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
2."I don't think human nature changes very much. Cognitive carrying capacity to hold information hasn't changed", Bielitzki says.(p 34)
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what Bielitzki means by 'cognitive carrying capacity', but i think that he means that we are still not using our brains to their fullest, and that we have room for improvement as a species.
I think that the only thing that can be said with certainty about the human race is the ability to adapt. History has shown us that each time Mankind has come across a new technology, he has taken to it with aplomb, albeit with many unintended or undesirable consequences.So maybe we could define human nature as the ability to adapt to constantly changing conditions, and if we could define it as such, then Bielitzki's comments begin to make sense.
Further, i think that Gina Goldblatt's problem is a bit different.It depends on how the text is interpreted. The reason she thinks of cerebral palsy as part of her human nature might be because her current existence is shaped by her experience of cerebral palsy. All of us are very similar(genetically), but what makes each one of us unique is our experiences.
So, i think how we define human nature is being debated here, and so far i see no reason why these two are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
1.p21 "Throughout the cohort of yesterday's superheroes- from Spiderman to the Shadow, who knows what evil lies in the hearts of men-one...."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if the author's grammar is correct.. if it is, I'm not sure i understand it. But I do see what he means when he talks of the evil lurking in the hearts of men. However much we may enhance human beings, i think it all comes to naught if we do not change people's destructive instincts, and the instinct to survive at the expense of others ( exploitation) . Otherwise, we may have scenes from the comics happening in real life as technology fights against technology, leading to nothing more than an impressive pile of rubble in its aftermath.
I think with greater freedom (afforded by the adoption of new technologies) come greater responsibilities ( need to forget violent instincts etc)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete3.) When all of these said researches succeed, I don't think the fact that they may be "ethically wrong" will stop them from spreading widely. What might happen is that some people may not see these technologies as wrong at all anymore. In terms of the three potential groupings that may exist in the future (Enhanced, Naturals, and the Rest), I think that the ethical standards will start to shift in different directions for certain groups. For example, because super high-tech skills like telekinesis or pain seizing will become the norm for the Enhanced who want these qualities, they will not think that implementing them is a crime at all. To them, what is ethically wrong may be some crime taken to a whole new level like switching each others' system off or something! lol. In contrast, the Naturals' will still resist these new technologies, some possibly for the sake of doing what is morally correct. However, with the influence of the Enhanced, who will most likely take over the media and advertise these new technologies, their moral standards which were once tight may loosen. As for the Rest, because they will not be receiving any education on technology in the midst of a world where people are transforming, they may not be able to tell what is wrong from right and will simply wish longingly for these benefits. Therefore,it's very possible that people may easily implement these new technologies but it's hard to say whether they will do it knowingly that it will go against ethics because these standards may change entirely.
ReplyDelete1. I do not exactly see any 'ethical' issues in applying the latest technology or medical care to make someone's life easier like in the case of Gina. If people started arguing against this, where would they have to start? We humans and our ancestors have always been trying to make our environment and circumstances suitable and comfortable by the use of constantly advanced technology. And we have been successful. I, however, would get stuck if someone comes up and say 'what about those in Africa or South America or anyone who have no contact to food or really basic medical care. Would you tell the father to be blind to them and pay fortune for the not yet established medical studies for one person while he could donate that money to save thousands of people?'. I am not sure if one could call this an ethical argument so maybe you, CB students, could tell me what you think.
ReplyDeletethank you
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. As I read chapter2, I often came up with the question which Sayaka mentioned: "Would you pay for the not yet established medical studies while we can save thousands of people with that money?" I think this IS an ethical argument but it is such an endless question so I will just write what I think now.
ReplyDeleteThe answer to the question is, I do not think that fundamentally altering human nature in order to save his daughter is ethically wrong because the various new technologies mentioned in chapter2, such as telekinesis or pain seizing, can truly save many people's lives. It can't be denied that these technologies are useful and will develop our potentials. However, when I think about the results of all the technologies, I actually think that there might be some problems because these technologies are going to be used not only to enhance human beings but also to make better soldiers and have advantages in war. I know that it's important to save their own country but I just don't understand why the author mentions about the military so much because fighting in war means to kill other people. Killing people is ethically wrong.
