Immortality only 20 years away says scientist - 9 views

• 
  #1 Jody Poh on 27 Oct 09

   

  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6217676/Immortality-only-20-years-away-says-scientist.html
  
  Summary: The scientist in the article forsees that there is a possibility of nanotechnologies replacing many of our vital organs in 20 years time.This will allow humans to do things that are impossible. For example scuba diving for 4 hours without taking in oxygen and sprinting for 15 minutes without taking a breath.
  
  Mr. Kurzweil claims it will allow humans to live forever and even make illnesses such as heart attacks seem insignificant. The article ends off saying that "we can look forward to a world where humans become cyborgs, with artificial limbs and organs."
  
  
  Ethical problems/questions:
  
  1.Will nanotechnology lead to humans being dehumanised? The futuristic picture the scientist paints of us humans, makes us seem so mechanical.
  
  2. If this does come to pass, will it create a divide between the rich and the poor? Will only the rich be able to afford it and thus live forever? Will there be second-class humans then since they are not as fit and superior enough?
  
  In my opinion, the claimed benefits of nanotechnology will not be evenly distributed as only affluent nations will be given more access to these technology. Already, the majority of nanotechnology research and development are concentrated in developed countries and big MNCs. Developing countries therefore are already at a losing end.
  
  If what Kurzweil forsees come to past, a society of inequalities and even discrimination will definitely rise up as these super humans are better than the normal human is every single way.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner"><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6217676/Immortality-only-20-years-away-says-scientist.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6217676/Immortality-only-20-years-away-says-scientist.html</a> <br /> <br /> Summary: The scientist in the article forsees that there is a possibility of nanotechnologies replacing many of our vital organs in 20 years time.This will allow humans to do things that are impossible. For example scuba diving for 4 hours without taking in oxygen and sprinting for 15 minutes without taking a breath. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kurzweil claims it will allow humans to live forever and even make illnesses such as heart attacks seem insignificant. The article ends off saying that "we can look forward to a world where humans become cyborgs, with artificial limbs and organs." <br /> <br /> <br /> Ethical problems/questions: <br /> <br /> 1.Will nanotechnology lead to humans being dehumanised? The futuristic picture the scientist paints of us humans, makes us seem so mechanical. <br /> <br /> 2. If this does come to pass, will it create a divide between the rich and the poor? Will only the rich be able to afford it and thus live forever? Will there be second-class humans then since they are not as fit and superior enough? <br /> <br /> In my opinion, the claimed benefits of nanotechnology will not be evenly distributed as only affluent nations will be given more access to these technology. Already, the majority of nanotechnology research and development are concentrated in developed countries and big MNCs. Developing countries therefore are already at a losing end. <br /> <br /> If what Kurzweil forsees come to past, a society of inequalities and even discrimination will definitely rise up as these super humans are better than the normal human is every single way.</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #2 Magdaleine on 02 Nov 09

   

  wow interesting! like a start to the creation of super heroes!! it kind of sound like science is playing God here, determining and extending lives. it is already evident now in this society without fastforwarding to the future of cyborgs and artificial limbs and organs. i think this debate reminds me of organ transplants. are the rich who can afford the expensive medical expenses involved in organ transplants have the right to live only because they are rich? what about the poor? does money = right to live now?

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">wow interesting! like a start to the creation of super heroes!! it kind of sound like science is playing God here, determining and extending lives. it is already evident now in this society without fastforwarding to the future of cyborgs and artificial limbs and organs. i think this debate reminds me of organ transplants. are the rich who can afford the expensive medical expenses involved in organ transplants have the right to live only because they are rich? what about the poor? does money = right to live now?</div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top