Transhumanism

[United Marxist Nations]

If not everyone is a transhuman (as in your scenario, and in any likely scenario), then they couldn't all be replaced with them, so ordinary people would always be in high-demand.

If there weren't enough Trans-humans, they'd be replaced with robots, instead. So I'll modify the question. Where would these people be applied that a Trans-human or machine wouldn't be more effective?

Then wouldn't the robots replace the transhumans as well? Since a dictatorship of the proletariat is just that, one would assume that it wouldn't take kindly to replacing itself with robots. And, if so, probably a lot of leisure time.

[Scomagia]

If there weren't enough Trans-humans, they'd be replaced with robots, instead. So I'll modify the question. Where would these people be applied that a Trans-human or machine wouldn't be more effective?

Then wouldn't the robots replace the transhumans as well? Since a dictatorship of the proletariat is just that, one would assume that it wouldn't take kindly to replacing itself with robots. And, if so, probably a lot of leisure time.

That depends on what the upper limit of machine intelligence and flexibility ends up being, really. Why would one assume that? Leisure time is highly overrated.

[The Lotophagi]

If there weren't enough Trans-humans, they'd be replaced with robots, instead. So I'll modify the question. Where would these people be applied that a Trans-human or machine wouldn't be more effective?

Then wouldn't the robots replace the transhumans as well? Since a dictatorship of the proletariat is just that, one would assume that it wouldn't take kindly to replacing itself with robots. And, if so, probably a lot of leisure time.

So the dictatorship of the proletariat would purposefully limit the development of technology to preserve the primacy of human labour in our economies?

[The New Sea Territory]

Then wouldn't the robots replace the transhumans as well? Since a dictatorship of the proletariat is just that, one would assume that it wouldn't take kindly to replacing itself with robots. And, if so, probably a lot of leisure time.

So the dictatorship of the proletariat would purposefully limit the development of technology to preserve the primacy of human labour in our economies?

The DotP would tank the entire economy and then we'd end up having a bunch of politicians with machine gun arms, not much more. Central planning is not the way to go about doing this.

[United Marxist Nations]

So the dictatorship of the proletariat would purposefully limit the development of technology to preserve the primacy of human labour in our economies?

The DotP would tank the entire economy and then we'd end up having a bunch of politicians with machine gun arms, not much more. Central planning is not the way to go about doing this.

You say that as if Central Planning is necessarily hostile to worker control.

EDIT: Also, why would it tank its own economy?

EDIT2: Machine-gun arms are unimpressive.

[United Marxist Nations]

Then wouldn't the robots replace the transhumans as well? Since a dictatorship of the proletariat is just that, one would assume that it wouldn't take kindly to replacing itself with robots. And, if so, probably a lot of leisure time.

That depends on what the upper limit of machine intelligence and flexibility ends up being, really. Why would one assume that? Leisure time is highly overrated.

Because the proletariat would want to continue having jobs, that is why it wouldn't want to replace itself.

[Scomagia]

That depends on what the upper limit of machine intelligence and flexibility ends up being, really. Why would one assume that? Leisure time is highly overrated.

Because the proletariat would want to continue having jobs, that is why it wouldn't want to replace itself.

I've got to ask you, do you believe in a Vanguard Party?

[United Marxist Nations]

Because the proletariat would want to continue having jobs, that is why it wouldn't want to replace itself.

I've got to ask you, do you believe in a Vanguard Party?

Of the proletariat, yes.

[Scomagia]

I've got to ask you, do you believe in a Vanguard Party?

Of the proletariat, yes.

Who makes up this Vanguard Party, exactly?

[Olivaero]

I am heavily for it. Further more If the technology that it requires is actually developed then restricted I think the very social stratification that people fear will occur.

[United Marxist Nations]

Of the proletariat, yes.

Who makes up this Vanguard Party, exactly?

The proletariat, hence the name "Vanguard Party of the Proletariat".

To be more specific, it would start out as the most class-conscious members of it, but would, over time, attract more and more until it become a broad proletarian front.

