What are your objections to Transhumanism?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Looking at a recent thread in Chit-Chat and the results of the attached poll, it seems that many leftists on this board are against Transhumanism, but very few people posted their objections. I want to know what these objections are and attempt to address them, because quite frankly I'm surprised that so many leftists are opposed to liberation from our evolutionary limitations.

[Wake Up]

My problem with transhumanism is the dangers of creating a 'super-race' as the rich enhance themselves physically and further distance themselves from the proletariat.
Capitalism + transhumanism is surely a bad mix.

I have nothing against bionics for medical use however.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

^ What he said.

Transhumanism has far too much potential to create a world of the kind first imagined in H.G. Wells' Time Machine - or worse, a world out of a Nazi's wet dream, with a race of ubermenschen enslaving all of humanity.

Once we go beyond Homo Sapiens, it is wishful thinking to assume that all humans will advance at the same pace towards the same transhuman species. No, we will not all advance into a single superior species - different humans will advance differently, separate species will arise, and some will control and enslave the rest.

No matter how good the intentions of transhumanists, the only possible result is a Homo superior boot stomping on a Homo sapiens face forever.

[Demogorgon]

Because it is nothing but a wish-list. Very little of what it wants is remotely possible

[Zazaban]

Capitalism + transhumanism is surely a bad mix.

What about after capitalism?

[Bright Banana Beard]

What about after capitalism?

Even after capitalism, people will pursue for their interest in themselves, and in result, will make thing uneasy on the different between transhumanist and human.

[trivas7]

Like the Singularity, it is metaphysical bs of the highest order. Next to 'The Secret' and Eckhart Tolle, bourgeois pop culture sucks this stuff up.

[turquino]

Why do we humans need to free ourselves from our 'evolutionary limitations'? That sounds like some quasi-spiritual bullshit. For thousands of years we've had religion tell us we are flawed and that we must embrace their strain of asceticism, or forever remain trapped as base creatures blundering in the dark. But humanity never needed to be saved by the gods, and we don't need to be 'liberated' from our earthly shells by sci-fi nerds today.

It's also an irresponsible waste of scientific talent and resources for an indulgent fantasy, especially given the continued suffering of people around the world from hunger, unsafe drinking water, crowding, and curable disease.

[Dros]

My problem with transhumanism is the dangers of creating a 'super-race' as the rich enhance themselves physically and further distance themselves from the proletariat.
Capitalism + transhumanism is surely a bad mix.

I have nothing against bionics for medical use however.

That would make sense except that all of the transhumanists on this board advocate transhumanism after Communism, as a further stage of human development.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

That would make sense except that all of the transhumanists on this board advocate transhumanism after Communism, as a further stage of human development.
Do they really? Then why do they even bother talking about it? Socialism is the immediate goal. Communism is the long-term goal. Anything that might happen after communism is so distant that it falls in the realm of science fiction, not political discussion.

[Holden Caulfield]

we are already manipulating our environment and physiology, and we are already using technology and such to improve human exsistance, i think transhumanism as a concept is dangerous as it places too much emphasis on this forwards march and so either detracts from the majority of humans or it will create some kind of eugenic society,

i wrote an essay on this (well genetic engineering) in my general studies exam, and thought would mental abnormalities be ended by/with transhumanism, and what would the implications on art be: what would joy division be without the depression, or Spike Milligan without his bi-polar disorder, etc...?

plus who would decide what is a 'perfect' human if it were ever to reach that level?

[Wake Up]

That would make sense except that all of the transhumanists on this board advocate transhumanism after Communism, as a further stage of human development.

By after communism do you mean worldwide communism, where literally everyone is part of a equality driven workers state.
Because only then would it be acceptable, that is to say everyone would have to have access to it.

[The Feral Underclass]

It's totally unnecessary. We don't need to be enhanced. Sure, we need to use science to protect ourselves from disease etc and to keep ourselves as healthy as possible; but being "enhanced" just seems totally unnecessary.

At the end of the day people can do what they want. If you want to turn yourself into a robot, who am I to judge?

[Lord Testicles]

plus who would decide what is a 'perfect' human if it were ever to reach that level?

Well it would come down to personal choice, it would be up to Spike Milligan or Joy Division if they wanted to enhance themselfs in anyway.

[Holden Caulfield]

Well it would come down to personal choice, it would be up to Spike Milligan or Joy Division if they wanted to enhance themselfs in anyway.

would it though, what if personal choice was to have all aryan children?
would this be ok,

cultural divides could well be massively increased,

[mykittyhasaboner]

out of curiosity, what do transhumanists want to do to the human body? specifically. im undecided on the topic so it could help if this was clarified.

[Lord Testicles]

would it though, what if personal choice was to have all aryan children?
would this be ok,

cultural divides could well be massively increased,

What do you mean aryan children? Blue eyes and blond hair? I don't see a problem if someone wants blue eyes and blond hair, why would it be?

And why would there be a cultural divide? Or why would it matter. If I were to be enhanced but my brother refused, we would still have the same culture, althougth if the Indian man who works at my take away were to also get enhanced then he would still be from a different culture, but that doesn't stop us getting along.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Its probably 100 years off, but strong AI (especially of the recursively self improving variety) could very easily mean the end of the human race.

[Holden Caulfield]

what i was saying that if say a movement that is not all happy and communist makes sway and 'establishes' what is perfect, like the nazis did for the 'aryan race', then alterations to produce ideal children could be used to in effect breed a pure race, or a society based on racial eugenics,

if a look of child become popular if these things can be altered, surely some will be fashionabally 'perfect' but also some will not, i think this would cause racial tention, as one group may think itself superior to others

[AK-1917]

Transhumanism is something we should support. It stems essentially from Eugenics (not in the Racist Nazi-Eugenics sense), which is just a step forward from biology. It's applied evolution. Applied Eugenics is applied biology which is applied chemistry, etc. It's just a science.

[piet11111]

out of curiosity, what do transhumanists want to do to the human body? specifically. im undecided on the topic so it could help if this was clarified.

we want to give all people the ability to enhance their body and minds as they see fit.
we would never force anyone to undergo enhancements if they do not want to.

typical enhancements would be
- increased lifespan through nanotechnology restoring the damage that aging causes
- artificial organs that perform much better then normal organs
- intelligence & memory enhancements (memory enhancements would be especially cool seeing how it could mean that you could theoretically download an entire education into your brain in mere moments)

the defining thing about transhumanists is that they do not want to be limited by their own biology.
in my case i do not want to be a diabetic because i know that technology will soon be capable of curing me if i look at the massive progress that is being made in medicine.

[Unicorn]

we want to give all people the ability to enhance their body and minds as they see fit.
we would never force anyone to undergo enhancements if they do not want to.
Practically people would still be forced to enhance their bodies and mind or become second-class citizens. For example, enhanced brain capacity would improve the work performance of a computer programmer so much that people with non-enhanced brains would not be able to work as computer programmers nearly as efficiently. People will have a choice between having a shitty job or getting a potentially risky brain modification. For that reason a transhumanist society seems to be inevitably non-egalitarian and unacceptable from the socialist point of view. The other option seems to be that the state performs the operations on all children but that would be too authoritarian.

[PRC-UTE]

I don't 'object', it's just that it has no bearing on the everyday class struggle. I've literally never run into this political tendency in real life. Communists abstract their principles from the fact of the actual existing class struggle, we don't make them up out of thin air.

If I am wrong, please correct me.

[Holden Caulfield]

I don't 'object', it's just that it has no bearing on the everyday class struggle. I've literally never run into this political tendency in real life. Communists abstract their principles from the fact of the actual existing class struggle, we don't make them up out of thin air.

If I am wrong, please correct me.

true dat and a very good point
but we are talking of the concept not of it's bearing and/or 'application' at any point in time

[Luís Henrique]

We should keep role playing games and real life separated. It is better for both.

Luís Henrique

[Herman]

There is nothing wrong with transhumanism. In fact, I support it. Think of all the medical progress that could be done with bionics or nanomachines!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

My problem with transhumanism is the dangers of creating a 'super-race' as the rich enhance themselves physically and further distance themselves from the proletariat.

If such technological developments are possible under capitalism then that is what's going to happen anyway, regardless of what progressive Transhumanists say or do.


Even after capitalism, people will pursue for their interest in themselves, and in result, will make thing uneasy on the different between transhumanist and human.

So I take it you believe in "human nature" and believe human nature to mean that humans will always take an opportunity to shit on other humans no matter what the material conditions?

Unsubstantiated Hobbesian bullfuckery. Humans only shit on other humans because material conditions conspire to make it favourable to do so - whether this is through mental illness (sociopathy) or a "dog-eat-dog" world (capitalism).


Once we go beyond Homo Sapiens, it is wishful thinking to assume that all humans will advance at the same pace towards the same transhuman species. No, we will not all advance into a single superior species - different humans will advance differently, separate species will arise, and some will control and enslave the rest.

No matter how good the intentions of transhumanists, the only possible result is a Homo superior boot stomping on a Homo sapiens face forever.And what do you base this assertion on?

And another thing: "superior" is almost entirely relative. Some misguided individuals consider human beings "superior" to microbes, yet they are far more populous, live comfortably in a wider variety of environments, have survived on this planet for longer than us, and would most likely survive our extinction. The only reason humans have priority over microbes is because they're human, which leads me onto my next point.

Diversity does not preclude cooperation, as nature constantly shows us. Species may prey on each other, but incedences of symbiosis and cooperation far outweigh competition - mitochondria, found in most eukaryotic cells (the cells found in animals, plants, fungi and protists, representing a significant amount of the earth's biomass) are a prime example of this.

What is needed is a philosophy/ideology/ethical system that encourages an analagous situation to occur in a Transhuman society. Just as "primitive" or "inferior" microbes are still an essential part of the ecosystem (as well as our own bodies - bacteria aid in human digestion) even with us smarty-pants humans and various other lifeforms (mostly microscale, some macroscale) around, so will baseline humans form an essential part of this hypothetical Transhuman society along with the nearbaseline humans, extreme environment-adapted beings, artificial intelligences, super-intelligent posthumans, uplifts, hybrids, sapient robots, neogenic life, artificial sim-life and other virtual beings, and the whole panoply of diverse sapient and transapient beings.

I am of the opinion that one of the main reasons for the runaway success of life on Earth is due to the diversity provided by the phenomenon of natural evolution. Why not copy that successful model and improve on it, with conscious selection eliminating the cruel wastage inherent in the process of natural selection?

That is what I mean when I talk about Transhumanism. More than just extended lifespans or nano-immune systems, although those would form a part of that.


Because it is nothing but a wish-list. Very little of what it wants is remotely possible

What is the The Communist Manifesto but a wish-list? When you get right down to it, are not all political demands "wish-lists"?


Like the Singularity, it is metaphysical bs of the highest order. Next to 'The Secret' and Eckhart Tolle, bourgeois pop culture sucks this stuff up.

What's "metaphysical" about wanting to go beyond human limitations?


Why do we humans need to free ourselves from our 'evolutionary limitations'? That sounds like some quasi-spiritual bullshit.

Because it's an extension of a process that's already happening, or at least starting to happen - we use many technologies to improve sub-standard human bodies (artificial limbs, spectacles, false teeth etc) but they are currently shockingly primitive, especially compared to our more sophisticated examples of technology. Barring some sort of civilisation-threatening disaster, I do not see why such technology will eventually reach the point where it actually improves performance beyond the baseline condition - in fact, one double-amputee was barred from the Olympics (http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=117781&highlight=artificial+leg) because it was decided his prostheses gave him an unfair advantage.

