sure, sounds reasonable enough to me.
Trans-human is likened to the transitional phase into posthuman, from the way I read it.
protohuman --> human --> transhuman --> posthuman
Transhumanism
- Thread starter sac beh
- Start date
Trans-human is likened to the transitional phase into posthuman, from the way I read it.
protohuman --> human --> transhuman --> posthuman
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.
techno-sapien?
colonize space?
Is someone confusing the 'west' with the 'eastern bloc'?
OK...you force my hand... WHITE PEOPLE have a negative population growth... We're doing our part.
That makes sense.
OK.... you forced my hand.
Wrong again (as is your custom). Only some 'white' countries have negative growth, but so do some 'brown' countries. At least according the the CIA.
Since you know more about the nature of the universe than hawking, I guess you also must know more about population statistics than the CIA... rofl.
Australia, Luxembourg, Ireland, The US, and New Zealand all have higher rates of population growth than South Africa, Guyana, Japan, Dominica, Taiwan, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Barbados, Jamacia, Burma, Iran, Sri Lanka, Chille, and Zambia.
The only white countries with negative populations growth (again according to the CIA) are former Communist Bloc national of eastern europe.
goddamn I hate racists.
Last edited:
sac beh
Member
Researcher questions society's adoption of technology without critical assessment
It's a science-fiction idea being brought to life: a brain-controlled headset that enables users to move on-screen images using the power of thought. But what is the real purpose of this technology - video gaming fun or mind surveillance? Furthermore, will it do people more harm than good?
That's the premise of Isabel Pedersen's research at Ryerson. A professor of Professional Communication, Pedersen uses a humanities-based approach to study wearable technologies. Examples of these future high-tech inventions include invisibility cloaking materials and electronic contact lenses that provide augmented vision, similar to that of The Terminator.
"Typically, a technology is assessed after it has been made available," Pedersen says. "Usability studies are done or new policies are created, such as the Ontario law that bans cell phone use while driving. We never consider, however, the hidden implications of technologies prior to their release."
One major concern, she cautions, is a public that accepts new technologies long before they are available for purchase. The reason for this early adoption: new inventions are touted as the next great thing by the media, on YouTube, and in advertisements, movies and science-fiction books. Pedersen believes this process derails discussions of the dehumanizing and humanizing aspects of new technologies.
"We're told to automatically see an invention as a positive thing. But we need to look at the full circumference of a technology. It's not the job of scientists to do that."
To that end, Pedersen is writing a book that explores this issue. Specifically, she is interested in the language that journalists and marketers use to describe - and justify the invention of - new technologies. One example is a wearable device that records everything a user sees and does, essentially creating a digital life. Driving the development of this technology is a belief that human memory is fallible, and therefore, inferior to a machine.
But this reasoning is problematic, according to Pedersen.
"Humans were never meant to have perfect memories. A digital-memory device limits creative thought and our ability to 'misremember' things. These are basic human traits and they are being degraded."
Currently on sabbatical, Pedersen plans to further her research by attending various technology conferences around the world. During the events, she will analyze how scientists explain and rationalize their latest inventions. In the end, Pedersen hopes her findings will motivate buyers to think critically about their technology purchases - before signing on the dotted line.
"When it comes to adopting new technologies," she says, "we need more forethought and less hindsight."
It's a science-fiction idea being brought to life: a brain-controlled headset that enables users to move on-screen images using the power of thought. But what is the real purpose of this technology - video gaming fun or mind surveillance? Furthermore, will it do people more harm than good?
That's the premise of Isabel Pedersen's research at Ryerson. A professor of Professional Communication, Pedersen uses a humanities-based approach to study wearable technologies. Examples of these future high-tech inventions include invisibility cloaking materials and electronic contact lenses that provide augmented vision, similar to that of The Terminator.
"Typically, a technology is assessed after it has been made available," Pedersen says. "Usability studies are done or new policies are created, such as the Ontario law that bans cell phone use while driving. We never consider, however, the hidden implications of technologies prior to their release."
One major concern, she cautions, is a public that accepts new technologies long before they are available for purchase. The reason for this early adoption: new inventions are touted as the next great thing by the media, on YouTube, and in advertisements, movies and science-fiction books. Pedersen believes this process derails discussions of the dehumanizing and humanizing aspects of new technologies.
"We're told to automatically see an invention as a positive thing. But we need to look at the full circumference of a technology. It's not the job of scientists to do that."
To that end, Pedersen is writing a book that explores this issue. Specifically, she is interested in the language that journalists and marketers use to describe - and justify the invention of - new technologies. One example is a wearable device that records everything a user sees and does, essentially creating a digital life. Driving the development of this technology is a belief that human memory is fallible, and therefore, inferior to a machine.
But this reasoning is problematic, according to Pedersen.