Well, my point is that there are no such ethical problems to mention in fundamentally altering human nature, but the way of using the new technologies is the real problem.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete3.I think that the movement toward the application of the technologies mentioned is unstoppable. Modern science is so specialized that it is almost impossible to take effective measures against the movement.
ReplyDeleteMost people may and will be strongly opposed to the movement, but it is scientists who hold real power in the decision. If scientists are willing to make it happen, it will happen. For now there is only a slight chance where scientists will come to an agreement over bioethical problems. The reason is that scientists cannot easily develop a comprehensive understanding of today's highly specialized science.
If scientists in various areas get together and seek an agreement, they cannot even talk with each other in common language. They are specialists in their own areas, but in most cases they have little understanding of bioethical issues. The only solution would be to establish and spread systematic knowledge among scientists. However, it's too difficult to achieve. The problems of bioethics are so complicated that you need to understand various areas of science to discuss them.
And modern science is so specialized that it's extremely difficult for each scientist to catch up on its every detail.
Thus I don't think it's possible to stop technological applications on the grounds that they are "ethically wrong".
To Kaya,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the possibility of an entirely new ethical standard being established in result of the emergence of the new technologies. I can see that they are likely to be Enhanced/technology-friendly. I also like the way you suggested different ethics supported by different groups. These differences in values could cause like a new kind of cultural difference between people from different groups.
But I think the society will not reach this stage of transformation until the technology is widely available. I think there is an important stage before that right after the experiments have succeeded, where people face the new option for the first time and are forced to decide what to think of them. It is the stage where people decide which group to belong, if he/she has the capability to chose.
I think at this point, the ethical standards they may value will still be similar to what we value today.
So, what I'm curious about is whether the governments, organizations and companies will be able to resist it despite all the profit they could potentially achieve. And moreover, will WE be able to resist it?
I think the same thing is happening with like organ implantations and animal testings. I mean, it's nothing different. We earn greatly from these procedures, yet we are still unsure where to draw the line from what is ethically wrong and ethically right.
3. I don't think the sense of being "ethically wrong" would be strong enough to stop the technology from being widely applied because humans tend to go for benefits. As Saori mentioned a little, Animal testing, for example, is ethically wrong thing to do since it is killing thousands of innocent animals. However, there are still a lot of testings going on today and this is because we want the benefits of using safer products. This depends on how people care about animals but how about plastic surgery, which is not about animals but us humans. There are a lot of people who think to change our appearance is ethically wrong but it is not enough to stop the spread of it, so "practical benefits overrule ethical controversies". Ethic can stop part of the people from using technologies but actually there are too many people who prefer to gain the practical benefits even if the process is morally wrong. Relating to what Kaya said, in the three groups that may exist in the future such as Enhanced, Naturals, and the Rest, the people who go for the benefits by technology would be grouped into Enhanced and the people who support the ethically wrong idea would be grouped into Naturals. I think the standards of what is wrong is already different for each person. What I want to say is that, there are too many people who go for benefits because people have different moral standard, therefore "ethically wrong" is not enough to stop the technology from being spread.
ReplyDelete1.I don't think there are any ethical problems for Goldblatt to save his daughter's disabilities by applying the latest technology, even when that means to alter human nature. However I wouldn't be able to answer if I was asked what Sayaka mentioned about using a lot of money for unestablished medical studies or for donation. It would even be more difficult to answer if the medical study could save the life of a person you are really familiar with, for example your daughter.
ReplyDeleteI see no problem for human to take in new technologies that will improve or even save their lives, yet I feel people should be more careful before adopting them. What I mean by this is that there might be new technologies that eventually turns out that it causes bad influence for human. For example, using contact lens for a long time have been said to have a bad influence on your eyes. Although they enable you to see clearly and there will be no need for glasses, there still isn't a person who had lived relying on contact lens for a lifetime, and since we are the ones who will be, we are now the first human guinea pigs to see what happens when human use contact lens for a lifetime. If it turns out that humans should not use contact lens because it harms people's eyesight, the news would be too late for us.
However I understand that it is hard for human to resist new technoligies. I mean, I use contact lens though I know it might be a harm for my eyes. It is natural for human to want new technologies, just like what Yumi said, for their own benefit. The desire for new technology is human nature. I also think it is impossible to stop scientists from creating new technologies by telling them about ethical problems. If scientists had the idea of ethics in their mind, they wouldn't test animals in such horrid ways.
wow!so many comments already!
