Transhumanism

[Dimentio]

I wonder if you are for or against transhumanism, which is an idea that human beings should be given the opportunity to by cybernetics or genetic engineering should be able to turn themselves into humans with more materially preferable qualities, or even to something more than humans.

Personally, I am for genetic therapy on foetuses which are born with genetic anomalies which threaten the well-being and future abilities of the organism, as well as for voluntary transhumanist treatment on adults.

Your thoughts?

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Its a strange thing. In a way Im not against it, but I know that threatments like this would be expensive and only available to the elites, which would mean you would see a modified elite and a "normal" underlayer. I could see discrimination and such against unmodified humans and all that.

[luxemburg89]

or even to something more than humans.


That sounds like Science-Fiction to me lol. Are you talking about altering genes to make oneself more 'beautiful' and that sort of thing mate?

Edit - Right I getcha now.

I am concerned with the same issues as Avtomat, it could lead to a form of social darwinism, but if the research was well-controlled and if the parents really want it I would be willing to hear more, at the moment I'm really in the middle - I can see the downsides of being for and against it.

All I can say is that if my child was born disabled I wouldn't love the kid any less and would rather they were born the way they were going to be, than have their genes altered (in case it went wrong and killed them). If the 'transhumanism' has been proven successful then maybe I'd be leaning more towards pro-'transhumanism'. Yet I can never know what the child would have wanted. This was a good issue to bring up Serpent.

[Dimentio]

If we assume that we are talking about a communist, technocratic or anarchist society then (or all of the three together)? I would not have much to criticise then.

Francis Fukuyama is critical of the idea because it will smash traditional humanism and destroy the bourgeoisie definition on the human being.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34867.html

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Still, I doubt we would have the big happy communist paradise when these technologies would be available. Another problem would be that people simply wouldny be equal anymore, yes humans are equal. But with these upgrades you would have something stronger, smarter, more effective than a normal human. I dont see how equality would then remain.

And erm...you mention destroying the bourgeoise definition of "human", what is that definition? What would the "communist" or "proletarian" definition of the "human being" be?

[gilhyle]

Yea well that is the point - the issue is not some fundamental ethical problem, but rather what kind of society uses the technology - the use of technology mirrors the society that facilitates it. With the exception of the obvious (usually contrived) examples designed solely to illustrate that you can be for or against a technology as such, the obvous point is how can you be for or against any technology itself ? Its a matter of:

How would it be used in a socialist society ?

How would it be used in a capitalist society ?

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Well, the problem with technology like that is also that we have to redefine what a human being is, the social theory that all humans are equal would no longer be valid when these technologies are available, there would actually be inferior and superior humans and not the whole "we are one big happy equal collective" kind of thing.

[Dimentio]

What is equality? Is it that everyone have equal opportunities to realise their possibilities, or that everyone should be so similar to each-other in capacities and material conditions as possible?

I, as a technocrat, prefers to hope that we would continue to grow, challenge, and develop ourselves even when we have reached communism.

[Dominicana_1965]

I know very little on the subject, but I thought that plastic surgery was Transhumanist?

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 03:49 pm
Well, the problem with technology like that is also that we have to redefine what a human being is, the social theory that all humans are equal would no longer be valid when these technologies are available, there would actually be inferior and superior humans and not the whole "we are one big happy equal collective" kind of thing.
Is that not lifestylism in it's esse?

I mean, I see technology as a great equaliser of opportunities.

It has allowed weaker men to defeat stronger in physical battle.

It has allowed a greater amount of Earth's population access to prosperity due to the fact that we utilise a lot more energy through technology than possible in the stone age (in ancient empires, 99,9% of the population were serfs).

It has made it feasible for women to leave the role in the home and pursue her individuality.

It has allowed weak children who would otherwise have been dealt with by natural selection to grow up and get modern medicine.

