Transhumanism: What's your take on it?

[The Emerald Legion]

It is a subversion of natural selection

Natural selection doesn't need to be subverted, it subverts itself.

Comparing Natural Selection to Transhumanism is like comparing a blind idiot and a star athlete who are both trying to get through a maze filled with bright orange landmines that glow in the dark.

[Alkoro]

I support it, because i feel our evolution has ended for us, it's time for a revolution of cybernetic technology. Not hearing aids, braces, or wheel chaires, but advance sencerory technology, to allow me to be more aware of my surroundings, or robotic prostetic limbs. One can dream, and others are inspired.

[Technopolis]

Science fiction is rarely accurate. It'd be ridiculous to give up nigh immortality in the name of nature.

You would only become immortal in-so-far as market forces would allow your own autonomy. Coincidentally, Market Forces is another title of a Richard K. Morgan novel.

That's why I said nigh-immortal. Plus, not every country has America's healthcare system (or lack thereof). The basis of a lot of dystopian novels is that capitalism becomes the dominant political ideology in every nation, and that may not be the case.

Really? Even implants that could help disabled people walk/see/etc? That just seems selfish.

Those are debatable, but are about the limit of what should be done.

So why should it be limited, exactly? How is it a 'threat to the very survival of the species'?

[Technopolis]

It is a subversion of natural selection

So is modern healthcare. Should everyone with any genetic disorder be left to die?

[Tamoi]

It is a subversion of natural selection

Natural selection doesn't need to be subverted, it subverts itself.

Comparing Natural Selection to Transhumanism is like comparing a blind idiot and a star athlete who are both trying to get through a maze filled with bright orange landmines that glow in the dark.

True, the star athlete thinks it's a race and blows themself up, while the blind idiot knows there is no need to go anywhere and continues to survive peacefully.

[Threlizdun]

The human body and mind has extensive limitations. Overcoming them is certainly desirable.

[Ratateague]

It is a subversion of natural selection

Almost, but not quite. Most are already shielded from natural selection thanks to society and government services. Now instead of being rooted out through environmental forces, we are subject to economic forces and and growing inequality. In the vision of many Transhumanists here, taking the technology so far as to commonly replace body parts could only serve to exaggerate this gap. Only in a perfect world could everyone afford the lastest 'wares and keep up with technological and occupational demand. Obviously, those who don't, lose their job to someone who is more qualified. That is, unless, it is heavily regulated, which I am all for. For me, it is not an moral dilemma, it is an economic one.

[Regnum Dominae]

Natural selection doesn't need to be subverted, it subverts itself.

Comparing Natural Selection to Transhumanism is like comparing a blind idiot and a star athlete who are both trying to get through a maze filled with bright orange landmines that glow in the dark.

True, the star athlete thinks it's a race and blows themself up, while the blind idiot knows there is no need to go anywhere and continues to survive peacefully.

Wrong and wrong.

[Technopolis]

Natural selection doesn't need to be subverted, it subverts itself.

Comparing Natural Selection to Transhumanism is like comparing a blind idiot and a star athlete who are both trying to get through a maze filled with bright orange landmines that glow in the dark.

True, the star athlete thinks it's a race and blows themself up, while the blind idiot knows there is no need to go anywhere and continues to survive peacefully.

So the blind idiot stays in the maze and starves to death. I have to admit, not a massive fan of these ridiculous extended metaphors.

[Immoren]

I am not a fan of transhumanism; the very thought of it makes me sick and causes irritation with leads to anger. It is threat to the very survival of the species, and as such should be killed in its infancy, along with AI.

i am somehow reminded of luddites

[Genivaria]

Praise the machine god.

There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal.
There is no strength in flesh, only weakness.
There is no constancy in flesh, only decay.
There is no certainty in flesh, but death.

Meme's aside, yep. I'm greatly in favor of mechanical transhumanism, Not so hot on genetic transhumanism but... it's a step forward.

John Lumic: Skin of metal, and a body that will never age or die. I envy it!
-Rise of the Cybermen (Doctor Who)

[Disserbia]

The same I think about GMOs

And what might that be?

More good than harm to a point and no point in being against it since its already been a part of our lives so long and made quality of life better

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

I'm a Transhumanism supporter.
I believe that it is the ultimate way to improve our condition.
It's also inevitable.
Time and time again, technology has triumphed superstition. Had it not, we'd still be living in mud huts, no doubt.
I can't wait to see what technologies it will bring. I'll eagerly replace my fragile, carbon based limbs with superior steels, plastics, and silicone.

[TaQud]

What do you guys think of transhumanism?
Personally, I think it sounds great.

thanks for giving us some GREAT info on what Transhumanism is.

Anyway, For Transhumanism.

[Technopolis]

It is a subversion of natural selection

Almost, but not quite. Most are already shielded from natural selection thanks to society and government services. Now instead of being rooted out through environmental forces, we are subject to economic forces and and growing inequality. In the vision of many Transhumanists here, taking the technology so far as to commonly replace body parts could only serve to exaggerate this gap. Only in a perfect world could everyone afford the lastest 'wares and keep up with technological and occupational demand. Obviously, those who don't, lose their job to someone who is more qualified. That is, unless, it is heavily regulated, which I am all for. For me, it is not an moral dilemma, it is an economic one.

