Prolonged Life

[Gesiwuj]

If scientists could create a pill that let you live twice as long while remaining free of infirmities, would you take it?

Is prolonging life a feasible option? After all, humans would still reproduce at the same rate, so wouldn't the world become overcrowded? Or is it a good idea - we can study for longer... when a person dies they usually leave their experience; would living longer help the human race progress? Or what about a compromise such as using population control (eg: one child policy).

This question is not out of the blue - scientists beleive they are closer than ever to developing a technology to allow living to 140 quite normal. The story is: here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12916099/from/RS.4/).

What are everyone's views?

[Scythe]

Hmmmmmm, that’s a tricky one, certainly I think that longer life has great implications for research. For example if a researcher was able to live longer they could study human life in its entirety. This clearly gives scope for many fascinating things to be studied more accurately.

The ethics side is a problem though. I think that it could work if only a small group people were chosen for the prolonged life for research purposes. Perhaps these people could be chosen by a government committee? If the “pill” fell into wrong hands it could cause problems, the rich would be able to live longer, while the poor lived a "normal" lengthed life.

If it was given to the whole of society, or at least those who could afford it, then yes overcrowding would be a problem. The “One Child Policy” also poses a few problems; how would child birth be controlled effectively? And what would be done with parents who have more than one child? And what would be done with the 2nd or 3rd born children?

[Thomas Knierim]

I think it is a pretty safe bet that the human lifespan will increase in future although we don't know at what rate. The cited article concludes that a double lifespan would give people more time to learn new languages, master new instruments, travel the world, etc. Such reasoning appears fairly naive to me. Many people are sufficiently lethargic not to learn any new languages, instruments, even if given all time in the world. These types of achievements require a certain mental aptitude. However, I see two consequences preponderating: the danger of a population explosion, and an increase of the statistic average age. The causes and effects of the former are fairly obvious and require no further explanation. The latter is more controversial. An increase of the average age would lead to an older work force, older leadership, and so on. It stands to reason that people would be more experienced and more mature on average. But I am not so sure about this...

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

I personally could never see one thing, like a pill or shot, that would give an individual the ability to live to 140. I think it would require extensive and continuous care and observation, as the body naturally wears, and even if we did give skin regeneratives and such, the mind would also diminish, in if nothing more than the will to live. However, I think many people wouldn't mind this, especially if they could retain their physical appearance, and would have their memory and such kept fresh (through nanotech or what not), as long as they could avoid death even longer. I personally wouldn't want to avoid death; I don't want to die young, but I would like to die old; actually, I don't even want to die really old, like 90, when I'm too physically, and especially mentally, feeble and fragile. I think we should stop spending such money on trying to clone entire people, embryos, military technology, and even some space technology, and start making attempts to curing mental disorders, social and political faults, and physical diseases and deformaties.

[Thomas Knierim]

I'd personally prefer to see a pill that doubles the intelligence of humanity rather than its lifespan. :lol:

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

I would prefer memory myself. Imagine if everything you heard, saw, thought about, touched, etc., you memorized it immediately, and could conjur the memory with perfect clarity at any time. I would love that; imagine the ability to nevr miss a question! lol

[Scythe]

Would it really be good for humans to remember everything they ever saw and did though Scam? I’m sure we all have some things we wish we’d never done and would rather forget. In fact for some people might it not be better for them if they could forget certain things? Depending on the nature of their experiences.

Also would such a wealth of knowledge do the human mind any good? I once read about a man that was unable to forget anything, he became quite agitated with the fact that he could not forget reams of useless information if I remember rightly. (It was a good while ago by the way, sorry I can’t give you a reference or link).

[Gesiwuj]

Well this is really going onto another difficult ethical question on whether it is right to boost intelligence artificially? Although in ways it is rather similar...

[Scythe]

Personally I don’t think it’s ethically wrong to boost intelligence/memory artificially. I just think some precautions need to be taken for the reasons I touched on above.