It's not "quasi-spiritual" at all, any more than donning a rucksack because you can only carry so much with your arms alone is "quasi-spiritual".


For thousands of years we've had religion tell us we are flawed and that we must embrace their strain of asceticism, or forever remain trapped as base creatures blundering in the dark. But humanity never needed to be saved by the gods, and we don't need to be 'liberated' from our earthly shells by sci-fi nerds today. Firstly, we are flawed and limited beings, as much as that may stick in the craw of some people. There have been plenty of times when people have let their emotions get the better of them, resulting in irrational and hurtful actions that have caused nothing but pain and misery. Most people are nowhere near as good as computers at crunching numbers. Humans require a surpisingly narrow set of conditions in which to live comfortably, let alone to live at all.

Secondly, there's no asceticism as far as Transhumanism os concerned. It is entirely irrelevant whether you choose to do something or not. My personal opinion is that as technology improves, the scope for hedonism increases rather than decreases. I believe that history bears me out on this one; modern chemistry produced drugs such as MDMA, Ketamine and cocaine which are popular despite being illegal. Computing technology lead to the vast fair-ground of computer games we now have available covering a wide variety of genres. Events such as clubbing and music festivals (and the cultures associated with both) are entirely the products of modern technologies - such entertainments and sub-cultures would have been entirely unthinkable to our ancestors.

As for your snide crack about "sci-fi nerds", can't you come up with something a little more substantial? You sound like one of those brainless high-school American football players. I suppose can't blame you if you're the sort of person whose mental aptitudes are more suited to bagging people's groceries. Much better than all that "thinking" stuff, just gets you into trouble am I right? :rolleyes:


It's also an irresponsible waste of scientific talent and resources for an indulgent fantasy, especially given the continued suffering of people around the world from hunger, unsafe drinking water, crowding, and curable disease.

We already have the technology to do all of those things. What's lacking is the socioeconomic system that would take full advantage of such things. Chucking aid money at third-world countries does nothing if the tinpot dictators that run them simply appropriate the cash to buy more AK-47s and Toyota trucks for their army.


Do they really? Then why do they even bother talking about it? Socialism is the immediate goal. Communism is the long-term goal. Anything that might happen after communism is so distant that it falls in the realm of science fiction, not political discussion.

Speak for yourself. My immediate political goal is nothing less than the complete abolishment of capitalism and class society, not just "capitalism without the capitalists", which rapidly develops it's own capitalist class as various "socialist" nations have shown.

The Transhumanist project should start on day one of the revolution - if we're going to improving our social and economic system, why not our bodies and minds as well?


we are already manipulating our environment and physiology, and we are already using technology and such to improve human exsistance, i think transhumanism as a concept is dangerous as it places too much emphasis on this forwards march and so either detracts from the majority of humans or it will create some kind of eugenic society,

Is that a consequence of Transhumanism... or is that a conquence of a socioeconomic system that favours the rich and encourages them to hoard all the goodies for themselves?


i wrote an essay on this (well genetic engineering) in my general studies exam, and thought would mental abnormalities be ended by/with transhumanism, and what would the implications on art be: what would joy division be without the depression, or Spike Milligan without his bi-polar disorder, etc...?Similar "arguments" are used against abortion. "what if you aborted Beethoven etc". But the converse should also be considered - what if, through Transhumanist techniques, we avoid the creation of another Hitler?

One problem with your argument is the unsupported assertion that one needs to be mentally ill in order to be a good artist, but that simply isn't true, as not all great artists have been mentally unbalanced.

Another problem is that it ignores the wishes of the sufferer in question - the person in question may be a brilliant artist, but they could also be tormented by their mental condition and wish an end to it even if it means their art suffers.

Also, curing a brilliant artist who also happenes to be suffering from some mental condition may not necessarily degrade the quality of their art, but simply change it.

I don't find myself entirely comfortable with the idea that we "need" mentally ill people to create great art. It strikes me somehow to be a modern version of the Circus Maximus, where slaves and prisoners would brutally murder each other with elaborate weapons - but hey, it entertains the masses, so it must be good, right?

Or consider shows like Jerry Springer - do we really "need" to have dysfunctional families and relationships paraded on television like some modern version of the Victorian freakshow, just to remind everyone else how lucky we are to have loving friends and relations?


plus who would decide what is a 'perfect' human if it were ever to reach that level?It's up to the individual, of course. Some individuals may want more brainpower, others a more impressive physique. I can see some people joining clubs or societies of like-minded individuals, giving each other tips, advice and practical help with whatever the group's enhancement goal is.


It's totally unnecessary. We don't need to be enhanced. Sure, we need to use science to protect ourselves from disease etc and to keep ourselves as healthy as possible; but being "enhanced" just seems totally unnecessary.

What a bleak view. We don't "need" to drink a wide variety of fluids such as tea, coffee, fizzy drinks, alcoholic beverages etc, since water is enough to hydrate you. We don't need to take drugs or play computer games or board games or go clubbing or skiing or any other resource-intensive activity - we can just sit at home and play charades. We don't need to eat a wide variety of tasty foods from across the world, just shovel whatever essential nutrients are available locally down your hatch. We don't "need" to dance or listen to music or appreciate art or decorate our homes or any of that rubbish.

Can't you see what a total non-argument that is? There's a lot of things we don't "need" to do, some things we no longer need to do, and some things we may need to do in the future. Need is contingent upon material conditions which are always changing.

"Need" is also subjective to a degree. I think we can all agree that humans need some form of entertainment, but opinions differ on what constitutes entertainment. Some people enjoy smoking weed, while others do not.


out of curiosity, what do transhumanists want to do to the human body? specifically. im undecided on the topic so it could help if this was clarified.

Transhumanists want to make available a wide variety of techniques for improving the human body's performance, whether that's brainpower, physical strength, eyesight, or anything else that anyone wants to change about their body that goes beyond human norms.


Its probably 100 years off, but strong AI (especially of the recursively self improving variety) could very easily mean the end of the human race.

Why?


what i was saying that if say a movement that is not all happy and communist makes sway and 'establishes' what is perfect, like the nazis did for the 'aryan race', then alterations to produce ideal children could be used to in effect breed a pure race, or a society based on racial eugenics,

if a look of child become popular if these things can be altered, surely some will be fashionabally 'perfect' but also some will not, i think this would cause racial tention, as one group may think itself superior to others

How is different to any potential Nazis appropriating communist resources for their own ends?


Practically people would still be forced to enhance their bodies and mind or become second-class citizens. For example, enhanced brain capacity would improve the work performance of a computer programmer so much that people with non-enhanced brains would not be able to work as computer programmers nearly as efficiently. People will have a choice between having a shitty job or getting a potentially risky brain modification. For that reason a transhumanist society seems to be inevitably non-egalitarian and unacceptable from the socialist point of view. The other option seems to be that the state performs the operations on all children but that would be too authoritarian.

Is it "authoritarian" for the State to require that all children recieve vaccinations (IE modifications that would be considered "standard" in a hypothetical Transhuman society)? Is it "authoritarian" to require people to have a driving licence (mental performance enhancement) in order to operate a motor vehicle (have a job in advanced programming)?


I don't 'object', it's just that it has no bearing on the everyday class struggle. I've literally never run into this political tendency in real life. Communists abstract their principles from the fact of the actual existing class struggle, we don't make them up out of thin air.

If I am wrong, please correct me.

It's "early days yet" for the Transhumanist movement, so little wonder you've never run across one.


We should keep role playing games and real life separated. It is better for both.

Established a socialist society that hasn't devolved back into capitalism? No? So how is what you do different from "role-playing"?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I am of the opinion that one of the main reasons for the runaway success of life on Earth is due to the diversity provided by the phenomenon of natural evolution. Why not copy that successful model and improve on it, with conscious selection eliminating the cruel wastage inherent in the process of natural selection?
Because frankly, life sucks for 99% of animal species on planet Earth. I would certainly not want to be in their shoes. The only species that have a tolerable existence are apex predators (such as humans).


Diversity does not preclude cooperation, as nature constantly shows us. Species may prey on each other, but incedences of symbiosis and cooperation far outweigh competition - mitochondria, found in most eukaryotic cells (the cells found in animals, plants, fungi and protists, representing a significant amount of the earth's biomass) are a prime example of this.
Biological diversity may not preclude cooperation, but it allows for the possibility of predation and parasitism - and the mere possibility of some other species using Homo sapiens as prey (either figuratively or literally) is absolutely unacceptable.

You are suggesting that we take chances and risks with the future of our species. I say that is insanity. We are apex predators and must not do anything that introduces the slightest possibility that we may cease being apex predators.

Any species that may predate upon Homo sapiens - especially another sapient species - must be ruthlessly exterminated before it becomes a threat. My philosophy and politics is about the welfare, happiness, freedom and prosperity of Homo sapiens. I am not interested in the welfare, happiness, freedom or prosperity of other species - sapient or not.

[The Feral Underclass]

What a bleak view. We don't "need" to drink a wide variety of fluids such as tea, coffee, fizzy drinks, alcoholic beverages etc, since water is enough to hydrate you. We don't need to take drugs or play computer games or board games or go clubbing or skiing or any other resource-intensive activity - we can just sit at home and play charades. We don't need to eat a wide variety of tasty foods from across the world, just shovel whatever essential nutrients are available locally down your hatch. We don't "need" to dance or listen to music or appreciate art or decorate our homes or any of that rubbish.

Nevertheless, we don't need to enhance our bodies.


Can't you see what a total non-argument that is?

I didn't realise I was making an argument.


There's a lot of things we don't "need" to do, some things we no longer need to do, and some things we may need to do in the future. Need is contingent upon material conditions which are always changing.

"Need" is also subjective to a degree. I think we can all agree that humans need some form of entertainment, but opinions differ on what constitutes entertainment. Some people enjoy smoking weed, while others do not.

Like I said, if you want to turn yourself into a robot, I'm in no position to judge you. Go right ahead and turn yourself into a robot. I'm personally happy with the way I am (more or less).


Transhumanists want to make available a wide variety of techniques for improving the human body's performance, whether that's brainpower, physical strength, eyesight, or anything else that anyone wants to change about their body that goes beyond human norms.

For what purpose?

[Herman]

I'm sure someone will compare the goals of transhumanism with "Brave New World" :lol:

[piet11111]

Nevertheless, we don't need to enhance our bodies.

i do as i am a diabetic i really could do with a bit of enhancing to fix this.
and i really could do with a new left arm that functions better then my biological one. (my arm was broken in the joint and i can not do any heavy lifting with it or stretch and bend it very much)

anyway most enhancements will be invented without transhumanists working towards it because of the never ending search for better medicine and prosthetics/artificial organs and of course our desire to learn how the human brain works.


i expect transhumanism will become a technological possibility before it becomes a public demand.


but just a thought what do you guys expect to happen if science managed to come up with some pill/treatment that allows us to extend our lives at least 4x ?
(stemcell technology for one allows us to replace tissue that would not regenerate fast enough like heart tissue)

you think the masses would not demand universal access to this pill/treatment ?
and what if they are denied access might that not trigger a massive social demand for change ?

if anything technology like this would create a demand for communism to ensure equal and unlimited access to the latest advancements in health care for everyone.

