Transhumanism

[Conserative Morality]

Maybe we like pointlessness.

Those who cling to life die, and those who defy death live.

[Seperates]

Why wouldn't you?

Because it defeats the whole purpose. Evolution is meant to happen over several generations to be perfect when necessary. When you speed it up you're creating an almost new species in a world that's not ready for it. Or vice versa.

Absolutly not. "Perfection" has nothing to do with it. Because perfection doesn't exist. High specialization exists, but that can also be highly detrimental if a disease wipes out that which the organism have specialized feeding on. However, if an organism is over-generalized, then it becomes easier for many specialized organisms to supplant it, or eat it.

It's mostly about effeciency, reproductive capacity, and survivability within that ecological niche.

[Conserative Morality]

So? If you wanted to go so far that you become something else, why should I care?

Why wouldn't you care? Do you ascribe no value to humanity?

To cast aside one's humanity is an act that strikes me beyond words. It chills my very bones.

[Ordya]

Problems like what, for instance?

Cancer. Genetic diseases. Disabilities. Stupidity. Death (this one is optional, of course).

Cancer would be kind of hard to cure since there are over 200 different kinds, and it attacks at a cellular level.

Define "genetic diseases" and "disabilities."

Stupidity yes. Oh God, yes.

Ending death, if keeping it optional. Fine.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Stop. This is all that is needed. You are not being forced to comply with anything. You can continue going about your day normally. Don't force your desires on us.

And why not, when your desires are dangerous and can turn the world on its head? Why should people not stop the folly that is transhumanism?

Your views are rather irrational. You know what else could have (and did, to some extent) turn the world on its head? Democracy. Equality across all sorts of lines (gender, class, racial). Etc.

When something has clear benefits and risks that are far from certain and can certainly be mitigated or avoided with planning and caution it is irrational to go "but I'm scared of what might happen, screw all the people it could help - potentially every human in the future - we should quash it forever!" All your arguments on this subject, ever, are "ifs, maybes, and coulds" and can be applied to almost every progress or development in human history. And often were. And were almost all proven incorrect.

Says who?

Anyone who realizes how utterly pointless and boring life would be without death.

So why is living to be a thousand more pointless and boring then only living to be a hundred? What is magical about our current lifespan that makes it perfect, other than it is what we have?

By that logic if we say halved our life spans they would have even more purpose and excitement! All those people that only lived to 30 were the actual lucky ones.

Or if you will - if longevity increases become possible and you look at your life and can't see any purpose to living longer - don't get them. If you do get them and find hundreds of years down the track you don't want to be alive anymore - then in full control of your life and how long you live elect to terminate your life, or stop whatever is keeping you alive.

[Seperates]

So? If you wanted to go so far that you become something else, why should I care?

Why wouldn't you care? Do you ascribe no value to humanity?

To cast aside one's humanity is an act that strikes me beyond words. It chills my very bones.

It doesn't chill me. But it doesn't nessecerily appeal to me either.

[Norstal]

Why wouldn't you?

Because, at some point, one becomes something other than human.

An augmented human is still human.

Biological changes that occur to make a human beyond recognizable as a human however, well, I would agree with you on that one.

[Divair]

Why wouldn't you care? Do you ascribe no value to humanity?

No, I don't really value humanity over potential other species or forms of life. Seems rather discriminatory.

To cast aside one's humanity is an act that strikes me beyond words. It chills my very bones.

Congrats.

Cancer would be kind of hard to cure since there are over 200 different kinds, and it attacks at a cellular level.

It can be done.

Define "genetic diseases" and "disabilities."

I'll give you a personal example: Dysgraphia.

Ending death, if keeping it optional. Fine.

No one was ever recommending forcing it onto others.

[Ordya]

And why not, when your desires are dangerous and can turn the world on its head? Why should people not stop the folly that is transhumanism?

Your views are rather irrational. You know what else could have (and did, to some extent) turn the world on its head? Democracy. Equality across all sorts of lines (gender, class, racial). Etc.

When something has clear benefits and risks that are far from certain and can certainly be mitigated or avoided with planning and caution it is irrational to go "but I'm scared of what might happen, screw all the people it could help - potentially every human in the future - we should quash it forever!" All your arguments on this subject, ever, are "ifs, maybes, and coulds" and can be applied to almost every progress or development in human history. And often were. And were almost all proven incorrect.

Anyone who realizes how utterly pointless and boring life would be without death.

So why is living to be a thousand more pointless and boring then only living to be a hundred? What is magical about our current lifespan that makes it perfect, other than it is what we have?

By that logic if we say halved our life spans they would have even more purpose and excitement! All those people that only lived to 30 were the actual lucky ones.

Or if you will - if longevity increases become possible and you look at your life and can't see any purpose to living longer - don't get them. If you do get them and find hundreds of years down the track you don't want to be alive anymore - then in full control of your life and how long you live elect to terminate your life, or stop whatever is keeping you alive.

It's not a long life I have a problem with, it's a never-ending life.

[Transhuman Proteus]

So? If you wanted to go so far that you become something else, why should I care?

