New Scientist
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('New Scientist', 'W')E ARE on the brink of technological breakthroughs that could augment our mental powers beyond recognition. It will soon be possible to boost human brainpower with electronic "plug-ins" or even by genetic enhancement. What will this mean for the future of humanity?
This was the theme of a recent Neuroscience in Context meeting in Berlin, Germany, where anthropologists, technologists, neurologists, archaeologists and philosophers met to consider the implications of this next stage of human brain development. Would it widen the gulf between the world's haves and have-nots - and perhaps even lead to a distinct and dominant species with unmatchable powers of intellect?
PeakOil is You
Will designer brains divide humanity?
Will designer brains divide humanity?
by Carlhole » Thu 14 May 2009, 08:54:36
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he next stage of brainpower enhancement could be technological - through genetic engineering or brain prostheses. Because the gene variants pivotal to intellectual brilliance have yet to be discovered, boosting brainpower by altering genes may still be some way off, or even impossible. Prostheses are much closer, especially as the technology for wiring brains into computers is already being tested (see "Dawn of the cyborgs"). Indeed, futurist and inventor Ray Kurzweil believes the time when humans merge with machines will arrive as early as 2045 (New Scientist, 9 May, p 26).
It won't be long before "clip-on" computer aids become available for everybody, says Andy Clark, a pro-enhancement philosopher at the University of Edinburgh in the UK. These could be anything from memory aids to the ability to "search" for information stored in your brain. "We'll get a flowering of brain augmentations, some seeping through from the disabled community," he says. "I see them becoming fashion items, a bit like choosing clothing." Clark says that even today, devices such as head-up displays on spectacles or simply being adept at using computer programs like Photoshop come close to being physical extensions of people's minds.
The Singularity Is near!
- Carlhole
Re: Will designer brains divide humanity?
by Jotapay » Thu 14 May 2009, 09:31:23
You should check out the FAQ at transhumanism.org. It looks like they changed their name to "Humanity Plus" now.
http://transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq/
This movement is pretty old. It was huge in the 1930s when "Eugenics" was all the rave. The idea was to selectively improve the human race through active management. Hitler's methods were a bit more brutal, but it was pretty pervasive in the USA in the 1930s too. There were forced sterilizations in the USA of retarded and handicapped folks, as well as relatives of criminals. There is a museum dedicated to the atrocities of America's forced sterilization program(s) in North Carolina, for chrissakes.
After WW-2 when Eugenics fell out of fashion for obvious reasons (pics of skeleton-like holocaust survivors and ovens meant for people aren't too appealing), the movement simply changed form, but it was still there. Today, you can find it located around things like the "Humanity Plus" movement, which talks about actively improving the human race through various forms of modification.
It's interesting that the Transhumanist website specifically has a section that discusses Eugenics. They do not completely reject the idea, stating that logically we would want to prevent genetic imperfections from being passed on to future generations. When considering all the implications of what this could mean, it's a bit ominous.
http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/66/
They say:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')ugenics in the narrow sense refers to the pre-WWII movement in Europe and the United States to involuntarily sterilize the “genetically unfit” and encourage breeding of the genetically advantaged. These ideas are entirely contrary to the tolerant humanistic and scientific tenets of transhumanism.
http://transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq/
This movement is pretty old. It was huge in the 1930s when "Eugenics" was all the rave. The idea was to selectively improve the human race through active management. Hitler's methods were a bit more brutal, but it was pretty pervasive in the USA in the 1930s too. There were forced sterilizations in the USA of retarded and handicapped folks, as well as relatives of criminals. There is a museum dedicated to the atrocities of America's forced sterilization program(s) in North Carolina, for chrissakes.
After WW-2 when Eugenics fell out of fashion for obvious reasons (pics of skeleton-like holocaust survivors and ovens meant for people aren't too appealing), the movement simply changed form, but it was still there. Today, you can find it located around things like the "Humanity Plus" movement, which talks about actively improving the human race through various forms of modification.
It's interesting that the Transhumanist website specifically has a section that discusses Eugenics. They do not completely reject the idea, stating that logically we would want to prevent genetic imperfections from being passed on to future generations. When considering all the implications of what this could mean, it's a bit ominous.
http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/66/
They say:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')ugenics in the narrow sense refers to the pre-WWII movement in Europe and the United States to involuntarily sterilize the “genetically unfit” and encourage breeding of the genetically advantaged. These ideas are entirely contrary to the tolerant humanistic and scientific tenets of transhumanism.
But then they go on to say this, which is contradictory:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he use of genetic medicine or embryonic screening to increase the probability of a healthy, happy, and multiply talented child is a responsible and justifiable application of parental reproductive freedom.
Beyond this, one can argue that parents have a moral responsibility to make use of these methods, assuming they are safe and effective. Just as it would be wrong for parents to fail in their duty to procure the best available medical care for their sick child, it would be wrong not to take reasonable precautions to ensure that a child-to-be will be as healthy as possible.
- Jotapay
- Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 3394
- Joined: Sat 21 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