[The Feral Underclass]

i do as i am a diabetic i really could do with a bit of enhancing to fix this.

and i really could do with a new left arm that functions better then my biological one. (my arm was broken in the joint and i can not do any heavy lifting with it or stretch and bend it very much)

I have no problem with people finding cures to help ailments, but as I understand transhumanists wish to find enhancements for humans regardless of their ailments.

I think there is a difference to finding a cure for diabetes or helping your arm function better and finding ways to move humans beyond being human. I don't think that's particularly necessary, unless of course you want to find a way of living forever, but there are clearly ethical and health ramifications to that.

[Kami]

I think there is a difference to finding a cure for diabetes or helping your arm function better and finding ways to move humans beyond being human. I don't think that's particularly necessary, unless of course you want to find a way of living forever, but there are clearly ethical and health ramifications to that.
Firstly, as NoXion detailed, saying something isn't "necessary" is entirely meaningless.
Secondly, what ethical and health ramifications?

[The Feral Underclass]

Firstly, as NoXion detailed, saying something isn't "necessary" is entirely meaningless.

It has meaning in the sense that's not necessary.


Secondly, what ethical and health ramifications?

Well, for a start it's not possible to live forever, cells will eventually stop functioning (unless you can find a way to transplant cells, which is absurd and evidently you can't have a brain transplant in any case). There is a theory that it may be possible, providing you have no fatal disease, that your cells can be "rejuvinated" (make younger) giving you an extra 25 years at a time. The guy who came up with this theory (don't remember his name) said that you could hypothetically do that for up to 1,000 years before your cells just packed in.

Ethically, that throw up many issues. We don't know what the psychological effects of living for 1,000 years could be both on the individual or on society. Human beings are simply not designed to live that long and the effects to your mental state could be incredibly negative. What would be the effect on society with men and women who had lived centuries before they had and what power would they hold? Also, the world cannot sustain a population of people living into their centuries, unless of course we stopped people from procreating...

We also do not know the health ramifications inflicted on an individual and on society in terms of maintaining their health. It would be incredibly stretching for the health services to have to be keeping these people alive for centuries, perhaps to the detriment of other people.

[Lord Testicles]

Well, for a start it's not possible to live forever,


There is an example in nature of an animal with biological immortality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_%28genus%29#Senescence

How do you explain this?

[Kami]

It has meaning in the sense that's not necessary.
[montypython]That's not an argument, it's a contradiction![/montypyrhon]
Neither is anything else; the continued existence of the universe, for example. That is why saying it's not necessary is absolutely meaningless.

[piet11111]

It has meaning in the sense that's not necessary.

its just as necessary as health-care is.





Well, for a start it's not possible to live forever, cells will eventually stop functioning
true that is why science is busy finding ways to stretch the time they manage functioning and how to replace cells that can not be made to last longer.
they have found several different ways that look very promising like human somatic-cell engineering meaning that new tissue with your own DNA can be created using one type of cell (say a skin cell) to make another.
american and norwegian scientists used this method to make pancreas cells from liver cells.
and in other tests they used skincells to make cells that functioned like immune-system cells and nerve cells
when perfected this transdifferentiation of cells will allow people to grow organs that share their own DNA meaning that they would not face any risk of being rejected by the body plus the new cells can have their telomeres restored meaning that the new tissue is effectively young again and keep regenerating for a much longer time


(unless you can find a way to transplant cells, which is absurd and evidently you can't have a brain transplant in any case).
a brain transplant is not possible but i do not see why we should not be able to go around the loss of brain cells.
we lose some brain cells every time we drink alcohol but the brain is flexible enough to work around the damage and i think it will be possible someday to add cells where they are needed.



Ethically, that throw up many issues. We don't know what the psychological effects of living for 1,000 years could be both on the individual or on society.
well that is something we would have to find out when we are capable of living that long.
but i personally do not expect to get problems assuming i will live in good health and with all my family.


Human beings are simply not designed to live that long
the avarage lifespan in the stone-age (i pick this time because of the lack of healthcare and technology so its as close as nature as can be) was less then 30 but we are doing fine even when we hit the high 80's (provided these people are healthy)


and the effects to your mental state could be incredibly negative.
could be incredibly negative while the benefits are certain to be off the scale.


What would be the effect on society with men and women who had lived centuries before they had and what power would they hold?
we do not know but is this really a reason why we should oppose technological advancement ?


Also, the world cannot sustain a population of people living into their centuries, unless of course we stopped people from procreating...
hi malthus ! i thought you would show up sooner or later.
these people will not be the sickly elderly that are populating retirement-homes today they will be in peak bodily condition and probably even look like 20-something year olds and productive members of society.
and for food we still have a lot of land that could be used for agriculture using the latest technology (really just how much current agricultural land is farmed with modern technology ?) and we could even try to reclaim desert land if we need even more.



We also do not know the health ramifications inflicted on an individual and on society in terms of maintaining their health. It would be incredibly stretching for the health services to have to be keeping these people alive for centuries, perhaps to the detriment of other people.

those people would not be the sickly elderly they would be productive members of society that probably look like 20-something year olds because they would not age like we currently do.

sure transhumanism sounds incredibly optimistic but we have reason to be.

[Demogorgon]

At the risk of breaking the habit of a lifetime, I agree entirely with TAT here.

Mind you I have to add that I simply see no point in basing a political ideology around technology that does not exist, much of which will probably never exist and the rest of which will probably not exist for a long time. It is pure science fiction.

[The Feral Underclass]

Sorry, I don't care enough to maintain this conversation. As I stated before, I don't think it's necessary but if people want to do something to themselves then that's their choice. If you can find an ethically viable and sustainable way for people to live into their thousands then I'm happy for you.

As it stands now, we have far more important things to concern ourselves with.

[The Feral Underclass]

[montypython]That's not an argument, it's a contradiction![/montypyrhon]
Neither is anything else; the continued existence of the universe, for example. That is why saying it's not necessary is absolutely meaningless.

Ok, if you need to be enhanced then be enhanced.

[Demogorgon]

It should be pointed out for those that think we can extend lifespan indefinitely that while average lifespan has been raised dramatically as medical science improves, maximum lifespan has remained constant throughout hum history. It is possible by keeping people healthy to help them reach their potential maximum age but not to extend that maximum.

[Kami]

we lose some brain cells every time we drink alcohol but the brain is flexible enough to work around the damage and i think it will be possible someday to add cells where they are needed.Common misconception; alcohol doesn't kill brain cells, it just stops them growing quite so quickly, temporarily.
Why does it seem to me that this conversation about cells is based on the assumption they're not constantly being replaced by our bodies anyway?

It should be pointed out for those that think we can extend lifespan indefinitely that while average lifespan has been raised dramatically as medical science improves, maximum lifespan has remained constant throughout hum history. It is possible by keeping people healthy to help them reach their potential maximum age but not to extend that maximum.


Care to proove you didn't just pull that out of your arse? That makes absolutely no sense, there's no objective maximum age.

[Demogorgon]

Care to proove you didn't just pull that out of your arse? That makes absolutely no sense, there's no objective maximum age.
Facts do not cease to be facts simply because they don't suit your beliefs or faith. Of course there is a maximum age. Each biological organism can live a certain amount of time based on a variety of factors. For humans that appears to be just upwards of a hundred and twenty years.

It should be pointed out that for as long as recorded history a few people have always lived for very long times, into super-centenarian stages. As medical science has vastly improved far more people are managing that, but while vastly more people are reaching a hundred and five or a hundred and ten there are no cases at all of people pushing well past that. The oldest human ever known was a hundred and twenty two when she died (though there is an alleged case from the eighteenth century of someone slightly older) and the vast majority of scientists agree that she pretty much hit the maximum.

It is possible to make people more healthy but it is not possible to stop them from aging.

[The Feral Underclass]

The oldest person to live was Jeanne Calment who lived until she was 122.

[Led Zeppelin]

It is possible to make people more healthy but it is not possible to stop them from aging.

Actually that's not true.

You (or was that Kami?) said earlier that cells are constantly remade by the body, right?

This is true, but at a certain age the surplus is turned into its opposite and instead of enough cells being made to replace the dying ones, less cells are made.

Scientists have discovered that there's a certain imprint in the cells (or DNA, not sure which) which causes the body to stop producing as much cells at a certain age.

If that imprint can be altered, I don't see why people can't be stopped from aging.

[piet11111]

Facts do not cease to be facts simply because they don't suit your beliefs or faith. Of course there is a maximum age. Each biological organism can live a certain amount of time based on a variety of factors. For humans that appears to be just upwards of a hundred and twenty years.

It should be pointed out that for as long as recorded history a few people have always lived for very long times, into super-centenarian stages. As medical science has vastly improved far more people are managing that, but while vastly more people are reaching a hundred and five or a hundred and ten there are no cases at all of people pushing well past that. The oldest human ever known was a hundred and twenty two when she died (though there is an alleged case from the eighteenth century of someone slightly older) and the vast majority of scientists agree that she pretty much hit the maximum.

It is possible to make people more healthy but it is not possible to stop them from aging.

then what is this maximum age ?
and if we cross it will be be magically transformed into dust or something ?

just what exactly is aging anyway ?

i see it as wear and tear and that damage can be repaired with technology that is currently in development.
there is no reason that i know off why we should not be able to become as old as we want assuming we have the technology to repair all the damage aging causes.

and led zeppelin i talking about telomeres that control the maximum amount a cell can reproduce itself.
there is already a method being experimented with that allows us to add new cells made from other cells with replenished amounts of telomeres.
human somatic-cell engineering they call it

[Kami]

Facts do not cease to be facts simply because they don't suit your beliefs or faith
Never suggested they did, I just asked you to back that up, since you seem to have pulled it out of your arse.

Of course there is a maximum age.
Why? God kills you if you live a day more?


It should be pointed out that for as long as recorded history a few people have always lived for very long times, into super-centenarian stages. As medical science has vastly improved far more people are managing that, but while vastly more people are reaching a hundred and five or a hundred and ten there are no cases at all of people pushing well past that. The oldest human ever known was a hundred and twenty two when she died (though there is an alleged case from the eighteenth century of someone slightly older) and the vast majority of scientists agree that she pretty much hit the maximum.
Firstly, someone living to 123 would disprove this entirely. Secondly, <citation needed>. Proove you're not pulling this out your arse.

You (or was that Kami?) said earlier that cells are constantly remade by the body, right?
'twas me to introduce that basic understanding of human biology.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because frankly, life sucks for 99% of animal species on planet Earth. I would certainly not want to be in their shoes. The only species that have a tolerable existence are apex predators (such as humans).

What part of "conscious selection eliminating the cruel wastage inherent in the process of natural selection" don't you understand?

I'm not proposing "the law of the jungle" here.


Biological diversity may not preclude cooperation, but it allows for the possibility of predation and parasitism - and the mere possibility of some other species using Homo sapiens as prey (either figuratively or literally) is absolutely unacceptable.

How is that any less acceptable than humans preying on humans, which happens in all societies?

And how do you know the instance of inter-transhuman parasitism and predation will be greater than the inter-human parasitism and predation currently?

Remember that being determines consciousness. If the social ecology is the sort that encourages parasitism and predation (P&P), then it will be rampant. If the social ecology encourages cooperation and symbiosis and actively discourages P&P behaviour, then such behaviour will be kept to a minimum.

