Transhumanism

[Ifreann]

Try contributing more than "lol no". You know? Reasons, evidence, logic. Not a rule, but certainly beneficial if you're trying to convince someone that you're not wasting our time.

Well I'm against it because as I said, it is a dangerous ideology that if embraced fully will completely change and disrupt the world as we know it.

Which could be extremely good for everyone.

The very fabric of society will be torn up and shredded.

Again, that's not automatically bad.

The very biological nature of the species could be altered...again, dangerous.

Crossing the road is dangerous.

It has the potential to create a tyranny the likes never before seen on this planet, with crazy 'enhanced' elite lording it over everyone else.

I suppose. It also has the potential to improve the lives of every human.

It is a threat to my position as a member of the alpha species on this world.

Not really a worthwhile concern.

---

Change is not always a bad thing you know. If defeating death is change then I fully embrace it, Dying sucks balls. It's ineviteble and is no more dangerous than cars or the cell phone. A trans humanist will simply have easier and quicker access to their technology than others. Why stick around with hardware that routinely breaks down when we have the power to surpass it?

Death is essential. You can't live forever...it would be maddening.

How do you know? Have you ever lived forever?

People and machines should not integrate...I don't want to be a borg, thanks.

That's okay, you can stay human and die eventually.

[Trollgaard]

Death is essential. You can't live forever...it would be maddening. People and machines should not integrate...I don't want to be a borg, thanks.

NO ONE IS FORCING YOU to be a cyborg.

Well, possibly for a time. But perhaps not being a cyborg will hurt my chances for a getting a job? What if regular humans start getting discriminated against over time? I'm sure in my lifetime it probably won't be a big deal, but my kids? Or my grandchildren's lifetimes? (If I have any, of course).

I don't any cyborgs, period. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. The ramifications are too dangerous. I'd do just about anything to slow, halt, or destroy transhumanisms progress.

[AETEN II]

NO ONE IS FORCING YOU to be a cyborg.

Well, possibly for a time. But perhaps not being a cyborg will hurt my chances for a getting a job? What if regular humans start getting discriminated against over time? I'm sure in my lifetime it probably won't be a big deal, but my kids? Or my grandchildren's lifetimes? (If I have any, of course).

I don't any cyborgs, period. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. The ramifications are too dangerous. I'd do just about anything to slow, halt, or destroy transhumanisms progress.

Except that becoming cyborgs serves the greater good. And those that hamper transhumanism are against the greater good, and thus threatening the survival of humanity.

And of course the cyborg will beat you for the job. He or she will be stronger, smarter, and able to multitask far better than you ever could, not to mention they'd probably be able to interface with technology.

So of course they'd beat you out of a job, because they'd be better than you.

[Trollgaard]

Well, possibly for a time. But perhaps not being a cyborg will hurt my chances for a getting a job? What if regular humans start getting discriminated against over time? I'm sure in my lifetime it probably won't be a big deal, but my kids? Or my grandchildren's lifetimes? (If I have any, of course).

I don't any cyborgs, period. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. The ramifications are too dangerous. I'd do just about anything to slow, halt, or destroy transhumanisms progress.

Except that becoming cyborgs serves the greater good. And those that hamper transhumanism are against the greater good, and thus threatening the survival of humanity.

And of course the cyborg will beat you for the job. He or she will be stronger, smarter, and able to multitask far better than you ever could, not to mention they'd probably be able to interface with technology.

So of course they'd beat you out of a job, because they'd be better than you.

Becoming a cyborg is for the greater good? I don't follow.

And transhumanism is a threat to the species, not its salvation. The species has been doing fine for 100,000 years or more.

[Olivaero]

Except that becoming cyborgs serves the greater good. And those that hamper transhumanism are against the greater good, and thus threatening the survival of humanity.

And of course the cyborg will beat you for the job. He or she will be stronger, smarter, and able to multitask far better than you ever could, not to mention they'd probably be able to interface with technology.

So of course they'd beat you out of a job, because they'd be better than you.

Becoming a cyborg is for the greater good? I don't follow.

And transhumanism is a threat to the species, not its salvation. The species has been doing fine for 100,000 years or more.

Why is Transhumanism any different to owning a car or a mobile phone or a computer? Why is getting a communication device implanted into your eye, ear and vocal cords any different to putting a phone to your ear?

[AETEN II]

Except that becoming cyborgs serves the greater good. And those that hamper transhumanism are against the greater good, and thus threatening the survival of humanity.

And of course the cyborg will beat you for the job. He or she will be stronger, smarter, and able to multitask far better than you ever could, not to mention they'd probably be able to interface with technology.

