It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Would You Trade A Normal Childhood For Enhanced Abilities And A Chance At Eternal Life ?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Let's say the future is here and in that future babies no longer are born by woman. They are genetically designed babies born from artificial wombs. The science of that time agrees normal birth is too dangerous for woman and babies and artificial wombs would do a much better job. They also feel that to ensure a proper development without the dangers of early childhood, they will extend the time in the womb to age 6.

In this brave new world, artificial memories(based on what's happening in their future parents life at the time) will be used to replace normal childhood memories. Young bodies would be kept healthy and fit by using electric impulse. This is something we already have. The trade-off assures parents their children will have abilities we can only dream about. Perfect health that should last as long as you live, injury proof childhood, IQ's of 1000 or 2000, ability to use holodeck like devices, or the ability to hook straight to computer guided machines to get work done. There are probably many more, I can't imagine.

The benefits would be far greater than anything that can be given now. Surely, parents of that time who would also already be enhanced would feel they could hardly deny their children such an advantage. They would aquiesce to the new order and normal childhood would end.










[edit on 1/29/2006 by bodebliss]




posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Thats quite a bit far-fetched there. It doesn't sound too ethical to me. Even considering that how would you think they would stop people from having sex? I mean come on its like one of the basic life instincts just as fighting is.

I personally would not want my child to be in an artificial womb until the age of 6. If they really had those abilities they would simply conquer all of mankind because with that kind of brain power one would almost likely have psycic powers or telepathy. After all noone can remove those very basic instincts of natural reproduction and fighting. May be able to supress them like we do now, but to remove them would be to eliminate the human race.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   
My first thought, "What's normal?"

Then I read your intro bodebliss and my next thought was, "Shades of The Matrix!"

.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Even considering that how would you think they would stop people from having sex? I mean come on its like one of the basic life instincts just as fighting is.


Normal sex would be good, but holodeck like sex would be amazing.

Woman would probably be infertile or decide that, 'why should they bear children with all the risks, when science does it so much better'.

The optimal physiological age for humans is 10-12 years old. This is the age at which you have the most physiological options still open. In the time I'm talking about, most people will look 11-ish as this would be the easiest age at which to maintain the human form from for thousands of year lifespans.

People who look older than 11 will probably be ostracized as troglodytes, knuckle-draggers, etc.












[edit on 1/29/2006 by bodebliss]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   

my next thought was, "Shades of The Matrix!"


Well it wouldn't be Matrix if it does not last a lifetime and they don't use humans as an energy source.

What's six years against a 5,000 yr lifespan ? If the process of which I spoke assures, the resulting "Big Step Forward" a childs first 6 yrs would be a small price to pay.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Children should not be engineered against their will pre-natally or post-natally, it should be a personal choice that is made by a consenting adult. This smells like Forced Eugenics and is unethical in the extreme. The only types of modifications that should be made without the consent of the child should be those that limit disorders and diseases. I'm all for Human Augmentation as long as it's a personal choice made by a concenting adult. Of course should any of those modification be hereditary then that is different and not forced. Some things should be left up to random chance as we will never know what we might end up with.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Children should not be engineered against their will pre-natally or post-natally, it should be a personal choice that is made by a consenting adult. This smells like Forced Eugenics and is unethical in the extreme. The only types of modifications that should be made without the consent of the child should be those that limit disorders and diseases. I'm all for Human Augmentation as long as it's a personal choice made by a concenting adult. Of course should any of those modification be hereditary then that is different and not forced. Some things should be left up to random chance as we will never know what we might end up with.


Well when they come up with the first "einstein" or better chimp that outlives it's human creator by 100's of years or "einstein" dog for that matter, you and all humans will sit up and listen. It may not be that far away. We may be talking about in the next 30 years. Due to the rapid expansion of knowledge, this could be upon us soon.

If, because of our fear of eugenics or puritanical thinking, it can't be done here(U.S.) then maybe the breakthroughs will be wrought in say Korea and parents will have to travel to Mexico to put in their order for the perfect child.









[edit on 1/29/2006 by bodebliss]



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:36 AM
link   
It's all inevitable!



There is no stop button in human re-engineering

By Madeleine Bunting
THE GUARDIAN , LONDON

My daughter is 10. Fast forward 25 years, and she is having her first child -- early by the standards of all her friends, but she's keen on "natural." Of course, she did pre-implementation genetic diagnosis, and she and her husband (yes, very old fashioned, they married) had some agonizing days deciding on whether to modify a genetic predisposition to depression and whether to splice in a gene for enhanced intelligence. In the end, they felt they had no option but to give their baby the best possible start in life.

Five years later, my little granddaughter is starting school. Again her parents have talked over the pros and cons of cognitive enhancement. A pharmcogenetic package is now routinely offered on the state medical system after the government decided that, given international competition in the global knowledge economy, there was no option but to ensure the nation's schoolchildren had better powers of memory and concentration. I had my doubts, but I have to admit that my little granddaughter is proving a wonderfully clever creature -- a constant source of amazement to me.

