Transhumanism: What's your take on it?

[Natapoc]

We need to go screaming into the future as fast as possible. Scientific progress over all else. We'll work out the kinks later.

That is the road to cybernetic revolts, ecological collapse, genetic divides, and grey goo.

It also makes for fun SIFI and video game plots. The chances of any of this actually happening however, are pretty remote.

[Regnum Dominae]

That is the road to cybernetic revolts, ecological collapse, genetic divides, and grey goo.

Which is why you specifically cultivate a government to focus on stabilized advancements and use corporations to your advantage to ensure stability. Ironically, corporations will be a godsend whenever cybernetics is fully developed and somebody tries to lash back.

And this is an example of precisely why skeptics think of transhumanists as a bunch of autocratic fascists.

[Faolinn]

*laughs boisterously*Really?Your kind sure seem like it.You think technology is the end all be all of everything when the truth is natural forces in the world could wipe us out in seconds if the right circumstances came to be.

Apart from a gamma ray burst or the sun going supernova, or whatever it is called. Name one thing.

As an aside, gotta love how you're putting nature on a godlike pedestal while accusing us of being overly religious.

Let's see rogue planets, a super virus could kill us all before we could invent a cure,a devastating impact from any number or decently sized celestial object could very easily facilitate the death of our species. Hell if someone were to set off an emp bomb in the middle of a number of multiple major metropolises, our way of life as it is would collapse or at the very least greatly inhibit it.It doesn't need to be a bomb, a sufficiently large enough pulse from forces out in the universe could do the same thing.If our sun blew up by some weird fluke of physics rather than it's slow eventual death we would all cease to live.

[The Emerald Legion]

Firstly, SI, not AI. Synthetic =/= artificial. Secondly, I am of the opinion that digitisation is not only possible at some point in the future, but a sound strategy to ensure the survival of the species.

We aren't just the meatbags we inhabit. We are more than human bodies. Why should we profess such irrational clinginess to them?

You really couldn't.The best you could hope for is to create a simulacrum.

http://futurisms.thenewatlantis.com/201 ... -work.html

I don't particularly see the problem with that.

[Luveria]

Which is why you specifically cultivate a government to focus on stabilized advancements and use corporations to your advantage to ensure stability. Ironically, corporations will be a godsend whenever cybernetics is fully developed and somebody tries to lash back.

And this is an example of precisely why skeptics think of transhumanists as a bunch of autocratic fascists.

A few transhumanists are. But the only ones that seem to get noticed are those.

[Antares XII]

We need to go screaming into the future as fast as possible. Scientific progress over all else. We'll work out the kinks later.

That is the road to cybernetic revolts, ecological collapse, genetic divides, and grey goo.

And I cannot wait.

PS if you say anything about "ebul ay-eyes" so help me.

[Olivaero]

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.

1. No. More of us live longer on average.
2. Yes people can be treated for disorders but the treatments do not represent "overcoming limitations on humans on a physical, psychological, and intellectual level through emerging technologies", it represents doctors treating a disorder or illness that's harming a person.
3. Yes we know more but we're not necessarily, as individuals, more intelligent. It's just that more people are able to express their natural intelligence due to improvements in education, nutrition, and sanitation.

Do you see the key here? We're not improving humans, we're fighting the things that are hurting humans and we're removing some of the environmental issues that make humans not be able to live up to their potential.

Also, be careful not to conflate collective improvements in intelligence and health with individual improvements. It's true that MORE people have longer lifespans but it's not true that a given individual born in ancient Mesopotamia would live longer in the modern era. There were people who lived into their hundreds back then too.

So If a child was born tomorrow you don't think it would have a better chance of living through till it's 100'th birthday than any child born 3000 years ago? How can this not be an improvement on the overall living conditions of humanity?

[Natapoc]

I disagree that either of these examples remove "limitations on humans on a physical, psychological, and intellectual level through emerging technologies"

The people of ancient Mesopotamia had immune systems that worked fundamentally identical to ours today and vaccines do not, in any way, alter that. They simply provide us with immunity in a similar way to if we had caught the disease, fought it off, and overcome it.

There is no improvement to the way humans work here.

So you're saying that if I alter the function of an immune system in a manner that increases the host's likelihood of survival, that does not qualify as "improvement."

Can you give an example of something that would qualify?

The thing is you're not really doing something to improve the immune system (as a system) here. You're influencing the body to produce antibodies the same as it would if exposed to the regular disease.

An example of something that WOULD qualify is if all modern humans had, by virtue of some advanced technology, immune systems that could recognize harmful pathogens and fight them without going through the usual natural methods that humans and most animals have.

[The Emerald Legion]

Apart from a gamma ray burst or the sun going supernova, or whatever it is called. Name one thing.

As an aside, gotta love how you're putting nature on a godlike pedestal while accusing us of being overly religious.

Let's see rogue planets, a super virus could kill us all before we could invent a cure,a devastating impact from any number or decently sized celestial object could very easily facilitate the death of our species. Hell if someone were to set off an emp bomb in the middle of a number of multiple major metropolises, our way of life as it is would collapse or at the very least greatly inhibit it.It doesn't need to be a bomb, a sufficiently large enough pulse from forces out in the universe could do the same thing.