"Humans were never meant to have perfect memories. A digital-memory device limits creative thought and our ability to 'misremember' things. These are basic human traits and they are being degraded."
Currently on sabbatical, Pedersen plans to further her research by attending various technology conferences around the world. During the events, she will analyze how scientists explain and rationalize their latest inventions. In the end, Pedersen hopes her findings will motivate buyers to think critically about their technology purchases - before signing on the dotted line.
"When it comes to adopting new technologies," she says, "we need more forethought and less hindsight."
P
pine boy
I'd personally rather evolve than transform...Sounds ickie to transform.Thats just me tho.
Oh Gramps, don't get me wrong, I don't want everyone to have an immortal body, just me and those I likeWe 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.
My dad always told me you can want in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up faster.
I guess the real lesson here, or to me anyway, is to make sure that you are high enough on the social ladder that you will be able to afford the transhuman technology when it becomes available. And by "you" I implicitly mean your families future generations. Once the population begins to really segregate into humans and transhumans you won't want to be the guy with a handful of shit on the outside wanting to get in.
med_breeder
Active member
I don't think there is anything here to fear. The term "Transhumanism" is just a term a label. Humans will always fight pain, disease, injury and degeneration. We have pace makers inplanted in people already. Granny has a titanium hip. People who have endured harsh bodily injuries may have metal plates and pins where bones used to be.
Then there is voluntary body modification.
Some people today would be willing to switch their healthy hips out, for an artificial set. (If it allowed them to dunk.)
Forget steroids, the future of cheating in sports will be highly advanced joint replacements.
I don't think there will be two camps of humans. people will mix and match the technologies to fit there needs and desires. That being said, I'm sure there will be groups of people "Cyber-Amish" that will reject these modifications. And that will be there right.
The future is so bright!
Then there is voluntary body modification.
Some people today would be willing to switch their healthy hips out, for an artificial set. (If it allowed them to dunk.)
Forget steroids, the future of cheating in sports will be highly advanced joint replacements.
I don't think there will be two camps of humans. people will mix and match the technologies to fit there needs and desires. That being said, I'm sure there will be groups of people "Cyber-Amish" that will reject these modifications. And that will be there right.
The future is so bright!
sac beh
Member
Mutation in one gene can radically change the size of the human brain
Two papers published over the weekend in Nature reveal that human brain size can be manipulated genetically by tampering with just one gene, called WDR62. Mutations to this gene cause microencephaly (MCPH), a condition where humans (and other animals) are born with small brains. In humans, the condition can cause severe disabilities. But, researchers speculate, the gene is also involved in creating humans' extra-large brains as well.
In one paper, written by Adeline Nicholas, et. al., the researchers say that this gene controls a cell-division mechanism that is "critical both in causing MCPH when perturbed and, when modulated, generating the evolutionarily enlarged human brain."
Is this the gene that we'll go to if we want to create a generation of super-intelligent, giant-brained posthumans?
http://io9.com/5655285/mutation-in-one-gene-can-radically-change-the-size-of-the-human-brain
Two papers published over the weekend in Nature reveal that human brain size can be manipulated genetically by tampering with just one gene, called WDR62. Mutations to this gene cause microencephaly (MCPH), a condition where humans (and other animals) are born with small brains. In humans, the condition can cause severe disabilities. But, researchers speculate, the gene is also involved in creating humans' extra-large brains as well.
In one paper, written by Adeline Nicholas, et. al., the researchers say that this gene controls a cell-division mechanism that is "critical both in causing MCPH when perturbed and, when modulated, generating the evolutionarily enlarged human brain."
Is this the gene that we'll go to if we want to create a generation of super-intelligent, giant-brained posthumans?
http://io9.com/5655285/mutation-in-one-gene-can-radically-change-the-size-of-the-human-brain
sac beh
Member
This is one of the core problems motivating intentional technological-human evolution:
Humanity will need two Earths to sustain itself in just twenty years
At humanity's present rate of consumption, by 2030 we'll need the resources of two Earths just to survive long-term. There are really two options: start building another Earth, or drastically change our lifestyles. Which one is supposed to be easier?
According to the latest "Living Planet" report from the World Wildlife Fund, Earth's 6.8 billion people are already using 1.5 times our planet's sustainable resources. That means we're already creating 1.5 times the amount of carbon dioxide the planet can reabsorb, and our consumption of resources outstrips the planet's ability to replenish itself.
And the problem will only worsen as the population increases - the UN's relatively modest projections says there will be 8.3 billion people by 2030 - not to mention climate change and increased consumption as poorer regions continue to industrialize. Even reasonably optimistic estimates for those three factors suggest that, by 2030, humans will be consuming enough sustainable resources and producing enough carbon dioxide waste for two entire Earths.