My doubts were in part assuaged by the fact that I had already started stronger doses of the same cognitive enhancement drugs.

Rest Of Story





posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   
it just sounds absurd to say that it's so dangerous to have children. i'm 25, been married for close to 6 years and will have baby number 3 in may. we have had all of our children at home delivered by a midwife. if both parents are healthy and the woman takes care of herself, there is very minimul risk involved. especially with the delivery. our midwife has been doing this for close to 20 years, and has delivered almost 4000 children in our area. she has yet to loose one child because she lets things go naturally as they are supposed to go.

your whole theory is absured. it's unethical and it will never take place.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   


Children should not be engineered against their will pre-natally or post-natally, it should be a personal choice that is made by a consenting adult.


Then stop reproducing. What's the problem with genetic therapies that can be used pre-natally to stop any harmfull diseases or cancer's from occuring later in the child's adult life? Are you trying to imply that people might actually want these thing's in their live's? Also, what he's posting is a world that DID decide all this was good. In his outline of a possible future the parent's ARE consenting to this, just as they would consent to mix their genetics the "old fashioned way" of today.

I for one would do this. If it were possible to give my child a HEALTHY and LONG life without pain and suffering, then I see no reason not to do it. Actually, I find it rather barbaric that anyone would choose to not do it! How selfish and closed minded must you be to decide that it's harmfull to your belief's that if given a chance such as this, you would pass it by! It truly is barbaric. Simple minded. Idiotic.

People need to get off they're high horses and stop being so damned selfish. Forget about your barbaric belief's and think for one brief second about the BENEFITS you'd be giving to your offspring! Long, happy, healthy live's!

Life as a whole isn't going to change drasticly. People will keep having sex, it's very pleasurable. Nothing is going to change that! The only change you'll see is people living longer, healthier live's and being more intelligent then today's world! My my... that truly is unethical isn't it?! Not one person has stated WHY it's unethical beyond they're own belief structure's. Not one has made an argument against the benefit's, actually.. some who are against this agreed with the benefits! Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. So which way are we going to let society go? Stay in your superstition ridden barbaric belief's or embrace a brighter more rewarding future for all of mankind?



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   
while i agree that it would be great to never have to worry about diseases, health issues, things of that nature, if in fact people were to live even 2-300 year think of the over population of the earth then? i mean hell, we only live 70-80 years or so, and space is getting much harder to come by....



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
We will go to space for space-based solar(100X our current energy needs). We will use solar, nuclear(7,000 yrs worth of uranium) to make all the hydrogen we need. if nuclear fusion comes online our energy problems would be solved. There are (if you include Gas Hydrates) 30-40,000 yrs worth hydrocarbons and carbon asteroids would extend cheap hydrocarbons another 100,000 yrs. Metal asteroids(once cheap metal is used up here) could be brought into orbit processed in space and a wire run to Earth and then it's just a reel it in operation. Nuclear desalination plant could provide water. Underground cities could provide space for 100X the current population of Earth to live happy productive lives.

The only thing we have to fear is lack of imagination and leadership.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
The only thing we have to fear is lack of imagination and leadership.



To answer your question, would I myself trade a normal childhood for everything that you stated....part of me says yes, part says no. i know that i enjoyed being a child. i enjoyed growing up, learning lessons the hard way. if children are being "born" at age 6, already with a very high IQ, then they will pretty much come out as adults. they won't know the joys of little things. they will be all brain and no play. what fun is that. now eternal life, sounds like a blast. enhanced abilities again sounds like a blast...but what about never knowing the joy of playing with Lego's or playing computer games....

now about the space thing...who would control it? you would have to assume one of two things.

1) every country would have their own space in outer space or on the moon. so essentially, you would have USA-Space, France-Space, England-Space, etc.....

2) there would be an NWO that would control all of earth and all of space. one currency. one main language....possibly one main religion or no religion at all.....

while i like the thought of a long healthy life, living in space, having 10 times the brain power i have now, i don't like the idea of never having the basic joys of my childhood, i don't like the idea of one world gov.....

but that's just me.




posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   


The only thing we have to fear is lack of imagination and leadership.


And sadly, that's the truth. Leader's saying it's not economicly feasible. Religous leader's saying it's unethical. Etc.

We have more then enough resource's on this planet to realize a better world for all mankind. Plenty. There shouldn't be any hunger or peverty even in todays world! Cities can easily be built underground and skyscrapered above those underground cities with open air parks in the skyscraper section at certain levels. More land can be reclaimed for farming. Hydroponic farms could be used to provide even more space for growing fresh produce in controled setting's without the need for any chemicals! The only thing stopping all of this today are rich people who want to stay rich (not economicly feasible people) and the religous people who preach some of the needed changes are "unethical". Get rid of those quacks. They're the one's stopping mankind from using this planet and our solar system to it's fullest potentional to better advance our standards of living.

Nothing is economicly unfeasible when you have the ingenuity of our intelligence and the full resource's our planet provide's us. The only economicly unfeasible part of our society are greedy little morons who want more and more money that doesn't even have any true value!