To be honest, well done. You've made the only reasonably legitimate argument against transhumanism. I'd say that even if it was limited, it is better to have some people who have these augmentations than nobody have them at all at first, much like computers and the internet. While these have put some people at an advantage (moreso in the past), I'd say the benefits that we now all reap from the developments in computing are worth it.

[Tamoi]

It is a subversion of natural selection

Almost, but not quite. Most are already shielded from natural selection thanks to society and government services. Now instead of being rooted out through environmental forces, we are subject to economic forces and and growing inequality. In the vision of many Transhumanists here, taking the technology so far as to commonly replace body parts could only serve to exaggerate this gap. Only in a perfect world could everyone afford the lastest 'wares and keep up with technological and occupational demand. Obviously, those who don't, lose their job to someone who is more qualified. That is, unless, it is heavily regulated, which I am all for. For me, it is not an moral dilemma, it is an economic one.

Morals, economy, it's all game theory. I agree about the modern societies interfering with natural selection though, and that's why my friends and I are trying to make our own village.

So is modern healthcare. Should everyone with any genetic disorder be left to die?

Yes. That is why I don't take any medicine beyond what I can make myself. I'm not going to try and make anyone else do that, though, so long as they let me and the rest of us who live this way be alone.

So the blind idiot stays in the maze and starves to death. I have to admit, not a massive fan of these ridiculous extended metaphors.

Me either.

[New Naephak]

I wish for a cyberpunk future.

[Ratateague]

Economic inequality isn't the only issue, either. Take for instance Google Glass. It shows great promise, and if I didn't know any better, I'd rush out and buy a pair to fulfill all my AR fantasies. Yet, it's not even been released on the market yet, and many people are starting to voice hell about privacy concerns. When information is linked to our very senses, individualism is only as good as the security that shields our private information.

To be honest, well done. You've made the only reasonably legitimate argument against transhumanism. I'd say that even if it was limited, it is better to have some people who have these augmentations than nobody have them at all at first, much like computers and the internet. While these have put some people at an advantage (moreso in the past), I'd say the benefits that we now all reap from the developments in computing are worth it.

Thanks, and agreed. As I said before, I have reservations, but that doesn't mean I am against it.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

It is a subversion of natural selection

Almost, but not quite. Most are already shielded from natural selection thanks to society and government services. Now instead of being rooted out through environmental forces, we are subject to economic forces and and growing inequality. In the vision of many Transhumanists here, taking the technology so far as to commonly replace body parts could only serve to exaggerate this gap. Only in a perfect world could everyone afford the lastest 'wares and keep up with technological and occupational demand. Obviously, those who don't, lose their job to someone who is more qualified. That is, unless, it is heavily regulated, which I am all for. For me, it is not an moral dilemma, it is an economic one.

Technology always works its way down. Look at computers. Before, they cost millions and millions of dollars, and took up more space than some people's houses. Now? Everyone got a computerized cellphone in their pocket with more computing power than the systems that sent a man to the moon. Sure, immediately it might be concentrated at the top. That'll be all flawed and faulty stuff, though. It'll be drastically improved upon and made cheaper so very quickly.

[Ostroeuropa]

Hugely in favor.

[Technopolis]

Economic inequality isn't the only issue, either. Take for instance Google Glass. It shows great promise, and if I didn't know any better, I'd rush out and buy a pair to fulfill all my AR fantasies. Yet, it's not even been released on the market yet, and many people are starting to voice hell about privacy concerns. When information is linked to our very senses, individualism is only as good as the security that shields our private information.

Obviously. If I was to buy google glasses (which I wouldn't because voice commands are ugh) or a similar product I'd make sure that I knew whenever what I was seeing was being shared. If there wasn't a way to fulfill that then I'd either mod it or go for an alternative.

[Threlizdun]

Morals, economy, it's all game theory. I agree about the modern societies interfering with natural selection though, and that's why my friends and I are trying to make our own village.

It is natural selection that gave us the ability to attain this degree of technological advancement. Your reasoning makes no sense.

So is modern healthcare. Should everyone with any genetic disorder be left to die?

Yes. That is why I don't take any medicine beyond what I can make myself. I'm not going to try and make anyone else do that, though, so long as they let me and the rest of us who live this way be alone.[/quote]I'm sorry you wish to throw your life away in the name of such social darwinist nonsense.

[Phocidaea]

I think I've bitched about this enough.

I don't even want to get too deeply involved in a discussion, because every time I try the huge majority of transhumanists (why the hell are there so many of you here?) tear me a new one because I would object to having a metal arm and a microchip in my brain.

[Ostroeuropa]

I think I've bitched about this enough.

I don't even want to get too deeply involved in a discussion, because every time I try the huge majority of transhumanists (why the hell are there so many of you here?) tear me a new one because I would object to having a metal arm and a microchip in my brain.

You're more than welcome to abstain.
Just don't stop us doing it either.

[Technopolis]

I think I've bitched about this enough.

I don't even want to get too deeply involved in a discussion, because every time I try the huge majority of transhumanists (why the hell are there so many of you here?) tear me a new one because I would object to having a metal arm and a microchip in my brain.

I'm fine with other people not wanting to stick bits of tech in their body, I'm not fine with people wanting to ban it because they don't like it.