Genetic Engineering and Transhumanism

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

My primary problem with transhumanism is the implication that fundamentally changing the human condition is a good thing.

That is exactly the thing that is so great about transhumanism.

To everybody else: war is off topic. Modern wars are in fact less damaging to everyone involved than ancient wars used to be, so drop it or bring it back on topic.

[United Marxist Nations]

But you really can't do that, because the scale of the number of people is completely different. If anything, the system of war developed is far better than those of the hunter-gatherer; in the hunter-gatherer system, anyone is fair game to be killed, but in the modern one, intentional action is limited to combatants. The technology in this system has greatly allowed for civilians to be less impacted by it. Before the widespread use of the handheld radio, when armies would enter cities, a sack, mass looting, and mass rape were a rule, because the officers had difficulty communicating with their troops. Now, how much of that happened with the occupation of Baghdad? The Fall of Saigon? Even the much higher than normal numbers seen in the rape of Nanking and the Battle of Berlin pale in comparison to pre-radio warfare (and even then you have to consider that most troops still couldn't communicate with command then).

Hmm. A couple points here:
In general but particularly in countries with conscription, the killing of two people isn't actually better than the killing of one because the two are combatants and the one is not, human rights are universal.
That is according to a very abstracted of war that has never been seriously followed. For example, the American drone strikes, often imagined to be one of the better respecters of human rights, kill an average of fifty percent combatants, and that's counting all military aged males as combatants. The Soviet Union famously didn't follow those rules, the Axis didn't follow those rules, the Viet Cong didn't follow those rules, and the United States only pretends to follow those rules.
Once again, I don't care if the proportion is better, if it's still twice as much human suffering.
And the effects of all armies involved being more efficient (and therefore more free to make their harmful actions subtle, economic, and political, rather than brutal and direct like rape) extend far beyond their previous capacity to compel obedience and cause harm.

Yes, human rights are universal, but combatants are subject to the rules of war, which means they can be killed because they are trying to kill others. In the hunter-gatherer style of warfare, it was standard practice to kill all the men and children, and kidnap the women for breeding. In fact, a large portion of those wars were fought over women, because they were viewed as a resource.

So, which would you rather have? A system of warfare, where mostly people fighting each other die, with a few exceptions, or one where everyone dies, except the women, who are kidnapped and raped?

You said nothing about human suffering, you said that wars had become so large that they threaten the survival of populations. In fact, it was just the opposite. Wars have proportionally gotten smaller. In hunter-gatherer tribes, it wasn't uncommon for a whole population to actually be completely destroyed. I suppose you also want a smaller population as well? Because the only reason our wars are bigger is because we have so many more people.

[Margno]

My primary problem with transhumanism is the implication that fundamentally changing the human condition is a good thing.

That is exactly the thing that is so great about transhumanism.

To everybody else: war is off topic. Modern wars are in fact less damaging to everyone involved than ancient wars used to be, so drop it or bring it back on topic.

The subject is technology, which is intimately on topic. Perhaps you'd like to defend your position and join us?

[Conserative Morality]

That is exactly the thing that is so great about transhumanism.

Such a position is morally abhorrent. It reflects a great deal of self-hate.

[Prezelly]

As long as trans humanism isn't forced on anyone I'm on board.
I'm not sure on the genetic engineering aspect though

[Margno]

Hmm. A couple points here:
In general but particularly in countries with conscription, the killing of two people isn't actually better than the killing of one because the two are combatants and the one is not, human rights are universal.
That is according to a very abstracted of war that has never been seriously followed. For example, the American drone strikes, often imagined to be one of the better respecters of human rights, kill an average of fifty percent combatants, and that's counting all military aged males as combatants. The Soviet Union famously didn't follow those rules, the Axis didn't follow those rules, the Viet Cong didn't follow those rules, and the United States only pretends to follow those rules.
Once again, I don't care if the proportion is better, if it's still twice as much human suffering.
And the effects of all armies involved being more efficient (and therefore more free to make their harmful actions subtle, economic, and political, rather than brutal and direct like rape) extend far beyond their previous capacity to compel obedience and cause harm.

Yes, human rights are universal, but combatants are subject to the rules of war, which means they can be killed because they are trying to kill others. In the hunter-gatherer style of warfare, it was standard practice to kill all the men and children, and kidnap the women for breeding. In fact, a large portion of those wars were fought over women, because they were viewed as a resource.

