Stunning Medical Progress

[August]

I'm just kidding of course but it does raise a valid question. Is it wrong to improve what nature provides?

If we can someday replace our bone skeleton with a stronger one or make our skin tougher (that'd kill foruming ), or make longer lasting internal organs, should we?

[Betonov]

Interesting question there.

I'd say its not wrong to improve ourselves, but the potential for abuse is so great it should be limited to replacing ill or damaged organs.

Making handicaped walk again and not seting a pole jump rekord by a mile and all that jazz

[Betonov]

Plus, out own fragility makes us carefull, imagine what kind an idiot would a 400 000$ sportscar and a million dolar spine and bone upgrade would produce

[tater]

Rapid prototyping has been used for ortho and maxiofacial reconstruction for a while now. The only thing really new is direct fabrication in metal instead of producing a wax/plastic master that is cast (lost wax).

They were doing rapid prototyping models as armatures to fabricate plates for this here in albuquerque in the 90s, actually (a friend's brother is a maxiofacial plastic surgeon). The rapid prototyping guys are nearby the seeking bullet guys out at Sandia

I did some work over there, actually. We were using plastics, but we got the tour of the selective laser sintering, and direct metal deposition machines, too. Cool stuff. They were working with the Navy as a way to provide spare parts on carriers. You have all the parts on disk, and you print replacements as needed (replacements were designed to get you back to port, not to replace originals---though that was so long ago, there may be no difference now).

[magicstix]

Originally Posted by August

I'm just kidding of course but it does raise a valid question. Is it wrong to improve what nature provides?

If we can someday replace our bone skeleton with a stronger one or make our skin tougher (that'd kill foruming ), or make longer lasting internal organs, should we?

Humans are no longer subject to the pressures of natural selection. If we want to improve as a species we have to do it ourselves.

If the power exists for someone to change something they don't like about themselves, who has the right to tell them they aren't allowed to?

[momo55]

I found some additional info about this medical intervention and the reasons why they choose for this option :http://www.uhasselt.be/UH/Tijdschrif...ing.html?i=482

This new treatment approach is a world première and a new option between other to choose from .

Is it wrong to improve what nature provides?

Ask someone who wears glasses

[antikristuseke]

first thing that sprang to mind

[August]

Originally Posted by magicstix

Humans are no longer subject to the pressures of natural selection. If we want to improve as a species we have to do it ourselves.

If the power exists for someone to change something they don't like about themselves, who has the right to tell them they aren't allowed to?

Maybe because it would give some an unfair advantage in some way. Sports would be one area that comes to mind.

[Gargamel]

Originally Posted by August

Maybe because it would give some an unfair advantage in some way. Sports would be one area that comes to mind.

I think there was a sprinter who was a bi-lat BKA who was putting up Olympic type times due to his new springy legs.

[magicstix]

Originally Posted by August

Maybe because it would give some an unfair advantage in some way. Sports would be one area that comes to mind.

It's also unfair to not let a person change something about themselves. Sports are already in trouble from performance enhancements.

What if we can replace a pitcher's damaged shoulder? Should we allow it or force him to retire? You could make the case that fixing his shoulder gives him an unfair advantage over those who have a natural ability to heal or whose anatomy/genes/etc prevented them from damaging their shoulder in the first place.

Life is already unfair. Money gives people an unfair advantage, so does natural born talent, good genes, social standing, random chance, etc... Who gets to decide what we're allowed to change about ourselves?

Is it unfair to let a person change themselves to have the same intellectual capacity as someone who was just lucky enough to be born with the right genes to make them smart?

What if someone wants to change their eye color, skin color, hair color, or even their gender altogether? What if they want to be taller? Or shorter? Or regrow their hair? What if they want to see in the dark? Who has the right to tell them they can't and why?

What meaning does race have when you can change your skin color?

What does sexual orientation or marriage mean when gender can be changed completely and perfectly?

What does it mean to be human if you can add "after-market parts" like a tail and cat ears or eyes that can see in the dark?

What are the implications on society when those with access to good healthcare are able to live forever?

A lot of those questions seem like science fiction, but they'll all almost certainly become a reality in the next 20-50 years. It'll change not only medicine, but society itself.

[August]

Originally Posted by magicstix

What if we can replace a pitcher's damaged shoulder? Should we allow it or force him to retire? You could make the case that fixing his shoulder gives him an unfair advantage over those who have a natural ability to heal or whose anatomy/genes/etc prevented them from damaging their shoulder in the first place.

I'm not talking about repairing damage or even natural physical shortcomings. I'm talking about a replacement shoulder that gives said pitcher a 200mph fastball. If you allow it then you basically mandate players having to be enhanced in order to play in the major leagues now. You're ok with that?

[magicstix]

Originally Posted by August

I'm not talking about repairing damage or even natural physical shortcomings. I'm talking about a replacement shoulder that gives said pitcher a 200mph fastball. If you allow it then you basically mandate players having to be enhanced in order to play in the major leagues now. You're ok with that?

Why not? Baseball's getting kinda boring anyway... If the players want to do it, who cares?

I'm not talking about repairing damage or even natural physical shortcomings. I'm talking about a replacement shoulder that gives said pitcher a 200mph fastball. If you allow it then you basically mandate players having to be enhanced in order to play in the major leagues now. You're ok with that?

Forget the shoulder, give all the outfielders a big hand so they can catch the ball easier, that way anyone even in little league will be basicly mandated to play with a big hand.

I think there was a sprinter who was a bi-lat BKA who was putting up Olympic type times due to his new springy legs.

can you see people going through double amputations just to run a bit faster?
a double amputee might take up sports but a sportsman taking up life as a double amputee???????

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

can you see people going through double amputations just to run a bit faster?
a double amputee might take up sports but a sportsman taking up life as a double amputee???????

Sooner or later we'll se those kind of idiots.
There were no voluntary amputees (at least in sports) because the replacements were far inferior to the real thing. Personally for me, replacements will always be inferior to the real thing, but if sportsmen (and women) are prepared to kill themselves with chemicals just for a piece of metal around their neck, some prestige and 20min of fame I guess they'll start chopping their legs off for a deluxe aluminium jump hip, that can make you jump 120m (in 5 colors).
Anti doping laws will have to be expanded into anti enhancement laws