Genetic Engineering and Transhumanism

[Shaggai]

Have a nice, tasty fruit bat and shuddup.

Ooh... Thanks! I love bats!

As to the topic: Genetic engineering is a useful tool... for some problems, a very useful tool. Transhumanism is a nice, warm thought for many people, but I doubt many of people's wishes about it will come true.

From a human point of view, it is a useful tool, but one you need to be careful with. It can solve a lot of problems, but it can also create new problems if people aren't thoughtful about how they use it.

Yeah, well, you're a virus. You probably think that natural immunity to Ebola would be a new problem.

[Margno]

Wars are fought because one side needed resources all the time, the resources have just changed.
And that's a hell of an extrapolation. Hunter gatherer societies don't produce populations this large. We couldn't transition into one like a blown up version of the previous with our current population, the closest equivalent would still look quite different.

Then what system would you suggest? Because we're going to have our large population, or would you rather have a third of the population die from disease, famine be extremely common, etc.?

Upon reflection, I feel that all my arguments in favor of partial primitivism have really just amounted to arguments against consumerism, unnecessary products, and the advertising, political artifacting, and the weapons trade, nothing else. An argument in favor of voluntary poverty, sure, but not primitivism in any real sense. My reason for the shift is that, come to think of it, someone building a system of ethics from the ground up properly could find extensive use for planes, cars, and radios. Different uses, certainly, but uses.

No, I wouldn't rather we let the extraneous population die off. That would be in violation of every inch of the ethical framework this whole premise is based on. I've elaborated on my methods a bit previously, so let me elaborate on my immediate goals.
Seeing as we have this population, and the technology to sustain it, we shall have to use it. So advanced agriculture will have to stay, and with it, the social structure involved in running it. Property absolutely has got to go, and not just in the minds of the people; we must have property's teeth out. That means the abolition of the state, the violent division of the bourgeoisie infrastructure. Once the only possible source of assistance in making sure that the hungry people at the gate don't take bread is broken, anyone who can't afford bread and can't acquire the wages to buy bread will take bread. The landowners will scream and stand on the porch with shotguns and cry that the whole society will come crashing down if we don't respect their property, and then we will steal their guns and proceed to blatantly not starve at them, and the whole society will fail to come crashing down. If there are really food shortages, then more people will go and farm. If there are complex issues, they will, by and large, listen to relevant experts if there aren't a thousand very powerful interest groups trying to buy their opinion. Everyone is very quick to believe in the prisoners dilemma when it comes to other men, from their position of luxury supported by fear, but when a famine comes and there being enough food to eat depends on enough people farming, it's always shocking to see how quickly they farm, property or no. I suppose it's rather like why people vote in democracies.
And so on with other basic necessities. Other things that people want grow out of having a larger labor pool than is necessary to support the population, and we certainly do. But there must absolutely not be a concept of "unemployment" or a "job shortage" in a society that has plenty. Furthermore, and we must be absolutely resolute about this, there can be no production of goods and services that are valuable to no one, and only support their own existence: parasites leeching off of the economy, accomplishing nothing but to spread moral rot among the people, things like advertising, and everything for sale at the dollar store.
Religiously we must abolish the church and return faith to the people, where it belongs.
Politically, we must be absolutely brutal to their ideals of power, hierarchy, consequentialism, merit differentials and superiority, compromise, ownership, and egoism wherever they appear, we must take no prisoner. If an egoist organization rises up, then an intensely organized altruist resistance made up of the devoted and disciplined must rise up against it in the same moment.
The general philosophical model to be followed is this: always do what is in the best interests of individual others, and consider all individual others equally valuable for this purpose.

[Conserative Morality]

It would change people, but those people would be prepared. Obviously you are not one of those people. You have been trained for your death your whole life, not merely to understand it, but to think of it as a good thing to exist.

The immortals would be nearly without fear. They would be nearly without hate. They would be almost entirely free of the constant struggle to survive. You'd be left with whatever a person would be, but distilled.

Do you have any idea what drives people? You wouldn't be left with what a person is, but distilled - you propose boiling away the essence of humanity.

How would it be a bad thing for everyone to understand eachother better, to communicate more honestly, and simply live every day without the constant threat that your fragile life could end at any second?

