User:Jreaso/sandbox

Human Enhancement Edits

There are several debates surrounding the topic of human enhancement and the means used to achieve one's enhancement goals.^[27]

In some circles the expression "human enhancement" is roughly synonymous with human genetic engineering,^[28][29] however it is used most often to refer to the general application of the convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (NBIC) to improve human performance.^[30]

Since the 1990s, several academics (such as some of the fellows of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies^[31]) have become advocates for the case of human enhancement while other academics (such as the members of President Bush's Council on Bioethics^[32]) have become outspoken critics.^[33]

Advocacy for the case of human enhancement is increasingly becoming synonymous with "transhumanism", a controversial ideology and movement which has emerged to support the recognition and protection of the right of citizens to either maintain or modify their own minds and bodies; so as to guarantee them the freedom of choice and informed consent of using human enhancement technologies on themselves and their children.^[34] Transhumanists have a common understanding that the world can be seen from a physicist perspective rather than a biological perspective. ^[35]Based on the idea of technological singularity, human enhancement is merging with technological innovation that will advance post humanism. ^[35]

Neuromarketing consultant Zack Lynch argues that neurotechnologies will have a more immediate effect on society than gene therapy and will face less resistance as a pathway of radical human enhancement. The therapy-enhancement distinction states the different purposes behind therapy and enhancement. The concept of therapy is to reinstate the normal functionality of an individual whereas enhancement goes beyond these purposes.Therapy and enhancement, however, have been argued to have no moral distinction, especially when it comes to controversial issues regarding vaccination or dietary supplements during pregnancy, since this it is not necessarily healing rather it is preventing. This distinction provides the stature on limiting enhancement technologies.

Many proposals of human enhancement rely on fringe science, the very notion and prospect of human enhancement has sparked public controversy.^[37][38][39] The main question to the ethical debate on human enhancement highly involves whether there should be no restriction, some restrictions or a full ban to the entire concept. ^[40]

Dale Carrico wrote that "human enhancement" is a loaded term which has eugenic overtones because it may imply the improvement of human hereditary traits to attain a universally accepted norm of biological fitness (at the possible expense of human biodiversity and neurodiversity), and therefore can evoke negative reactions far beyond the specific meaning of the term.^[41] Michael Selgelid terms this as a phase of "neugenics" suggesting that gene enhancements occurring now have already revived the idea of eugenics in our society. Practices of prenatal diagnosis, selective abortion and in-vitro fertilization (IVF) aims to improve human life allowing for parents to decide via genetic information if they want to continue or terminate the pregnancy.^[42] Even though these practices hold eugenic connotations, most are already deemed morally acceptable in today's society. Neugenics deems to alter the focus of what eugenics was termed to be in society due to previous historical events in order to understand that current advancements of enhancement are more of a benefit rather than a form of destruction from a moral perspective. (Selgelid)

However, the most common criticism of human enhancement is that it is or will often be practiced with a reckless and selfish short-term perspective that is ignorant of the long-term consequences on individuals and the rest of society, such as the fear that some enhancements will create unfair physical or mental advantages to those who can and will use them, or unequal access to such enhancements can and will further the gulf between the "haves" and "have-nots".^{[43][44][45][46]} Futurist Ray Kurzweil has shown some concern that, within the century, humans may be required to merge with this technology in order to compete in the marketplace. ^[35] Enhanced individuals have a better chance of being chosen for better opportunities in careers, entertainment and resources. For example, life extending technologies can increase the average individual life span affecting the distribution of pension throughout the society. Increasing lifespan will affect human population further dividing limited resources such as food, energy, monetary resources and habitat.

Effects on identity

Human enhancement technologies is argued to impact human identity by affecting one's self-conception.^[48] The argument does not necessarily come from the idea of improving the individual but rather changing who they are and becoming someone new. Altering an individual identity affects their personal story, development and mental capabilities. The basis of this argument comes from two main points : the charge of inauthenticity and the charge of violating an individual's core characteristics. Gene therapy has the ability to alter one mental capacity and through this argument, has the ability to affect their narrative identity. An individual's core characteristics may include internal psychological style, personality, general intelligence, necessity to sleep, normal aging, gender and being homo sapiens.

The capability approach focuses on a normative framework that can be applied to how human enhancement technologies affects human capabilities. The ethics of this does not necessarily focus on the make up of the individual but rather what it allows individuals to do in today's society. This approach was first termed by Amartya Sen, where she mainly focused on the objectives of the approach rather than the aim for those objectives which entail resources, technological processes, and economic arrangement. The central human capabilities include life, bodily health, bodily integrity, sense, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, other species, play, and control over one's environment. This normative framework recognizes that human capabilities are always changing and technology has already played a part in this.

