Poll: Should becoming a cyborg be legal?

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

My idea of cyborgs and cybernetic enhancements stem from Ghost in the Shell.
They are less "your body is now a machine and you can do crazy stuff like chop a car in half with your arm mounted chainsaw" and more "you can access the net from anywhere with the computer in your brain".
While there would certainly be benefits like enhanced physical traits (running, jumping, lifting, etc.) the draw backs would be that you might require alot of maintenance and/or your body would be vulnerable to technological bugs rather than organic ones.

All that aside, I can't wait till I can swap out my failing body parts for mechanical ones.

the argument could be made that our flaws make us better people because theygive us obstacles and remind us about the fragile preciousness of life. Whilst you can turn around and say " that means little to the person with cancer..." if you look at it on the flipside of that, should you necessarily just beable to swap out organs and limbs whenever they falter?

I mean nobody enjoys arthritis ... but at the sametime, I am quite attached to my leg. I don't think I'd be the same person after the accident if they just cut my leg off and replaced it with a bit of metal.

I mean even if you could guarantee that I'd feel no pain thereafter, I think it would spur on more than a simple malaise of the psyche. I mean rather than growing, adapting, using my accident as both a lesson in, and exultation of, life you end up merely removing it and replacing it with something not me.

I don't think it's beneficial for Humanity to journey along the line of thought such as 'if it's broke, no matter how it is broke, just throw it out and replace it.'

My leg may 'falter' but it's always been true to me and it's more than just a leg.Whereas a cybernetic leg would be just that. A leg. It's hard to describe ... and I think that whilst I fear age ... I think accepting the natural pangs and aches of life are quintessential to the actyion of living said life.

So for 99% of people? No ... people who desperately need it perhaps, but for the average person like myself? I don't think it's a healthy attitude to say "When my starts hurting/faltering I should just discard it for the newest model".

If anything such ideologies would be detrimental to medicine proper.

 

[Torrasque]

My idea of cyborgs and cybernetic enhancements stem from Ghost in the Shell.
They are less "your body is now a machine and you can do crazy stuff like chop a car in half with your arm mounted chainsaw" and more "you can access the net from anywhere with the computer in your brain".
While there would certainly be benefits like enhanced physical traits (running, jumping, lifting, etc.) the draw backs would be that you might require alot of maintenance and/or your body would be vulnerable to technological bugs rather than organic ones.

All that aside, I can't wait till I can swap out my failing body parts for mechanical ones.

the argument could be made that our flaws make us better people because theygive us obstacles and remind us about the fragile preciousness of life. Whilst you can turn around and say " that means little to the person with cancer..." if you look at it on the flipside of that, should you necessarily just beable to swap out organs and limbs whenever they falter?

I mean nobody enjoys arthritis ... but at the sametime, I am quite attached to my leg. I don't think I'd be the same person after the accident if they just cut my leg off and replaced it with a bit of metal.

I mean even if you could guarantee that I'd feel no pain thereafter, I think it would spur on more than a simple malaise of the psyche. I mean rather than growing, adapting, using my accident as both a lesson in, and exultation of, life you end up merely removing it and replacing it with something not me.

I don't think it's beneficial for Humanity to journey along the line of thought such as 'if it's broke, no matter how it is broke, just throw it out and replace it.'

My leg may 'falter' but it's always been true to me and it's more than just a leg.Whereas a cybernetic leg would be just that. A leg. It's hard to describe ... and I think that whilst I fear age ... I think accepting the natural pangs and aches of life are quintessential to the actyion of living said life.

So for 99% of people? No ... people who desperately need it perhaps, but for the average person like myself? I don't think it's a healthy attitude to say "When my starts hurting/faltering I should just discard it for the newest model".

If anything such ideologies would be detrimental to medicine proper.

I've seen a variation of this argument in one of my philosophy classes. While your argument does make sense, and I agree that modifications to one's body would have an effect upon the mind, I don't think that someone should take all of life's punishment and just deal with it. I don't think that if I lose my arm in a car crash, I should just deal with it. I don't think that if my leg gets serious joint problems, I should just deal with it. While one's body is important, and modifying one's body would have an effect on the mind, the mind is what is important. I look at my existence as being: my mind is who I am, my body is the vehicle for my mind. I am not talking about "oh, I broke my finger. BETTER LOP OFF THE ARM AND GET ONE THAT CAN LIFT 300 POUNDS!" I am talking about if someone has heart failure, they don't have to die, they can get a new cybernetic heart. While there would be children with birth defects as well as old men with clogged arteries from smoking, we can deal with that moral issue when the time comes.

For now: bring on the cybernetics!

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I've seen a variation of this argument in one of my philosophy classes. While your argument does make sense, and I agree that modifications to one's body would have an effect upon the mind, I don't think that someone should take all of life's punishment and just deal with it. I don't think that if I lose my arm in a car crash, I should just deal with it. I don't think that if my leg gets serious joint problems, I should just deal with it. While one's body is important, and modifying one's body would have an effect on the mind, the mind is what is important. I look at my existence as being: my mind is who I am, my body is the vehicle for my mind. I am not talking about "oh, I broke my finger. BETTER LOP OFF THE ARM AND GET ONE THAT CAN LIFT 300 POUNDS!" I am talking about if someone has heart failure, they don't have to die, they can get a new cybernetic heart. While there would be children with birth defects as well as old men with clogged arteries from smoking, we can deal with that moral issue when the time comes.

