Work in healthcare?

[Sailor]

TRANSHUMANISM: THE REAL PANDORA’S BOX?

The ‘Humanity’ organisation defines Transhumanism as a way of thinking based on the premise that the human species in its current form does not represent the end of our development. It goes further and says that we’re at a comparatively early phase.

Olaf Stapledon’s Last And First Men, a book I’ve re-read and enjoyed a few times over the years, was saying the same thing in 1930. The human race advances in a ‘two steps forwards, one step back’ sort of way. We’re still First Men and will eventually split into Second Men and some sub-humans after a nuclear holocaust. We’ll eventually evolve into Eighteenth Men and then pass on our intelligence and sentience into the galaxy via an artificial virus.

Transhumanists want to accelerate the development. They should remember that the Fourth Men used the Third Men as lab rats; that the Fifth Men, who were entirely artificial, eliminated the Fourth and then declined; that even the Seventeenth Men, also artificial, had unintended and unexpected flaws.

Now, because the technology to modify the human is well on its way, it is imperative that an international forum debates what could and should be done – and what shouldn’t. The elimination of ageing and the enhancement of intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities are very attractive propositions. Many of us in the First World already modify our bodies through diet or exercise, and some of us fiddle with our minds with chemicals or supplements. But how far should we go, how should we go there, and what are the risks?

Genetic engineering has as much potential in the field of bioweapons as it does in medicine. And it can’t be kept in an ethical box: the genetic sequence of polio was accurately synthesised in 2002 from internet information, for example. Similarly, we cannot rule out the use of self-replicating nanotechnology for destructive purposes. And what happens if we develop artificial intelligence that decides to over-ride the human-friendliness we tried to build into it? These are existential threats. Even a nuclear war might not have led to the destruction of the human race, but these could. And what of other risks that we haven't even thought of yet?

We can’t stop it now, though.
- Self-teaching neural networks are on their way, and cross-pollinating them with human brains is entirely feasible. While we’re at it, we might like to plug ourselves into the internet and know (or mis-know) everything out there. And when that turns out to be not what we want, let’s go completely digital in a virtual reality and live as many different lives as we want without leaving our brine cupboards! (Just don’t forget to back-up.)
- Pharmaceutical well-being and personality-modifiers have been around for ages.
- Nanobots and self-replicating assemblers at the genetic level probably won’t happen in my lifetime, but aren’t that far into the future.
- And then there’s cryonics, which is just plain weird (freeze me when I’m dead; reanimate me when you can; and then let me commit suicide when I find out that I don’t like the future world?).

Extending life spans, suspending animation and expanding intelligence will all be useful when we decide to go travelling into space. But otherwise? Do we want to give these advantages to the rich? Should we eliminate killer diseases before we have worked out how to feed the extra mouths? Can we trust the politicians to not get into a superman arms race?

The first time we hired a software designer, I was a bit nervous by the way he went about things. He spent nearly three-quarters of the development time writing the test code. And only then did he write the program, checking as he went. It worked brilliantly and I was impressed. I’d feel a lot more comfortable if I could believe that this how the world works in these other fields.

[mercutio]

The first time we hired a software designer, I was a bit nervous by the way he went about things. He spent nearly three-quarters of the development time writing the test code. And only then did he write the program, checking as he went. It worked brilliantly and I was impressed. I’d feel a lot more comfortable if I could believe that this how the world works in these other fields.

The problem is that the whole thing will be done by business for profit so god help us If they operate like Microsoft. If we lived in a star trek world where there was one world one people and all exploration/science whether that be physical or theoretical was always to help everybody and not just the elite then fine but we live here and now.
Bio-weaponery I could tell you of a few things I saw being developed when I was in the military these things are out there now and a lot are now mainstream to an extent.

[Donald]

Interesting read, Sailor, thanks.

