Transhumanism

[hunt4genetics]

The GMO mob i.e Monsanto and friends are helping to pave the path for radical human modification. They are getting the public used to the idea of eating genetically modified food, (Tomato, corn , salmon. cow milk, more to come...). They will win, they will just destroy any resistance with a tsunami of money.

If the food you eat is genetically modified, how much of a leap will it be to start genetically modifying yourself?

 

[SpasticGramps]

I read about this briefly a little while ago. The first thing I thought when I read about it is nanotechnology will probably bring this to fruition.

The physical combination of man and machine is inevitable IMO. The next evolutionary step maybe??

The buggaboo with evolutionary steps is that part of the species usually goes extinct. Neanderthal Man didn't fare to well.

 

[pearlemae]

Its here its now its Dick Cheney the bionic man.

 

[sac beh]

Transhumanist Declaration (http://humanityplus.org/learn/transhumanist-declaration/)

1. Humanity stands to be profoundly affected by science and technology in the future. We envision the possibility of broadening human potential by overcoming aging, cognitive shortcomings, involuntary suffering, and our confinement to planet Earth.
2. We believe that humanity’s potential is still mostly unrealized. There are possible scenarios that lead to wonderful and exceedingly worthwhile enhanced human conditions.
3. We recognize that humanity faces serious risks, especially from the misuse of new technologies. There are possible realistic scenarios that lead to the loss of most, or even all, of what we hold valuable. Some of these scenarios are drastic, others are subtle. Although all progress is change, not all change is progress.
4. Research effort needs to be invested into understanding these prospects. We need to carefully deliberate how best to reduce risks and expedite beneficial applications. We also need forums where people can constructively discuss what should be done, and a social order where responsible decisions can be implemented.
5. Reduction of existential risks, and development of means for the preservation of life and health, the alleviation of grave suffering, and the improvement of human foresight and wisdom should be pursued as urgent priorities, and heavily funded.
6. Policy making ought to be guided by responsible and inclusive moral vision, taking seriously both opportunities and risks, respecting autonomy and individual rights, and showing solidarity with and concern for the interests and dignity of all people around the globe. We must also consider our moral responsibilities towards generations that will exist in the future.
7. We advocate the well-being of all sentience, including humans, non-human animals, and any future artificial intellects, modified life forms, or other intelligences to which technological and scientific advance may give rise.
8. We favour allowing individuals wide personal choice over how they enable their lives. This includes use of techniques that may be developed to assist memory, concentration, and mental energy; life extension therapies; reproductive choice technologies; cryonics procedures; and many other possible human modification and enhancement technologies.

I italicized the most interesting parts for me.

 

[ibjamming]

To get a "little" off topic...

You know what the problem is with ALL the Utopia's...they require EVERYONE to be perfect little producers.

If the world consisted ENTIRELY of highly motivated, intelligent, university students...sure, it might work. The trouble is...the world is full of a lot of baggage...it needs to be carried along...

So, all these high brow declarations, these lofty goals...we all know it will come down to money. Can it make any? And who will pay? In the beginning, it will be the handicapped, but as the technology progresses...who knows.

 

[sac beh]

So, as I've said I'm not advocating one way or the other on this "ism", but I'm judging its concepts for what they are and their reasoning, many of which are pretty basic.

ibjamming, so you would specifically disagree with points 7 and 8 above?

Also, they don't claim to be advocating a Utopia as you say, nor do they advocate everyone be perfect little producers. Perhaps you're confusing your ideas about other things (certain political systems perhaps) with this topic? If you had evidence that what you're accusing them of is true, please present it. The jury awaits. Otherwise, read up on it a bit and the criticisms answered in the articles. They're instructive. The claim at the bottom of it is pretty basic: encourage the use of technology to better certain circumstances. We're already doing this successfully in many areas, Transhumanism makes the intention explicit.

 

[ibjamming]

Actually, I was speaking more in general...the world is full of groups with nice words like that...but yes, sure...it's ALL talk...meaningless talk. It never happens that way.

We're already "transhumanizing"...we have metal joints. Some day, entire metal limbs with skin over them. It's only a matter of time until skin can be grown over a formed matrix the size of an arm or leg. They already grow ears and other parts to be attached later. It'll get better and better. They'll grow a skin over an arm and then attach the living tissue. They can probably do it now if they could get approval. Look for war amputees to adopt first.

I think it's coming...but not for all that humanitarian crap...to make money.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

why do you have such disdain for basic humanitarian decency or social responsibility, and why are you so enamored of profit motive?

 

[ibjamming]

why do you have such disdain for basic humanitarian decency or social responsibility, and why are you so enamored of profit motive?

Actually my disdain is for people who are capable of taking care of themselves not doing so...by choice. Freeloaders... If you don't work in the garden, you don't eat. I'll help the truly disabled but not a dime for a freeloader. That's my philosophy. That's why I rally against ALL forms of welfare.

I'm a big believer in individual freedom...plain and simple. I decide what I will and won't do. That's why I rally against ALL forms of government control.