Why do you value honesty? I'm a liar, and a damn good one. Truth and lies are no more inherently good or bad than any other concept. That threat that my fragile life could end at any second makes me value it. I should know - I lived for the longest time without an emotional conception of my own mortality. Now that I know how close I am to dying, at any given day... I'm much happier. Much more driven.

How are these changes bad? Do you want people to live in fear, starvation, sickness? We already try to destroy these things, transhumanism is simply the way to go about actually doing so.

Fear is neither good nor bad, starvation and sickness don't need to be destroyed by a mechanist's dream of transhumanism.

[-Ebola-]

Ooh... Thanks! I love bats!



From a human point of view, it is a useful tool, but one you need to be careful with. It can solve a lot of problems, but it can also create new problems if people aren't thoughtful about how they use it.

Yeah, well, you're a virus. You probably think that natural immunity to Ebola would be a new problem.

I do think immunity to Ebola would be a problem, but even if you don't see it that way, there are a lot of other things that could go wrong.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Then what system would you suggest? Because we're going to have our large population, or would you rather have a third of the population die from disease, famine be extremely common, etc.?

Upon reflection, I feel that all my arguments in favor of partial primitivism have really just amounted to arguments against consumerism, unnecessary products, and the advertising, political artifacting, and the weapons trade, nothing else. An argument in favor of voluntary poverty, sure, but not primitivism in any real sense. My reason for the shift is that, come to think of it, someone building a system of ethics from the ground up properly could find extensive use for planes, cars, and radios. Different uses, certainly, but uses.

No, I wouldn't rather we let the extraneous population die off. That would be in violation of every inch of the ethical framework this whole premise is based on. I've elaborated on my methods a bit previously, so let me elaborate on my immediate goals.
Seeing as we have this population, and the technology to sustain it, we shall have to use it. So advanced agriculture will have to stay, and with it, the social structure involved in running it. Property absolutely has got to go, and not just in the minds of the people; we must have property's teeth out. That means the abolition of the state, the violent division of the bourgeoisie infrastructure. Once the only possible source of assistance in making sure that the hungry people at the gate don't take bread is broken, anyone who can't afford bread and can't acquire the wages to buy bread will take bread. The landowners will scream and stand on the porch with shotguns and cry that the whole society will come crashing down if we don't respect their property, and then we will steal their guns and proceed to blatantly not starve at them, and the whole society will fail to come crashing down. If there are really food shortages, then more people will go and farm. If there are complex issues, they will, by and large, listen to relevant experts if there aren't a thousand very powerful interest groups trying to buy their opinion. Everyone is very quick to believe in the prisoners dilemma when it comes to other men, from their position of luxury supported by fear, but when a famine comes and there being enough food to eat depends on enough people farming, it's always shocking to see how quickly they farm, property or no. I suppose it's rather like why people vote in democracies.
And so on with other basic necessities. Other things that people want grow out of having a larger labor pool than is necessary to support the population, and we certainly do. But there must absolutely not be a concept of "unemployment" or a "job shortage" in a society that has plenty. Furthermore, and we must be absolutely resolute about this, there can be no production of goods and services that are valuable to no one, and only support their own existence: parasites leeching off of the economy, accomplishing nothing but to spread moral rot among the people, things like advertising, and everything for sale at the dollar store.
Religiously we must abolish the church and return faith to the people, where it belongs.
Politically, we must be absolutely brutal to their ideals of power, hierarchy, consequentialism, merit differentials and superiority, compromise, ownership, and egoism wherever they appear, we must take no prisoner. If an egoist organization rises up, then an intensely organized altruist resistance made up of the devoted and disciplined must rise up against it in the same moment.
The general philosophical model to be followed is this: always do what is in the best interests of individual others, and consider all individual others equally valuable for this purpose.

Congratulations, you have invented a communist anarchy. What will you go on to do next? Invent a silent bullhorn? Frictionless shoelaces? Infinitely stretchable belts?

[Northwest Slobovia]

As to the topic: Genetic engineering is a useful tool... for some problems, a very useful tool. Transhumanism is a nice, warm thought for many people, but I doubt many of people's wishes about it will come true.

