Women and Posthumanity: The future looks large and sexy

The body has a lot of change to go through on the path to post-humanity. There is a lot of room for improvement and enhancement. Even with all of these cool improvements and enhancements though, my cynical side emerges. While these would be great, are we giving ourselves too much credit that the choices we will make on the route to post-humanity will be practical? Isn’t society a little more vain that that? Seriously? The desire for youth and beauty is by no means a new phenomenon. However, I was caught off guard, just a bit when I was forwarded a video of an interview with Tom Ford, the fashion designer and director of the filmA Single Man.  In the video  Tom talks about women being posthuman and makes some good points in the interview all of which tied in to a paper I wrote on cosmetic surgery awhile back.

He mentions that breasts today do not bear any resemblance to what actual breasts look like. He is right, they try to look natural, but the key word is “try”. Several points that his statement make me think of is, if they are unnatural looking why do we want them to look natural? As a woman who has a genetic predisposition on the higher end of the size curve, I do not understand. The unnatural version of natural looks nothing like my own natural ones, even if we are the same cup size. I have friends who fall in to the same category that I do and talked to them about it and they agree. There is a level of insecurity, but it is not insecurity about size, but about gravity. The posthuman breasts go against the body’s natural inclination to succumb to gravitational pull, if you will. My friends and I however cannot pay to fight gravity; we are left to lesser forms of posthuman enhancements such as the push-up bra. This leads to my second point about Tom’s statement: actual breasts. Is the desirable path one where breasts do not bear any resemblance to natural breasts? Form over function. Breasts work, but do we still need them to work in the same way?

We have formula now, that while it can in no way match breast milk, it does work and many women use it. It is an alternative. Before you send me any hate comments, I breastfed all three of my children, not for a year, but I did. I did eventually switch over to formula. Regardless, if we want surreally attractive breasts, does the functionality need to remain the same or will sex and sexual appeal transition to be the exclusive function.

As adults, we can talk and think about these types of questions and issues, but what about the young girls. Tom Ford makes another point in the video that girls are seeing the adults with their unnatural breasts and think that they need to get their breasts done. He goes on to mention that we have lost touch with what a real breast actually looks like. Again, as adults that is one thing, as a young girl it’s another. In the adoption of the posthuman form are we taking critical examination of what images and ideas we are passing on to the next generation. Further examination though should include the messages conveyed and the impact of these messages on young girls. When thinking about the posthuman woman, the girls of today, how will their lives change by the choices made today. They could very possibly choose to go against the grain of the constructions of beautiful breasts and choose the au natural route. Insecurity about breast size is a facet of growing up that girls deal with. Plastic surgery enables them to address these insecurities, but what do they gain and what does it solve? Large unnatural breasts are not something a mother can pass on to her daughters naturally, it will require, at this point in time, a monetary investment of perpetuation within culture.

Tom points out that we are becoming our own art by manipulating our bodies and creating them the way we want them to look. He also says that it desexualizes, comparing these beautiful bodies to cars. Since they are so glossy, polished and an idealized form of perfection, they are too scary and not human. I would love to hear the answers to the questions he poses about after these surgeries of breast enhancement does it help ones sex life? Or is it intimidating? A body in its artistic form is admirable at a distance without touching. Not like a ball of clay where you want to get your hands dirty and really play with it intensely

Last night, as I was thinking about what I was going to say in the piece I turned on VH1, yes, I think it is a valuable source for pop culture insight. It did not fail me. The show that I turned on was “VH1News Presents: Plastic Surgery Obsession”. It fit in perfectly with what I was thinking and wanted to say, without the reference to post-humanism. The show is about the rise in popularity of plastic surgery, in and now out of Hollywood. The show supports both the new ideals of women’s bodies and that the younger generation is picking up these ideals. The fact that VH1 aired the show, despite a voyeuristic appeal that shows like this have, says something about what we want to see on TV. Finally, at the end of the episode the show touched on males and cosmetic surgery. Tom Ford did not talk about the men being posthuman in his interview, or at least the clip I heard, but VH1 talked about how tricky it was for men to undergo plastic surgery and come out of it looking “natural”. Does this mean that with women getting around 98% of the plastic surgeries they are more willing to transition to a posthuman form or is it just easier for them? What does this mean and how does this reflect on men? Are men going to, can they follow the same path as women? These are interesting questions to think about in addition to the critical examinations of the decisions of women. I look forward to hearing and thoughts.