So of course they'd beat you out of a job, because they'd be better than you.

Becoming a cyborg is for the greater good? I don't follow.

And transhumanism is a threat to the species, not its salvation. The species has been doing fine for 100,000 years or more.

How is it a threat? It increases the lifespan, removes disease and infection, and improves the working capability of the subject, thus making them a better a citizen. Not to mention that should we wish to live on other planets, cyborgs, or completely robotic persons who have been completely assimilated would make better colonists, as they are subject to either less, or completely immune to organic weaknesses. Finally, it increases the longevity of useful individuals like scientists and artists, thus ensuring their usefulness will never be wasted by death and can eternally aid humanity.

[Trollgaard]

Becoming a cyborg is for the greater good? I don't follow.

And transhumanism is a threat to the species, not its salvation. The species has been doing fine for 100,000 years or more.

Why is Transhumanism any different to owning a car or a mobile phone or a computer? Why is getting a communication device implanted into your eye, ear and vocal cords any different to putting a phone to your ear?

I think the answer is in your question.

Phones and cars are separate from man, not integrated into man.

[Czechanada]

After rewatching the teaser trailer for Cyberpunk 2077, I am fully for transhumanism.

[AETEN II]

Why is Transhumanism any different to owning a car or a mobile phone or a computer? Why is getting a communication device implanted into your eye, ear and vocal cords any different to putting a phone to your ear?

I think the answer is in your question.

Phones and cars are separate from man, not integrated into man.

Except that they would improve a weaker species by integrating them, especially augmented brains, limbs, and organs.

[Xsyne]

Transhumanism is either indistinguishable from tool use, in which case it is an utterly worthless word and has no need to exist as an independent concept, or it's insipid skiffy bullshit espoused by people who don't know the faintest fucking thing about computing, the mind, information storage, biology, mathematics, c, and a couple thousand other things.

[Owl Cities]

Why is Transhumanism any different to owning a car or a mobile phone or a computer? Why is getting a communication device implanted into your eye, ear and vocal cords any different to putting a phone to your ear?

I think the answer is in your question.

Phones and cars are separate from man, not integrated into man.

You heard that folks, no prosthetic limbs! Those lazy crips are just gonna have to deal with it!

[AETEN II]

Transhumanism is either indistinguishable from tool use, in which case it is an utterly worthless word and has no need to exist as an independent concept, or it's insipid skiffy bullshit espoused by people who don't know the faintest fucking thing about computing, the mind, information storage, biology, mathematics, c, and a couple thousand other things.

Except that right now we're developing technology that is described by the word.

[Trollgaard]

I think the answer is in your question.

Phones and cars are separate from man, not integrated into man.

Except that they would improve a weaker species by integrating them, especially augmented brains, limbs, and organs.

We don't need those, and the consequences for proceeding would be disastrous.

[AETEN II]

Except that they would improve a weaker species by integrating them, especially augmented brains, limbs, and organs.

We don't need those, and the consequences for proceeding would be disastrous.

And you evidence is?

[Rainbows and Rivers]

Death is essential. You can't live forever...it would be maddening.

Prove this.

People and machines should not integrate

Provide a justification for this beyond your own personal distaste.

I don't want to be a borg, thanks.

You're not required to, but you have no right to stop others from doing so.

Unless you can provide some justification for your normative statements, your arguments boil down to 'I don't like it therefore it must be bad'.

[Trollgaard]

We don't need those, and the consequences for proceeding would be disastrous.

And you evidence is?

Logic.

[AETEN II]

And you evidence is?

Logic.

Logic without evidence is not logic, it's called biased opinion. And immortality would not be maddening- there is no evidence to prove so. The only reason in the first place that humans experience 'time dilation' as they age is because their neurons are dying by the thousands. However a more highly robotic cyborg would not be subject to this. There would be no biological reason for them to go insane.

[YellowApple]

Transhumanism is either indistinguishable from tool use, in which case it is an utterly worthless word and has no need to exist as an independent concept, or it's insipid skiffy bullshit espoused by people who don't know the faintest fucking thing about computing, the mind, information storage, biology, mathematics, c, and a couple thousand other things.

Ah, so you're going to tell me - someone who makes a living working with, maintaining, deploying, and administering workstations and servers in high-stake healthcare environments where patient lives depend on me not screwing up - that I "don't know the faintest fucking thing about computing"?

[The USOT]

I would ask you not to look at him as representative of the whole. Hell I got into transhumanism from being a radical environmentalist and as an ex member of the Green Party of the UK.
My desire to preserve life is entirely dependant on many transhumanist ideas.