Why wouldn't you care? Do you ascribe no value to humanity?

To cast aside one's humanity is an act that strikes me beyond words. It chills my very bones.

Because it respects peoples choice?

Because it accepts there is potentially far more beyond the baseline human experience of today, and it potentially has just as much value as our lives? Which is to say - you and me walking around today aren't necessarily the pinnacle of existence all life should aspire to. Something post human could be just as good, if not better, for some. Or worse, but lets face it - "human" humans are pretty varied and run a wide gamut as is.

Because "humanity" is a nebulous concept that might transcend the flesh and bone, and conscious in entirely new forms could still be perfectly human in nature.

[AETEN II]

The way you phrased your statements earlier in this thread made it seem like you wanted to force everyone else to avoid transhumanism.

Well sorry if it sounded that way. Everyone is, of course, entitled to their own opinion.

Destruction of your personality sucks. This is why transhumanism and augmentation is good, because immortality is good. And it isn't 'bodily mutilation', if the 'mutilation' actually improves your body.

And who the fuck cares about being 'sporting', and being sporting to what? Death? The human body is weak. We will soon have the technology to improve. Not to mention that the human body is not advanced. Not at all. Our brain the nervous system connected to it is advanced, but that's it.

And we won't wait a few million years. The point being that within a century we can have immortality and thus spit in the face of death. Our savants can endlessly contribute to society, and we will exponentially increase the exponential rate of our technological advancement without having to fear death. We will be able to do it extremely soon. The greater good demands we do it soon, and therefore we launch ourselves forward at a faster rate via augmentation.

But don't you think life would get a little boring after a while? Oh and, whether or not it is mutilation, and whether or not it helps your body, is quite subjective.

Well, I'm terribly sorry if you would be so unsportsman-like towards those poor other organisms who wouldn't have immortality. Having a poor dog by mortal, whilst I'm immortal? I'm afraid that's just not fair. Our bodies our not weak, we can lift a fair few pounds, and the stuff that we can't moved is moved by machinery. Again, whether or not our body is advanced is subjective, it is advanced compared to the body of a snake or something.

So, you expect immortality to grace us within a century, eh? And what will this mean, a severe lack of food and water. The biggest overpopulation problem ever scene. Have you seen that Torchwood special where nobody died, and they ended up burning people alive? That, coupled with even more births, would just completely over-crowed the planet. And I'm terribly sorry if this doesn't quite fit your bill, but I would rather die, and have my children live in a world where such awful overcrowding would never occur.

Species exist solely to survive and conquer. This is the ultimate truth, the Greater Good. We owe nothing to other life-forms besides humans, we take care of our own, and only our own, as unless aiding a species supports our survival, it is a waste of resources better dedicated elsewhere.

Also, for one, Torchwood is a retarded, poorly written show with its only attraction being violence. Not only was that scenario poorly thought out (if people are both invincible and immortal, then they would not need food). For one, it wouldn't be free. You would have to pay for assimilation. Secondly, that problem is solved with abortion and careful regulation of the human population. You could even use some of the augmentations to track pregnancies if overpopulation became a real issue. Besides, augmentation and full assimilation would make extraterrestrial colonials on the Moon feasible and cheaper.

And life would not become 'boring'. The concept is unfounded, as very few immortal species exist, and they lack sentience. And don't bring up the bullshit 'time distortion'. That occurs because of the slow degradation of the brain, which would not be an issue.

Also, humans are weak. Our own DNA kills us eventually. You can be killed with a simple strike to the back of the head. You can be killed by falling two stories. You can die from infection. We're far from perfection, and augmentation is the best route to this.

[Ordya]

Cancer would be kind of hard to cure since there are over 200 different kinds, and it attacks at a cellular level.

It can be done.

Define "genetic diseases" and "disabilities."

I'll give you a personal example: Dysgraphia.

Ending death, if keeping it optional. Fine.

No one was ever recommending forcing it onto others.

1) That statement is baseless.
2) I don't know what that is.
3) It still needs to be specified.

[Seperates]

Why wouldn't you care? Do you ascribe no value to humanity?

To cast aside one's humanity is an act that strikes me beyond words. It chills my very bones.

Because it respects peoples choice?

Because it accepts there is potentially far more beyond the baseline human experience of today, and it potentially has just as much value of our lives? Which is to say - you and me walking around today aren't necessarily the pinnacle of existence all life should aspire to. Something post human could be just as good, if not better, for some. Worse, but lets face it - "human" humans are pretty varied.

Because "humanity" is a nebulous concept that might transcend the flesh and bone, and conscious in entirely new forms could still be perfectly human in nature.

Perhaps. But the homo sapian will still always be defined as a mostly hairless ape.

[Conserative Morality]

No, I don't really value humanity over potential other species or forms of life. Seems rather discriminatory.

I hope you've never taken a vaccine or antibiotics.

[Ordya]

No, I don't really value humanity over potential other species or forms of life. Seems rather discriminatory.

I hope you've never taken a vaccine or antibiotics.