From a human point of view, it is a useful tool, but one you need to be careful with. It can solve a lot of problems, but it can also create new problems if people aren't thoughtful about how they use it.

Before the invention of the hammer, nobody ever hit their thumb with a hammer.

[Shaggai]

Upon reflection, I feel that all my arguments in favor of partial primitivism have really just amounted to arguments against consumerism, unnecessary products, and the advertising, political artifacting, and the weapons trade, nothing else. An argument in favor of voluntary poverty, sure, but not primitivism in any real sense. My reason for the shift is that, come to think of it, someone building a system of ethics from the ground up properly could find extensive use for planes, cars, and radios. Different uses, certainly, but uses.

No, I wouldn't rather we let the extraneous population die off. That would be in violation of every inch of the ethical framework this whole premise is based on. I've elaborated on my methods a bit previously, so let me elaborate on my immediate goals.
Seeing as we have this population, and the technology to sustain it, we shall have to use it. So advanced agriculture will have to stay, and with it, the social structure involved in running it. Property absolutely has got to go, and not just in the minds of the people; we must have property's teeth out. That means the abolition of the state, the violent division of the bourgeoisie infrastructure. Once the only possible source of assistance in making sure that the hungry people at the gate don't take bread is broken, anyone who can't afford bread and can't acquire the wages to buy bread will take bread. The landowners will scream and stand on the porch with shotguns and cry that the whole society will come crashing down if we don't respect their property, and then we will steal their guns and proceed to blatantly not starve at them, and the whole society will fail to come crashing down. If there are really food shortages, then more people will go and farm. If there are complex issues, they will, by and large, listen to relevant experts if there aren't a thousand very powerful interest groups trying to buy their opinion. Everyone is very quick to believe in the prisoners dilemma when it comes to other men, from their position of luxury supported by fear, but when a famine comes and there being enough food to eat depends on enough people farming, it's always shocking to see how quickly they farm, property or no. I suppose it's rather like why people vote in democracies.
And so on with other basic necessities. Other things that people want grow out of having a larger labor pool than is necessary to support the population, and we certainly do. But there must absolutely not be a concept of "unemployment" or a "job shortage" in a society that has plenty. Furthermore, and we must be absolutely resolute about this, there can be no production of goods and services that are valuable to no one, and only support their own existence: parasites leeching off of the economy, accomplishing nothing but to spread moral rot among the people, things like advertising, and everything for sale at the dollar store.
Religiously we must abolish the church and return faith to the people, where it belongs.
Politically, we must be absolutely brutal to their ideals of power, hierarchy, consequentialism, merit differentials and superiority, compromise, ownership, and egoism wherever they appear, we must take no prisoner. If an egoist organization rises up, then an intensely organized altruist resistance made up of the devoted and disciplined must rise up against it in the same moment.
The general philosophical model to be followed is this: always do what is in the best interests of individual others, and consider all individual others equally valuable for this purpose.

Congratulations, you have invented a communist anarchy. What will you go on to do next? Invent a silent bullhorn? Frictionless shoelaces? Infinitely stretchable belts?

Communism is inherently anarchic. You may be thinking of the Soviet model, which I believe UMN has referred to as Proto-Socialism.

It would change people, but those people would be prepared. Obviously you are not one of those people. You have been trained for your death your whole life, not merely to understand it, but to think of it as a good thing to exist.

The immortals would be nearly without fear. They would be nearly without hate. They would be almost entirely free of the constant struggle to survive. You'd be left with whatever a person would be, but distilled.

Do you have any idea what drives people? You wouldn't be left with what a person is, but distilled - you propose boiling away the essence of humanity.

How would it be a bad thing for everyone to understand eachother better, to communicate more honestly, and simply live every day without the constant threat that your fragile life could end at any second?

Why do you value honesty? I'm a liar, and a damn good one. Truth and lies are no more inherently good or bad than any other concept. That threat that my fragile life could end at any second makes me value it. I should know - I lived for the longest time without an emotional conception of my own mortality. Now that I know how close I am to dying, at any given day... I'm much happier. Much more driven.

How are these changes bad? Do you want people to live in fear, starvation, sickness? We already try to destroy these things, transhumanism is simply the way to go about actually doing so.

Fear is neither good nor bad, starvation and sickness don't need to be destroyed by a mechanist's dream of transhumanism.

