[Pope Perseus Peptabysmal]

If you could enhance your body by means of either genetic or cybernetic modifications, (IF POSSIBLE, mind you.) would you choose to do so? If so which one. If not, why would you choose not to? If you vote other, please explain why.

Genetic: Basically, finding away to modify your genetic code to enhance something in your body, again if possible. Examples would be a genetic modification to give your eyes the ability to focus on a nail in a board from 100 yards away, or the ability to switch from normal vision to infrared or ultra-violet. Or making your body function on smaller sources of sustenance.

Cybernetic: Using a machine essentially. Examples would be a microchip implanted into your brain to increase memory storage and recall (Imagine remembering how many steps you took when you first tried it as a baby) or perhaps removing your eyes in favor of a pair of devices that can see beyond the normal range of vision. Another device could reinforce your arms to carry heavier loads. Anything is possible.

[bradley]

it is easier to engineer your seed so your offspring are genetically enhanced, than to modify all the DNA in each and every one of your own cells.

[Seán Himmelb(L)au]

Neither.

[Ixa]

I would definately do both, without question.

[jaakko]

Both, no doubt about it. And it wouldn't have to be anything excessively radical, like turning into a robocop...

[Vivisekt]

Both, most definately. I think that humanity should eventually take full conscious control of its own evolution via genetic and biocybernetic sciences.

[bradley]

it is my belief (although there is no proof concerning evolution in our relatively short time on earth) that our evolution is slowing, as we modify the niche to suit us, hence removing natural selectionary pressures to evolve. If this is the case, perhaps science should to a limited extent start taking up the strain?

[jaakko]

it is my belief (although there is no proof concerning evolution in our relatively short time on earth) that our evolution is slowing, as we modify the niche to suit us, hence removing natural selectionary pressures to evolve. If this is the case, perhaps science should to a limited extent start taking up the strain?

Social/cultural evolution superceded biological evolution in a relatively short period of time. Remember that biological evolution is not a teleological process, ie. it has no purpose or aim although it certainly has a direction, a course. Even if such conditions appear in the future which demand physical alteration of man, man would find a scientific solution to that before any natural biological evolution could take place. Permanent biological alteration of mankind through the means of science would fall under the category of social evolution. I have nothing in principle against it, but I wouldn't trust it in the hands of the current social system (my reasons for this should be obvious).

[Wilhelm]

I would choose cybernetic. I would feel uncomfortable changing my DNA. However, some kind of augmentations carried out with micrchips and shit like that would rule. Has anyone here ever played Deus Ex?

[enLight]

Neither.

The human consiousness is one of imperfection. To allow such a thing to meddle in the natural stability of our current human state might lead to extinction, atrocities (such as the the rise of neo-eugenics), or a loss of the very essence that makes us "human".

[Absolute Zero]

I picked Genetic.

I believe that modifications should be made to DNA so that way the change is an enduring one. I see cybernetic as something that like a junkyard dog. Having semiconductors and fiberoptics in my body should only be for purposes of repair. Another problem is what happens when they get better hardware? That would suck to undergo constant improvements. As soon as a device is put into you, you'd be considered obsolete.

On the other hand, DNA modification would be great because you could pass on traits to your children and the hybrid effect from your mate would be cool. Having genetics play a part is better because you still retain an identity and a sense of self. With cybernetics, you're basically a Dell Dimension 4200, and then your neighbor is the 4300.

Imagine the whole "consumerism" argument being used by the anti-American group here. I think that would throw more fuel on the fire.

"15 feet? That ain't shit I got the newest calf muscles installed and my vertical leap is 20 feet! How ya like that punk!?"

It should also be mentioned that I like X-men more than the Borg.

[Garibaldi]

I'm with absolute zero, but for other reasons. Organic compounds are just as powerful, if not moreso, than cybernetic ones. They can also repair themselves. On the otherhand, cybernetics would quickly become obsolete and would have to be repaired constantly. Also, we're much closer to genetic enhancement than cybernetic, and GE is and will continue to be much more advanced. In fact, if people weren't so anti-tech then we'd probably already have people who could leap skyscrapers and bend steel with their bare hands.

[Vivisekt]

I have nothing in principle against it, but I wouldn't trust it in the hands of the current social system (my reasons for this should be obvious).

I very much agree with this. It is exactly my current position as well.

The human consiousness is one of imperfection. To allow such a thing to meddle in the natural stability of our current human state might lead to extinction, atrocities (such as the the rise of neo-eugenics),

It very well might - unless we take up a mantra of serious education, reason, and cautious progression. But generally speaking; no technology, no knoweledge, comes without substantial risks. Similarly, refusing technological advancement can also carry substantial risks.

or a loss of the very essence that makes us "human".

On that philosophical tangent, I've always prefered the Star Trek definition:
"To make yourself better than you are - that is what it is to be Human."

[Crazy Brown Guy]

I picked both and if there were only one of these machines that can accomplish this I’ll destroy it and kill everyone who have knowledge of it. Then I’ll take over the world.

[enLight]

It very well might - unless we take up a mantra of serious education, reason, and cautious progression.

I agree. If humans choose the path of genetic and cybernetic modification, they must do so with a level of seriousness unable to put into words. Survival would depend on it.

On that philosophical tangent, I've always prefered the Star Trek definition:
"To make yourself better than you are - that is what it is to be Human."

Yeah, I suppose there is some truth to that. However, this sort of modification is purely physical. We must not forget the betterment of that which is mental/moral/spiritual/philosophical/etc. Which kind of imporvement is better? I'd have to go with the latter.

Physical modification is nice, but that only improves surivival and material luxury. It won't improve progress towards mental and spiritual maturity (the only chance would be enhancing our mental capacities - which might turn out to be impossible). Future events will tell.

[smashthestate]

I would allow genetic modifications if they were wholly beneficial and without serious side-effects. For example, if there were to ever be a modification to the human genome that slowed the aging process, I don't think most people would be against it.

As for mechanical modifications, well that really depends on the advantages/disadvantages of the specific device.

[Ocker]

Neither.

And if such technology becomes publicly-available while I am still alive, I will go Unabomber and live in the mountains (minus the bombings).

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I would definately do both, without question.

Perhaps the only time I'll ever agree with Ixabert. I should greatly enjoy to be able to enhance my own capabilities.

[N'Djamena]

I don't want to genetically alter myself, but a better memory appeals to me greatly!

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I propose we ditch the whole organic/genetic carbon-based charade and move onto stronger, tougher, more durable metal enhancements, until eventually our bodies (including the brain) are entirely composed of metal-based hardware. No more diseases or other carbon-based organisms to worry about...etc etc..

And as for regeneration, it is far simpler to replace an arm that's been blown off with a mechanical one, than it is to regrow a whole new arm. And also, by having a computerized brain we could communicate much more effectively (mis-understanding would be a thing of the past). This communication could be undertaken in a collective internet based environment where everyone can connect simply by thinking about it.

And as for security and all that potential mind-control mumbo jumbo, I'm sure we could trust microsoft to provide the necessary patches and upgrades on a daily basis....

Why, our minds would be as secure as windows XP...