So, which would you rather have? A system of warfare, where mostly people fighting each other die, with a few exceptions, or one where everyone dies, except the women, who are kidnapped and raped?

You said nothing about human suffering, you said that wars had become so large that they threaten the survival of populations. In fact, it was just the opposite. Wars have proportionally gotten smaller. In hunter-gatherer tribes, it wasn't uncommon for a whole population to actually be completely destroyed. I suppose you also want a smaller population as well? Because the only reason our wars are bigger is because we have so many more people.

Well the reason our population is larger is because of industrialization and globalism, but those are more so the effects of technological advancement than its cause. I certainly oppose the reason the population got larger, but there might be ways to rectify most of these problems even at its current level. Equitable distributions of food and medicine would be an important start. But generally speaking, it's not moral to bring someone into existence who you don't have the means to provide for without hurting others.
I'd rather have a system of warfare where the peak violence of a hundred years is one tribe of three hundred being hacked apart with machetes to one in which a hundred people are blown to pieces in a roadside bombing every other weekend. Proportions or no.
If I conceded that it was acceptable to kill people who try to kill others, I would be a just war theorist, not a pacifist.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

That is exactly the thing that is so great about transhumanism.

To everybody else: war is off topic. Modern wars are in fact less damaging to everyone involved than ancient wars used to be, so drop it or bring it back on topic.

The subject is technology, which is intimately on topic. Perhaps you'd like to defend your position and join us?

An-lushan rebellion.
Deadliest war in human history by % of total human population killed, second most for absolute numbers. Over 36 million people may have been killed, and it happened only in the area around modern china. It was basically the bubonic plague double dose of chineese history. Started in 755 AD.

[Margno]

That is exactly the thing that is so great about transhumanism.

Such a position is morally abhorrent. It reflects a great deal of self-hate.

Self hate is a vital part of morality. Its basis, even.

[Utceforp]

That is exactly the thing that is so great about transhumanism.

Such a position is morally abhorrent. It reflects a great deal of self-hate.

No, just awareness. We're mortal, pretty easy to kill, biased and irrational, selfish and overall physically, morally and intellectually flawed. Now that we might have the opportunity to improve upon ourselves, we should.

[Conserative Morality]

Self hate is a vital part of morality. Its basis, even.

Your idea of morality is terrifying.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

That is exactly the thing that is so great about transhumanism.

Such a position is morally abhorrent. It reflects a great deal of self-hate.

So, being aware that we can't digest cellulose, make vitamin C, live longer than turtles, see but a sliver of the EM spectrum, or give birth to full-term humans is self-hate? Seems to me more like self-awareness.

Reptiles can grow back tails and limbs. Worms can grow back hearts. I think that it would be a disgusting thing to prevent our own capabilities from reaching that very low bar.

[Threlizdun]

As long as trans humanism isn't forced on anyone I'm on board.
I'm not sure on the genetic engineering aspect though

Genetic engineering offers no harm and extensive benefits. You can grow larger amounts of better quality crops using less resources and in less specific environments. There's no reason to be unsure about it.

[FutureAmerica]

I would rather have genetic engineered parts rather than mechanical.
Use animal and human dna to grow parts in labs.
Transplant the organs and parts to those who have lost parts or need organs.
We can also improve human abilities, such as eagle/owl vision, canine sense of smell, chimp strength,
turtle longevity, etc. If one chooses, to become superhuman.
Those capabilities are already contained within our own dna. It just needs to be turned on or grown.

Mechanical and electronic parts are prone to failure and can be hacked, however we can use them as tools and not become a part of our body.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

As long as trans humanism isn't forced on anyone I'm on board.
I'm not sure on the genetic engineering aspect though

Genetic engineering offers no harm and extensive benefits. You can grow larger amounts of better quality crops using less resources and in less specific environments. There's no reason to be unsure about it.

GE is good, though Monsanto isn't.

People too often conflate the two.

[Utceforp]

Such a position is morally abhorrent. It reflects a great deal of self-hate.

So, being aware that we can't digest cellulose, make vitamin C, live longer than turtles, see but a sliver of the EM spectrum, or give birth to full-term humans is self-hate? Seems to me more like self-awareness.

Reptiles can grow back tails and limbs. Worms can grow back hearts. I think that it would be a disgusting thing to prevent our own capabilities from reaching that very low bar.

