fear irradiating food to kill bacteria--even though this makes food safer and scientists say it's harmless. People even feared pasteurization when it was introduced, calling it unnatural. So I see your point.

I just think that we crossed those thresholds pretty much unscathed. We'll cross this one, too. Sure, we'll have political debates, rant on the Internet, watch pundits go at it on TV. And then we'll go to our jobs and forget about it.

"Enhanced" people probably won't make it widely known that they've got microchips in their heads. Movie stars won't often even admit that they've had plastic surgery, even when it's obvious. As for people allowing themselves to be drastically altered physically, I doubt it's going to happen. No one wants to be the guy with two heads at the party. (Well, it DID seem to work for Zaphod )

Basically, I think that our worrying about potential fear can be just as irrational as that fear itself. Humans adapt. It's what we do.

Good posts. I agree that in the long run, we will adapt. In the short-term, it's going to be the same sort of reaction that stem-cell research gets today I think.

--A

Yeah, but there's no revolution due to stem cell research. People aren't grabbing their guns and heading to the streets over this issue. It's gone pretty much like I said: "we'll have political debates, rant on the Internet, watch pundits go at it on TV. And then we'll go to our jobs and forget about it."

Stem cell research is still not genetic engineering.

Genetic engineering is when Mom and Dad go to the lab and say, please take our son/daughter, who is but a fertilized egg, and tweak out those genes, please.

Could you be that mom or dad?

Um, tweak out the genes that make my son more likely to have birth defects, cancer, heart disease, etc.? Hell yeah! I could be that parent.

Malik23 wrote:Um, tweak out the genes that make my son more likely to have birth defects, cancer, heart disease, etc.? Hell yeah! I could be that parent.

We're talking about enhancements. "Am I still Human?" is the title of this thread. Would you ask a doctor to make your embryo have extra arms so he could be a better sculptor (for example)? Maybe a lame example - but we're interested in those things that make us different from others.

Well technically, being genetically gauranteed not to get heart disease or cancer would definitely be an enhancement, and quite different from everyone else--since no one else has that gaurantee. But that's an invisible difference.

Would I drastically alter the physical form of my child? No. Absolutely not. That's his/her choice, not mine. Would I snip out that baldness gene? Maybe, if it had a proven track record of no side effects.

I would also definitely let them be genetically altered to be smarter, have photographic memory, etc.

i think the greys are us coming back from some serious evolutionary leaps to fix whatever is was that makes 'em grey. oops. wrong forum.

sorry.

There is a pretty cool movie called GATTACA which describes the whole scenario pretty well.

I have an excellent "juvenile" sci-fi novel called Black Milk by Robert Reed (IIRC) which deals with a future where genetic modification is the norm, and children without it are looked down on.

An interesting look at a world where some people are "enhanced" physically, some mentally, and some not at all.

I think it's asking for a new sort of inequality myself. That said, would I deny my child the opportunity to be smarter? I doubt it.

--A

I couldn't do it.

Because I don't think it would be a situation where they know exactly what they are doing. A doctor would say, changing this gene gives you eidetic memory and doubles your intelligence ... but we don't really know what else it might do. Changing this one doubles your lung capacity and triples your stamina, but we think it may be linked to premature aging, we're looking into it.

Sure, maybe years and years down the road it'll be perfected. But someone's gotta be those guinea pigs. I don't want my children being them. And if no one wants to be the guinea pigs, it'll never be perfected. Which is why I see it failing to get off the ground for a long, long time, if ever.

[Edit] Another neat story (actually, a stupendous one) is "Stand on Zanzibar". Everyone wants their kids enhanced. But subconsciously, they all end up fearing their own children. (What would a "better" kid think of his parents? Want to raise a kid who is twice as smart as you?)