 |
| Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/austinevan/1225274637 |
The piece in the above link is intended for readers with a general interest in the ethical issues involved with human enhancements. It was written with the purpose of exploring ethnical concerns in several key areas of the subject, such as mood and personality enhancement. The authors use evidence presented by both sides to come to their conclusions. The primary conclusion being that people need to consider all possible ramifications before undergoing enhancement. It provides some good arguments that are pro enhancement that can prove useful for future papers on the subject.
Bostrom N, Sandberg A.The wisdom of nature: An evolutionary heuristic for human enhancement. Enhancing humans. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2007. http://www.akira.ruc.dk/~fkt/filosofi/Artikler%20m.m/Posthumanism/Bostrom%20-%20The%20Wisdom%20of%20Nature,%20An%20Evolutionary%20Heuristic%20for%20Human%20Enhancement.pdf. September 5, 2015.
This piece has to do with going against humanity's evolutionary path with enhancements, and is intended for readers who ponder the ethics of human enhancements. It goes on about how evolution caused by nature is currently to complicated for human technologies to mettle with without consequences. It concludes with stating that if we clearly understand how and why a human trait currently exists than we can safely modify it. It does provide some helpful information that I can use for the against(ish) side of the argument.
Cochlear implants. National Institue on Deafness and Other Communication Diseases. http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/hearing/pages/coch.aspx. Updated August 2014. Accessed September 13, 2015.
The above is about the cochlear implant, which allows for the deaf and the extremely hard of hearing to hear better. As one might guess, it is intended for people interested in such a device. I plan to use the information on this page to cite potential benefits of implants/ human enhancement.
Corbyn Z. Live forever: Scientists say they'll soon extend life 'well beyond 120'. The Guardian. January 11, 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/us. Accessed September 5, 2015.
The above is an interesting news article that talks about the possibility of anti-aging medicine and the very wealthy people who are funding the research and development. The targeted audience and purpose has to do with those who are interested in the idea of medicine that is able to extend their life span. The article mentions several different methods for prolonging life, and the idea that medicine that extends life span doesn't have to mean immortality. It is that last part that might prove useful in any paper I might right, as so many get stuck on immortality.
Heller J, Peterson C. Human enhancement and nano technology. Foresight Institute website. https://www.foresight.org/policy/brief2.html. Accessed September 5, 2015.
This piece briefly explores nanotechnology and human enhancements, as well as ethical concerns enhancements may have. The piece is mostly concerned with starting debates on issues that could come with enhancements, such as pressure and larger social disparity. The article provides some useful insight into potential pitfalls of human enhancements that I will make reference of.
Jha A. Report raises ethical concerns about human enhancement technologies. The Guardian. November 7, 2012. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/nov/07/report-ethical-concerns-human-enhancement-technologies. Accessed September 5, 2015.
The news article main focus has to do with the good and the bad with how enhancements will effect the work environment, so people in the workforce curious/interested about the topic are probably the targeted audience. The article provides fair points on both sides of the arguments that will be useable in my writing. The purpose of the article, like all articles in a field that has yet to reach general use, is mainly to spark debate on the ethics of using enhancements in the work place.
Lin P. Could human enhancement turn soldiers into weapons that violate international law? Yes. The Atlantic. January 4, 2013. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/could-human-enhancement-turn-soldiers-into-weapons-that-violate-international-law-yes/266732/. Accessed September 5, 2015.
The above article is for those who are concerned about military application of human enhancements, and is meant as a call to arms for the limiting of human enhancements, at least in warfare. While I personally do not like the article, what with its rampant speculation and constant use of extreme examples, It does raise a fair point on the potential role human enhancements could have in war. On a semi-unrelated note, my favorite argument in the article has to do with the ethical issues of when the man stops being a man and becomes a robot. The example used was when every part of the human body was replaced with a machine part ( at that point I think the military would have just built a robot instead.)
Mosbergen D. Brain implant to cure mental disorders may soon be a thing. The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/27/brain-implants-mental-disorders-darpa_n_5395708.html. Published May 27, 2014. Accessed September 13, 2015.
The above post is about how a new type of device, similar to the brain pacemaker, is being developed to help people with mental disorders. I plan to use the device as an example of the benefits of enhancement. The target audience of the article is those who are interested in such a device.technology. An interesting thing to note is that DARPA is giving grant money to two institutions to work on this device. It is interesting because people are commenting on how untrustworthy the device is because of that (admittedly, I don't think some of those people read the article, but just saw the word DARPA and the title.)
Mosbergen D. Military's tiny implant could give people self-healing powers. The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/26/implant-self-healing-neuromodulation-darpa_n_5869072.html. Published September 26, 2014. Accessed September 13, 2015.
This news post is about a new implant being developed. This implant would be a closed looped system that aids in healing various problems in the body, one of which is arthritis. The interesting and useful for my purposes part is not just the device but people's reaction to the device. An interesting tidbit about this device is that it is being developed by DARPA, a branch of the Defense Department. The reaction being, for some, immediate distrust and/or damnation of the implant. It is these two things that I plan to use for my paper.
Munkittrick K. Should we use Nanotech, genetics, pharmaceuticals, and augmentations to go above and beyond our biology? Slate. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/features/2011/debating_extreme_human_enhancement/should_we_use_nanotech_genetics_pharmaceuticals_and_augmentations_to_go_above_and_beyond_our_biology.html. Published September 13, 2011. Accessed September 13, 2015.
The above article, while odd in that it reads in a way that implies that the author is having a conversation with people that, while real, aren't actually there, poses the question of should we and do we want to when it comes to human enhancement. The answer being yes, but not right now. The article is intended for those interested in the debate on human enhancement. I plan to use the article and the questions it poses in my quick-reference guide, as they are key questions to consider when talking about human enhancement.
No comments:
Post a Comment