Human Enhancement Rhetoric (HER)

In his essay "Mapping human enhancement rhetoric", Thayer (2014) states that the growth of human enhancement technology means a corresponding growth in the discourse of HET, so he suggests inventing a new classification called Human Enhancement Rhetoric (HER). To establish this classification, Thayer focuses on answering four existential questions: (1) what is HER?, (2) how can HER be mapped?, (3) what does this project of mapping HER accomplish?, and (4) what global issues or ethical concerns are raised, or can be further understood, by mapping HER? These foundational questions serve to introduce Thayer's newly conceived boundaries, definitions, nomenclature, and ethical arguments as he works to create a discourse that industry professionals and academics can study, navigate, and grow.^[49]

to Peer Review

• Overall I feel like this section focuses more on the criticism maybe add some more about how human enhancement can be beneficial.
  • This is exactly what I wanted to do for the page, I thought that it was very biased towards one side and I wanted to neutralize it by adding beneficial information for HE.
• I believe some of the statements lack a source.
  • For Ex: Neuromarketing statement by Zack Lynch (3rd paragraph) needs a source.
  • I agree, I will go ahead and fix these sources and make
• This section is written very nicely but I feel like a different approach to it would really capture the "ethics" voice of it
  • Maybe start off with why people seek to have human enhancements
  • Then paragraph by paragraph present the issues that give rise to the different ethical issues.
  • I am currently editing it to make sure I present how they seek human enhancement, but I also don't want to present a biased view on it, so I generally want to give facts and the different perspectives people are viewing human enhancement.
• The length of the section is a good length for the topic
  • I will however, be adding more to the social inequalities and concerns
• Reliable and relevant sources are used

Peer Review by ndamargi

• Overall I feel like this section focuses more on the criticism maybe add some more about how human enhancement can be beneficial.
• I believe some of the statements lack a source.
  • For Ex: Neuromarketing statement by Zack Lynch (3rd paragraph) needs a source.
• This section is written very nicely but I feel like a different approach to it would really capture the "ethics" voice of it
  • Maybe start off with why people seek to have human enhancements
  • Then paragraph by paragraph present the issues that give rise to the different ethical issues.
• The length of the section is a good length for the topic
• Reliable and relevant sources are used

Human Enhancement Ethics Draft

Sandbox

While in some circles the expression "human enhancement" is roughly synonymous with human genetic engineering, it is used most often to refer to the general application of the convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (NBIC) to improve human performance.

Since the 1990s, several academics (such as some of the fellows of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies) have risen to become advocates of the case for human enhancement while other academics (such as the members of President Bush's Council on Bioethics) have become outspoken critics.

Advocacy of the case for human enhancement is increasingly becoming synonymous with "transhumanism", a controversial ideology and movement which has emerged to support the recognition and protection of the right of citizens to either maintain or modify their own minds and bodies; so as to guarantee them the freedom of choice and informed consent of using human enhancement technologies on themselves and their children. Their common understanding of the world can be seen from a physicist perspective rather than a biological perspective. Based on the idea of singularity, human enhancement is merging with technological innovation that will advance post humanism.

Neuromarketing consultant Zack Lynch argues that neurotechnologies will have a more immediate effect on society than gene therapy and will face less resistance as a pathway of radical human enhancement. He also argues that the concept of "enablement" needs to be added to the debate over "therapy" versus "enhancement". The therapy-enhancement distinction argues that the purpose of  therapy is to reinstate the normal functionality of an individual whereas enhancement goes beyond these purposes.Therapy and enhancement, however, have been argued to have no moral distinction, especially when it comes to controversial issues regarding vaccination or dietary supplements during pregnancy, since this it is not necessarily healing rather it is preventing. This therapy-enhancement distinction provides the stature on the reasons of limiting enhancement technologies.

Although many proposals of human enhancement rely on fringe science, the very notion and prospect of human enhancement has sparked public controversy. The main question to the ethical debate on human enhancement highly involves whether there should be no restriction, some restrictions or a full ban to the entire concept.

Dale Carrico wrote that "human enhancement" is a loaded term which has eugenic overtones because it may imply the improvement of human hereditary traits to attain a universally accepted norm of biological fitness (at the possible expense of human biodiversity and neurodiversity), and therefore can evoke negative reactions far beyond the specific meaning of the term. Michael Selgelid terms this as a phase of "neugenics" suggesting that gene enhancements occurring now have already revived the idea of eugenics in our society. Practices of prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion aims to improve human life allowing for parents to decide via genetic information whom should live are considered to be eugenic.

