general Do you support prosthesis?

[Sintanan 151]

I first want to state there is currently no right or wrong answer to any of the questions I pose further in this post, as society, religion, and personal beliefs will bias your thoughts one way or another; I'm just curious the honest opinions of users of the forums.

 

prosthesis

noun

an artificial device which replaces a missing body part, such as an arm, leg, or heart.

 

 

Question 1:

Should someone be allowed to get a prosthesis if they lost a body part due to war (such as a leg or arm that was injured and unable to be saved), disaster, an accident, or other trauma?

 

Question 2:

If a prosthesis was equal to the replaced body part, should a person be able to willingly choose to remove a perfectly healthy body part for an artificial replacement?

 

Question 3:

If a prosthesis was superior to the replaced body part, should a person be able to acquire it?  For example, artificial legs that can run faster and maneuver better than organic legs.

 

Question 4:

If a person has a prosthesis that is superior to the organic body part, are they at an unfair advantage compared to someone with the organic body part?  For example, if someone has an artificial eye capable of magnifying what they see, is this an unfair advantage over someone with an organic eye that cannot magnify?

 

Question 5:

Is there a limit to what a prosthesis should be able to replace?  If so, where is that limit?  For example, artificial limbs, artificial hearts, artificial eyes, artificial lungs, artificial brains.

 

Question 6:

If someone has a prosthesis, does it make them less than human?  Does it make them more than human?

 

Question 7:

If the development of prosthesis have come far enough to fully replace a human body with an artificial one, should a person have the option to do so?  Under what conditions?

 

Question 8:

Finally, do you know what Transhumanism is?  If so, are you in support or against the ideals of Transhumanism?

[Denim&Venöm 19,036]

Question 1:

Should someone be allowed to get a prosthesis if they lost a body part due to war (such as a leg or arm that was injured and unable to be saved), disaster, an accident, or other trauma?

-Yes. No one chooses to loose a limb.

 

Question 2:

If a prosthesis was equal to the replaced body part, should a person be able to willingly choose to remove a perfectly healthy body part for an artificial replacement?

-Their body. Their money. Their right. 

 

Question 3:

If a prosthesis was superior to the replaced body part, should a person be able to acquire it?  For example, artificial legs that can run faster and maneuver better than organic legs.

-See above

 

Question 4:

If a person has a prosthesis that is superior to the organic body part, are they at an unfair advantage compared to someone with the organic body part?  For example, if someone has an artificial eye capable of magnifying what they see, is this an unfair advantage over someone with an organic eye that cannot magnify?

-Are natural eyes better than those who need glasses? Yes. No advantage is unfair. 

 

Question 5:

Is there a limit to what a prosthesis should be able to replace?  If so, where is that limit?  For example, artificial limbs, artificial hearts, artificial eyes, artificial lungs, artificial brains.

-To save a life or improve it for those that are willing to pay for it, there is no limit. 

 

Question 6:

If someone has a prosthesis, does it make them less than human?  Does it make them more than human?

-If they're born human, they stay human. Machines don't change genetic coding.

 

Question 7:

If the development of prosthesis have come far enough to fully replace a human body with an artificial one, should a person have the option to do so?  Under what conditions?

-Emergency conditions and for those willing to pay to convert.

 

Question 8:

Finally, do you know what Transhumanism is?  If so, are you in support or against the ideals of Transhumanism?

-I support it. It's part of evolution and immortality. It goes against our very nature to ignore it. 

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Question 1:

Should someone be allowed to get a prosthesis if they lost a body part due to war (such as a leg or arm that was injured and unable to be saved), disaster, an accident, or other trauma?

 

Yes, of course.

 

Question 2:

If a prosthesis was equal to the replaced body part, should a person be able to willingly choose to remove a perfectly healthy body part for an artificial replacement?

 

As long as they were made crystal clear there was no turning back on it.

 

Question 3:

If a prosthesis was superior to the replaced body part, should a person be able to acquire it?  For example, artificial legs that can run faster and maneuver better than organic legs.

 

Think the second kind of answers this question. For clarity's sake, yes.

