It's true times are changing!

Times are changing indeed! Your reference to Nigeria as regards HIV contraction is patently true as there are no mechanisms on ground to help them. Nigeria is in a rotten state and only God will help. 
There is nothing as good as healthy living. It begets wonderful lifestyle and serene frame of mind.

Times are changing at a rapid rate due to technology.

Having studied the subject for a while, I think there are certain ethical dilemmas concerning body enhancements, and it can't be for everyone.

Yes you raise the right point ONLY THE WEALTHY SURVIVES!...... going to reblog this..people need to know this.

we can debate until the end of time but then if we do that then chances are we become the people who won't make it through, unfortunately progress comes at the expensive often of the thinkers and the pre woke! :) - i accept our robot overlords.

>The quality of life every time empora in the countries of development pathways because more and more nurses are created and the pharmaceutical companies become richer, so it is urgently needed to change this system where all people have access to live dignified Mind is to say happy as long as there is life

I mean if we think about it deeply, we are already there... Not in the technology, but in terms of how we live now. And let me assure you I am as guilty as anyone! For example, when we are thirsty we can go to the tap and get some nice water to drink. Yet that isn't enough, we usually (at least here in the US) buy even "better" bottled water at the store.... all the while ***5000 children*** die every ***day*** for lack of clean water...yet we barely bat an eye--myself included!!! I do not have any answers mind you, I am just pointing the finger at myself and asking why.
I really enjoyed thinking from your post.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2006/nov/10/water.environment

I have the sense that other problems will arise if we begin editing DNA for the risk of diseases. The problem is that the human mind isn't as intelligent as the nature we are made of and we often think we are making brilliant changes but they often bring along different kinds of problems.

The world has always been "unfair". Some people are more intelligent, ambitious, hardworking etc. than others, so of course their lives will turn out better. Some groups of people have figured out how to set up political systems that include checks and balances and reward entrepreneurial initiative. Others are too busy squabbling among themselves to create stable systems. 

There is no need for Europeans, Americans and East Asians to feel guilty over their hardwon success.

As long as people in a given society are given a somewhat "fair" chance at the start (of course, we need to work out what "fair" really means), we cannot and should not guarantee equality of outcome. 

***

**When faced with tranhumanism, some of the basic questions we urgently need to address are:** 

"What does it mean to be human?"
"Do transhumans constitute a separate species?"
"Is it possible to prevent violent conflict between "us" and "them"?

[resteemed to promote further discussion]

This subject is highly debatable and it caught my eye because I was employed in pharmaceutics not so long ago. I think that health care (and by that I mean advanced health care of more developed countries)  should be given to everyone that needs them. I debated some people about the subject, and this maybe sounds utopian to you, but I vision a self-sustainable pharmaceutical and health industry. I know it is difficult to do this now, but in the future we could probably do it, and as I always say (it became almost like a mantra to me): people lack empathy! Have a nice day.

I am a Nigerian, I live in Nigeria and you're right about that HIV part.

Great post .I wish you luck

@cryptogee, you pose a really good question. Couple things I thought I'd mention. (A.) the test for HIV varies depending on where you are located. I find that very sketchy, and think the tests should be uniform. (B.) AZT, which is what they initially used to treat HIV was developed to be a cancer drug, but it was killing off cancer patients too quickly, so they tried it for people with AIDS as an off-label use.

Since these people were dying anyways, they probably thought it was no harm, no foul to market the poison to them. The end result, the people who were dying, managed to continue to die, possibly with even more pain caused by the AZT.

<center><a href="https://s10.postimg.org/9n4hein61/poison.jpg"><img src="https://s10.postimg.org/9n4hein61/poison.jpg"/></a></center><center>

Just read the warning on that label and ask yourself what good that would do if you gave it to a healthy person, let alone a dying person? To this day they still pretend that AZT was a good idea by including it in some of their cocktails at a far smaller dose.

I personally think from everything that I've read, that if AZT were to be given to a healthy adult without HIV, at the doses it was given to people in the early 80's, that it would no-doubt cause them to acquire an immune deficiency. It's some creepy stuff when you look into it.

As far as suppressed technologies are concerned, I recently saw an interview that Joe Rogan conducted with Mel Gibson and a doctor who practices in a specific type of Stem Cell therapy.  It was very interesting; in fact it almost seems like a panacea. You can check that out [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtL1fEEtLaA), if you're interested.

Apparently Gibson's father was reaching what may have been the end of his life in 2011. So Mel took him to have this controversial therapy, and he's still alive and kicking today at 99 years old. It really sounds like an interesting type of treatment that could be beneficial for many reasons, even anti aging.

As far as the ethics are concerned, it would be nice if they would stop practicing harmful medicine, and start to unleash some of the good stuff. I don't care how it would disrupt the market just so long as it works, and works well. It would be refreshing for a change.

As far as enjoying the fruits of something guilt free. I don't think you should deprive yourself of anything beneficial or feel guilty just because you have access and someone else doesn't. That would be like, not drinking clean water, because someone in the third world doesn't have access to clean water. If someone’s conscience bothered them that much they could send money to some poor village so that they could build a well.

Or for example if someone like Mel Gibson felt guilty about having access to life changing tech like that stem cell therapy. He could use his star power to shine light on it, in order to harness the power of the people's demand that they have access to it. Even that alone is beneficial, and I think that's exactly what he was doing there.

Either that or pay for someone to get the treatment who otherwise couldn't afford it. Allot of celebrities do that kind of thing, they don't like to advertise it because, they can't help everyone, but yeah charity is good, and it's a far better path to alleviate guilt, than it is to deprive oneself of quality of life.

I enjoyed your post, it really made me think!