We must discuss what we intend to mean with equality. For me, an individualist (who even refused to hang around with my class in school), the "big happy collective" is of diminished preferability. I am not anti-equality, but I am clearly anti-collectivist.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 05:56 pm
I know very little on the subject, but I thought that plastic surgery was Transhumanist?
Cosmetically, yes. It is a violation upon the predetermined genetic characteristics. ;=)

[JimFar]

When I first heard of transhumanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism) back in the '90s, it seemed that most of its proponents were rightwing libertarians of one variety or another with Max More (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_More) being a typical example. However, there is also a tradition of leftwing transhumanism which goes as far back at least to the Communist crystallographer, J. D. Bernal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.D._Bernal) who wrote a transhumanist classic, The Word, the Flesh and the Devil (http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Bernal/) back in 1929.

[jaycee]

i think we should set up communism so that we can become fully human first

[Dimentio]

Thank you really much for that one!

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 03:49 pm
the social theory that all humans are equal would no longer be valid
And you think that is true now ?

This seems to confuse the idea that everyone should have equal rights with the idea that they ARE equal.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Originally posted by gilhyle+June 10, 2007 11:16 pm--> (gilhyle @ June 10, 2007 11:16 pm)
[email protected] 09, 2007 03:49 pm
the social theory that all humans are equal would no longer be valid
And you think that is true now ?

This seems to confuse the idea that everyone should have equal rights with the idea that they ARE equal. [/b]
Right now we have capitalism which already assumed humanity isnt equal, you have "hard workers" (as the bourgeoise would like to call themselves sometimes) and "lower classes".

The idea of equal rights is the assumption that we are all equally, however with transhumanism we would no longer be equal, there would actually be differences. There would be humans who would be smarter stronger and healthier and would be of higher value as a worker. How would we all be equal then?

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 04:37 pm
.....we would no longer be equal, there would actually be differences. There would be humans who would be smarter stronger and healthier and would be of higher value as a worker. How would we all be equal then?
Im gonna repeat the question cos I dont understand the answer: you are describing the real world as it already is without transhumanism ????

[Dr Mindbender]

I the 'transhumans' start viewing themselves as superior could this not pave the way for fascism? :blink:

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Originally posted by gilhyle+June 12, 2007 09:57 pm--> (gilhyle @ June 12, 2007 09:57 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 04:37 pm
.....we would no longer be equal, there would actually be differences. There would be humans who would be smarter stronger and healthier and would be of higher value as a worker. How would we all be equal then?
Im gonna repeat the question cos I dont understand the answer: you are describing the real world as it already is without transhumanism ???? [/b]
The world as it is now without transhumanism is what we have now. We dont have bionically or geneticaly upgraded humans. As a species we are all equal, however there is inequality due to class, race, ethnic, wealth based discrimination. In a communist society we would all be equal because we are all human, why should one human be better if we are all equal?

Now...if transhumanity would rise you would no longer have these equal humans, there would be clearly superior and inferior humans. (if we could still call them human, but that is yet another discussion) To answer your question, the situation Im describing of inequality that makes sense (and might be considered justified) would be in a society with transhumanism. In a society without transhumanism there wouldnt be a justifyable basis for inequality (except those lame excuses the bourgeoise might throw in our faces)


I the 'transhumans' start viewing themselves as superior could this not pave the way for fascism?
Depends, if the working class views itself as better than the bourgeoise, does that pave a way for fascism as well? If we would have a communist society in which all are transhuman I dont see any problem. However I dont believe that would happen since technology grows fast and transhumanism will probably happen before there would ever be a world wide succesful communist revolution, the result of this would be that transhumanism would be under capitalist control and that only those who are rich could afford these upgrades.

[rouchambeau]

I just think it's a silly pursuit at this point in time. Of all the things we could be focusing on, turning the world into a comic book shouldn't be high on our list.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Its probably as silly as the working class rising up world wide in some apocalyptic war and turning it into a happy utopia <_<

Lets face it technological changes are coming quick, we recently mapped the entire human genetics if I recall correctly. We managed to clone sheep and are probably capable of cloning a human being. It wont take long for us to be able to alter human to how we want. Ignoring that development or calling it "turning the world into a comic book" is keeping your head in the sand and ignorant.

