1)On page 44, Michel Goldblatt mentions that in order to save his daughter from life in a wheelchair, he is willing to fundamentally alter human nature. Is there any ethical problems to this decision? Or is it always right to apply the latest technologies to save human beings?
2)When Bielitzki is asked if eliminating the need for food would change human nature,he replies "i dont think human nature changes very much...(p34)". On the other hand, Gina Goldblatt does not actually seek future technology to find cure for her legs because she "sees her cerebral palsy as part of her human nature(p44)". Which way of thinking do you agree with? In what way would (or would not) enhancing human abilities (ex Regenesis, 24/7 soldier, eliminating the need for food) change human nature?
3)In the second chapter, many potentially useful technologies are mentioned、such as telekinesis(p20), pain seizing(p26) and so on. When all of these researches succeed and the technology is introduced to the society, will the sense of it being "ethically wrong" be a strong enough argument to stop the technology from being widely applied? Or would practical benefits overrule ethical controversies?
Discussion Leaders:
Miki Kobayashi
Natsuko Noda
Saori Ibuki
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
"Radical Evolution" Discussion Questions from Group 1 (Chapter 1)
1.) Garreau mentions the history and relationship of us and our technologies (p.6 "For all previous millennia..." and p.9 "In the late 1990s..."). There are both merits and demerits of using technologies. What kind of negative effects have occurred as a consequences of the use of new technologies until now?
2.)Do you agree with enhancing human ability by technology like the examples in Chapter 1 (living for more than 150 years, metabolically dominant soldier etc...) If you agree, what kind of ability do you want to get? (strong athletic ability or something) Give a specific example. If you disagree, what kind of problems do you think will happen to us by such technology? Explain with reasonable evidence or logic.
3.) In chapter one (pages 7~8), Garreau describes the scenario "The Law of Unintended Consequences" where the "Enhanced" (those who have amazing thinking abilities, beauty, vaccination against pain, telepathy powers, etc), the "Natural" (those who have the choice to become like the "Enhanced" but choose not to), and "The Rest" (those who cannot afford the education or money to become enhanced) may all exist together someday. What kinds of problems may arise from the co-existence of these three types of people?
Group Leaders:
Izumi Munakata
Kaori Suzuki
Kaya Doi
2.)Do you agree with enhancing human ability by technology like the examples in Chapter 1 (living for more than 150 years, metabolically dominant soldier etc...) If you agree, what kind of ability do you want to get? (strong athletic ability or something) Give a specific example. If you disagree, what kind of problems do you think will happen to us by such technology? Explain with reasonable evidence or logic.
3.) In chapter one (pages 7~8), Garreau describes the scenario "The Law of Unintended Consequences" where the "Enhanced" (those who have amazing thinking abilities, beauty, vaccination against pain, telepathy powers, etc), the "Natural" (those who have the choice to become like the "Enhanced" but choose not to), and "The Rest" (those who cannot afford the education or money to become enhanced) may all exist together someday. What kinds of problems may arise from the co-existence of these three types of people?
Group Leaders:
Izumi Munakata
Kaori Suzuki
Kaya Doi
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)