Posted by Kromey at 6:57pm Aug 31 '11Inspired by the game franchise Deus Ex, which prominently features bio-mechanical human "augs" (short for "augmentations"), I thought I would pose this question to the 4K community:
Does "upgrading" your body by voluntarily having limbs or other parts amputated and replacing them with mechanical devices alter one's basic humanity?
(Note that this question is deliberately eschewing victims of circumstance who are given prosthetics to replace limbs etc. lost in accidents, or as a result of birth defects, or whatever else -- I don't think any questions the morality of those. Rather, the question is about voluntarily replacing perfectly good limbs, organs, or other tissues with mechanical devices.)
Is there a limit at which point "augmentation" crosses the line and becomes "too much"? For example, would it be okay to replace one's arms so as to be able to lift heavier objects, but not okay to replace one's liver so as to enjoy larger quantities of alcohol without shortening one's lifespan? And is it what's being augmented, or is it the purpose of the augment, that decides whether it has crossed that line?
What about augs that go above and beyond what "normal" humans go do? Not talking about things like superhuman strength, but rather augs that give people abilities they normally wouldn't have at all -- such as a finger that can turn into a screwdriver, or a forearm that houses a compartment for carrying small objects.
Are there certain conditions to augmentation that would have to be in place for you to be okay with it? What conditions are those? An obvious example is some kind of wireless control of the augs: would you be okay with, say, mechanical legs that let you run faster, but which the government could turn off?
In the game Deus Ex: Human Revolution, augs run the gamut from your typical prosthetic limbs, to mechanical eyes (which provide "enhanced reality" display), to personal cloaks and even arms that turn into guns. One of the game's characters, a pilot named Faridah Malik, says at one point that she has "subtle augs that enhance my ability to fly" (I'm not aware of the specifics of her augs).
And as a sort of side question, if we had the technology here today for augmentation, and assuming money were no object, would you get augmented? If so, what would you want to have done?
For a little background, here is a documentary by a self-described cyborg, Rob "Eyeborg" Spence, about today's prosthetics, and where they are going and where they will be in the near future (it's also a promotional video for Deus Ex: Human Revolution).
And to more directly tie in with the game that inspired this question, here is an in-universe propaganda video by a group called Purity First, a "pro-human" (i.e. "anti-aug") organization, that claims that augmentation takes away one's humanity.
(Note the drug angle in this video; in DE:HR, augmentations are virtually always rejected by the body, thus requiring a drug called Neuropozyne (I probably didn't spell that right) to suppress the rejection response. Augmented humans almost always become dependent upon this drug to one degree or another (a plot point in at least one side quest in the game), however this drug is not necessary in the previous two games (which are actually set after Human Revolution), and even within DE:HR there's mention of advances that will make "nu-poz" unnecessary. For the purposes of this question, let's ignore the drug dependency aspect this game presents, and focus instead on augmentation itself.)
I'll post my responses to these questions later; I already know what I think, so I want to hear what others think before I taint the waters with my own opinions!
Does "upgrading" your body by voluntarily having limbs or other parts amputated and replacing them with mechanical devices alter one's basic humanity?
(Note that this question is deliberately eschewing victims of circumstance who are given prosthetics to replace limbs etc. lost in accidents, or as a result of birth defects, or whatever else -- I don't think any questions the morality of those. Rather, the question is about voluntarily replacing perfectly good limbs, organs, or other tissues with mechanical devices.)
Is there a limit at which point "augmentation" crosses the line and becomes "too much"? For example, would it be okay to replace one's arms so as to be able to lift heavier objects, but not okay to replace one's liver so as to enjoy larger quantities of alcohol without shortening one's lifespan? And is it what's being augmented, or is it the purpose of the augment, that decides whether it has crossed that line?
What about augs that go above and beyond what "normal" humans go do? Not talking about things like superhuman strength, but rather augs that give people abilities they normally wouldn't have at all -- such as a finger that can turn into a screwdriver, or a forearm that houses a compartment for carrying small objects.
Are there certain conditions to augmentation that would have to be in place for you to be okay with it? What conditions are those? An obvious example is some kind of wireless control of the augs: would you be okay with, say, mechanical legs that let you run faster, but which the government could turn off?
In the game Deus Ex: Human Revolution, augs run the gamut from your typical prosthetic limbs, to mechanical eyes (which provide "enhanced reality" display), to personal cloaks and even arms that turn into guns. One of the game's characters, a pilot named Faridah Malik, says at one point that she has "subtle augs that enhance my ability to fly" (I'm not aware of the specifics of her augs).
And as a sort of side question, if we had the technology here today for augmentation, and assuming money were no object, would you get augmented? If so, what would you want to have done?
For a little background, here is a documentary by a self-described cyborg, Rob "Eyeborg" Spence, about today's prosthetics, and where they are going and where they will be in the near future (it's also a promotional video for Deus Ex: Human Revolution).
And to more directly tie in with the game that inspired this question, here is an in-universe propaganda video by a group called Purity First, a "pro-human" (i.e. "anti-aug") organization, that claims that augmentation takes away one's humanity.
(Note the drug angle in this video; in DE:HR, augmentations are virtually always rejected by the body, thus requiring a drug called Neuropozyne (I probably didn't spell that right) to suppress the rejection response. Augmented humans almost always become dependent upon this drug to one degree or another (a plot point in at least one side quest in the game), however this drug is not necessary in the previous two games (which are actually set after Human Revolution), and even within DE:HR there's mention of advances that will make "nu-poz" unnecessary. For the purposes of this question, let's ignore the drug dependency aspect this game presents, and focus instead on augmentation itself.)
I'll post my responses to these questions later; I already know what I think, so I want to hear what others think before I taint the waters with my own opinions!
Human augmentation: More or less human? - Kromey