[Smurf]

I was thinking about this the other day:

That so many great people only achieve "greatness" when they are really old, so they don't have enough time with which to use their wisdom, experience and knowledge. Such a pill would be useful here I suppose? :unsure:

[scameter]

Well, essentially I meant a more accessible memory, one that could be more easily accessed with entire clarity. Not that our memory would constantly be active, but conjurable at any time with entire clarity. I think such selective memory could do the human mind quite a bit of good personally.

Indeed it is gesi, and quite an interesting one at that. I think we boost our intelligence artifically all the time; such as through exercising (which allows our mind to think more clearly).

[Scythe]

Perfect recollection of memory would be a great aid to the human mind. But I wonder with selective memory in the sense you described it, would we have the ability to dismiss memories permanently? If so that could lead to quite a few problems for humans as a race.

[Kether]

Well this is really going onto another difficult ethical question on whether it is right to boost intelligence artificially?
I can't see any ethical problem with artificially boosting intelligence. In fact, this process is being carried out every day, in a fairly haphazard way - caretakers and educators of children are forever attempting to boost 'intelligence' through various environmental means.
As for enhancing the innate mechanisms that produce 'intelligence', which probably take the form of the number and efficiency of links between neurones in the neocortex, then there would be obvious advantages - but only if this was coupled with a very large number of other social and educational efforts. What little differences in innate ability between people that there are actually count for little: education and environment are of more crucial importance - what matters is not innate processing ability, but what that ability makes possible: knowledge, and the application of that knowledge to better humanity's understanding and happiness. To achieve the former, what is needed as much as anything else is a rational, non-dogmatic, fearlessly candid attitude. The latter requires love, and a morally not hindered by dogma but instead enhanced by reason.

In short: the good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. This is the one formalised moral precept that I intend to live my life by as far as possible.

I do have a problem with the genetic engineering of human beings, however: the technology of cloning and genetic modification is presently too limited to perform genetic engineering that would improve the quality of human life. Improving it would require trial and error - and I consider it wrong to create 'errors' that consist of severely defective human beings, who will live in suffering and die young from their problems. The cloning of Dolly the sheep involved 277 failed attempts, most of which were not pleasant.
If it was given to the whole of society, or at least those who could afford it, then yes overcrowding would be a problem. The “One Child Policy” also poses a few problems; how would child birth be controlled effectively? And what would be done with parents who have more than one child? And what would be done with the 2nd or 3rd born children?
A one-child-per family policy was implemented in China in the 1980s, and has been quite successful. As it happens, I recently completed a school project on the subject: the following is adapted from it.

China's one-child policy
China is the world’s most populated country, and its government is trying to combat the catalogue of problems traditionally associated with high populations and developing economies. In the 1980s, a one-child-per-family policy was implemented, which involved strictly enforced birth control schemes.

The problems associated with overpopulation
The problems with couples choosing to have a large number of children in China are those of overpopulation.
Overpopulation is where the population of a certain area exceeds the capacity of the resources on which it depends. The term does not refer to an absolute figure in terms of population size and density, but is instead relative to the capacity of the resources that sustain the population. Thus densely populated MEDCs generally enjoy a very high standard of living, since their economies can support such large numbers of people. LEDCs like those of the Indian subcontinent, on the other hand, cannot deal with so many people.
While resources, especially natural resources, follow a linear pattern of growth, population grows exponentially; this means that methods of controlling the population are necessary if overpopulation is to be avoided.
When a human population exceeds the limits of the resources, a wide variety of problems result. These can include: The rapid depletion of natural resources, leading to very serious ecological problems
Increased levels of pollution and the extinction of plant and animal species as a result of heavy human settlement
Low life expectancy
Low level of literacy
Poor diet, directly causing diseases like scurvy and rickets through malnutrition, or indirectly by weakening the immune system
Increase in the dependency ratio because of the greater number of young people in the population
High levels of crime and unrest because of people competing for limited resources
The aggregate effect of these and other problems is seen as a lowering of the ‘standard of living’.

