Transhumanism: What's your take on it?

[Great Empire of Gamilus]

anyone got an oppinion on my idea?

[Antares XII]

Hey. There's this really cool thing called EVOLUTION.

That's the whole point of it genius, or are you completely missing the point of transhumanism? We must evolve and advance past our current condition if we wish to survive for simply a couple million more years, let alone a billion years. That's the point of life. Those that stay behind and stagnate die, only those that advance and adapt continue to live, albeit as a new species. We'd however remain just as 'human' before in the philosophical sense, only superior.

That's not how evolution works.

There are countless species which have remained fundamentally unchanged for tens of millions of years. If an organism is well suited for its niche, then it doesn't particularly "need" to change. One might argue that humans have even less need to change than most species on this planet, due to our habit of adapting our environments to us.

There's no particular reason we "must" change in any particular way. We will evolve, because evolution simply refers to the change in life over time (regardless of how big or how small), but the way in which we evolve may or may not be "toward" any particular end.

And again I say, red giants.

[Faolinn]

Arrogant people who don't want to think about the possible limitations of technology nor the consequences of their actions, nor the implications of thereof.Nothing is that simple.A lot of them seem suspiciously conservative to me.It is seeking solutions to problems that either are not really problems or have other less costly solutions.Why waste an extra 6.4 billion on a water treatment plant when you can spend 1.6 and re-open a natural watershed that does most of the work for you?

[Athylon Prime]

How is it horrifying? All you said was it would threaten humanities apex predator status. How would it? Explain how, if humans are the ones being altered, that they could threaten the status of THEIR OWN SPECIES?

Not to mention advance them and give them a considerable advantage in being able to avoid the destruction of their planet when the Sun blows up.

The idea that Transhumanism is evil is silly, senseless, and simply illogical. There is no reason behind it besides ignorant hatred of advancement and fear of the Status Quo changing.

Amen.

How is it horrifying? All you said was it would threaten humanities apex predator status. How would it? Explain how, if humans are the ones being altered, that they could threaten the status of THEIR OWN SPECIES?

Because they wouldn't really be human anymore, they being radically altered transhumans. They would render normal humans obsolete, and obsolete species go extinct.

We, we being normals, would be creodonts in a carnivores world. Now, creodonts were badass and did very well, and competed against carnivores for millions of years, but over that time they gradually diminished until eventually vanishing.

I would not see humanity go that rout over by our own choice.

See AETEN II

It threatens you in what way? Right now, people can choose to have Gene Therapy, like Esternia said.
This is a legal, although extremely expensive, form of transhumanism that gives the few a leg up over the many. So yes, life is a bitch. A cold, heartless one.

The technology does exist. However, only the few who can afford it get a leg up. But, as everything else, it will become more widespread and cheaper, thus everyone will be on even ground again. It always happens. Everytime.

Naive magical thinking? Please, using the empirical evidence acquired thus far, I'm pretty sure we can all say humanity is heading towards replacing our entire body with easily acquired and readily available synthetic limbs. Closed minded thinking like this is what holds back scientific progress.

So me telling you that you are using bad math and that the science does not currently support your arguments is what is holding back scientific progress? Really? Have you ever done any fundamental science research and discovered new things? New, superior, algorithms?

It's hard work and people working in the fields you are so sure will continue will supply you with ever increasingly complex consumer goods are running into ever increasing difficulties in further innovation. It could happen. I'm just saying you should keep a bit of healthy skepticism and try to understand the actual science behind what you are saying.

I do understand the science behind what I am saying. Just look at the trends. Technology is increasing at an extremely fast rate. Almost immeasurably fast. Scientists are even saying the impossible is possible within 1000 years.

[Trollgaard]

Hey. There's this really cool thing called EVOLUTION.

That's the whole point of it genius, or are you completely missing the point of transhumanism? We must evolve and advance past our current condition if we wish to survive for simply a couple million more years, let alone a billion years. That's the point of life. Those that stay behind and stagnate die, only those that advance and adapt continue to live, albeit as a new species. We'd however remain just as 'human' before in the philosophical sense, only superior.

That's not how evolution works.

There are countless species which have remained fundamentally unchanged for tens of millions of years. If an organism is well suited for its niche, then it doesn't particularly "need" to change. One might argue that humans have even less need to change than most species on this planet, due to our habit of adapting our environments to us.

There's no particular reason we "must" change in any particular way. We will evolve, because evolution simply refers to the change in life over time (regardless of how big or how small), but the way in which we evolve may or may not be "toward" any particular end.

How'd you like my creodont in a carnivore's world metaphor?

Also, I agree. I don't see any reason to change the species so radically.

[Napkiraly]

Compared to our ancestors of tens of thousands of years ago, we already are transhumans.

