Transhumanism: What's your take on it?

[Transhuman Proteus]

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

I don't really see the point of it. Why are you speculating something that hasn't exist yet? Science and engineering are both laborious and transhumanism just trivializes it.

Remembering this is generally what Transhumanism is -

Transhumanism is an international intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities. Transhumanist thinkers study the potential benefits and dangers of emerging technologies that could overcome fundamental human limitations, as well as study the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies.

So you're kind of saying "I don't really see the point of a scientific and cultural philosophy relating to guiding what we should be doing scientifically and considering the repercussions of doing that". Cohesive movements advocating research and support of developments in fields that have genuine potential to improve lives is trivial and pointless since some of the stuff being advocated is only at the most tentative stages of testing or is theoretically plausible? (Never mind the relatively advanced nature of research in areas like increasing longevity).

By that logic a lot of cancer research movements were apparently once the same, or people supporting the theoretical or very new developments in contraceptive studies. Thinking about what is on the horizon - pointless unless we are tripping over it. Usually humans are being criticized for not thinking about the long term, but when they do it seems they are also criticized.

Most serious transhumanists aren't sitting around going "transporters and FTL are cool! Lets talk about societies with that!" - that's a hobby, not the core of their thought. They're talking about stuff that is in its earlier stages and the stuff a lot of scientists agree is not only plausible but likely quite possible in the future (ranging from the not too distant to the longer term). They're talking about motivating government and business to invest and support these areas, they're talking about doing the research right etc Since we have plenty of history that shows what happens when we don't.

1) When your conscious is no longer human.
2) Doctors? Not corporations, of course not, neither the government, but perhaps a special medical profession?
3) Of course. We, as Homo Sapiens, will always create strife over every issue. Should we allow this to block a very valuable medical and scientific breakthrough?

*Allows Google to monitor all movement and information related to movement to get sent to third parties
To follow up:

1. good enough...
2. I know doctors would be doing the implanting/genetic alteration? But who would design the implants or alterations? If its Monsanto, I wouldn't since they can practically patent life. I also wouldn't trust Facebook or Google for their GPS chip*
3. Well if it comes to transhumanists being the majority and naturalists being the minority.... And lets say certain legislation passes making have some kind of chip in you. Yeah, things could get hairly which shouldn't need to....

Transhumanists, generally, are highly respective of the concept of bodily integrity, morphological freedom and all that jazz. Is there any good reason to believe they'll be mandating forcing people to have chips? When even the government of today can't mandate things that would force people to undergo procedures that would save their life, reduce risks to others etc? Like vaccinations?

It's unfortunate a lot of the arguments against it seem to boil down to "I'm against it because people will force me to upgrade, it'll be like Cybermen! What, you wont? But if you don't force me to upgrade then I'll be at a social disadvantage to you, so I'm totally against it!"

[Natapoc]

Transhumanists, generally, are highly respective of the concept of bodily integrity, morphological freedom and all that jazz. Is there any good reason to believe they'll be mandating forcing people to have chips? When even the government of today can't mandate things that would force people to undergo procedures that would save their life, reduce risks to others etc? Like vaccinations?

It's unfortunate a lot of the arguments against it seem to boil down to "I'm against it because people will force me to upgrade, it'll be like Cybermen! What, you wont? But if you don't force me to upgrade then I'll be at a social disadvantage to you, so I'm totally against it!"

Why do you believe that the people who make the rules will be transhumanists? Especially since transhuminists have almost nothing to do with the actual advancement of science and technology. Why would what transhuminists think matter

You seem to think that it will be transhuminists making the rules if transhuminists get what they want. Why do you believe that?

[NVADF]

Well, right now the poll reads:

I'm all for it! 57%

Needs to be controlled. 34%

Should be banned! 10%

101%?

Incidentally, I'd like to thank you all for your feedback no matter what your oppinion on the subject is. This is my first topic, so I'm honered to see that you are all taking this seriously and raising good points.

[Natapoc]

Well, right now the poll reads:

I'm all for it! 57%

Needs to be controlled. 34%

Should be banned! 10%

101%?

Incidentally, I'd like to thank you all for your feedback no matter what your oppinion on the subject is. This is my first topic, so I'm honered to see that you are all taking this seriously and raising good points.

I wish there was an option for people like me: It's silly but mostly harmless. I'm not for it but don't want it banned or controlled. It's just a philosophy.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Transhumanists' central philosophical problem, which seems to be quite typified by this thread, is the inherent problem of extrapolating future conditions based on present trends.