The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant

Some level of fear is good. Some levels are bad.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

It would change people, but those people would be prepared. Obviously you are not one of those people. You have been trained for your death your whole life, not merely to understand it, but to think of it as a good thing to exist.

The immortals would be nearly without fear. They would be nearly without hate. They would be almost entirely free of the constant struggle to survive. You'd be left with whatever a person would be, but distilled.

Do you have any idea what drives people? You wouldn't be left with what a person is, but distilled - you propose boiling away the essence of humanity.

How would it be a bad thing for everyone to understand eachother better, to communicate more honestly, and simply live every day without the constant threat that your fragile life could end at any second?

Why do you value honesty? I'm a liar, and a damn good one. Truth and lies are no more inherently good or bad than any other concept. That threat that my fragile life could end at any second makes me value it. I should know - I lived for the longest time without an emotional conception of my own mortality. Now that I know how close I am to dying, at any given day... I'm much happier. Much more driven.

How are these changes bad? Do you want people to live in fear, starvation, sickness? We already try to destroy these things, transhumanism is simply the way to go about actually doing so.

Fear is neither good nor bad, starvation and sickness don't need to be destroyed by a mechanist's dream of transhumanism.

If you think that hunger, slavery, isolation, and failure are the essence of humanity that I certainly do want nothing more than to exterminate the essence of humanity - permanently.

Honesty is more conducive to societal functioning and valuable interpersonal relationships.
Motivation that comes from within is demonstrable more successful in all endevours. The threat of death is like the threat of being fired - it works, but not as much as enjoying and valuing your work in and of itself.

Starvation and sickness must be destroyed in all dreams of transhumanism. If your ideal future includes these things you are a terrible person and I hope you have no power to affect the future.


EDIT: Shaggai, that story was alarmingly relevant.

[Utceforp]

It would change people, but those people would be prepared. Obviously you are not one of those people. You have been trained for your death your whole life, not merely to understand it, but to think of it as a good thing to exist.

The immortals would be nearly without fear. They would be nearly without hate. They would be almost entirely free of the constant struggle to survive. You'd be left with whatever a person would be, but distilled.

Do you have any idea what drives people? You wouldn't be left with what a person is, but distilled - you propose boiling away the essence of humanity.

How would it be a bad thing for everyone to understand eachother better, to communicate more honestly, and simply live every day without the constant threat that your fragile life could end at any second?

Why do you value honesty? I'm a liar, and a damn good one. Truth and lies are no more inherently good or bad than any other concept. That threat that my fragile life could end at any second makes me value it. I should know - I lived for the longest time without an emotional conception of my own mortality. Now that I know how close I am to dying, at any given day... I'm much happier. Much more driven.

How are these changes bad? Do you want people to live in fear, starvation, sickness? We already try to destroy these things, transhumanism is simply the way to go about actually doing so.

Fear is neither good nor bad, starvation and sickness don't need to be destroyed by a mechanist's dream of transhumanism.

What you arbitrarily define as the "essence of humanity" isn't inherently good.

Assuming that you're not actually the President of the USA in disguise, after you die, you're not going to be remembered for very long. After a few generations even your family probably won't remember you - do you know your great-great-great grandfather's name by heart? Anything you did in your life won't have any meaning, because nobody will remember it. Dying means a lot more than cessation of consciousness - it means cessation of importance. That's why I want to be immortal, though realistically, immortality-granting technology is unlikely to be available in my lifetime. Still, if we do research into cybernetics and genetic engineering maybe someday we will defeat death.

[Margno]

Upon reflection, I feel that all my arguments in favor of partial primitivism have really just amounted to arguments against consumerism, unnecessary products, and the advertising, political artifacting, and the weapons trade, nothing else. An argument in favor of voluntary poverty, sure, but not primitivism in any real sense. My reason for the shift is that, come to think of it, someone building a system of ethics from the ground up properly could find extensive use for planes, cars, and radios. Different uses, certainly, but uses.