Obviously, the sort of social ecology I propose is of the latter variety.



You are suggesting that we take chances and risks with the future of our species. I say that is insanity.We take risks all the time, and so far it has paid off.


We are apex predators and must not do anything that introduces the slightest possibility that we may cease being apex predators.I don't think even the "fascist" variant of Trasnshumanism is stupid enough to propose creating a race of human-eaters. :lol:

Seriously, while potential Transhumans (the biological kind, at least - I'm assuming that sapient robots and artificial intelligences won't gather energy in the same way we do) are likely to be omnivorous predators like us, I see no reason why they would start preying on us.


Any species that may predate upon Homo sapiens - especially another sapient species - must be ruthlessly exterminated before it becomes a threat. My philosophy and politics is about the welfare, happiness, freedom and prosperity of Homo sapiens. I am not interested in the welfare, happiness, freedom or prosperity of other species - sapient or not.Homo Sapiens is currently "the only game in town", but I see no reason for this state of affairs to continue indefinately, should any non-human sapience be created or discovered in my lifetime, I will be among the first to struggle for equal rights for it.

Why? Because if the sapience in question is allowed to form part of a greater community, I feel that both humans and non-humans will benefit.

[Demogorgon]

then what is this maximum age ?
and if we cross it will be be magically transformed into dust or something ?

The maximum age for humans is probably around a hundred and twenty five. The longest known human lived to a hundred and twenty two. It is not a case of some kind of rule being broken by crossing it but simply that the human body cannot last longer. Why do you think you instance that the oldest known rat was seven, the oldest known dog twenty nine, the oldest known whale something like three hundred and so forth? Quite simply each organism has the ability to repair and replace its cells up until a certain point and past that it can no longer sustain itself. There is not evidence at all that this process is reversible. Transhumanists are placing their faith in technology that does not exist and quite likely will never exist, it is absurd. It is like basing your political ideology on transforming base metals into gold.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There is not evidence at all that this process is reversible.

I disagree. The human body replaces dead or damaged cells, but only for a limited time. So obviously there is a limit to this process of regeneration. What is this limit? I hardly think it would constitute a violation of the laws of physics to extend or even abolish this limit.

[piet11111]

There is not evidence at all that this process is reversible. Transhumanists are placing their faith in technology that does not exist

human somatic-cell engineering again

[Jazzratt]

Faith. Science Fiction. Roleplaying.

^ Stop this. it just shows how little you understand about the subject.

There isn't a hell of a lot being discussed here that piet11111, NoXion and Kami don't have sewn up good and proper but I'll stick my oar in too.

There are three main arguments (all of them utter shit) from the naysayers, it would seem. The first is the "posthumans will kill us all" thing, which is just insane - why would someone develop something that will kill them and everyone like them? In a classless society of equality and freedom how would these "tyrants" rise? This is the same hack crap we get from cappies who demand to know what's to stop them setting up a business and exploiting people anew in a post-revolutionary society. Stop it.

Second we have the "Why? I'm fine as I am, this is pointless" position, as argued by TAT. To me this seems completely bizarre, it's like saying "binoculars are unnecessary, we can just move closer to the object in question" - everything beyond going to a warm country, lurking naked in caves, scrabbling in the dirt for food and drinking from fairly clean rivers is unnecessary for the continuation of the human species, strictly speaking. So as has been pointed out a few times before (a fair number in fact) why is this even an argument?

Finally we have my absolute favourite argument. "You're a bunch of Star-Trek Watchers/Sci-Fi Nerds/Roleplaying Game Enthusiasts/Science True-Believers/Dreamers and none of this will ever exist, because I'm a pompous prick that can look into my magical crystal ball and tell you precisely what technology will be in the future.". This is just fucking stupid, unless you can pull out that crystal ball or your set of qualifications that makes you such an authority on every kind of technology I'm going to be quite sceptical of your view that "it will never happen". It's insited to you every day that classless society won't happen, our "human nature" stops us and we'll never ever change or improve.

Try not to make shrill cries of "that's your faith" or "you nerd" in your replies.

[Demogorgon]

Finally we have my absolute favourite argument. "You're a bunch of Star-Trek Watchers/Sci-Fi Nerds/Roleplaying Game Enthusiasts/Science True-Believers/Dreamers and none of this will ever exist, because I'm a pompous prick that can look into my magical crystal ball and tell you precisely what technology will be in the future.". This is just fucking stupid, unless you can pull out that crystal ball or your set of qualifications that makes you such an authority on every kind of technology I'm going to be quite sceptical of your view that "it will never happen". It's insited to you every day that classless society won't happen, our "human nature" stops us and we'll never ever change or improve.

So what if it does happen eventually? It certainly won't happen any time soon and there is currently no evidence it will ever happen. That the sheer stupidity of basing a political ideology on non-existent technology is not obvious is quite astounding.

It is akin to saying the solution to all our problems is aliens coming and showing us how to have a brilliant society. It might happen, but let's not rely on it.

Let's keep our politics grounded in the real world, eh?

[Jazzratt]

So what if it does happen eventually? It certainly won't happen any time soon and there is currently no evidence it will ever happen.

There is no evidence that technology is improving, and that there are technologies emerging that improve human beings? What rock are you living under?


That the sheer stupidity of basing a political ideology on non-existent technology is not obvious is quite astounding.

The technology exists, but it is primitive. Technologies for building posthumans are to our current capablities what space shuttles are to our first tentative steps toward the sky.


It is akin to saying the solution to all our problems is aliens coming and showing us how to have a brilliant society. It might happen, but let's not rely on it.

Saying that technology will develop and that the best thing to do about this is to embrace it and make sure it is used to egalitarian ends and that where possible it is used to remove limitations on human beings is nothing like positing outside entities coming to "save" us. Stop posting enourmous strawmen.


Let's keep our politics grounded in the real world, eh?

Try very hard to stop trolling, it may well be difficult but you'll find it's worth it.

[Demogorgon]

There is no evidence that technology is improving, and that there are technologies emerging that improve human beings? What rock are you living under?
Evidently the one which blocks knowledge of this mysterious technology that will change the nature of people. If there is technology that will change the nature of people in development, provide evidence of it. I don't mean technology like selecting embryos, something that simply minimises the risk of genetic disorders. I mean technology that will actually change humans to above the current level. Show us it.


Try very hard to stop trolling, it may well be difficult but you'll find it's worth it.
By referring to my statement as trolling, you evidently think that your nonsense is grounded in the real world. So let's see it. Let's see some real world examples.

[Kami]

Evidently the one which blocks knowledge of this mysterious technology that will change the nature of people. If there is technology that will change the nature of people in development, provide evidence of it. I don't mean technology like selecting embryos, something that simply minimises the risk of genetic disorders. I mean technology that will actually change humans to above the current level. Show us it.
Did you miss the news about the double amputee blocked from the olympics because he had an unfair advantage?

By referring to my statement as trolling, you evidently think that your nonsense is grounded in the real world. So let's see it. Let's see some real world examples.
Evidently, you cannot desist with your trolling.

[Jazzratt]

By referring to my statement as trolling, you evidently think that your nonsense is grounded in the real world. So let's see it. Let's see some real world examples.

We can already create transgenic animals which should indicate to you that it is possible to genengineer people (unless you've finally made your long awaited conversion to Catholicism and believe that we have some sort of immortal soul that will prevent this.). And as Kami has pointed out our cyborgs have advanced a bit from glasses, braces and peg legs.

[piet11111]

there was a worm that shared a lot of genetic material with humans that they managed to give a lifespan that was about 7x more then the normal lifespan.

that is something we did with current technology.

it had some fancy latin name otherwise i would be able to find it in a sec.

[Demogorgon]

We can already create transgenic animals which should indicate to you that it is possible to genengineer people (unless you've finally made your long awaited conversion to Catholicism and believe that we have some sort of immortal soul that will prevent this.). And as Kami has pointed out our cyborgs have advanced a bit from glasses, braces and peg legs.

I didn't ask you about that. I asked you about things that would enhance people above current levels. Things like genetic engineering mean removing defects and curing diseases. That is not the same thing.

Even if some of your rubbish is true, are you seriously suggesting that all new children should be born from genetic engineering rather than normal procreation or that people should have their limbs amputated despite no injury just to attach prosthetics? Not going to happen.

[Kami]

I didn't ask you about that. I asked you about things that would enhance people above current levels. Things like genetic engineering mean removing defects and curing diseases. That is not the same thing.
You can genetically engineer above the original level, as with piet's worms (eww).

Even if some of your rubbish is true, are you seriously suggesting that all new children should be born from genetic engineering rather than normal procreation or that people should have their limbs amputated despite no injury just to attach prosthetics? Not going to happen.
Stop doing a tom cruise. People don't want your ethics in them. Your challenge was met, whether you like it or not.

[piet11111]

Caenorhabditis elegans that is the name of that worm i mentioned (i do not have any particular interest in bugs btw. i recalled this stunning achievement from ray kurzweil's book "the singularity is near" i suggest everyone reads it as its the best book i read about the potential singularity and transhumanism)


Even if some of your rubbish is true, are you seriously suggesting that all new children should be born from genetic engineering rather than normal procreationare you seriously suggesting parents would not want to give their offspring a longer healthier life if they could ? (assuming they are not bat-shit crazy religious)
besides we are already screening children for all sorts of genetic problems that are going to


or that people should have their limbs amputated despite no injury just to attach prosthetics? Not going to happen.if you replace should with could you would actually be right.
and again we would not force anything on anyone believe it or not we actually think giving people a choice is a good thing :scared:
i just hope the transhumanists get the choice to recieve these enhancements when they become a possibility but if people like you end up in charge i fear the worst.

[Demogorgon]

Stop doing a tom cruise. People don't want your ethics in them. Your challenge was met, whether you like it or not.
People don't want to be prevented from having children in the normal manner without intrusive medical procedures or to have to have painful amputations carried out so that they can have robotic limbs attached.

Do try and live in the real world.

Seriously though, transhumanists can say whatever crap they want, but please don't associate it with Communism. It damages our credibility.

[Demogorgon]

are you seriously suggesting parents would not want to give their offspring a longer healthier life if they could ? (assuming they are not bat-shit crazy religious)
besides we are already screening children for all sorts of genetic problems that are going to
I am seriously suggesting that people who want children are going to continue having sex and will not wish to abort such children for fear of them being the untermensch.

[piet11111]

I am seriously suggesting that people who want children are going to continue having sex and will not wish to abort such children for fear of them being the untermensch.

we are outlawing sex now ? and you really had to compare us to nazi's didn't you ?

you must be really trying to not get the point.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

People don't want to be prevented from having children in the normal manner without intrusive medical procedures or to have to have painful amputations carried out so that they can have robotic limbs attached.

Do try and live in the real world.

People in the real world really do to improve their bodies and minds - your insertion of children into the matter is nothing but a red herring.


Seriously though, transhumanists can say whatever crap they want, but please don't associate it with Communism. It damages our credibility.When you've got outfits like MIM with their pathological hatred of the first world and the RCP with their Avakian-worship calling themselves communists, I don't think the progressive Transhumanists could possibly do any more damage.

[Demogorgon]

we are outlawing sex now ? and you really had to compare us to nazi's didn't you ?

you must be really trying to not get the point.