ReplyDelete(i'll response to those of who commented on Q2)
As Fumika mentioned, many of the latest technologies have been applied to humans for medical purposes, but they haven't reached to the point where human nature actually changes, as far as i know. But think of the situation where a girl drowned in the water and her heart stopped beating. IF ,in the future, there is the artificial heart which can save the girl's life, is it ethically ok to apply the technology? (because this will obviously violate the human's ultimate fate, death.) If not, to what extent can we accept to apply the technologies to human nature? I think a profound discussion is needed to draw a line showing a limit of constantly evolving technology.
Like shantonu said ,i think the more choices we have(freedom), the more responsibilities we must shoulder.
Regarding Saori Ibuki to Kaya (how do we refer to questions which pop p within the discussion?).
ReplyDeleteI think i made my stance clear in my second comment where i say that human beings have a tendency to give priority to their less noble instincts when it comes to economy.
Throughout the history of Mankind, we have seen one strong nation after another exploiting a weaker nation in order to realise a profit.
Do you think that enhancing humans also means enhancing them spiritually? because i sure wouldn't want to be around when America manages to engineer perfect soldiers with someone like Bush at the helm.
>Shantonu's first comment
ReplyDeleteThank you for explaining the difference of how Bielitzki and Gina Goldblatt defined human nature. Now that I have idea on what Bielitzki had in his mind when he said “I don’t think human nature changes very much ….(p34)”, I can understand both his and Gina’s aspects on human nature.
But I still think that such gap in the idea of human nature leads to opinions clashing on enhancement of human. If everyone think the way Bielitzki do (human nature is the ability to adapt constantly changing condition), people would go and get powerful without second thoughts. I think these people would be the future Enhanced. Those who have the same idea as Gina, would put weight on human nature and be the future Naturals. Just like how Kana, Yumi, and some others mentioned in the last blog entry about humanity, I think how one defines human nature would connect to whether you are for human enhancement or not.
1.I suppose that it is ethically wrong to alter human nature. If people start to change human nature and erase the difficulty causing from disability,it implies that "disabled" is a bad thing. It is part of themselves, and there has always been people trying to accept it and got over the hard time and accomplish the great works.
ReplyDeleteIt would be very hard for disabled people to get over the difficulties they have. I do not estimate that I can understand how they feel, or what they have gone through. I imagine it must be really hard... If I were a parent of disabled sons or daughters, I would hope to erase the difficulties they have. I surely would not want to see them struggling to confront hard time. However, I also think I would try to encourage them and support them to get over hardships together because in my idea, a part of parents' jobs is not eliminating difficulties but trying to support children as possible as they can. Besides, it is true that people's toughness enables them to achieve things which seem nearly impossible. I am always so moved to hear those kind of things because these remind people there would be potential strength in people's minds, and the nature of human beings is very beautiful and amazing. It seems to me that people's "disabled" has contributed to the power, motivation, and willingness to achieve their aims or goals.
Things which are regarded as bad can be valuable. Painful and bitter experiences can often help us to lead a valuable life.
People who has got no worries, hard time, or hardships can never understand other people's feelings. It might be a bit away from this discussion question, but I guess that ideas of eliminating disabilities are related to trying to do only happy or enjoyable things. The world that can be controlled totally by humans might sound good to some people, but in fact, it erases happiness from our hearts. Also, happiness can be found and deepen through bitter experiences.
For those reasons above, I disagree with the idea of altering human nature.
2.I agree with the idea of Gina. I think that technology of enhancing human ability will definitely change human nature and it's ethically wrong. When we eliminate the need for food, for example, we will lose the ability to bite or taste, which might change the structure of jaw, face or even a part of brain that has sense of taste. For another example, if we embed tips in our brain to get greater memory, we'll lose the process of memorizing, remembering and even forgetting, which is important for the development of brain. Like these examples, scientists always tries to make things easier without human's effort, but the process of our effort itself is precious for us. Technology enhancing human ability prevents us from developing by ourselves. Human has great potential inside after all. When we throw it away, we'll become just a robot. Gina accepts her diablity as one of her features, and trying to work well over it. I think it's more important for us rather than solving problems with technology. What's more, changing a small part of body leads to the change of the whole body (as I said above). It's an unexpected change and seems very dangerous for human beings.
