Will you side with the Transhumanists?

[Bralia]

You know, I find it astonishing that some of the people who claim to be liberals in this thread are advocating stagnancy. Transhumanism is the advancement of human kind. The transcendence of human-kind. The sort of progressive change that a lot of liberals I know strive for. Breaking down traditional cultural values to be more inclusive of individuals who aren't quite the same as the majority. People that advocate for the protection of the environment and the advancement of science. And yet, when the idea of transhumanism is proposed, you say we should stick with the "old" ways. It boggles my mind . . .

[IshCong]

I quote only so people are not confused about who I am addressing.

Well the more we talk, more you seem to have a contempt of the flesh thing going.

If this is about my use of the phrase 'squishy bits', that's not contempt. That's humor. Saying organic over and over again is boring. Squishy bits is fun. You really are reading too much into a short phrase.

The more I champion the organic life, the more it makes me wonder.I am a furious cynical man, but I now wonder if I do not love the human race so much and that when I see their failings it turns my love into hatred,If I did not love the human race, why would a man like me give two damns about what happens to it? About maintaining it's organic state. It makes me wonder why you would claim the opposite but seemingly try to move away from humanity.

I'm not trying to move away from Humanity. I think you have a very different idea of what Humanity is than I do though, with your emphasis on squishy bits and my emphasis more on things like personality and the mind.

You speak of these things as if they are mere commodities at times. If you so accepted humanity, why try to alter it's very mental functioning rather than re-direct it? Re-direction has worked to great results before.

Because redirection doesn't solve things like surpassing the natural bounds of Human life, Human intellect, Human health, and so forth. A certain method can only take you so far, after that, one must look at alternatives.

There is no such thing as like a human but metal as it would require very different wiring to be considered human and humanly sapient. Even then the difference would make it inhuman because it would still use different mechanisms.

This is utterly absurd. What makes a Human Human is not their squishy bits. It's not their flesh. It's their mind, their personality, their (not physically existent but whatever) soul. The squishy bits are a carrier for that and not a bad one, but when one starts placing squishy bits on some higher tier over all the other things that actually make Humans unique in this world and make Humans sapient creatures one has erred.

I base my stand points on logic. Animals of non-human form are not selfish, they live in a different state and world from humans that gives them few other options. They do not think to screw each other over, they seek to live the only way they can.

They don't think to screw each other over because they do it without thinking. Humans will often pause and think, "Is this really the right thing to do?" Animals just do it because they have absolutely no care whatsoever for any harm they may do to another being. That's pure selfishness, the fact that they don't even stop to think before causing harm because they cannot fathom caring if they harm another being. And they don't exactly go out of their way to help other beings for altruistic purposes.

I'll let Stovokor respond to the stuff directed at Stovokor.

[Bralia]

The more I champion the organic life, the more it makes me wonder.I am a furious cynical man, but I now wonder if I do not love the human race so much and that when I see their failings it turns my love into hatred,If I did not love the human race, why would a man like me give two damns about what happens to it? About maintaining it's organic state. It makes me wonder why you would claim the opposite but seemingly try to move away from humanity.

I'm not trying to move away from Humanity. I think you have a very different idea of what Humanity is than I do though, with your emphasis on squishy bits and my emphasis more on things like personality and the mind.

I'm going to play off of this and ask you Faolinn, what defines humanity? The parts used to construct ourselves (skin, cells, etc.) or our sentience (the ability to critically think, to have emotion, etc.)? What does it matter what vessel contains out "souls", for lack of a better word?

[Faolinn]

You know, I find it astonishing that some of the people who claim to be liberals in this thread are advocating stagnancy. Transhumanism is the advancement of human kind. The transcendence of human-kind. The sort of progressive change that a lot of liberals I know strive for. Breaking down traditional cultural values to be more inclusive of individuals who aren't quite the same as the majority. People that advocate for the protection of the environment and the advancement of science. And yet, when the idea of transhumanism is proposed, you say we should stick with the "old" ways. It boggles my mind . . .