No, I wouldn't rather we let the extraneous population die off. That would be in violation of every inch of the ethical framework this whole premise is based on. I've elaborated on my methods a bit previously, so let me elaborate on my immediate goals.
Seeing as we have this population, and the technology to sustain it, we shall have to use it. So advanced agriculture will have to stay, and with it, the social structure involved in running it. Property absolutely has got to go, and not just in the minds of the people; we must have property's teeth out. That means the abolition of the state, the violent division of the bourgeoisie infrastructure. Once the only possible source of assistance in making sure that the hungry people at the gate don't take bread is broken, anyone who can't afford bread and can't acquire the wages to buy bread will take bread. The landowners will scream and stand on the porch with shotguns and cry that the whole society will come crashing down if we don't respect their property, and then we will steal their guns and proceed to blatantly not starve at them, and the whole society will fail to come crashing down. If there are really food shortages, then more people will go and farm. If there are complex issues, they will, by and large, listen to relevant experts if there aren't a thousand very powerful interest groups trying to buy their opinion. Everyone is very quick to believe in the prisoners dilemma when it comes to other men, from their position of luxury supported by fear, but when a famine comes and there being enough food to eat depends on enough people farming, it's always shocking to see how quickly they farm, property or no. I suppose it's rather like why people vote in democracies.
And so on with other basic necessities. Other things that people want grow out of having a larger labor pool than is necessary to support the population, and we certainly do. But there must absolutely not be a concept of "unemployment" or a "job shortage" in a society that has plenty. Furthermore, and we must be absolutely resolute about this, there can be no production of goods and services that are valuable to no one, and only support their own existence: parasites leeching off of the economy, accomplishing nothing but to spread moral rot among the people, things like advertising, and everything for sale at the dollar store.
Religiously we must abolish the church and return faith to the people, where it belongs.
Politically, we must be absolutely brutal to their ideals of power, hierarchy, consequentialism, merit differentials and superiority, compromise, ownership, and egoism wherever they appear, we must take no prisoner. If an egoist organization rises up, then an intensely organized altruist resistance made up of the devoted and disciplined must rise up against it in the same moment.
The general philosophical model to be followed is this: always do what is in the best interests of individual others, and consider all individual others equally valuable for this purpose.

Congratulations, you have invented a communist anarchy. What will you go on to do next? Invent a silent bullhorn? Frictionless shoelaces? Infinitely stretchable belts?

Oh my gosh, an infinitely stretchable belt would be so great.

[Conserative Morality]

The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant

Some level of fear is good. Some levels are bad.

That story is pathetic. It fails to actually address the philosophical implications of mortality - the moral is destroyed by the very presence of the thing is attempts to make absent.

Calculating people are contemptible. The reason for this is that calculation deals with loss and pain, and the loss and gain mind never stops. Death is considered loss and life is considered gain. Thus, death is something that such a person does not care for, and he is contemptible.

If you think that hunger, slavery, isolation, and failure are the essence of humanity that I certainly do want nothing more than to exterminate the essence of humanity - permanently.

So in other words, you're using the same, primitive survival instincts that I use to argue for their continuation; you use these same instincts to argue for the destruction of these instincts. Doesn't this strike you as... contradictory?

Honesty is more conducive to societal functioning and valuable interpersonal relationships.
Motivation that comes from within is demonstrable more successful in all endevours. The threat of death is like the threat of being fired - it works, but not as much as enjoying and valuing your work in and of itself.

Not even close. The threat of death is the threat of failure. Without the threat of failure, there is nothing but success; when there is nothing but success, there is no challenge, and the deed loses its appeal.

Starvation and sickness must be destroyed in all dreams of transhumanism. If your ideal future includes these things you are a terrible person and I hope you have no power to affect the future.

Starvation and sickness do not need to be destroyed by transhumanism. We don't need to lose who we are in order to do so.

[Margno]

Congratulations, you have invented a communist anarchy. What will you go on to do next? Invent a silent bullhorn? Frictionless shoelaces? Infinitely stretchable belts?

Communism is inherently anarchic. You may be thinking of the Soviet model, which I believe UMN has referred to as Proto-Socialism.

Do you have any idea what drives people? You wouldn't be left with what a person is, but distilled - you propose boiling away the essence of humanity.

Why do you value honesty? I'm a liar, and a damn good one. Truth and lies are no more inherently good or bad than any other concept. That threat that my fragile life could end at any second makes me value it. I should know - I lived for the longest time without an emotional conception of my own mortality. Now that I know how close I am to dying, at any given day... I'm much happier. Much more driven.