That's not taking things far enough. I think the ideal human form would be a brain and partial endocrine system "in a jar" hooked up to cybernetics which controls multiple robotic bodies and virtual reality avatars. Of course, people don't have to do that, they should modify themselves to be whatever they want to be, that's the beauty of transhumanism.

[Conserative Morality]

No, just awareness. We're mortal, pretty easy to kill,

Are these bad things? What would immortality be but stagnation; a cessation of change? There would be no more new generation to oust the old, no mass overturns of old ways of thought.

biased and irrational,

Why would we want to get rid of either of those? Love is irrational. Beauty is irrational. Hate is irrational. From a purely rational and unbiased standpoint, there's no reason to live - no reason to die either, mind.

selfish

Also selfless. Both are virtues, not vices.

and overall physically,

This is where I'm most open to transhumanism.

morally and intellectually flawed. Now that we might have the opportunity to improve upon ourselves, we should.

Like hell. You don't describe to me improvement. You describe to me a cold, mathematician's idea of perfection; a world of perfect equations and predictable people, a world where control is not needed because no one steps out of line. A world of, appropriately enough, machines.

[Prezelly]

As long as trans humanism isn't forced on anyone I'm on board.
I'm not sure on the genetic engineering aspect though

Genetic engineering offers no harm and extensive benefits. You can grow larger amounts of better quality crops using less resources and in less specific environments. There's no reason to be unsure about it.

Possible defects. You can't claim that it is a perfect system. Many things could go wrong in the DNA pool

[Margno]

The subject is technology, which is intimately on topic. Perhaps you'd like to defend your position and join us?

An-lushan rebellion.
Deadliest war in human history by % of total human population killed, second most for absolute numbers. Over 36 million people may have been killed, and it happened only in the area around modern china. It was basically the bubonic plague double dose of chineese history. Started in 755 AD.

Wikipedia isn't so sure, it points out that WWII had 60,000,000 to 80,000,000 casualties, technology is not a linear progression from barbarism to civilization across the world, even so, 755 AD is very recent in the scope of human history, and, above all:
Technology being a factor which increases harm does not mean that it is impossible to harm without advanced technology. An event can be caused by other factors.

[United Marxist Nations]

Yes, human rights are universal, but combatants are subject to the rules of war, which means they can be killed because they are trying to kill others. In the hunter-gatherer style of warfare, it was standard practice to kill all the men and children, and kidnap the women for breeding. In fact, a large portion of those wars were fought over women, because they were viewed as a resource.

So, which would you rather have? A system of warfare, where mostly people fighting each other die, with a few exceptions, or one where everyone dies, except the women, who are kidnapped and raped?

You said nothing about human suffering, you said that wars had become so large that they threaten the survival of populations. In fact, it was just the opposite. Wars have proportionally gotten smaller. In hunter-gatherer tribes, it wasn't uncommon for a whole population to actually be completely destroyed. I suppose you also want a smaller population as well? Because the only reason our wars are bigger is because we have so many more people.

Well the reason our population is larger is because of industrialization and globalism, but those are more so the effects of technological advancement than its cause. I certainly oppose the reason the population got larger, but there might be ways to rectify most of these problems even at its current level. Equitable distributions of food and medicine would be an important start. But generally speaking, it's not moral to bring someone into existence who you don't have the means to provide for without hurting others.
I'd rather have a system of warfare where the peak violence of a hundred years is one tribe of three hundred being hacked apart with machetes to one in which a hundred people are blown to pieces in a roadside bombing every other weekend. Proportions or no.
If I conceded that it was acceptable to kill people who try to kill others, I would be a just war theorist, not a pacifist.

Actually, the vast majority (87%) of hunter-gatherer societies fought at least one war a year. And it was unusual to see death tolls under 25% of the male population for a 20 year period, our system is nothing like that.

But, if you really want to be a primitivist. Fine, let's do it. We'll set up our tribes, and when we have a drought, we'll send out our hunters to murder each other to the last man, kidnap the women (who will be raped for the rest of their lives), and steal each others' food. Because that's how war was. If the system of warfare was the same now as it was then, two billion people would have died from warfare in the twentieth century (estimate). Also, medicine is technology. There is, objectively, less war than there was in the primitive period, the "noble savage" is a myth.

[Utceforp]

I would rather have genetic engineered parts rather than mechanical.
Use animal and human dna to grow parts in labs.
Transplant the organs and parts to those who have lost parts or need organs.
We can also improve human abilities, such as eagle/owl vision, canine sense of smell, chimp strength,
turtle longevity, etc. If one chooses, to become superhuman.
Those capabilities are already contained within our own dna. It just needs to be turned on or grown.

