Nigel Cameron will speak today at APU on bioethics. Part of his presentation will be on what it means to be human in light of advances in biology and especially nanotechnology. Let’s get a jump on this discussion. Are you worried about nanotechnology changing our species? Or do you embrace the new world nanotechnology brings? Should there be limits to nanotech as applied to humans? Or are these fears simply fear of change?
September 26, 2007 at 4:05 pm
I haven’t put much thought into it, but my instincts tell me to fear the brave new world. I don’t like the idea of our “playing God” and manipulating our species. Is that unreasonable?
September 26, 2007 at 4:07 pm
But couldn’t we then say any medical advances, some we now take for granted (cures for a wide range of diseases), are us “playing God.” Where are your limits?
September 27, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Moderation in all things: We must be vigilant, not swallowing just anything new as wonderful and without risk. But we must not reject anything just because there might be a risk. Shoot, my daily commute is a risk, and seeing a fellow smash his car into the sound wall on the 210 freeway just makes me more careful. Risk/benefit ratio can’t really be calculated, but it is a judgment call that must be made about pretty much every activity.
September 27, 2007 at 3:54 pm
You say ‘moderation in all things,’ but what principles would be used to determine when we are playing God? For example, would we be playing God if we could implant a chip in everyone’s head that ensured a high level of thinking? Would that be fundamentally different from giving everyone polio vaccines?