The Chinese population situation in the 20th century
Chairman Mao Tzetung’s Great Leap Forward was based on the principle of ‘the more children we have, the stronger we are’. This policy failed miserably, ending in widespread famine; this was partly caused by natural disasters, but has been blamed primarily on the exponential explosion of the population that Mao’s administration caused by instructing families, most of them very poorly educated, to have huge numbers of children.
Consequently, China has the world’s largest population, the rapid growth of which began far earlier and proceeded far faster than the process of economic growth begun by Mao’s successor Deng Xiaoping, who recognised the problem of overpopulation and began the attempt to reverse it.

The implementation of the policy
There is a significant degree of diversity between regions as regards the implementation of the birth control policy. While couples in urban areas are very strictly limited to one child, in other locations one child is pointed to as an ideal, with the actual enforcement of the policy being less strict than in the cities.
There are incentives that offer huge rewards to women who have only one child, and impose effective punishments on those who do not. Women are encouraged to sign an agreement to have only one child. In exchange, the family is offered state benefits, and the child is guaranteed a university place.
However, if the mother breaks the agreement and has a second child, any benefits she has received will have to be paid back.
In the cities, groups of elderly women are elected by the community to act as enforcers of birth control policies. Known as the Granny Police, their jobs include accompanying women to the local hospital for pregnancy tests, abortions, sterilisations and the other treatments involved in the carrying out of family planning. In addition, they issue daily reminders to women about the importance of birth control.
Westerners could be forgiven for assuming that such ‘intrusions’ would be resented. However, the Granny Police are generally quite popular among the neighbourhoods they serve, since they often help with housework and run errands for people.
Other initiatives have been created to encourage single-child families. Factories and farming collectives receive awards for having workers with less than a certain number of children, with elaborate award ceremonies fostering a strong feeling that birth control is a significant achievement.
The rules are different for non-Han ethnic groups, with most ethnic minorities being allowed to have more than one child.

Problems with and criticisms of the policy
China’s birth control program has presented organisational difficulties for the government, and has been criticised as potentially leading to a variety of social problems. In addition, the strictness of the enforcement of contraception has led to complaints that the policy and its implementation violate human rights.
Mao’s Great Leap Forward focused on creating autonomous, self-sufficient agrarian economic units. Consequently, rural areas became characterised by a degree of isolation that hindered the execution of large-scale policies like the birth control initiative.
Another stumbling-block for the birth control program is the endurance of the Confucian ideals of large families and filial piety, which traditionally formed the bedrock of Chinese cultural values. These have made some couples - especially in rural areas - reluctant to restrict the numbers of children they have.
Another feature of traditional culture that inhibits progressive policies—again, one related to family-orientated values—is a considerable degree of gender bias among couples and their parents, who are concerned with keeping their family name ‘alive’, and a belief that males will be more ‘useful’ in the future in terms of financial support. If the one-child-per-family policy exists alongside this bias in favour of male children, then selective infanticide may lead to a shortage of women in the future.
In recent years, the government has declared strict penalties for selective abortion and infanticide. However, it has been alleged that the practice endures among wealthier couples, who have access to private clinics that are willing to ignore the anti-selection laws.
The third generation of only children face the problem of their parents and grandparents becoming dependent on them; this is commonly known as the one-two-four problem. Older people in the future are likely to rely increasingly on state pensions and benefits; therefore it is critical that the state supplies these.
In some cases, only children in China are spoiled by their parents. Moreover, it has been claimed that a lack of siblings can inhibit a child’s communication skills; however, there is no evidence in support of this theory.

[scameter]

I don't think we would or could have that ability scythe, without manipulation of scientific tools, if even then. I think we could manually not focus on particular, sleected memories, but not to eradicate any permanently.

I disagree with the latter approach Kether, that the application of that knowledge to better humanity's understanding and happiness requires love and an uninhibited morality, one led by reason; I think one led by religion could certainly do it, even dogma, as long as the religion and dogma is love-oriented; I can't see why reason would have any reason (no pun intended) to increase our happiness and understanding. To better our chances of survival perhaps, but understanding and happiness are things that must be consciously desired. Reason as a tool can help towards understanding and happiness, but not as a moral guide.

And about the quote, I would better prefer: the good life is one inspired by knowledge and guided by love.

About the cloning, do you think cloning defective non-humans is alright, if it furthers our cloning abilities?

