Transhumanism

[Olivaero]

I'm a very enthusiastic transhumanist. The less barriers between myself and a computer the better. Any anti-transhumanists are basically anti-freedom, who are you to say what a person can do to their body? Who are you to say what technologies *should* be pursued?

[Esternial]

I'm a very enthusiastic transhumanist. The less barriers between myself and a computer the better. Any anti-transhumanists are basically anti-freedom, who are you to say what a person can do to their body? Who are you to say what technologies *should* be pursued?

It's always good to be skeptical.

[SUNTHREIT]

It's going to fuck up massively once it happens, just like every technological trend we jumped onto without considering the negative effects of. By merging human beings with technology you make them dependent on technology, which is in the context of transhumanism pretty much antithetical to 3.9 billion years of evolution and humanity's psyche (which is animal and deeply rooted in nature). Transhumanism would basically break humanity under the guise of fixing it.

Transhumanism will prove Ted Kaczinsky right though, so that's something.

[Esternial]

It's going to fuck up massively once it happens, just like every technological trend we jumped onto without considering the negative effects of. By merging human beings with technology you make them dependent on technology, which is in the context of transhumanism pretty much antithetical to 3.9 billion years of evolution and humanity's psyche (which is animal and deeply rooted in nature).

Transhumanism will prove Ted Kaczinsky right though, so that's something.

Uhh dunno where you're living at but in civilised society we have labs that do just that.

[SUNTHREIT]

It's going to fuck up massively once it happens, just like every technological trend we jumped onto without considering the negative effects of. By merging human beings with technology you make them dependent on technology, which is in the context of transhumanism pretty much antithetical to 3.9 billion years of evolution and humanity's psyche (which is animal and deeply rooted in nature).

Transhumanism will prove Ted Kaczinsky right though, so that's something.

Uhh dunno where you're living at but in civilised society we have labs that do just that.

Yeah but a lab is an experiment, I can turn a frog into hypno-toad but it doesn't matter because I can just incinerate the single frog I messed up and go home.
When transhumanism, especially combined with post-modern consumerism, comes in storm to society, it's very different from a lab. Actually it kind of is a lab in a way; you could say we're in the lab and we're the rats.

[Esternial]

Uhh dunno where you're living at but in civilised society we have labs that do just that.

Yeah but a lab is an experiment, I can turn a frog into hypno-toad but it doesn't matter because I can just incinerate the single frog I messed up and go home.
When transhumanism, especially combined with post-modern consumerism, comes in storm to society, it's very different from a lab. You could say it's a lab and we're the rats.

That's not how this works. Technologies are designed in labs and extensively tested, like most pharmaceutical drugs.

Genetic engineering exists since the '80s. Since then there have been tonnes of experiments and efforts to investigate possible applications for humans + optimise it.

[Great Nepal]

It's going to fuck up massively once it happens, just like every technological trend we jumped onto without considering the negative effects of. By merging human beings with technology you make them dependent on technology, which is in the context of transhumanism pretty much antithetical to 3.9 billion years of evolution and humanity's psyche (which is animal and deeply rooted in nature). Transhumanism would basically break humanity under the guise of fixing it.

Transhumanism will prove Ted Kaczinsky right though, so that's something.

Yes I totally hate how we're able to communicate across the world, or how we're able to travel beyond what eyes could see in the same day, so terrible
We're already dependent on technology, if all technology were to disappear this instant, most people would die from falling off buildings, rest would die slowly when they realize they can't bring down a deer with their bare hands and eating already dead deer without cooking (no fire technology) generally leads to explosive diarrhea and death. Of course evaluating humans while ignoring the technology is akin to evaluating a tiger without its paws or shark without its gills.

[Kilobugya]

It's going to fuck up massively once it happens, just like every technological trend we jumped onto without considering the negative effects of. By merging human beings with technology you make them dependent on technology, which is in the context of transhumanism pretty much antithetical to 3.9 billion years of evolution and humanity's psyche (which is animal and deeply rooted in nature). Transhumanism would basically break humanity under the guise of fixing it.

Evolution is a blind, stupid, reckless, inefficient, bloody, unloving optimization process. Since we started taking care of our sick, showing kindness around, designing things by planning and looking forward rather than just trial-and-error, we are being antithetical to it. There is no shame or problem with that. At all.

And we are _already_ highly dependent on technology - only highly advanced technology allows us to feed 7 billions (and if some of those 7 billions aren't well-fed, that's a matter of broken economical system and political issues, not of technology, but that's another topic). And many of us are dependent on regularly supply of drugs to survive various forms of chronic illness. Get rid of technology, and you'll wipe out 99% of humanity. Should we have staid hunter-gatherers ?

[Olivaero]

I'm a very enthusiastic transhumanist. The less barriers between myself and a computer the better. Any anti-transhumanists are basically anti-freedom, who are you to say what a person can do to their body? Who are you to say what technologies *should* be pursued?