Only in the most meaningless, trivial sense. All species are "transitional" species, so the bare definition of transhuman as "transitional human" is entirely vacuous. We need something more to make a transhuman have any meaning.

Well no, we are. Transhumanism is about overcoming limitations on humans on a physical, psychological, and intellectual level through emerging technologies. Comparing modern humans with the humans of ancient Mesopotamia, we have done so.

Transhumanism =/= Post-humanism

[Olivaero]

I dont understand the Could-to-Will problem. We have a good idea of what human thought processes look like already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography the "jump" you think transhumanism needs to go through is a simple refinement of those interpretations what scientific "breakthroughs" do you think needs to happen?

It's a simple refinement huh? Well if you can solve the problem you are going to be the richest person in the world. Go do it!

Figure out what simple refinement is necessary, Go grab some investors together and don't come back till you do.

Or if you prefer, simply discover the needed "simple refinement" and publish it on the web free for all humans for collective benefit (Obviously I prefer you do this option)

Anyway, what are you waiting for? If you think it's just a simple refinement go do it!

ps. There is a huge difference between measuring electrical activity and actually understanding and recreating it in a context that is usable for what you want.

Simple as opposed to realizing that brains used electrical signals to transmit information and that the connections in the brain were how responses to information received were calculated. Discoveries as I posted earlier in this thread can be mapped via paradigm shifts in human thought it doesn't matter that I'm not a neuro scientist merely an AI specialising Computer science student it is not just computer technology that is covered by the law of accelerating returns rather information technology

Access to information is a major factor of peer review, and as a matter of fact peer review through electronic transmission of ideas has gotten faster in the last 20 years through the medium of the internet. I don't understand what you mean "innate intelligence" having access to more knowledge and better computational software makes you more able to process data and accurately assess the truth of information received thus more intelligent.

There are incremental improvements, not the radical changes predicted by you singulatarians. Perhaps we'll have more incremental improvements in the future, but perhaps not. And such improvements are likely going to have diminishing returns.

Why do you consider them likely to have diminishing returns?

I dont understand the Could-to-Will problem. We have a good idea of what human thought processes look like already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography the "jump" you think transhumanism needs to go through is a simple refinement of those interpretations what scientific "breakthroughs" do you think needs to happen?

We have only the foggiest idea what any of the signals in the brain mean. We don't know how the neurons interact to send the signals except in the most general terms. The basic biomechanics are understood, but how to even read the content of the signals, let alone simulate it, is something we haven't the foggiest idea of how to do.

Basic case-in-point: transhumanism's biggest proponent are all computer engineers, who treat all other problems, particularly neurology, as a special case of computer engineering. Neurologists, on the other hand, are far more skeptical of our ability to fully understand the human brain in basic theory, let alone develop practical application, in the near future.

EEG input devices are at least capable of interpreting simple direction based input such as EEG keyboards. It is true we do not know exactly what is meant by the electrical signals in the brain right now but it is within reach to the point the US government backs at least one project aimed at it http://healthland.time.com/2013/04/02/obama-unveils-details-of-new-human-brain-mapping-initiative/

:EDITED for spelling abominations

[Regnum Dominae]

Arrogant people who don't want to think about the possible limitations of technology nor the consequences of their actions.Nothing is that simple.A lot of them seem suspiciously conservative to me.

I see that you like to make generalizations. And what the fuck does it have to do with conservatism?

[Esternial]

Hey. There's this really cool thing called EVOLUTION.

That's the whole point of it genius, or are you completely missing the point of transhumanism? We must evolve and advance past our current condition if we wish to survive for simply a couple million more years, let alone a billion years. That's the point of life. Those that stay behind and stagnate die, only those that advance and adapt continue to live, albeit as a new species. We'd however remain just as 'human' before in the philosophical sense, only superior.

That's not how evolution works.

There are countless species which have remained fundamentally unchanged for tens of millions of years. If an organism is well suited for its niche, then it doesn't particularly "need" to change. One might argue that humans have even less need to change than most species on this planet, due to our habit of adapting our environments to us.

There's no particular reason we "must" change in any particular way. We will evolve, because evolution simply refers to the change in life over time (regardless of how big or how small), but the way in which we evolve may or may not be "toward" any particular end.

Unlike most organisms, we can anticipate the future. Make predictions and soforth, which is actually something that puts us ahead of all other species. Many species just reside in their niche, sort of "riding it out" until it comes to an end and they're placed in front of evolutionary stress.

We can predict this kind of event, on a larger scale even. We can take action *before* something happens. We can adapt to an environment before the environment has even presented itself.

[Sovjet Union]

I want a computer to replace my brain. Ha! Nationstates from wherever!

[Athylon Prime]

Transhumanism=/= Singulatarians.

The person I am talking to is a singulatarian. Don't butt in and presume to instruct me on something I am already more than aware of.

