Transhumanism

[Swith Witherward]

I think it is the next step in human evolution. I think it is necessary, but optional on an individual basis. I think that given time, everyone will have some measure of what H+ promotes implemented into their body. It has already been realized in part in some recent advances; lasik eye surgery and the prosthetic hand which confers full feeling to the user. No one can say these are harmful or bad.

In short, I fully support it. However, I do not believe we will change the human form a terrible amount from baseline humans. The human body is actually extremely efficient and we will likely only enhance what is already there. Well, enhance it and snip out the things that we don't need anymore - appendixes for example, if I remember right.

For example: If we changed our legs from the form they currently are into digitigrade legs, we would also have to change the way our spine and hips work.

Well put.

Our society as a whole isn't ready for a lot of advancements, in my opinion.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

What is your opinion on Transhumanism?

Here is the Wikipedia definition:



Full article

I support transhumanism; I am generally a futurist and I believe that humans should seek scientific and societal progress, and I see transhumanism as a form of progress.

NSG, what do you think?

The better the technology, the greater the power needed to sustain, and the greater effects of misuse it can have. 200 years ago, there's no such thing as nuclear waste, oil spills, or ozone depletion.

I can't even imagine what will happen if we can change aging (e.g if you can make someone live longer, there's chance you can make someone live shorter and that can be used as a weapon). I support advancing technology with accompanying regulations, but the problem is we don't even know how to regulate something before it comes out. And I know how much Libertarians hate that word.

Why would we WANT to regulate something before it comes out!?
What madness I say.
Science and technology must be free.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

I think it is the next step in human evolution. I think it is necessary, but optional on an individual basis. I think that given time, everyone will have some measure of what H+ promotes implemented into their body. It has already been realized in part in some recent advances; lasik eye surgery and the prosthetic hand which confers full feeling to the user. No one can say these are harmful or bad.

In short, I fully support it. However, I do not believe we will change the human form a terrible amount from baseline humans. The human body is actually extremely efficient and we will likely only enhance what is already there. Well, enhance it and snip out the things that we don't need anymore - appendixes for example, if I remember right.

For example: If we changed our legs from the form they currently are into digitigrade legs, we would also have to change the way our sp iine and hips work.

Well put.

Our society as a whole isn't ready for a lot of advancements, in my opinion.

Of course the only way to ready society for it is to make sure it never gets its hands on it :roll:

[Yankee Empire]

Then restore it's function through genetic engineering, make it so we can eat previously toxic/bacteria ridden foods without it killing us.

That would be transhumanism.

I don't consider it to be such.

[Ifreann]

The better the technology, the greater the power needed to sustain, and the greater effects of misuse it can have. 200 years ago, there's no such thing as nuclear waste, oil spills, or ozone depletion.

I can't even imagine what will happen if we can change aging (e.g if you can make someone live longer, there's chance you can make someone live shorter and that can be used as a weapon). I support advancing technology with accompanying regulations, but the problem is we don't even know how to regulate something before it comes out. And I know how much Libertarians hate that word.

Why would we WANT to regulate something before it comes out!?

So when it does "come out" people won't suffer for the lack of regulation.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

That would be transhumanism.

I don't consider it to be such.

It very much is, my friend.
Using engineer - wither mechanical or genetic - is a prime example of transhumanism

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

Why would we WANT to regulate something before it comes out!?

So when it does "come out" people won't suffer for the lack of regulation.

Reduction of suffering naturally happens with the gradual testing and adoption that comes into place with every emerging technology.

[Regnum Dominae]

That would be transhumanism.

I don't consider it to be such.

Gene modification is modification of the human body, which is the very definition of transhumanism.

[Ifreann]

That would be transhumanism.

I don't consider it to be such.

How is it not transhumanism to engineer humans to have, essentially, a new organ?

[Gideus]

I don't consider it to be such.

It very much is, my friend.
Using engineer - wither mechanical or genetic - is a prime example of transhumanism

In fact, by that logic (and I'm not arguing against you), we already are practicing transhumanism. There's all sorts of things we put in our bodies to deal with specific things, such as hearing problems. There are certain implants/tubes/etc. we currently make use of to deal with various forms of loss of hearing. Contacts are only a step or two away from being a good part of transhumanism. Metal pieces we put in ourselves to fix certain bones? Well, that's transhumanism.

