Will you side with the Transhumanists?

[Divair]

But how do we colonize space? Colonizing space is completely different from transhumanism, and even more logistically challenging. Transhumanism is plausible. Space colonization beyond very rudimentary levels requires increasing levels of disregard for physics.

For now. Achieving on transhumanism on a large scale won't be achievable until space colonization is anyway.

Then your friends must be paragons of ethics and generosity, because the majority of people would just spend a million years watching porn and eating junk if you gave them the chance.

No, they're fairly normal people. Your view that the majority of humanity lacks motivation is in dire need of evidence.

But what about peer pressure? If I want to die, what do people say? And what about everyone else? Everyone will get tired of living eventually. As life gets longer, so do suicide rates. We already have people shooting themselves at 50 because they don't want to waste 30 years doing nothing.

They were going to die of age anyway. You'd end up saving lives, even if a chunk of people committed suicide eventually (and I can guarantee you that the vast majority of people committing suicide didn't do it because we have long lives, but because of social or economic problems)

[Divair]

And no, 80-ish is not the perfect age. But it's as far as we can go and still be "human".

Says who?

[Phocidaea]

In the interest of figuring out motivations, I'll just post this all on its own:

What is the incentive to believing in transhumanism? How do you seek to gain by advocating the eventual obsolescence of your own body?

[Divair]

In the interest of figuring out motivations, I'll just post this all on its own:

What is the incentive to believing in transhumanism? How do you seek to gain by advocating the eventual obsolescence of your own body?

Do you want a personal opinion?

[Uiiop]

In the interest of figuring out motivations, I'll just post this all on its own:

What is the incentive to believing in transhumanism? How do you seek to gain by advocating the eventual obsolescence of your own body?

Building upon it... for use a analogy i still respect and don't believe in the obsolescence of Half-life 2 even though i'd use gmod more and i'd still respect the default modes in gmod even though i only play Gmod tower./justaanaology

[Ifreann]

There will always be disadvantages to it. Above all the danger of transhumanism is that it tries to make everyone perfect when some people realize there is no such thing.

Indeed, no matter how far technology advances, humankind will always be imperfect.

Sure, but not for the reason you're thinking. "Perfect" isn't a well defined descriptor for lifeforms. In fact it's not defined at all. How strong must one be to transcend "really strong" and be "perfectly strong"? How resistant to extreme conditions? How resistant to disease?

Humans can't be perfect any more than we can be shlarginflargle.

[Olivaero]

and that right there is where you have shown your arbitrariness you are the one that is determining what is broke, and what isn't. I argue simply to show you your own bias. If you don't think dying of old age is a problem why do you think dying of disease is a problem? How have you arrived at the conclusion that 80 ish is the perfect age for the human race? have you ever spoken to some one who was 200? no? didn't think so. The "but we'd get bored!!!!" argument is one made out of ignorance, and you must never argue out of ignorance for it leads you to produce ignorant conclusions.

What is ignorant about saying immortality produces boredom? We can see that 80 years already produces boredom. All it takes is some extrapolation.

And no, 80-ish is not the perfect age. But it's as far as we can go and still be "human".

It is ignorant because you have no evidence because you have never spoken with an immortal! and you have not examined the other factors that people who are currently 80 experience how many people who are 80 do you know who have the fitness of 20 year old's? because that would be possible with transhumansism and it doesn't take a genius to realize that if those people had exactly the same quality of life that 20 year old's have but with many times the experience they would be far from bored!

[Phocidaea]

And no, 80-ish is not the perfect age. But it's as far as we can go and still be "human".

Says who?

Okay, that was a dumb quote on my part.

The intention was that nutritional and other environmental changes have only brought us up to that level, and it's stagnated there, so anything more than about 80 requires changes to the human body itself, which cause huge amounts of ethical dilemmas.

[Divair]

Says who?

Okay, that was a dumb quote on my part.

The intention was that nutritional and other environmental changes have only brought us up to that level, and it's stagnated there, so anything more than about 80 requires changes to the human body itself, which cause huge amounts of ethical dilemmas.

Any improvement to the human condition raises ethical dilemmas. These dilemmas are discussed and debated frequently on H+ forums, sites, and magazines.

We're aware of the risks, but we're willing to take them.

[Uiiop]

Says who?

Okay, that was a dumb quote on my part.

The intention was that nutritional and other environmental changes have only brought us up to that level, and it's stagnated there, so anything more than about 80 requires changes to the human body itself, which cause huge amounts of ethical dilemmas.

Jeanne Calment would like a word with you.

[Ostroeuropa]

Says who?

Okay, that was a dumb quote on my part.

The intention was that nutritional and other environmental changes have only brought us up to that level, and it's stagnated there, so anything more than about 80 requires changes to the human body itself, which cause huge amounts of ethical dilemmas.

You're aware plenty of people live to 100 right?
And have done for a while? Including some victorian era people?

[Phocidaea]

In the interest of figuring out motivations, I'll just post this all on its own:

What is the incentive to believing in transhumanism? How do you seek to gain by advocating the eventual obsolescence of your own body?

Do you want a personal opinion?

Of course.

I'm feeling really overwhelmed right now. Why aren't there any anti-transhumanists to argue with me?

[Divair]

Do you want a personal opinion?

Of course.

I'm feeling really overwhelmed right now. Why aren't there any anti-transhumanists to argue with me?

I want to experience how the universe and humanity develop. I want to observe, to learn, and to study.

That's why I support transhumanism.

[Arkinesia]

I don't think we have the ability to turn transhumanism (read: enhancements, not returns to the standard such as bionic limbs for paralyzed people or amputees) into a heritable trait so I think the whole thing is basically bollocks and a waste of everyone's bloody time.