[Cross-posted at my blog, The Yellow Canary]

Bookclub Selection: Normal At Any Cost

The Women's Bioethics Project's July 2009 non-fiction bookclub selection is:

Normal at Any Cost: Tall Girls, Short Boys, and the Medical Industry's Quest to Manipulate Height by Susan Cohen and Christine Cosgrove. 

From the Library Journal:

Two science journalists examine the fascinating history of medical science's flawed attempts to manipulate height and the ethics involved. In the first section, set primarily in the 1950s and 1960s, they discuss middle-class families who were urged to try to reduce their daughters' height before it was too late for them to be "successful adults." The tall girls were given estrogens to send them prematurely into puberty and force their growth plates to close.  In the second half, the authors focus on the use of human-growth hormone to increase the height of naturally short children. Before synthetic-growth hormone was developed, there was a painstaking procedure for extracting it from cadaver pituitary glands. This defective process led to the spread of neurological diseases as horrible as Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (the human version of mad cow). Interestingly, neither the growth hormone nor the estrogen resulted in systematically proven results. This startling look at medical ethics and history has implications for the future of "human improvement" therapies; recommended for large academic and public libraries.

Normal at Any Cost would also make a great text for introductory high school or college bioethics courses because it manages to tackle in an accessible and compelling manner a wide range of bioethical issues from the medicalization of social problems, the pharmaceutical industry’s influence on physician education, limits of informed consent, definition of therapeutic v. enhancement interventions, to the appropriate allocation of medical resources (social justice considerations).

Read it this summer.

Human Enhancement & Nanotechnology Conference

Human Enhancement & Nanotechnology Conference

March 28-29, 2009

Western Michigan University, Fetzer Center, Room 2020
Kalamazoo, MI USA

The Human Enhancement & Nanotechnology Conference focuses on the ethical, social, and related issues that arise in the application of nanotechnology to human enhancement. While nanotechnology is not the only technology that can be applied to human enhancement, it is and will be a core one; without it many current and future enhancements would not be possible. These technological possibilities will derive from manysources, especially nanoelectronics and nanomaterials.

As an example of an ethical issue, bionic limbs (e.g., for greater strength or vision) and neural chips implanted into one's head (e.g., for on-demand access to the Internet and software applications) may give the individual significant advantages in many areas, from sports to jobs to academia. But these technologies may hold health risks-similar to steroid or Ritalin use for enhancement purposes, as distinct from
therapy-as well as raise ethical concerns related to fairness, access, and general societal disruption. Therefore, it is no surprise that, on both sides of the debate, the ethics of human enhancement is believed to be the single most important issue in science & society in this century.

Who?

The conference will offer presentations by leading researchers and
rising stars in the field:

The conference is organized by faculty at California Polytechnic State Univ., Dartmouth College, Univ. of Delaware, and Western Michigan University. It is supported by funding from Western Michigan Univ. as well as the US National Science Foundation, under NSF awards # 0620694 and 0621021, as well as Delaware NSF-EPSCoR grant # EPS-0447610.

Registration

The conference is free to attend and includes continental breakfasts, lunches, and a good supply of coffee and snacks (to enhance our minds and bodies), but seats are limited; so please register early by clicking on the link and filling out the form.

Cheaters Never Win

The 2008 Summer Olympics is set to begin this Friday in Beijing, PRC. For the next two weeks, the world's greatest athletes will descend upon this ancient metropolis to showcase their talents. Well...the world's greatest athletes less the 37 disqualified for positive drug tests since April.

An article in USA Today reports that the anti-doping crackdown is expected to continue in the upcoming days as random tests are conducted at the athletes' village.

