Transhumanism: What's your take on it?

[The USOT]

There probably isn't any silver bullet. For transportation, an effective countermeasure is of course robust public transportation. For areas without the necessary population density, a kind of "cash for clunkers" type of program would be a good countermeasure.

Specifically with regards to transhuman technologies, it's harder to say. The obvious answer is socialism, but it's hard to get people in the United States to accept the utility of public expenditure, let alone a radical transformation of the socioeconomic system. Subsidizing augmentation heavily may be necessary.

Or there's a rapid migration of transhumanists to Europe and Japan.

Why are Europe and Japan inherrantly in a better position for transhumanism?

[Luveria]

Or there's a rapid migration of transhumanists to Europe and Japan.

Why are Europe and Japan inherrantly in a better position for transhumanism?

Especially Japan.

[AETEN II]

Or there's a rapid migration of transhumanists to Europe and Japan.

Why are Europe and Japan inherently in a better position for transhumanism?

Healthcare is amazing in Japan, while Europe is largely socialist.

[Trotskylvania]

Which is why I support assimilation and not transferring. Assimilation in basis should work once we have the tech, there's nothing to suggest that having a clump of neurons taken over each day would change that (I also like to note how that article completely dodged the assimilation of neurons and simply said 'well if you die you don't notice that so..' insane troll logic much?). Transferring however just makes me scratch my head and look for the space magic.

Assimilation is both easier in implementation, and has fewer stumbling blocks for theoretical possibility than brain uploading. But, you have to be okay with accepting that you will not be the same person after the process completes, since the purpose of the replacement part is not to perfectly recreate your gray matter, but to rather increase your capabilities. Plus, it will have its own existential risks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCZR-KJFohA

People probably fixate on uploading because they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to remain the same person, and still have increased capabilities, and that's the promise of perfect brain emulation. It will, in all likelihood fail to deliver even if brain uploading and emulation is possible.

[Natapoc]

I do. But unlike many transhumanists I don't have religious like faith in technology to make me better at what I'm not as good at. And I don't claim to think that technology will somehow solve most all the problems that we have. I don't make claims about the technologies that don't exist.

I accept what I'm not good at, try to improve where I can and mostly focus on what I'm able to do.

Technology already has made us better at things we were previously not very good at as a species, You are currently able to do 100373902*369100 for example in a matter of minutes which prior to the digital computer existing in your home would of appeared miraculous, we, that is transhumanists (well the section of us that you are arguing against at least Trots has already pointed out he is not among those) Simply extrapolate the trend of paradigm shifting that has occurred throughout human history and continue it to its logical conclusion, that is what we are doing, looking at trends that have been occurring for 1000's of years and expecting to continue, it is not religious in the slightest.

If using a tool to make calculations or tasks more easy is all transhuminists are talking about then it introduces nothing new. The humans of several thousand years ago were no less "transhuminists" for discovering how to improve upon their tools and indeed some other animal species are also transhuman for discovering tools that better their lives.

If that's all transhumanism is, then a better name for it is: Human.

What new ideas are transhuminists introducing if that's all they believe?

[Olivaero]

These things aren't healthcare though they are information technology and selling information technology is the cornerstone of the biggest private companies in the world. Where do you think things will go after Google's project glass? there needs to be an industry that is growing that companies can sell things too and inexpensive cybernetics is simply a step on the technology tree. What happens when they reach the limit of wearable computing ala Google glass which they surely will? The market as much as I despise it offers a mile wide hole for in expensive cybernetics to fill if we assume companies are preoccupied with maintaining their current growth rates or making profit they will fill it.

I think the issue here is biological. More in that even with things which are wildly available, surgery is still expensive. You need to pay people a good deal to be a qualified surgeon, you need to pay for all the chemicals to make the operation work, you need to have policies in place in case of malfunction or you have massivly condemned the common man requiring a high level of costs to cover potential lawsuits etc. I can see no way in which that suddenly becomes cheap...

If there is a need to make profit, it will happen. To be honest In my own country there is some what of a precedence for Medical costs to be subsidized by the government, It is the working class that I worry for because it is likely that the middle class will be able to pay for such things independently, I would think the conscientious Middle class along with the wanting working class could push such legislation through our democracy, I'm not sure how such a thing would be done in the US however.

[Ostroeuropa]

Technology already has made us better at things we were previously not very good at as a species, You are currently able to do 100373902*369100 for example in a matter of minutes which prior to the digital computer existing in your home would of appeared miraculous, we, that is transhumanists (well the section of us that you are arguing against at least Trots has already pointed out he is not among those) Simply extrapolate the trend of paradigm shifting that has occurred throughout human history and continue it to its logical conclusion, that is what we are doing, looking at trends that have been occurring for 1000's of years and expecting to continue, it is not religious in the slightest.

