1. discussion Personal Identity and Genetic Modification
In Chapter 5, you read about the problem of personal identity, the difficulties in answering the
question ‘who am I?’ Recent developments in genetic technology are making issues of
personal identity radically different than they have ever been. In the very near future, we may
be able to create designer people; personal identity, though we do not even agree on what that
is, may be malleable in ways previously only possible in fiction. Watch the Ted Talk “The
Ethical Dilemma of Designer Babies” and then answer the following:
What are the two points made by Paul Knoepfler that resonated with you most? (this might
mean scared you the most, intrigued you the most, and the like). Do you agree with Knoepfler
that, at least for now, we should ban the genetic modification of humans? Why or why not?
And, if you could genetically modify yourself, alter your personal identity in some way, would
you do it?! Explain.
Works Linked/Cited:
“The Ethical Dilemma of Designer Babies.” YouTube, uploaded by Ted, 10 Feb. 2017,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOHbn8Q1fBM.
reply
1.student
There was a few things that Paul brought to my attention, the positives and the negative benefits of
genetic modification. On one hand you have the perfect super kid but then the downside is you have a
super kid with unnatural side effects. He mentioned examples of a kid having a negative attributes
due to the modification and that can be a problem if not controlled and taken care of. A huge part of
growing up and shaping yourself as a person is the natural human experiences we go through and
learn from. Some kids are just born to be prodigies and some are meant to fulfill a part in society. If
the new generation of kids were all perfect we would lack individuality, the bar will be raised higher
and it would be harder to relate to one other. Another thing that I realized is that it doesn’t seem fair to
start a child off perfect meanwhile everyone around who probably can’t even afford it start to reject
their kid or be to hard on them. Naturally, as a child growing up, I was compared to my cousins and
friends and always felt less then, now imagine a new generation modified to be perfect and how the
regular kids would feel, it would suck. In my experience it was tough love but with the designer babies
it’s gonna be an unfair advantage.
2.student
To be Frank i have mixed opinions about Genetic Modification and a different opinion on Designer
Babies. Paul Made very good points on why we should halt or ban genetic modification. But i honestly
tthink Paul is being a little hopeful that just banning something is ggoing to stop the growth of it. But
the points i found most valid about why we should at least keep it from public avability is that there are
to many known and unknown negative outcomes. That people would use Designer Babies for
iideology or to seek a prophet or governments will use it to push a ddifferent type of society and how if
designer babies come into the norm of society will natural born humans become the lower class of
society. I can in my own opinion talk deeper about "what is better, when it comes to being human?",
how Paul nicely put it, and if our flaws and emotion are a part of what being human is, but further
more i do not think it should be ban in the sense of banning scientific research and more sstudying on
the pros and cons of bringing genetic modification into the hands of society. Because Paul also said
that genetic modifcation can lead to making GM humans immune to diseases and virues but that also
possibly have negative outcomes. But still i don think it should be ban. Scientifc evoloution, no matter
how "weird" it might make people feel, will not be stopped. Someone will do it whether its legal or not.
So we should put it in the best hands for this type of research and try to cover all the holes.
Me, personally would not genetically modify my self. I humble my flaws, and i feel me being an
emotional person makes me who i am as a person, some what.
3.student
One of the point s that Paul Knowepfler mention was that researchers in China reported that genetic
modified embryos didn't work perfectly, but open doors to run this technology. Good researches thru
generic modifications can be use to prevent diseases or cure futures illness. I do agreed with Paul
that we don't know what is better when it comes to human beings because it can be too risky due to
the new technologies and low experience with such techniques. I think that this modifications can be
and advantage and it should be use to cure major illness instead of generically modify someone
because is not one hundred percent sure that this modifications can work, but if it does work and I
think it can be a great opportunity to the development of humanity. If I can genetically ,modify myself,
only if the result is guaranty one hundred percent accurate then I will do it. I can be more intelligent
and find the cure for Cancer, I'll use my attributes to help people with their illness. And if I could be a
supermodel that makes thousands of dollars then I could be able to open foundations to help the ones
in need. With such attributions I could be able to make a change in this world and be helpful for
others.