Mechanical and electronic parts are prone to failure and can be hacked, however we can use them as tools and not become a part of our body.

Mechanical parts can't be hacked unless they're actually hooked up to some sort of wireless network, otherwise it's like trying to hack somebody's car. It can't be done.

Biological parts are prone to failure more often than mechanical parts - disease, injury, death, etc.

[Margno]

Self hate is a vital part of morality. Its basis, even.

Your idea of morality is terrifying.

Thank you.

[United Marxist Nations]

An-lushan rebellion.
Deadliest war in human history by % of total human population killed, second most for absolute numbers. Over 36 million people may have been killed, and it happened only in the area around modern china. It was basically the bubonic plague double dose of chineese history. Started in 755 AD.

Wikipedia isn't so sure, it points out that WWII had 60,000,000 to 80,000,000 casualties, technology is not a linear progression from barbarism to civilization across the world, even so, 755 AD is very recent in the scope of human history, and, above all:
Technology being a factor which increases harm does not mean that it is impossible to harm without advanced technology. An event can be caused by other factors.

60-80 million in a world with much more people. WWII only killed 1% of the population. In the An-Lushan Rebellion, over 50% of the population died.

[Conserative Morality]

So, being aware that we can't digest cellulose, make vitamin C, live longer than turtles, see but a sliver of the EM spectrum, or give birth to full-term humans is self-hate? Seems to me more like self-awareness.

Reptiles can grow back tails and limbs. Worms can grow back hearts. I think that it would be a disgusting thing to prevent our own capabilities from reaching that very low bar.

Why do you want to digest cellulose? Live longer than turtles? See more than a sliver of the EM spectrum?

Who we are is defined as much by our limitations as our advantages. I have no desire to be Methusalah. I have no desire to give up the beauty I see now for a different strain of beauty. I suppose digesting cellulose could be useful, but I'm not really convinced that it's the sort of thing that pushes a person over to beyond human.

Also, pretty sure we can give birth to full-term children. Did you mean full-grown?

[Benuty]

So, being aware that we can't digest cellulose, make vitamin C, live longer than turtles, see but a sliver of the EM spectrum, or give birth to full-term humans is self-hate? Seems to me more like self-awareness.

Reptiles can grow back tails and limbs. Worms can grow back hearts. I think that it would be a disgusting thing to prevent our own capabilities from reaching that very low bar.

Why do you want to digest cellulose? Live longer than turtles? See more than a sliver of the EM spectrum?

Who we are is defined as much by our limitations as our advantages. I have no desire to be Methusalah. I have no desire to give up the beauty I see now for a different strain of beauty. I suppose digesting cellulose could be useful, but I'm not really convinced that it's the sort of thing that pushes a person over to beyond human.

Also, pretty sure we can give birth to full-term children. Did you mean full-grown?

So you do not want to live past 78 1/2 years?

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

No, just awareness. We're mortal, pretty easy to kill,

Are these bad things? What would immortality be but stagnation; a cessation of change? There would be no more new generation to oust the old, no mass overturns of old ways of thought.

biased and irrational,

Why would we want to get rid of either of those? Love is irrational. Beauty is irrational. Hate is irrational. From a purely rational and unbiased standpoint, there's no reason to live - no reason to die either, mind.

selfish

Also selfless. Both are virtues, not vices.

and overall physically,

This is where I'm most open to transhumanism.

morally and intellectually flawed. Now that we might have the opportunity to improve upon ourselves, we should.

Like hell. You don't describe to me improvement. You describe to me a cold, mathematician's idea of perfection; a world of perfect equations and predictable people, a world where control is not needed because no one steps out of line. A world of, appropriately enough, machines.

Maybe that dude does, but I think you're misreading him.

I give you the prospect of your body being a slate of unlimited potential. Immortal, incorruptible, and without limit. You will not age, decay, lose a memory, miss a sight. You may take any form you wish, and so be able to go anywhere you wish. The depths of the ocean and emptiness of space become open to you. Live for a thousand years watching life take root on an alien planet, or simply rest on an asteroid to watch the million-year death of a grand old star.

Does this sound bad to you?


EDIT: human babies are born immature in all cases because our heads are too damn big and the vagina is at a really stupid angle. Horses can walk 30 seconds after birth, humans take ~1 year.