(Image)

Absent a serious understanding of the complete mechanics of the speculative technologies they propose, and the long litany of necessary steps needed to reach there, the extrapolation argument amounts to a lot of handwaving.

Moore's Law is a casual observation about the capabilities of integrated circuits in the consumer products market. It is not a scientific law. And the technology it seeks to track has likely already begun reaching diminishing returns. Which is why computing has required an overwhelming turn to parellelization and neural networks to squeeze more juice out of conventional silicon computers. And absent a radical paradigm shift to a different method of computing, silicon will reach fundamental physical limits in the near future, and it will no longer be possible to further miniaturize transistors.

All transhumanists subscribe to the Moore's law based predictions - that is a believers in singularity and what it'll lead to? You do know the Transhumanists movement isn't a homogenous blob all subscribing to the same theories or desiring the same outcomes?

Plenty consider Kurzweil and predictions based upon Moore's law to be quite optimistic, some to the point of considering it effectively hard science fiction.

Far more serious Transhumanists in my experience are those who are interested in far harder scientific trends and developments in fields that show a logical progression (over the "computers will keep getting faster which will lead to this, this, this"). Longevity studies, genetics, cybernetics. I'm personally a tranhsumanist who is fairly dubious on a fair bit of the long term Moore's law based predicting.

[Napkiraly]

Transhumanists' central philosophical problem, which seems to be quite typified by this thread, is the inherent problem of extrapolating future conditions based on present trends.

(Image)

Absent a serious understanding of the complete mechanics of the speculative technologies they propose, and the long litany of necessary steps needed to reach there, the extrapolation argument amounts to a lot of handwaving.

Moore's Law is a casual observation about the capabilities of integrated circuits in the consumer products market. It is not a scientific law. And the technology it seeks to track has likely already begun reaching diminishing returns. Which is why computing has required an overwhelming turn to parellelization and neural networks to squeeze more juice out of conventional silicon computers. And absent a radical paradigm shift to a different method of computing, silicon will reach fundamental physical limits in the near future, and it will no longer be possible to further miniaturize transistors.

All transhumanists subscribe to the Moore's law based predictions - that is a believers in singularity and what it'll lead to? You do know the Transhumanists movement isn't a homogenous blob all subscribing to the same theories or desiring the same outcomes?

Plenty consider Kurzweil and predictions based upon Moore's law to be quite optimistic, some to the point of considering it effectively hard science fiction.

Far more serious Transhumanists in my experience are those who are interested in far harder scientific trends and developments in fields that show a logical progression (over the "computers will keep getting faster which will lead to this, this, this"). Longevity studies, genetics, cybernetics. I'm personally a tranhsumanist who is fairly dubious on a fair bit of the long term Moore's law based predicting.

Exactly. A lot even think the Singularity and its advocates are loonies. I mean, Kurzweil pumps hundreds of chemicals into his body everyday to iirc.

Though he's not as much of a loony as Hugo de Garis.

[Meryuma]

It's based on a faulty historical narrative of linear progress and in its more extreme singularitarian forms becomes a sort of pseudo-scientific messianism.

[NVADF]

Well, right now the poll reads:

I'm all for it! 57%

Needs to be controlled. 34%

Should be banned! 10%

101%?

Incidentally, I'd like to thank you all for your feedback no matter what your oppinion on the subject is. This is my first topic, so I'm honered to see that you are all taking this seriously and raising good points.

I wish there was an option for people like me: It's silly but mostly harmless. I'm not for it but don't want it banned or controlled. It's just a philosophy.

I'm kind of embarrassed to admit it, but when I created this topic, I thought transhumanism reffered to human-augmenting technology, not a philosophy. Sorry, but I don't think modifying the poll to reflect this so late in the game would be ethical. "I'm all for it!" may sound a little too enthusiastic, but if you have no problem with it, I think it would be best to take that option.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Transhumanists, generally, are highly respective of the concept of bodily integrity, morphological freedom and all that jazz. Is there any good reason to believe they'll be mandating forcing people to have chips? When even the government of today can't mandate things that would force people to undergo procedures that would save their life, reduce risks to others etc? Like vaccinations?

It's unfortunate a lot of the arguments against it seem to boil down to "I'm against it because people will force me to upgrade, it'll be like Cybermen! What, you wont? But if you don't force me to upgrade then I'll be at a social disadvantage to you, so I'm totally against it!"

Why do you believe that the people who make the rules will be transhumanists? Especially since transhuminists have almost nothing to do with the actual advancement of science and technology. Why would what transhuminists think matter

You seem to think that it will be transhuminists making the rules if transhuminists get what they want. Why do you believe that?