Also, don't capitalize them, it gives more gravitas to these ideas than they deserve, and puts them on the same level as religion.

We are not speaking religions. We don't sacrifice humans to appease the technology gods. We just see a trend and remark as to what we wish this trend would evolve into. Or where we see this trend going. Either way, religion has no foothold in this argument.

[Faolinn]

Arrogant people who don't want to think about the possible limitations of technology nor the consequences of their actions.Nothing is that simple.A lot of them seem suspiciously conservative to me.

I see that you like to make generalizations. And what the fuck does it have to do with conservatism?

I would beg to differ given how many I have spoken to.They seem to favor autocracy and authoritarianism more than many other schools of thought.

[Olivaero]

Arrogant people who don't want to think about the possible limitations of technology nor the consequences of their actions.Nothing is that simple.A lot of them seem suspiciously conservative to me.

I see that you like to make generalizations. And what the fuck does it have to do with conservatism?

Advocating human progress now equals conservatism it seems

[Great Empire of Gamilus]

well i think my solution, which i shall refer to as "digitization" is a good solution. with the ability to 'reproduce' in the form of copying code from two participants and the addition of an AI maybe (as combining the AI with the code segments would be like a sperm with the egg.)

it would eliminate the need for food (though we can have it as a luxury) as well as allowing humanity to focus more on the scientific expansion of humanity as well as anything else required.

the only major expenses would be the constant construction of computer's (maybe even Quantum computers.) for storage of people and military for all the xeno who will think we are evil AI

anyone have an oppinion?

[Natapoc]

Only in the most meaningless, trivial sense. All species are "transitional" species, so the bare definition of transhuman as "transitional human" is entirely vacuous. We need something more to make a transhuman have any meaning.

Well no, we are. Transhumanism is about overcoming limitations on humans on a physical, psychological, and intellectual level through emerging technologies. Comparing modern humans with the humans of ancient Mesopotamia, we have done so.

Transhumanism =/= Post-humanism

What "limitations on humans on a physical, psychological, and intellectual level through emerging technologies" have been overcome by technology since the time of ancient Mesopotamia? Has there been some huge difference discovered within the last 6 years or so since I was studying anthropology and ancient history?

Because otherwise we pretty much have all the same limitations.

[Trotskylvania]

Only in the most meaningless, trivial sense. All species are "transitional" species, so the bare definition of transhuman as "transitional human" is entirely vacuous. We need something more to make a transhuman have any meaning.

Well no, we are. Transhumanism is about overcoming limitations on humans on a physical, psychological, and intellectual level through emerging technologies. Comparing modern humans with the humans of ancient Mesopotamia, we have done so.

Transhumanism =/= Post-humanism

And when the first monkey grabbed a small reed, and threaded it into an ant-hill to pull out some juicy little insects, he became a trans-simian.

Your definition still makes all humans transhumans, because we've been overcoming our basic biological limitations through tool-using and shaping our environments for longer than we've been a species.

[Bottle]

That's not how evolution works.

There are countless species which have remained fundamentally unchanged for tens of millions of years. If an organism is well suited for its niche, then it doesn't particularly "need" to change. One might argue that humans have even less need to change than most species on this planet, due to our habit of adapting our environments to us.

There's no particular reason we "must" change in any particular way. We will evolve, because evolution simply refers to the change in life over time (regardless of how big or how small), but the way in which we evolve may or may not be "toward" any particular end.

How'd you like my creodont in a carnivore's world metaphor?

Also, I agree. I don't see any reason to change the species so radically.

*Shrug* It's possible that this planet will eventually be inhospitable to homo sapiens. Of course, it's also possible that homo sapiens will no longer exist as a discrete species by the time that one of our "daughter species" goes extinct.

Whether there is a need to "change the species" depends entirely on what you're trying to achieve. What aspect or aspects of "human" are you trying to preserve, and why?

[Bottle]

Well no, we are. Transhumanism is about overcoming limitations on humans on a physical, psychological, and intellectual level through emerging technologies. Comparing modern humans with the humans of ancient Mesopotamia, we have done so.

Transhumanism =/= Post-humanism

What "limitations on humans on a physical, psychological, and intellectual level through emerging technologies" have been overcome by technology since the time of ancient Mesopotamia? Has there been some huge difference discovered within the last 6 years or so since I was studying anthropology and ancient history?

Because otherwise we pretty much have all the same limitations.

Modern obstetrics would be one major example. Vaccinations would be another.

[Trotskylvania]

The person I am talking to is a singulatarian. Don't butt in and presume to instruct me on something I am already more than aware of.

Also, don't capitalize them, it gives more gravitas to these ideas than they deserve, and puts them on the same level as religion.

