Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of studying biodiversity
The importance of biodiversity ; essay
The importance of biodiversity ; essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Importance of studying biodiversity
The advancement of progress in the fields of biology and technology and, by extension, the scion of these two fields – biotechnology – is generally being lauded by experts and laymen alike. Genetically modified foods, Dolly the sheep, stem cell research and therapeutic cloning are but some of the achievements in this field that have changed the scientific landscape, drawing attention to the past, present and also potential future exploits of men and women involved in biotechnology. Mainly because it is becoming increasingly apparent that the field may, in the near future, extend beyond therapy into human enhancement. With the possibility of such expansion looming ahead, it may be prudent to question whether or not such enhancement is morally and ethically desirable within the context of human nature and also nature itself. And although transhumanists, advocates of enhancement, themselves agree that there are concerns such as potential danger to health, technological difficulty or the impact on the environment tied to human enhancement, their opposite numbers from the bioconservative side of the divide feel that there is much more to be concerned about. Some even argue that the idea of human enhancement beyond therapy, or in other words makign ourselves “better than well”1 is inherently flawed. In any case, should human enhancement in its many forms become commonplace, it is surely going to “affect the rate of human intellectual, material and political progress”2. This essay will focus on illustrating the conviction of the bioconservatives about the detrimental nature of human enhancement in relation to two hypothetical but nonetheless very controversial forms of it – expansion of human cognitive abilities using nanotechnology and ...
... middle of paper ...
...rformance … and perfecting our nature”53 in what may become a “triumph of willfulnes over giftedness”54.
Works Cited
Agar, Nicholas. “Whereto Transhumanism?: The Literature Reaches a Critical Mass.” The Hastings Center Report Vol. 37.3 (2007): 12-17. JSTOR. Web. 15 Jan 2014.
Fukuyama, Francis. Our Post-Human Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux, 2002
Hogle, Linda F. “Enhancement technologies and the Body.” Annual Review of Anthropology 34 (2005): 695-716. JSTOR. Web. 15 Jan 2014.
James Hughes, Nick Bostrum and Jonathan D. Moreno. “Human vs. Posthuman.” The Hastings Center Report 37.5 (2007): 4-7. JSTOR. Web. 15 Jan 2014.
Ptolemy, Barry. “Transcendent Man.” 9 Aug 2013. Online video clip. YouTube. 5 Jan 2014.
Sandel, Michael. The Case against Perfection. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2007
The use of bioethics to alter one’s physical and mental happiness is portrayed as deceitful to many. This critical analysis evaluates an essay that pledges justification for self-improvement as morally right. The essay, “Bioengineering and Self-Improvement,” was written by Arthur Caplan, professor of bioethics and the University of Pennsylvania and director of Center for Bioethics. As presented in the essay, the author is supports using technology in improving one’s vigor and appearance. In fact, he declares that bioengineering improves one’s self through boosted confidence and self-respect. The author furnishes strong points and his essay is convincing of positive outcomes provided with biotechnology. The author has effectively proven this
The use of genetic modification in enhancing human characteristics has brought about negative issues, such as discrimination, ethical issues and corruption. With this in mind, genetic modification has benefitted humans immensely; developing the knowledge of the human mind, preventing hereditary diseases and improving the physical attributes of individuals. Nevertheless, the disadvantages surrounding the enhancement of human characteristics through genetic means outweigh the advantages as portrayed by the film and text, “Gattaca” and “Flowers for Algernon” respectively. In conclusion, the enhancement of human characteristics through genetic means should be strictly advocated against.
With the progression of modern biotechnology, there is much contentious debate affecting ongoing developmental affairs. Controversy aligns itself with cautious thoughts on the appropriate amount of enhancement that can be applied before it undermines the “gifted character of human power and achievement (Sandel).” Michael Sandel, author of The Case Against Perfection argues through political discourse that the passion to master all of the science dominion through the use of such technology is largely flawed by our interpretations of perfection.
Steven Pinker lays the foundation for his book by highlighting three main philosophies that permeate society’s view of humanity and their historical context: The Blank Slate (empiricism), the Noble Savage (romanticism), and the Ghost in the Machine (dualism) (2002, p. 11). Pinker is correct to challenge previous philosophical frameworks as they skew the way scientific research has been conducted. Present-day scientific and social research will only benefit from an acknowledgement of innate human nature.