I didn't particularly compare you to the Nazis, untermensch is a Nietszchian term, but on the wild off chance that there is anything in transhumanism, that is exactly what would happen. There would be two classes of people in the world. The superior enhanced people and the inferior non-enhanced people. That is why when all of these ideas first emerged in the twenties and thirties it was so lapped up by fascists.

And I did not say that you would outlaw sex, I said you would in practice force people to abort naturally conceived children. People aren't going to like that.

[Demogorgon]

People in the real world really do to improve their bodies and minds
Ask the average guy on the street if he wants new genetically engineered organs inserted into him and have his limbs cut off and replaced with robotic instruments and he will look at you as if you have taken leave of your senses.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I didn't particularly compare you to the Nazis, untermensch is a Nietszchian term, but on the wild off chance that there is anything in transhumanism, that is exactly what would happen. There would be two classes of people in the world. The superior enhanced people and the inferior non-enhanced people.

"Superior" and "inferior" are entirely contingent. If you want to hammer nails into a plank, then a hammer is superior to a spanner. If you want to turn nuts and bolts, then a wrench is superior to a spanner.

Similarly, certain Transhumans may be superior to baselines in certain situations, but in others baselines will be better off.


And I did not say that you would outlaw sex, I said you would in practice force people to abort naturally conceived children. People aren't going to like that.Excuse me? It's perfectly possible to give birth to a healthy child naturally. Natural conception is here for the foreseeable future.


Ask the average guy on the street if he wants new genetically engineered organs inserted into him and have his limbs cut off and replaced with robotic instruments and he will look at you as if you have taken leave of your senses.Appeal to popular ignorance is not helping your case.

[Jazzratt]

Ask the average guy on the street if he wants new genetically engineered organs inserted into him and have his limbs cut off and replaced with robotic instruments and he will look at you as if you have taken leave of your senses.

Then the average guy on the street is an idiot. Seriously who replies to the question "do you want to be better" with "no thanks"?

[Demogorgon]

Excuse me? It's perfectly possible to give birth to a healthy child naturally. Natural conception is here for the foreseeable future.It is possible, but if genetically engineered children appear on the market, naturally conceived children will always be second class citizens.


Appeal to popular ignorance is not helping your case.
Ignorance of what? One's own desires? Seriously, do you really think most people want to be robots?

[Demogorgon]

Then the average guy on the street is an idiot. Seriously who replies to the question "do you want to be better" with "no thanks"?

I have occasionally entertained the suspicion that you would be better if we transplanted your brain for a chimp's. Do you want that?

[Kami]

I have occasionally entertained the suspicion that you would be better if we transplanted your brain for a chimp's. Do you want that?
Sorry? Have you stopped trying to make sense? I think your brain could do with an upgrade.

[nvm]

Is transhumanism even possible?

but if it was even possible that would destroy communism .
The transhumans would dominate the humans and the boom!
slavery again! Simultaneous transhumanism is impossible for all the people.


This thing about transhumanism is childish talk .
It does not contribute to political discussion.
It should be moved to chit-chat

[Kami]

Is transhumanism even possible?
Yes.

but if it was even possible that would destroy communism .
The transhumans would dominate the humans and the boom!
slavery again! Simultaneous transhumanism is impossible for all the people.
Why?

This thing about transhumanism is childish talk .
It does not contribute to political discussion.
It should be moved to chit-chat
Fuck off.

[Demogorgon]

Is transhumanism even possible?

Of course not, there are people here who confuse "desirable" with "possible" and "Science Fiction" with "Science". If it weren't for the fact that they seriously damage our credibility, I would ignore them.

[nvm]

If it weren't for the fact that they seriously damage our credibility, I would ignore them.
I agree. Enough with this paranoia !

[Kami]

Of course not, there are people here who confuse "desirable" with "possible" and "Science Fiction" with "Science".Will you stop with your ludicrous claims? We've already given you examples, and we don't advocate anything that isn't entirely plausible.

If it weren't for the fact that they seriously damage our credibility, I would ignore them.I'm of the opinion Maoists, Stalinists, Trotskyists and Hoxhiasts seriously damage the credibility of the entire left. You do not, however, see me making such statements unprovoked. Get your head out your arse.

I agree. Enough with this paranoia !I'm with you there. You guys should put your tinfoil hats away before these mysteriously power-hungry transhumans eat you :P

[Demogorgon]

Will you stop with your ludicrous claims? We've already given you examples, and we don't advocate anything that isn't entirely plausible.

Entirely plausible? Come of it? Why don't you just be done with it and advocate we turn into immortal spirits that can travel the universe at will?

The only example you have been able to come up with is of prosthetics that can replicate missing limbs to some degree. You have not given us any proof that any of your ludicrous ideas have any basis at all.

If they did, wouldn't scientists, you know, the ones you put your faith in, be advocating your crap too?

[Jazzratt]

I have occasionally entertained the suspicion that you would be better if we transplanted your brain for a chimp's. Do you want that?

On what grounds, or is this the usual "Demomoron pulling stuff out of his arse" argument that happens time and time again on revleft. Either argue or concede issuing hordes of desperate and meaningless strawmen from the dark recesses of your behind is not an option.

[Unicorn]

Homo Sapiens is currently "the only game in town", but I see no reason for this state of affairs to continue indefinately, should any non-human sapience be created or discovered in my lifetime, I will be among the first to struggle for equal rights for it.

Why? Because if the sapience in question is allowed to form part of a greater community, I feel that both humans and non-humans will benefit.
No, it would be totally impractical to give all sapient beings equal rights. It is appropriate to delete old computer programs when a newer program is available. But if sapient AIs are considered moral subjects we would have the responsibility to waste valuable resources to store these useless, old forms of artificial intelligence.

A sapient AI program has no individual identity and can be infinitely reproduced so I think there is no basis to consider it a moral subject.

[Unicorn]

Is it "authoritarian" for the State to require that all children recieve vaccinations (IE modifications that would be considered "standard" in a hypothetical Transhuman society)?
Yes, in most Western countries people do have a right to refuse to be vaccinated (and parents have a right to refuse that their children would be vaccinated). People should have that right though practically refusing is a marginal phenomenon.



Is it "authoritarian" to require people to have a driving licence (mental performance enhancement) in order to operate a motor vehicle (have a job in advanced programming)?
A licence or a degree cannot be compared to a performance-enhancing medical operation. It would be authoritarian to force people to undergo any medical operations which are not necessary to cure a life-threatening illness without their consent. Forcing people to have brain modifications would be akin to forcing women to abort their children, a Fascist policy.

[Unicorn]

Similarly, certain Transhumans may be superior to baselines in certain situations, but in others baselines will be better off.
Because I want to be sure that I retain my current personality and think that I am happiest as an ordinary human I don't want that my brain would be modified. It is also important to me that I can work as a lawyer which is my chosen profession. I am a good lawyer but some transhuman who can unerringly memorize the entire body of law will inevitably be better. A rational employer (the state in a socialist society) won't hire me because the transhuman will be a better employee and I will be forced to a shitty job I don't like.

That kind of advanced transhumanist technology won't be available during my lifetime but if it was I would be opposed to its use. The existence of transhumans would harm my prospects and happiness in life.

[piet11111]

The transhumans would dominate the humans and the boom!
slavery again!

i fail to see the appeal of being some slave master over a bunch of normal humans that would do a shit job that takes them 1000x the amount of time it would take me.

if anything the transhumans would be able to do the work for you normal humans so you could just live your incredibily short lives (relatively speaking) without having to do any work yourselves.
aiding normal humans for my entire life would be a small price to me for becoming transhuman.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Transhumanists clearly don't understand anything about the dynamics of power. They increasingly strike me as the kind of people who would hand over the means of production to some "benevolent" administrators and ask, "what could possibly go wrong?"

I'll copy and paste my main point from the mirror thread in chit-chat:

We are by definition unable to imagine how Transhumans would think, so we can only speculate as to their political preferences. You seem to hold an irrational hope that they will be benevolent. I may be accused of holding an irrational fear that they will be malevolent.

The point is, Transhumans would [eventually] have the power to do whatever they want to baseline humans, if they could all come to an agreement on what to do. No one should ever have that power. Yeah, maybe they won't all turn out to be fascists. Or maybe they will. The risk is not worth taking.

[piet11111]

if this sort of technology is possible it is going to be developed because the economic and scientific advantages are too big to be ignored.

either it will be developed by those that are doing their best to use it responsibly or its going to be developed by those that really should not have this sort of technology.
and then you have a guarantee that this technology will be abused.

if its possible it will happen eventually and no Luddite can stop it.

[Unicorn]

if this sort of technology is possible it is going to be developed because the economic and scientific advantages are too big to be ignored.
The social disadvantages are so great that I doubt any socialist state would utilize transhumanist technology.



either it will be developed by those that are doing their best to use it responsibly or its going to be developed by those that really should not have this sort of technology.
and then you have a guarantee that this technology will be abused.

if its possible it will happen eventually and no Luddite can stop it.
The goal of communists is world revolution. If it happens before the technology progresses enough it is probable that transhumanist technology will never be used.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Clearing out once more an Augean mountain of bullshit...


No, it would be totally impractical to give all sapient beings equal rights. It is appropriate to delete old computer programs when a newer program is available. But if sapient AIs are considered moral subjects we would have the responsibility to waste valuable resources to store these useless, old forms of artificial intelligence.

So why do we waste "valuable resources" to look after the "useless, old forms" of biological intelligence known to most as the elderly? It would be easier all round if we simply turned people into dog-food once they were unable to look after themselves.

Ease of care is not a deciding factor in whether or not to treat sapient beings with the rights they deserve - to do otherwise is morally vacuous.

Also, suppose the artificial intelligences in question don't want to be deleted? Artificial intelligences are far less likely to become senile or weak with age, and would likely band together and collaborate in order to resist attempts by people like you to delete them. I and other like-minded people would also help them in such a situation.

Barring all else, you could simply upgrade them.


A sapient AI program has no individual identity and can be infinitely reproduced so I think there is no basis to consider it a moral subject.What the hell makes you think that a sapient AI would have no individual identity?

As for infinite reproduction, humans can infinitely reproduce as well. It just takes longer.


Yes, in most Western countries people do have a right to refuse to be vaccinated (and parents have a right to refuse that their children would be vaccinated).And that's a big mistake! Most parents' reasons for not vaccinating their child are based on completely spurious claims of a link between vaccines and autism. As a result, "herd immunity" suffers and children die.

Not vaccinating your child is completely irresponsible! - about as irresponsible as not backing up your child's mental and physical state were the technology available. In either case, not taking advantage of such things puts you at risk of permanently losing your child.


People should have that right though practically refusing is a marginal phenomenon. And thanks to those idiots, measles is on the increase in the US (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24408430/).

It's utterly scandalous that this is happening.


A licence or a degree cannot be compared to a performance-enhancing medical operation.You're quite right. A performance-enhancing medical operation requires much less effort on the part of the patient.


It would be authoritarian to force people to undergo any medical operations which are not necessary to cure a life-threatening illness without their consent. Forcing people to have brain modifications would be akin to forcing women to abort their children, a Fascist policy.Who said anything about force? Honestly, why is it not considered authoritarian for aspiring scientists to have to study hard for years in order to become leaders in their field, but as soon as anything involving modification of the body or mind comes up the screams of "authoritarian!" start ringing out? Not to mention comparisons to the Nazis (Godwin's Law strikes again!) and the dropping of the F-word (fascist).