Please explain how said virus would spread. Please explain how we wouldn't notice any of those objects before the point where we could do something about it A la Armageddon. Please explain how that works at all, (I'll give you a hint, it doesn't. All critical information is usually backed up somewhere else. Frequently on opposite sides of the globe.)

[Olivaero]

Which is why you specifically cultivate a government to focus on stabilized advancements and use corporations to your advantage to ensure stability. Ironically, corporations will be a godsend whenever cybernetics is fully developed and somebody tries to lash back.

And this is an example of precisely why skeptics think of transhumanists as a bunch of autocratic fascists.

Perhaps Skeptics should concentrate on attacking things that are core to transhumanism such as say... the advancement of the human species rather than things that individual transhumanists may or may not espouse?

[AETEN II]

Firstly, SI, not AI. Synthetic =/= artificial. Secondly, I am of the opinion that digitisation is not only possible at some point in the future, but a sound strategy to ensure the survival of the species.

We aren't just the meatbags we inhabit. We are more than human bodies. Why should we profess such irrational clinginess to them?

You really couldn't.The best you could hope for is to create a simulacrum.

http://futurisms.thenewatlantis.com/201 ... -work.html

Except said technology doesn't even exist yet, so it's impossible to even predict what would happen and thus the entire argument is voided and pointless. Currently biological is our best bet with stem cell injections to ensure neurons don't entirely die off. Technological augmentation would be the best, but the date of that technology is far off and unpredictable. It'd be the best and surest option to ensure humanity and its descendants would never die off, but we're fucking clueless as to how it would work.

[Natapoc]

1. No. More of us live longer on average.
2. Yes people can be treated for disorders but the treatments do not represent "overcoming limitations on humans on a physical, psychological, and intellectual level through emerging technologies", it represents doctors treating a disorder or illness that's harming a person.
3. Yes we know more but we're not necessarily, as individuals, more intelligent. It's just that more people are able to express their natural intelligence due to improvements in education, nutrition, and sanitation.

Do you see the key here? We're not improving humans, we're fighting the things that are hurting humans and we're removing some of the environmental issues that make humans not be able to live up to their potential.

Also, be careful not to conflate collective improvements in intelligence and health with individual improvements. It's true that MORE people have longer lifespans but it's not true that a given individual born in ancient Mesopotamia would live longer in the modern era. There were people who lived into their hundreds back then too.

So If a child was born tomorrow you don't think it would have a better chance of living through till it's 100'th birthday than any child born 3000 years ago? How can this not be an improvement on the overall living conditions of humanity?

Of course the child would have a better statistical chance. But the child would not be different. The environment in which the child was raised would be different.

[Trotskylvania]

That is the road to cybernetic revolts, ecological collapse, genetic divides, and grey goo.

And the industrial revolution was the road to democratic revolutions all over the world, why do you assume the advance of this particular technology will be supremely negative in comparison to all those that have come before?

No, advancing technology heedless of consequences is never a good idea. I am an acts utilitarian, and I judge things based on what will maximize utility for the greatest number. Trying to "work out kinks later" instead of as you are implementing leads to disastrous consequences. Even more so with truly transhuman technologies, which have a startling level of potential negative consequences and potential for backlash.

What better way to destroy your transhuman future than to see its bounties become the province of only the ruling class and the wealthy, while the proles can't afford the massive cost of having their bodies radically re-engineered so they can be immortal, super-intelligent supermen. Such a situation would be bad enough in its own right, and then there's the possibility of the proles mobilizing against such advances themselves, and leading to the banning of such technologies.

[Faolinn]

Let's see rogue planets, a super virus could kill us all before we could invent a cure,a devastating impact from any number or decently sized celestial object could very easily facilitate the death of our species. Hell if someone were to set off an emp bomb in the middle of a number of multiple major metropolises, our way of life as it is would collapse or at the very least greatly inhibit it.It doesn't need to be a bomb, a sufficiently large enough pulse from forces out in the universe could do the same thing.

Please explain how said virus would spread. Please explain how we wouldn't notice any of those objects before the point where we could do something about it A la Armageddon. Please explain how that works at all, (I'll give you a hint, it doesn't. All critical information is usually backed up somewhere else. Frequently on opposite sides of the globe.)

Well depending on the size of said rogue planet,you might not be able to do anything sufficient enough to stop it.As for how the virus would spread, I'm not certain, I would need more time to flesh out all the biological specifics.Also, there's no guarantee that you could stop all of said objects or even one depending on the circumstances.Also you fail to understand. Do realize the sort of damage that would do to our technological infrastructure and to our lives given that we have become sedentary and dependent on said technology? Sure you might have information stored on the other side of the world but what about everything else effected.Also, and like all of this, it is rare, a rapidly spreading and lethal parasite could do us in if by some miracle it is that resistant. Also if some agent out in nature were to come about that killed the fertility of at least half the human race and for whatever reason seemed to attack one sex disproportionately we would be screwed unless everyone rushed the sperm/egg banks assuming it didn't continue to be a problem by some strange occurrence.

