Transhumanism

[Oppressorion]

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.

Okay, now you're crossing over into full-blown egoism. The point of a species is not solely to survive - well, it is, but art (much of which is found in nature) is what make life worth living. Apart from actually living, that is.

[Czechanada]

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.

Okay, now you're crossing over into full-blown egoism. The point of a species is not solely to survive - well, it is, but art (much of which is found in nature) is what make life worth living. Apart from actually living, that is.

What purpose does a rock or micro-organism have?

[AETEN II]

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.

Okay, now you're crossing over into full-blown egoism. The point of a species is not solely to survive - well, it is, but art (much of which is found in nature) is what make life worth living. Apart from actually living, that is.

We do not require it for happiness however, and it only serves us as long as it is the only capable planet that can sustain us. When we obtain the technology to survive elsehwere, it serves us no more, and while we should leave it stabilized, it would serve us better to strip all needed resources, and leave Earth mainly as a haven from potent radiation.

And it is not egoism to not care for any other species. We should only care about our survival. When our survival no longer depends on the environment of Earth, there is no reason to waste resources protecting it when they are better spent serving us. Should we wish to enjoy the company of animals, we bring them with us, breed them as we like, or simply clone them.

[Mexicanada]

And how is that different from the Spartan suit?

Because you still remain human. The Nanosuit literally destroys your body, kills your brain, assimilates your personality, and fuses it with the AI of the suit to create one single entity. If you leave the suit, you die. Hell, eventually the wearer actually biologically dies, and the only thing in the suit is a corpse, driven by the assimilated mind of the wearer, who got turned into an AI.

The whole conflict of Halo 4 was whether or not Master Chief actually had a body. That is why he is constantly asking Cortana whether or not he is actually human. I understand how Crysis is a better example, that's why I brought it up. But, even though it doesn't have an AI, or a psuedo-AI as shown through Cortana, herself, the Spartan Suit is a good example of singularity.

[Mexicanada]

Transhumanism is a garbage ideology that denies the glory of God and the natural human body. I am against it.

Gotta love the tears of those who oppose what is inevitable.

Honestly, It's actually quite amusing.

[AETEN II]

Because you still remain human. The Nanosuit literally destroys your body, kills your brain, assimilates your personality, and fuses it with the AI of the suit to create one single entity. If you leave the suit, you die. Hell, eventually the wearer actually biologically dies, and the only thing in the suit is a corpse, driven by the assimilated mind of the wearer, who got turned into an AI.

The whole conflict of Halo 4 was whether or not Master Chief actually had a body. That is why he is constantly asking Cortana whether or not he is actually human. I understand how Crysis is a better example, that's why I brought it up. But, even though it doesn't have an AI, or a psuedo-AI as shown through Cortana, herself, the Spartan Suit is a good example of singularity.

John still has a body, as do all the Spartans. You're horribly versed in the lore. They're simply augmented. What it was referencing was whether or not his state of mind was human, as by definition he's a socipath that can only wage war, and is lost without violence, and the only being he's ever liked is most likely dead. His only other friends are trapped on some god-forsaken planet, and thus is completely alone. Oh, and his effective mother-figure, Halsey, has been stupidly arrested and now is seen as a traitor to be killed on sight.

[Oppressorion]

What purpose does a rock or micro-organism have?

Okay, let's start with rocks. The Ayers Rock serves no benefit to humanity's survival. If destroyed, it would not cause our species harm. Neither, for that matter, did the Buddhas of Bamiyan - no humans died directly because of their destruction, and yet a lot of people are upset over it. Why, I wonder, if our sole goal is survival?
Now on to micro-organisms. I couldn't think of one on the spot, so you'll have to make do with a genus of fungus, Penicillium. As the name suggests, they are the cause of a medical revolution.
"But wait!", I hear you cry, "Penicillin is useful! We'll keep it!"
True, but until its medical properties were discovered, it was just another fungus. If it had been thoughtlessly and short-sightedly destroyed as with anything else not aiding man at the time, we would have suffered an enormous setback.

[Mexicanada]

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.

Borg? Fuck tha Borg. Necron Lords for the win.

I would much rather be like Optimus Prime, thank you very much.

[The USOT]

What is the point in survival by itself?

Being alive is fun, dude.