2.discussion Digital Immortality
The title of Chapter 4, “Do We Survive Death?”, is a question that has been asked for a long time, and
though traditionally, people who have believed that we do survive death have thought something like
an immortal soul allows this to occur, recent developments in technology are changing the way we
think of surviving death. Though many people remain skeptical, there are those who believe we will
someday be able to upload our minds to computers to achieve a kind of digital immortality. [If you
have access to Netflix, you should watch episode 4 of Black Mirror from season 3 called “San
Junipero”. It’s REALLY good and gives a scenario related to this topic. If you have seen it, feel free to
refer to it in this discussion; if you haven’t, sorry for the plot spoilers!]
Before answering the below questions, you should look at the website Digital Immortality Now and
skim the article “Digital Immortality and Virtual Humans”.
Would you want to upload your mind to a computer to achieve immortality? Why or why not? [If you
have seen the above-mentioned episode of Black Mirror, feel free to refer to how this dilemma is dealt
with by the characters in the episode.]
Do you see any drawbacks or ethical concerns related to digital immortality, assuming it becomes
reality? If so, describe those in detail. If not, then explain why not.
Works Linked/Cited:
Digital Immortality Now. No date. http://digital-immortality-now.com/Mission. Accessed 15 July 2019.
Savin-Baden, Maggie and David Baden. “Digital Immortality and Virtual Humans.” Postdigital Science
and Education, vol. 1, no. 1, 2019, pp. 87-103.
reply
1.student
As great as immortality sounds, I do not think I would want to upload my mind into a computer. I'd
rather keep things natural in regards to my death and within myself. It really is not clear that it ever will
happen, and obviously it would be very costly if it happened. It seems confusing and controversial in
regards to scanning your brain and being copied onto a computer. I do not think I would want to be
stored in a device and have everything uploaded through a computer. For me personally it just does
not sound right, it sounds too unnatural and extreme for me. I'm going to bing up something religious
in this topic just because it is how I feel and I am sure we will all have our own unique interesting take
on this. But for me being a Christian, I want to see God when I die and not be immortal to where I
cannot be with him or see him. We were first made initially made to be immortal until the incident of
mankind, but now it is made that we die without any sort of immortality. So I guess you could say I do
not want to disrupt or abuse it being that way on how it is originally set up that we do die at some
point. I have just come to accept it. Like i said, I want it to all be natural the way it is supposed to be.
Anyways, I think with the uploads and digital immortality itself is running into a risk and as it is. Who
knows if you would survive being copied several times over. It might sound cool sure, but the brain
itself is already too complex and the nature of the self and mind is uncertain to even figure out what
we would be transferring in the first place! All of the thoughts, memories, fears, hopes and much more
would all have to be sent to a computer, so it really is not that simple even as great as it sounds.
Without those recorded feelings, we would not be the same person. We already have only a little bit of
knowledge of the works of the brain which already is an obstacle itself, so not even knowing what we
would transfer at the start means that it cannot be done and runs into high risk and drawbacks. I mean
if it really were to exist there would be so much overpopulation and inequality. I do not even know if i
could say overpopulation... it would be way more than overpopulation to be honest, since nobody
dies. Sounds like a world with a lot of limited space. I think it would be harsh to live in a world without
any breathing room at all. I do not see it being worth it and as it is, it won't be achieved anytime soon
for a reason.
2.student
The question “would you want to upload your mind to a computer to achieve immortality?” for me has
two different answers. I would and I wouldn’t want to upload my mind to a computer. I would love to
live forever and to be able to do everything in life I want. But at the same time I wouldn’t want to live
through anymore hurtfulness/pain that life has. Also it has to do with will I be put into a new human
body, or live in the computer forever, or a robot. I don’t know if I could handle any of those things. The
other only thing I would like is for my memoires to be put into a computer for my future generations of
my family. Also how do we know that the computer will last, they can die too, does that mean we die,
so is there really immortality by putting my mind into a computer? How does that actually work? So I
would have to have a lot of answers before I put my mind into a computer for immortality.
One drawback I have with this is identity theft. They could just tell us that they will give us immortality
if we let them take our mind and put it into a computer or are they actually trying to take it and use it
for bad. Also does this harm us by doing this because in the digital immortality webpage it says “We
will use not only passive recording but a variety of tests for actively extracting information?” Another
drawback I have is with this statement “which extracts as much information as possible with the
current level of technology.” Does this mean they will only take as much information the technology
can handle but what about everything else that makes me, me. So for me there are some things that
need to be fixed in order for me to really feel comfortable in putting my mind into a computer for digital
immortality.