[CSwriter1]

But Scameter, you have been with the big view for a very long time. The whole point of the big view is to increase our happiness and understanding. The more we know about the world, the smaller our personal problems become. Paradoxically, our lives become much larger, while who "I" am and what "I" want, matters much less. It is like becoming one with the oneness and loosing self.

My life is bad? compared to what? I live in Oregon and many of the people who first came here, starved to death or died young of disease or from injuries we can easily heal today. I have electricity and indoor plumbing with hot and cold running water. I am connected to the whole world with the Internet. Compared to being a pioneer or living in less fortunate countries, I have more than the kings of old :) . But if I didn't know so much about the past and other places, my life could seem really hard. I must live simply and there is some pain because of watching my family do without and struggle. If all I knew is my own small place in time and on the earth, I could be very unhappy, instead of knowing I have more than the kings of old, and being grateful for what I have.

[CSwriter1]

I studied gerontology at the U of O. That is the study of aging. I am thrilled about the prospect of doubling our life expectancy again. Yes, again.

The adverage life expectacy when the US passed its Social Security Act, was only 45 years. That was because of a high infant and child mortality rate, and large numbers of people dying in industrial accidents.
Before the food technology developed recently, and the economic success of modern western countries, people starved to death, and the big question was not "who am I" but "how am I going to fill my belly"?
Life has dramatically changed since WWII and commonly people are living to be 80 or 100 years old.

Only 30 years ago, retirement communities were going belly up, because they counted on a high turn over. Soon after these places were built, it was realized these older people with good services and health care weren't dying! We have not made a good adjustment to this reality. We have a long ways to go before we are adequately adjusted to long lived people.

But on the good side, these old people have a very helpful view of our human folly and we have the Internet to increase awareness of our human folly and rise the wisdom of whole world.

I love the Older American's Act, which entitled older Americans to social benefits. Not many people are aware of this Act and it was not well funded, and the youth crisis has diverted funding from services for the elderly to the services for youth. This is a terrible social loss. However, if we increased awareness and get our act together fast enough, we could enter a new Golden Age, and I fully expect this to happen. :) :thumbsup:

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter: I can't see why reason would have any reason (no pun intended) to increase our happiness and understanding.

If you cannot see that then you are simply blind.

I can only encourage you to get out of Georgia and see the world. There is a lot of suffering and unhappiness in the world. If you observe different people in different environments, you might find out that those who live in ignorant conditions are prone to suffer.

Cheers, Thomas

[Smurf]

Well, essentially I meant a more accessible memory, one that could be more easily accessed with entire clarity. Not that our memory would constantly be active, but conjurable at any time with entire clarity. I think such selective memory could do the human mind quite a bit of good personally.


hmm yeah that would be good, but then life would be too boring and straight, too bland and scientific... no uncertainty sort of like a computer in a way, I don't think that that would be fun :(

[scameter]

lol Thanks Thomas. As you should have read, I said that reason was a good *tool* to make the environmental condition of an individual more luxurious and could permit happiness better, but reason doesn't always certify happiness. One can be the most logical and reasonable person to ever have lived, and commit suicide because of depression and unhappiness. If you would, please don't call me blind without considering what I mean entirely.

Smurf, to a scientist or mathematician I'm sure such an existence would be blissful. But I disagree with what you say; to me, selective memory would simply help us academically. Emotion would still exist, and life would still remain varied and complicated, if not confusing.

[Smurf]

Also, Long Term Memory, although it has over one trillion different storahes spaces, with your proposal Scam I would say that this would be quickly filled up and there would be a lot of people walking around with brains bursting at the seems

[scameter]

If memory has a limit. Does memory acquired in our current mental state eventually fade? I thought memory remain present forever, even if we don't recognize it's existence.

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter: If you would, please don't call me blind without considering what I mean entirely.

