Transhumanism

[Britannic Realms]

That completely defeats the point of becoming immortal in the first place. You might as well not be immortal and set yourself a purpose rather then just killing yourself when 'a life decides it has no purpose'.

The point is, you get to do everything you want to do, given enough time.
To read ALL the books etc.
Then you can decide "Ok, now i'm done." rather than being rudely interrupted by the man in the black cloak.

But where's the fun in that. If it were my life's desire to read a thousand books, the threat of death would give me much more of a motivation to do it than the option to kill myself when I please.

[Conserative Morality]

The demand is infinite.
And where the demand is not infinite, the supply can be adjusted accordingly by the individual.

As you adjust the supply, so the item itself becomes cheapened by the supply. Not necessarily in terms of monetary value (Though, yes, in monetary value), but in a deeper, less rational value.

What value is the Portrait of a Merchant if Jan Goessart painted it a thousand times? If the Grand Canyons were in every state, what awe would they inspire? If the Hagia Sofia was just a copy of a dime-a-dozen churches from all across Europe, what would it impart to the visitors who walk through it?

[AETEN II]

We have, but still are relatively weak. Augmentation or assimilation would make us goddamned unstoppable.

Possibly, but is being unstoppable a desirable aim?

Also, a fair amount of those achievements (especially space), were done with technology.

Technology is inseparable from humanity in the context of our survival as a species.

Yes, all that matter is the survival of humanity, or any evolutionary forms worthy of its legacy. The best thing that can happen to a species is immortality and increased lethality, as well as increased durability.

[Ostroeuropa]

The point is, you get to do everything you want to do, given enough time.
To read ALL the books etc.
Then you can decide "Ok, now i'm done." rather than being rudely interrupted by the man in the black cloak.

But where's the fun in that. If it were my life's desire to read a thousand books, the threat of death would give me much more of a motivation to do it than the option to kill myself when I please.

If you only want to do it because one day you're going to die, then it clearly wasn't that important to you to begin with.
You've basically just argued having immortality lets us set our priorities straight instead of rushing into shit.

[Conserative Morality]

We don't operate in terms of supply and demand with regards to life though do we? I have never really experienced not being alive so i cannot place a "value" on it for all the practical experience I have life may well be infinite I already do what makes me happy, I would continue to do what makes me happy even if I new I could do it forever...

Haven't we already been over the "You don't experience lack but you understand that it is limited?"

especially if I knew I could do it for ever actually because there would be no pressure on me to do something more "worthy" or to leave my mark on the world some day... Infinite life would only improve my existence... I cant even imagine how it would devalue any ones...

So you wish for immortality because it frees you from the burden of ambition?

[Ostroeuropa]

The demand is infinite.
And where the demand is not infinite, the supply can be adjusted accordingly by the individual.

As you adjust the supply, so the item itself becomes cheapened by the supply. Not necessarily in terms of monetary value (Though, yes, in monetary value), but in a deeper, less rational value.

What value is the Portrait of a Merchant if Jan Goessart painted it a thousand times? If the Grand Canyons were in every state, what awe would they inspire? If the Hagia Sofia was just a copy of a dime-a-dozen churches from all across Europe, what would it impart to the visitors who walk through it?

Does every medical advance cheaper the value of life in your opinion, and is it a bad thing that they do so.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

The demand is infinite.
And where the demand is not infinite, the supply can be adjusted accordingly by the individual.

As you adjust the supply, so the item itself becomes cheapened by the supply. Not necessarily in terms of monetary value (Though, yes, in monetary value), but in a deeper, less rational value.

What value is the Portrait of a Merchant if Jan Goessart painted it a thousand times? If the Grand Canyons were in every state, what awe would they inspire? If the Hagia Sofia was just a copy of a dime-a-dozen churches from all across Europe, what would it impart to the visitors who walk through it?

If I had a choice between having the world's most revered apple or having enough apples for everyone in the world to have as many as they want, I'd go with the second one.

[Olivaero]

Okay I'll leave aside for one second that you couldn't possibly know this because your not immortal, It would not make life worseless. Why? Because we value things we need to live, full stop. And we need Life, to live funnily enough. Yes you do have a lot of time on your hands once you have defeated death, doesn't this just give you more time to find things to do? Why do you assume people would just fall idle?

There is only a finite amount of things one can do. However big that number is, it is not infinity.

Leaving aside for a second you cant possibly know that... again... We can't live for infinity any way. Even when we defeat death, entropy will get the entire universe sooner or later, immortality is impossible... so don't worry, you don't need to worry about that. (this is barring any universe skipping that may or may not happen in which case... we're in an entirely different universe! there's plenty of shit to do again!)

[Trollgaard]

Death gives meaning to life, gives it poignancy, a sense of finite being that has clearly had a hand in philosophy from the earliest days of religion to Nietzsche and Sartre and beyond.