[Phocidaea]

Okay, that was a dumb quote on my part.

The intention was that nutritional and other environmental changes have only brought us up to that level, and it's stagnated there, so anything more than about 80 requires changes to the human body itself, which cause huge amounts of ethical dilemmas.

Any improvement to the human condition raises ethical dilemmas. These dilemmas are discussed and debated frequently on H+ forums, sites, and magazines.

We're aware of the risks, but we're willing to take them.

Did curing polio cause ethical dilemmas?

I don't really think so. I think it was more "I'm not gonna die at ten anymore!", with no side effects.

And your willingness to take risks without considering exactly what they are is disconcertingly rash.

[Phocidaea]

Okay, that was a dumb quote on my part.

The intention was that nutritional and other environmental changes have only brought us up to that level, and it's stagnated there, so anything more than about 80 requires changes to the human body itself, which cause huge amounts of ethical dilemmas.

Jeanne Calment would like a word with you.

Okay, that was a dumb quote on my part.

The intention was that nutritional and other environmental changes have only brought us up to that level, and it's stagnated there, so anything more than about 80 requires changes to the human body itself, which cause huge amounts of ethical dilemmas.

You're aware plenty of people live to 100 right?
And have done for a while? Including some victorian era people?

Yes. I am perfectly aware that some people live longer than others. But that's due to occasional fluctuations in the exact genetics, nutrition, and environment people get. The only way everyone could experience that longevity would be if we had the resources to provide those to everyone.

[Divair]

Did curing polio cause ethical dilemmas?

I don't really think so. I think it was more "I'm not gonna die at ten anymore!", with no side effects.

Yes, there were huge dilemmas when we rushed to develop vaccines and cures for a variety of diseases. Namely logistical, something you already raised regarding transhumanism.

And your willingness to take risks without considering exactly what they are is disconcertingly rash.

I've already considered many risks (feel free to raise more) and I'm fine with taking them.

[Olivaero]

In the interest of figuring out motivations, I'll just post this all on its own:

What is the incentive to believing in transhumanism? How do you seek to gain by advocating the eventual obsolescence of your own body?

I would of thought that it would be obvious from some of my earlier arguments but I'll post my opinion any way, to not do so to me would be exactly the same as me not advocating nuclear fusion because scarcity of power is the natural state of things so vanquishing it should not be pursued.

edited to make sense

[Ifreann]

In the interest of figuring out motivations, I'll just post this all on its own:

What is the incentive to believing in transhumanism?

Doing stuff is cool. Doing it better and longer with minimal effort on my part is, therefore, cooler.

How do you seek to gain by advocating the eventual obsolescence of your own body?

I'm not all that attached to my body except in as far as it houses "me".

[Arkinesia]

Did curing polio cause ethical dilemmas?

I don't really think so. I think it was more "I'm not gonna die at ten anymore!", with no side effects.

Yes, there were huge dilemmas when we rushed to develop vaccines and cures for a variety of diseases. Namely logistical, something you already raised regarding transhumanism.

But that's bringing everyone up to the standard of a healthy person and preventing deadly diseases.

Trying to create a new standard for normal is a bit more ethically challenging.

[Nidaria]

Indeed, no matter how far technology advances, humankind will always be imperfect.

Sure, but not for the reason you're thinking. "Perfect" isn't a well defined descriptor for lifeforms. In fact it's not defined at all. How strong must one be to transcend "really strong" and be "perfectly strong"? How resistant to extreme conditions? How resistant to disease?

Humans can't be perfect any more than we can be shlarginflargle.

I did not mean perfect physically, but perfect mentally and spiritually, which transhumanists seem to overlook.

[Divair]

Yes, there were huge dilemmas when we rushed to develop vaccines and cures for a variety of diseases. Namely logistical, something you already raised regarding transhumanism.

But that's bringing everyone up to the standard of a healthy person and preventing deadly diseases.

Trying to create a new standard for normal is a bit more ethically challenging.

Yes, it is more challenging, but more rewarding. We can reduce those risks by openly debating and discussing them while offering solutions instead of being close minded and screaming "NO, NO, I DON'T WANT".

[Phocidaea]

In the interest of figuring out motivations, I'll just post this all on its own:

What is the incentive to believing in transhumanism? How do you seek to gain by advocating the eventual obsolescence of your own body?

I would of thought that it would be obvious from some of my earlier arguments but I'll post my opinion any way, to not do so to me would be exactly the same as me not advocating nuclear fusion because scarcity of power is the natural state of things so vanquishing it should be pursued.

Nuclear fusion occurs constantly in every star in the universe. It's just a matter of harnessing that power.

Direct genetic modification, anatomical augmentation, and the like do not occur normally. They cannot exist without humans. It's a matter of creating power.

[Ifreann]

Do you want a personal opinion?

Of course.

I'm feeling really overwhelmed right now. Why aren't there any anti-transhumanists to argue with me?

I haven't seen Trollgaard around recently. He hates the idea. Violently.

[Divair]

I would of thought that it would be obvious from some of my earlier arguments but I'll post my opinion any way, to not do so to me would be exactly the same as me not advocating nuclear fusion because scarcity of power is the natural state of things so vanquishing it should be pursued.

Nuclear fusion occurs constantly in every star in the universe. It's just a matter of harnessing that power.

Direct genetic modification, anatomical augmentation, and the like do not occur normally. They cannot exist without humans. It's a matter of creating power.

Many things cannot exist without humans.
Like, say, tetanus vaccines. Or cars. Or genetically modified food that keeps us alive.