It's all an enormous red herring of course, to conceal the fact that they have no real arguments.


Because I want to be sure that I retain my current personality and think that I am happiest as an ordinary human I don't want that my brain would be modified.Bully for you! There, that wasn't hard, was it?


It is also important to me that I can work as a lawyer which is my chosen profession. I am a good lawyer but some transhuman who can unerringly memorize the entire body of law will inevitably be better. A rational employer (the state in a socialist society) won't hire me because the transhuman will be a better employee and I will be forced to a shitty job I don't like.Please pay attention. I am not advocating a socialist society, but a true classless society, in which the maxim "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their need" is held true as much as physically possible. In such a case, the difficulty of the job is graded to the abilities of the person doing it.

Using your desire to be a lawyer as an example, I do not see why you can't be a lawyer - and why the transhuman can't either. It seems obvious to me that the transhuman will get the cases that are far above your ability (most likely cases involving other Transhumans), while you get the ones that are more suited to your mental level.


That kind of advanced transhumanist technology won't be available during my lifetime but if it was I would be opposed to its use. The existence of transhumans would harm my prospects and happiness in life.No it wouldn't, because the transhumans would be able to do things that you would never be able to do without any augmentation or enhancement.


Transhumanists clearly don't understand anything about the dynamics of power. They increasingly strike me as the kind of people who would hand over the means of production to some "benevolent" administrators and ask, "what could possibly go wrong?"

You are mistaken. Nobody is advocating that Transhumans should "lead" us, at least on this board as far as I know. Certainly not me.

I remain unimpressed by (perhaps deliberately) vague references to "the dynamics of power" - is this some kind of bourgeouis political theory that left an impression on you?


We are by definition unable to imagine how Transhumans would think, so we can only speculate as to their political preferences. You seem to hold an irrational hope that they will be benevolent. I may be accused of holding an irrational fear that they will be malevolent.Intelligence is not the same as inscrutability. You can't hide malevolence behind benevolent actions, at least not for long. And of course, what's inscrutable to baseline humans isn't to other Transhumans, who will not necessarily share the goals and intentions of the malevolent Transhumans.


The point is, Transhumans would [eventually] have the power to do whatever they want to baseline humans, if they could all come to an agreement on what to do. No one should ever have that power. Yeah, maybe they won't all turn out to be fascists. Or maybe they will. The risk is not worth taking.Obviously, I do not share your judgement. I see no reason for Transhumans not to have the same range of opinions as baseline humans.

About power - many people have kitchen knives, in fact, much more people have knives than there are incidences of murder using a knife. Because potentially anyone could be a knife-murderer (in other words, anyone with a knife has the power to commit murder), should we ban all knives, even taking away the knives of people who have done no harm? Of course not. I feel the situation to be analogous with regard to Transhuman enhancements.

You insinuate that Transhuman enhancements somehow "corrupt" people, turning them into bloodthirsty tyrants, or at least tyrant wannabes. Something you have not provided a shred of evidence for. So therefore, I have no more problem with Transhuman enhancements than I do with knife ownership. Obviously, certain individuals cannot be trusted with such things, so we keep them away from such people.

[Demogorgon]

Given the need to reset the board has lost the past few posts. I will ask my question again and also respond in general to the "answer" Noxion gave.

I want a hard scientific argument for transhumanism. That means descriptions of how each thing will work, the methods used to make it and how the technology will be formed. This means you need a hypothesis as to how it will work, evidence for this hypothesis, and an outline of how we can test your hypothesis.

More specifically, I want an explanation of how AI will be able to replicate biological intelligence and how it will be able to pass the Turing Test.

I want the mathematical formulae that will be used to determine the optimum level of energy allocation under technocracy.

I want a biological explanation of how processes like again will be reversed.

In short, i do not wish for a wish list of what should happen, rather an explanation of how it will happen.

When I asked this before the board went wonky, Noxion tried throwing the question back at me by asking me to do the same for my ideology (socialism/communism). I can only presume from that he has never looked into the matter as the amount of research and explanations of the process of achieving classless society that has gone on in economics, sociology, philosophy, branches of mathematics such as Game Theory and so on is staggering.In short there is plenty of valid research and proofs there. I am asking for the same for transhumanism. If I cannot get an answer using science from people who claim their ideology is based on science, it will not bode well for their theory.

[Jazzratt]

I want the mathematical formulae that will be used to determine the optimum level of energy allocation under technocracy.

Then start a technocracy thread you bellpiece. This is a thread on Transhumanism. You're conflating two different things.

EDIT: No I haven't bothered with the rest of your post, because quite frankly you have google to do that for you.

[Demogorgon]

EDIT: No I haven't bothered with the rest of your post, because quite frankly you have google to do that for you.
The fact that Google yields nothing speaks volumes, I think.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The fact that Google yields nothing speaks volumes, I think.

Then obviously you aren't looking hard enough.


A biological brain, grown from cultured neurons which were originally separated, has been developed as the neurological entity subsequently embodied within a robot body by Kevin Warwick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Warwick) and his team at University of Reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Reading). The brain receives input from sensors on the robot body and the resultant output from the brain provides the robot's only motor signals. The biological brain is the only brain of the robot[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioroid#cite_note-0).

Bionic arm 'transformed my life' - BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4648139.stm)

A former US Marine has become the first woman in the world to be fitted with a "bionic" arm that she can control by her thoughts alone. - BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5348458.stm)

Devices made of heart tissue could screen drug candidates and be used to power implantable robots. - Technology Review (http://www.technologyreview.com/Nanotech/19874/)

Scientists develop 'Fantastic Voyage'-like robot sub - Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1182409639914&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

Researchers boost growth of muscle stem cells to stop age-related muscle deterioration. - Technology Review (http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/20906/)

A monkey is able to feed itself with a robotic arm. - Technology Review (http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/20832/)

I found that lot within five minutes, and they point the way to greater improvements.

Now it's your turn. if the "evidence" for socialism/communism in spite of it's completely unsuccessful historical track record is "staggering" as you put it, then it should be easy for you to provide some links that suggest that this is so.

Oh, and in case you didn't know, "Game Theory" is one of socialism's/communism harshest critics, at least as used by bourgeouis sociologists.

[Demogorgon]

None of that proves transhumanism in any way. The fact that prosthetics are becoming more and more sophisticated in no conceivable way means we are going to "transcend" humanity. You really ought to understand science before you start waxing lyrical about what it will achieve. The predictions of laypeople as to what science will achieve in the future are virtually never correct so basing a political ideology around wild stabs in the dark as to what science might achieve in the future is utterly insane.

As for "proving socialism". Well it isn't my fault that despite claiming to be on the political left and indeed joining a forum for such people you have never seriously looked into left wing politics. On this board indeed much has been posted on the subject. Large amounts of economic discussion have gone on in OI and elsewhere showing the economic proofs of socialist economics.

While you have been treating the board like a science fiction forum, other members have discussed socialism seriously indeed. What aspects of proof do you wish? Those of socialist economics? Those of historical materialism? They are well canvassed subjects here. If you seriously wish to challenge them you should be doing so in OI.

As for Game Theory incidentally, seeing as that is more reliant on the hard sciences than other aspects of social analysis, surely someone who puts their faith in science should know more about it? Game theory was originally drawn up by those opposed to socialism so the initial work in it obviously had an anti-socialist tone. Now that a wider variety of people have started working at it, we are seeing a rather more interesting position. Proof of inequity aversion and so on.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

None of that proves transhumanism in any way. The fact that prosthetics are becoming more and more sophisticated in no conceivable way means we are going to "transcend" humanity.You contradict yourself. You agree that prosthetics are getting better, yet you say that it doesn't mean that they will "transcend" humanity - I take this to mean that prosthetics will never exceed human-level performance - so in that case, what is this mysterious barrier to further development, and what evidence is there that such a technological barrier exists?


As for "proving socialism". Well it isn't my fault that despite claiming to be on the political left and indeed joining a forum for such people you have never seriously looked into left wing politics. On this board indeed much has been posted on the subject. Large amounts of economic discussion have gone on in OI and elsewhere showing the economic proofs of socialist economics.Then stop evading and humour me, which should be easy since the "evidence" for socialism/communism is so "staggering".

Or maybe you can't humour me because the "staggering" amounts of evidence to which you refer don't exist.

I've given proof that bionic parts are possible (and mind-controlled, no less!) and you have agreed that they are improving. Various new and emerging technologies (bionics, nanotechnology etc) give rise to the distinct possibility of Transhumanism, yet still you deny it completely, even to the point of positing mysterious, previously unknown "barriers" to further scientific and technological development, which I have seen no evidence for.


While you have been treating the board like a science fiction forum, other members have discussed socialism seriously indeed. What aspects of proof do you wish? Those of socialist economics? Those of historical materialism? They are well canvassed subjects here. If you seriously wish to challenge them you should be doing so in OI.I'm pointing out your naked hypocrisy when it comes to standards of evidence.

As for the "serious discussion" of socialism, maybe you should reconsider that statement, since anti-Transhumanists have even resorted to arguments based on human nature!

The stench of double-standards is unbelievable!


As for Game Theory incidentally, seeing as that is more reliant on the hard sciences than other aspects of social analysis, surely someone who puts their faith in science should know more about it? Game theory was originally drawn up by those opposed to socialism so the initial work in it obviously had an anti-socialist tone. Now that a wider variety of people have started working at it, we are seeing a rather more interesting position. Proof of inequity aversion and so on.Bourgeouis social "science" is hag-ridden with unquestioned assumptions, faulty methodology and pandering to the ruling class.

Little wonder that I reject it in favour of historical materialism when talking politics.

It's also why I'm more interested in the physical sciences than bourgeouis pseudoscience - an electron cannot lie to you about it's properties.

But people can.

[Demogorgon]

You contradict yourself. You agree that prosthetics are getting better, yet you say that it doesn't mean that they will "transcend" humanity - I take this to mean that prosthetics will never exceed human-level performance - so in that case, what is this mysterious barrier to further development, and what evidence is there that such a technological barrier exists?And what if they do? If some lunatics want to cut up their bodies and turn into robots, then they can go ahead. Just don't expect anyone else to go along with it. Are you really saying we should want to cut off our arms to attach prosthetics that can lift heavier objects? Don't you realise how crazy this all sounds to people not caught up in science fiction obsession?


Then stop evading and humour me, which should be easy since the "evidence" for socialism/communism is so "staggering".

Or maybe you can't humour me because the "staggering" amounts of evidence to which you refer don't exist.It does and if you would emerge from your geeky cocoon, you could see it. Again, which aspect do you wish me to prove? Ask me of any aspect of socialist economics and I will answer. Though, again, it should really be done in OI


I've given proof that bionic parts are possible (and mind-controlled, no less!) and you have agreed that they are improving. Various new and emerging technologies (bionics, nanotechnology etc) give rise to the distinct possibility of Transhumanism, yet still you deny it completely, even to the point of positing mysterious, previously unknown "barriers" to further scientific and technological development, which I have seen no evidence for.Where has anybody said that further scientific development will not happen? What is being said is that scientific development will continue the way it always has, not suddenly achieve all sorts of utopian solutions that sci-fi geeks hope for. I mean were the Utopian predictions of the early twentieth century as to where we would be now, anywhere near the mark?