The only question that comes to mind is why?

Why do athletes use performance-enhancing drugs when they know the probability of getting caught is high?

Why does the number of athletes using performance-enhancing drugs continue to rise even when the consequences are known?

Why aren't athletes learning from past doping mistakes of fellow athletes?

If someone is a good enough athlete to qualify for the Olympics, why does he/she feel the need to use performance-enhancing drugs in the first place?

Why aren't doping athletes thinking about their status as a role model and what their status will become when they test positive?

Why wouldn't an athlete want to lose/win fairly than be branded a cheater for the rest of his/her life?

The Olympic games give the entire world a chance to come together for a brief moment in time for peace instead of war. They allow people the opportunity to cheer on and be proud of their countries and the great talent representing them. Why would anyone want to tarnish this event and shame themselves and their country by utilizing performance-enhancing drugs?

The Pistorius Effect

[Cross-posted from my Care to Elaborate blog]

A lot of discussion has been going around regarding Pistorius. Should he or shouldn't he be allowed to compete for a spot in the Beijing Olympics? If he makes it, should he or shouldn't he be allowed to compete. There’s concern over what this will do to sports in general; what kind of message is it sending out to others; and how it could throw off future comparisons within the sport, making some sports records incomparable.

In Art Caplan’s Opinion piece, he discusses Tiger Woods' laser eye surgery and how he now has better than 20/20 vision. This surgery allows him to continue to compete with vision, not just without glasses or contacts, as with the first surgery, but better than that. Caplan says, "That's why it cannot just be "advantage" that determines whether someone can use technology to compete. The deciding factor is whether something confers a significant, not a slight advantage."

But what about the other sports, like Major League Baseball? What about those players who have gotten the Tommy John surgery? Have these individuals been enhanced, do they have an unfair advantage to those that have not have the surgery? Or what about those players who like Tiger Woods have gotten the laser eye surgery, and are able to tell the difference between a curve ball and a fast ball better than others.

Caplan goes on

"We don’t expect to compare the performances of today to those of the ancient Greeks, but we do expect some ability to compare what happened today to be compared with what happened yesterday, a year ago, a decade ago or even 50 years ago.

It may be fascinating to see who can go the fastest on rocket-powered legs or throw a heavy weight the farthest using performance-enhancing drugs, or genetically engineered muscles. But what you have then is an exhibition or a show, not a sport. In some ways, this is what the professional wrestling and no-rules body building already are.

To be a sport you need something approximating a fair playing field, some boundaries on the attributes of those who compete so they are comparable to one another and some ability to compare today’s performance with those in the not-so-distant past.

That is why I am not sure Oscar Pistorius should compete.

He may not have a marked advantage, but his artificial limbs make him too different from those he competes against, and too unlike those who have raced before. It's not about giving him an opportunity. The issue is that Pistorius risks destroying exactly what he wants to do — compete in a sport."

The previously mentioned surgeries also offer advantages over both today and yesterday’s competitors. Situations arise where an athlete seriously injures himself and, with modern technology, instead of having to retire they are put back together. By putting them back together, and in some cases, back on the playing field as they were before or even better, technology is playing a part in the sports world. A search for 'surgery' on CBSsports.com produced 47,500 results, I acknowledge that not all of these individuals were undergoing corrective or elective surgery to return to the game, but it is still quite a lot.

There is discussion because he has an unfair significant advantage. He’s disabled and he can keep up, maybe not yet qualify, but he can keep up, regardless of his disability. The concern mimics the perspective I had of the American Gladiator. An average guy breaks the boundaries and competes, but hope is that the next competitor will be above average with potential to blow everyone else out of the water. Then, there is the potential for an unfair competition with not everyone being able to get or, rather, need the legs. It’s better to keep the competitors separate, the Paralympians and the Olympians, so they are on a level playing field.

The significant advantage everyone’s examining is still there for those willing to play regardless of the competition in the Olympics. Pistorius and others like him can still compete in the Paralympics with their “advantage”. Will the athletes of the Paralympics also be comparable within the past 50 years? Can the artificial limbs of 50 years ago be comparable to those of today in competition? Is the Paralympic committee ok with all of this lack of comparison or are their records already taking into account the differences in technology?