[AETEN II]

Which is why you specifically cultivate a government to focus on stabilized advancements and use corporations to your advantage to ensure stability. Ironically, corporations will be a godsend whenever cybernetics is fully developed and somebody tries to lash back.

And this is an example of precisely why skeptics think of transhumanists as a bunch of autocratic fascists.

My ideal government would be a Fascist state. It serves my Greater Good the best, and could enforce stability. Just put up special contingencies to prevent genocide or excessive corruption and you're good to go.

Also, a super virus could easily kill a large chunk of us off and shake us up. See this thing called 'airports'.

Although if anything would kill us off, I would predict a series of events created by Global War which all combined to wipe us. The final kicker would likely be wide-scale war started over resources like food and drinking water.

[Napkiraly]

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.

1. No. More of us live longer on average.
2. Yes people can be treated for disorders but the treatments do not represent "overcoming limitations on humans on a physical, psychological, and intellectual level through emerging technologies", it represents doctors treating a disorder or illness that's harming a person.
3. Yes we know more but we're not necessarily, as individuals, more intelligent. It's just that more people are able to express their natural intelligence due to improvements in education, nutrition, and sanitation.

Do you see the key here? We're not improving humans, we're fighting the things that are hurting humans and we're removing some of the environmental issues that make humans not be able to live up to their potential.

Also, be careful not to conflate collective improvements in intelligence and health with individual improvements. It's true that MORE people have longer lifespans but it's not true that a given individual born in ancient Mesopotamia would live longer in the modern era. There were people who lived into their hundreds back then too.

1. And we've done that by having technology overcome the limitations affecting humans of that era.
2. How is medication that allows a person to live a more normal life not allowing a person with a psychological disorder to overcome their limitations?
3. All brought about by technology that has allowed us to expand our knowledge. A grade 12 chemistry student will know more about how the world works than a ancient intellectual.

We are improving humans. Through technology we have been able to increase the average lifespan, to expand our knowledge and to even overcome certain limitations imposed on us. We have some of the same limitations of early humans, but we have also overcome other ones that they were not able to overcome given there technological standing.

And yes, an ancient Mesopotamian could integrate into our society. That's the point. Taking humans, and improving their conditions and eliminating or negating certain limitations. That's what has happened and that is what would happen for that person.

[Luveria]

What better way to destroy your transhuman future than to see its bounties become the province of only the ruling class and the wealthy

As with most technology. Most transhumanists seem to be completely accepting that the wealthy will be the first in line.

[Antares XII]

Firstly, SI, not AI. Synthetic =/= artificial. Secondly, I am of the opinion that digitisation is not only possible at some point in the future, but a sound strategy to ensure the survival of the species.

We aren't just the meatbags we inhabit. We are more than human bodies. Why should we profess such irrational clinginess to them?

You really couldn't.The best you could hope for is to create a simulacrum.

http://futurisms.thenewatlantis.com/201 ... -work.html

I counter with scientific determinism. That will have to do for now as I am nowhere near being in the proper mindset to explain to you my thoughts on consciousness.

[Napkiraly]

What better way to destroy your transhuman future than to see its bounties become the province of only the ruling class and the wealthy

As with most technology. Most transhumanists seem to be completely accepting that the wealthy will be the first in line.

Well no, I'd rather the system change before then to allow most of the population to have access from the get go. But that comes in differences on economic and societal structure.

[The Emerald Legion]

Please explain how said virus would spread. Please explain how we wouldn't notice any of those objects before the point where we could do something about it A la Armageddon. Please explain how that works at all, (I'll give you a hint, it doesn't. All critical information is usually backed up somewhere else. Frequently on opposite sides of the globe.)

Well depending on the size of said rogue planet,you might not be able to do anything sufficient enough to stop it.As for how the virus would spread, I'm not certain, I would need more time to flesh out all the biological specifics.Also, there's no guarantee that you could stop all of said objects or even one depending on the circumstances.Also you fail to understand. Do realize the sort of damage that would do to our technological infrastructure and to our lives given that we have become sedentary and dependent on said technology? Sure you might have information stored on the other side of the world but what about everything else effected.Also, and like all of this, it is rare, a rapidly spreading and lethal parasite could do us in if by some miracle it is that resistant.

It'd be fixed. It's not like we're completely unprotected against EMP's.

[Trotskylvania]

That is the road to cybernetic revolts, ecological collapse, genetic divides, and grey goo.

And I cannot wait.

PS if you say anything about "ebul ay-eyes" so help me.

The only way AIs would be evil is if we made them that way, whether by design or through mistreatment.

"The villainy you teach me, I will execute. And it shall go hard, but I will better the instruction." Shylock, The Merchant of Venice, Act III, Scene 1.

[Central Slavia]

All in favour. Our bodies suck.

[Athylon Prime]

All in favour. Our bodies suck.

Aye

[The USOT]

I am very fond of transhumanism. I dont admire all trends with transhumanists (e.g. the idea of rejecting the natural world) but then I did come to my transhumanism from my days in the Green party.

[Napkiraly]

All in favour. Our bodies suck.

Well no, they don't suck or else we wouldn't exist. We can improve upon them however.