I'll leave the rest of your post to TP to respond to you but for this particular point I have a hypothetical for you, Imagine a society where without fail once every month, you didn't know which day, but without fail you get hit on the head with a very large stick. this happens to every single person within the society and they all find it very painful. Imagine in such a society their were philosophers who waxed lyrical about how the whacking upon the head once a month taught every one valuable lessons in life and lent perspective. This is exactly the current attitude to death. And what we think about the head whacking society right now would be how a post death society would see us. It is nothing more than a horrible limit placed upon us by our biology.

Nothing more horrible? Oh give me a break.

That is how it is for every living thing on this planet. They are born, grow up, and die. The sooner you accept this, the sooner you can give up your fantasies and start living.

This is the key point. Transhumanists are scared of death, which to be fair is fine, but they let that fear ruin their lives and make them miserable by making them incapable enjoying life because they are afraid of live ending. They are too afraid and bitter, and ungrateful, I suppose, to enjoy their time living.

Relax, have a cig, drink a beer, and get a date. Go out with friends and family. That is what life is about, as life is finite, enjoy it while is here.

This is my sense of all the various transhumanism bs I've looked at online.

[Vetalia]

Yes, all that matter is the survival of humanity, or any evolutionary forms worthy of its legacy. The best thing that can happen to a species is immortality and increased lethality, as well as increased durability.

And I absolutely agree, but the transhumanist ideology endangers our species on an evolutionary scale by concentrating power in the hands of an elite. Living until 200 isn't transhumanism, it's human science applied to human biology.

[Conserative Morality]

Can we assume we're talking about termination of cognitive functions here, and throw the soul in as included for the purpose of our discussion as "Life".
If so, i'd argue that plenty of christians perfectly "understand" the atheists view of the afterlife. They just view it as undesirable. And yet from their view, everyone does in fact have a soul.
The "Facts" (to them, since we're talking about perceptions) don't matter. They can still perfectly understand and appreciate what the "lack" of a soul would entail.

They are able to appreciate what lacking a soul would be, despite their perceptions being that everyone does in fact already "live" forever.
They seem to be proof positive your argument is fundamentally incorrect

I don't follow. How is it that understanding a lack of a soul despite having a soul prove my argument wrong?

Although many Christians I've met have struggled with the concept that I truly believe in nothingness after death.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'll leave the rest of your post to TP to respond to you but for this particular point I have a hypothetical for you, Imagine a society where without fail once every month, you didn't know which day, but without fail you get hit on the head with a very large stick. this happens to every single person within the society and they all find it very painful. Imagine in such a society their were philosophers who waxed lyrical about how the whacking upon the head once a month taught every one valuable lessons in life and lent perspective. This is exactly the current attitude to death. And what we think about the head whacking society right now would be how a post death society would see us. It is nothing more than a horrible limit placed upon us by our biology.

Nothing more horrible? Oh give me a break.

That is how it is for every living thing on this planet. They are born, grow up, and die. The sooner you accept this, the sooner you can give up your fantasies and start living.

This is the key point. Transhumanists are scared of death, which to be fair is fine, but they let that fear ruin their lives and make them miserable by making them incapable enjoying life because they are afraid of live ending. They are too afraid and bitter, and ungrateful, I suppose, to enjoy their time living.

Relax, have a cig, drink a beer, and get a date. Go out with friends and family. That is what life is about, as life is finite, enjoy it while is here.

This is my sense of all the various transhumanism bs I've looked at online.

To be in favor of cancer research because of fear of cancer doesn't mean I devote my life to it, nor that much time to it.
Doubtless, if a vaccine were discovered i'd quickly go get one.
Otherwise, it really doesn't effect my day to day life.

It's the same as transhumanism.

[Talonis]

The demand is infinite.
And where the demand is not infinite, the supply can be adjusted accordingly by the individual.

As you adjust the supply, so the item itself becomes cheapened by the supply. Not necessarily in terms of monetary value (Though, yes, in monetary value), but in a deeper, less rational value.

What value is the Portrait of a Merchant if Jan Goessart painted it a thousand times? If the Grand Canyons were in every state, what awe would they inspire? If the Hagia Sofia was just a copy of a dime-a-dozen churches from all across Europe, what would it impart to the visitors who walk through it?

Then each Portrait would be as pleasing, each Canyon as grand (think about it- in PA, we have tons of state parks. But each forest is still impressive), and each Hagia Sofia as religious.
IMO, Every church should look like Hagia Sofia, or at least be gothic.

[Conserative Morality]

Yes, you are rejecting the arm you have and doing what you can to change it into something better as it is the only choice you have. Exercise, being an imperfect process with temporary results unless you constantly practice it and which will eventually fail to deliver results.

So, when I write a story and I fix a typo, am I rejecting the story?

[Ostroeuropa]

Can we assume we're talking about termination of cognitive functions here, and throw the soul in as included for the purpose of our discussion as "Life".
If so, i'd argue that plenty of christians perfectly "understand" the atheists view of the afterlife. They just view it as undesirable. And yet from their view, everyone does in fact have a soul.
The "Facts" (to them, since we're talking about perceptions) don't matter. They can still perfectly understand and appreciate what the "lack" of a soul would entail.

