Transhumanism: What's your take on it?

[Trotskylvania]

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.

The problem is that it will be self-perpetuating. To be successful and wealthy, you'll need to be augmented. And to be augmented you'll need to be wealthy. And to be wealthy you'll need to be augmented...

[AETEN II]

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.

Consciousness is a muddled mess which we still are fucking clueless as to how it forms, or even what it is. Debating about it is silly. Until we nail what it is down exactly, it's purely philosophical.

[Luveria]

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.

That isn't going to happen. I'd rather have the technology become available and eventually decrease in price instead of opposing it on the grounds it's not available to everyone immediately.

All in favour. Our bodies suck.

Yes human bodies certainly be improved a lot further.

[The USOT]

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.

I do not wish it would be the case, however it seems a hard reality to ignore.

[Faolinn]

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.

Yes but how long would that take.How many jobs that depend on computers and electronics would be damaged by this? How many other linked in elements of our technological infrastructure would be effected?

[Athylon Prime]

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.

Consciousness is a muddled mess which we still are fucking clueless as to how it forms, or even what it is. Debating about it is silly. Until we nail what it is down exactly, it's purely philosophical.

Oh, but philosophy is so fun to discuss.

[Natapoc]

All in favour. Our bodies suck.

Aye

This is the kind of viewpoint, pervasive in the transhumanist realm that makes it more reminiscent of mental illness than of an actual philosophy. When you're philosophy is based on body hatred you should examine why.

[Great Terran Republic]

Transhumanism is a deranged communist doctrine

[Olivaero]

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.

Why is this a distinction worth making? The Environment that you are raised effects the rest of your entire life, any additions to your biology which are made after your born are as much a part of you as any you are born with.

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.

If you judge things based upon what will "increase utility for the greatest number" than the choice between not augmenting people at all and augmenting people should be obvious. In the current world technology inevitably has a "cooling off time" where it gets cheaper and cheaper shortly after it's release why do you think transhumanist technologies would be any different? It's no different to having a mobile phone or a PC, at the start it was unfeasible for even a relatively wealthy person to own one and in a matter of years the middle class had them and in another couple of years they had a place in every home on credit at the very least.

[Uieurnthlaal]

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

I do not wish it would be the case, however it seems a hard reality to ignore.

Ah, yes. One of the many flaws with our current economic system. Communism doesn't seem to work either. Who knows what does?
In any case, I do think that Transhumanism is a good thing, provided that every human gets equal access to it. Maybe something that radical should be subsidized by the government? What do you think?

[Athylon Prime]

Aye

This is the kind of viewpoint, pervasive in the transhumanist realm that makes it more reminiscent of mental illness than of an actual philosophy. When you're philosophy is based on body hatred you should examine why.

And you should examine why you abhor evolving, whether naturally or not.

[Olivaero]

Aye

This is the kind of viewpoint, pervasive in the transhumanist realm that makes it more reminiscent of mental illness than of an actual philosophy. When you're philosophy is based on body hatred you should examine why.

Not recognizing your body is flawed is ridiculous. Just because every other human being you know is flawed in exactly the same way does not make it any less of a flaw.

[The USOT]

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

The problem is that it will be self-perpetuating. To be successful and wealthy, you'll need to be augmented. And to be augmented you'll need to be wealthy. And to be wealthy you'll need to be augmented...

Im not saying you are wrong, but I think you need to expand on that logic, for it applies to the car in many instances.

To be succesful and wealthy, you`ll need personal transport. And to have personal transport you need to be wealthy. And to be wealthy you`ll need a car.

(btw whilst I am reffering to the history of the car, this to an extent is still true today depending on where you live. The place I lived in my childhood for instance was in the middle of nowhere, giving the requirement of you having a car or not getting a job.

[Natapoc]

This is the kind of viewpoint, pervasive in the transhumanist realm that makes it more reminiscent of mental illness than of an actual philosophy. When you're philosophy is based on body hatred you should examine why.

And you should examine why you abhor evolving, whether naturally or not.

I don't abhor evolution at all. Just like I don't hate my body.

[AETEN II]

Aye

This is the kind of viewpoint, pervasive in the transhumanist realm that makes it more reminiscent of mental illness than of an actual philosophy. When you're philosophy is based on body hatred you should examine why.

