Science debate: Should we embrace an enhanced future? - BBC News

It's difficult to make any kind of blanket statement about embracing enhancements when the category of enhancements includes such disparate things as vision correction and behavior modification. The libertarian in me says go for it, with two important caveats -- 1. that people only make decisions for themselves, not for anyone else, and that they would be personally responsible and accountable for those decisions; and 2. that people don't push for it to be "normalized." Unfortunately, people being people, I already know my caveats are non-starters. Wherever there is a stupid idea in this world, there are people telling other people that it's a great idea and should be adopted by more people.

In the article, for example, "some ethicists have argued that there is an urgent need to enhance human moral decision-making - biomedically, if necessary." If that sentence doesn't scare the snot out of you, there's something wrong with your scare trigger. There are people in this world (self-described ETHICISTS, no less!!!!!) who think it's appropriate to judge other people's moral decisions, and put chemicals in them if those decisions don't measure up to their judgment. The problem, as always, is who gets to be the judge. I'd be fine with the idea if I got to be the judge, but I'm sure THAT would scare the snot out of many of my RP brethren, and rightly so -- and then heaven help me if someone else ever became the judge.

Did you ever see the movie Gattaca (1997)? The movie plot revolves around the idea of genetically inferior "invalid" humans vs laboratory-engineered "valid" humans.... after hearing last week of a friend that knew if the fertilized eggs being implanted in her were male vs. female tells me we AREN'T too far off....

Kids justify oral copulation as not having sexual contact, but don't understand they can still transmit disease. If we can't understand basics, not need to be enhanced! We are still way too stupid.