Thread: Heart Transplants

Originally Posted by Xei

Are there any arguments against..? And if so, where on Earth is the line drawn?

If the brain is given the ability to connect to the internet(or whatever the internet becomes at that point) there could potentially be serious problems aka I don't want to be a borg ):

The only way around this I could think of would be to keep the internet external from the brain and the mouse controlled by eye movements or some other input other than thought.

As far as the replacement of organs and body parts other than the brain goes, I don't see anything wrong with it.

What would the problems be? Is freedom of information not a pinnacle of our modern morals?

Regarding what is wrong with body replacement; well, for a start there is the problem of overpopulation. The two factors controlling population are birth rate and death rate, so if death stops and you want to limit the population then obviously births are going to have to stop too...

Originally Posted by Xei

What would the problems be? Is freedom of information not a pinnacle of our modern morals?

Regarding what is wrong with body replacement; well, for a start there is the problem of overpopulation. The two factors controlling population are birth rate and death rate, so if death stops and you want to limit the population then obviously births are going to have to stop too...

Or systematic killings to lower the population...For ever X amount of babies born Y amount of people have to be killed.

Yeah, but then that would negate the whole point of medical intervention in the first place; might as well let nature kill people.

True.
Invincible Human Body: Fail.

And then we're back to the other paradox; transhumanism is just an extension of the basic morals of medicine which we've taken to be true for centuries. Everybody has a right to continue living if they want to, providing the technology is available.

Originally Posted by Xei

What would the problems be? Is freedom of information not a pinnacle of our modern morals?

I thought my statement "and I don't want to be a borg ):" made it obvious enough what I was talking about.

Connecting to the internet via brain would potentially allow other users to use viruses to take control of each other and cause extreme damage. That's not freedom of information. That's enslavement.

Not if it interferes with the others who are willing to live.

Maybe if we colonized mars we could turn it into a retirement home. Or better yet, just TELL people we made mars into a retirement home, and on your 30th birthday you get "sent there" but actually they just kill you.

30 is a bit young isnt it?
But whether its 30 or 80...thats not very humane.
You were joking right?

Keep talking, we'll just bump up your flight sooner.

lulz.
i wont be going anytime soon.
Im too young.

Hmm, I think I'd be willing to replace just about everything for borg shit except my brain and my digestive system. Maybe upgrade those, though. I want a faster metabolism.

Until the field of nano-robotics is perfected, biological organs will have many advantages over mechanical ones; most notably self repair, adaptation and growth. Anyone with a mechanical heart will not be able to improve their cardiovascular system through working out. No matter how much they improve their lung capacity through running or biking, their 'heart' will always pump the same amount of blood without costly upgrades. Also, as of right now, most artificial implants have a life span of only about 5 years. A normal human heart will rebuild itself for as long as the body lives.

Originally Posted by Xei

I read today that heart transplants are becoming quite obsolete. They never really worked properly; 10% of people die very quickly because their bodies reject them, and many more develop cancers and die. The number of donors has also plummeted recently. Many are therefore turning to the possibility of mechanical pumps.

It's hard to argue against this; if you think heart transplants are a good idea, then this is basically just an extension of that concept.

But these people will never get heart disease; they could potentially live much longer. The issue is where this stops... why not make the entire human body pretty much invincible? A focused researched project could achieve it very quickly. The arguments for it are exactly the same as those for the whole of medicine. Are there any arguments against..? And if so, where on Earth is the line drawn?

Read Asimov's Bicentennial Man, and think about his final legal argument... only backwards.
Anyway, yeah, I think as long as something has a human minsd, it is considered human for moral purposes, and if it was born with and still has recognizably human DNA, it is human for legal purposes.

Aside from the current quality of most artificial body parts, I think it would be a good idea to keep replacing stuff as it fails, as long as you have the money.