I phrased it conditionally: If you cannot see how reason leads to understanding then you are blind. This was in response to your (probably indiscriminate) statement which I quoted. I do consider what you say, and although you seem to change your mind frequently and often contradict your prior statements, I think I can make out the general idea of what you say.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

I'm glad to hear that. And as you probably know and as I have said before, my knowledge isn't static; it is most definitely capable of change and adaptation. And, I do not study and discuss philosophy with the hopes of answers; I enjoy questioning and using reason and logic to do so, as well as other means, with an open mind all the time, and I believe this to be what philosophy is.

[Kether]

And about the quote, I would better prefer: the good life is one inspired by knowledge and guided by love.
That does not make sense to me. Knowledge alone cannot inspire action, and love cannot be used as a means to an end. I am surprised that this comment came from you, since you're always stressing that logic and knowledge are only 'tools'.
We do not cure diseases because we can; we cure diseases because we empathise with the sick people and want to prevent suffering. If we didn't have this love, then the system that tries to take care of the sick would not exist.
About the cloning, do you think cloning defective non-humans is alright, if it furthers our cloning abilities?
Absolutely not - as I said earlier in that post: the technology of cloning and genetic modification is presently too limited to perform genetic engineering that would improve the quality of human life. Improving it would require trial and error - and I consider it wrong to create 'errors' that consist of severely defective human beings, who will live in suffering and die young from their problems. The cloning of Dolly the sheep involved 277 failed attempts, most of which were not pleasant.
I disagree with the latter approach Kether, that the application of that knowledge to better humanity's understanding and happiness requires love and an uninhibited morality, one led by reason; I think one led by religion could certainly do it, even dogma, as long as the religion and dogma is love-oriented; I can't see why reason would have any reason (no pun intended) to increase our happiness and understanding.
Last Friday, I was drawn into a long and tiring argument with an extremely homophobic acquaintance of mine - he is a prime example of the kind of sick beliefs that result from not being amenable to reason. Reason is obviously completely alien to him: his mind is utterly closed and dogmatic. My beliefs about the importance of reason stem partly from first-hand observation and experience - contact with people like him - but also from knowledge of history. The atrocities committed by the Spanish and Roman inquisitions, as well as the concentration camps and Gulags of more recent times, were all caused by dogmatic religion.

[scameter]

That does not make sense to me. Knowledge alone cannot inspire action, and love cannot be used as a means to an end. I am surprised that this comment came from you, since you're always stressing that logic and knowledge are only 'tools'.

Indeed, and the more I have thought about it, the more I see I was wrong. Sorry for my misconclusion; I actually do definitely agree with your quote, mainly because I think to be driven by love, but guided by knowledge, reason, and understanding is very good, and I think it should be approached widely. Although I don't think it is applicable to everything, because not everything is done for knowledge, but I think for practical, life things, such as law, philosophy, science and politics, it would entirely suit. :)

We do not cure diseases because we can; we cure diseases because we empathise with the sick people and want to prevent suffering.

Although many do it modernly for the money. Tribal healers and shamans did it out of empathy and compassion, as well as spiritual reasons, but many (but not all) docters and healers do it for money. It's not the easiest job of course, and they do it because they can and are good at it, but I think not all docters really care.

If we didn't have this love, then the system that tries to take care of the sick would not exist.

Unfortunately, as I said above it is very often about money however, and also unfortunately, much of the time receiving medical care costs so much (in America at least) that many cannot afford it, especially larger things such as surgery.

as I said earlier in that post: the technology of cloning and genetic modification is presently too limited to perform genetic engineering that would improve the quality of human life.

Then let me ask you: do you think it would be correct for scientists to use brain neurochemical enhancers and genetic engineering and cloning to do things such as keeping us alive past normal life-spans with normal medicine, and to make us more efficient, even if it damaged our emotional state and happiness?

The cloning of Dolly the sheep involved 277 failed attempts, most of which were not pleasant.

But to many scientists, even most, that's alright, because it was done to an animal; but to a human, it would be wrong.

My beliefs about the importance of reason stem partly from first-hand observation and experience - contact with people like him - but also from knowledge of history.

Same here.

The atrocities committed by the Spanish and Roman inquisitions, as well as the concentration camps and Gulags of more recent times, were all caused by dogmatic religion.