Not inherrantly. If you had to live a thousand years in an orwellian world then that would not be fun at all.

[The USOT]

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.

Not neccesarily. We dont gain anything survival wise by aiding dolphins, but we gain much in entertainment and fulfillment.

[Mexicanada]

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.

It's eye opening. (I just logged back on and reading through all the posts after mine, if y'all didn't notice.)

[AETEN II]

What purpose does a rock or micro-organism have?

Okay, let's start with rocks. The Ayers Rock serves no benefit to humanity's survival. If destroyed, it would not cause our species harm. Neither, for that matter, did the Buddhas of Bamiyan - no humans died directly because of their destruction, and yet a lot of people are upset over it. Why, I wonder, if our sole goal is survival?
Now on to micro-organisms. I couldn't think of one on the spot, so you'll have to make do with a genus of fungus, Penicillium. As the name suggests, they are the cause of a medical revolution.
"But wait!", I hear you cry, "Penicillin is useful! We'll keep it!"
True, but until its medical properties were discovered, it was just another fungus. If it had been thoughtlessly and short-shortsightedly destroyed as with anything else not aiding man at the time, we would have suffered an enormous setback.

You're acting as I'm advocating the wanton destruction of the environment. No, we harvest everything we could ever need, and pull wasted resources from attempting to save such animals as pandas, tigers, elephants, etc. If they might prove useful later, or somebody wants them as a pet on whim, take DNA samples and store them. But when we gain the ability to colonize other planets (not to mention, by the time we'll either be cyborgs or advanced humans with slight augmentation, eliminating hostile bacteria, cancers, and most genetic diseases from our bodies), we'll have advanced to the degree we won't need them.

And of course people don't constantly think about survival- most are nearsighted when it comes to geologic time. However, our only purpose is to exist, to continue to exist, and advance our current condition. We'll soon (couple hundred years, most likely) no longer need life on the planet to sustain us, nor compounds from obscure forms of life to combat disease- we'll have nano-bots in our blood serving the role of white blood cells and purging unwanted material.

[AETEN II]

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.

Not neccesarily. We dont gain anything survival wise by aiding dolphins, but we gain much in entertainment and fulfillment.

Which could be done simply by keeping them as pets. If we ever wish to have them as pets, take DNA samples when they're on the verge of destruction. Or simply keep large breeding populations in aquariums (which is best, as you can make a profit off that). But sustaining wild populations when we no longer need the environment supported for our survival, or can simply alter it to suit our needs? Allocation of resources towards their sustainability as an endangered species should be pulled and applied elsewhere.

[The USOT]

Not neccesarily. We dont gain anything survival wise by aiding dolphins, but we gain much in entertainment and fulfillment.

Which could be done simply by keeping them as pets. If we ever wish to have them as pets, take DNA samples when they're on the verge of destruction. Or simply keep large breeding populations in aquariums (which is best, as you can make a profit off that). But sustaining wild populations when we no longer need the environment supported for our survival, or can simply alter it to suit our needs? Allocation of resources towards their sustainability as an endangered species should be pulled and applied elsewhere.

Why not uplift the other species to our own level?

[Mexicanada]

I remember that scifi short story where nature is pretty much destroyed, because post-human demigods no-longer need biological nature to sustain themselves and only living creatures are humans and some uplifted/tinkered animals.

I can see the appeal of melding man and machine, when many are cold and calculating already.

I see what you did there.

[Mexicanada]

Which could be done simply by keeping them as pets. If we ever wish to have them as pets, take DNA samples when they're on the verge of destruction. Or simply keep large breeding populations in aquariums (which is best, as you can make a profit off that). But sustaining wild populations when we no longer need the environment supported for our survival, or can simply alter it to suit our needs? Allocation of resources towards their sustainability as an endangered species should be pulled and applied elsewhere.

Why not uplift the other species to our own level?

Because it would start Darwinistic competition between the species and our own. We don't want to risk losing.

[AETEN II]

Which could be done simply by keeping them as pets. If we ever wish to have them as pets, take DNA samples when they're on the verge of destruction. Or simply keep large breeding populations in aquariums (which is best, as you can make a profit off that). But sustaining wild populations when we no longer need the environment supported for our survival, or can simply alter it to suit our needs? Allocation of resources towards their sustainability as an endangered species should be pulled and applied elsewhere.