Other critics of human enhancement fear that such capabilities would change, for the worse, the dynamic relations within a family. Given the choices of superior qualities, parents make their child as opposed to merely birthing it, and the newborn becomes a product of their will rather than a gift of nature to be loved unconditionally. This could harm the unconditional love a parent could give their child, and it could furthermore lead to serious disappointment if the child does not fulfill its engineered role.

However, the most common criticism of human enhancement is that it is or will often be practiced with a reckless and selfish short-term perspective that is ignorant of the long-term consequences on individuals and the rest of society, such as the fear that some enhancements will create unfair physical or mental advantages to those who can and will use them, or unequal access to such enhancements can and will further the gulf between the "haves" and "have-nots". Futurist Ray Kurzweil has shown some concern that, within the century, humans may be required to merge with this technology in order to compete in the marketplace.

*Add something about understanding human enhancement and its potential benefits/disadvantages should start at the analysis of philosophical beliefs of eugenics because this is where the negative connotations come from.

Social and Economic Inequality Concerns

Humans have strived to be homo superior by challenging their limitations and improving their intellect through education, training their bodies to be physically sound and expanding their minds and body through practices of meditation and healthy diets (Patrick Lin). Debates on human enhancement continue between a permissive or prohibitive understanding. Limitations of enhancement include the conflict of resources, justice, humanity and uncertainty. (Bjørn Hoffman) A prohibitive perspective believes that human enhancement exceeds the idea of human nature and serves as a metaphor of “playing God.” A permissive position understands that potential benefits will outweigh such limitations.

In society, stratification among socioeconomic classes prevent the less wealthy from accessing the best options for goods and opportunities, evidently restricting or preventing their access to the best enhancements, The advantage gained by one person's enhancements implies a disadvantage to an weakly enhanced or unenhanced person.^[44][8] Human enhancements present a great debate on the equality between the individuals throughout the socioeconomic spectrum.

The concept of enhancement contributes to the widening gap of socioeconomic classes creating disruption within different societal sectors. Enhanced individuals have a better chance of being chosen for better opportunities in careers, entertainment and resources. For example, life extending technologies can increase the average individual life span affecting the distribution of pension throughout the society. Increasing lifespan will affect human population further dividing limited resources such as food, energy, monetary resources and habitat. (Fritz Allhoff)

Unfairness in those who receive enhancements and those who do not is a cause for concern, although unfairness is inevitable in any field or situation.^[45] An individual taking a math exam may have had a better teacher, or a greater access to information with a modern handheld device. There also exists the stochastic "genetic lottery" of nature. The long-term physical advantage through genetic engineering or short-term cognitive advantage of nootropics may be part of a greater issue, the real issue being that of availability.^[46] How easy it is for certain individuals to get a hold of such enhancements depending on their socioeconomic standing. With all technologies it is important to keep in mind the historical trends of technology that relate utility to availability.

Geoffrey Miller claims that 21st-century Chinese eugenics may allow the Chinese to increase the IQ of each subsequent generation by five to fifteen IQ points, and after a couple generations it "would be game over for Western global competitiveness". Miller recommends that the Western world put aside its "self-righteous" Euro-American ideological biases and learn from the Chinese.^[47]

Human Enhancement Draft

Ethics

Dale Carrico wrote that "human enhancement" is a loaded term which has eugenic overtones because it may imply the improvement of human hereditary traits to attain a universally accepted norm of biological fitness (at the possible expense of human biodiversity and neurodiversity), and therefore can evoke negative reactions far beyond the specific meaning of the term. Furthermore, Carrico wrote that enhancements which are self-evidently good, like "fewer diseases", are more the exception than the norm and even these may involve ethical tradeoffs, as the controversy about ADHD arguably demonstrates.

Stefanie Rembold speaks of human enhancement as a body modification. Changing the term that describes the act of altering one's body through technology will shift the discussion of what should be "allowed" or "forbidden." This term is able to describe any type of enhancement while minimizing the societal impact that the idea of enhancement brings to society.

Note to self: Add more perspectives that makes this section less biased.

- Looking at Human enhancement from a polictical minimalism perspective.

- They "enhancements" that we already have established and now thought of as societal norms.

However, the most common criticism of human enhancement is that it is or will often be practiced with a reckless and selfish short-term perspective that is ignorant of the long-term consequences on individuals and the rest of society, such as the fear that some enhancements will create unfair physical or mental advantages to those who can and will use them, or unequal access to such enhancements can and will further the gulf between the "haves" and "have-nots". Futurist Ray Kurzweil has shown some concern that, within the century, humans may be required to merge with this technology in order to compete in the marketplace.