 

Question 4:

If a person has a prosthesis that is superior to the organic body part, are they at an unfair advantage compared to someone with the organic body part?  For example, if someone has an artificial eye capable of magnifying what they see, is this an unfair advantage over someone with an organic eye that cannot magnify?

 

Well that depends on what you call "an advantage" or an unfair one for that matter. If I got into a fight with a guy twice my size, is that an "unfair advantage?" If someone fought me, is my Kung Fu an "unfair advantage?" Out of the realm of confrontation. What does the eye aug person have over the natural eye person? Yeah the eye aug can do things a natural eye can't. How does that negatively effect the guy who doesn't have it?

 

Question 5:

Is there a limit to what a prosthesis should be able to replace?  If so, where is that limit?  For example, artificial limbs, artificial hearts, artificial eyes, artificial lungs, artificial brains.

 

Well for now, limbs would probably be the safest. We have artificial organs like the artificial heart but those are still very risky and not up to the standard of what our own hearts can do. I say star's aren't even the limit when it comes to augmentation but realistically speaking, it's not safe to try anything more invasive than limbs by current projections.

 

Question 6:

If someone has a prosthesis, does it make them less than human?  Does it make them more than human?

 

Again, depends on how you're defining them. I certainly don't think anyone with a prosthetic nowadays is "less human" as I define them, meaning worthy of their human rights as individuals and thinking beings. Same principal would apply the other direction, same human rights and same folly. Being able to run faster or jump higher doesn't mean you are less susceptible to moral failings we all are capable of.

 

Question 7:

If the development of prosthesis have come far enough to fully replace a human body with an artificial one, should a person have the option to do so?  Under what conditions?

 

Hmmmm this is a grey area. I have nothing against it on principal but again, that goes beyond prosthesis into a new field and a new field raises its own ethical barriers.

 

Question 8:

Finally, do you know what Transhumanism is?  If so, are you in support or against the ideals of Transhumanism?

 

Yes, and yes.

[Sintanan 151]

I suppose I should have gave a better example for number 4, or a few examples.

 

Let's say we have a sports player.  Let's go with soccer.  The player opts to replace his organic legs with artificial ones that are superior -- faster, stronger, more reactive.  Does this player now hold an unfair advantage over the other players?

 

Or, if someone can get an artificial implant in their brain to store memories, help multitask, and access vast stores of knowledge.  Does this put them at an unfair advantage against someone without them?  Say you are applying for a job involving stocks.  Something like this the brain implant would be perfect for.  Is it an unfair advantage to someone who doesn't have the implant, say by choice or just the inability to have such an implant?

[Stormlight 1,371]

Here are my answers and opinions:

 

Question 1:

 

Should someone be allowed to get a prosthesis if they lost a body part due to war (such as a leg or arm that was injured and unable to be saved), disaster, an accident, or other trauma?

 

There shouldn't be a reason why someone is not able to get a replacement for their missing limb, therefore I say they should be allowed to, regardless of what they've been through to lose that limb.

 

Question 2:

 

If a prosthesis was equal to the replaced body part, should a person be able to willingly choose to remove a perfectly healthy body part for an artificial replacement?

 

This depends on the person and what they believe they should do with their body. It's not someone else's call to say what someone should and should not do to their own body, or with anything.

 

Question 3:

 

If a prosthesis was superior to the replaced body part, should a person be able to acquire it? For example, artificial legs that can run faster and maneuver better than organic legs.

 

As I stated in the previous question, whatever that person wants to do with their body, it's up to them to make the final call.

 

Question 4:

 

If a person has a prosthesis that is superior to the organic body part, are they at an unfair advantage compared to someone with the organic body part? For example, if someone has an artificial eye capable of magnifying what they see, is this an unfair advantage over someone with an organic eye that cannot magnify?

 

I would say no, they are not at an unfair advantage.

 

Question 5:

 

Is there a limit to what a prosthesis should be able to replace? If so, where is that limit? For example, artificial limbs, artificial hearts, artificial eyes, artificial lungs, artificial brains.

 

No, since as long as it functions and sustains the life of an individual that needs that specific part with prothesis, there is no problem nor a limit to what it cannot replace.

 

Question 6:

 

If someone has a prosthesis, does it make them less than human? Does it make them more than human?