Except that human bodies are weak, mortal, and simply flawed. Its improvement and augmentation is a must, not to mention increases our chances of surviving on the geologic scale and not being a dot on the timeline.

[Olivaero]

And you should examine why you abhor evolving, whether naturally or not.

I don't abhor evolution at all. Just like I don't hate my body.

But you consider it "magical thinking" to attempt to improve it.

[Natapoc]

This is the kind of viewpoint, pervasive in the transhumanist realm that makes it more reminiscent of mental illness than of an actual philosophy. When you're philosophy is based on body hatred you should examine why.

Not recognizing your body is flawed is ridiculous. Just because every other human being you know is flawed in exactly the same way does not make it any less of a flaw.

No my body is not flawed. It just is.

There are some things I'm better at, some things I'm worse at than others. But my body is fine the way it is.

[Athylon Prime]

And you should examine why you abhor evolving, whether naturally or not.

I don't abhor evolution at all. Just like I don't hate my body.

Yet your body is flawed. Why despise making it function in a more reliable fashion?

[Natapoc]

I don't abhor evolution at all. Just like I don't hate my body.

But you consider it "magical thinking" to attempt to improve it.

Not at all. I said most transhumanists are engaging in magical thinking. There is a huge difference.

[Luveria]

Transhumanism is a deranged communist doctrine

Dafuq!?

Do further elaborate on this claim of yours.

[The USOT]

I do not wish it would be the case, however it seems a hard reality to ignore.

Ah, yes. One of the many flaws with our current economic system. Communism doesn't seem to work either. Who knows what does?
In any case, I do think that Transhumanism is a good thing, provided that every human gets equal access to it. Maybe something that radical should be subsidized by the government? What do you think?

...to an extent I am really undecided. It would be horribly expensive to implement for any government (although potentially a giant cost saver in the future). Also it very much depends on the political climate. If the technologies were to come out tommorow for instance and the government started subsidizing them I beleive there would be an uproar. Those opposed (and there are MANY) would see it as the government being wishing to impose the technology on others. I dont like this in the hands of the private sector, but at least that way there would be less upheaval on that base...

I think it may be best just to let it grow organically tbh...

[Olivaero]

Not recognizing your body is flawed is ridiculous. Just because every other human being you know is flawed in exactly the same way does not make it any less of a flaw.

No my body is not flawed. It just is.

There are some things I'm better at, some things I'm worse at than others. But my body is fine the way it is.

Why would you not want to be better at the things you are currently not very good at?

[Athylon Prime]

But you consider it "magical thinking" to attempt to improve it.

Not at all. I said most transhumanists are engaging in magical thinking. There is a huge difference.

Not magical. Just trendwatching and hoping.

[Olivaero]

But you consider it "magical thinking" to attempt to improve it.

Not at all. I said most transhumanists are engaging in magical thinking. There is a huge difference.

Improving on evolution is the only thing every transhumanist has in common. Specify precisely what you think transhumanists believe that you consider magical thinking then show some statistics that most transhumanists believe that thing.

[Trotskylvania]

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.

If you judge things based upon what will "increase utility for the greatest number" than the choice between not augmenting people at all and augmenting people should be obvious. In the current world technology inevitably has a "cooling off time" where it gets cheaper and cheaper shortly after it's release why do you think transhumanist technologies would be any different? It's no different to having a mobile phone or a PC, at the start it was unfeasible for even a relatively wealthy person to own one and in a matter of years the middle class had them and in another couple of years they had a place in every home on credit at the very least.

This is not a binary choice. It is not a simple matter of "allow augmentation or not". The question is how best to implement augmentation so that the greatest utility for the greatest number is maintained.

And the types of technology we're talking about are not ever going to be cheap. Look at how expensive health care is, and how even basic surgeries require people to mortgage their homes to pay for if they are uninsured. Radical body augmentation, whether biological or cybernetic, is not simple. Even if the hardware gets cheaper, the procedures will still be extremely expensive. Germline engineering means you avoid the expense of radical augmentation, but trade it out for having your genetics being some corporation's intellectual property, and having to pay monopoly prices as well as royalties to them for its use. Not something poor people will be managing.

Things may get cheaper, but that doesn't mean ordinary people will be able to afford them. Most people don't own planes.