Sehiro wrote: Glabbit wrote:
Sehiro wrote:I got a bit scared about "enhancing human natural capabilities" though. I don't know how to feel about it.
I mean, a person with a with no injures should really be "improved" for daily life?
Well, once natural selection has been completely removed as a factor, is overcompensation of abilities not a natural response?
Well... I don't know... I mean those things can be easily seen as weapons and will be property of only a selected group of people. I doubt humans can reach an utopian society in which those exoskeletons would not be taken advantage of.
Isn't this the case with most tools?
They can be used in a "good" manner and in an "evil" one. A hammer can be used to punch nails into a wall or to crack someone's skull. A knife can be used to cut a wire or the jerk from next door. A gun can be used for hunting or for shooting a person.
It's not the tools that are the problem. It's us.
I think transhumanism is an incredibly interesting concept. We could become so much more powerful. Sure, an exoskeleton could be used as a weapon (nice example in the film Edge of Tomorrow). But on the other hand it could help to make quadriplegic people walk again. It could enable people to do things that would be impossible without the support of technology. Personally, I think the potential behind these things outweighs their danger in the long run.
Ans as far as the availability concern goes, that's entirely the responsibility of the people developing these things. If they push for a monopoly and use policies that make it impossible for people who could use these products to get them that's their right, as long as they stay within their legal limits (something that companies like Monsanto really stretch to the limit, sadly). But especially with something as useful as prosthetics, I doubt something like this would be possible for very long, without getting pressure from all sorts of organisations and governments.