My limit of responsibility ends with me taking care of myself. Your responsibility is to take care of YOUR self. If you CAN'T...truly can't...then I will help you...if I can...it doesn't mean I go into debt to do it...which as a nation we ARE doing. It's wrong. Taking care of the infirmed comes AFTER taking care of the able bodied. SOMEONE has to be able to do the work that provides...right?

EVERYONE wants to get more. you're not "normal" if you don't feel that way...and frankly, that's why we butt heads here so often. You have no idea what I'm talking about when I mention the aggressive, money, power driven things that most men want...need. It's OK...but don't call me out because you don't understand. As I wouldn't call a woman out when she describes her NEED to have a child, or what pregnancy is like. We have no common perspective...I can NEVER relate to her. As you can't to me.

Objectivity is tough to master.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

'freeloaders' are a manufactured boogeyman for politicoes to scare greedy self-centered people with, so they can keep h the hatred upon which they feed alive and well.


You need to cull some of your misplaced hatred and fear and grow some humanity and empathy.



You really need to outgrow your indoctrination.

 

[sac beh]

ibjamming, this thread isn't an invitation for you to give the same rants about your fear of government and your political theories again. I refer you to this thread for those issues:

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=188999

The Transhumanists above show a commitment to individual freedom, social responsibility, and the beneficial use of technology for human development. You're not addressing any of it by just ranting about general conspiracy fantasies and fears of anyone who has a benevolent cause. I imagine you never read the two original articles. Your homework assignment is to read the following and try to develop an on-topic response:

1.) Transhumanism is new-age, techno-utopian, “Rapture of the Nerds” pap.

There are, I admit, strains of transhumanism that are rather embarrassing. Naive, utopian, ludicrous–call them what you will–the “technology will solve all of our problems with robot bodies” is an infantile and useless perspective. I am certainly not a Singularitian (fan of the “singularity”), nor do I operate under the delusion that the Big Goals of transhumanism (e.g. life extension, human level A.I., precise genetic engineering) will occur in my lifetime. Transhumanism, as I and most serious ethicists see it, is a philosophy that highlights the relationship between humans and technology in order to better understand the human condition. It recognizes our biology, our behaviors, and our biases as contingent, not essential, and therefore open to change. The fundamental purpose of transhumanism is to explore those potential, and often terrifying, routes of human change in a way that is as honest and objective as possible.

2.) Transhumanism will split society between rich transhumans and poor normals.

That is a real and frightening possibility. Many respected critics of transhumanism, including one of our own here at Discover Mag, make precisely this claim. The problem is that every new advancement has the potential to further split society. Alternatively, every new advancement can potentially level the playing field. Cellphones have nearly 75% global market penetration. Rural villages that still didn’t have land-lines a century after the telephone was invented now have access to a means of global communication. Technology is inherently neutral. It is only the society and culture in which it exists that determines whether or not it becomes a tool of oppression or liberation. Many, if not most transhuman organizations, mirror the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (where I am a program director) or the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford, both of which are committed to ensuring transhumanism benefits humanity as a whole, not a select few.

5.) What if I don’t want to be transhuman?

Sorry friend, you already are. But I’m happy to let you decide how far to run with it. Transhumanists are not the Borg, folks. Resistance is not futile. Transhumanists merely want the option to move beyond biology to exist, not for it to be imposed.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Sac, I think that it is the words "social responsibility" which send him off so badly.

 

[sac beh]

So here's an interesting part from the Wiki article:

Unlike many philosophers, social critics, and activists who place a moral value on preservation of natural systems, transhumanists see the very concept of the specifically "natural" as problematically nebulous at best, and an obstacle to progress at worst.

By natural, they don't mean to say that the world isn't natural, but rather that the traits of the natural world aren't absolutely fixed, they change naturally and by human intervention.

The part about preservation of natural systems is *possibly* a sticking point for me, depending what they mean. I'm a big history buff, and I find value in the preservation of some types of natural systems and artifacts, but the value I place on them isn't really moral, its more of the value you place on a great piece of art when you study it. Beauty, perhaps?

I'm gonna respond to myself here. The above transhumanist statement doesn't bother me as much anymore in the context of this:

We advocate the well-being of all sentience, including humans, non-human animals, and any future artificial intellects, modified life forms, or other intelligences to which technological and scientific advance may give rise.

In other words, they advocate respecting individual choice and freedom while using technology to overcome hurdles in human evolution. Pretty basic and reasonable in my mind..

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

To me, in my mind, transhumanism is completely natural, and somewhat inevitable.
Since the first protohuman napped the first stone axe, our species' linage has been inexorably tied to our technology.

 

[sac beh]

Exactly. I've read enough by now to see that we're talking about some pretty basic statements of how human evolution did happen and commitment to continuing without the barriers of superstitions and arbitrary limits to human-technological potential.

The "ism" of it can throw people off, and I've seen the same thing happen as with quantum quackery, that pop culture uses of the transhumanist idea can become fantastic and conspiratorial. But that doesn't change the fact of the basic statements based in historical, anthropological and scientific truth.

 

[ibjamming]

I'm gonna respond to myself here. The above transhumanist statement doesn't bother me as much anymore in the context of this:

We advocate the well-being of all sentience, including humans, non-human animals, and any future artificial intellects, modified life forms, or other intelligences to which technological and scientific advance may give rise.

In other words, they advocate respecting individual choice and freedom while using technology to overcome hurdles in human evolution. Pretty basic and reasonable in my mind..

Sure...again, i repeat, they're beautiful WORDS. But that's all they are. NOBODY but a select few are going to actually give a shit and follow them. There is corruption EVERYWHERE. There's corruption going on right now at the america Cancer Institute, The Red Cross, in small town councils...

I agree with everything here in principle. But it never works in real life. Because everyone want's "just a little more", a "bigger piece", than anyone else. It's human nature. We fight nature instead of workijg with it. And we get fucked up societies. What do we expect? An nature we're clannish. Territorial. Selfish. Yet these are the things that societies fight against. They try to "equalize" which is the worst thing to try to do to a man. Tensions arise. It's simple shit...yet you continually ignore it and the conaequences.

I have no problem with their statement...I simply laugh at its naivety...

To me, in my mind, transhumanism is completely natural, and somewhat inevitable.
Since the first protohuman napped the first stone axe, our species' linage has been inexorably tied to our technology.

Of course it is...and there will be money in it. Especially with a rich aging population. I own JNJ...they make "spare parts". The question is...when does the leap occur? The leap to ENHANCING and not simply replacing. Again, amputee athletes will be the forefront.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Sure...again, i repeat, they're beautiful WORDS. But that's all they are. NOBODY but a select few are going to actually give a shit and follow them. There is corruption EVERYWHERE. There's corruption going on right now at the america Cancer Institute, The Red Cross, in small town councils...

I agree with everything here in principle. But it never works in real life. Because everyone want's "just a little more", a "bigger piece", than anyone else. It's human nature. We fight nature instead of workijg with it. And we get fucked up societies. What do we expect? An nature we're clannish. Territorial. Selfish. Yet these are the things that societies fight against. They try to "equalize" which is the worst thing to try to do to a man. Tensions arise. It's simple shit...yet you continually ignore it and the conaequences.

I have no problem with their statement...I simply laugh at its naivety...



Of course it is...and there will be money in it. Especially with a rich aging population. I own JNJ...they make "spare parts". The question is...when does the leap occur? The leap to ENHANCING and not simply replacing. Again, amputee athletes will be the forefront.

It still seems like you did not read and understand. This has nothing to do at all with political corruption.

I'm telling you sac, it is the 'social responsibility' aspect that puts him so far off track.

ib, do you imagine 'socially responsible' to be an impossible utopian ideal? If so, is your root reason your own revulsion at the idea of helping someone weaker than yourself?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Of course it is...and there will be money in it. Especially with a rich aging population. I own JNJ...they make "spare parts". The question is...when does the leap occur? The leap to ENHANCING and not simply replacing. Again, amputee athletes will be the forefront.

The "leap" is not necessary. It has been a steady progression as long as there have been hominids, and it's natural course would be to continue to do so.

Homo Sapiens has always been augmented by technology, why would our future be vastly different from our past in that regard?

Of course there will be money in it.

There is money in cell phones, and yet most people are able to own one. Whatever is expensive today will be mass produced cheaply tomorrow.

 

[sac beh]

I'm telling you sac, it is the 'social responsibility' aspect that puts him so far off track.

Which is odd, since he's so focused on declaring his own individual freedom. When someone comes along and agrees with him by declaring that he indeed should be free, he takes the other person's declaration as an afront to his freedom.

ibjamming: I'm a big believer in individual freedom...plain and simple. I decide what I will and won't do. That's why I rally against ALL forms of government control.

other: Policy making ought to be guided by responsible and inclusive moral vision, taking seriously both opportunities and risks, respecting autonomy and individual rights... We favour allowing individuals wide personal choice over how they enable their lives.

There are some cannabis advocates who have this weird logic also. They believe in the inherent value and benefits of cannabis to the extent that it is an insult to them and to the plant to declare its inherent value in legalization laws for the benefit of all. They would prefer to keep it illegal and proclaim its greatness in private than let a dirty politician proclaim its greatness in public with laws.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

other: Policy making ought to be guided by responsible and inclusive moral vision, taking seriously both opportunities and risks, respecting autonomy and individual rights... We favour allowing individuals wide personal choice over how they enable their lives.

There are some cannabis advocates who have this weird logic also. They believe in the inherent value and benefits of cannabis to the extent that it is an insult to them and to the plant to declare its inherent value in legalization laws for the benefit of all. They would prefer to keep it illegal and proclaim its greatness in private than let a dirty politician proclaim its greatness in public with laws.

In comment to the first paragraph:

The problem is that the moral vision of some, places their own life above the lives of others, or their own rights above the rights of others.

An example is the pervasive mentality "I deserve cheaply priced gadgets and clothing, more than third world citizens deserve a fair wage for producing them"

In comment to the second:

This is indicative of the corrupt moral vision which perpetuates the inequitable system.