They are able to appreciate what lacking a soul would be, despite their perceptions being that everyone does in fact already "live" forever.
They seem to be proof positive your argument is fundamentally incorrect

I don't follow. How is it that understanding a lack of a soul despite having a soul prove my argument wrong?

Although many Christians I've met have struggled with the concept that I truly believe in nothingness after death.

Plenty of religious people seem to regard life as having value, despite believing it to be infinite and perpetual.

[Britannic Realms]

But where's the fun in that. If it were my life's desire to read a thousand books, the threat of death would give me much more of a motivation to do it than the option to kill myself when I please.

If you only want to do it because one day you're going to die, then it clearly wasn't that important to you to begin with.
You've basically just argued having immortality lets us set our priorities straight instead of rushing into shit.

No, you're missing the point. Let's say that I wanted to read a thousand book because I wanted to, not because of my mortality. The added extra, if you will, of the fact that I will die, would give me extra impetus to read these books which would not exist if you were immortal.

[Olivaero]

We don't operate in terms of supply and demand with regards to life though do we? I have never really experienced not being alive so i cannot place a "value" on it for all the practical experience I have life may well be infinite I already do what makes me happy, I would continue to do what makes me happy even if I new I could do it forever...

Haven't we already been over the "You don't experience lack but you understand that it is limited?"

especially if I knew I could do it for ever actually because there would be no pressure on me to do something more "worthy" or to leave my mark on the world some day... Infinite life would only improve my existence... I cant even imagine how it would devalue any ones...

So you wish for immortality because it frees you from the burden of ambition?

Not really. I wish for "immortality" because it will allow me to fulfill all my ambitions however small they may be, and then go and find some new ones! I just dislike time constraints. And death is one big time constraint!

[Conserative Morality]

Totally depends on the situation at hand. Why do I have to choose one? Is there a war? If so, who started it? Who conducted themselves more honorably? If we are competing for the same vital resource, who has better claim to it and why? How many individuals are in each species? What are they generally up to?

I certainly wouldn't side with humans just because I'm human.

There is the same amount of individuals on each side. The societies are the same morally so far as you're concerned. One of our dimensions is going to collapse. You choose.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

This is the key point. Transhumanists are scared of death, which to be fair is fine, but they let that fear ruin their lives and make them miserable by making them incapable enjoying life because they are afraid of live ending. They are too afraid and bitter, and ungrateful, I suppose, to enjoy their time living.

Really? I find the opposite to be true. Most transhumanists I know enjoy life so much they just want more of it - as much as possible. If you think life is fun today and you want to have some more of it tomorrow, then why not have more in a hundred years? Or five thousand years? Or a hundred million years?

[Conserative Morality]

Ahh, I see. And so again, do we therefore have to simply erase civilization?
Also, the Atom Bomb was a life-saving device, and a requisite. See the thread about it.

No?

I don't see how rejecting the atomic bomb as a biological process has anything to do with rejecting the use of augmentation.

I'm an anti-transhumanist, not a luddite.

[Britannic Realms]

As you adjust the supply, so the item itself becomes cheapened by the supply. Not necessarily in terms of monetary value (Though, yes, in monetary value), but in a deeper, less rational value.

What value is the Portrait of a Merchant if Jan Goessart painted it a thousand times? If the Grand Canyons were in every state, what awe would they inspire? If the Hagia Sofia was just a copy of a dime-a-dozen churches from all across Europe, what would it impart to the visitors who walk through it?

If I had a choice between having the world's most revered apple or having enough apples for everyone in the world to have as many as they want, I'd go with the second one.

As far as I am aware, issues such as world hunger cannot be solved by having several thousand Hagia Sofias. You're avoiding the point of his argument.

[Conserative Morality]

Does every medical advance cheaper the value of life in your opinion, and is it a bad thing that they do so.

No, and no. The increase in life is so small as to be inconsequential, and more death cheapens life as well, as we become inured to death.

[Ostroeuropa]

If I had a choice between having the world's most revered apple or having enough apples for everyone in the world to have as many as they want, I'd go with the second one.

As far as I am aware, issues such as world hunger cannot be solved by having several thousand Hagia Sofias. You're avoiding the point of his argument.

If there were demand for several thousand Hagia Sofias, I don't see the problem.

[Talonis]

Totally depends on the situation at hand. Why do I have to choose one? Is there a war? If so, who started it? Who conducted themselves more honorably? If we are competing for the same vital resource, who has better claim to it and why? How many individuals are in each species? What are they generally up to?

I certainly wouldn't side with humans just because I'm human.

There is the same amount of individuals on each side. The societies are the same morally so far as you're concerned. One of our dimensions is going to collapse. You choose.

Quantum Uncertainty Principle + Multiple Worlds Interperetation. Think Schrodinger's cat. Your choice does not matter, you've already taken all the options.

[Ostroeuropa]

Does every medical advance cheaper the value of life in your opinion, and is it a bad thing that they do so.

No, and no. The increase in life is so small as to be inconsequential, and more death cheapens life as well, as we become inured to death.

Then I have to ask, why do you bother eating.
Surely, by deciding not to take part in any action to extend your life, the value of your remaining hours would increase immensely, and make you appreciate them all the more.