 

In the end, they are still human beings. They may have new parts that function the same way the original does, but it does not necessarily make them different.

 

Question 7:

 

If the development of prosthesis have come far enough to fully replace a human body with an artificial one, should a person have the option to do so? Under what conditions?

 

As this could be a permanent change, the person should first check if they have any medical issues, consent of the people closest to them and how they will adapt to the change, and finally the cost of conversion.

 

Question 8:

 

Finally, do you know what Transhumanism is? If so, are you in support or against the ideals of Transhumanism?

 

I support Transhumanism, as the form of science and technology will continue to grow and become more efficient.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Cryathan

[Memory Lane 131]

Question 1: Should someone be allowed to get a prosthesis if they lost a body part due to war (such as a leg or arm that was injured and unable to be saved), disaster, an accident, or other trauma?

Of course. Who could possibly disagree?

 

 

Question 2: If a prosthesis was equal to the replaced body part, should a person be able to willingly choose to remove a perfectly healthy body part for an artificial replacement?

Hey, it's their body. Who am I to say no?

 

 

Question 3: If a prosthesis was superior to the replaced body part, should a person be able to acquire it?  For example, artificial legs that can run faster and maneuver better than organic legs.

I don't see why this would change anything.

 

 

Question 4: If a person has a prosthesis that is superior to the organic body part, are they at an unfair advantage compared to someone with the organic body part?  For example, if someone has an artificial eye capable of magnifying what they see, is this an unfair advantage over someone with an organic eye that cannot magnify?

I mean... you already said it was superior, so yeah.

 

 

Question 5: Is there a limit to what a prosthesis should be able to replace?  If so, where is that limit?  For example, artificial limbs, artificial hearts, artificial eyes, artificial lungs, artificial brains.

If the technology works, I'm cool with anything.

 

 

Question 6: If someone has a prosthesis, does it make them less than human?  Does it make them more than human?

Nope. They wouldn't be any less of a person.

 

 

Question 7: If the development of prosthesis have come far enough to fully replace a human body with an artificial one, should a person have the option to do so?  Under what conditions?

That's awesome. As long as they're a consenting adult, sure.

 

 

Question 8:

Finally, do you know what Transhumanism is?  If so, are you in support or against the ideals of Transhumanism?

Yes I do, and yes I am in support.

 

- Quote Error

Edited June 3, 2016 by Keyclipse

[ARagY 1,152]

snip

1. Yes.

2. Em..sure, but it's not going to be covered by state money.

3. Yes but that bars them from some competitions - it's their choice in the end.

4. Yes, but it probably costs tens of thousands of dollars/euros to get that. 

5. Yes, lets not go in the direction of artificial brains - lots of bad experiments result from that sort of thing. See Soviet Union animal testing. 

6. Physically less human, yeah. But if they're still the same as before in mind and soul, then no. 

7. I think we answered this already - under any conditions. But if its not medically necessary or impedes functioning in life (like losing all your limbs in an accident), and they just want because it looks cool, then its up to them to pay for it, not anyone else. 

8. Not in particular. If you could describe the ideals in a concise way it would be appreciated. I don't typically like labels for things, I just use ideals at whim. 

 

Additional relevant infos: I'm talking as a person who has lost their left eye. I'm on the daily threat of losing the other and I am under very frequent monitoring on this because of it. Some days I wake up and I can't see well and I get scared. I wash my eyes out and it burns like a thousand suns and I still can't see. I've had so so many dreams losing my eyesight. And yet despite that I feel sort of "at peace" with it. Maybe that's not it though, maybe I've just abandoned hope. I am asking every person on this forum to treat their eyes well, please. You do NOT know how much you need them until you're about to lose them. You do not think about it everyday, you could not possibly know until you're in a situation where something you're so dependent on is going to be stripped away. No more internets or seeing people at all, all the dreams you have about new stuffs will probably be more audio than visual, you have to learn braille amongst other things, have someone accompany you a lot of places, therapy and jobs get harder.. it's a mess. The only thing that I think will save me is bionic eye replacement. I'm in full support of that and I hope that it comes out in my lifetime or if not, that I don't ruin my last chance. 