Why not uplift the other species to our own level?

Another waste of resources. Also, with dolphins exhibiting sadism on a regular basis, they wouldn't make the best candidate. If one feels so stressed to aid them, drop them off on a water planet. But octopi would make better candidates.

[The USOT]

Why not uplift the other species to our own level?

Another waste of resources. Also, with dolphins exhibiting sadism on a regular basis, they wouldn't make the best candidate. If one feels so stressed to aid them, drop them off on a water planet. But octopi would make better candidates.

If we can engineer ourselves why not make the dolphins better candidates? And why a waste of resources? It doesnt affect our rates of survival if we are no longer dependant on the planet and therefore cannot be a waste of resources by any means. If we are dependant on the planet then likewise we are dependant on the ecosystem.

[Mexicanada]

The whole conflict of Halo 4 was whether or not Master Chief actually had a body. That is why he is constantly asking Cortana whether or not he is actually human. I understand how Crysis is a better example, that's why I brought it up. But, even though it doesn't have an AI, or a psuedo-AI as shown through Cortana, herself, the Spartan Suit is a good example of singularity.

John still has a body, as do all the Spartans. You're horribly versed in the lore. They're simply augmented. What it was referencing was whether or not his state of mind was human, as by definition he's a socipath that can only wage war, and is lost without violence, and the only being he's ever liked is most likely dead. His only other friends are trapped on some god-forsaken planet, and thus is completely alone. Oh, and his effective mother-figure, Halsey, has been stupidly arrested and now is seen as a traitor to be killed on sight.

Augmented humans... Hmmm that sounds familiar...

[AETEN II]

Another waste of resources. Also, with dolphins exhibiting sadism on a regular basis, they wouldn't make the best candidate. If one feels so stressed to aid them, drop them off on a water planet. But octopi would make better candidates.

If we can engineer ourselves why not make the dolphins better candidates? And why a waste of resources? It doesnt affect our rates of survival if we are no longer dependant on the planet and therefore cannot be a waste of resources by any means. If we are dependant on the planet then likewise we are dependant on the ecosystem.

It woudn't hamper our survival at that point, but simply be earmarked money for Herr Doktor Frankenstein.

[The USOT]

If we can engineer ourselves why not make the dolphins better candidates? And why a waste of resources? It doesnt affect our rates of survival if we are no longer dependant on the planet and therefore cannot be a waste of resources by any means. If we are dependant on the planet then likewise we are dependant on the ecosystem.

It woudn't hamper our survival at that point, but simply be earmarked money for Herr Doktor Frankenstein.

So why would it be a waste of resources?

[AETEN II]

John still has a body, as do all the Spartans. You're horribly versed in the lore. They're simply augmented. What it was referencing was whether or not his state of mind was human, as by definition he's a socipath that can only wage war, and is lost without violence, and the only being he's ever liked is most likely dead. His only other friends are trapped on some god-forsaken planet, and thus is completely alone. Oh, and his effective mother-figure, Halsey, has been stupidly arrested and now is seen as a traitor to be killed on sight.

Augmented humans... Hmmm that sounds familiar...

The reason why halo is a horrible example of transhumanism however, is that it goes as deep into the philosophy of the subject as Warhammer.

[AETEN II]

It woudn't hamper our survival at that point, but simply be earmarked money for Herr Doktor Frankenstein.

So why would it be a waste of resources?

Simply better spent elsewhere. It would just be an expensive personal quest.

[The USOT]

Augmented humans... Hmmm that sounds familiar...

The reason why halo is a horrible example of transhumanism however, is that it goes as deep into the philosophy of the subject as Warhammer.

Its not that bad for philosophy actually and indeed there are books on the subject. http://www.amazon.com/Halo-Philosophy-Intellect-Evolved-Popular/dp/0812697189
Dont get me wrong, the book shown is not a masterpeice of philosophy but it does show interesting trends within video games that work their way into mainstream philosophy (with the odd bit of xphi). Although obviously on transhumanism halo is terrible.

[The USOT]

So why would it be a waste of resources?

Simply better spent elsewhere. It would just be an expensive personal quest.

Spent where? The same resources are not needed for survival clearly...