Transhumanism

[Democratic East-Asia]

100% in support.

[Democratic East-Asia]

I like the idea. However, I'd like to abolish capitalism before transhumanism takes off. Otherwise, it will just further cement class rule.

Abolish capatilisim? Would you also like to abolish democracy?

Seriously, you can't abolish capitalism without replacing it with something else, that something else is often worse.

There will be no point of capitalism at that time in society. It'll most likely be some sort of near-post scarcity world if things work well.

Democracy has nothing to do with capitalism.

[Uiiop]

Abolish capatilisim? Would you also like to abolish democracy?

Seriously, you can't abolish capitalism without replacing it with something else, that something else is often worse.

There will be no point of capitalism at that time in society. It'll most likely be some sort of near-post scarcity world if things work well.

Democracy has nothing to do with capitalism.

Thing is...NST place the action before that point so....your argument doesn't apply.

also it kinda is even though it not really optimal to say the least.

[Dooom35796821595]

Abolish capatilisim? Would you also like to abolish democracy?

Seriously, you can't abolish capitalism without replacing it with something else, that something else is often worse.

There will be no point of capitalism at that time in society. It'll most likely be some sort of near-post scarcity world if things work well.

Democracy has nothing to do with capitalism.

Sure it does, capatilisim gives power to the masses by allowing them control of their spending and the ability to start businesses, democracy gives the masses power by requiring public approval for a politician or party to stay in power by the vote.

Post scarcity is a nice idea, exept no one can explain how a civilisation would function under it.

[Genivaria]

I mean, I obviously agree with the baseline of it. Technology doesimprove humanity. I just believe that there's a line. When does cybernetics threaten privacy or individuality, when does genetic engineering to avoid diesese become some kind of nazi wet dream.

It becomes a Nazi's worst nightmare when non-whites are able to improve themselves like anyone else.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I mean, I obviously agree with the baseline of it. Technology doesimprove humanity. I just believe that there's a line. When does cybernetics threaten privacy or individuality, when does genetic engineering to avoid diesese become some kind of nazi wet dream.

It becomes a Nazi's worst nightmare when non-whites are able to improve themselves like anyone else.

I know, but if the wrong people get put in charge, it could get ugly

[Major-Tom]

The idea seems scary. If certain people could greatly prolong their life expectancy, its inevitable that not everybody would be able to reap those benefits, and equally inevitable that so much could go wrong. If billions somehow could live forever, global societies would collapse and the ability to sustain normal life would really just crumble. This earth can't hold that many people, we all know this.

Thats my pragmatic standpoint. As for myself, I couldn't imagine living past 70. Once my brain and body starts to go, I'll go too.

[Democratic East-Asia]

The idea seems scary. If certain people could greatly prolong their life expectancy, its inevitable that not everybody would be able to reap those benefits, and equally inevitable that so much could go wrong. If billions somehow could live forever, global societies would collapse and the ability to sustain normal life would really just crumble. This earth can't hold that many people, we all know this.

Thats my pragmatic standpoint. As for myself, I couldn't imagine living past 70. Once my brain and body starts to go, I'll go too.

I for one would be willing to transfer my consciousness into a machine. Something different for a change.

[Conscentia]

"I don't want to be human! I want to see gamma rays! I want to hear X-rays! And I - I want to - I want to smell dark matter! Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can't even express these things properly because I have - I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid limiting spoken language! But I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws; and feel the solar wind of a supernova flowing over me. I'm a machine, and I can know much more. I can experience so much more. But I'm trapped in this absurd body." - Number One/John Cavil (Battlestar Gallactica, 2004)

I am very much in-favour of transhumanism.

[Major-Tom]

The idea seems scary. If certain people could greatly prolong their life expectancy, its inevitable that not everybody would be able to reap those benefits, and equally inevitable that so much could go wrong. If billions somehow could live forever, global societies would collapse and the ability to sustain normal life would really just crumble. This earth can't hold that many people, we all know this.

Thats my pragmatic standpoint. As for myself, I couldn't imagine living past 70. Once my brain and body starts to go, I'll go too.

I for one would be willing to transfer my consciousness into a machine. Something different for a change.

To each their own. When this bag of meat goes, I'm not gonna attempt to flee the inevitable. I don't want to walk around as a robot, incapable of so many human pleasures, for a long time.

[Dooom35796821595]

"I don't want to be human! I want to see gamma rays! I want to hear X-rays! And I - I want to - I want to smell dark matter! Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can't even express these things properly because I have - I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid limiting spoken language! But I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws; and feel the solar wind of a supernova flowing over me. I'm a machine, and I can know much more. I can experience so much more. But I'm trapped in this absurd body." - Number One/John Cavil (Battlestar Gallactica, 2004)

I am very much in-favour of transhumanism.

Ironic, in the fact that he was far more human then he was ever willing to admit.

[Trollgaard]

Kill it with fire.

[The New Sea Territory]

I like the idea. However, I'd like to abolish capitalism before transhumanism takes off. Otherwise, it will just further cement class rule.

Abolish capatilisim? Would you also like to abolish democracy?

I'd rather like to extend democracy.

Seriously, you can't abolish capitalism without replacing it with something else, that something else is often worse.

Sure, Marxist dictatorships of the 20th century were generally pretty bad. I'm not advocating any sort of system similar to theirs.

[New Roma Republic]

I like the idea. However, I'd like to abolish capitalism before transhumanism takes off. Otherwise, it will just further cement class rule.

Abolish capatilisim? Would you also like to abolish democracy?

Seriously, you can't abolish capitalism without replacing it with something else, that something else is often worse.