[which doctor]

I don&#39;t like it, nor do I like this idea of "super humans." What about those who prefer to stay themselves, are they somehow inferior to those who have chosen to genetically alter themselves? Also, what about those who do end up getting born with a handicap, since it&#39;s bound to happen.

Although economically a classless society, biologically it would be not. Such large biological differences among people would most certainly cause conflict.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

What about those who prefer to stay themselves, are they somehow inferior to those who have chosen to genetically alter themselves?
In a way they are inferior yes...


Also, what about those who do end up getting born with a handicap, since it&#39;s bound to happen.

With this technology we could prevent that, we could simply pick how want our kids to be born. And those who are born with a handicap, well what do we do with them nowadays?


Although economically a classless society, biologically it would be not. Such large biological differences among people would most certainly cause conflict.
Hell yeah, but thats not the only thing the Marxists seem to ignore, what about racial (if we could call it that), ethnic, generational or any other difference? People are more identified with their country or ethnic group than they are with their class.

[gilhyle]

It is not obvious to me that just because someone has an enhanced capacity of a particular kind that they are more likely to be seen as &#39;superior&#39;. You would need to achieve superior performance across the range of human activities.

[Dimentio]

Could people&#39;s "value" really be adjusted to their performance? Is that not an economist ic viewpoint? Moreover, people have different capabilities today. What happen if those with IQ above 100 decides to see themselves as more valued than those with an IQ below that? In my view, it is a pseudo-debate, akin to a flawed understanding of equality.

Equality do not and should not mean that everyone are the same, but that everyone are objectively treated the same.

[la-troy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 05:22 pm
It is not obvious to me that just because someone has an enhanced capacity of a particular kind that they are more likely to be seen as &#39;superior&#39;. You would need to achieve superior performance across the range of human activities.
Ahh.. i suggest you take a look at history ? ( not meaning to be offensive)

As for this question it is mixed.

In a communist or socialist society where everyone can &#39;afford&#39; it it still has problems.
As FOB said some individuals would prefer to stay themselves, so then we would have a problem of two different types of people in society and this will inevitable lead to discrimination and sectarianism as all major differences seem to lead to.

In current society we may see a rebirth of that rubbish called social Darwinisms. It will just serve to help further divide the rich from the poor. Pointless and in accordance with capitalist and imperialist actions of today we may see it use for very inhumane reasons.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by la&#045;[email protected] 14, 2007 05:38 pm

Ahh.. i suggest you take a look at history ? ( not meaning to be offensive)

No offence taken. Bu I am looking at society - the variety of individual capacities in society is quite extensive and while capitalism&#39;s ideal of equality before the law is often honoured more in the breach, I dont see that even in this society the inequality follows the pattern of differences in capaicty in relation to different skills. For example, I might have a great singing voice (dont actually) and tht may contast with others who cannot hold a note. My status before the law is not thereby enhanced.

Now if even capitalism can achieve that level of equality before the law in the face of significant differences in individual capacity, I would have thought a socialist society could bear wide diffeences (even artificially ehanced) differences of capacity.

Underlying my argument is the view that it is precisely what grounds the difference between historical evolution from natural evolution that survival, reprooduction rates and prosperity are not determined by individual capacity. granted that is a wider debate, but it is because I am looking at history that I dont see that artificially giving certain people enhanced capacities will necessarily lead to a human-sub-human Gattica type society.

[la-troy]

No offence taken. Bu I am looking at society - the variety of individual capacities in society is quite extensive and while capitalism&#39;s ideal of equality before the law is often honoured more in the breach, I dont see that even in this society the inequality follows the pattern of differences in capaicty in relation to different skills. For example, I might have a great singing voice (dont actually) and tht may contast with others who cannot hold a note. My status before the law is not thereby enhanced.