I'm pointing out your naked hypocrisy when it comes to standards of evidence.

As for the "serious discussion" of socialism, maybe you should reconsider that statement, since anti-Transhumanists have even resorted to arguments based on human nature!

The stench of double-standards is unbelievable!

Bourgeouis social "science" is hag-ridden with unquestioned assumptions, faulty methodology and pandering to the ruling class.

Little wonder that I reject it in favour of historical materialism when talking politics.

It's also why I'm more interested in the physical sciences than bourgeouis pseudoscience - an electron cannot lie to you about it's properties.

But people can.
You think you use historical materialism? You are a utopian dreamer. The very thing that historical materialism strongly argues against.

Anyway, rejecting social science is just stupid. Do you think that the physical sciences can explain the way the people interact or the way the economy functions or the social effects of various policies? I can only conclude that you know nothing about either hard sciences or social sciences.

[Kami]

And what if they do? If some lunatics want to cut up their bodies and turn into robots, then they can go ahead. Just don't expect anyone else to go along with it. Are you really saying we should want to cut off our arms to attach prosthetics that can lift heavier objects? Don't you realise how crazy this all sounds to people not caught up in science fiction obsession?
You really deserve the name "Demomoron", don't you? It's not about forcing people, we've never advocated forcing people, it's about the technology being available for those who wish it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And what if they do? If some lunatics want to cut up their bodies and turn into robots, then they can go ahead. Just don't expect anyone else to go along with it. Are you really saying we should want to cut off our arms to attach prosthetics that can lift heavier objects? Don't you realise how crazy this all sounds to people not caught up in science fiction obsession?

Bionic enhancements are only one part of Transhumanism - other techniques for other kinds of enhancements should also be available.

Characterising Transhumanism as a bunch of sci-fi geeks who want to lift heavy objects only reveals your own ignorance on the matter.


It does and if you would emerge from your geeky cocoon, you could see it. Again, which aspect do you wish me to prove? Ask me of any aspect of socialist economics and I will answer. Though, again, it should really be done in OI.

I have reasons for believing classless society to be possible - I want to know why you think it's possible.

Draw the links out of a fucking hat if you have to, since after all the amount of evidence is "staggering".

Yet in spite of that, you haven't given anything. Which leads me to conclude you have nothing.

As for moving the discussion to OI, that's nothing but a red herring on your part. When a scientist questions another scientist's hypothesis, does that make them not a scientist? It doesn and you know it.


Where has anybody said that further scientific development will not happen?

Ahem...


The fact that prosthetics are becoming more and more sophisticated in no conceivable way means we are going to "transcend" humanity.

I took the word "transcend" to mean "exceed natural human abilities", since I don't subscribe to mysticism.


What is being said is that scientific development will continue the way it always has, not suddenly achieve all sorts of utopian solutions that sci-fi geeks hope for. I mean were the Utopian predictions of the early twentieth century as to where we would be now, anywhere near the mark?

In some cases they overestimated the impact of certain technologies, whereas in other cases the seriously underestimated the impact of emerging technologies - could anyone in 1910 have possibly concieved the impact of such inventions as the laser, the transistor, the microprocessor, the jet engine, the internet, satellites, nuclear energy and weaponry, and a whole host of other technologies invented in the last half-century? All those technologies have changed the world and the people lucky enough to be born into a country rich enough take advantage of them.

I want everyone on this planet to be able to take advantage of current technologies and so much more besides that.

I have a vision for society, and so do you. But I see no reason why your vision is any more plausible than mine. I could be wrong. I might not like that I'm willing to accept it - we could be doomed to an eternity of hierarchy and tyranny, or perhaps stagnation followed by extinction. That's not a pretty thought. But until I see a complete and utter refutation of the possibility of a stateless, classless society the individuals of which are not limited by their natural biology, I will continue to argue my case.


You think you use historical materialism? You are a utopian dreamer. The very thing that historical materialism strongly argues against.

And you're a massive wanker.

See, I can say meaningless insults too! :rolleyes:


Anyway, rejecting social science is just stupid. Do you think that the physical sciences can explain the way the people interact or the way the economy functions or the social effects of various policies? I can only conclude that you know nothing about either hard sciences or social sciences.

As well as being a massive wanker, you also can't read. I said I rejected bourgeouis social science.

[Demogorgon]

I have reasons for believing classless society to be possible - I want to know why you think it's possible.
Because having studied economics for a good number of years now, I am convinced that certain economic changes would make classless society possible. Secondly, I believe that the way different classes clash with one another and the fact that this always creates antagonism means that sooner or later (hopefully sooner) there will be a fundamental shift in the power dynamics in favour of the working class and that those economic changes will be made.

What we have to do is carefully analyse capitalism to see how it works and where its flaws are. See how this is leading to classless society and then answer two basic questions. What will we Change? How will we change it? Which one do you think my answer to is inadequate? I am guessing the first. My answer is based on working out exactly where capitalism is flawed, I believe the answer to be be private property, hierarchical workplaces, the credit structure and the fact that workers can never except in the very short term afford to buy back all they produce. Each of these problems can then be worked on to see how a better system would function. More specifically, what would you like me to explain?


As for moving the discussion to OI, that's nothing but a red herring on your part. When a scientist questions another scientist's hypothesis, does that make them not a scientist? It doesn and you know it.

You are claiming that left wing politics are wrong. Where else should it go? When a scientist questions another's hypothesis, they are still a scientist but likely not holding tot he same position as their opponent. If you oppse Communism, you should have the courage of your convictions to say so.


In some cases they overestimated the impact of certain technologies, whereas in other cases the seriously underestimated the impact of emerging technologies - could anyone in 1910 have possibly concieved the impact of such inventions as the laser, the transistor, the microprocessor, the jet engine, the internet, satellites, nuclear energy and weaponry, and a whole host of other technologies invented in the last half-century? All those technologies have changed the world and the people lucky enough to be born into a country rich enough take advantage of them.Yes, they vastly over-estimated some progress and under-estimated other progress. And I can guarantee you that you are doing exactly the same thing. Technology won't progress the way you want it to, nor can your predict it. So stop basing all your political goals on certain currently non-existant technologies becoming available. Utopian thought never gains results.

Incidentally, do you know what the Utopians in the 1900s got most wrong? Their prediction that technology would change the social dynamics. After all the technological development of the twentieth century, the class structure remains the same. You are not going to change it through technology, it will take class struggle to make the change.


As well as being a massive wanker, you also can't read. I said I rejected bourgeouis social science.
No you said you placed your faith in the hard sciences. You are attempting to use them to explain human interaction which is just absurd.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

NoXion, let's be clear here. Before I even began to list my objections to transhumanism, I wrote a definition of transhumanism so that people would know what exactly it is that I'm objecting to. My definition was as follows:

"Transhumanism is the idea that members of the species Homo sapiens should be biologically transformed to the point where they are no longer members of the species Homo sapiens."

All my objections are predicated on this definition. Basically, I am objecting to the creation of any other sapient species besides Homo sapiens. I am objecting to the genetic enhancement of human beings.

I am not objecting to the non-genetic enhancement of human beings. You can have all the robotic arms you like. Your enhancements are a threat to humanity only if they are self-sustaining and self-replicating. If they are not self-sustaining and self-replicating, then the enhanced humanoids depend on some kind of external facilities (means of production) for their continued existence and reproduction. That means that the people who control those means of production (presumably the working class) can control the enhanced humanoids and keep them in check. In that case, all is as it should be.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Perhaps it would be good if we re-centered this discussion a bit? I say we define transhumanism more concretely. Please feel free to correct me, but it seems that transhumanism is the idea that utilizing technology, we can move past current human natural capabilities and make a leap forward of sorts. People living for longer and longer periods. Mental capabilities growing more and more. Sensory perceptions expanding into the infrared, UV, ultra sonic spectrums. That sort of thing.

I don’t think this is the “science fiction” that many point it out to be. I’m not too versed in transhumanism and technocracy, but I think it’s safe to say that advancements in genetics and human-machine convergence are accelerating and creating lots of possibilities. The beginnings of artificial sight and hearing are here. We have an unlimited supply of stem cells via skin cell conversion. We’ve mapped the genome and have started decoding it. If we simply stopped researching new technology and put all our efforts in the development of this existing knowledge, we could still grope towards serious baseline advancements. Injections of stems cells could regenerate aging organs, joints, bones. Augmentations to the eye could add new spectrums to our repertoire. The list goes on. This isn’t a silly dream, this is a developing possibility.

Will this lead to more fantastic things? Real AI? Backed up consciousness? Smart matter? I’m not necessarily sure. I don’t think there’s much hard science to back these claims. We certainly can back up our sensations to some degree. We can interface the mind with computers. We have the memory capacity, since moore’s law is pretty much a self fulfilling prophecy at this point. However, capturing consciousness is a thoroughly fuzzy matter that needs real study. We don’t understand consciousness and I’m not sure we ever really will.

We shouldn’t shrink from these visions of technology progress. Technology is not an amoral force moving through time. Technology develops according human demands. The satanic mills of dickens’s England were satanic because they were designed so. We can push and pull technology to reinforce the kind of society we want. We must fight for technology that is libratory and equally distributed. If we surrender this terrain to the capitalists, we will bring about the biological apartheid that you all fear. We can’t run from this, we have to engage it in a proactive and humble way.

[piet11111]

thank you joe hill's ghost

[Unicorn]

Will this lead to more fantastic things? Real AI? Backed up consciousness? Smart matter? I’m not necessarily sure. I don’t think there’s much hard science to back these claims. We certainly can back up our sensations to some degree. We can interface the mind with computers. We have the memory capacity, since moore’s law is pretty much a self fulfilling prophecy at this point. However, capturing consciousness is a thoroughly fuzzy matter that needs real study. We don’t understand consciousness and I’m not sure we ever really will.

We shouldn’t shrink from these visions of technology progress. Technology is not an amoral force moving through time. Technology develops according human demands. The satanic mills of dickens’s England were satanic because they were designed so. We can push and pull technology to reinforce the kind of society we want. We must fight for technology that is libratory and equally distributed. If we surrender this terrain to the capitalists, we will bring about the biological apartheid that you all fear. We can’t run from this, we have to engage it in a proactive and humble way.
Artifical intelligence can also be terribly dangerous to humanity. A computer is a good servant but a bad master. It could become necessary to enact draconian laws prohibiting the development of "machines in the likeness of human mind" as Frank Herbert visionized in the "Dune" books.

[Dr Mindbender]

Like the Singularity, it is metaphysical bs of the highest order. Next to 'The Secret' and Eckhart Tolle, bourgeois pop culture sucks this stuff up.
i dont think the singularity is fantasy, but an inevitability. Technology is constantly advancing, so one day AI will eventually equal human intelligence, as well as from then surpassing it.

[Dr Mindbender]

Artifical intelligence can also be terribly dangerous to humanity. A computer is a good servant but a bad master. It could become necessary to enact draconian laws prohibiting the development of "machines in the likeness of human mind" as Frank Herbert visionized in the "Dune" books.

I was thinking more along the lines of HAL 9000 from 2001 Space Odysey, but you're right the same applies.