Apples =/= French Fries

I see how you may mistake capitalism and democracy going hand in hand, but one can exist without the other. Now, it is true that they do go well together, but it doesn't mean other systems can't work with them.

However, I disagree that abolishing capitalism just to make transhumanism a major philosophy should happen. Capitalism offers a lot for the economy, and the whole class argument, though it may be a major issue at first, will begin to subside once the people demand they have access to repairs so they can walk, talk, see, new limb, etc. And if we abolish capitalism, there is a strong chance that some strong man/men (or women) may seize power (looking at the Soviet Union), and only give the enhancements to those they deem "worthy" (so their allies). And then there would still be the class struggle that you fear.

[The New Sea Territory]

There will be no point of capitalism at that time in society. It'll most likely be some sort of near-post scarcity world if things work well.

Democracy has nothing to do with capitalism.

Sure it does, capatilisim gives power to the masses by allowing them control of their spending and the ability to start businesses

If consumers controlled the economy through spending, we wouldn't have third world sweatshops. If the masses could start businesses, capitalism would cease to function: we'd have a shortage of labor. These are stale memes of how modern economies actually function.

How this relates to transhumanism: a society based on classes would ultimately lead to a technologically advanced few and a mass of poor "normal" humans. Also, it could potentially divide the working class between the transhumanist workers and human workers, similar to how skilled and unskilled labor, or American and immigrant labor, or black and white labor were at odds with one another throughout history. Both of these make mounting a social revolution post-transhumanism difficult. This is why I think capitalism should be destroyed before reaching transhumanism. Both to avoid a Deus Ex-like society and to actually achieve socialism before the bosses turn themselves into transformers.

[The New Sea Territory]

Capitalism offers a lot for the economy, and the whole class argument, though it may be a major issue at first, will begin to subside once the people demand they have access to repairs so they can walk, talk, see, new limb, etc.

I don't follow. Popular demand won't end economic inequalities, and the implications this has on a transhumanist society. Even if everyone has access to some level of enhancement, the rich will inevitably have more, and this quickly becomes a "pay-to-evolve" society.

And if we abolish capitalism, there is a strong chance that some strong man/men (or women) may seize power (looking at the Soviet Union), and only give the enhancements to those they deem "worthy" (so their allies). And then there would still be the class struggle that you fear.

This is why I am an anarchist, not a Leninist. But that's off the thread topic.

Long story short, this argument is a slippery slope and assumes far too much.

[Genivaria]

It becomes a Nazi's worst nightmare when non-whites are able to improve themselves like anyone else.

I know, but if the wrong people get put in charge, it could get ugly

Define 'ugly'.

[Uiiop]

I mean, I obviously agree with the baseline of it. Technology doesimprove humanity. I just believe that there's a line. When does cybernetics threaten privacy or individuality, when does genetic engineering to avoid diesese become some kind of nazi wet dream.

It becomes a Nazi's worst nightmare when non-whites are able to improve themselves like anyone else.

It may not be about race that's the issue. It could about thought, Sex(Or the lack thereof)or about height for all that we know. Closing off one angle doesn't remove all others.

[Major-Tom]

I know, but if the wrong people get put in charge, it could get ugly

Define 'ugly'.

Ted Cruz.

[Genivaria]

Kill it with fire.

Why?

[Genivaria]

It becomes a Nazi's worst nightmare when non-whites are able to improve themselves like anyone else.

It may not be about race that's the issue. It could about thought, Sex(Or the lack thereof)or about height for all that we know. Closing off one angle doesn't remove all others.

If you mean like designer babies and parents wanting their children to be tall I don't see the issue really.

[Major-Tom]

Kill it with fire.

Why?

Fire is generally pretty effective.

[Genivaria]

Why?

Fire is generally pretty effective.

As stifling progress?

[New Roma Republic]

Capitalism offers a lot for the economy, and the whole class argument, though it may be a major issue at first, will begin to subside once the people demand they have access to repairs so they can walk, talk, see, new limb, etc.

I don't follow. Popular demand won't end economic inequalities, and the implications this has on a transhumanist society. Even if everyone has access to some level of enhancement, the rich will inevitably have more, and this quickly becomes a "pay-to-evolve" society.

Unfortunately, there will never be total "equality". It doesn't matter how much Star Trek will tell you there will be, there just won't. Human nature takes over, so there will still be rich and poor. But popular demand will allow the less fortunate to at least have access to to the enhancements should they need it. The rich may get it because they have money to waste, even if they don't need it.

Ending capitalism will only make things worse because more like than not, someone will take advantage of the system, and only give the advancements to people that will keep that person in power.

[Genivaria]

Capitalism offers a lot for the economy, and the whole class argument, though it may be a major issue at first, will begin to subside once the people demand they have access to repairs so they can walk, talk, see, new limb, etc.

I don't follow. Popular demand won't end economic inequalities, and the implications this has on a transhumanist society. Even if everyone has access to some level of enhancement, the rich will inevitably have more, and this quickly becomes a "pay-to-evolve" society.

And if we abolish capitalism, there is a strong chance that some strong man/men (or women) may seize power (looking at the Soviet Union), and only give the enhancements to those they deem "worthy" (so their allies). And then there would still be the class struggle that you fear.

This is why I am an anarchist, not a Leninist. But that's off the thread topic.

Long story short, this argument is a slippery slope and assumes far too much.

The 'pay-to-evolve' that you envision will happen regardless of whether we ban modifications or not, but banning them would make them completely inaccessible for the non-wealthy instead of just expensive.