4 ms·

The difference is that people have a very closely protected idea of 'normal' and seek to preserve that beyond all else. Ameliorating disease is acceptable to r

The difference is that people have a very closely protected idea of 'normal' and seek to preserve that beyond all else. Ameliorating disease is acceptable to re-attain normal. Enhancement above 'normal' is just as aberrant, if not more so, as permitting disease to spread unchecked. This is woven into the fabric of our society and always has been. The FDA in the US, for example, is tasked with regulating things which claim to "treat, cure, or prevent disease." They do not permit anything which is intended to enhance or improve a person beyond 'normal'. Were a pill developed tomorrow which gave the taker the ability to lift 500 pounds more with no negative side effects, it would be banned by default. A good concrete example and disproof of your expectation which starts your second paragraph is piracetam and other members of the racetam family. They're legal in the US, as well as in other parts of the world. They are well supported by research to provide cognitive enhancement. The side effects are minimal. Yet, it's not widely available in the US. It has no way in to a market which is regulated for the purpose of preventing or treating disease, with no provision for enhancement. There are, make no mistake, substantial and very important issues surrounding the idea of human enhancement, don't misunderstand me. It's just that those serious concerns are not what concern the majority of people. The majority are concerned about preserving a fictional idea of 'normal'.

mistercow 10y ago
I'm reminded of the Amish. From what I've read, although many people mistakenly believe that the Amish reject all new technology, they in fact only reject technology which would "change their way of life too much". I think that people in general have a similar reluctance, and it causes change to be slow (although not as slow as it is for the Amish, of course). People are OK with new drugs that cure diseases because that's not that different from what they already know. It's just a new disease to toss in the age-old bucket of "curing disease". But enhancement past "basically healthy" is a whole new category in people's minds. It feels like an enormous change, even though it's probably not as big (at least in the short term) as curing smallpox.

mistercow 10y ago

I'm reminded of the Amish. From what I've read, although many people mistakenly believe that the Amish reject all new technology, they in fact only reject technology which would "change their way of life too much". I think that people in general have a similar reluctance, and it causes change to be slow (although not as slow as it is for the Amish, of course). People are OK with new drugs that cure diseases because that's not that different from what they already know. It's just a new disease to toss in the age-old bucket of "curing disease". But enhancement past "basically healthy" is a whole new category in people's minds. It feels like an enormous change, even though it's probably not as big (at least in the short term) as curing smallpox.