In his book “Better than Human”, Allen Buchanan explores the issues that stems from the highly controversial topic of biomedical enhancements. Buchanan aims to present his view on why biomedical enhancements should be embraced and is actually not much different from the enhancements that we already have presently. The main arguments posed by Buchanan include the ethical issues that arise from allowing biomedical enhancements are not novel and can be tackled (via regulation – legally or biologically, if we want to) and tackling the issue of what is seen as “natural” and how “natural” does not equate to optimal. Additionally, biomedical enhancements – a subset of biomedical science – generate new knowledge that can equip us with the capacity
In this paper, I will negatively expose Walter Glannon’s position on the differentially between gene therapy and gene enhancement. His argument fails because gene therapy and genetic enhancement is morally impermissible because its manipulation and destruction of embryos shows disrespect for human life and discrimination against people with disabilities.
Rudolph, Frederick B., et al. (1996). Biotechnology: Science, Engineering, and Ethical Challenges for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry P.
Solomon, Mark. "The Transhumanist Dream." Foreign Policy (Jan. 2005): 4-4. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 2 Nov. 2008 .
The tangle of motives that has led Castro to become a cheerleader for biotechnology is a cautionary tale for anyone who imagines that the industry can be made subject to effective international regulation. In launching a scientific experiment for reasons that are at least partly political, Cuba's leader is doing what other countries have also done, and will surely do in the future. Such experiments are unlikely to be confined to non-human animals. Within the lifetimes of people who are alive today, it will become feasible to alter human nature. If we believe what we are told by scientists, biotechnology offers more than the promise of removing genetic defects that contribute to common diseases. It opens up the possibility of redesigning human beings. The present generation will be able to shape the next in ways that have never before been possible. As scientific knowledge grows, it seems likely that not only the disease profiles, but also the personalities of future human beings will become alterable by human will. “ At that point, equipped with the new powers conferred by biotechnology, we will be what Lenin could only dream of becoming -- engineers of souls ” ( Gray 29 ).
The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have tremendously improved the average human lifespan and the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to make humans superior by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This ability raises the question of how ought this new technology be used, if at all? The idea of human enhancement is a very general, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am specifically referring to the use of genetic intervention prior to birth. Julian Savulescu in his, “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings” argues that it is not only permissible to intervene genetically, but is morally obligatory. In this paper I will argue that it is not morally obligatory to genetically intervene, but may be permissible under the criterion established by Savulescu. I plan to argue that the argument used by Savulescu for the obligation to genetically intervene is not the same obligation as the prevention and treatment of disease. The ability for humans to genetically intervene is not sufficient to provide a moral obligation.
“Modern man does not experience himself as a part of nature but as an outside force destined to dominate and conquer it. He even talks of a battle with nature, forgetting that if he won the battle he would find himself on the losing side” (E.F. Schumacher, 1974).
At first glance, transhumanism is an impressive and fascinating idea, for it intends to enhance the human in order to guarantee them a better life, thus making endless improvements and upgrades the goal. (Mossman, 141) There are different types of transhumanism ranging from technologies that are already accessible such as different medical and pharmaceutical technologies that enable better physical and cognitive abilities, to scenarios that are far in the future if not completely science-fictional such as “discarding the human body entirely and uploading the human consciousness unto artificially intelligent “immortal” machi...
The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have increased the average human lifespan and improved the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to alter humans by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This technology gives rise to the question of how this new technology ought to be used, if at all. The idea of human enhancement is a very general topic, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am referring specifically to the use of genetic intervention prior to birth. Julian Savulescu, in his, “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings,” argues that it is not only permissible to intervene genetically, but is a morally obligatory. In this paper, I will argue that it is not morally obligatory to intervene genetically even if such intervention may be permissible under certain criteria. I will show, in contrast to Savulescu’s view, that the moral obligation to intervene is not the same as the moral obligation to prevent and treat disease. In short, I will show that the ability of humans to intervene genetically is not sufficient to establish a moral obligation.
Author Yuval Noah Harari has a unique way of reviewing the past fourteen billion years in his monograph Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. His intention for writing this book is mainly to bring up the conversation of the human condition and how it has affected the course of history. In this case, the human condition coincides with the inevitable by-products of human existence. These include life, death, and all the emotional experiences in between. Harari is trying to determine how and why the events that have occurred throughout the lives of Homo Sapiens have molded our social structures, the natural environment we inhabit, and our values and beliefs into what they are today.
From the beginning of the human race, since man first stepped into the world from beneath the depths of the mighty sea; the jungles of Africa; or from God himself, humans have been presented as the dominant species. Humanity assumes the stature of alpha predator, master of all of God’s creations, and the center of the universe solely from being born on Earth. The misconception of mankind’s importance in the universe has resulted in a species-wide ethnocentrism revolving around the theories of early chauvinist. These theories stem from mankind’s own arrogance, and have distorted its reality as to where its importance lies in the universe. The human races’s ego has developed into an exceedingly destructive problem towards itself, and will continue