Does any given use of this science, in the search for human perfection, damage or destroy the essence of our humanness? That leads to the question of whether at least some imperfections are elements of that essence and of immense value as such. Just like the hand-knitted sweater, are they part of what makes each of us unique originals?

. . .

I propose a very important question we need to ask in deciding what we may and should not do with our new technoscience, that is, what is ethical or unethical: Does any given use of this science, in the search for human perfection, damage or destroy the essence of our humanness? That leads to the question of whether at least some imperfections are elements of that essence and of immense value as such. Just like the hand-knitted sweater, are they part of what makes each of us unique originals?

HT: Bioethics.com

So the question provoked by Terminator Salvation is this: is being plain old Humanity 1.0 worthwhile — in spite of our messy emotions, cloudy intelligence, imperfect bodies and unavoidable death? Or should we aspire to move forward to Humanity 2.0?

Where have I heard this before?

“Something new has taken place in the past five to eight years,” Horvitz said. “Technologists are replacing religion, and their ideas are resonating in some ways with the same idea of the Rapture.”

Oh yeah, that’s right.

People largely have defined the first chair of the Bush commission, Leon Kass, and that commission as a whole, by their relative conservatism compared to previous commissions. But what Kass should be more famous for is his vision that bioethics should define societal goals or ends before we decide whether to pursue various types of biotechnology. I think it is this conversation that is considered “philosophical.”

Read the whole thing. Please.

From Jared’s summary:

Like Harvey Mansfield’s Jefferson lecture two years before, Kass noted that modern science has — to its fault — abdicated the humanities. No longer does medicine look at health, but to emerging technologies. Modern science looks intricately at the parts, but often fails to observe the whole. It can describe what chemical processes take place in the eye for vision to occur, but it cannot explain “seeing.” The humanities are needed for such endeavors — and they are likewise needed when dealing with decisions that involve whole human beings.