From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Thu Jan 10 2002 - 17:41:53 MST
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>
> > > Similarly, talk of 'upgrading' people, or perfecting ones genes is
> > > similarly scary to people. Instead, talk of a 'right to be healthy',
> >
> > Excellent choice of words, Mike! I am going to start using this.
> >
> > "I have a right to be healthy!"
>
> There's some chance of memetic backfire with that one, though.
> If the saying becomes popular, it might be interpreted to mean
> that you /don't/ have the right to be /more/ than healthy. It's
> the same old bill-of-rights problem: if you list them, they'll
> think the list is exhaustive, even when the fine print says
> otherwise.
>
> I have a right to be /more/ than just healthy. I have a right
> to choose my own path of self-improvement. If that means getting
> 20-10 adaptive vision, robotic implants, neural interfaces, and
> anything else I want, then that's what it means.
This all depends on what your standard of health is, though. Since many
diseases can be shown to be caused or contributed to by the victims own
genes, the claim to a right to be healthy demands that the individual be
able to optimize their own genome for their personal use. There is no
such thing as "More than healthy". Achieving total health is an
asymptotic event horizon.
Then, for instance, the claim can be made that the individual's genetic
inability to posess a photographic/idetic memory, or perfect pitch, or
mathematical genius, etc are all defects that contribute to the
individual suffering from the disease of poverty.....
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:11:34 MST