If using a tool to make calculations or tasks more easy is all transhuminists are talking about then it introduces nothing new. The humans of several thousand years ago were no less "transhuminists" for discovering how to improve upon their tools and indeed some other animal species are also transhuman for discovering tools that better their lives.

If that's all transhumanism is, then a better name for it is: Human.

What new ideas are transhuminists introducing if that's all they believe?

Typically that the human body or mind should be upgraded to allow better tool use or thinking.
An immediate and futuristic example would be a link between the brain and a computer so as to allow convincing VR. Without alterations to the human, this is unlikely to be possible.
Another example would be advocating replacing failing organs as a matter of policy instead of it being one of the options.
As soon as the biological heart starts to fail, it should be the prefered action that it be replaced, instead of a big waiting list and cardiotherapy being the main option

[The USOT]

Why are Europe and Japan inherently in a better position for transhumanism?

Healthcare is amazing in Japan, while Europe is largely socialist.

There are a few implications here which are unproven.

First of all, the market may not view transhuman technologies as healthcare. Nor neccesarily will the government. It may be entirely its own market or perhaps covered under cosmetics, something which is often stupidly expensive.

Europe is also not remotely socialist. There are socialist institutions within europe, but remember state control =/= socialist.

Ignoring that, why is socialism inherrantly better for the administering of transhuman technologies? Its not as if the costs of resources are going to suddenly dissapear.

[Athylon Prime]

Technology already has made us better at things we were previously not very good at as a species, You are currently able to do 100373902*369100 for example in a matter of minutes which prior to the digital computer existing in your home would of appeared miraculous, we, that is transhumanists (well the section of us that you are arguing against at least Trots has already pointed out he is not among those) Simply extrapolate the trend of paradigm shifting that has occurred throughout human history and continue it to its logical conclusion, that is what we are doing, looking at trends that have been occurring for 1000's of years and expecting to continue, it is not religious in the slightest.

If using a tool to make calculations or tasks more easy is all transhuminists are talking about then it introduces nothing new. The humans of several thousand years ago were no less "transhuminists" for discovering how to improve upon their tools and indeed some other animal species are also transhuman for discovering tools that better their lives.

If that's all transhumanism is, then a better name for it is: Human.

What new ideas are transhuminists introducing if that's all they believe?

You have read this thread, right? Many ideas have been stated.

[Ostroeuropa]

Healthcare is amazing in Japan, while Europe is largely socialist.

There are a few implications here which are unproven.

First of all, the market may not view transhuman technologies as healthcare. Nor neccesarily will the government. It may be entirely its own market or perhaps covered under cosmetics, something which is often stupidly expensive.

Europe is also not remotely socialist. There are socialist institutions within europe, but remember state control =/= socialist.

Ignoring that, why is socialism inherrantly better for the administering of transhuman technologies? Its not as if the costs of resources are going to suddenly dissapear.

I think it'll be a corporate matter.
The "But the rich will be unstoppable!" shit is simply paranoia. If you're a worker and I have cash, it's well within my interest to pay for your upgrades if it makes you make me more profit.
And if we get into health insurance and such, companies may well MANDATE you get the upgrades since it'll save them cash in the long run.

[Trotskylvania]

Healthcare is amazing in Japan, while Europe is largely socialist.

There are a few implications here which are unproven.

First of all, the market may not view transhuman technologies as healthcare. Nor neccesarily will the government. It may be entirely its own market or perhaps covered under cosmetics, something which is often stupidly expensive.

Europe is also not remotely socialist. There are socialist institutions within europe, but remember state control =/= socialist.

Ignoring that, why is socialism inherrantly better for the administering of transhuman technologies? Its not as if the costs of resources are going to suddenly dissapear.

One can perhaps imagine, that in a socialist economy, augmentation might be subsidized heavily enough to be affordable. Or access to it might be decided by lot, or any other of the ways that could be used to prevent a transhuman overlords sort of scenario.

[AETEN II]

Which is why I support assimilation and not transferring. Assimilation in basis should work once we have the tech, there's nothing to suggest that having a clump of neurons taken over each day would change that (I also like to note how that article completely dodged the assimilation of neurons and simply said 'well if you die you don't notice that so..' insane troll logic much?). Transferring however just makes me scratch my head and look for the space magic.