EDIT: Not sure this is the right place for this discussion. Is there another thread open? Or would you rather take it to TG?

[Ofuudin]

Wait, wait, with transhumanism, can we make monster girls?
You know...for uhm...sci...eh, sexual fetishes.

[United Marxist Nations]

Wait, wait, with transhumanism, can we make monster girls?
You know...for uhm...sci...eh, sexual fetishes.

wut

You've been watching Species too much.

[Ofuudin]

Wait, wait, with transhumanism, can we make monster girls?
You know...for uhm...sci...eh, sexual fetishes.

wut

You've been watching Species too much.

Well, I'm sure Monmusu Quest also had something to do with it.

[Esternial]

I'm a moderate transhumanist, kind of. It's probably part of the reason why I plan to focus on the field of bioinformatics and neurotechnology once I get my bachelors in biotechnology.

Though that's still just one of several possible plans.

[New Stinkonia]

Anyway, I firmly believe that if transhumans existed, it would be our duty to destroy them, in order to defend the future of Homo sapiens.

It was bad enough when we had lunatics running around just thinking they were the master race. Imagine how much worse it would have been if they were actually right about that.

In such a case, it would be in your best interest to not piss them off. There is no way you would win an existential conflict against them. Homo sapiens might end up being their pets, if you're lucky.

[Zottistan]

Anyway, I firmly believe that if transhumans existed, it would be our duty to destroy them, in order to defend the future of Homo sapiens.

It was bad enough when we had lunatics running around just thinking they were the master race. Imagine how much worse it would have been if they were actually right about that.

If they were actually right about it, there'd be no problem with them thinking it.

[New Aerios]

Sure, transhumanism, fuck yeah. Do I get the cool sliding sunglasses?

[Naval Monte]

I support transhumanism and I hope I live long enough to see it's effects.

[Czechanada]

Upon seeing the name of the OP, I thought that I wrote this thread.

[Hentar]

I'm not sure. Will that ideology lead to a post-apocalyptic machine ruling world? Well that won't happen if society believes in Anarcho-Transhumanismhttp://anarcho-transhumanism.net

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

I'm a transhumanist.

And honestly, talking about transhumanism in our current capitalist model doesn't really make sense. A societal restructuring of some kind is clearly on its way, and will arrive pretty shortly after automated labor renders the vast majority of human labor unnecessary. We're going to have to start valuing people for something other than their productivity.

The alternative will be to somehow hold technology back for everyone across the globe, and I don't know how you would really enforce that in the long term.

[Xiahua (Ancient)]

Technoutopianism is technoutopianism. It makes for some interesting fiction, but I don't think it's going to happen.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

That depends on what the upper limit of machine intelligence and flexibility ends up being, really. Why would one assume that? Leisure time is highly overrated.

Even if we don't get super-AIs, improvements in automation will render differences in human efficiency effectively meaningless before too much longer, certainly before we get to the point of transhumanism.

[The Shadow Brotherhood]

The whole concept is both dangerous and impractically stupid. The physical advancements that trans-humanism grants are akin to using a machine-- only the machine is permanently attached to you. This reduces your ability to specialize. If human beings are going to integrate machines into themselves, it will doubtlessly be into their minds.

Mental advancements, more than basic mental stimulation, on the other hand, would require attaching a machine to brain tissue. Never mind that that that medically is risky, expensive, and very challenging.

The brain's storage and processing power trumps the nearest affordable human-made alternative.

In order for transhumanism to succeed, it would require:

1. Giving control of your mind to a machine, at least partially.
2. Human lab rats.
3. The possibility of catastrophic malfunctions.
4. A whole new class of criminals that blames their problems on malfunctioning parts.
5. A much greater understanding of the human mind.
6. Mutilation of the human body-- the body sometimes rejects knee-transplants as it is. I have a hard time believing it will accept entire new additions.
7. All of the evils of human nature will be incorporated into our genetic pool.

Knowing human nature, I would say there is about an 100% chance that we would destroy our genetic pool in the long run. We can't even genetically modify foods without pretty significant repercussions generally.