Quote:
Originally Posted by gjc8
Why should transhumanist treatments be exempt from the regulation similar to that for, say, medicine
|
Basically, there should be quality assurance, but a consenting sophont should be free to modify its body (including brain) as it sees fit, as long as it does not infringe the rights of others. If Michael Jackson wants to look like X and Y, then it's Jackson's right, even if others don't like the looks. Same with other modifications that do not infringe the rights of others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gjc8
And, conversely, if we have a safe, inexpensive, effective transhuman treatment, isn't government support appropriate? Doesn't it make sense to, for example, pay for a treatment to slow aging rather than pay the (significantly higher) medical costs for the elderly?
|
If the government allows a citizen to choose between a retirement pension from 60 onward and a 'free' anti-agathic treatment from 45 onward, then I agree this is okay. However,
requiring such treatment (incl. through coercion of all sorts) would be an infringement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gjc8
And, of course, there's the "what about the children" argument. Should we allow parents to have make risky or distasteful decisions for which their children suffer the consequences?
|
Ah, this is where it gets tricky. I'm of the opinion that many things parents do already fall into the set of 'distasteful' decisions with suffering as a consequence. In some way, modern children have fewer freedoms than animals, and more people trying to make them happy
the way those people understand happiness, not the children. Here are some ways of resolving the issue that at least seem consistent (though I definitely do not make the claim that any one of them is exactly 'right'):
1. Children* are sophonts. Thus, they should get the all the human rights from the start, and modifying them without explicit consent is illegal (OTOH, their consent is enough to allow a modification).
2. Children* are non-sophonts, but are covered by the 'No Cruelty to Sub-Sophonts' clause. This is a slightly more consistent variant than what we have today.
3. (The ugliest version.) Children* are non-sophonts, and are considered technically an extension of their parents' organisms (despite being physically separated), until they pass the qualification of becoming sophonts.
4. Children* are non-sophonts, and The Big Uncle has a list of explicit definitions of illegal treatments of children.
5. Children* are sophonts, but second-class citizens, and The Big Uncle has a list of explicit definitions of illegal treatments of children and behaviors illegal for them to engage in.
* == Definitions of these may vary, and are probably worth a tangent discussion.