Assimilation is both easier in implementation, and has fewer stumbling blocks for theoretical possibility than brain uploading. But, you have to be okay with accepting that you will not be the same person after the process completes, since the purpose of the replacement part is not to perfectly recreate your gray matter, but to rather increase your capabilities. Plus, it will have its own existential risks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCZR-KJFohA

People probably fixate on uploading because they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to remain the same person, and still have increased capabilities, and that's the promise of perfect brain emulation. It will, in all likelihood fail to deliver even if brain uploading and emulation is possible.

A man is but the product of his thoughts, what he thinks, he becomes.

Best way to really explain it, no different than minor brain damage, or the difference between a teenager and a fully matured adult. So long as it wasn't as severe as Phineas Gage's incident I would see no problem from it. Thought patterns change naturally or by outside causes, and so long as it wasn't severe alteration (you become a nut incapable of any social interaction) or completely removed emotional capability I'd be fine.

[Antares XII]

Which is why I support assimilation and not transferring. Assimilation in basis should work once we have the tech, there's nothing to suggest that having a clump of neurons taken over each day would change that (I also like to note how that article completely dodged the assimilation of neurons and simply said 'well if you die you don't notice that so..' insane troll logic much?). Transferring however just makes me scratch my head and look for the space magic.

Assimilation is both easier in implementation, and has fewer stumbling blocks for theoretical possibility than brain uploading. But, you have to be okay with accepting that you will not be the same person after the process completes, since the purpose of the replacement part is not to perfectly recreate your gray matter, but to rather increase your capabilities. Plus, it will have its own existential risks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCZR-KJFohA

People probably fixate on uploading because they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to remain the same person, and still have increased capabilities, and that's the promise of perfect brain emulation. It will, in all likelihood fail to deliver even if brain uploading and emulation is possible.

No. You aren't the same person you were when you were born, whether going by physical or mental measurement. If done gradually, uploading should be no different. Digitisation, I think, should work too, if all senses and a suitable external VR are supplied, even though that would involve total loss of the original body and mind. It would just require a much higher level of precision and accuracy.

[The USOT]

I think the issue here is biological. More in that even with things which are wildly available, surgery is still expensive. You need to pay people a good deal to be a qualified surgeon, you need to pay for all the chemicals to make the operation work, you need to have policies in place in case of malfunction or you have massivly condemned the common man requiring a high level of costs to cover potential lawsuits etc. I can see no way in which that suddenly becomes cheap...

If there is a need to make profit, it will happen. To be honest In my own country there is some what of a precedence for Medical costs to be subsidized by the government, It is the working class that I worry for because it is likely that the middle class will be able to pay for such things independently, I would think the conscientious Middle class along with the wanting working class could push such legislation through our democracy, I'm not sure how such a thing would be done in the US however.

I dont know if even the middle class would be able to pay for things independantly, but I digress. What is to stop the lower classes instead asking for the technology to be banned/ or for them to be radicalised against the technologies for the inevitable social divide their not being able to afford them would cause?

[Ostroeuropa]

There are a few implications here which are unproven.

First of all, the market may not view transhuman technologies as healthcare. Nor neccesarily will the government. It may be entirely its own market or perhaps covered under cosmetics, something which is often stupidly expensive.

Europe is also not remotely socialist. There are socialist institutions within europe, but remember state control =/= socialist.

Ignoring that, why is socialism inherrantly better for the administering of transhuman technologies? Its not as if the costs of resources are going to suddenly dissapear.

One can perhaps imagine, that in a socialist economy, augmentation might be subsidized heavily enough to be affordable. Or access to it might be decided by lot, or any other of the ways that could be used to prevent a transhuman overlords sort of scenario.

I forsee baseline healthcare subsidies and corporations paying for workers to get productivity upgrades, but leisure upgrades are probably gonna be private.
It's well within the governments interest, and excellent for the economy, to subsidize transhuman implants at school age if those implants increase intelligence. The cost would pay itself in a generation.

[Luveria]

There are a few implications here which are unproven.

First of all, the market may not view transhuman technologies as healthcare. Nor neccesarily will the government. It may be entirely its own market or perhaps covered under cosmetics, something which is often stupidly expensive.

Europe is also not remotely socialist. There are socialist institutions within europe, but remember state control =/= socialist.

Ignoring that, why is socialism inherrantly better for the administering of transhuman technologies? Its not as if the costs of resources are going to suddenly dissapear.

One can perhaps imagine, that in a socialist economy, augmentation might be subsidized heavily enough to be affordable. Or access to it might be decided by lot, or any other of the ways that could be used to prevent a transhuman overlords sort of scenario.