We do not advocate for stagnation.We merely offer a more sane and balanced path of human evolution.If humanity is no longer defined by our bodies you claim, shouldn't we really be more intensely focused on changing the social climate rather than our bodies?This idea that technology is the only way perplexes me.If we are trying to value more immaterial things, wouldn't it make more sense to just let people be as they are born and to pay less mind to how we are physically. Cultures do not need to be entirely obliterated to be improved. Women have made significant strides all over the world in cultures that are patriarchal and they are becoming less so.Yet they have not stopped celebrating traditional festivals or practicing traditional religions. I've encountered a number of Christian and Muslim feminists. In America most people are still Christian, yet they increasingly show acceptance for homosexuals without abandoning faith. If we do not need to totally abandon our cultures and our ways of life to become better, why do we need to abandon flesh to become better. Racism is dying in many places though ethnicity has not been eliminated. I may have issues with my species, but I like who I am, and my form is my icon to the world.It is uniquely mine.I like to think that because I am being of flesh I have become stronger, that I have learned the true meaning of strength. My flesh has taught me it is not the source of my strength and I will bare it as a reminder of this. It tests me and those test have taught me quite a bit, I used to be like you.I used to believe much of what you did when I was a child, but no more. I have grown into something more. Something that machines did not make me. We believe in the right to find one's own path to transendence. In not toying around with things callously, in the diversity of solutions, in our own potential, that we do not have to give up on being as we are to improve. We believe that people are more than things you can describe in clinical terms and that understanding humanity does not come from dissecting it or in our flesh, but in our minds, in our inner essence. Whether they believe in a soul like I do or not, this becomes a sort of soul to us.

I know what you will say to this, that I'm just going on about ideals, to be quite frank I find that ignorant, and hilarious.You will do the same thing. You will try to mask the same tactic as something else when you use it.

[IshCong]

You know, I find it astonishing that some of the people who claim to be liberals in this thread are advocating stagnancy. Transhumanism is the advancement of human kind. The transcendence of human-kind. The sort of progressive change that a lot of liberals I know strive for. Breaking down traditional cultural values to be more inclusive of individuals who aren't quite the same as the majority. People that advocate for the protection of the environment and the advancement of science. And yet, when the idea of transhumanism is proposed, you say we should stick with the "old" ways. It boggles my mind . . .

We do not advocate for stagnation.We merely offer a more sane and balanced path of human evolution.If humanity is no longer defined by our bodies you claim, shouldn't we really be more intensely focused on changing the social climate rather than our bodies?This idea that technology is the only way perplexes me.

Trans-humanism and other movements aren't mutually exclusive, you know. One can advocate for both trans-humanism and social movements as well. In fact, I do. Imagine that.

If we are trying to value more immaterial things, wouldn't it make more sense to just let people be as they are born and to pay less mind to how we are physically.

Firstly, trans-humanism is about more than just changing our bodies.
Secondly, if our bodies are not what makes us Human, it very well may be worth changing them to better support that which does make us Human and to better reduce Human suffering.

Cultures do not need to be entirely obliterated to be improved. Women have made significant strides all over the world in cultures that are patriarchal and they are becoming less so.Yet they have not stopped celebrating traditional festivals or practicing traditional religions. I've encountered a number of Christian and Muslim feminists. In America most people are still Christian, yet they increasingly show acceptance for homosexuals without abandoning faith. If we do not need to totally abandon our cultures and our ways of life to become better, why do we need to abandon flesh to become better. Racism is dying in many places though ethnicity has not been eliminated.

Firstly, nobody is saying that things like culture are irrelevant to what makes us Human. Our bodies, however, are, and thus can be changed so as to best reduce Human suffering and so as to best provide for Human advancement.
Currently, things like different ethnicities, cultures, and sexes can't be eliminated without simply exterminating people, which isn't the intent here. Conversely, if one intends to surpass Humanity's physical limitations, one must change Humanity's physical form, and that very well may mean forgoing flesh for other forms. And, in such a situation, flesh can be removed without killing people.

I may have issues with my species, but I like who I am, and my form is my icon to the world.It is uniquely mine.

Hehe. The guy communicating on an Internet forum is talking about how is physical form is what best represents him to the world. There's so much hilarity in that, I can't even begin to describe it.

I like to think that because I am being of flesh I have become stronger, that I have learned the true meaning of strength. My flesh has taught me it is not the source of my strength and I will bare it as a reminder of this.

You dismiss flesh as a source of strength, laud (of all things) flesh as a source of weakness, and intend to impose that weakness, and the pain it brings with it, on others?

It tests me and those test have taught me quite a bit, I used to be like you.I used to believe much of what you did when I was a child, but no more. I have grown into something more. Something that machines did not make me. We believe in the right to find one's own path to transendence. In not toying around with things callously, in the diversity of solutions, in our own potential, that we do not have to give up on being as we are to improve.

Giving up flesh isn't giving up what we are. There are many things made of squishy bits that are not Human. Squishy bits aren't what make us Human. What makes us Human is far more immaterial than something like that.

We believe that people are more than things you can describe in clinical terms and that understanding humanity does not come from dissecting it or in our flesh, but in our minds, in our inner essence. Whether they believe in a soul like I do or not, this becomes a sort of soul to us.

Yeah, you're right. Humanity does not lie in flesh. So there's no need to get so hung up on flesh as some ultimate arbiter of what is and is not Human. As such, you are placing a disproportionate amount of importance on flesh.