The problem only gets worse the more developed a country is. If the entire world had the consumption habits of the United States, we would need 4.5 Earths to sustain ourselves. But this isn't just a consumption problem - in the developing world, particularly in tropical regions, the biggest issue is the loss of biodiversity, which has dropped 30% worldwide since 1970 and a whopping 60% in the poorer tropical regions.
Jim Leape, director general of WWF International, explains the basic problems:
"There is an alarming rate of biodiversity loss in low-income, often tropical countries while the developed world is living in a false paradise, fuelled by excessive consumption and high carbon emissions."
Increased carbon emissions have made our carbon footprint 11 times bigger than it was in 1960. The report singles out a rather unlikely list of the ten countries with the biggest ecological footprint per person: the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Denmark, Belgium, the United States, Estonia, Canada, Australia, Kuwait and Ireland.
So how do we solve this? Terraform Mars? Drag an Earth-2 out of the Oort Cloud? Set off for Zarmina? Colonize an uninhabited Earth in an alternate universe? (Or invade an alternate Earth inhabited only with Nazis, if we feel like a challenge.) Those honestly all might be part of our species's long-term survival one of these days - well, maybe not the parallel Nazi thing - but in the twenty-year timescale we're talking about, our best and only bet is changing our consumption habits.
That doesn't have to mean sliding back into the dark ages. The report does point out that we can keep up our current levels of development and still radically reduce our carbon footprint, as long as we make smart choices about our diet and energy consumption going forward. It won't be easy, but Leape identifies the basic challenge our species faces:
"Somehow we need to find a way to meet the needs of a growing and increasingly prosperous population within the resources of this one planet. All of us have to find a way to make better choices in what we consume and how we produce and use energy."
Humanity will need two Earths to sustain itself in just twenty years
At humanity's present rate of consumption, by 2030 we'll need the resources of two Earths just to survive long-term. There are really two options: start building another Earth, or drastically change our lifestyles. Which one is supposed to be easier?
According to the latest "Living Planet" report from the World Wildlife Fund, Earth's 6.8 billion people are already using 1.5 times our planet's sustainable resources. That means we're already creating 1.5 times the amount of carbon dioxide the planet can reabsorb, and our consumption of resources outstrips the planet's ability to replenish itself.
And the problem will only worsen as the population increases - the UN's relatively modest projections says there will be 8.3 billion people by 2030 - not to mention climate change and increased consumption as poorer regions continue to industrialize. Even reasonably optimistic estimates for those three factors suggest that, by 2030, humans will be consuming enough sustainable resources and producing enough carbon dioxide waste for two entire Earths.
The problem only gets worse the more developed a country is. If the entire world had the consumption habits of the United States, we would need 4.5 Earths to sustain ourselves. But this isn't just a consumption problem - in the developing world, particularly in tropical regions, the biggest issue is the loss of biodiversity, which has dropped 30% worldwide since 1970 and a whopping 60% in the poorer tropical regions.
Jim Leape, director general of WWF International, explains the basic problems:
"There is an alarming rate of biodiversity loss in low-income, often tropical countries while the developed world is living in a false paradise, fuelled by excessive consumption and high carbon emissions."
Increased carbon emissions have made our carbon footprint 11 times bigger than it was in 1960. The report singles out a rather unlikely list of the ten countries with the biggest ecological footprint per person: the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Denmark, Belgium, the United States, Estonia, Canada, Australia, Kuwait and Ireland.
So how do we solve this? Terraform Mars? Drag an Earth-2 out of the Oort Cloud? Set off for Zarmina? Colonize an uninhabited Earth in an alternate universe? (Or invade an alternate Earth inhabited only with Nazis, if we feel like a challenge.) Those honestly all might be part of our species's long-term survival one of these days - well, maybe not the parallel Nazi thing - but in the twenty-year timescale we're talking about, our best and only bet is changing our consumption habits.
That doesn't have to mean sliding back into the dark ages. The report does point out that we can keep up our current levels of development and still radically reduce our carbon footprint, as long as we make smart choices about our diet and energy consumption going forward. It won't be easy, but Leape identifies the basic challenge our species faces:
"Somehow we need to find a way to meet the needs of a growing and increasingly prosperous population within the resources of this one planet. All of us have to find a way to make better choices in what we consume and how we produce and use energy."
You assume that the developed world will/must continue to support the 3rd world. I already told you what the solution is...stop the aid, stop the food shipments, let populations naturally work themselves out. Problem solved. Hell, here in the US we could drop 10-20% easily. Why should EVERYONE suffer?
why should anyone suffer, just so a few can horde more resources than they or their extended family could possibly ever begin to use up, and a few more can live in relative gluttony while wasting enough to have made up the difference?
