Humans have evolved and are still evolving. There are tons of things that have changed about human and are on process of changing as well. It was a lengthy process of transformation; we human are created from apelike ancestors and evolved for over approximately six million years (Tennison, 2012). Humans have overcome many complications which turned out to be evolutionary success. Humanity was positively evolved, humans have principals that should be followed and one of that includes not brining technology dominate us. Transhumanism is an intellectual and cultural movement that rely on improving human condition by the use of advanced technology (Anthony, 2013). People who follow this movement think that humans’ condition can be improved way more than we are now. The concept they wanted to win or bring to a way new level is life extension and they would not care how it can be achieved (Hodges, 2010). There are certain ways life extension could be achieved such as genetic engineering, cloning, nanotechnology, and many other emerging technologies, which is thought to be against human ethics (Lewens, 2012). This movement simply does not believe in human ethics but only in technology, and how it can be used to its maximum level. This essay will argue against Transhumanists assumption against static human nature. Human nature do exist and definitely required to follow human ethics because human are definitely different because we think and act according to principals that focuses on at least not harming our own species.
We began to walk in 4 legs then just about 4 million years ago, the defining human trait of bipedalism was evolved (Garrard, 2014). Just like walking in two legs, human learned to talk, use language, communicate, write, ...
... middle of paper ...
...nclusion?. Disability and rehabilitation, 32(26), 2222-2227.
Hodges, J. (2010). Going beyond the limits: Genetic modification of livestock and
dissolution of ancient boundaries. Livestock science, 130, 3-13. doi: doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.005
Kaku, M. (November 28, 2013). A scientists predicts the future. In International herald
tribune. Retrieved March 24, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/28/opinion/kaku-a-scientist-predicts-the-future.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
Lewens, T. (2012). Human nature: The very idea. Philos. Technol, 25, 459-474. doi:
DOI 10.1007/s13347-012-0063-x
Persson, I., & Savulescu, J. (2010). Moral transhumanism. Journal of medicine and
philosophy, 35, 656-669. doi: doi:10.1093/jmp/jhq052
Tennison, M. N. (2012). Moral transhumanism: The next step. Journal of medicine and
philosophy, 37, 405-416. doi: doi:10.1093/jmp/jhs024
Smith, Wesley J. "The Trouble with Transhumanism." The Center for Bioethics and Culture RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.
After millions of years that humans separated from their relative primate how is that humans became bipedal. So many changes have happened to the human body to decide to stay on the ground and abandoned their lives in the trees. Primates evolved different body structures according to their lifestyle and the ecosystem in which they lived. As Charles Darwin natural selection stays; it could be as a result of new environments, the need for food and shelter, which forced humans to adapt and survive. Although, most of primates’ anatomy reflects habits of movement, it could be easy to see the external differences but there are many differences that have been intensely studied and researched.
Bipedalism is a form of locomotion that is on two feet and is the one factor that separates humans from other forms of hominoids. The first bipeds are believed to have lived in Africa between 5 and 8 million years ago. (Haviland et al. 2011, pg. 78). The evolution to bipedalism resulted in various anatomical changes. To be able to balance on two legs, the skull must be centered over the spinal column. As bipeds evolved, the foramen magnum, the opening at the base of skull for the spinal column, moved from the back of the skull to the center. The spinal column also evolved from a continuous curve to a spine with four concave and convex curves. (Haviland et al. 2011, pgs. 79, 80). Another change was the widening of the pelvis which gives a wider plateau for more balance when walking on two legs.
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.
...r, human genetic engineering is not immoral; the failure to use such a technology is truly what is unjust. To negate the resolution is to turn a person away from a possible cure, from a chance to prolong life. I have shown that human genetic engineering can improve the health of the society by both curing disease and prolonging live. Both benefits are worthy goals of any just society. These possible benefits of genetic engineering, those of curing disease and prolonging life, outweigh any possible "side-effects" that may occur with the development of any new technology. But we must remember that we do not rush into any new technology; human genetic engineering will be done carefully as with any technology, so that we may maximize the benefits of such a great gift to society. For these reasons, I affirm the resolution, "Human genetic engineering is morally justified."