We're already doing it and it's working out great We're just not quite to "sci-fi" levels yet.

[Yankee Empire]

I don't consider it to be such.

It very much is, my friend.
Using engineer - wither mechanical or genetic - is a prime example of transhumanism

It's already a part of us, we'd just be returning it to function, it's not like i'm putting a computer interface into my brain or grafting on cyborg legs.

And even what I said I wouldn't be big on.

But if people won't leave well enough alone, I favor biological and organic alterations over synthetic ones.

[Gideus]

It very much is, my friend.
Using engineer - wither mechanical or genetic - is a prime example of transhumanism

It's already a part of us, we'd just be returning it to function, it's not like i'm putting a computer interface into my brain or grafting on cyborg legs.

And even what I said I wouldn't be big on.

But if people won't leave well enough alone, I favor biological and organic alterations over synthetic ones.

Those are extreme examples of transhumanism. By modifying anything in our bodies - ANYTHING - we are essentially making use of H+ beliefs.

[Yankee Empire]

It very much is, my friend.
Using engineer - wither mechanical or genetic - is a prime example of transhumanism

In fact, by that logic (and I'm not arguing against you), we already are practicing transhumanism. There's all sorts of things we put in our bodies to deal with specific things, such as hearing problems. There are certain implants/tubes/etc. we currently make use of to deal with various forms of loss of hearing. Contacts are only a step or two away from being a good part of transhumanism. Metal pieces we put in ourselves to fix certain bones? Well, that's transhumanism.

We're already doing it and it's working out great We're just not quite to "sci-fi" levels yet.

Which makes that wide broad use of the word worthless, and which is why i don't consider it such.

I mean hell, books and journals could be considerd "extra memory storage" but it's not in the sam sense.

It's a recording of a memory or a thought, not a memory or thought in itself.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

It very much is, my friend.
Using engineer - wither mechanical or genetic - is a prime example of transhumanism

It's already a part of us, we'd just be returning it to function, it's not like i'm putting a computer interface into my brain or grafting on cyborg legs.

And even what I said I wouldn't be big on.

But if people won't leave well enough alone, I favor biological and organic alterations over synthetic ones.

Dude, modifying your GENES is much more dramatic than a computer interface or cybernetic appendage would ever be.
Its directly modifying the building blocks of life.
We already have artificial limbs and organs, but in their primitive stage.

It very much is, my friend.
Using engineer - wither mechanical or genetic - is a prime example of transhumanism

In fact, by that logic (and I'm not arguing against you), we already are practicing transhumanism. There's all sorts of things we put in our bodies to deal with specific things, such as hearing problems. There are certain implants/tubes/etc. we currently make use of to deal with various forms of loss of hearing. Contacts are only a step or two away from being a good part of transhumanism. Metal pieces we put in ourselves to fix certain bones? Well, that's transhumanism.

We're already doing it and it's working out great :) We're just not quite to "sci-fi" levels yet.

It is working for us!
I'm just rooting for the next step of engineering. :3

[Gideus]

In fact, by that logic (and I'm not arguing against you), we already are practicing transhumanism. There's all sorts of things we put in our bodies to deal with specific things, such as hearing problems. There are certain implants/tubes/etc. we currently make use of to deal with various forms of loss of hearing. Contacts are only a step or two away from being a good part of transhumanism. Metal pieces we put in ourselves to fix certain bones? Well, that's transhumanism.

We're already doing it and it's working out great We're just not quite to "sci-fi" levels yet.

Which makes that wide borad use of the word worthless, and which is why i don't consider it such.

I mean hell, books and journals could be considerd "extra memory storage" but it's not in the sam sense.

It's a recording of a memory or a thought, not a memory or thought in itself.

No, they couldn't really. I mean, they could, as data storage, but not as extra biological memory. The examples I gave are perfect examples because we are directly modifying the human body. By modifying the human body in any way, shape, or form, H+ beliefs/ideals are being implemented.

[Ifreann]

So when it does "come out" people won't suffer for the lack of regulation.

Reduction of suffering naturally happens with the gradual testing and adoption that comes into place with every emerging technology.

Reduction, yes. But for a time, people may suffer for a lack of regulation when a new technology emerges. That suffering is not nothing, to be dismissed in the name of "free science" or whatever.

[Norstal]

Why would we WANT to regulate something before it comes out!?
What madness I say.
Science and technology must be free.