Fear is neither good nor bad, starvation and sickness don't need to be destroyed by a mechanist's dream of transhumanism.

The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant

Some level of fear is good. Some levels are bad.

And the other way around too, like 70-80% of anarchism is communist, and the stuff that isn't usually ends up contradicting itself, because if you believe in the initiation of force to punish theft and vandalism and enforce contracts, you're not much of an anarchist, and if you don't believe in defending property by the threat of force, you're not much of a capitalist.

[Conserative Morality]

What you arbitrarily define as the "essence of humanity" isn't inherently good.

Assuming that you're not actually the President of the USA in disguise, after you die, you're not going to be remembered for very long. After a few generations even your family probably won't remember you - do you know your great-great-great grandfather's name by heart? Anything you did in your life won't have any meaning, because nobody will remember it. Dying means a lot more than cessation of consciousness - it means cessation of importance. That's why I want to be immortal, though realistically, immortality-granting technology is unlikely to be available in my lifetime. Still, if we do research into cybernetics and genetic engineering maybe someday we will defeat death.

In ten thousand years, will anyone remember your the name of the 31st President of the United States of America?

Among hundreds of billions of immortals, what importance would you have?

My life has meaning, precisely because I don't need to be remembered. I live my life according to the virtues I find valuable, and in doing so, live a worthwhile life.

You argue that because no one knows what we do, it's meaningless. But the truth is, how we act when no one sees is the only meaningful measure of a man.

[Dejanic]

Transhumanism is probably one of the most boring subjects in the world for me, I've tried to read up on it, I've watched documentaries, I've done research, but I find all of it so fucking boring, I just couldn't give a crap about it, I'd rather just continue living my life. To be honest, it's probably largely due to the fact that Transhumanism is quite a philosophical subject, and I really hate philosophy.

Overall I am 100 percent neutral to the idea.

[Shaggai]

Transhumanism is probably one of the most boring subjects in the world for me, I've tried to read up on it, I've watched documentaries, I've done research, but I find all of it so fucking boring, I just couldn't give a crap about it, I'd rather just continue living my life.

In other words, I am 100 percent neutral.

Then why in all the forty thousand hells did you post in this thread?

[Dejanic]

Transhumanism is probably one of the most boring subjects in the world for me, I've tried to read up on it, I've watched documentaries, I've done research, but I find all of it so fucking boring, I just couldn't give a crap about it, I'd rather just continue living my life.

In other words, I am 100 percent neutral.

Then why in all the forty thousand hells did you post in this thread?

Because the OP asks for peoples opinions, thus I gave my opinion.

Why did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

[Shaggai]

The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant

Some level of fear is good. Some levels are bad.

That story is pathetic. It fails to actually address the philosophical implications of mortality - the moral is destroyed by the very presence of the thing is attempts to make absent.

Death would still exist after the dragon-tyrant was killed, certainly. But death would also exist in a transhumanist world, especially one of the type that this particular thread is about. The difference is in time.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant

Some level of fear is good. Some levels are bad.

That story is pathetic. It fails to actually address the philosophical implications of mortality - the moral is destroyed by the very presence of the thing is attempts to make absent.

Calculating people are contemptible. The reason for this is that calculation deals with loss and pain, and the loss and gain mind never stops. Death is considered loss and life is considered gain. Thus, death is something that such a person does not care for, and he is contemptible.

If you think that hunger, slavery, isolation, and failure are the essence of humanity that I certainly do want nothing more than to exterminate the essence of humanity - permanently.

So in other words, you're using the same, primitive survival instincts that I use to argue for their continuation; you use these same instincts to argue for the destruction of these instincts. Doesn't this strike you as... contradictory?

Honesty is more conducive to societal functioning and valuable interpersonal relationships.
Motivation that comes from within is demonstrable more successful in all endevours. The threat of death is like the threat of being fired - it works, but not as much as enjoying and valuing your work in and of itself.

Not even close. The threat of death is the threat of failure. Without the threat of failure, there is nothing but success; when there is nothing but success, there is no challenge, and the deed loses its appeal.