It's always good to be skeptical.

Why?

[Kilobugya]

It's always good to be skeptical.

Why?

It's good to be skeptical because it allows for some caution, time to think about consequences, and makes you less easy to be abused of by charlatan. But it's good in moderation, being skeptical shouldn't stop progress, just make you take a break to think about consequences and double-check you're not being mistaken.

[Esternial]

It's always good to be skeptical.

Why?

Because otherwise people die.

There are several instances of clinical trials of particular drugs that haven proven fatal to one or more of the subjects involved.

[Olivaero]

Why?

It's good to be skeptical because it allows for some caution, time to think about consequences, and makes you less easy to be abused of by charlatan. But it's good in moderation, being skeptical shouldn't stop progress, just make you take a break to think about consequences and double-check you're not being mistaken.

I would describe that as "Cautious" Skeptical implies complete lack of belief until shown overwhelming proof otherwise. But we're talking about a whole range of things here. I could understand for example skepticism that specific technologies can happen if they do not exist yet I can not understand being skeptical of if it's a good idea to try and do these things. Because there's no way to prove one way or an other if it's a good idea to *try* something until it's done.

[Esternial]

It's good to be skeptical because it allows for some caution, time to think about consequences, and makes you less easy to be abused of by charlatan. But it's good in moderation, being skeptical shouldn't stop progress, just make you take a break to think about consequences and double-check you're not being mistaken.

I would describe that as "Cautious" Skeptical implies complete lack of belief until shown overwhelming proof otherwise. But we're talking about a whole range of things here. I could understand for example skepticism that specific technologies can happen if they do not exist yet I can not understand being skeptical of if it's a good idea to try and do these things. Because there's no way to prove one way or an other if it's a good idea to *try* something until it's done.

I suppose that might imply it to you, but that's not what it means.

It's related to the concept of falsifiability. When looking at a possible technology, you don't oppose it, but you remain skeptical about possible side-effects and pursue means of optimisation.

[Olivaero]

I would describe that as "Cautious" Skeptical implies complete lack of belief until shown overwhelming proof otherwise. But we're talking about a whole range of things here. I could understand for example skepticism that specific technologies can happen if they do not exist yet I can not understand being skeptical of if it's a good idea to try and do these things. Because there's no way to prove one way or an other if it's a good idea to *try* something until it's done.

I suppose that might imply it to you, but that's not what it means.

It's related to the concept of falsifiability. When looking at a possible technology, you don't oppose it, but you remain skeptical about possible side-effects and pursue means of optimisation.

Well it can mean that. And you didn't leave any clues as to how you were using it but I digress. Transhumanism is not just one technology is it? it's a whole range of them. So I don't see how you can reasonably be skeptical of transhumanism because it's an ideal not a specific thing that can be optimised or analysed as a whole. Brain to Machine interfaces? They could be analysed and tested. Sub-Dermal armour? yep can be completely understood. The philosophical basis that justifys the modification of humans from "baseline" standard? That can be argued about, you can be skeptical about the arguments presented but it wouldn't be necessarily "Good" to be skeptical of them if they made sense.

[Esternial]

I suppose that might imply it to you, but that's not what it means.

It's related to the concept of falsifiability. When looking at a possible technology, you don't oppose it, but you remain skeptical about possible side-effects and pursue means of optimisation.

Well it can mean that. And you didn't leave any clues as to how you were using it but I digress. Transhumanism is not just one technology is it? it's a whole range of them. So I don't see how you can reasonably be skeptical of transhumanism because it's an ideal not a specific thing that can be optimised or analysed as a whole. Brain to Machine interfaces? They could be analysed and tested. Sub-Dermal armour? yep can be completely understood. The philosophical basis that justifys the modification of humans from "baseline" standard? That can be argued about, you can be skeptical about the arguments presented but it wouldn't be necessarily "Good" to be skeptical of them if they made sense.

Again, being skeptical doesn't mean you just reject an argument or technology. That said, it's always good to be skeptical: actively look for flaws and possible oversights so they can be improved upon.

If you have a proper theoretical background knowledge about the technologies being discussed, you can properly understand its advantages but also its limitations. A lot of transhumanists I've seen tend to think about Deux-Ex and stuff like that.

A lot of transhumanist rhetoric I've heard sounds nice but tends to mix infant technologies with over-futuristic science fiction.

[Olivaero]

Well it can mean that. And you didn't leave any clues as to how you were using it but I digress. Transhumanism is not just one technology is it? it's a whole range of them. So I don't see how you can reasonably be skeptical of transhumanism because it's an ideal not a specific thing that can be optimised or analysed as a whole. Brain to Machine interfaces? They could be analysed and tested. Sub-Dermal armour? yep can be completely understood. The philosophical basis that justifys the modification of humans from "baseline" standard? That can be argued about, you can be skeptical about the arguments presented but it wouldn't be necessarily "Good" to be skeptical of them if they made sense.