Do tell us your solution to all the problems created by modern technology, oh wise high-schooler.

Really, people bitch about things like internet privacy without knowing that came from RECENT technologies which are unregulated. "Ooooh the ISP is collecting our private information! SAVE US GOVERNMENT!"

Reduction of suffering naturally happens with the gradual testing and adoption that comes into place with every emerging technology.

You remember how people got sick after eating canned food when it first come out?

You probably don't. But that was not due to the technology. That was due to lacks of regulations. There's nothing wrong with preservation technology. There's something wrong with people.

[Gideus]

Further, we've done this already: Prosthetics that can feel.

Also, ways to restore vision in blind people are currently being researched.

[Norstal]

Reduction of suffering naturally happens with the gradual testing and adoption that comes into place with every emerging technology.

Reduction, yes. But for a time, people may suffer for a lack of regulation when a new technology emerges. That suffering is not nothing, to be dismissed in the name of "free science" or whatever.

"Science" is already free anyways. I don't see his point. Umbra could, instead of posting on NSG, look up scholarly articles on Google and advance science through writing papers.

But he won't, because real science is boring as shit. Except for biology.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

Why would we WANT to regulate something before it comes out!?
What madness I say.
Science and technology must be free.

:roll:

Do tell us your solution to all the problems created by modern technology, oh wise high-schooler.

Really, people bitch about things like internet privacy without knowing that came from RECENT technologies which are unregulated. "Ooooh the ISP is collecting our private information! SAVE US GOVERNMENT!"

Reduction of suffering naturally happens with the gradual testing and adoption that comes into place with every emerging technology.

You remember how people got sick after eating canned food when it first come out?

You probably don't. But that was not due to the technology. That was due to lacks of regulations. There's nothing wrong with preservation technology. There's something wrong with people.

Ey man, I'm in college.
I don't have any solutions to all the problems created by technology.
I'll be the first to admit I'm nowhere near as educated on any topic as I would like to be.
I worded it differently than I intended.
We already have sufficient barriers in place to prevent those kind of problems.
Every thing related to medicine goes through test after test (especially the emerging stuff) before it will ever see the light of day.

[Ifreann]

It very much is, my friend.
Using engineer - wither mechanical or genetic - is a prime example of transhumanism

It's already a part of us, we'd just be returning it to function, it's not like i'm putting a computer interface into my brain or grafting on cyborg legs.

And even what I said I wouldn't be big on.

But if people won't leave well enough alone, I favor biological and organic alterations over synthetic ones.

Why? Why is changing something with meat better than changing it with metal?

[Gideus]

It's already a part of us, we'd just be returning it to function, it's not like i'm putting a computer interface into my brain or grafting on cyborg legs.

And even what I said I wouldn't be big on.

But if people won't leave well enough alone, I favor biological and organic alterations over synthetic ones.

Why? Why is changing something with meat better than changing it with metal?

It feels sexier to some of us

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

Reduction, yes. But for a time, people may suffer for a lack of regulation when a new technology emerges. That suffering is not nothing, to be dismissed in the name of "free science" or whatever.

"Science" is already free anyways. I don't see his point. Umbra could, instead of posting on NSG, look up scholarly articles on Google and advance science through writing papers.

But he won't, because real science is boring as shit. Except for biology.

Well, a lot of the websites I've tried to look at articles on require like $100 subscriptions and stuff :l
I just might be in the future, though.
Going into the field of Psychology.
Fascinating stuff.

[Ifreann]

Reduction, yes. But for a time, people may suffer for a lack of regulation when a new technology emerges. That suffering is not nothing, to be dismissed in the name of "free science" or whatever.

"Science" is already free anyways. I don't see his point. Umbra could, instead of posting on NSG, look up scholarly articles on Google and advance science through writing papers.

But he won't, because real science is boring as shit. Except for biology.

I wouldn't say boring. Fucking hard, though. If it was easy, creationists would be doing it.

[Yankee Empire]

It's already a part of us, we'd just be returning it to function, it's not like i'm putting a computer interface into my brain or grafting on cyborg legs.

And even what I said I wouldn't be big on.

But if people won't leave well enough alone, I favor biological and organic alterations over synthetic ones.

Why? Why is changing something with meat better than changing it with metal?

Because it's inherentable, because it is what we are made of. Because it has the capability of adapting on it's own.