Starvation and sickness must be destroyed in all dreams of transhumanism. If your ideal future includes these things you are a terrible person and I hope you have no power to affect the future.

Starvation and sickness do not need to be destroyed by transhumanism. We don't need to lose who we are in order to do so.

If you believe that starvation and sickness are necessary to be human you are a vile person.

If you believe that life and death are indistinguishable, you are a madman who can't be argued with. Otherwise, you must admit that all else being equal life is always preferable to death, and is in all cases generally preferable to death. All intelligent beings understand this. Making that death as hard as possible to happen doesn't invalidate that reasoning in the slightest.

You did not address my point about motivation. It is an empirically demonstrated fact that internal motivations are more effective in all cases than external ones.(if both fit the situation) The threat of death is less effective a motivation than threat of injury to others that you care about.

Also, you didn't actually make an argument for the dragon-tyrant not demonstrating a point. You just asserted that it was pathetic.

[Shaggai]

Then why in all the forty thousand hells did you post in this thread?

Because the OP asks for peoples opinions, thus I gave my opinion.

Why did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

Why do you feel the need to post in a thread you don't care about? Seriously, it's just annoying. As Reploid Productions said:

I'm rather certain you can very quickly and easily go find (or start your own!) thread on a topic you are interested in discussing.

When you post in a thread that annoys you to complaint that it annoys you, it goes onto your View Your Posts list.

When it goes on your View Your Posts list, it will keep showing up there.

Showing up there will let it annoy you even more foreeeeeeeeever.

Don't make your View Your Posts list annoy you foreeeeeeeeever.

[Dejanic]

Because the OP asks for peoples opinions, thus I gave my opinion.

Why did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

Why do you feel the need to post in a thread you don't care about? Seriously, it's just annoying. As Reploid Productions said:

I'm rather certain you can very quickly and easily go find (or start your own!) thread on a topic you are interested in discussing.

When you post in a thread that annoys you to complaint that it annoys you, it goes onto your View Your Posts list.

When it goes on your View Your Posts list, it will keep showing up there.

Showing up there will let it annoy you even more foreeeeeeeeever.

Don't make your View Your Posts list annoy you foreeeeeeeeever.

I never said I didn't care about the thread, I gave my opinion on Transhumanism just like the OP asked for, I don't know why you're getting so aggressive over it.

It's pretty obvious you're being petulant and looking for a fight, so I can create a fake argument for you to attack if you want.

"I hatez Tranzhumanizm cos jesus".

There you go, have at it horse.

[Conserative Morality]

Death would still exist after the dragon-tyrant was killed, certainly. But death would also exist in a transhumanist world, especially one of the type that this particular thread is about. The difference is in time.

The difference is inevitability.

If you believe that starvation and sickness are necessary to be human you are a vile person.

I explicitly said that starvation and sickness were to be wiped out - just not by transhumanism.

If you believe that life and death are indistinguishable, you are a madman who can't be argued with. Otherwise, you must admit that all else being equal life is always preferable to death, and is in all cases generally preferable to death. All intelligent beings understand this.

No. People running off of a base survival instinct or a philosophy based on an appeal to nature believe as much. Death and life are different - but this doesn't mean that one is necessarily preferable to the other, certainly not universally so.

You did not address my point about motivation. It is an empirically demonstrated fact that internal motivations are more effective in all cases than external ones.(if both fit the situation) The threat of death is less effective a motivation than threat of injury to others that you care about.

Without the personal inevitability of death, the only fear of death that would exist is violent death - in what world is the former external and the latter internal? Shit, in what world is the threat of injury to those you care about NOT external?

Also, you didn't actually make an argument for the dragon-tyrant not demonstrating a point. You just asserted that it was pathetic.

Actually, I did - I asserted that the continued presence of the thing the dragon is supposed to be a metaphor for undermines the metaphor.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Death would still exist after the dragon-tyrant was killed, certainly. But death would also exist in a transhumanist world, especially one of the type that this particular thread is about. The difference is in time.

The difference is inevitability.

If you believe that starvation and sickness are necessary to be human you are a vile person.

I explicitly said that starvation and sickness were to be wiped out - just not by transhumanism.