Show one socialist economy that could be powerful enough to subsidize augmentation. You're ignoring the history of socialism.

[Ostroeuropa]

If there is a need to make profit, it will happen. To be honest In my own country there is some what of a precedence for Medical costs to be subsidized by the government, It is the working class that I worry for because it is likely that the middle class will be able to pay for such things independently, I would think the conscientious Middle class along with the wanting working class could push such legislation through our democracy, I'm not sure how such a thing would be done in the US however.

I dont know if even the middle class would be able to pay for things independantly, but I digress. What is to stop the lower classes instead asking for the technology to be banned/ or for them to be radicalised against the technologies for the inevitable social divide their not being able to afford them would cause?

The working class, if they bother getting political, are typically either led by Intelligentsia working class individuals (Who are as likely to be transhumanist as not) or by the middle class

[The USOT]

There are a few implications here which are unproven.

First of all, the market may not view transhuman technologies as healthcare. Nor neccesarily will the government. It may be entirely its own market or perhaps covered under cosmetics, something which is often stupidly expensive.

Europe is also not remotely socialist. There are socialist institutions within europe, but remember state control =/= socialist.

Ignoring that, why is socialism inherrantly better for the administering of transhuman technologies? Its not as if the costs of resources are going to suddenly dissapear.

I think it'll be a corporate matter.
The "But the rich will be unstoppable!" shit is simply paranoia. If you're a worker and I have cash, it's well within my interest to pay for your upgrades if it makes you make me more profit.
And if we get into health insurance and such, companies may well MANDATE you get the upgrades since it'll save them cash in the long run.

That could be a potential in the long run sure, but in the short term thats not going to be likely... remember there is not inherrantly a positive face on transhumanism anyway, imagine a company going for that ethic in the modern era... there would be public outrage and radicalisation.

[Ostroeuropa]

One can perhaps imagine, that in a socialist economy, augmentation might be subsidized heavily enough to be affordable. Or access to it might be decided by lot, or any other of the ways that could be used to prevent a transhuman overlords sort of scenario.

Show one socialist economy that could be powerful enough to subsidize augmentation. You're ignoring the history of socialism.

Transhumanism changes the ball game.
Besides, paying for intelligence upgrades pays for itself if you get in there at school age.

[Olivaero]

Technology already has made us better at things we were previously not very good at as a species, You are currently able to do 100373902*369100 for example in a matter of minutes which prior to the digital computer existing in your home would of appeared miraculous, we, that is transhumanists (well the section of us that you are arguing against at least Trots has already pointed out he is not among those) Simply extrapolate the trend of paradigm shifting that has occurred throughout human history and continue it to its logical conclusion, that is what we are doing, looking at trends that have been occurring for 1000's of years and expecting to continue, it is not religious in the slightest.

If using a tool to make calculations or tasks more easy is all transhuminists are talking about then it introduces nothing new. The humans of several thousand years ago were no less "transhuminists" for discovering how to improve upon their tools and indeed some other animal species are also transhuman for discovering tools that better their lives.

If that's all transhumanism is, then a better name for it is: Human.

What new ideas are transhuminists introducing if that's all they believe?

The computer is a tool that increases your total intelligence, biological integration of information technology IE computers with your biology is seen as the rational conclusion by transhumanists because that is the trend that has been occuring for the last 50 years, information has been getting easier and more immediate to access, the step after mobile phones looks something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Glass why is it so unreasonable to go from that to a implant along your optical nerve which sends visual inputs straight to the brain, by passing the eye all together? Things like this are the basis of transhumanism.

[Natapoc]

If using a tool to make calculations or tasks more easy is all transhuminists are talking about then it introduces nothing new. The humans of several thousand years ago were no less "transhuminists" for discovering how to improve upon their tools and indeed some other animal species are also transhuman for discovering tools that better their lives.

If that's all transhumanism is, then a better name for it is: Human.

What new ideas are transhuminists introducing if that's all they believe?

Typically that the human body or mind should be upgraded to allow better tool use or thinking.
An immediate and futuristic example would be a link between the brain and a computer so as to allow convincing VR. Without alterations to the human, this is unlikely to be possible.
Another example would be advocating replacing failing organs as a matter of policy instead of it being one of the options.
As soon as the biological heart starts to fail, it should be the prefered action that it be replaced, instead of a big waiting list and cardiotherapy being the main option

Now you're starting to get past all the rationalizations and PR and get into the core of what transhumanism is really about. What new things it brings to the table.

It's not about any technology or tool that makes our lives more easy. That's been happening since before humans even existed as a species. What transhumanism is really about is using technology to fundamentally alter the way the human brain and body works in a way that can subjectively be called "improvement"

Otherwise transhumanism has no meaning.

