As if to boil the blood of anybody who is currently struggling with debt, scientists have discovered exactly what women find attractive when men dance.
Are you ready for this people? Millions of pounds/dollars have been poured into scientific (I use this term loosely) research to discover that women find men attractive when they can dance... in time and to a beat.
Are you ready for this people? Millions of pounds/dollars have been poured into scientific (I use this term loosely) research to discover that women find men attractive when they can dance... in time and to a beat.
*Tumbleweed*
I’ll leave that little bit of groundbreaking scientific research with you but feel free to silently rage with me.
On to more pressing matters:
Could the human soul – the very part of us that defines and makes us what we are – be transferable? Either between synthetic machinery OR a physical body?
The human brain – however mysterious it may be – is still just one big data-storage device; albeit a biological storage device. So what is to say that you couldn’t transfer one storage device to another body?
Consider the implications of doing so, both medical and ethical:
You’re in a coma but your mind is still very active, the person in the bed next to you is brain-dead but their body is very healthy. How do you proceed?
The Hippocratic Oath should at least offer the answer to that question from a purely medical stand-point but what about the ethical implications of swapping bodies in order to survive?
It could be argued that the person in the bed next to you has effectively died – but on the other hand, you would be consciously inhabiting their body so technically they would be alive to an extent. Does this mean you would become them?
In my personal opinion, the answer to that would be no.
If the human conscience (aka soul) is merely biological energy that is processed by the brain, then being brain-dead would effectively mean your soul has left your body. Hence there should be no ethical implications; much as there is not when we swap a kidney or a lung.
However, this is not the case. As human beings we rely on our senses to interpret the world around us, so John Doe walking down the street in Jane Doe’s old body would cause quite a stir – and not because of the sexuality implications – the emotional welfare of not only Jane Doe’s family would have to be taken into consideration also (It is her... but it is not?) but John Doe and his family himself. For example: Would John Doe (now in Jane Doe’s body) be able to find true love? What about his mental and emotional state at now being a woman? How would his friends and family react? Would he ever be able to find a life-partner and settle down?
This is assuming male – female transference is possible (and vice-versa) – would gender/sexual identity be an issue?
So does this mean that our human vanity would prevent us from undertaking (possible) future body swaps? A man walking down the street as a woman now-a-days still manages to raise an eyebrow or too. But in consideration; that is about 1000 eyebrows less than just 50 years ago. So would that mean in the future we will be more inclined to not just donate organs when we die, but (should we die of brain death) to donate our entire bodies too?
On to more pressing matters:
Could the human soul – the very part of us that defines and makes us what we are – be transferable? Either between synthetic machinery OR a physical body?
The human brain – however mysterious it may be – is still just one big data-storage device; albeit a biological storage device. So what is to say that you couldn’t transfer one storage device to another body?
Consider the implications of doing so, both medical and ethical:
You’re in a coma but your mind is still very active, the person in the bed next to you is brain-dead but their body is very healthy. How do you proceed?
The Hippocratic Oath should at least offer the answer to that question from a purely medical stand-point but what about the ethical implications of swapping bodies in order to survive?
It could be argued that the person in the bed next to you has effectively died – but on the other hand, you would be consciously inhabiting their body so technically they would be alive to an extent. Does this mean you would become them?
In my personal opinion, the answer to that would be no.
If the human conscience (aka soul) is merely biological energy that is processed by the brain, then being brain-dead would effectively mean your soul has left your body. Hence there should be no ethical implications; much as there is not when we swap a kidney or a lung.
However, this is not the case. As human beings we rely on our senses to interpret the world around us, so John Doe walking down the street in Jane Doe’s old body would cause quite a stir – and not because of the sexuality implications – the emotional welfare of not only Jane Doe’s family would have to be taken into consideration also (It is her... but it is not?) but John Doe and his family himself. For example: Would John Doe (now in Jane Doe’s body) be able to find true love? What about his mental and emotional state at now being a woman? How would his friends and family react? Would he ever be able to find a life-partner and settle down?
This is assuming male – female transference is possible (and vice-versa) – would gender/sexual identity be an issue?
So does this mean that our human vanity would prevent us from undertaking (possible) future body swaps? A man walking down the street as a woman now-a-days still manages to raise an eyebrow or too. But in consideration; that is about 1000 eyebrows less than just 50 years ago. So would that mean in the future we will be more inclined to not just donate organs when we die, but (should we die of brain death) to donate our entire bodies too?
Consider the more immediate cosmetic implications: would we really be willing to carry the moral burden for the body we have always wanted?
Approach this very idea from a more scientific and sinister way: could body/memory transfer be as simple as pointing a device at your destination and flicking a switch?
If you have ever seen the TV programme by Joss Whedon called Dolls House – more specifically the episode entitled “Epitaph One” – you will understand what I am talking about.
As the brain is a collection of memories and knowledge – two things we can now share freely on the internet – wouldn’t it just be possible to download and store those memories on some external source?
I personally doubt it as all data degrades with enough time, but consider the implications of being able to do so and maintain it. Effectively you could live forever, a collection of thoughts, feelings and knowledge until downloaded into a new body.
Could mankind be trusted with such a technological advancement though? Joss Whedon (seriously, watch Dolls House!) and I am inclined to agree with his take on the subject. I won’t ruin it for you, it is one of the better episodes of the series, but suffice it to say we abuse the power to body-swap mercilessly.
So what do you think? Dance moves aside - Body swapping in order to save lives; would it cause more problems than it could solve?
No comments:
Post a Comment