If you believe that life and death are indistinguishable, you are a madman who can't be argued with. Otherwise, you must admit that all else being equal life is always preferable to death, and is in all cases generally preferable to death. All intelligent beings understand this.

No. People running off of a base survival instinct or a philosophy based on an appeal to nature believe as much. Death and life are different - but this doesn't mean that one is necessarily preferable to the other, certainly not universally so.

You did not address my point about motivation. It is an empirically demonstrated fact that internal motivations are more effective in all cases than external ones.(if both fit the situation) The threat of death is less effective a motivation than threat of injury to others that you care about.

Without the personal inevitability of death, the only fear of death that would exist is violent death - in what world is the former external and the latter internal? Shit, in what world is the threat of injury to those you care about NOT external?

Also, you didn't actually make an argument for the dragon-tyrant not demonstrating a point. You just asserted that it was pathetic.

Actually, I did - I asserted that the continued presence of the thing the dragon is supposed to be a metaphor for undermines the metaphor.

You've been asserting that sickness and death are components of the human condition, along with death. The way in which they are eliminated is not relevant to their effects on the human condition that you are asserting.

Yes, life is NECESSARILY preferable to death if that is the only context. It is absolutely universal to all intelligent beings.

Fear of death is the motivating factor in avoiding car accidents. It does not motivate people at all to make art, perform science, raise families, or work hard. It makes you look before you cross the road and little else. In situations where consequences come down to death and not death, OBVIOUSLY death avoidance is a motivating factor - which you are now contradicting yourself on, see point #2, where you claim life is not necessarily preferable.

You gave a conclusion with one premise. That isn't an argument. Your conclusion is also really freaking retarded because it does not at all address the ACTUAL metaphor of the story, which is how death has become a normalized and even ceremonialized thing in society to diffuse how much we want to avoid it.

[Shaggai]

Death would still exist after the dragon-tyrant was killed, certainly. But death would also exist in a transhumanist world, especially one of the type that this particular thread is about. The difference is in time.

1. The difference is inevitability.

If you believe that starvation and sickness are necessary to be human you are a vile person.

2. I explicitly said that starvation and sickness were to be wiped out - just not by transhumanism.

If you believe that life and death are indistinguishable, you are a madman who can't be argued with. Otherwise, you must admit that all else being equal life is always preferable to death, and is in all cases generally preferable to death. All intelligent beings understand this.

3. No. People running off of a base survival instinct or a philosophy based on an appeal to nature believe as much. Death and life are different - but this doesn't mean that one is necessarily preferable to the other, certainly not universally so.

You did not address my point about motivation. It is an empirically demonstrated fact that internal motivations are more effective in all cases than external ones.(if both fit the situation) The threat of death is less effective a motivation than threat of injury to others that you care about.

4. Without the personal inevitability of death, the only fear of death that would exist is violent death - in what world is the former external and the latter internal? Shit, in what world is the threat of injury to those you care about NOT external?

Also, you didn't actually make an argument for the dragon-tyrant not demonstrating a point. You just asserted that it was pathetic.

5. Actually, I did - I asserted that the continued presence of the thing the dragon is supposed to be a metaphor for undermines the metaphor.

1. Death is always inevitable. It is simply not scheduled, unless you're going extreme transhumanism and living until the heat death of the universe.
2. What difference does it make?
3. Well, I technically agree with you on this, so I can't make an intelligent argument against your position from this angle.
4. The threat of death is external, though. Internal motivations (well, as far as I can tell) are being defined as "motivations which one creates", rather than ones which are imposed.
5. N/A

[Soselo]

Transhumanism is a threat to the quiet life. I should like to enter the woods and rest on a bed built for myself with my hands. Humanity is beautiful, yet I fear superhumanity. Superhumanity will make life move far too fast. The disabled ought to live in good health. How vain is it to sit down in a wheelchair when you have not yet stood up to live?

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Transhumanism is a threat to the quiet life. I should like to enter the woods and rest on a bed built for myself with my hands. Humanity is beautiful, yet I fear superhumanity. Superhumanity will make life move far too fast. The disabled ought to live in good health. How vain it is to sit down in a wheelchair when you have not yet stood up to live?

I want to make everyone able to walk.

And also be able to shapeshift, perform telepathy, and be generally invulnerable, but those are bonuses.