For now: bring on the cybernetics!

Ahh ... true. But I think it's a good diea to look at the ethics of it now as opposed to when the technology avails itself. The big thing you sorta touched on was death. And death avoidance. And I would argue this, in itself, is a big question mark about the nature of cybernetics and how the world would change with extensive cybernetic 'treatment'.

Are we looking forward to cybernetics simply to reduce the supposed fallible nature of flesh?

If you answer 'yes', or even if any part of of you thinksso ... then it opens up the large ethical concerns cybernetics would bring to the Human condition.

I mean I'm a big proponent of the idea that people are actually living too long nowadays. A long life is nice, but in a lot of case for people ... they are living merely because they have something that lets them (modern medicine and such). And this opens the big argument of whether one wishes to exist in sucha state, or to create an environment where this state of 'Grace' is so easily afforded.

I mean you say yourself that your body is simply a vessel. But At the same time did you consider that with decent diet and decent exercise (assuming no bad accidents or genetic conditions) yourbody will last you well into your years when your mind begins to weaken considerably?

Do you really want to create a world where longevity means the mind is exhausted and you've forgotten the name of your first wife who died for reasons you can't recall?

I think this question of "Living for the sake of living", whilst a double edged sword-like argument (for what is life if not to be lived, and can somebody actually articulate what it means to properly live?) is something that needs to be explored extensively before people do find a way for extensive cybernetic systems.

I mean, they have 1st generation cybernetic hearts now ... it's only a matter of time and resources before other organs such as livers and kidneys may be emulated with steel and wiring.

 

[Torrasque]

*snip*

Ahh ... true. But I think it's a good diea to look at the ethics of it now as opposed to when the technology avails itself. The big thing you sorta touched on was death. And death avoidance. And I would argue this, in itself, is a big question mark about the nature of cybernetics and how the world would change with extensive cybernetic 'treatment'.

Are we looking forward to cybernetics simply to reduce the supposed fallible nature of flesh?

If you answer 'yes', or even if any part of of you thinksso ... then it opens up the large ethical concerns cybernetics would bring to the Human condition.

I mean I'm a big proponent of the idea that people are actually living too long nowadays. A long life is nice, but in a lot of case for people ... they are living merely because they have something that lets them (modern medicine and such). And this opens the big argument of whether one wishes to exist in sucha state, or to create an environment where this state of 'Grace' is so easily afforded.

I mean you say yourself that your body is simply a vessel. But At the same time did you consider that with decent diet and decent exercise (assuming no bad accidents or genetic conditions) yourbody will last you well into your years when your mind begins to weaken considerably?

Do you really want to create a world where longevity means the mind is exhausted and you've forgotten the name of your first wife who died for reasons you can't recall?

I think this question of "Living for the sake of living", whilst a double edged sword-like argument (for what is life if not to be lived, and can somebody actually articulate what it means to properly live?) is something that needs to be explored extensively before people do find a way for extensive cybernetic systems.

I mean, they have 1st generation cybernetic hearts now ... it's only a matter of time and resources before other organs such as livers and kidneys may be emulated with steel and wiring.

Be careful, your argument could be mistaken to mean "I think people who are in comas and have machines keeping them alive, don't deserve to live!" which is of course is not what you mean, but almost seems to say as much. While it would be possible to replace the entire body of a 100-something old man, so he can live longer, I think the mind can only live so long. And if it is the case that cybernetic technology advances peoples ages into the 120s and 150s, so what? Would you have complained back in medieval times when a 50 year old was an old man, that proper hygiene and medicine extended life into the 80s? No, I don't think you would, because it just makes sense. I am not talking about stretching people's lives thin, I think people live until their minds run out of steam and then die peacefully in their bed (if allowed to live without injuries, complications, or diseases of course).
For the most part, the cybernetics that I am talking about, and support 100%, are the ones that let children walk and see again. And I think it is unethical to say that is a bad thing.

 

[Torrasque]

I believe so. If you've lost your eye, then yeah. If you lost your leg, shoot. But just because you think it might be cool and because you have the capital to do it? Hardly. Unless you can express in some way a necessity for replacing flesh with steel and circuitry there's very little reason why this technology should be sowidespread.

Flipside however, more customers means greater market, greater market means more competition, more competition means better prices for people who might need the technology.

Of course, possibly the prime situation should be to only sell it to those that have medical approval that the technology will improve their quality of life and that the individual is mroe than capable in handling the responsibilities that come with replacing flesh with machinery.

lol, I just read your first post, and it seems we agree for the most part.
We just have a slight disagreement on what cybernetics should and should not be allowed to do

 

[ronald1840]

As soon as its legalized then its engineering time Outfitted with an RPG launcher in both arms, jet boosters for shoes, diamond skin, flamethrower in my mouth, and the ability to throw up baby turtles when commanded. Like my substitute superhero/detective body as long as I don't run into this guy.

Grrr

 

[icyneesan]

Will becoming a cyborg increase my chances of getting laid? If so, then yes.

 

[FalloutJack]

Pffft, I doubt it's going to be 'only for the rich'. If we're talking medical procedure, then it's open to those who needed it, at least. C'mon, I'm a cynic and I see that much. Even still, I'm all for a Ghost in the Shell world, myself.

 

[TheScottishFella]

I know this is odd, but you should really change the poll question because it is asking if it should be illegal but from the answers it looks like the other way round.