They were caused by the people following the religion. Could you see Jesus promoting the inquisition, when he said love your fellow man? People often use religion as a crutch to further their own ends, just as they are capable of using everything else similarly, but that doesn't make the religion it's self wrong, nor dogmatic; Christianity is dogmatic because of the church.

[Kether]

Unfortunately, as I said above it is very often about money however, and also unfortunately, much of the time receiving medical care costs so much (in America at least) that many cannot afford it, especially larger things such as surgery.
Be that as it may, the fact that the sick are cared for at all - the fact that there is any kind of social mechanism for caring for the sick - has arisen because of altruism. You're right that many doctors care for the sick because they receive money in exchange, but they wouldn't receive money were there not a general desire, in a significant number of people, to care for the sick.
Then let me ask you: do you think it would be correct for scientists to use brain neurochemical enhancers and genetic engineering and cloning to do things such as keeping us alive past normal life-spans with normal medicine, and to make us more efficient, even if it damaged our emotional state and happiness?
Why would they ever do that - what would be the point? And what is this 'efficiency', and does anyone really care about it?
The only reason why neurochemical enhancers or genetic engineering would be used on humans is as an attempt (not necessarily a successful one) to improve the quality of life. The term 'efficiency' implies a means to an end; 'efficiency' is the ability to produce a certain result, and is not itself a result.
But to many scientists, even most, that's alright, because it was done to an animal; but to a human, it would be wrong.
What I was saying was not that producing defective clones of Molly was wrong, but that the cloning of humans would produce defective children - and that this would be wrong, and we should therefore not clone humans. If cloning would improve the quality of human life (which I doubt), and if the technology could be made safe for use on humans (which it isn't), then I would see no problem with cloning. However, since neither of these conditions has been fulfilled, I am opposed to cloning.
They were caused by the people following the religion. Could you see Jesus promoting the inquisition, when he said love your fellow man? People often use religion as a crutch to further their own ends, just as they are capable of using everything else similarly, but that doesn't make the religion it's self wrong, nor dogmatic; Christianity is dogmatic because of the church.
Other things being equal, it isn’t the beliefs themselves that cause the atrocities; it’s the way in which they are believed – religiously. In other words, it isn’t the doctrines of a religion that make it dangerous – what makes it dangerous is the fact that it’s a religion.

[scameter]

Well, that's America for you. But be that as it may, the fact that the sick are cared for at all - the fact that there is any kind of social mechanism for caring for the sick - has arisen because of altruism.

Yes, just as military action arose from our ability to defend ourselves against other animals; we then had the time to fight each other with our new-found abilities. Similarly, medicine came about through the desire to help people, and evolved into a system of doctors being good at medical science and then using their skill to gain alot of money in the medical profession, and to subsequently get enormous recognition for being a doctor, just as much for their money as their seemed compassion. But, as I said, this may only be America.

Why would they ever do that - what would be the point? And what is this 'efficiency', and does anyone really care about it?

They do very much, and this is why I was asking you about it. Much of modern scientific, especially technological and medical, emphasis is placed on things such as genetic engineering, cloning and physical enhancers, as well as life prolongment.

What I was saying was not that producing defective clones of Molly was wrong, but that the cloning of humans would produce defective children - and that this would be wrong, and we should therefore not clone humans. If cloning would improve the quality of human life (which I doubt), and if the technology could be made safe for use on humans (which it isn't), then I would see no problem with cloning. However, since neither of these conditions has been fulfilled, I am opposed to cloning.

Tell me something then: say if it were possible for us to experiment cloning 20 people, and after all of them turning out defective, we got a perfect model for cloning, and every clone attempt afterwards was perfectly fine; but, the 20 that were defectively cloned became both physically and mentally ill, and soon died. Would that be ok, just as 277 Molly's had to be defective for them to find a successful cloning technique?

Ceteris paribus, it isn’t the beliefs themselves that cause the atrocities; it’s the way in which they are believed – religiously. In other words, it isn’t the doctrines of a religion that make it dangerous – what makes it dangerous is the fact that it’s a religion.