Fiction is something I definitely want to include and be able to reference, as it reflects both fantasy (that may now be reality) and fear that perhaps at the time was justified. I've not read the book but have just acquired it. I'd really not considered your point:

Being on the outside, as most of us are, makes it very difficult to be sure that ethical and balanced steps are being taken. And makes it easy to feel uncomfortable.

But I think that honest reassurance is absolutely crucial to integrating both publicly and privately funded research with the population's expectations.

Cryonics: I'm sure you've heard of Alcor then? (http://alcor.org/AboutCryonics/index.html) I emailed them some time back asking various questions, but their answers weren't very satisfactory. There is no way they can guarantee their service and I don't believe for a second that if they were to go bust in 1, 200, 500, 3000 etc. years that my body wouldn't just be binned, yet they told me everything would be fine Shady company, but money permitting I'll still take a punt on it.

The focus of this essay is basically:

In an era of rapidly evolving technologies and the emergence of novel medical treatments, it is questionable how society will cope with the resulting ethical considerations. Can it be argued that the rate of progression is too swift for the general population to both psychologically embrace and financially support?


The Alma-Ata Declaration/WHO constitution states that everyone should be entitled to primary healthcare as a fundamental human right, with primary healthcare defined:

- essential health care based on practical, scientifically sound and socially acceptable methods and technology made universally accessible to individuals and families in the community through their full participation and at a cost that the community and country can afford to maintain at every stage of their development in the spirit of self-reliance and self-determination
- reflects and evolves from the economic conditions and sociocultural and political characteristics of the country and its communities and is based on the application of the relevant results of social, biomedical and health services research and public health experience

From that I would take that the fundamental level of healthcare should be at the frontier of what we can do, realistically expect AND afford.

[4thgenphil]

Have I logged into the wrong forum?

[mercutio]

Have I logged into the wrong forum?

why did you delete your browsing history

[Sailor]

I've not read the book but have just acquired it.

My memory tells me that some parts aren't the easiest read, more because of the dense text than the concepts. I think I'll dig it out again to see if I've remembered it correctly.

Cryonics: Alcor ... There is no way they can guarantee their service

Perhaps we should all buy plutonium-powered chest freezers.

In an era of rapidly evolving technologies and the emergence of novel medical treatments, it is questionable how society will cope with the resulting ethical considerations. Can it be argued that the rate of progression is too swift for the general population to both psychologically embrace and financially support?

If healthcare is as much a political issue as it is humanitarian, is there a case for a moratorium on ethically grey-area developments? This allows 'society' and its attitudes to catch up. It could even divert funds from massively-funded, commercial R&D into actual provision of basic care. Discuss!

The Alma-Ata Declaration/WHO constitution states that everyone should be entitled to primary healthcare as a fundamental human right, with primary healthcare defined:
- essential health care ... accessible to ... the community ... at a cost that the community and country can afford to maintain at every stage of their development in the spirit of self-reliance and self-determination
- reflects and evolves from the ... characteristics of the country and its communities ...

This allows for each country to shape its own healthcare programme to suit local conditions. This happens to a great extent, of course. Examples of where it goes wrong include
- unrealistic levels of expectation, as happens in the UK. We read about some wonder treatment and demand it. NOW!
- allocation of national budgets that prefer to put other things first.

From that I would take that the fundamental level of healthcare should be at the frontier of what we can do, realistically expect AND afford.

Back to politics again. And budgets. And expectations.
What is 'fundamental' or 'primary' healthcare? Fixing broken things and combating diseases, no doubt. But where do we stand on treating idiots who smoke (like me), or who simply eat far too much of the wrong things (like umpteen others)?

[4thgenphil]

Ahhhh, young love

[Donald]

Don't be jealous, there's enough to go around

[Sailor]

Here we go: a longevity gene we'll all be demanding next?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/discovery-bowh ... fe-1481794

[mercutio]

god help us if you have to put up with Ed Milliband or any other such 4thgenphil for 200 years