Again, being skeptical doesn't mean you just reject an argument or technology. That said, it's always good to be skeptical: actively look for flaws and possible oversights so they can be improved upon.

If you have a proper theoretical background knowledge about the technologies being discussed, you can properly understand its advantages but also its limitations. A lot of transhumanists I've seen tend to think about Deux-Ex and stuff like that.

A lot of transhumanist rhetoric I've heard sounds nice but tends to mix infant technologies with over-futuristic science fiction.

Well, it's truw we don't know what is possible and what isn't at the momentbiology being a much more... conservative field than say computer science, it takes far longer for advances to come and for good reason. Transhumanism could be our generations version of flying cars or it could be our generations version of star trek communicators. But the central idea hat it's your body to do with what you wish is a good one I think.

[Uiiop]

I hate the idea entirely.

Mind explaining why?

[Dooom35796821595]

It's going to fuck up massively once it happens, just like every technological trend we jumped onto without considering the negative effects of. By merging human beings with technology you make them dependent on technology, which is in the context of transhumanism pretty much antithetical to 3.9 billion years of evolution and humanity's psyche (which is animal and deeply rooted in nature). Transhumanism would basically break humanity under the guise of fixing it.

Transhumanism will prove Ted Kaczinsky right though, so that's something.

Humanity are already reliant on technology. There would be mass starvation without irrigation and fertilisers, farms couldn't be harvested without tractors and harvesters, produce can't be kept fresh without refrigeration and freezing, without technology there would be no modern medicine, and construction is much easier with machinery.

[Uiiop]

It's going to fuck up massively once it happens, just like every technological trend we jumped onto without considering the negative effects of. By merging human beings with technology you make them dependent on technology, which is in the context of transhumanism pretty much antithetical to 3.9 billion years of evolution and humanity's psyche (which is animal and deeply rooted in nature). Transhumanism would basically break humanity under the guise of fixing it.

Transhumanism will prove Ted Kaczinsky right though, so that's something.

You said that but you never really proved it's not natural.

[The Great Devourer of All]

What forms of enhancement would you people prefer?

If we're talking genetic mods, I'd like better senses, especially hearing and vision, and improved endurance through increased lung volume and muscle mass in the legs. If we include cybernetics, I wouldn't want anything too visible, but nodes around my eyes for attaching an infrared vision headset, or a VR headset for that matter, would be nice. A tank missile launcher attached to my forearm would be hella cool, but I hope at the same time that stuff like that will never be legal for civilians to possess. If we want to throw feasibility out the window, I'd like the ability to fly and shoot lasers from my eyes (without a specialized headset, mind you).

[Montchevre]

The thing is that the world is an increasingly complex place. Some people wish they could just press a button and make this technology disappear, but that isn't possible anymore. Not only can we not eliminate it, but we shouldn't.
Transhumanism has potential to be dangerous; that much is clear. However, the only way to keep it ethical is by participation in it! Provide jobs and funding for people constructing longer-lived, cancer-free humans, or let some other entity provide funding for this- but then, maybe the director wants extra strength, then more soldierly qualities, increased loyalty... Active participation and regulation are our defense to this.
So let's rejoice in this miracle of science; let's cure cancer and genetic disease, get people out of their wheelchairs, and live long enough to journey between the stars. Why be only human when we can be more? The only thing that truly matters is the mind, not the body that harbors it. And if these lines of thought scare you, I'm sorry, but you better get used to them. They're not going anywhere.

[Impireacht]

Obi-Wan: I have to admit that without the clones, it would have not been a victory.
Yoda: Victory? Victory you say? Master Obi-Wan, not victory. The shroud of the dark side has fallen. Begun the Clone War has.


I'm not against anything that lets me live for thousands of years :3 Immortality could be fun if everyone around me is also immortal. I prefer not to get surgery for implants or anything like that, and it could create an unfair marketplace where only "modded" humans get jobs.

Personally I would like:
An indefinite lifespan
The ability to switch my nervous system on and off
Immunity from all diseases
Telepathy
The Force!
Plugs so I can enter the matrix
Robotic... errr.. you know. Just in case something happens.

MAKE IT HAPPEN BY 2025

[Lydenburg]

Still waiting on Johnny Depp...

[Ashlak]

I agree with idea of improving ourselves through technology, but I don't see how this will make us "transcend humanity" like the term implies. I augment my vision by wearing eyeglasses, am I somehow more than a human than someone who doesn't? Not to mention the fact that many transhumanist ideas are grounded in science fiction rather than actual science.

[Slomikova]

I'm quite on with Transhumanism. I see it as humanity's next great step. Of course there are those who will disagree, saying it takes away our humanity. But I have one thing to tell you: to become more than human, you must become less human.