I have two scenarios; granted there could be more, please share them.

Scenario 1:

Pistorius competes in the Beijing Olympics, he places whatever. Others like him are inspired and also try out. Not guaranteed a position based on sympathy, but on capability, like everyone else. Those who can meet the competition minimums will compete, those who can’t won’t.

Scenario 2:

Pistorius competes in the Beijing Paralympics, he places whatever. Others like him are inspired by his attempt to participate in the Olympics as a result try out for the Paralympics. Not guaranteed a position based on sympathy, but on capability, like everyone else. Those who can meet the competition minimums will compete, those who can’t won’t.

Technological advances are driven by demand. Those who are already amputees are going to want better ones. Those who compete are going to want faster ones. Where will these individuals be competing? I go back to

“It may be fascinating to see who can go the fastest on rocket-powered legs or throw a heavy weight the farthest using performance-enhancing drugs, or genetically engineered muscles. But what you have then is an exhibition or a show, not a sport. In some ways, this is what the professional wrestling and no-rules body building already are.” (Emphasis added)

The Paralympics is an arena to compete in sports, even though they allow Cheetah Flex Foot for competition. Maybe they have an interesting show in their future.

“To be a sport you need something approximating a fair playing field, some boundaries on the attributes of those who compete so they are comparable to one another and some ability to compare today’s performance with those in the not-so-distant past”

The Paralympics offer a fair playing field for those with artificial limbs like Cheetah Flex Foot; where the Olympics offer a fair playing field for those with limbs (oh, and the special external technological advances they have, i.e. special swimsuits, clothing, shoes, and equipment. Which with the demand to be better will also advance)? Knowing that we aren’t going to get rid of artificial limbs like Cheetah Flex Foot, and knowing they are going to make an impact somewhere, which competitive arena will they be allowed to affect and advance?

Summer Blockbuster: BiggerStrongerFaster

It seems athletes are the theme of week -- Starting May 30, a movie about the chronic use of steroids in the United States, asks this question, among others: "If you had to take a drug with side effects like anabolic steroids to keep your job and support your family, would you?"





For more info, check out the website BiggerStrongerFastermovie.com,

Iron Man: Not So Far From Reality

Iron Man, the upcoming summer blockbuster, has captured the attention of kids and comic book aficionados everywhere -- Isn't this every kid's dream? To be super strong, and a superhero? Well, it's not as far out in the future as you may think -- Although I've written about the ELSI (Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications) of future Augmented Cognition (sorry about the shameless plug), the first step, the Augmented Human Robotics System is already here. Too cool for words, this system not only has military applications, but promises to replace wheelchairs and crutches for those patients suffering with mobility disorders. Check out a prototype here:




Ooooh, I want one of these...(oh, for my nephews and nieces, of course).

Genetic DisEnhancement -- Does reproductive autonomy extend to choosing a disability?

From the UK Telegraph today, deaf couples could be allowed to screen their embryos in order to select a deaf child after protesters persuaded the Government to remove references to deafness from the proposed Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

I can appreciate (although not necessarily agree with) the stance that tampering with any embryo is 'playing God.' Similarly, I can appreciate the arguments that genetic enhancements pose concerns in terms of creating inequities and in terms of eugenics. But I have difficulty understanding, much less appreciating, the argument that a couple should be allowed to genetically 'disenhance' their child. I understand that some deaf couples argue that deafness is not a disability, but rather "being part of a linguistic minority." But maybe it is because I spent too much time in the Rhode Island State House as legislative counsel in the 80's and 90's listening to the testimony of Deaf Advocacy groups lobbying to make sure that public services complied with the Americans with Disabilities Act. I have difficulty reconciling that deafness, under the law, is a recognized disability, but for the purposes of reproductive autonomy, it is not?