Because I'm not shifting the goal posts, I was responding to a specific scenario.

The scenario was "if it comes to transhumanists being the majority and naturalists being the minority" - are we a democracy? I see no reason to think Democracy is going to crumble in the future. Why would transhumanists (or the more likely - just normal people who happen to be benefiting from developments transhumanists support) be voting in people legislating forcing individuals to have things put in their bodies? Why would such a thing pass unchallenged?

And if the world is "transhumanists being the majority" why would the government of a democratic nation not have a significant number of transhumanists as representatives?

If it isn't a democratic future? How is that any different to now? How is it even a transhumanist worry? Plenty of entirely non-transhumanist dictatorships throughout history would probably have loved to have stuck bugs in their subjects, and bugging people isn't inherently transhumanist (against, really, since you know - respect for bodily integrity).

Do you have a good argument as to why the advent of technological advancements that tend to interest the Transhumanist movement is going to automatically lead to the erosion of civil liberties as the government decides it can legislate what happens to your living body?

[Transhuman Proteus]

I wish there was an option for people like me: It's silly but mostly harmless. I'm not for it but don't want it banned or controlled. It's just a philosophy.

I'm kind of embarrassed to admit it, but when I created this topic, I thought transhumanism reffered to human-augmenting technology, not a philosophy. Sorry, but I don't think modifying the poll to reflect this so late in the game would be ethical. "I'm all for it!" may sound a little too enthusiastic, but if you have no problem with it, I think it would be best to take that option.

That is a part of it though.

You can be pro-augementation without being transhumanist though.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

You can be pro-augementation without being transhumanist though.

How?

[Transhuman Proteus]

All transhumanists subscribe to the Moore's law based predictions - that is a believers in singularity and what it'll lead to? You do know the Transhumanists movement isn't a homogenous blob all subscribing to the same theories or desiring the same outcomes?

Plenty consider Kurzweil and predictions based upon Moore's law to be quite optimistic, some to the point of considering it effectively hard science fiction.

Far more serious Transhumanists in my experience are those who are interested in far harder scientific trends and developments in fields that show a logical progression (over the "computers will keep getting faster which will lead to this, this, this"). Longevity studies, genetics, cybernetics. I'm personally a tranhsumanist who is fairly dubious on a fair bit of the long term Moore's law based predicting.

Exactly. A lot even think the Singularity and its advocates are loonies. I mean, Kurzweil pumps hundreds of chemicals into his body everyday to iirc.

Ah yes, Kurzweil and his new genre of Transhumanist diet books. *shakes head*

Though he's not as much of a loony as Hugo de Garis.

Indeed. Guy missed his calling.

[Luveria]

I'm personally a tranhsumanist who is fairly dubious on a fair bit of the long term Moore's law based predicting.

I'm another one that doesn't go along with the long term Moore's law based predictions.

You can be pro-augementation without being transhumanist though.

How?

Because transhumanism is more than just being pro-augmentation.

[Transhuman Proteus]

You can be pro-augementation without being transhumanist though.

How?

By not subscribing to the intellectual and overall philosophical aspect of it.

[Forster Keys]

Against it for irrational aesthetic reasons. Also if it may prove really quite problematic on a societal level if not done properly.

[Luveria]

Against it for irrational aesthetic reasons. Also if it may prove really quite problematic on a societal level if not done properly.

Aesthetic reasons? If an augmented human looked no different than one who wasn't then surely you couldn't be opposed to it?

[Forster Keys]

Against it for irrational aesthetic reasons. Also if it may prove really quite problematic on a societal level if not done properly.

Aesthetic reasons? If an augmented human looked no different than one who wasn't then surely you couldn't be opposed to it?

It's not just surface aesthetics. Quasi spiritual environmental ideal nonsense going on.

[Antares XII]

Well, right now the poll reads:

I'm all for it! 57%

Needs to be controlled. 34%

Should be banned! 10%

101%?

Incidentally, I'd like to thank you all for your feedback no matter what your oppinion on the subject is. This is my first topic, so I'm honered to see that you are all taking this seriously and raising good points.

I voted "needs to be controlled" because, although I advocate it, I also feel that (as with all things) excess does not necessarily equate to success.

I wish there was an option for people like me: It's silly but mostly harmless. I'm not for it but don't want it banned or controlled. It's just a philosophy.

Isn't everything "just philosophy"?

All transhumanists subscribe to the Moore's law based predictions - that is a believers in singularity and what it'll lead to? You do know the Transhumanists movement isn't a homogenous blob all subscribing to the same theories or desiring the same outcomes?