Edited June 3, 2016 by ARagY

[silvadel 1,393]

Question 1:

Should someone be allowed to get a prosthesis if they lost a body part due to war (such as a leg or arm that was injured and unable to be saved), disaster, an accident, or other trauma?

Certainly.
 

Question 2:

If a prosthesis was equal to the replaced body part, should a person be able to willingly choose to remove a perfectly healthy body part for an artificial replacement?

So long as they are paying for it, and incur all fiduciary and other risks involved in acquiring said part.  IE tax dollars and health insurance dollars will not be spent here.
 

Question 3:

If a prosthesis was superior to the replaced body part, should a person be able to acquire it?  For example, artificial legs that can run faster and maneuver better than organic legs.

Sure with the same caveats in question 2.  Note, I do not think they should be able to be FORCED to acquire said parts if they are say drafted into an army.
 

Question 4:

If a person has a prosthesis that is superior to the organic body part, are they at an unfair advantage compared to someone with the organic body part?  For example, if someone has an artificial eye capable of magnifying what they see, is this an unfair advantage over someone with an organic eye that cannot magnify?

They are at an advantage.  Calling it unfair depends on the circumstances.  You certainly wouldn't grade someone with artificial and superior legs against someone who has normal legs in a sporting event.
 

Question 5:

Is there a limit to what a prosthesis should be able to replace?  If so, where is that limit?  For example, artificial limbs, artificial hearts, artificial eyes, artificial lungs, artificial brains.

Nothing short of artificial brains are an issue.  The latter would need to have the proof that the person being transferred over is still that person and not simply a copy, otherwise it is more a suicide thing.

 

Question 6:

If someone has a prosthesis, does it make them less than human?  Does it make them more than human?

No and No.
 

Question 7:

If the development of prosthesis have come far enough to fully replace a human body with an artificial one, should a person have the option to do so?  Under what conditions?

If they can pay for it, and it is not suicide, then sure.  If it is the only way to save a person and they have not designated against it then that is also okay so long as it is not insanely pricy.
 

Question 8:

Finally, do you know what Transhumanism is?  If so, are you in support or against the ideals of Transhumanism?

Yes, and people will become cyborgs eventually regardless, so being in support or against it is largely irrelevant.
 

[Sintanan 151]

@@ARagY,

Transhumanism is the belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and technology.  Basically, we are as far as evolution will take us.  It is up to humanity to further our evolution and development with science and technology -- biotics to replace or improve body parts, gene therapy to eradicate diseases like cancer, vitamins and supplements to extend the lifespan.  Just a few examples.

 

Taken to the extreme, transhumanism becomes transcendentalism -- the idea that non-biological functions (science and technology) will reach a point they are equal to the biological and thus humanity can transcend to a new form through science and technology.  Something like this would be converting from a physical form (i.e. what we have now) into, say, a digital form -- you choose to upload yourself as data and live nearly indefinitely on the Internet.

[ARagY 1,152]

@@ARagY,

Transhumanism is the belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and technology.  Basically, we are as far as evolution will take us.  It is up to humanity to further our evolution and development with science and technology -- biotics to replace or improve body parts, gene therapy to eradicate diseases like cancer, vitamins and supplements to extend the lifespan.  Just a few examples.

 

Taken to the extreme, transhumanism becomes transcendentalism -- the idea that non-biological functions (science and technology) will reach a point they are equal to the biological and thus humanity can transcend to a new form through science and technology.  Something like this would be converting from a physical form (i.e. what we have now) into, say, a digital form -- you choose to upload yourself as data and live nearly indefinitely on the Internet.

Well I guess generally I can support it. I haven't seen any negative examples and it sounds good to do those things. To me the idea is cool that you could even change how your baby would look, so there wouldn't be deformed babies. But at the same time I don't know if that's truly possible

[Sintanan 151]

I haven't seen any negative examples and it sounds good to do those things.

Normally those against transhumanism argue that replacing body parts results in being less human, or being less "you".  More often than not this has to do with religious or spiritual beliefs.

