Slashdot Mirror
The Not-Quite-Human Rights Movement
An anonymous reader writes "Yale University hosted a conference on transhumanism which organizers say served to
coalesce transhumanism from a subculture to a 'movement.' They're even sketching out where the role of violence becomes legitimate in the quest to become a cyborg.
But most of the talk was of peaceful integration and continuation of democratic values."
universal translator does automatic unit/mapping conversion.
man, I'm a geek.
I post links to stuff here
Score 4: Insightful? This is blatent karma whoring. The site's not been slashdotted, it loads up fine. RTFA rather than modding up this redundant BS.
Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom.
Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
> the Deaf community generally shuns them as
> their equivalent of "tools of Satan."
It is a sad sad world when a community shuns another for improving their life.
Do they shun you because they are purists or is there a medical reason that I do not know about?
Latin, of course, spawned off the "romance languages": Italian, Spanish, Portugese, French, and Romanian, plus some smaller non-national languages and dialects.
Cow: Beef (Boeuf)
Sheep: Mutton (Mouton)
Pig: Pork (Porc)
Chicken: Poultry (Poulet)
This is also true to a much lesser extent of the Roman invasion of Britain a thousand years earlier or so, but it didn't last nearly as long. So, while English picked up some Latin-derived vocabulary, it is not a Latin-based language structurally any more than Greek, Russian, or any other non-romance language that assimilated some Latin words over time, or that you could say almost any major language in the world today that has assimilated a lot of English vocabulary is "English-based."
Sorry, but that's been going on for a long time now. I have astigmatism, and probably would've fallen prey to an unseen foe a few thousand years ago. Cars and motorcycles are preventing the weeding out of those who can't run fast, and just anybody can move a lot of stuff with a fork lift.
---
cyborg
A human who has certain physiological processes aided or controlled by mechanical or electronic devices.
---
YOU can be a cyborg. A nontrivial percent 0.3% of the US population can be considered cyborg just because they have pacemakers. I believe they share 99.9%+ (or some stadard deviation of genetic makeup between humans) of your genetic material.
Cyborgs are not machines that look human. You're thinking of androids.
---
android
adj.
Possessing human features.
n.
An automaton that is created from biological materials and resembles a human. Also called humanoid.
---
There indeed is a considerable basis for cyborg rights in that we are all just a mere wire away from being a cyborg. As far as I know being a cyborg doesn't change your rights as far as the law goes. Right now, it doesn't suddenly make one a different species.
This may not be so clear cut in the future however. If you decide to add a large tentacle to your body you might expect to be looked at differently. This is where the issue of rights creeps in. As humans, we may find ourselves genetically homgenous but so varied in capability and appearance that we might be considered different species.
Now that we as humans control our own evolution, it seems all too likely that our species will bifurcate either genetically or otherwise. At that point, the issue of rights/respect for other species will be critical since some of us will be the "other" species.
Well, there already has been a test case of cyborg discrimination. Whether you sympathize with the plight of Prof. Steve Mann at the hands of Air Canada, or think otherwise, the fact is that certain regulations have revealed the potential for discrimination on the basis of technological augmentation of the body.
The specifics of Mann v. Air Canada are not as important as the over-arching issues the case raises. Mann's case cannot be argued on its constitutionality, as there are no constitutional protections against discrimination of cyborgs, or those who are technologically enhanced. However, it was obvious to those of us who saw Mann immediately after the Air Canada incident that the removal of his cyborg accoutrements resulted in significant physical distress. He was unable to maintain balance, properly respond to ambient temperature fluctuations, judge distance for grasping objects, among other physical infirmaties. The symptoms lasted for a little over a month, after which, his body slowly reacclimatized to its non-cyborg state.
The argument cannot be made on the evidence that his wearable computers, and their intrinsic biofeedback mechanisms, were merely fashion accessories or affectations. Because his autonomous body functions had adjusted to Mann's cyborg enhancements, they could rightly be considered part of his (cyborg) biology, necessary to maintain his normal health. In legalese, Mann's cyborg enhancements differed from MP3 players and portable computers "in kind," not merely "in degree." Hence, one could legally consider that Air Canada's security checks should have changed to provide adequate screening without being invasive and destructive. The fact that those with cochlear implants or heart pacemakers are not required to turn off and remove those cyborg enhancements, but Mann was, indicates discrimination.
I am supporting neither Mann nor Air Canada in making these observations. I am pointing out that we already have an important case that raises the issue of the regulatory imposition on those who have technological enhancements to their bodies. The examination of the fundamental issues and the questions they raise is most appropriate to be done now.
Grammar's modified a bit more than that, but it's more of an across-the-board simplification than Italicization.
Leeches are used in some wound treatment techniques, yes. But they're not used to treat systemic diseases, which is what they were generally used for way back when. There is such a thing as therapeutic phlebotomy, but it's very rare; in my entire ten-year medical career, I saw all of two (2) patients who were receiving it. To assume that bloodletting was used because "they recognized that something worked" is to give the medicine of the day -- superstitious, dogmatic, and based almost entirely on religion -- way too much credit, IMO.
Alcohol, yeah -- but again, the idea of "raising the constitution" with red wine specifically was based on the superstitious association of red wine with blood, not on any observation of cause and effect. There actually is a lot of folk medicine that is based on cause and effect (willow bark tea, say) but it was traditionally practiced by local healers, not doctors. The blood'n'wine medicine that was the standard of care from the Middle Ages through the early 19th c. was essentially useless.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.