Peer Review- The Future Technologies and Humanity
PeerReview- The Future Technologies and Humanity
PeerReview- The Future Technologies and Humanity
Reviewingof an essay of a peer often is a privilege and responsibility thatmust drive the requisite attention. In this paper, I will review theessay that focuses on the future of technologies and humanity. First,the paper begins by defining the topic under study clearly. Thedefinition of human enhancement is brought out where the authorcontends that human enhancements refer to the latest biomedicaltechnologies that are employed such as brain surgery, cloning andchanging of DNA. The definition of this term clearly establishes thelens through which the author intends to review the topic understudy. The definition of the terms and its explanation thereof getsthe reader interested. Additionally, the question “so what?” iscoherently answered by connection with its answer. The author asks,the word “Humanity” what does it mean to be human (Hayashi,2015). The lens through which the author is to review the topic ofstudy is clear as the author clearly mentions that though there arenumerous predicted problem of human advancement, he tend to thinkthat human enhancement has no ethical problem and therefore peopleshould strive to develop new technologies.
Tocapture the attention of the reader, the author brings forth thereasons why he thinks that ethical aspects of human advancementsshould not be paid attention to. The position of the author fullysupports the lens of his study. In his arguments, he clearly statesthat the reason why there is no need to pay attention to the ethicalissues is because the future cannot easily be predicted. Insupporting his argument, my peer brings forth the stands andarguments advanced by other authors. For example, he advances thearguments of Stock who posits that we do not have information aboutthe future so as to forecast what will occur accurately as aconsequence of using the technologies (Hayashi, 2015). My peer alsoadvances the reason why he agrees with the author and the solidreason behind his stance is that the author has a clear affirmativeattitude towards enhancement of human. The stand of Stock is that inthe event that a problem arises then it should be solved then ratherthan predicting the possibility of occurrence of such problems.
Tosolidly back up his argument, my peer carries out a comparativeanalysis of Francis Fukuyama as one of the people who predicted theoccurrence of the problems. According to Francis Fukuyama ‘’theinterest that parents have in their children’s wellbeing cannot betaken for granted is why there are laws against child abuse, neglectand incest.”(1) and ‘’would be handed down not just to one’schildren but to all of one’s subsequent descendants.”(2), and“The final issue is the most profound and has to do with rights inmodern liberal democracies.”(2) His opinion is that humanenhancement is unethical way because it constitutes a violation ofhuman rights and human enhancement will provide negative effect ofhuman enhancement (Hayashi, 2015). The position taken by Francisallows my peer to argue out his thesis and support it. My peer as ameans of supporting his thesis statement, provide us with positiveeffects of human enhancements which in his view are more than thenegative effects. Some of the positive effects include the fact thatthey give longer life, give children health advantage before they areborn and curing of the fore diseases (Hayashi, 2015). Hence my peeraffirms his thesis that he does not think it is unethical to carryout human enhancement. To drive his point home, my peer uses theargument advanced by Stock that the change caused by humanenhancement is the same as the past one. Further, the author advancesthe argument through the analogy of the hunter staying in New YorkCity and seeing that as not life (Hayashi 2015). However, most peoplesee the way of living of such a hunter as having improved. In thelike manner the changes in human beings are expected to occurbiologically. Therefore, the changes that occur as a result of humanenhancements according to my peer are fundamental. The argument thatmy peer raises in his essay further affirms that we cannot predictthe definition of humanity for people in future based on the currentdefinition mainly because future people are more different from us.My peer comes to a clear conclusion that there is no ethical concernor issue raised as a result of human enhancements.
Goingthrough the essay, it is clear that the structure of the essay iswell-defined with the essay having a gripping introduction that isgives clear definition of terms. The thesis is clear with my peerstating that there are no ethical issues that are raised as a resultof human enhancements. The striking introduction gets the readerhooked with the studies. The ideas are coherently organized inparagraphs based on the different contents that are argued in theessay. The conclusion is satisfying owing to the supporting argumentsthat my peer raises as well as the arguments advanced by otherauthors such as Fukuyama and Stock.
Hayashi.N., (February 2015). The Future Technologies and Humanity