Human enhancing technology

Editing an Article

They claim that it is human nature to better ourselves via increased life expectancy, strength, intelligence and overall independence. In our world, there has always been stratification among socioeconomic classes that prevent the less wealthy from accessing the best options for goods and opportunities which would also restrict access to the best enhancements or prevent them from accessing them at all. The advantage gained by one person's enhancements implies a disadvantage to a weakly enhanced or un-enhanced person. Human enhancements present a great debate on the equality between individuals on the socioeconomic spectrum.

Article Selection

I chose the topic of Human Enhancement

The content on the page are all relevant to the topic at hand. However this topic does not seem like it is heavy on information. I feel that it needs more subheadings and more subtopics that can help expand the knowledge on Human Enhancement and all its worldly views as well as the technology that is out there. It seems to be written mostly neutral. The ethics part of this topic seems to be very dense. Each claim does not necessarily have a citation. For example,

  "Some believe that the ability to enhance one's self would reflect the overall goal of human life: to improve fitness and survivability."

This seems to give bias as well, so backing this statement up will help its credibility. Most of the citations are valid, some of them are just missing access dates or URLs.

Sources I want to look into to help with the WikiProject:

Ethical Issues in Human Enhancement

David DeGrazia; Enhancement Technologies and Human Identity

Defending human enhancement technologies: unveiling normativity

Truly Human Enhancement : A Philosophical Defense of Limits

Ethics

"Human enhancement needs to be reframed by fully acknowledging the “visionary” nature of the discussed technoscientific developments, i.e. their role as future visions and imagined scenarios which, at the same time, act in the present, influencing research agendas, the allocation of resources and even regulatory frameworks."

Article Evaluation

Evaluating an article about climate change

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything in the subheadings all relate to the topic of climate change. It either discusses how climate change has affected it or how a certain topics contributes to climate change. Nothing really stood out to me because it was all mainly scientific facts.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? After looking at most of the resources, only have been cited as new resources from the past two years. Since the study of climate change has been a very interesting topic for the past few years now as so many evidence have been coming out about it, I would expect fairly recent edits. Also since it is also a very political topic as well, I believe this should be discussed that some believe this as a controversy rather than the truth.

What else could be improved?

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article is mostly neutral, but like I said it should also show the other side of climate change and how some may not totally believe it but as of right now, I think its good to say that these facts are good enough to understand the concept of climate change.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Expressed this in the previous question.

Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? The links work and they definitely support the claim in the article.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Each fact generally has a reference and they seem to be from neutral resources. Since this page is basically talking about what climate change is, then it mainly contains facts and is not generally biased.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? In the talk page, there is one discussion about global warming vs. climate change and how these terms are basically interchangeable. This is really interesting because the way I was taught was that climate change is causing global warming. I would definitely have to gather my resources on this in order to back my belief.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated a B-class and was definitely part of multiple WikiProjects.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This is very factual - everything on here is black and white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreaso (talk • contribs) 07:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Ethics

"Human enhancement needs to be reframed by fully acknowledging the “visionary” nature of the discussed technoscientific developments, i.e. their role as future visions and imagined scenarios which, at the same time, act in the present, influencing research agendas, the allocation of resources and even regulatory frameworks."

Article Evaluation

Evaluating an article about climate change

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything in the subheadings all relate to the topic of climate change. It either discusses how climate change has affected it or how a certain topics contributes to climate change. Nothing really stood out to me because it was all mainly scientific facts.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? After looking at most of the resources, only have been cited as new resources from the past two years. Since the study of climate change has been a very interesting topic for the past few years now as so many evidence have been coming out about it, I would expect fairly recent edits. Also since it is also a very political topic as well, I believe this should be discussed that some believe this as a controversy rather than the truth.

What else could be improved?

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article is mostly neutral, but like I said it should also show the other side of climate change and how some may not totally believe it but as of right now, I think its good to say that these facts are good enough to understand the concept of climate change.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Expressed this in the previous question.

Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? The links work and they definitely support the claim in the article.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Each fact generally has a reference and they seem to be from neutral resources. Since this page is basically talking about what climate change is, then it mainly contains facts and is not generally biased.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? In the talk page, there is one discussion about global warming vs. climate change and how these terms are basically interchangeable. This is really interesting because the way I was taught was that climate change is causing global warming. I would definitely have to gather my resources on this in order to back my belief.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated a B-class and was definitely part of multiple WikiProjects.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This is very factual - everything on here is black and white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreaso (talk • contribs) 07:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)