ReplyDeleteFor those reasons, I'm on Gina's side.
2. In Bielitzki's point of view, human nature changes when "cognitive carrying capacity to hold information" has changed. For Gina Godblatt, if technology changed humans' physical abilities, it is a change in human nature.
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking about where I would draw a line between what changes human nature and what does not. Then I figured that it depends on how far we go beyond the limitation.
To me, fixing Gina's legs seems not far enough to say that it is a change in human nature. It is because standing up with her both legs is not an out of ordinary thing to do as human.
However, alternating one's strength of desire for food seems, to me, far enough because in order to survive us human needs that appetites.
So I disagree with both Bielitzki and Gina.
My opiniton is that enhancing human ability within what majority of us can do is not consider to be a change in human nature, but once it goes beyond, it changes the nature then.
1.As everyone is saying, I also think that there are no ethical problem if the father uses technology for saving his daughter. I think it is right to apply new technology to save human's life even if it looks it's altering the human nature. Moreover, I think I would be able to say okay if I were asked to make a decision of using not established technology to my daughter even if I can use that huge money to save thousands of poor people and children in the world.
ReplyDeleteThis is because I think that this decision should not be based upon ethical determination. Deciding to save one's child should be based upon father's or mother's love toward their child. But maybe this is off the topic.
I think it would become an ethical problem if the purpose of using technology was merely a test, and if that purpose was able to be achieved. Scientists and researchers must make a pauses to decide whether the experiment is ethically wrong or not.
For instance, to improve one's eyesight by using laser beam should be regarded problematic, because it is still able to see through glasses and contact lenses.
Point is, that if we had to choose whether or not use the technology for human body, it would be determined as an ethical problem if that aim was achievable by not using any technology.
1.(2,3) I do not see any problem here. What is wrong with saving people? I mean, it is wrong to kill someone in order to save somebody else. It is more like if that person who may need the latest technology wants it or not despite the others ethical ideas. I think it is similar race and gender. No body can tell who you are or what to do because they have their own ideas and thoughts. Maybe it's getting off the track of this question but I just think technologies are no longer stoppable just by saying " I think that is ethically wrong." because the person who is or will use that technology may not think it is.
ReplyDeleteSo my idea may be also answering the second and third question. I will agree with both, or should I say do not disagree with both. I couldn't actually understand what Bielitzki meant but if he meant by what Shantonu mentioned then I think that is totally correct. But if this " human nature" is about natural body that comes out of mothers then I think there is a change. I agree with Gina Goldbatt because she thinks that way. I mean I wouldn't disagree with her. Because, the reason I mentioned above. It is their own choice and I do not think there is any right or wrong answer for this.
Thus, I think, answering number 3, it is no longer strong enough or maybe it has never been, to stop the technology from being widely spread. Some people say they are against technologies but without it, how could they live on this earth today? You cannot just go out hunting and make natural fire and make shelters, maybe you can, but nobody does even though they may be against it. This new technology is something everybody does not need, but can those people say "don't use it!" when there are people who wants to? If they want to use it then, let 'em, why not? If Enhanced has become so common in the society, but you are against it, then just don't use it. That is the way I think. Sorry for repeating the same thing over and over!!!LoL
1. I do not see any ethical problems involved in Goldblatt's situation. As most of the people who has answered this question has already written, it is the nature for humans to save other humans, especially the one's they care and love. For example, lets say your mother's life is in danger, and she can be saved by using the latest medical procedures. I am sure that no one will bash you if you made the decision to save your mother. Hence, I think it is right to apply the latest technology to humans. Today, we use cellphones and computers which are results of the development in technology. Now, scientists are trying to take it to the next step and trying to combine technology with humans. I particularly think that biotechnology should be introduced to humans when available because I think this is the next stage for humans to evolve. We have evolved from homo sapiens to lalalalala sorry I'm not familiar with Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and to the point of using computers. There is not any reason that is problematic to me for humans to advance looking at the benefits.