It is unreasonable to expect peoples who work every waking hour just to try and keep their family alive and sheltered, being vastly underpaid to produce the gadgets and apparel that gluttonous society demands.
I guess it is all well and good to oppress third world and then blame them for being oppressed, for the time being... but how is western society going to feed its desire for cheap luxury items once the poor slave labor dies off?
In other words... How is the average hard working US citizen going to be able to afford those mass produced exoskeletons and IQ enhancement chips, if we don't have any poor third world peoples to work all year building them for the equivalent of what a US worker would make in a week?
Think ahead, man... If you expect to maintain your standard of living, keeping the poor workers alive to man the sweatshops is the only way to do it.
If only we were willing to pay a bit more for our luxuries, there would be no need for 'aid'...
poor peoples wouldn't be forced to have large broods of child laborers...
sac beh
Member
I think ibjamming is missing the point in bringing up the aid issue, which is really just a red herring. It would be one thing if it were true that the aid he's talking about was just a reinforcement of human traits that are barriers to evolution. But its not. H3ad just gave one really good reason why you'd be cutting off your own foot with the population control solution. And the transhumanist response is still relevant, though I don't think you've given it attention:
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?
And a third point, that challenges your solution ibjamming, is the recent demographic study of US life expectancies. Did you see that? Hispanics have slightly higher life expectancy among US ethnic groups, and that this has been a trend for a while. They speculate that it is due to the adaptability and physical health that results from an immigrant/traveling population. A trait that is historically selected for in evolution, as opposed to a more sedentary life style.
So the challenge for you ibjamming is that your solution seems counter-productive looking at the facts of how different population groups contribute to evolution.
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?
And a third point, that challenges your solution ibjamming, is the recent demographic study of US life expectancies. Did you see that? Hispanics have slightly higher life expectancy among US ethnic groups, and that this has been a trend for a while. They speculate that it is due to the adaptability and physical health that results from an immigrant/traveling population. A trait that is historically selected for in evolution, as opposed to a more sedentary life style.
So the challenge for you ibjamming is that your solution seems counter-productive looking at the facts of how different population groups contribute to evolution.
Why not? Why should I be uncomfortable so someone else can have 10 kids? I'll send them our garbage...where should it go? They can have everything we don't want. I'm sure they'll find some good shit in there.
WHY is that their only lot in life? What happened to their ancestors that made them just sit on their hands and do the bare minimum to survive? "My" people invented, explored, so we get the benefits. You don't. Isn't that fair? Or should everyone benefit from your work?
There will be enough workers for cheap stuff...trust me.
Well if I follow "your" plan...I lose all my good shit anyway...so WTF take the chance...right? I only need a few million to make my stuff...not 5 billion.
I AM thinking ahead...evidently, I'm the only one doing that. We can fix the problem for free. You suggest moving to Mars? Who's idea is more far fetched. Who's idea will cost trillions? My ides WILL happen...the question is when and if it will be forced or something chosen. People can't keep having kids exponentially.
They're not ALL working in the factory. The rest are just in the way, taking up space...sucking up valuable resources.
If you're starving off the money you get to make something CHARGE MORE for it. What more can I say? I'm sure American companies aren't using SLAVES to make products. They DO have a choice. They can go back to huts and roots and berries. Or, they can do like "we" did...invent something, build something...start taking care of yourselves instead of relying on "me" for everything.
We've been over this already...in the global warming thread...no need to rehash it again.
There are too many people...
i think survival is interdependent on the understanding that the human revolution will require harmonious interdependence so we can as a whole raise the bar and move forward
work together instead of against each other, synergistic vs parasitic relations, thats was the whole catalyst to leaving the jungle and the survival of the fittest mentality
work together instead of against each other, synergistic vs parasitic relations, thats was the whole catalyst to leaving the jungle and the survival of the fittest mentality
That's racist and I NEVER want it mentioned again. To suggest that one race is "evolutionarily superior" to another will NOT be tolerated in ANY form!
How does it feel?
It's not a red herring...it's the solution to a world overpopulation problem...stop having kids! If you CAN'T stop yourself...we'll stop it for you. Everything else is coddling them because...although you won't admit it...they NEED us to help them survive. Without "us", they'd be falling like flies.
There will ALWAYS be enough poor to do the dirty work. SOMEONE has to do the shit work...YOU certainly won't. We just don'r need to keep a few billion extras around.
Transhumanizing only makes the problems worse and makes overpopulation more critical. Everyone can't have everything. It's the way it works.
I don't agree with your quote at all.
They don't live longer than whites...I'm sure of it. What you SHOULD have said is...among poor minorities, Hispanics live the longest... So? Why do I care? Why should I care? When they start living longer than "my" people and my ears will perk up...until then, I don't care...I have my own concerns.
You REALLY don't want to go down that road...you don't want me to answer that last question...
