SOC 100 - Transhumanism and Biotech

This assignment was in one of the videos I watched. Our professor is pretty cool about making his own video lectures. Since I'm an oline student at least I get to hear his voice. No video of him yet, just power point presentations. They are all about 45 minutes long and pretty interesting. The only annoying part, honestly, is when he sips tea. It's pretty loud in the audio portion. Just one of my pet peeves I suppose. The lectures are very good though and I like him as a professor. I don't exactly remember what the assignment was but we were reading about transhumanism and biotech. It's in chapter 4 of Essentials of Sociology, Ninth Edition. So here's what I wrote. I got a 42/45 on this paper so it must have been pretty good. Acceptable for a 49 yr. old freshman anyhow.

Altering The Human Condition and Influencing Biotech’s Future

            According to Bostrom (n.d.), "Transhumanism has gained currency as the name for a new way of thinking that challenges the premiss that the human condition is and will remain essentially unalterable”. We can alter the human condition, but do I really want a lab to grow a new kidney for me if mine fails? I suppose at the moment I think that’s an acceptable solution. However, there are many other things to consider and where do we stop with the new biotech society and nanotechnology? Uploading my conscience to a virtual reality isn’t what I want.  I don’t want to live forever in a virtual world.   I wouldn’t have wanted my DNA changed to make a perfect me either. I think nature does the best job.  However, I would accept tiny robots going through my body to destroy cancer cells if I ever got cancer or if they could open my arteries if I ever got arteriolosclerosis. The innovations that are for curative purposes are acceptable to me and I don’t see them crossing any moral or ethical lines.

 I see avatars and virtual worlds as entertainment. I don’t want to live out my life in a virtual world and I don’t want to send in a robot to do my work. That’s crossing the line for me. I like reality and I like having face to face relationships. If society were to go completely virtual I don’t know who would control it, but it’s probably the same class who control many things today.  It's the people in the upper social class who have power, prestige and wealth.  I think human interaction is vital and necessary, but I can see benefits to virtual worlds and things we can learn from them. Scientist can study these massive online role playing games and use the data to learn more about society. According to Ayshford (2009), “In many ways it’s a microcosm of our existence in the general social world”.

            Juma states (2005), “Advances in biotechnology continuously lead to adjustments in social institutions (defined here as the perceptions, practices, and rules that govern the relations and interactions between individuals and groups). In turn, social institutions influence the pace and direction of technological innovation”. Regarding the six social institutions we discussed, I see science/technology influencing biotech to move forward and push the limits. Government/politics influences the biotech future because it makes the rules that regulate the innovations that science/technology makes. Economics certainly plays an important role in all new technologies because there’s money to be made with the new products and services. Economics influence will be where the profit is. Our religions will want to see biotech adhere to the rules of morality and ethics. Just because we can do something doesn’t mean that we should. Also, religion holds the principle players accountable, influencing just how far they’ll push the limits. In our country and many others, religion has a strong influence with the government and politicians when making laws. The educational institutions educate and influence the students who are the scientists of the future. They can also influence what research is pursued. That brings us back to government. Government funding is important to research and politicians decide how much funding is available and what it can be used for.  Finally, the family wants to procreate and be safe. The family as an institution desires health and security. The family as an institution consumes, creates demand, and pays for the new products and services made by biotechnology, leading back to economics. What it comes down to is that every institution is connected with each other. From the family to science/technology, each plays a significant role in the biotech future.

References

Ayshford, E. (2009, July 23). What virtual worlds can teach us about reality. Retrieved from            http://scienceinsociety.northwestern.edu/content/articles/2009/research-      digest/contractor/what-virtual-worlds-can-teach-us-about-reality

Bostrom, N. (n.d.). What is transhumanism?. Retrieved from            http://www.transhumanism.org/resources/transhumanism.htm

Juma, C. (2005, March 1). Biotechnology in a globalizing world: the coevolution of technology      and social institutions.. Retrieved from http://business.highbeam.com/411908/article-   1G1-130777729/biotechnology-globalizing-world-coevolution-technology