We are not speaking religions. We don't sacrifice humans to appease the technology gods. We just see a trend and remark as to what we wish this trend would evolve into. Or where we see this trend going. Either way, religion has no foothold in this argument.

Fine, then don't capitalize "transhumanism" or "singulatarianism". My point seems to have entirely evaded you.

For fuck's sake, I am a bloody transhumanist. Why do you think I have been criticizing the trends among transhumanists rather than transhumanism itself throughout this whole thread? Just because I say "hold your horses, you're getting ahead of yourself" doesn't mean I don't agree in principle.

[Bottle]

That's not how evolution works.

There are countless species which have remained fundamentally unchanged for tens of millions of years. If an organism is well suited for its niche, then it doesn't particularly "need" to change. One might argue that humans have even less need to change than most species on this planet, due to our habit of adapting our environments to us.

There's no particular reason we "must" change in any particular way. We will evolve, because evolution simply refers to the change in life over time (regardless of how big or how small), but the way in which we evolve may or may not be "toward" any particular end.

Unlike most organisms, we can anticipate the future. Make predictions and soforth, which is actually something that puts us ahead of all other species. Many species just reside in their niche, sort of "riding it out" until it comes to an end and they're placed in front of evolutionary stress.

We can predict this kind of event, on a larger scale even. We can take action *before* something happens. We can adapt to an environment before the environment has even presented itself.

We are capable of advanced planning, yes. But I strongly urge you not to overestimate our ability to predict necessary adaptations. We can't even predict whether it will rain tomorrow with 100% certainty.

[Wikkiwallana]

It seems interesting, but I sincerely doubt you could ever convince me to be an early adopter.

[Faolinn]

I see that you like to make generalizations. And what the fuck does it have to do with conservatism?

Advocating human progress now equals conservatism it seems

You are a fool if you cannot see it."Fuck everything else, full ahead industrialism and materialism."A statement far too many transhumanists would make their mantra.

[Athylon Prime]

We are not speaking religions. We don't sacrifice humans to appease the technology gods. We just see a trend and remark as to what we wish this trend would evolve into. Or where we see this trend going. Either way, religion has no foothold in this argument.

Fine, then don't capitalize "transhumanism" or "singulatarianism". My point seems to have entirely evaded you.

For fuck's sake, I am a bloody transhumanist. Why do you think I have been criticizing the trends among transhumanists rather than transhumanism itself throughout this whole thread? Just because I say "hold your horses, you're getting ahead of yourself" doesn't mean I don't agree in principle.

Calm it down. Just remarking that there are many differences with religion and transhumanism.

[AETEN II]

Hey. There's this really cool thing called EVOLUTION.

That's the whole point of it genius, or are you completely missing the point of transhumanism? We must evolve and advance past our current condition if we wish to survive for simply a couple million more years, let alone a billion years. That's the point of life. Those that stay behind and stagnate die, only those that advance and adapt continue to live, albeit as a new species. We'd however remain just as 'human' before in the philosophical sense, only superior.

That's not how evolution works.

There are countless species which have remained fundamentally unchanged for tens of millions of years. If an organism is well suited for its niche, then it doesn't particularly "need" to change. One might argue that humans have even less need to change than most species on this planet, due to our habit of adapting our environments to us.

There's no particular reason we "must" change in any particular way. We will evolve, because evolution simply refers to the change in life over time (regardless of how big or how small), but the way in which we evolve may or may not be "toward" any particular end.

Ignoring the fact that not only our sun will kill us, but we ourselves might, or a super virus might wipe us out soon, our planet may completely collapse, etc.

There's a huge shitstorm up ahead of stuff that's going to try its best to wipe us out. Not only must we evolve, but society on a whole must change for the upcoming storm. They way that we operate has to change. We're eventually going to commit suicide without even realizing it.

[Napkiraly]

Well no, we are. Transhumanism is about overcoming limitations on humans on a physical, psychological, and intellectual level through emerging technologies. Comparing modern humans with the humans of ancient Mesopotamia, we have done so.

Transhumanism =/= Post-humanism

What "limitations on humans on a physical, psychological, and intellectual level through emerging technologies" have been overcome by technology since the time of ancient Mesopotamia? Has there been some huge difference discovered within the last 6 years or so since I was studying anthropology and ancient history?

Because otherwise we pretty much have all the same limitations.

We live longer.
Medicine has allowed us to discover various psychological disorders and treat them. People suffering from various psychological disorders can now get the treatment and medication in order to live normal lives to an extent.
Your average human today knows more about the world than a goat herder of Mesopotamia. Hell, even decently educated teenagers know more about the universe than a lot of ancient men.

Medicine, computers, wide access to information, the other tools that allow us to experiment.

Some of the same limitations, but not all. Their life spans were shorter, ours are not as short (depending on where you live). Their knowledge of the universe was more limited, ours less so.