Back in the seventies, we watched “The Six Million Dollar Man”, a popular television show about a trained agent who was critically injured and given the gift of technology–bionic legs and super vision.

Lee Majors portrayed a man capable of leaping tall buildings and scanning the landscape at night. We marveled at the possibility of creating a human with superior qualities. In the opening sequence of each episode, we heard the phrase, “We have the technology.” The implication was that we could–and should–use it to transform a high market value man into a formidable man/machine mix.

My definition of an excellent human is someone who is mindful of maximizing his or her own potential for creativity and compassion. That seems like plenty to tackle, but there is an emerging school of thought that suggests we ought to become excellent superhumans.

Transhumanists believe that the continual evolution of humans requires the–key word here– ethical use of technology to help us live better, longer lives. For them, a life span of 80 years may be what “nature intended” for this decade, but our role as 21st century humans is to use what we’ve learned to improve upon nature.

These aren’t doom and gloom types who live in a fantasy world or anticipate a future run by robots. Transhumanists are passionately optimistic about the role of humans. They’re excited about the possibilities for people to truly maximize their potential. They believe that human development is limited only by our current technology.

We’re seeing evidence of this every day. Fertility clinics offer a range of effective treatments unthinkable a few decades ago. We’re captivated by the extreme makeover shows featuring dramatic physical transformations of those willing to endure multiple surgeries and painful recovery periods. We know people who have benefited from pacemakers, cochlear implants, laser vision surgery, prosthetic devices, and cosmetic dentistry.

Transhumanists embrace these techniques and many more as a desirable progression toward utilizing technology as a tool for human improvement. They envision a time when we can eliminate disease, enhance memory, develop superior senses, and create physical bodies resistant to aging.

This build-a-better-human view isn’t universally accepted, but it’s important to look at how our ideas of “improvement” have changed over the years. Eyeglasses were once viewed as an unnecessary and unwelcome manipulation of our God-given eyesight. The current hot topics such as stem- cell research will one day elicit the same yawns with which we greet news of eyebrow lifts or fertility drug-induced twins.

What does it mean to go beyond human? As long as humans are in charge, is it possible to do anything that might be considered beyond the realm of human potential? Is there a need for ethical controls or legal restrictions if advances in science are seen as the desired result of natural human achievement? Is all fair in love and war–and science?

We love ethical debates about the nature of nature. Instead of focusing on a particular new-fangled technique, we’d do well to frame our rejection or acceptance of transhumanism in terms of the bigger picture–is technology a natural part of human evolution? Do we have a responsibility to use science as a tool to improve the human experience- including the human body?

I’m always open to improving, and that goes for my definition of excellence. If we can develop superhuman brains and bodies, can we also look forward to tremendous gains in creativity and compassion? Transhumanists get us thinking about the potential for humanity over the long haul.

Now that’s excellent.

Maya Talisman Frost is a mind masseuse. Her work has inspired thinkers in over 90 countries. She serves up a satisfying blend of clarity, comfort and comic relief in her free weekly ezine, the Friday Mind Massage. To subscribe, visit http://massageyourmind.com

I’ve been an adamant opponent of the Kentucky ruling against online gambling website operators in Kentucky, but in an attempt to be more fair and balanced, I’ve decided to report Beshear’s reasoning for defending his position.

I like to think that the poker community is a smart group of folks, and that in the event they disagree, they do so because they’re informed and not because someone who’s already on their side tells them to be (something I’ve been guilty of in the past, I’ll admit). So without further adieu, I give to you Beshear.

As for the reasoning behind Beshear’s initial action he says, “No one has been willing to step up and do anything about illegal internet gambling until now.” And I have to give the Governor props, he chose his words carefully, being sure to include the qualifying word “illegal” in his statement.

“We must protect people, especially our children, from this illegal and unregulated activity, while also protecting our legal and regulated forms of gambling in Kentucky,” he says following up on his original point. And again, this governor is a tried and true politician, carefully choosing his words, setting up the dichotomy of the legal versus the illegal.

As sound as his logic may be, the governor also has other things on the record that aren’t so honest and protecting of the citinzenry. Beshear has called the poker industry “leeches on the community,” and if you consider leeches to be strictly defined as those who don’t pay taxes directly to the state of Kentucky, he may be right. It’s also kind of hard to accept the fact that he adamantly insists on protecting the state’s “signature industry.” Also known asgambling.

Ok, ok, so I tried not to get too involved with my personal opinion on gambling and poker here, but c’mon this guy can’t be serious. Protecting the children? Again, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, if he’s talking about protecting the children of the government officials whose salaries are paid by the taxes the state brings in. I have to ask, is it just a fear of competition Beshear? A fear of efficiency in government?