 

To me the idea is cool that you could even change how your baby would look, so there wouldn't be deformed babies. But at the same time I don't know if that's truly possible

Given time we will finish mapping the human DNA and this will be possible.  At this point in time scientists are actually capable of removing some birth defects in test animals, and able to insert deactivated code into the human DNA (meaning we can store data in our DNA).

Back in 2012 Harvard cracked the ability to create artificial DNA and store up to 700 terabytes of data in a single gram of DNA.

Just yesterday gene therapy was used to successfully extend the lifespan of terminally ill patients suffering from brain cancer by up to 29%.

Editas Medicine is planning in 2017 to genetically modify the embryos of chosen humans to remove the disorder leber congenital amaurosis, a disorder that causes blindness.  This is going to be done by introducing the embryos to engineered bacteria before the embryos are inserted into surrogate mothers.

Currently we have genetically modified animals serving human needs -- goats that produce spider silk in their milk, cats that glow in the dark (see picture.. and I want one so bad, but the handful made are like $25,000 correction, you can buy them off the grey market (they were bred as lab animals) currently but they're in the range of $3mil per kitty, and they glow green or red), pigs that produce less phosphorus in their waste (and thus don't destroy their environment), quicker maturing salmon to satisfy the fish market, and more.

 

The only thing that I think will save me is bionic eye replacement

Not to get your hopes up, but...

In 2015 the Manchester Royal Eye Hospital in the UK successfully installed the first bionic eye into a man named Ray Flynn.  While all the prototype bionic eye currently does is allow him to make out white lines on a computer screen, he was delighted to have any form of sight back in his blind eye and is proud to be helping improve the field of bionic sight.

In January, the Monash Bionic Eye was shown off that is a special set of glasses and an implant into the back of the skull that allows vision in a blind eye.  Currently it is just a couple hundred colored dots to help guide the blind, but it is progress.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Sintanan

[Invincible 2,091]

Question 1:

Absolutely. I also think it's basically the entire reason for why primitive and old prosthetics were invented in the first place.

 

Question 2:

Yes. Your organs serve their own functions. You can easily choose to have them replaced; I think people who have a problem with this are too attached to the body they were born in.

 

Question 3:

Yes. You should always strive to become better. As a thinking species, we have achieved this through technology, and I believe we should stick to what we do best.

 

Question 4:

Obviously when you're talking about competitions, or sports, where athletes are measured for their skill and finesse, rather than using advanced technology to overpower the competition. But if you're using technologically superior troops with bionic limbs on the battlefield, for instance, you can anticipate a much greater chance of survival for your men, and i think such cases cannot simply be overlooked.

 

Question 5:

There shouldn't be limits beyond what the physicality of the prosthetics offers. If we can, we shouldn't be afraid to take greater leaps forward.

 

Question 6:

It doesn't make them any less or more human in my eyes. A computer is a computer, no matter how many peripherals you attach to it.

 

Question 7:

I think the only issue would be identity theft here, really. Spies would be easily able to infiltrate various positions of power by replacing individuals and wearing their skin.

 

Question 8:

Yes. And I wholeheartedly support it. I believe it is our chosen path to outlive our own bodies eventually. Maybe i won't be around for such ideas to become reality, but i do believe in the notion.

[PoisonClaw 8,164]

Question 1:

Should someone be allowed to get a prosthesis if they lost a body part due to war (such as a leg or arm that was injured and unable to be saved), disaster, an accident, or other trauma?

 

No question. The whole purpose of prosthetics is to replace lost of damaged limbs and organs to help the afflicted live a more normal life, so I see no reason why someone who had lost an arm or leg to war or tragedy wouldn't be allowed a replacement.

 

Question 2:

If a prosthesis was equal to the replaced body part, should a person be able to willingly choose to remove a perfectly healthy body part for an artificial replacement?

 

No, since by that point you've passed from medical advancement to people purposely maiming themselves and lopping off limbs just to get a robotic limb. If the two are virtually identical in performance, then their should be no reason why they should be allowed to.

 

Question 3:

If a prosthesis was superior to the replaced body part, should a person be able to acquire it?  For example, artificial legs that can run faster and maneuver better than organic legs.