hmm... by law no you are not superior, but even the amerindians were pretty much equal to the Spaniards. I see and understand your point about the differences in skills and talents, but look at it this way. Say a group of people were able to run the 100 meters in under 8 seconds they would be the world leaders correct, they would be the superior athletes. no doubt they would look upon other runners as inferior. this is under capitalism right? so now we have a set of people more likely to get sponsorships and endorsement deals. all this because they or some ancestor of theirs decided to alter his or her DNA. hence we have two groups of athletes a superior modified group and a inferior group. Apply this to society, and to a capitalist society. People will be aiming for those who can do the better job, who will e more efficient and more profitable. You see a law firm will higher the guy with the higher IQ, The diver squad the guy with the digger lung capacity and so on. If individuals choose not to get altered they end up being unable to compete, you have two different sects of people, one will feel superior( it is only natural) and one will feel resentment and anger (eventually) so...

ohh you also have to consider in a capitalist society who will be able to afford it.







ok The spaniards had Christianity they felt they where superior to non-christians.
the wealthy have money they feel they are better than those who dont (for the most part)
Our runners are pretty fast i believe they are superior than any other in the world

while a lot of differences do not lead to violent tension it only takes one

[piet11111]

assuming that these genetic or mechanical upgrades are available to everyone without charge then i dont see the problem.

if it allows poeple to become stronger smarter and live much longer then its their choice to become like that.

how can you be superior if everyone has access to the same technology and become just like you ?

i cant imagine how poeple could not be willing to recieve such upgrades especially when it allows you to serve your community better.

sign me up for transhumanist surgery

[Avtomat_Icaro]

People will be aiming for those who can do the better job, who will e more efficient and more profitable. You see a law firm will higher the guy with the higher IQ, The diver squad the guy with the digger lung capacity and so on. If individuals choose not to get altered they end up being unable to compete, you have two different sects of people, one will feel superior( it is only natural) and one will feel resentment and anger (eventually) so...

I assume this would not only be a capitalist problem, in a communist society its the same. You want workers who do a better job. In our revolutionary case it would not be because of profit but because of higher productions which are there for the people.


how can you be superior if everyone has access to the same technology and become just like you ?

i cant imagine how poeple could not be willing to recieve such upgrades especially when it allows you to serve your community better.
Its the question in how far one would be human. When these upgrades beome available to the masses we need to redefine what makes us human. I doubt everybody would accept or want to be upgraded, even in a communist society.

[which doctor]

A question for the transhumanists on the board.

Why not just choose to upload our conscience into a computer hard drive and choose to live in your own matrix, where you control the code?

[Avtomat_Icaro]

It wouldnt surprise me to see people actually do that when the technology offers that possibility. Or is this a childish remark because you are scared of what technological development might bring in the future? :o

[rouchambeau]

I know I&#39;m scared.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:59 pm
A question for the transhumanists on the board.

Why not just choose to upload our conscience into a computer hard drive and choose to live in your own matrix, where you control the code?
Yes, why not? That is also an option.

[Raúl Duke]

I could say I&#39;m for it ( :o ) but only in a classless society where everyone could get these upgrades.

Although, I&#39;m still quite cautious and unsure of this.... :unsure:

Personally, I would prefer nanotech and genetic style upgrades...but you could do whatever you want (like putting your conscious in a hardrive and live in your own matrix; although...that sound very escapist and I wouldn&#39;t know what affects such a thing would have on society.)

Is it just me or are people citing examples of non-existent "biological equality" and other examples of equality that aren&#39;t usually considered leftist? (I might be wrong because I browse through the posts so don&#39;t eat me ;) )

I thought equality, in Marxist terms, was one&#39;s position in terms of labor. (prole vs. cappie, etc) and in Anarchist terms, based on the prescence and abscence of formal hierarchy (no hierarchy=equality; hierarchy=inequality); among other things?

If we use these version of equality, than transhumanist "upgrades" wouln&#39;t really lead to inequality.

However, it might lead to a "biological disbalance" between those who have it and those who don&#39;t (yet). However, aren&#39;t our classless societies suppose to be able to stop "reaction"; the return of any class-society among humanity? If a group of transhumans decide to form some kind of class society with transhumans over other humans, than we should just stop them like any other reaction.

This disbalance might actually, over time balance out, since if everyone had acess to these upgrades (and if they become a hit) than everyone should be able to get one; thus, everyone would become a "transhuman" (or whatever the term is).