ReplyDeleteI see that most of CBs who answered to Q1 have no problem applying the latest technologies to save human beings from any negative circumstances. I realized that everything we do is connected to enhancing the quality of life. We always try to make our livings better, especially in science technology field.
ReplyDeleteWhat now concerns me is ,like Asami said, there may be serious consequences (for physically as well as mentally) for avoiding difficulties by simply applying the technologies we have. I'm afraid that as the technology evolves, we humans may decline.
This is not an ethical thing, but we shouldn't excessively apply the technologies to ALL the defects of human life.
>Kaori
ReplyDeleteWhat you said made my brain go ‘aha!’ ha. I did not think about the effects of those enhancements on human beings like you did. Of course it would create serious problems. Like you have mentioned about degenerating of jaws, we could come up with many harmful influences if we consider enhancement that way. Human would be shorter and have weaker bones for not getting enough sleep, because that is when hormones are secreted. …Okay I came up with only one, but I think this is a really good point in arguing against human enhancement. Although technology may reach to the point where it can change our functions of our body, our body system is not simple enough to be made such changes. If there is a change in the function of a body, which is linked together with the rest of the body, the whole system would have to be changed. Hm. Realizing these effects, enhancement in human being sound even more unrealistic.
1, I found it not ethically wrong like most of the others did. Even if people want to prove this wrong, the line that is drawn between what is okay and not okay to be done is too unclear. If it is not right to apply a new technology to save your daughter, what about people having orthodontics? If so, You should not go to hospital to get cold medicine or surgery to remove the cancer. A wheelchair itself is unnatural to human beings in the first place. These technologies or medical techniques did not exist before.
ReplyDeleteSome may say that such a huge amount of money to improve the technologies for few rich people should be spent to save more people who are suffering in poverty. However, what to do with their own fortune is a matter of personal choice. They have a right to decide how they use the money they have/made. Saving your own daughter and lifting people in developing countries from poverty are two totally different things. We cannot put them in the same arena. Since we now have an access to a variety of information because of the advanced communication devices, or criterion of value called money, we tend to compare or criticise things happening in entirely different places and situations which cannot easily be measured. Of course this is an opinion of people who can afford doing this kind of things. I am one of those who take advantages from these technologies. However, it is not the technology that kill people. Cruel animal experiments should be minimalised though.
In my opinion, the morality of this situation should not be questioned. It is an instinctive habit for all living organisms to protect children's health and safety. So is enhancing. This world is fundamentally a predator-prey ecological system. The whole intention of living is to produce resistant and strong offspring and doing do by using new technologies is no exception. It IS wrong to go against the desire to safeguard their own children. Which is different from denying the weak or personal quality of disabled persons.
I'm sooo sorry for the late post.
ReplyDelete3. I think it would not be strong enough to argue by just saying it’s “ethically wrong”. Actually, I think it is very hard to say things are “ethically wrong”. Well it would be wrong if you kill someone to save someone but, if it is not so like the telekinesis, pain seizing and the situation of Goldblatt, then I do not think it is ethically wrong. Using technology to have better lives (or maybe what was thought to be better) is what we human have being doing from the past. However, as Sayaka and Fumika said, there are questions whether it is ethical to use the money on researches which aren’t sure when there are people who could definitely be saved with that money. This could be an example of that “practical benefits overrule ethical controversies”. It is occurring now and I think it will continue. In the book it said that the scientists are having fun. They are not even trying to think about the planets benefit and neither the ethical problems that could occur.Therefore I think just saying its "ethically wrong" cannot stop the technology from being wide applied.
I'm so sorry to post on the last day, but I'd like to post my opinion to the third question.
ReplyDelete3.I think that practical benefits would overrule ethical controversies. Through many researches on technologies this semester, I became to think that once new technologies are introduced to the society, then it's already out of control of the inventor. The technologies can be used in ways inventors intended, but also in ways they did not expected to be used. The word "benefits" does not always have same meaning or direction for people. If applied by people with inmorality, no matter if it's intentionally or not, there would be new kinds of criminals. If those bad people think it would be their benefit, then that is also overruling ethical issue. Humans are creatures who seek to be satisfied with their will. i think that that is how the field of technologies became this developed. Therefore, it is difficult to avoid ethical issues to be overruled by benefits.