My concern about removing the clause banning the creation of disabled children entirely, is why stop at deafness? Aren't the primary purposes of medicine to heal, to cure diseases, restore, and alleviate suffering? One commenter suggests, by way of a 'wrongful birth suit', the imposition of legal liability on the part of the parent to any offspring deliberately brought into the world with less than the normal range of faculties.

So the question is how far does reproductive autonomy go? Nobody wants to see a fellow human being struggle or suffer, especially in the name of 'reproductive autonomy.'

The Mind-Body Connection via Intentional Chocolate

If you've ever wondered what makes it your mom's chicken soup so special, this study, brought to you by the Institute of Noetic Sciences, suggests that it is the intentional love that goes into making of it:




And with Valentine's Day coming up, what a great gift (I would like to think)! Or is it just a scam? I'll be curious to hear if the scientific community reacts to this as a dose of 'woo' or if the findings will be validated? Either way, those love truffles look great! Let us know what you think by taking our survey.

Top Ten Technologies that give you 'superpowers'

From BioSteel that gives you powers like to Spiderman to an invisibility cloak, this is a fun article from the SciFi network.

Editor's Note, added Jan. 31, 2007: Oops, here's the link. Thanks for letting us know!

Why progressive technologies are important

"Scientists seek to help 'locked-in' man speak"

As soon as I read this article, I knew three things instantly. First, enhancement and progressive technologies are important and merit serious consideration. Second, this is why I am involved with organizations examining the ethics and real-life implications of enhancement technologies, such as the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET). Third, I need to purchase The Diving Bell and the Butterfly by Jean-Dominique Bauby.

Well, I've purchased the book and it is a wonderful expression of the human will and mind. It has been an inspiration for my support and understanding of progressive and enhancement technologies that are being worked and thought on right now. For now, I will digress to focus on the specific enhancement technology discussed in this article.

That focus is mapping the brain as vowels and consonants are thought or spoken so that 'locked-in' individuals may speak. This enhancement, purely in conversation, seems impossible, but in actuality, the scientists have already made progress. This progress means these individuals who are 'locked-in' their bodies will finally be able to communicate with the outside world.

Thoughts abound on what that means for the rest of us if this succeeds. Going back to my first thought, progressive and enhancement technologies are important, not just for those they first impact but for the rest of us too.

Two very different views of the future

The upcoming BBC series "Visions of the Future" has evoked two very different responses: One site, in the Women's Section of the UK TimesOnline hails "Welcome to the New Body Shop" and presents a fairly positive outlook on what science and technology will be able to contribute to the future. The other article, in the UK Telegraph, "And we will have the power of gods" presents a cautionary-beware-of-hubris outlook.
Is this merely a difference in reporting styles between the newspapers or representative of how different people look at the same news and see different things?

[Addendum, November 15, 2007: FutureNerd Steve Witham has some interesting things to say about ways of thinking about the future. Check his blog(s) at http://toesfirst.blogspot.com
and the IS Group].

"Tell Me What You Don't Like About Yourself"

This catch phrase, is the opening line to the controversial TV drama "Nip/Tuck” that sums up the plastic surgery clinic’s attitude towards their patients. But according to EurekaAlert, UCLA scientists report in the October issue of the Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery that most women, and large numbers of men, are interested in having cosmetic surgery. I'm not sure just what that says about us as a society, or about our cravings to be 'enhanced', but I agree that the pressure is intense -- "Especially for women, there never seems to be a reprieve. Your appearance is judged to be an important part of who you are."

My alter ego, Halle, received this email/phone message from her friends in LA, as a part of publicity push for the opening premiere of Nip/Tuck Tuesday evening, presumably as a joke. Neither of us is sure whether to laugh or be insulted.

Admittedly, the images are alluring -- the mythic fallen angel with her wings clipped -- although it is not the most intellectually stimulating fare on cable (it is, like House M.D., an oh-so-bad-but-I-can't-look-away drama), I can tell you a lot of students are going to be doing pop culture analysis on the ethics of plastic surgery and enhancements. Oh well, it's one way to get them to think about the issues. [Hat tip to Jay Hughes for the EurekaAlert article.]