These new technologies are still in a young stage...so I don&#39;t think we could accurately predict their affect on society (thats why I&#39;m unsure about them).

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:01 pm
It wouldnt surprise me to see people actually do that when the technology offers that possibility. Or is this a childish remark because you are scared of what technological development might bring in the future? :o
It wasn&#39;t meant to be a childish remark. It was serious. Instead of going through all the surgery and genetic modification to alter one&#39;s body, it would be much much easier to just go into a computer where you control yourself and your surroundings. It just seems easier to me.

[Arkham Asylum]

I personally see transhumanism being the foot stool of capitalism.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Originally posted by FoB+June 17, 2007 05:11 am--> (FoB @ June 17, 2007 05:11 am)
[email protected] 16, 2007 04:01 pm
It wouldnt surprise me to see people actually do that when the technology offers that possibility. Or is this a childish remark because you are scared of what technological development might bring in the future? :o
It wasn&#39;t meant to be a childish remark. It was serious. Instead of going through all the surgery and genetic modification to alter one&#39;s body, it would be much much easier to just go into a computer where you control yourself and your surroundings. It just seems easier to me. [/b]
It would be one possibility, but I doubt everybody would do that. When all this technology becomes available there would be so many variations on the human. Like I posted earlier, people would have to redefine what it is that makes us human...interesting times ahead perhaps&#33;

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 02:20 am
assuming that these genetic or mechanical upgrades are available to everyone without charge then i dont see the problem.

if it allows poeple to become stronger smarter and live much longer then its their choice to become like that.


That&#39;s exactly how I feel. Many people are scared because they feel that transhumanism will result in casts based on a person&#39;s genetic make-up. This could very well be the case if it is done under capitalism, but in a socialist society it could result in the betterment of mankind. I see transumanism as I see any other technology: depending on the user, it could be used for either good or bad purposes.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Arkham [email protected] 18, 2007 11:26 am
I personally see transhumanism being the foot stool of capitalism.
So, transhumanism in a non-capitalist society then?

[Dimentio]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCxDZRJKkqY

Even though this is hilarious, it enlightens us about the tragedy it is to be unable to live the life as other people. It is a good argument for transhumanism.

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:13 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCxDZRJKkqY

Even though this is hilarious, it enlightens us about the tragedy it is to be unable to live the life as other people. It is a good argument for transhumanism.
its only a &#39;good argument for transhumanism&#39; if you want to dehumanize disabled people.

[Dimentio]

I want them to get the opportunity to control their own life fully. I do not mean that it should be mandatory to use genetic tailoring or cybernetics to regain lost abilities or gain abilities which the person might never otherwise have enjoyed.

I mean that it should be a voluntary opportunity.

What do you mean by dehumanisation? Those comedians who are disabled and make jokes about it, do more for the disabled people than pc-activists who just try to put up particular groups on piedestals where they are indeed dehumanised and no longer viewed as individuals.

[freedumb]

A timely thread.

Have thought about transhumanism for a while now, after reading about it on hedweb, and it&#39;s greatest drawcard seems to be the abolition of suffering, as well as an increase in the &#39;base-line&#39; level of human happiness. Having suffered from depression periodically throughout my life, I can find no justification for the raw psychological pain inflicted by our genetic imperatives. Even in what is called a "good-mood", the standard of that mood is still far too low - the highs are not sustainable.

The &#39;naturalisation of heaven&#39; through specially-crafted drugs and modification of the pleasure-centres of our brains should be our number-one goal, and would be a top priority if the people had the power to decide where our collective resources are spent. Under the present system our resources are directed towards to ridiculously-complex killing-machines that are only of benefit to an exclusive elite (to name only one example).

The main benefits of transhumanism are psychological, not physical, as some here seem to be caught up with. At the end of the day, the reasons humans desire to look more attractive are psychological - if we can be immeasurably happy all the time, I&#39;d say our physical form would be superflous, of no consequence.

