Transhumanism

[Ravn]

I think this depends on the extent of the changes.

We already use fish oils to supposedly improve our mental skills! how is this different?

However there are lines. Obliterating death will overpopulate this world, this may sound wrong on a christian forum and even crazy or fantastical to the majority of the world, but magic (central to many pagan religions) should never muck up the natural order of the world why should sciene.

Illness would be a great thing to lose, disease is a blight on the world (knowing people who's lives who have been wrecked by it) but it is a part of the world and therefore the natural oreder. (it sounds callous) Disease is almost a safety system to stop overcrowding?

all this sounds harsh but we should not remove humanity from itself.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Im wondering what people's view on the idea of Transhumanism is. Transhumanism, as the Wikipedia definition goes, is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of new sciences and technologies to enhance human cognitive and physical abilities and ameliorate what it regards as undesirable and unnecessary aspects of the human condition, such as disease, aging, and death.

Transhumanism is not incompatible with religion. Some Transhumanists are religious, however most are secular.

The point and purpose of it is to redesign the hu-man so as to make it fit more in harmony with the new design of man (mankind as a whole creature). The cells of the body must not be able to think for themselves beyond a certain point else they become cancerous - disease of the body of the new mankind. Some cells are to be expressly for communication and analysis where others for labor and surface skin to be regularly replaced. The only purpose of human life is to keep the species alive by striving until it wears itself out, then die so as to make room for newer and younger cells for the body.

Sounds like fun, huh.

 

[Casimir]

. . . do not believe we should find ways to prevent death. Just because the physical may one day be able to cope with forever, doesn't mean to say the mind will.

On the other hand, if longevity ends up being a big problem, it is easily curable.

Also, I heard somewhere that some were of the opinion that it a scientist's ethical duty to keep people alive as long as possible. But, just because people may live 20 more years because of something or other, doesn't mean to say they will have a good extra 20 years, they may spend it in agony, is that ethical?

I agree. One problem with the extreme pro-life crowd, is that they don't seem to know what life is. Mere existence - in agony - is not "life" in my book. In fact, it sounds more like the traditional definition of "eternal death" in hell.

The problem is transhumanists want to genetically screen embryos to make sure we all have the 'right' kind of non-disabled children. As someone with Obessive Compulsive Disorder, I would have been destroyed before I even had a chance to truly exist.

On the other hand, OCD - and many other "mental defects" - are often linked to high intelligence and creativity. Personally, I would favor very careful going until we have a much better understanding of genetics and the human mind, and a policy of positive reinforcement of obviously useful traits, while only weeding out very obvious problem genes - such as those that are always or nearly always fatal, or cause severe handicaps - such as missing or deformed limbs, blindness, or deafness.

Notably, OCD and Asperger's Syndrome seem to have many benefits - but come with some side effects. If we could engineer a way around the side effects, that would be good - but if not, it would still be worth keeping these around. In fact, it would be good to have some diversity in general, for a number of reasons - including the fact that is just a good idea to have people around with a number of ways of looking at the world.

I mean, what are they really willing to give up, or to force other people to give up, to achieve these goals?

It would be quite possible to develop a program of eugenics and biomechanical enhancement that is entirely voluntary. Admittedly, though, I would like to see the irrational desire to force others to comply with one's will bred out of the human race.

As for those wondering about when this could happen - I'm guessing between 20 and 100 years. Technology is not merely moving forward, it is accelerating - and I've already seen things happen that were declared physically impossible just 20 years ago.

I'm also not too worried about the gap between rich and poor - the developing nations have already leap-frogged past the developed nations in telecommunications - going directly to wireless, for example. If the developed nations are not careful, the developing nations might leave them far behind. More important, though, the cost of technology may be high initially, but rapidly falls. There will always be a gap between rich and poor, but increasingly it will be obvious that the gap is a gap in social status, not material wealth or health.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I used to be an Extropian Transhumanist, and a long-distance member through an email list of what amounted to its early inner circle (including such founding members as Max More and Tom Morrow), where I posted under the pseudonym "Mark Venture".

I stopped being a transhumanist when I came to accept that I had no real reason to object to humanity staying human over time. I approve of life extension, cryonics, and such, but I do not insist on such things. Life does not have to have an indefinite lifespan in order to be meaningful. Being "merely" human is quite exciting in itself.

I am still somewhat sympathetic to transhumanism. I don't think anyone is immoral for wanting to use technology to transcend natural human limitations. I am simply not as enthusiastic about this as I once was.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Disease is almost a safety system to stop overcrowding?

Actually, no. As long as women each have (on average) fewer than roughly two children, the population drops naturally. The modernized areas of the world generally have decreasing population, with immigration compensating for this to varying degrees. It is only certain areas of the world, such as India, that still have an abundance of large families that drive world population growth.

Population experts generally agree that the world as a whole will switch to a shrinking population overall sometime between 2050 and 2100 (assuming that modernization in India and other places leads to smaller families).


eudaimonia,

Mark