I agree. Which is why I feel equal contempt for religious establishments centered around spiritual/truthful doctrines and truth that corrupt the truth of the doctrines into dogmatic idiocy and an attempt at power, just as much as I do for intellectuals who immediately see a religion, and dismiss it, without any thought to the underlying truth of the religion's doctrines and philosophy.

[Kether]

Tell me something then: say if it were possible for us to experiment cloning 20 people, and after all of them turning out defective, we got a perfect model for cloning, and every clone attempt afterwards was perfectly fine; but, the 20 that were defectively cloned became both physically and mentally ill, and soon died. Would that be OK, just as 277 Molly's had to be defective for them to find a successful cloning technique?
NB: they didn't find a successful cloning technique. Dolly had serious defects and died young; she was just less defective than the attempted clones that preceded her. And yes, I would still be opposed to creating 20 defective humans, if it could be avoided; besides, what benefits would cloning bring to humanity? Certainly none that would outweigh the human costs of the research.
They do very much, and this is why I was asking you about it. Much of modern scientific, especially technological and medical, emphasis is placed on things such as genetic engineering, cloning and physical enhancers, as well as life prolongment.
But these things aren't being done to increase 'efficiency'. If they are to be done, they will be done because whoever is responsible for their implementation believes that they will be beneficial to society.
Can I ask what exactly you mean by 'efficiency'?

[scameter]

I would still be opposed to creating 20 defective humans, if it could be avoided; besides, what benefits would cloning bring to humanity? Certainly none that would outweigh the human costs of the research.

Exactly my thoughts on cloning. I was simply curious if a science supporter like yourself would view it similarly, which I find out, because of the general view of cloning scientists have, even if it is defective towards the new clones, although they care much less about defective animal clones than human clones.

But these things aren't being done to increase 'efficiency'. If they are to be done, they will be done because whoever is responsible for their implementation believes that they will be beneficial to society.

I.e., to increase the efficiency of society. Most people inventing these technologies simply do it because they have the appropriate knowledge and monetary support to do so; they don't actually consider the philosophical implications of it, just as Einstein didn't consider that an atomic bomb could be made from his discoveries. Which is a consideration he shouldn't have had to make, but he still should have nonetheless.

Can I ask what exactly you mean by 'efficiency'?

Better performance. For instance, a modern Ford is more efficient than the very first Ford car. And, another example is that biological information processors are more efficient than mechanical ones.

Noun
efficiency

The extent to which time is used for the intended task
The efficiency of the planning department is deplorable.
The extent to which a resource such as electricity is used for the intended purpose
The efficiency of this loudspeaker is 40 %.
A one room apartment
I have an efficiency available June through July. (wikipedia)

[Kether]

I.e., to increase the efficiency of society.
Again this 'efficiency' - but is there really such a thing? The word 'efficiency' is meaningful only only as applied to a means to an end: to take Wikipedia's example, we would increase the efficiency of the loudspeaker so that it would use up less electricity. Additionally, there are higher motives behind our wishing it to use up less electricity: it would cost us less money - and there are, of course, other motives behind our wishing to save money.
So 'efficiency' cannot be an end in itself: it is increased so that a different end can be fulfilled. For example, if we were to use neurochemical enhancers to increase humanity's cortical processing abilities so that an end could be fulfilled.

[scameter]

So 'efficiency' cannot be an end in itself: it is increased so that a different end can be fulfilled. For example, if we were to use neurochemical enhancers to increase humanity's cortical processing abilities so that an end could be fulfilled.

But it can certainly be a goal, whether the goal's end is taken into consideration or not doesn't really apply to the goal it's self, with people. To people, having the goal of efficiency is good enough, even without a clearly seen end.