The main point of concern is implementation - a project to benefit all of humanity would not be possible under capitalism, and if it was attempted it would be perverted by the profit motive, etc. A neccesary condition of a worthwile transhumanist project would be the creation of a classless, democratic society. Until that happens I can&#39;t see transhumanism getting meaningful traction.

In the meantime, we do what we can to alter our psycological states - recreational drugs have too many drawbacks in the long-term (to do with the structure of our brain&#39;s pleasure-centres), but I find a can of caffeinated energy drink every now and again gives me a glimpse of the possibilities of a transhumanist future.

[rouchambeau]

So, transhumanism in a non-capitalist society then?
That&#39;s fine with me. But how about working toward that non-capitalist society first and worrying about your goofy sci-fi future later?

[southernmissfan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 04:37 pm


The idea of equal rights is the assumption that we are all equally, however with transhumanism we would no longer be equal, there would actually be differences. There would be humans who would be smarter stronger and healthier and would be of higher value as a worker. How would we all be equal then?
But what you are describing is true right now, and always has been. Humans are not equal in the way that I think you are describing. There will always be people who are "smarter" than others. Some people learn better than others, some learn faster, some just seem to be born with an unusually high capacity for intelligence (a genius so to speak). And some folks are going to be stronger. People have different body frames, different metabolisms, etc., etc. And some people seem to be naturally talented at some things, and not so much at others. That is reality. Human beings are not the same. We have differences.

I share your worry that Transhumanism could end up recreating a type of class society, but the way you describe it, you should already be worrying, because there already people with above average strength, intelligence, etc.

[Eleftherios]

Transhumanism, if used correctly, could be a way to break through the limits imposed on us by the natural world and create stronger, smarter humans, a new "superman", if you wish to call it that. I cannot find any logical reason to be against that.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 07:52 pm
Transhumanism, if used correctly, could be a way to break through the limits imposed on us by the natural world and create stronger, smarter humans, a new "superman", if you wish to call it that. I cannot find any logical reason to be against that.
Not everybody would wish or be able to become such a "superhuman". You would also have to ask yourself if a person who has upgraded his or herself is still truly fully human. Somebody mentioned that you could eventually upload your conciousness to a computer, would you still be human then?

[greymatter]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 05:08 pm
You would also have to ask yourself if a person who has upgraded his or herself is still truly fully human. Somebody mentioned that you could eventually upload your consciousness to a computer, would you still be human then?
Who cares so long as people who choose to consider themselves human don&#39;t feel threatened by whatever enhancements you receive. War on Genes?

[condor]

Under a socialist economy, this could have huge benefits. Far from introducing equality, this could become a great equalizer where no one is discriminated against by nature and everyone has equal ability. Let&#39;s face it, the human mind and body have many problems:
habits strongly entrenched, whether beneficial or harmful; difficulty and slowness in performing repetative tasks; alienation from the technology we use all around (slowness in operating, disease); alienation in expression: the communication gap between the vivid dreams, thoughts and sounds in our heads and vague words we use to describe them.

Imagine the imaginative power of the human mind and dreams directly recorded to share with others (voluntarily, obviously). The scope of imagination would rocket. The synthesis of calculating machinery and human imagination would be unstoppable.

Imagine when immortality through nano-technology repairing damaged DNA and scanning human memory to disk alllows us to possibly experience the whole of human history. Some say world communism will be the greatest moment in human history. For a moment, it will, alllowing humans for the first time in history to progress together, unbound and for everyone to participate in it.

But when effective immortaility is reached, commmunism will simply be a bench mark, a catalyst, taken for granted, dwarfed by the epic million(s)-year scale of human history and progress that presents itself for all to forge from hunter-gatherer to inter-galagtic voyager. Eventually, people won&#39;t be chains or cogs (there&#39;s a difference) in humanity but possess the whole of human power within them to forge at will.

Humanity isn&#39;t a species but a process, culminating in transcending its material origins to a higher physical state. Communism isn&#39;t the perfect state, only the perfect state for progress. The new ages of humanity after communism will be technological and biological, not social and take on a much grander scale than any social revolution before it. Communism is not the end of progress, only the beginning.