 

I would prefer the artificial ones weren't superior, since that's just asking for them to be abused. Why make an eye that can magnify up to 20X and see in infared when just allowing them to see clearly again would have been more than enough? Obviously, the military would then trip over themselves augmenting their soilders, and I can just see Deus Ex and other Cyberpunk stories becoming reality and companies refusing to hire people unless they have the superior enhancements, laying off perfectly able workers so they can hire augmented, or downright threatening workers with unemployment unless they go through the procedure.

 

Question 4:

If a person has a prosthesis that is superior to the organic body part, are they at an unfair advantage compared to someone with the organic body part?  For example, if someone has an artificial eye capable of magnifying what they see, is this an unfair advantage over someone with an organic eye that cannot magnify?

 

Yes. Like you said, if a sports player like a baseball pitcher replaces their arm with one capable of pitching faster than the fastest pitcher ever clocked and far faster than even the best player can react to, that gives them an unfair advantage against people who have trained and practices, while he just cut off his arm and replaced it with an artificial one.  

 

Question 5:

Is there a limit to what a prosthesis should be able to replace?  If so, where is that limit?  For example, artificial limbs, artificial hearts, artificial eyes, artificial lungs, artificial brains.

 

I doubt artificial brains will ever exist, since the brain is such a sensitive organ that scientists have yet to fully understand it, and you'd sooner lobotomize yourself than turn you brain into a Storage Drive capable of storing terabytes of info. Besides that, artificial organs would save lives and cut back on the transplant waiting list if you could replace a damaged lung, or heart, ect, so I don't think their would be a limit to what could be replaced.

 

Question 6:

If someone has a prosthesis, does it make them less than human?  Does it make them more than human?

 

Absolutely not. Saying someone with a prosthetic is any less than human is the same as saying someone missing a limb is less of a human, or someone who has metal plates or screws in their body due to injury or people in wheelchairs are "less than".

 

Question 7:

If the development of prosthesis have come far enough to fully replace a human body with an artificial one, should a person have the option to do so?  Under what conditions?

 

No, no, no and no. Not even going into topics like the existence of a soul and what not, if you could replace a person's entire body down to the brain, then they would cease to be who they were when they were flesh and blood. Plus, how long would a mind even last before it lost all empathy or deteriorated into sociopathy or downright insanity if their entire body was artificial, even if it was made to resemble a human's?

 

Question 8:

Finally, do you know what Transhumanism is?  If so, are you in support or against the ideals of Transhumanism?

 

I've heard about it, but I can't say I know enough to safely say whether I support it or not or to what degree.  

Edited June 3, 2016 by PoisonClaw

[cider float 2,538]

Question 1:

Should someone be allowed to get a prosthesis if they lost a body part due to war (such as a leg or arm that was injured and unable to be saved), disaster, an accident, or other trauma?

 

Yes

 

Question 2:

If a prosthesis was equal to the replaced body part, should a person be able to willingly choose to remove a perfectly healthy body part for an artificial replacement?

 

Yes, with the correct paperwork. 

 

Question 3:

If a prosthesis was superior to the replaced body part, should a person be able to acquire it?  For example, artificial legs that can run faster and maneuver better than organic legs.

 

I would think the additional upgrades would require extra money off the owner's wallet.

 

Question 4:

If a person has a prosthesis that is superior to the organic body part, are they at an unfair advantage compared to someone with the organic body part?  For example, if someone has an artificial eye capable of magnifying what they see, is this an unfair advantage over someone with an organic eye that cannot magnify?

 

Yes they are. But of course based on what they upgrade on the prosthesis it should still comply by the law that it's not used to harm anyone.

 

Question 5:

Is there a limit to what a prosthesis should be able to replace?  If so, where is that limit?  For example, artificial limbs, artificial hearts, artificial eyes, artificial lungs, artificial brains.

 

No but that would come down to how much it will cost and how much the owner could pay for.

 

Question 6:

If someone has a prosthesis, does it make them less than human?  Does it make them more than human?

 

No comment.

 

Question 7:

If the development of prosthesis have come far enough to fully replace a human body with an artificial one, should a person have the option to do so?  Under what conditions?

 

No comment.

 

Question 8:

Finally, do you know what Transhumanism is?  If so, are you in support or against the ideals of Transhumanism?

 

It depends.