Thereapy vs. Enhacement

[Willow Brugh]

Hello. My name is Willow Brugh, and I am an undergraduate honors sociology student at IU.

What interests me is alterations upon the human body for both purposes of therapy as well as for advancement. I believe your community has a lot to say on this subject. Discussion already takes place in the group about cochlear implants, but I'd like to know how to you feel about a different sort of biotechnology. Please let me know what you think of the following scenario. Some follow-up questions are offered, but you can ignore these or expand upon them.

Thank you for your time. I know these things take effort, but again, I think you will have important things to say about the subject. You can also e-mail me at {Mod's Edit - Email address has been removed; Please send a PM to the poster to request an email address.} if you'd prefer more anonymity.


Ann has a heart attack at age 34. The expected lifespan for her life-style and country of residence is 92. Unless she gets a different heart she will die. Several options exist for a new heart. She can receive a donated transfer heart, which may be rejected and will likely not last her to the expected age of death. She may be a bio-mechanical heart that will take her to the expected lifespan, but no further. She may also get a fully mechanized heart which is nearly guaranteed to take her to 150 and quite possibly further. This heart system also monitors other bodily functions, and forces a sustainable coma if any vital signs drop until health is restored.

Possible Follow-Up Questions:
• Which, if any, of these options should Ann choose and why? Is there somewhere on this scale you would like to see an option but don’t?
• What are the positives and negatives of this choice?
• Why didn’t you choose any of the other options?
• What about a person’s life expectancy makes them human? Why?
• Is someone who has willfully advanced themselves beyond what is “normal” still human?

Please pass this on to people you know. The more people reply, the better! Thank you.

 

[Jellybean]

She should choose to live to be 150 years old.

The positive is that she can live to experience life, which is ever changing and precious, for a very long period of time. She can also share her experiences from life with others by talking to others about them or writing about them. The negative is that she will probably outlive her family and friends that she currently experiences life with and she may not have too many other friends who can empathize with her life circumstances. She may worry whether someone will be there to care for her in her very old age.

I chose this option because, by human nature, the will to survive and live on is instinctual and strong.

By nature, each person is born with cells that reproduce and die off. Each person's cells will reproduce and die off according to environmental and behavioral circumstances. As humans go through life, their cells act as they should until biologically they can't any more.

If a person willfully advances themselves beyond what is normal, they are very human because instinctually people will try to live on and survive to the best of his or her ability. Instinctually, I believe humans know about the survival of the fittest. If we have the option to get a heart system that monitors bodily functions, we will because then we become "more fit" than others and survive, which is most if not all creatures on the planet try to do.

An interesting side questions one could ask are:
"Would people become depressed as they see others dying off as they go on living?
"Would people instinctually feel deserted and lonely because of this too?"
"Would they become depressed because of all of the loss they would experience?"

I believe it would be different for every person because everyone perceives the world differently because everyone has a different brain set up.