I'm not saying that's bad or good. All I'm saying is all the transhuminists I've read have way more faith in the advancement of technology then is warranted by sound science at this time.

I mean, someone just told me that it was a simple refinement in eeg technology to understanding how thoughts work. Do you see the problem?

It's like saying I can understand how your digestive system works as a perfectly understood system by means of an anal thermometer.

[The USOT]

I dont know if even the middle class would be able to pay for things independantly, but I digress. What is to stop the lower classes instead asking for the technology to be banned/ or for them to be radicalised against the technologies for the inevitable social divide their not being able to afford them would cause?

The working class, if they bother getting political, are typically either led by Intelligentsia working class individuals (Who are as likely to be transhumanist as not) or by the middle class

Intelligentsia =/= in favour of transhumanism. Many religious people, particularly religious intellectuals or community leaders may be violently opposed to many transhumanists on very clear religious grounds (a good freind of mine for instance is the most moderate muslim I know, and yet he is opposed to transhumanism on the beleif that the body is Sacred to Allah). Unless we are on different worlds, whilst atheism is certainly on the rise there is still an overwhelming amount of even the moderatly religious who are going to be opposed to the idea.
The working class may be led by intelligentsia, but that doesnt mean the intelligentsia always has to be moderate, reasonable or open for debate.

[Trotskylvania]

Assimilation is both easier in implementation, and has fewer stumbling blocks for theoretical possibility than brain uploading. But, you have to be okay with accepting that you will not be the same person after the process completes, since the purpose of the replacement part is not to perfectly recreate your gray matter, but to rather increase your capabilities. Plus, it will have its own existential risks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCZR-KJFohA

People probably fixate on uploading because they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to remain the same person, and still have increased capabilities, and that's the promise of perfect brain emulation. It will, in all likelihood fail to deliver even if brain uploading and emulation is possible.

A man is but the product of his thoughts, what he thinks, he becomes.

Best way to really explain it, no different than minor brain damage, or the difference between a teenager and a fully matured adult. So long as it wasn't as severe as Phineas Gage's incident I would see no problem from it. Thought patterns change naturally or by outside causes, and so long as it wasn't severe alteration (you become a nut incapable of any social interaction) or completely removed emotional capability I'd be fine.

I don't think we should trivialize the level of change by comparing it just to maturing. And I say this as someone who'd be willing to cast off this human form and become a digital sapient once the risk came down to an acceptable level. Difference isn't so much the problem, which you correctly argue. It's what the difference is.

In science fiction, it's probably been the Halo series that best explored this. Strong AIs are made from the template of a person's brain, but the process of uploading requires radical alterations. They still have, on some level, the memories and some personality traits of their human template, but they are radically different persons.

[Athylon Prime]

Assimilation is both easier in implementation, and has fewer stumbling blocks for theoretical possibility than brain uploading. But, you have to be okay with accepting that you will not be the same person after the process completes, since the purpose of the replacement part is not to perfectly recreate your gray matter, but to rather increase your capabilities. Plus, it will have its own existential risks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCZR-KJFohA

People probably fixate on uploading because they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to remain the same person, and still have increased capabilities, and that's the promise of perfect brain emulation. It will, in all likelihood fail to deliver even if brain uploading and emulation is possible.

No. You aren't the same person you were when you were born, whether going by physical or mental measurement. If done gradually, uploading should be no different. Digitisation, I think, should work too, if all senses and a suitable external VR are supplied, even though that would involve total loss of the original body and mind. It would just require a much higher level of precision and accuracy.

Exactly. We change over time. Our actions and decisions shape us into who we are(to a certain degree)

[Napkiraly]

If using a tool to make calculations or tasks more easy is all transhuminists are talking about then it introduces nothing new. The humans of several thousand years ago were no less "transhuminists" for discovering how to improve upon their tools and indeed some other animal species are also transhuman for discovering tools that better their lives.

If that's all transhumanism is, then a better name for it is: Human.

What new ideas are transhuminists introducing if that's all they believe?

The computer is a tool that increases your total intelligence, biological integration of information technology IE computers with your biology is seen as the rational conclusion by transhumanists because that is the trend that has been occuring for the last 50 years, information has been getting easier and more immediate to access, the step after mobile phones looks something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Glass why is it so unreasonable to go from that to a implant along your optical nerve which sends visual inputs straight to the brain, by passing the eye all together? Things like this are the basis of transhumanism.

I'm buying the Google Glass when it comes out.

It should be an interesting experience.