If he hasn't, he's either a liar or a ghost.

[Conserative Morality]

An augmented human is still human.

Biological changes that occur to make a human beyond recognizable as a human however, well, I would agree with you on that one.

I worry primarily about how transhumanism would change the way the changed human beings think. A prosthetic is fine, but if one decides to reject one's own arm in order to get a 'more efficient model', where does that line of thinking end?

[Seperates]

An augmented human is still human.

Biological changes that occur to make a human beyond recognizable as a human however, well, I would agree with you on that one.

I worry primarily about how transhumanism would change the way the changed human beings think. A prosthetic is fine, but if one decides to reject one's own arm in order to get a 'more efficient model', where does that line of thinking end?

I would think it would be the most terrifing thing that capitalism has ever come up with.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Because it respects peoples choice?

Because it accepts there is potentially far more beyond the baseline human experience of today, and it potentially has just as much value of our lives? Which is to say - you and me walking around today aren't necessarily the pinnacle of existence all life should aspire to. Something post human could be just as good, if not better, for some. Worse, but lets face it - "human" humans are pretty varied.

Because "humanity" is a nebulous concept that might transcend the flesh and bone, and conscious in entirely new forms could still be perfectly human in nature.

Perhaps. But the homo sapian will still always be defined as a mostly hairless ape.

True, but some people seem awfully hung up on the mystical quality of "humanity", and what they talk about when describing it always seems to me to be a product of them mind, not flesh and bone. I don't see why it can only exist in the bodies we have today.

Your views are rather irrational. You know what else could have (and did, to some extent) turn the world on its head? Democracy. Equality across all sorts of lines (gender, class, racial). Etc.

When something has clear benefits and risks that are far from certain and can certainly be mitigated or avoided with planning and caution it is irrational to go "but I'm scared of what might happen, screw all the people it could help - potentially every human in the future - we should quash it forever!" All your arguments on this subject, ever, are "ifs, maybes, and coulds" and can be applied to almost every progress or development in human history. And often were. And were almost all proven incorrect.



So why is living to be a thousand more pointless and boring then only living to be a hundred? What is magical about our current lifespan that makes it perfect, other than it is what we have?

By that logic if we say halved our life spans they would have even more purpose and excitement! All those people that only lived to 30 were the actual lucky ones.

Or if you will - if longevity increases become possible and you look at your life and can't see any purpose to living longer - don't get them. If you do get them and find hundreds of years down the track you don't want to be alive anymore - then in full control of your life and how long you live elect to terminate your life, or stop whatever is keeping you alive.

It's not a long life I have a problem with, it's a never-ending life.

Never ending life, as in a life that can not possibly be ended, is pretty fantastical.

[AETEN II]

An augmented human is still human.

Biological changes that occur to make a human beyond recognizable as a human however, well, I would agree with you on that one.

I worry primarily about how transhumanism would change the way the changed human beings think. A prosthetic is fine, but if one decides to reject one's own arm in order to get a 'more efficient model', where does that line of thinking end?

Complete assimilation into a superior, mechanical form of life that is immortal and immune to disease and infection.

[Norstal]

An augmented human is still human.

Biological changes that occur to make a human beyond recognizable as a human however, well, I would agree with you on that one.

I worry primarily about how transhumanism would change the way the changed human beings think. A prosthetic is fine, but if one decides to reject one's own arm in order to get a 'more efficient model', where does that line of thinking end?

It already does that through the arts of marketing and shiny lights. I don't see how that's any different with what we have now. Sure we're not cutting off limbs yet, but the change in thinking is there.

Forgot about plastic surgery. So, huh, we are already doing that.

[Conserative Morality]

I would think it would be the most terrifing thing that capitalism has ever come up with.

The most terrifying idea in human history.

[Olivaero]

I worry primarily about how transhumanism would change the way the changed human beings think. A prosthetic is fine, but if one decides to reject one's own arm in order to get a 'more efficient model', where does that line of thinking end?

Complete assimilation into a superior, mechanical form of life that is immortal and immune to disease and infection.

How horrifying! No more horrible diseases! what could possibly give our life meaning then?!

[Transhuman Proteus]

An augmented human is still human.

Biological changes that occur to make a human beyond recognizable as a human however, well, I would agree with you on that one.

I worry primarily about how transhumanism would change the way the changed human beings think. A prosthetic is fine, but if one decides to reject one's own arm in order to get a 'more efficient model', where does that line of thinking end?

Do you imagine how we think now is the best we could possibly ever think? If not why do you think the way "changed human beings think" would necessarily be worse?

[AETEN II]

Complete assimilation into a superior, mechanical form of life that is immortal and immune to disease and infection.

How horrifying! No more horrible diseases! what could possibly give our life meaning then?!

Endless pursuit of whatever you wished, living long enough to explore space, colonizing the moon, being able to role-play as Necrons.

Totally boring, am I right?

[Olivaero]

I would think it would be the most terrifing thing that capitalism has ever come up with.

The most terrifying idea in human history.

No... Nazism is a bit worse. Maybe.