Imagine that you are able to teleport to the not too distant future. In this world you discover that disease and poverty are no longer causes for human suffering, world hunger has become eliminated from society, and space travel is as easy as snapping your fingers. Cryonics, nanotechnology, cloning, genetic enhancement, artificial intelligence, and brain chips are all common technologies at a doctor’s office. You gasp as a friendly sounding electronic voice cries out, “Welcome to the future Natural!” You are unsure of whether being called a Natural is an insult or not, so you feign a half-hearted hello at the posthuman in front of you. Getting over the initial shock you ask the posthuman, “Who are you?” The posthuman gives an electronic sounding chuckle and shakes his head. He replies, “I am a Posthuman, and you Natural, are in Utopia. Welcome.”
Bipedalism (our ability to walk on two legs), the uncommon size of our brains, symbolic language, and the ability to farm/hunt is what makes us different from the past era. (Christian 6-7) Pages 1-22 begins the era of foragers, also known as the “Paleolithic era” where they use stick and stone tools to survive across different climates around the globe. The era of foragers is the longest (250,000 years) and the hardest era to integrate evidence because of the time gap. Christian stated, “Historians have had a hard time integrating the era of foragers into their accounts of the past because most historians lack the research skills needed to study an area that generated no written evidence (2).
Bipedalism is anatomically important because it now demonstrates to us modern day humans the cycle of how we came to be. This skill was vital to human evolution because it differentiates early hominins from apes. By being able to walk further distances, they brought them to a diverse new diet that enabled their brains to get bigger. Bipedal animals usually walk greater distances because less energy is needed with their longer strides. The stone stools show evidence of abstract thinking and it shows the early hominins adapting and using their environment to survive, which is a skill that we as modern humans have surpassed.
One of the most important and pivotal physical and biological adaptations that separate humans from other mammals is habitual bipedalism. According to Darwin, as restated by Daniel Lieberman, “It was bipedalism rather than big brains, language, or tool use that first set th...
Using science to modify humans, and better ourselves is becoming more of a reality every year. The term transhumanism can be defined as, a method to increase human’s physical and mental capacities using science (Koch, pg 686). It’s an idea that has been around for as long as humans. Humans will always strive to better themselves, and with new advances in technology and bioengineering this becomes more of a reality. The best examples are simple technologies like pacemakers, or prosthetics. They help people to live better. There are certainly more transhumanist technologies that will be developed to help the human race. However, there are many ethical issues related to transhumanism as well. Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment is a piece of literature written by Nathaniel Hawthorne. It
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...
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.
In his essay, The Ethics of Respect for Nature, Paul Taylor presents his argument for a deontological, biocentric egalitarian attitude toward nature based on the conviction that all living things possess equal intrinsic value and are worthy of the same moral consideration. Taylor offers four main premises to support his position. (1) Humans are members of the “Earth’s community of life” in the same capacity that nonhuman members are. (2) All species exist as a “complex web of interconnected elements” which are dependent upon one another for their well-being. (3) Individual organisms are “teleological centers of life” which possess a good of their own and a unique way in which to pursue it. (4) The concept that humans are superior to other species is an unsupported anthropocentric bias.
Evolutionary theory throws humans into a tizzy. Driven by the need to amass knowledge, we find ourselves surging forward into the exploration of a story where the more we know, the less we can feature ourselves. Eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr contends that anthropocentrism and belief in evolution by natural selection are mutually exclusive (Mayr 1972). In other words, the Darwinian story of biological evolution rejects the notion of progress and replaces it with directionless change, thereby subverting the conception of human superiority on a biological scale toward perfection. Evolution by natural selection undermines the idea that humans are the culmination and ultimate beneficiaries of all nature. However, to say that anthropocentrism necessarily dissolves in the rising tide of evolutionary theory is to ignore the ways in which human centered humanness plays an intriguing role in evolution.
Science and Technology are not pursued to improve the moral values of man and as such will be perpetually in disagreement. Humanity will never cease to create new technologies and learn about the universe through scientific methods. A person's values on the other hand are not actively augmented and will suffer. Society is in need of a refreshing of ethics that stays on par with the development of man's other creations.