3.student
Mind-uploading can actually offer something close to true immortality, but ethical concerns related to
digital immortality is that is not one hundred percent for sure that the uploaded information can be the
exact copy of a person. Some philosopher such as Daniel Dennett, "argued that this would not be a
problem and that a copy of a person could not be possibly yield anything than you". But none of that is
for sure, if we can upload a whole copy of ourself, how about if only fifty percent of what we really are
get to upload and now we might look like a zombie. The real identity of a person can be lost in the
process of trying to be immortal. Another problem can be keeping the real identity of a person when
new updates are program, people will have to get adjust to new technology and in the min-time part of
that person is getting lost and become more like a robot using artificial intelligent. I do see the ethical
concerns related to digital immortality when it comes to digital after death, but the reality is that more
people are interest in such subject, some people have even cryogenic freezing after death, so they
can be part of the future technological world. I wouldn't want to upload my mind to a computer to
archive immortality because there is not enough experience to transfer my mind into a computer and
even if there was enough experience I don't think I will be brave enough to do such thing.
.
3. discusson Who Are You?
Watch the video below on personhood and the one on arguments against personal identity, and then
answer these questions: Which of the theories about personal identity do you find the most
plausible/convincing and why? Which of the arguments against personal identity do you find most
plausible/convincing and why?
Personhood: Crash Course Philosophy #21. YouTube video file. [9:13]. CrashCourse. 2016, Jul
25. youtu.be/GxM9BZeRrUI
Personhood: Crash Course Philosophy #20. YouTube video file. [9:43]. CrashCourse. 2016, Jul
11. youtu.be/17WiQ_tNld4
reply
1.student
The theory I believe most
convincing is that the key to personhood is sentience the ability to feel pleasure and pain, because of
the fact that something that doesn’t contain a developed nervous system really doesn’t have
personhood. Because of the fact that it doesn’t feel pain, then follows the question if a person in a
persistent vegetative state is a person and I think that they aren’t a person for the time being, because
of the fact that the body would have sense of self or feel until he’s better. The argument that I found
most convincing is the Humes theory that the so called selfie is just an illusion, it’s a bundle of
impressions consisting of many things. I’m convinced with that theory because you can never live on
and be the same person you were before for example let’s say you experience memory loss and
forgot everything about yourself, you then there become someone completely different from before
the incident you can try to regain that self image people believed you to be but it’ll never be the same.
The same is to say about normal person that is living day to day, that same person is experiencing
and changing ever so slightly . Obviously having memory loss is way more of a drastic change but
they both are going through some sort of change
2.student
The theory about personal identity that I found most plausible/convincing is personhood: argument
against personality because it described how people from time to time tent to change their
personalities. A good example from this video was when a person was a kid and the toys kids play
with as comparison with an adult and things that an adult use. We tent to change personalities even if
a person move from one country to another. The person have to get use to a new culture, the way
that person talk like their ascent and sometimes new believes, so in that case a person is capable to
change identify. I do believe that identity can change along personal appearance . Simple things as
losing your jobs can cause the loss of identity; for example, if a person had worked in a job for 10
years and all of the sudden that person gets fired from that job, that person will feel lost, unstable,
vulnerable and maybe lose the value of self-worth. It might time time for this person to learn new
interest and accept themselves by making decisions and discovering new ways of thinking. Another
good example can be when a person have a lot of friends; that person can act different with each one
of their friends, that person might use different behaves among his/her friends and that can't maintain
a solid sense of their own identity. The lack of identity can affect even relationship due to the ability of
truly love and accept themselves. What we think others might think about us can change our essential
identity, when we try to please other people can change our identity as well. Our identity can change
everyday by us looking into our best interest. Looking for new habits or ways to improve ourself.
3.student
In some drastic circumstances like loosing family members I do believe that a person can change as a
whole. Or if a person get a big trauma I think a person can change or lose her/his identity even if a
person is older. For example, before my grandfather died my grandmother was full of energy and she
was always smiling. They would do everything together, but when my grandfather passed, my
grandmother changed, she wasn't smiling like she used to and I can noticed on her eyes that sadness
that my grandfather left on her. She changed as a person, her happy self was not there anymore, so I
believe that even if someone if old they can also change their identity.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment