Transhumanism

[ibjamming]

Panoramical,

Maybe it's a little of both...like I said earlier...I seem to come to ICMag right after I smoke...I could have something to do with it.

I understand transhumanism as the melding of human with technology. I understand it as "connecting" humans with machines...grafting. Am I wrong?

That's why I never replied to the using axes and stone tools. I thought WTF does that have to do with it? Transhumanism began with false teeth or whatever the first replacement part was. It will "leap" when it becomes elective...because the replacement is better than what "God" gave us. Am I wrong?

It will probably end with our brain (if it's even needed) or our consciousness placed into a "container" and we go on living.

Or have I got it all wrong? I CAN admit when I've fucked up.

Time for another bowl...time flies sometimes...

Take care!

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

First impressions; going by this thread. You and h3ad are nothing alike. He's specific and accurate in his points, you constantly miss the point and come back with point-less points, which are usually irrelevant to what is being discussed.

I've been trying to keep up with this discussion between ibj, h3ad and sac. There have been some interesting points, but not one of them has come from ib.

Panoramical,

First off thanks for your kind words. It is difficult to try and stay on track when the opposing side refuses to acknowledge the track, but I do my best.

Secondly, since it seems to have come up from your comment... somehow... still not sure how it related, but here is some clarification.

In 1999, the WTA drafted and adopted The Transhumanist Declaration. The Transhumanist FAQ, prepared by the WTA, gave two formal definitions for transhumanism:

1.The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.

2.The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies.

Stone axes were technology that fundamentally improved the human condition. This technology was developed and improved upon and made widely available. Stone axes greatly enhanced man's capacity to remove meat from carcasses and fat from hides.

Actually joining humans physically to tech is a portion of the whole, but is not the whole.

 

[SuperSizeMe]

My jury is still out on it all until I look at it more. But I find what the author says in response to this reasonable, namely:

1) Technology is neutral, its the tool that anyone could use for any means. So there's no reason to fear the evolution of the technology itself.

2) We already have examples of life-transforming technologies benefiting the majority of humanity, rather than only a rich portion or an elite portion (he cited the cell phone).

And H3ad's post about the evolutionary origins of modern human go to the point also, that great advances in human technology have in the end benefited us all.

Yeah, it's nuetral until the miltary/governments start using it.

I dont fear technology advancement. Just its applications. While the author used the cell phone as an example. Nuclear technology keeps running through my mind. While the bomb is used to hold the world in fear, medical and power generation uses help the world population overall.

Bingo.

 

[SpasticGramps]

If the human race manages to redesign itself, to reduce or eliminate the risk of self-destruction, we will probably reach out to the stars and colonize other planets. But this will be done, Hawking believes, with intelligent machines based on mechanical and electronic components, rather than macromolecules, which could eventually replace DNA based life, just as DNA may have replaced an earlier form of life.

I agree with what Hawking in saying, but I believe it's important to note that if humans redesign themselves then they are no longer humans.

We'd be humanoid or android, but not entirely homosapien.

And if you think racial discrimination is bad just wait until there is genetically engineered discrimination. The gap between the have's and the have nots would become exponentially worse. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. I believe it is gong to happen anyway. I'm just saying it's going to have some very serious social consequences.

 

[StoneByName]

Interesting topic. Obviously this kind of thing is already happening and the controversy occurs when technology is used to enhance and not equalise.

I sometimes look into recent examples of technology being used in healthcare and the potential for enhancement appears within grasp but probably is further than I think. Some examples: Prothetic 'Luke Arm' - bit outdated, bookmarked this 2 years ago, DARPA projects are often interesting to look at
'Bionic' Eye Could be very good for helping those with retina damage, increases in resolution will make it more useful.
Powered exoskeleton 'Hal 5' - quite a few of these in development.
Artificial heart - wikipedia not a great resource but you get the idea.

I've thought about it before and I think that computers will be used to enhance humans. In many ways you could interpret computers as already replacing and enhancing certain parts of human intelligence. Semantic memory is possibly less useful as we have so much factual information at our fingertips that this form of memory could become less important. This is one reason I think Iphones have sold so well, slower search than memory but much more vast in information.

Since human memory is far from perfect in many ways (accuracy, detail, possibility of creating artificial memories) an implant might be developed to improve it. Maybe a camera in the retina to record events and a hard drive which could be accessed by your mind alongside memory. Haha, very speculative though.

In terms of genetic engineering, I think it will be used to try and eradicate diseases but its hard to envisage how far they will take it due to morality and ethics. I mean....eradicate Huntington's disease (good), eliminate baldness (ok...), create super soldier (maybe too far...). I think it will depend a lot on where (or if) they draw the line. If cosmetic surgery is ethical in society then I suppose they will use genetic engineering for eye colour, facial features, height etc. If they are enhancing intelligence or certain physical attributes I think it would lead to some very undesirable effects in society. Those who can afford designer children will have offspring who are more intelligent, with better senses and reflexes. Destined for any career they want they will form the future elite. Not altogether different to nepotism with inherited money, private schooling and university though I suppose.

Someone mentioned that the price of technology always inevitably falls. However, as technology is always advancing the poorer can only afford the outdated model - nokia 3310 vs iphone. If we are looking at implants or genetic engineering, the best surgery/engineering will still go to the wealthy.

 

[GMT]

I'm all for it, if my heart goes on the blink, I'm gonna want a pace maker fitted. If they could fit me with extra blank memory chips, or better yet, already holding the content of any educational course I could choose, I'd be all for that. And I'd love a new set of clean lungs. In fact, build me an immortal body and find a way to fit me inside it, and I'm game.

 

[ibjamming]

I agree with what Hawking in saying, but I believe it's important to note that if humans redesign themselves then they are no longer humans.

We'd be humanoid or android, but not entirely homosapien.

And if you think racial discrimination is bad just wait until there is genetically engineered discrimination. The gap between the have's and the have nots would become exponentially worse. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. I believe it is gong to happen anyway. I'm just saying it's going to have some very serious social consequences.

Nah man...we'll STILL be equal...as equal as we are now.

Is a GM plant/animal still considered it's original species? Why wouldn't the same apply here? They're just "better versions".

Believe me, the shit will hit the fan long before this happens. There are bigger fish to fry.

 

[SpasticGramps]

In fact, build me an immortal body and find a way to fit me inside it, and I'm game.

What will do about overpopulation when humans can become immortal?

 

[SuperSizeMe]

What are going to do about overpopulation when humans can become immortal?

Did you see that movie about the repo'd, financed artificial replacement parts?

Fuck you, pay me

 

[sac beh]

What are going to do about overpopulation when humans can become immortal?

Here's how the author of the article addresses that problem:

3.) Without death, there will be overpopulation, insufficient resources, we’ll all get bored and bad old people will never go away.

Death, even of the natural kind at the end of a long life, is a pretty terrible and lazy solution to the world’s problems. For issues of overpopulation and resources, it’s worth remembering that as civilization advances, birth rates go down and population growth alters. This is not to say the problem will solve itself, but it does indicate that civilization’s indicators of progress are fundamentally changing. Growth is giving way to prosperous sustainability. Let’s work towards sustainability instead of avoiding life-extension, eh?

As for the existential arguments against life-extension, well, I’ve never heard a convincing one. What happens when we get bored or frustrated with our current lives? Usually we have some sort of crisis (e.g. mid-life), re-evaluate our goals and place in the world, and move in a new direction. And with radical life-extension, we won’t be “too old” to try something new, or even to start over. One could live a century in a particular way and, instead of having a deathbed conversion of regret and longing, one could simply decide to start anew. Imagine having the option to have the life experience of a centenarian with a 24 year-old’s health and vigor.

Last point: no matter how many bad people die, new ones keep popping up. And in the process we keep losing some of humanity’s best and brightest, no matter how we try to hold on to them. If you sit around waiting for evil to just keel over an die, you’re doing it wrong.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Perhaps.

They way I see it, is when this finally comes about there are going to be the people who can afford these services (the transhumans) and the poor people who cannot (the humans).

There will not be an incentive for the wealthier transhumans to offer this service to those who can't afford it. Quite the opposite IMO. Their will be incentive for them to keep this service for themselves such that they can maintain a competitive advantage over others. As nations and as individuals. Thus, there will be two classes of humans. In essence feudalism will be defined by our how engineered our DNA is.

I think it will further create a slave class of humans who will be almost incapable of transcending the social ladder. It's how the world pretty much works anyway. I just think this will entrench elitism more. I'm not against it. Like I said, I believe that this is a foregone conclusion. I think the author paints it as more of a utopia than it's going to be though. Utopia for some yes. Not so much for the poor slave class IMO.

 

[ibjamming]

What will do about overpopulation when humans can become immortal?

Great question...

Here's how the author of the article addresses that problem:

3.) Without death, there will be overpopulation, insufficient resources, we’ll all get bored and bad old people will never go away.

Death, even of the natural kind at the end of a long life, is a pretty terrible and lazy solution to the world’s problems. For issues of overpopulation and resources, it’s worth remembering that as civilization advances, birth rates go down and population growth alters. This is not to say the problem will solve itself, but it does indicate that civilization’s indicators of progress are fundamentally changing. Growth is giving way to prosperous sustainability. Let’s work towards sustainability instead of avoiding life-extension, eh?

As for the existential arguments against life-extension, well, I’ve never heard a convincing one. What happens when we get bored or frustrated with our current lives? Usually we have some sort of crisis (e.g. mid-life), re-evaluate our goals and place in the world, and move in a new direction. And with radical life-extension, we won’t be “too old” to try something new, or even to start over. One could live a century in a particular way and, instead of having a deathbed conversion of regret and longing, one could simply decide to start anew. Imagine having the option to have the life experience of a centenarian with a 24 year-old’s health and vigor.

Last point: no matter how many bad people die, new ones keep popping up. And in the process we keep losing some of humanity’s best and brightest, no matter how we try to hold on to them. If you sit around waiting for evil to just keel over an die, you’re doing it wrong.

OK...the "west", has done it's part...we have negative population growth... Your turn...the rest of the 90% of the worlds population.

Growth isn't giving way to shit...except again...in the west. Population is rising exponentially...jeez...talk about lies.

Sustainability? Where? Oh, Jamaica, Guatamala, and where was the other? Really good replacements...you'll sell Americans on THAT.

How about we work on YOUR sustainability before we talk about "life extensions"...(welfare)

Wow...live forever...EVERYONE mind you, there will be NO discrimination. AND no population control! What a grand fucking planet we'll be living on! --- 50 billion people and it's only 2050! We're predicting to break the 100 billion mark before the end of the decade. ---

And now you know why I fight you so much! Evil is taking away MY rights. Evil is taking away the fruits on MY labor. Evil is taking away my words. "YOU" are evil! (of course you know I'm speaking metaphorically don't freak on me)

 

[ibjamming]

I think it will further create a slave class of humans who will be almost incapable of transcending the social ladder. It's how the world pretty much works anyway. I just think this will entrench elitism more. I'm not against it. Like I said, I believe that this is a foregone conclusion. I think the author paints it as more of a utopia than it's going to be though. Utopia for some yes. Not so much for the poor slave class IMO.

We've already got that. This will increase the differences that's all. Make the divide even wider.

That's the way nature works...you have the ants and the grasshoppers...always was...always will be. But "civilization" is always messing with nature, fucking with it, pissing it off.

We think we're so smart...that we know better than nature... Yup, social science, solver of all our ills... Creating more problems than it will ever solve. Social engineering...what a failure.

 

[SpasticGramps]

i

transhuman is what we have always been. It was our ancestors' (pre-hominid) discovery of tool making which ultimately had a huge hand in driving hominid evolution. Our evolution and our use of tools have always gone hand in hand, and this sort of things seems like an inevitable next step in that thousands of years old progression.

I kind of agree with that, but couldn't the pre-hominid who sharpened the first rock to make a cutting tool could be considered a trans-pre-hominid??

We evolved into humans and modern society because we figured out harness the resources around us. I think the author is getting more into changing our actual DNA structure and internal assimilation of man and machine. I think it's an evolutionary step beyond hominid into something else and that's why there is the "transhuman" title associated with this evolutionary step.

 

[SpasticGramps]

We've already got that. This will increase the differences that's all. Make the divide even wider.

I know. I agree. It's all about competitive advantage.

 

[ibjamming]

I can of agree with that. The pre-hominid who sharpened the first rock to make a cutting tool could be considered a transpre-hominid??

We evolved into humans and modern society because we figured out harness the resources around us. I think the author is getting more into changing our actual DNA structure and internal assimilation of man and machine. I think it's an evolutionary step beyond hominid into something else and that's why there is the "transhuman" title associated with this evolutionary step.

So a monkey who uses a stick to get termites is a transmonkey? An ant that grows fungus on leaves is a transant? Hermit crabs use a shell as a home...is it a transcrab?

I still don't get WTF using a tool has to do with it? Lots of animals use tools...it's nothing special and it won't "trans" you by using one. Now getting a prosthetic "hammer" installed into a blacksmiths right arm WOULD be.

 

[SpasticGramps]

But the monkey didn't figure out how to take raw natural resources, combine them into complex tools, and further progress.

Hominids figured out how to make fire.

He's still sitting there with his stick and termites.

 

[ibjamming]

I know. I agree. It's all about competitive advantage.

but society/civilization...takes that away artificially...causing stress.

But the monkey didn't figure out how to take raw natural resources, combine them into complex tools, and further progress.

Hominids figured out how to make fire.

He's still sitting there with his stick and termites.

Well the ant figured out how to go out into the forest, pick the RIGHT leaves...bring them back in manageable pieces, put them in a specially designed chamber that they build ESPECIALLY to grow their fungus food, inoculate the leaves with spores, grow, and collect the fruit. Pretty amazing...they don't rate a "trans"??? Hell, humans didn't learn agriculture until 50-100,000 years ago. Ants have been doing it like this for millions. AND...ants don't have an thumbs! What could you build without your thumbs.

I'm not trying to nit pick...just show that humans aren't as "special" as they think. Besides complex written language, and being able to obliterate the environment...we're not that different from some insects. We're not THAT far above them. They obviously can communicate complex things...look at the building of a hive, a wasp nest, there's communication, planning, direction, all going on...we just haven't figured out HOW they do it.

No...it's the whole society that makes us special...without our "support", we'd be nothing. We're the sum of ALL the inventions we've ever had...just like Head said...but that didn't make us "trans".

 

[GMT]

Oh Gramps, don't get me wrong, I don't want everyone to have an immortal body, just me and those I like We wont make much difference to population totals. The builders, the investors, me, those I like, the best minds of each generation, and that'll do. Now ok Im saying that very tongue in cheek, but if I can think it, those who will be in a position to do it will see the advantage in doing it. And even the rich guys fall off cliffs on segways, (or so the media would have us believe ) so the odd immortal will be lost here and there.

 

[sac beh]

And even the rich guys fall off cliffs on segways, (or so the media would have us believe ) so the odd immortal will be lost here and there.

Lol, GMT. I just read that also. Although he didn't invent the segway, let's take a moment to remember those who have given their lives for the transhumanist cause:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inventors_killed_by_their_own_inventions