I know what you will say to this, that I'm just going on about ideals, to be quite frank I find that ignorant, and hilarious.You will do the same thing. You will try to mask the same tactic as something else when you use it.

Pfft. This entire thing is about conflicting ideals. Little surprise then that you have your own. We're not so self-ignorant as you think.

[Divair]

Big supporter of transhumanism.

[Ostroeuropa]

What type of transhumanism incidentally?
I'm far more supportive of the "Mechanical" or "Technological" transhumanism than the genetic, since I think it has far more potential, and wouldn't increase our food consumption.

[Cevalo Nacio]

Yes, though theres too many Libertarian Transhumanists. I tend towards a more socialist viewpoint of trans humanist society

[Nidaria]

If it opposes religion, you probably know my answer already. I find that part ironic because the Vanu Sovereignty (a fictional transhumanist society) allows freedom of religion.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yes, though theres too many Libertarian Transhumanists. I tend towards a more socialist viewpoint of trans humanist society

I would certainly argue that any transhumanist improvements made should be available to all of society, but once they are in place, i don't see the issue with libertarianism among transhumans.

[Perlia]

What say you, Nationstates? Will you support the Transhumanists?

I was going to go for yes, but I simply cannot agree with that drivel you posted behind the spoiler tag.

[IshCong]

If it opposes religion, you probably know my answer already. I find that part ironic because the Vanu Sovereignty (a fictional transhumanist society) allows freedom of religion.

I don't, because I don't know you. =T
Edit: Read your sig, carry on.

[Divair]

If it opposes religion, you probably know my answer already. I find that part ironic because the Vanu Sovereignty (a fictional transhumanist society) allows freedom of religion.

I don't, because I don't know you. =T

Religious fundamentalist.

[Ostroeuropa]

If it opposes religion, you probably know my answer already. I find that part ironic because the Vanu Sovereignty (a fictional transhumanist society) allows freedom of religion.

I don't, because I don't know you. =T

Somewhat unfair if you look at it from some perspectives.
I oppose plenty of shit explicitly BECAUSE they oppose free speech, and other rights.

[Nidaria]

I don't, because I don't know you. =T

Religious fundamentalist.

I am not a fundamentalist if I do not advocate a completely literal, word-for-word version of the Scriptures.

[Ostroeuropa]

Religious fundamentalist.

I am not a fundamentalist if I do not advocate a completely literal, word-for-word version of the Scriptures.

Just the roman catholic interperatation of it. Including the wacky condoms and gays bits I assume.

[Divair]

Religious fundamentalist.

I am not a fundamentalist if I do not advocate a completely literal, word-for-word version of the Scriptures.

No one does. Fundamentalism is relative.

[Phocidaea]

It's no use. I've lost the battle.

More people are concerned about their survival than their identity. This is the world for you, folks.

If you really believed in your cause, you'd go out and get a goddamn mechanical arm already.

The fact that you probably aren't typing this with an artificial hand shows that you really don't care about transhumanism and just want to be "edgy" by choosing an ideology that deliberately pisses people off.

[IshCong]

It's no use. I've lost the battle.

More people are concerned about their survival than their identity. This is the world for you, folks.

If you really believed in your cause, you'd go out and get a goddamn mechanical arm already.

The fact that you probably aren't typing this with an artificial hand shows that you really don't care about transhumanism and just want to be "edgy" by choosing an ideology that deliberately pisses people off.

No, it shows that:
1: Mechanical arms are expensive and people have finite money.
2: Currently, mechanical arms are less useful than organic arms. This will change in time.
3: That you mistook trans-humanism as being solely about body modifications.

[Phocidaea]

It's no use. I've lost the battle.

More people are concerned about their survival than their identity. This is the world for you, folks.

If you really believed in your cause, you'd go out and get a goddamn mechanical arm already.

The fact that you probably aren't typing this with an artificial hand shows that you really don't care about transhumanism and just want to be "edgy" by choosing an ideology that deliberately pisses people off.

3: That you mistook trans-humanism as being solely about body modifications.

What else is it about? It's about modifying people so that they're better. A person is their body. You modify the person, you modify the body.

[Caninope]

Fuck the singularity. Mankind has better things to do.

Like women.

[Caninope]

Anyways, I don't really know where I stand on this. I'm not a Luddite, but I'm sort of opposed to fundamentally changing the nature of man.

[Ifreann]

Why wouldn't I support the people who'll turn me into a robot?

[Caninope]

Why wouldn't I support the people who'll turn me into a robot?

Because if you're a robot, you can't drink alcohol. It'll short out your circuits.

[Ifreann]

Why wouldn't I support the people who'll turn me into a robot?

Because if you're a robot, you can't drink alcohol. It'll short out your circuits.

...
Melt the transhumanists down!