Humpty, having fallen from his wall could not be put back together again. Neither, for that matter, could his fragmented parts be reassembled into an alternative, viable Humpty. This is something that the nursery rhyme did not explore. Perhaps it is something nursery cannot do. However, we can at least raise the idea.
This leads, in turn, to the question of whether a new and improved Humpty might be made from his fragments? In some respects, this was the premise behind the 1970s television series ‘The Six Million Dollar Man’ and its sequel ‘The Bionic Woman’. To make such a Humpty requires not only what is left of his original parts but additional artificial parts engineered to exceed ordinary levels of human performance.
Prior to his accident, might we have been able to turn Humpty into a bionic Humpty 2.0? And, if we could, could we do this without removing any of his healthy parts? To remove healthy body parts, even for purposes of personal improvement raises ethical problems.
Organisms have two named aspects: their genotype and their phenotype. Genes get a lot of attention for a range of understandable reasons. We frequently hear of genes if not of genotypes. We almost nothing of phenotype but we are more accustomed to them than to genes. This is because these are what we see of people. We never see a genotype as such but a phenotype is how people are. Phenotype is derived from the Greek φαίνω (phaínō) meaning 'to appear, show'. Our phenotype is how we appear. It is what our bodies look like.
However, as humans our phenotype is not confined or restricted to just our bodily form. Phenotypes are extendable in a variety of ways. Richard Dawkins’ book ‘The Extended Phenotype’, first published in 1982, popularised the idea that phenotypes were more than just bodies. He gave a number of examples from the wild. When trying to attract mates, many animals do not rely on their bodily appearance alone. One classic example was that of the bowerbird and the elaborate habitats it creates. In essence, a bird able to make such an attractive construction must be worth mating with as it will contribute good quality genes to our potential offspring. Genotypes are reflected in the phenotypes they produce. The better the genes, the better the phenotypes. This also applies to the extensions those phenotypes give to themselves.
We are able to extend our phenotypes in other ways - and for reasons unconnected with mate choice. For example, using a walking stick to make up for injury or frailty is a phenotypic extension. Tools are phenotypic extensions. The more one looks the more one finds. Every aid to modern living is a phenotypic extension. Depending upon how we use them, they may indeed improve upon what or how we are.
Typically these are extensions to our phenotypes not replacements for parts of our phenotype. Where joints are replaced surgically the usual aim is restore the function previously enjoyed. It does not seek to exceed it. But why not?
Prosthetic limbs are also engineered primarily to restore lost function although it is possible to include an extended range and style of movement. For example, the wrist joint for a prosthetic hand might be given the ability to rotate a full 360 degrees. Even so, the desire to remove an uninjured hand simply to obtain this functionality is hard to imagine.
Whether this will always be the case is a moot point. If prosthetic hands could be engineered to have all the current functionality of a natural hand and more, might people of the future be tempted?
One way in which Humpty might have been improved upon - that is, guarded against the devastating injuries he suffered in his fall - might be to have given him a 'zorb'-like protective suit.