However this is something that I would like to raise about transhumanism. Its probably the ideology I espouse most strongly and yet I can genuinly say that I dislike quite a lot of the movements members, especially those who are so very anthropocentric in attitude and behave negativly about other terran life.

We owe nothing to it. All that matters is the survival of your species, and all future species evolved from it worthy as a descendant of the original. We only preserve life as long as it is advantageous for our survival. When that period ends, do whatever you wish. If you must preserve all life- simply take numerous genetic samples for cloning whenever the technology is advanced enough to make healthy clones.

Its nothing to do with owing the planet. Its an unhealthy stance when reffering to other organisms, with many species (e.g. dolphins) being intelligent enough that to screw over the planet and cause them pain plus deaths are cruel. You may argue that you have no need for dolphins, but that is entirely my point on your own anthropocentrism. I prefer solidarity with intelligence and as someone who has always been enriched by diversity would wish for diverse intelligences to identify with.

[AETEN II]

We owe nothing to it. All that matters is the survival of your species, and all future species evolved from it worthy as a descendant of the original. We only preserve life as long as it is advantageous for our survival. When that period ends, do whatever you wish. If you must preserve all life- simply take numerous genetic samples for cloning whenever the technology is advanced enough to make healthy clones.

Its nothing to do with owing the planet. Its an unhealthy stance when reffering to other organisms, with many species (e.g. dolphins) being intelligent enough that to screw over the planet and cause them pain plus deaths are cruel. You may argue that you have no need for dolphins, but that is entirely my point on your own anthropocentrism. I prefer solidarity with intelligence and as someone who has always been enriched by diversity would wish for diverse intelligences to identify with.

We don't have a need for them. Wasting resources by outward destruction of them is a stupid waste of resources, but unless their survival is critical to us, they are not needed in the long term survival.

[Ifreann]

NO ONE IS FORCING YOU to be a cyborg.

Well, possibly for a time. But perhaps not being a cyborg will hurt my chances for a getting a job? What if regular humans start getting discriminated against over time? I'm sure in my lifetime it probably won't be a big deal, but my kids? Or my grandchildren's lifetimes? (If I have any, of course).

I don't any cyborgs, period. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. The ramifications are too dangerous. I'd do just about anything to slow, halt, or destroy transhumanisms progress.

If one reads this as being about education instead of transhumanism it's quite amusing.

[Oppressorion]

Its nothing to do with owing the planet. Its an unhealthy stance when reffering to other organisms, with many species (e.g. dolphins) being intelligent enough that to screw over the planet and cause them pain plus deaths are cruel. You may argue that you have no need for dolphins, but that is entirely my point on your own anthropocentrism. I prefer solidarity with intelligence and as someone who has always been enriched by diversity would wish for diverse intelligences to identify with.

We don't have a need for them. Wasting resources by outward destruction of them is a stupid waste of resources, but unless their survival is critical to us, they are not needed in the long term survival.

Now hang on a second. I'm all for improving ourselves, but there is such a thing as compassion. Not to mention unpredicted environmental damage - I doubt that Thomas Newcomen knew about Climate Change, and if we are doing to, let's be fair, be dicks and destroy all that does not aid us, we'd better make sure that they aren't supporting the planet or are irreplaceable.

[The USOT]

Its nothing to do with owing the planet. Its an unhealthy stance when reffering to other organisms, with many species (e.g. dolphins) being intelligent enough that to screw over the planet and cause them pain plus deaths are cruel. You may argue that you have no need for dolphins, but that is entirely my point on your own anthropocentrism. I prefer solidarity with intelligence and as someone who has always been enriched by diversity would wish for diverse intelligences to identify with.

We don't have a need for them. Wasting resources by outward destruction of them is a stupid waste of resources, but unless their survival is critical to us, they are not needed in the long term survival.

What is the point in survival by itself?

[Ifreann]

We don't have a need for them. Wasting resources by outward destruction of them is a stupid waste of resources, but unless their survival is critical to us, they are not needed in the long term survival.

What is the point in survival by itself?

Being alive is fun, dude.

[AETEN II]

We don't have a need for them. Wasting resources by outward destruction of them is a stupid waste of resources, but unless their survival is critical to us, they are not needed in the long term survival.

What is the point in survival by itself?

Species exist solely to exist, and the members of the species owe only their own survival, and the survival of their species, the ultimate greater good. We preserve other species to preserve ourselves. However, when we no longer need to preserve the planet to aid our survival, Earth serves us only by its resources.