Plenty consider Kurzweil and predictions based upon Moore's law to be quite optimistic, some to the point of considering it effectively hard science fiction.

Far more serious Transhumanists in my experience are those who are interested in far harder scientific trends and developments in fields that show a logical progression (over the "computers will keep getting faster which will lead to this, this, this"). Longevity studies, genetics, cybernetics. I'm personally a tranhsumanist who is fairly dubious on a fair bit of the long term Moore's law based predicting.

Exactly. A lot even think the Singularity and its advocates are loonies. I mean, Kurzweil pumps hundreds of chemicals into his body everyday to iirc.

Though he's not as much of a loony as Hugo de Garis.

I fully support singularity theory. Kurzweil just...

*dons sunglasses*

... didn't do the math.

YEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Napkiraly]

Exactly. A lot even think the Singularity and its advocates are loonies. I mean, Kurzweil pumps hundreds of chemicals into his body everyday to iirc.

Ah yes, Kurzweil and his new genre of Transhumanist diet books. *shakes head*

Though he's not as much of a loony as Hugo de Garis.

Indeed. Guy missed his calling.

3 more years for his prediction to come true about the "brain building" industry.

[Genomita]

I am all for it as long as it's freely or at least very cheaply available to everyone. I would like to be smarter and more physically capable than I am now, but I wouldn't want to replace my limbs with an unfeeling metal replacement if there's an organic alternative. I wouldn't want to be immortal either because immortality is bound to get really old at some point, among other things.

That said, I still love the idea of transhimanism, but as an extension of our selves, not at the expense thereof, if that makes sense.

[Volnotova]

I for one welcome our new transhuman benfectors overlords.

[Luveria]

I am all for it as long as it's freely or at least very cheaply available to everyone.

And that's only going to happen if the technology is allowed to exist and be developed to the point it becomes affordable for everyone, as with most new technology.

I would like to be smarter and more physically capable than I am now, but I wouldn't want to replace my limbs with an unfeeling metal replacement if there's an organic alternative.

Being concerned about not having feeling in replacement limbs is entirely baseless. http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-02/new-neural-interfaces-can-bring-electric-feel-artifical-limbs

I wouldn't want to be immortal either because immortality is bound to get really old at some point, among other things.

I don't believe anyone is encouraging you to be immortal, except maybe certain major religions.

That said, I still love the idea of transhimanism, but as an extension of our selves, not at the expense thereof, if that makes sense.

If it's an extension of self and an enhancement, how is that being at the expense of yourself? Many people would consider it to be adding to themselves. I certainly do.

I for one welcome our new transhuman benfectors overlords.

This is the attitude we need.

[Antares XII]

I am all for it as long as it's freely or at least very cheaply available to everyone. I would like to be smarter and more physically capable than I am now, but I wouldn't want to replace my limbs with an unfeeling metal replacement if there's an organic alternative. I wouldn't want to be immortal either because immortality is bound to get really old at some point, among other things.

That said, I still love the idea of transhimanism, but as an extension of our selves, not at the expense thereof, if that makes sense.

Why would said metal limbs have to be unfeeling? We already have rudimentary 'skin sensor' tech (can't remember what it's called proper at the moment), mechanical prosthetics that connect to one's nerves (thus allowing direct neural control), and of course the ever-ubiquitous silicon skin, if cold steel isn't your thing.

And as far as immortality goes, it's generally understood to be self-imposed... and that isn't immortality, really. It's a self-regulated life span. (Not to mention ELEs and accidents/chance still pose threats to your liveliness.)

[Luveria]

I am all for it as long as it's freely or at least very cheaply available to everyone. I would like to be smarter and more physically capable than I am now, but I wouldn't want to replace my limbs with an unfeeling metal replacement if there's an organic alternative. I wouldn't want to be immortal either because immortality is bound to get really old at some point, among other things.

That said, I still love the idea of transhimanism, but as an extension of our selves, not at the expense thereof, if that makes sense.

Why would said metal limbs have to be unfeeling? We already have rudimentary 'skin sensor' tech (can't remember what it's called proper at the moment), mechanical prosthetics that connect to one's nerves (thus allowing direct neural control), and of course the ever-ubiquitous silicon skin, if cold steel isn't your thing.

There's already brain implants which allow control of prosthetics.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57559675-1/brain-implants-let-paralyzed-woman-move-robot-arm/

[Antares XII]

There's already brain implants which allow control of prosthetics.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57559675-1/brain-implants-let-paralyzed-woman-move-robot-arm/

Is this the same tech used with the monkey from a while back?