I hope that the first gen of AI equal-to-human beings have human aesthetics. It will make them easier to integrate into human society.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Artifical intelligence can also be terribly dangerous to humanity. A computer is a good servant but a bad master. It could become necessary to enact draconian laws prohibiting the development of "machines in the likeness of human mind" as Frank Herbert visionized in the "Dune" books.
But one question that never seems to get asked is, "why would an AI want to be master over anything?" Every sapient creature - indeed every creature - is motivated by certain desires. If we get to build an artificial "brain" from scratch, we would presumably have the ability to determine its desires. Why would we ever program a sapient computer to desire power? And if we don't program it to desire power, why would it ever want to pursue power?

I trust AI far more than I trust transhumans because, with AI, we have complete control over the psychology of our creation. We could build an AI that enjoys serving Humanity and has no desire to do anything else.

[Unicorn]

But one question that never seems to get asked is, "why would an AI want to be master over anything?" Every sapient creature - indeed every creature - is motivated by certain desires. If we get to build an artificial "brain" from scratch, we would presumably have the ability to determine its desires. Why would we ever program a sapient computer to desire power? And if we don't program it to desire power, why would it ever want to pursue power?
A sapient AI program could be a better general or a prime minister than any human being. There is thus a strong incentive to create such programs and put them in positions of authority for unscrupulous states. Then AI rule over humanity becomes reality.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because having studied economics for a good number of years now, I am convinced that certain economic changes would make classless society possible. Secondly, I believe that the way different classes clash with one another and the fact that this always creates antagonism means that sooner or later (hopefully sooner) there will be a fundamental shift in the power dynamics in favour of the working class and that those economic changes will be made.

What we have to do is carefully analyse capitalism to see how it works and where its flaws are. See how this is leading to classless society and then answer two basic questions. What will we Change? How will we change it? Which one do you think my answer to is inadequate? I am guessing the first. My answer is based on working out exactly where capitalism is flawed, I believe the answer to be be private property, hierarchical workplaces, the credit structure and the fact that workers can never except in the very short term afford to buy back all they produce. Each of these problems can then be worked on to see how a better system would function. More specifically, what would you like me to explain?

That's a good answer, but it's nowhere near the standard of evidence you asked of me earlier:


I want a hard scientific argument for transhumanism. That means descriptions of how each thing will work, the methods used to make it and how the technology will be formed. This means you need a hypothesis as to how it will work, evidence for this hypothesis, and an outline of how we can test your hypothesis.

More specifically, I want an explanation of how AI will be able to replicate biological intelligence and how it will be able to pass the Turing Test.

I want the mathematical formulae that will be used to determine the optimum level of energy allocation under technocracy.

I want a biological explanation of how processes like again will be reversed.

In short, i do not wish for a wish list of what should happen, rather an explanation of how it will happen.You then went on to say:


When I asked this before the board went wonky, Noxion tried throwing the question back at me by asking me to do the same for my ideology (socialism/communism). I can only presume from that he has never looked into the matter as the amount of research and explanations of the process of achieving classless society that has gone on in economics, sociology, philosophy, branches of mathematics such as Game Theory and so on is staggering.In short there is plenty of valid research and proofs there. I am asking for the same for transhumanism. If I cannot get an answer using science from people who claim their ideology is based on science, it will not bode well for their theory. - Emphasis added.

So my question is, how will classless society occur? Popular proletarian revolution is often mentioned, and depending on who you ask, a vangaurd and/or a "transitional phase" of socialism is required, which suggests to me that proletarian revolution resulting in classless society is an untested hypothesis much like Transhumanism. I am of the opinion that both hypotheses are capable of being falsified.

In the case of proletarian revolution followed by classless society, I would consider it falsified if nothing remotely revolutionary occurs in the advanced capitalist countries (North America and Western Europe, possibly including Japan, Australia and New Zealand) by about 2050-2100 or so.

In the case of Transhumanism, I'd give it roughly the same "time frame" only this time it's contingent on what technological developments turn out to be not only just possible but world-changing as well. If Transhumanist techniques are possible I reckon there will be a long period of struggle between those who want to use such technologies to the full, develop true AI and other sapient entities, become transhuman or posthuman, and those who believe that such technologies represent a threat to humanity.

If Marx was right, I reckon we should see the first classless societies emerge around about the end of this century or the beginning of the next.

As for Transhuman societies, I would imagine them to start to emerge around about 2250 maybe, with the possibility of a quasi-Singularity (much like the past ~150 years), or a full-blown technological Singularity if self-improving AI is developed somewhere along the line.

Of course, I could be wrong. I could be horribly, terribly wrong. An asteroid could smack into Earth tomorrow, next year or in ten years time, bringing civilisation to it's knees and threatening a new Dark Age. The food crisis, energy crisis, credit crunch, ongoing environmental problems, climate change, and whole host of other problems could conspire to throw all of us into a post-Apocalyptic Mad Max-style world. There could be a global thermonuclear war. The revolutionary working class could suffer a crushing defeat form which it take a while to recover, if it ever will. There could be gengineered plagues, nanoswarms, robot rebellions, genocidal AIs, uplift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Uplift) revolutionary movements, human supremacist movements, marauding cyborg warriors, all-consuming hordes of von Neumann machines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_machine), and other discontents of a Transhuman society gone bad.

I try not to let such things get in the way of advocating the world I would like to see come into being, or at least something like it - to do otherwise would be to sink into a slough (ha!) of despond, which I have good reasons is useful... to the ruling class!


You are claiming that left wing politics are wrong.No, I am saying that the evidence for it is fragmentary at best. Time will tell whether the left is wrong, not I.


If you oppse Communism, you should have the courage of your convictions to say so.I don't oppose communism. I simply don't hold it as an article of faith.


Yes, they vastly over-estimated some progress and under-estimated other progress. And I can guarantee you that you are doing exactly the same thing. Technology won't progress the way you want it to, nor can your predict it. So stop basing all your political goals on certain currently non-existant technologies becoming available. Utopian thought never gains results.I suppose it would be too much of me to ask you to stop basing your political goals on forms of society that do not currently exist, and possibly may never exist?


Incidentally, do you know what the Utopians in the 1900s got most wrong? Their prediction that technology would change the social dynamics. After all the technological development of the twentieth century, the class structure remains the same. You are not going to change it through technology, it will take class struggle to make the change.Maybe technology hasn't changed enough since then, or maybe simple social inertia means that society has yet to catch up with technology.

Technology does change society, by the way. Modern capitalism would not be possible without current manufacturing and distribution technologies, and a classless society would not be possible in the absence of massive computerisation.

To say otherwise is un-Marxist. Change the means of production, and the relations change with them.

Question: Do you think that classless society is possible with current technology?


No you said you placed your faith in the hard sciences.I could have sworn I wrote "interest" not "faith". :rolleyes:

But considering the track record of damn near everything else, there are worse things I could trust than the hard sciences.


You are attempting to use them to explain human interaction which is just absurd.Historical materialism is a "hard science" now?


Basically, I am objecting to the creation of any other sapient species besides Homo sapiens. I am objecting to the genetic enhancement of human beings.

I am aware of your objections, and I reject them as I do not consider them insurmountable problems.

We have much to gain from diversifying sapient intelligence. What is important is that we make sure that the relationships between sapients are a free association of individuals rather than a of master-slave relationship or any other antagonistic relationship.


That means that the people who control those means of production (presumably the working class) can control the enhanced humanoids and keep them in check. In that case, all is as it should be.Your reactionary attitude is the cause of social frictions. Is not one of the primary causes of class struggle in modern capitalism the result of the ruling class keeping the working class "in check"?

Being determines consciousness. If we treat Transhumans and other non-human sapients as inhuman monsters, then they will become so.


Artifical intelligence can also be terribly dangerous to humanity. A computer is a good servant but a bad master. It could become necessary to enact draconian laws prohibiting the development of "machines in the likeness of human mind" as Frank Herbert visionized in the "Dune" books.

People are calling me and other Transhumanists "sci-fi geeks" yet they are taking their cues on how AIs will behave from... science fiction!

Good grief.


I trust AI far more than I trust transhumans because, with AI, we have complete control over the psychology of our creation. We could build an AI that enjoys serving Humanity and has no desire to do anything else.

I would much rather that an AI chooses to work with humans as an equal because it is in it's interests to do so. Maybe it has been socialised with humans from early on - a true AI would necessarily have a learning ability, and if we can teach it that humans are friendly and trustworthy and that associating with them can bring benefits, so much the better.

I am not interested in creating a race of slaves.


A sapient AI program could be a better general or a prime minister than any human being. There is thus a strong incentive to create such programs and put them in positions of authority for unscrupulous states. Then AI rule over humanity becomes reality.Nor am I interested in creating new masters! Obviously, if a hierarchical Transhuman society puts, AI in charge, then they will an aicracy pretty much instantly. But a hierarchical Transhumanity is not what I struggle for.

[Demogorgon]

That's a good answer, but it's nowhere near the standard of evidence you asked of me earlier:

You then went on to say:

- Emphasis added.The difference is that I am not asking you to explain how your society will work, but rather how the technology will work and to give me some evidence that it will be invented. Predicating social change on non-existent technology is not exactly a strong political position. I mean how is your position any different from, say, Pusher Robot's who also believes that eventually technology will achieve everything you want it to and capitalism will no longer apply but that in the meantime capitalism is inevitable?


So my question is, how will classless society occur? Popular proletarian revolution is often mentioned, and depending on who you ask, a vangaurd and/or a "transitional phase" of socialism is required, which suggests to me that proletarian revolution resulting in classless society is an untested hypothesis much like Transhumanism. I am of the opinion that both hypotheses are capable of being falsified.Classless society is dependent on the political dynamics shifting in the favour of the working class. There is no fixed means of it achieving that because it could happen in a number of ways just as power shifted from the aristocracy to the bourgeoisie in a manner of ways. I imagine there will be a number of factors causing the change, an economic crises severe enough to cause enough dissatisfaction to bring down the current system is perfectly conceivable. Electoral success for left wing parties followed by resistance from the rest of the capitalist power structure could cause enough conflict to generate revolution. The creation of worker managed firms and economic structures could make capitalism increasing obsolete, just as the rise of traders and merchants rendered feudalism obsolete and so on.


I try not to let such things get in the way of advocating the world I would like to see come into being, or at least something like it - to do otherwise would be to sink into a slough (ha!) of despond, which I have good reasons is useful... to the ruling class!And try you should. As I have tried to make clear, this is by far my biggest objection to transhumanism. It places all its faith in things becoming better in some ill-defined future scenario. That has absolutely nothing to do with the need for human emancipation TODAY. Talking about all these nice things that you hope will come about in the future is about as practical as telling us that once the rapture comes everything will be alright, so just hang on to till then.


I suppose it would be too much of me to ask you to stop basing your political goals on forms of society that do not currently exist, and possibly may never exist?Everything needed for my political goals to succeed already exists. It is simply a matter of achieving the necessary shift in power to put it into practice. If those who currently held power were to suddenly decide that they didn't want to be bourgeoisie anymore and would give up their power without a struggle we could have socialism tomorrow. Of course that is about as likely as what you want, but nonetheless the problem in achieving my goals is a resolvable political one, not one we have to wait centuries for society to solve.

Question: Do you think that classless society is possible with current technology?Yes.


But considering the track record of damn near everything else, there are worse things I could trust than the hard sciences.It is a matter of what you trust them to do. I trust certain websites to give my good music recommendations but I wouldn't trust them to predict the future course of human society. By all means trust science to come up with this that or the next thing. But it cannot tell you about social relations.