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 11:15 PM
link   

1) every country would have their own space in outer space or on the moon. so essentially, you would have USA-Space, France-Space, England-Space, etc.....

2) there would be an NWO that would control all of earth and all of space. one currency. one main language....possibly one main religion or no religion at all.....


I'm sure at first it would be an Antarctic like endeavor, but latter when there are permanent citizens of the Moon that can't return to Earth(decades from now) we will see a new world order as the Moon politically comes into it's own.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Produkt reread his post.


Originally posted by Produkt
What's the problem with genetic therapies that can be used pre-natally to stop any harmfull diseases or cancer's from occuring later in the child's adult life? Are you trying to imply that people might actually want these thing's in their live's?



Originally posted by Sardion2000
The only types of modifications that should be made without the consent of the child should be those that limit disorders and diseases.


[edit on 112828p://11u02 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   
I think this would cause more problems than solutions. Can you imagine a world full of brainiacs?! Gather just a few put them together and you've got an arguement in the making (because opinions always vary, so do morals and values).

Plus it is VERY important for children to grow up as normal children (to play, imagine, make-believe). Plus, what's wrong with a little work to make ourselves healthy here. I think laziness is a problem in our society.

I think the bond between mother and child is also extremely important. Mothers LOVE their children like you couldn't imagine (I say this because from the sound of this thread, you yourself do not have any), part of this reason is that THEY created this life (through love) and have nurtured and cared for it and watched it grow as a part of them. Babies feel this love as well. I think to take that step away from the process is only creating a cold world full of *soldiers* made to fit a piece of a puzzle. We as *normal* humans know how fragile our life is and we tend to value it more because of this. To take all this away.....would just create a world I would not want to live in, or have my children in.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   
I agree, lucid lunacy.

This is not just for the command of disease.

This would be a total remake of what is called human. Birth delayed so that scientists can be assured that the product will have eternal health, that there will be no glitches in the brain enhancers that will give these future humans an IQ we can't imagine, and a total integration with what will be the current technology is a monumental step forward.

These creations would not be human by our standards. They would be sequestered to a young age(10-12 yrs of age) so as to allow the eternal health, never be allowed to grow old. They would also have abilities we can't imagine so I'm guessing , 'Trade-off'.

Still like so many things, once the human race becomes happy with this. They won't want anything else.

Life is easy to love if your young in body as well as heart. I can't imagine the technos of that age allowing people to become bored or unhappy with their existence.

Parents of the time before this occurs will feel or brought to feel that they can hardly deny their progeny these advantages.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt

I for one would do this. If it were possible to give my child a HEALTHY and LONG life without pain and suffering, then I see no reason not to do it. Actually, I find it rather barbaric that anyone would choose to not do it! How selfish and closed minded must you be to decide that it's harmfull to your belief's that if given a chance such as this, you would pass it by! It truly is barbaric. Simple minded. Idiotic.


Were you addressing the Transhumanist with these insults?...

You know whether you are willing to admit it or not you are projecting your own beliefs when you assume our offspring wouldn't want any pain or suffering in their life. It's a safe assumption I suppose, but it's still belief.

Like Sardion200 I am a transhumanist. We support these types of advancements. I think you misunderstood his post. He didn't say this was wrong. He said it shouldn't be performed on a child until they are able to conceptually make the choice for themselves. I agree with that.

You're are calling us close-minded because we want mankind to have freedom



Life as a whole isn't going to change drasticly. People will keep having sex, it's very pleasurable. Nothing is going to change that!


I can think of an augmentation or two that would change that



The only change you'll see is people living longer, healthier live's and being more intelligent then today's world! My my... that truly is unethical isn't it?! Not one person has stated WHY it's unethical beyond they're own belief structure's.


The advancement itself isn't unethical but its application can be (although I am pretty lenient in that respect). People resist change. They hide behind unethical accusations and politcal correctness.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   

I think the bond between mother and child is also extremely important. Mothers LOVE their children like you couldn't imagine (I say this because from the sound of this thread, you yourself do not have any), part of this reason is that THEY created this life (through love) and have nurtured and cared for it and watched it grow as a part of them. Babies feel this love as well. I think to take that step away from the process is only creating a cold world full of *soldiers* made to fit a piece of a puzzle. We as *normal* humans know how fragile our life is and we tend to value it more because of this. To take all this away.....would just create a world I would not want to live in, or have my children in.


I love ' Ozy and Harriette ' , also.

Things have changed since that show aired. Children at age 3 already have media preferences. This will only be extenuated in the future.

In the world of which I speak, these kids will have wonderful childhoods filled with all kinds of wonderful experiences, all virtual of course. All these experiences will be seemless, thanks to great tech. The future parents will be featured in every frame. Their children will feel the virtual love. Their future parent's slant on existence will be in there. By the time of which this thread speaks, those parents will be permanent youths.Their children might spend a hundred years with them, but that will most likely seem alot less than the 20 years children spend with their parents now.This is especially so, if we paint in a 5,000 yr average lifespan baring accident.











[edit on 2/12/2006 by bodebliss]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join