[Kether]

But it can certainly be a goal, whether the goal's end is taken into consideration or not doesn't really apply to the goal it's self, with people. To people, having the goal of efficiency is good enough, even without a clearly seen end.
'End' and 'goal' mean exactly the same thing. And you misunderstand me: what I was saying was that efficiency is meaningless without an end. It simply doesn't apply; it would be like saying 'I am extremely tree'. There is no such end as 'efficiency'. Let us examine what 'efficiency' means:
The extent to which time is used for the intended task
"The efficiency of the planning department is deplorable. "
The extent to which a resource such as electricity is used for the intended purpose
"The efficiency of this loudspeaker is 40 %."
Making the speaker 'efficient' means adjusting it so that it uses up less electricity. This adjustment could be called 'making it more efficient', but the adjustment is meaningless without a purpose: decreasing the amount of electricity needed. If you are going to apply the word 'efficiency' to human beings, you need to be specify what this efficiency consists of: what its end, the thing equivalent to decreasing the amount of electricity used, is.

[the greek]

You could argue that efficiency is movement toward something better. Life, for instance, is efficiency embodied because, obstensively, it at one time was something perhaps less than Life, yet Life had the inherant quality of striving for something better. I would think the human condition is generally set on bettering efficiency (is this redundant in this context?) as a default mode.

[scameter]

If you are going to apply the word 'efficiency' to human beings, you need to be specify what this efficiency consists of: what its end, the thing equivalent to decreasing the amount of electricity used, is.

Ah yes, I see; sorry for the misinterpretation. I believe that the scientists who are attempting to make people more efficient are attempting to make life easier, more readily accessible, and to increase our mental computational power and our physical lifespan; not necessarily for happiness or for a good life, but for the ends I specified. To get to those ends, they are attempting to increase our efficiency at such things, or rather our bodies' efficiency.

I would think the human condition is generally set on bettering efficiency (is this redundant in this context?) as a default mode.

I personally think it is geared generally toward knowledge progression and acquiring, and always has been and will be, as I believe it is inherent in us and is nearly insatiable.

[Kether]

You could argue that efficiency is movement toward something better. Life, for instance, is efficiency embodied because, ostensibly, it at one time was something perhaps less than Life, yet Life had the inherent quality of striving for something better. I would think the human condition is generally set on bettering efficiency (is this redundant in this context?) as a default mode.
I agree. Evolution, certainly, has the effect of increasing efficiency, through survival of genes that are conducive towards efficiency. As for the human mind, I think that you're right that we generally do strive for efficiency; however, I do not think that all of this is because of a genetic 'default'. Mind is a product of evolution, and some of its characteristics reflect this: we have genetically innate drives that help our genes survive; these are a form of efficiency. However, mind has characteristics that do not always work towards gene survival: most of the time, minds do what they want, not what their genes have programmed them to do - so they can also increase the efficiency with which they do things that have nothing to do with genes.
Ah yes, I see; sorry for the misinterpretation. I believe that the scientists who are attempting to make people more efficient are attempting to make life easier, more readily accessible, and to increase our mental computational power and our physical lifespan
... Because they believe that this will increase human happiness. And before you mention it: yes, they can do it for money, but the system that gives them money in exchange for work on increased lifespans and mental processing abilities is trying to increase human happiness.

[scameter]

Evolution, certainly, has the effect of increasing efficiency, through survival of genes that are conducive towards efficiency.

Indeed.

... Because they believe that this will increase human happiness.

Indirectly. Their main goal is to increase efficiency so society will work better, and so the individual will be able to work better and longer. If happiness entails, good. If not, the improvements will still make society more efficient.

And before you mention it: yes, they can do it for money, but the system that gives them money in exchange for work on increased lifespans and mental processing abilities is trying to increase human happiness.

Not always, if ever. The system that gives them money is helping them to work better and longer to receive money in turn from their work efforts. The government doesn't do anything if it doesn't have some monetary improvement attribute; even war. The American government at least.

[Kether]

Indirectly. Their main goal is to increase efficiency so society will work better, and so the individual will be able to work better and longer. If happiness entails, good. If not, the improvements will still make society more efficient.
Nobody aims at increasing efficiency as an end in itself; if they wish to increase efficiency, it is because they wish to achieve something, be it lowering their electricity bills, achieving greater human happiness, or gaining more profits for their company.

[scameter]

Indeed, and the usual goal of efficiency is increasement of human operation and activity ability, such as speed, strength, clarity of mind, and vitality. Whether happiness is the reason for these increasements is, I believe, arbitrary.