Transhumanism

pjkeeley · June 08, 2007, 01:12:24 PM

So we're atheists and we don't believe in an afterlife. And contrary to what believers think, we're happy. We each have our own individual outlook on life (unlike many believers who simply think what they're told). And we feel our beliefs about death give us reason to be moral and enjoy life.

But how do we feel about technologies that promise to radically change humankind? Genetic engineering, cybernetics, things like that. In the future we could have robots do all our work for us. We could cure all diseases, cheat death, alter our brains to remove suffering and amplify pleasure. We could becomes super-intelligent, upload ourselves into virtual realities or create some sort of hive-mind or shared experience. We could do just about anything.

But should we? If not, why not? I think all this stuff seems a bit scary but I'll be damned if I can come up with a consistent, rational explanation as to why I shouldn't want any of this, other than it might get a bit boring. As long as technology keeps advancing sooner or later we will have to make big choices about how we want to live, and since we're atheists we know there's no God to tell us what not to do. We have the responsibility of making up our own minds. And its damned hard!

... discuss.

(I'm not sure how much of this will be relevent to my lifetime. I'm 20 but there might not even be industrialised civilization in another 20 years time so who knows)

Tom62 · June 08, 2007, 01:58:33 PM

I'm quite happy to be a regular human being. Genetic engineering, cybernetics, etc. won't change us into "better" humans. Yes, we might be able to enhance our memory, intelligence, appearances, etc., but I doubt that it will make us happier or nicer than we are now.

joeactor · June 08, 2007, 02:05:52 PM

Quote from: "Tom62"I'm quite happy to be a regular human being. Genetic engineering, cybernetics, etc. won't change us into "better" humans. Yes, we might be able to enhance our memory, intelligence, appearances, etc., but I doubt that it will make us happier or nicer than we are now.

I'll take whatever help I can get!

... and trust me, a better memory would make me a nicer person... at least some of the time ;-)

If we're going to be replaced by robots, I wanna be one of them!
JoeActor

McQ · June 08, 2007, 03:21:00 PM

Nanotech, bionics, implants, genetic engineering. Yes, yes, yes, yes.

As has been said already here by joeactor , I'll take whatever help I can get!

SteveS · June 08, 2007, 11:39:18 PM

Quote from: "pjkeeley"But how do we feel about technologies that promise to radically change humankind? Genetic engineering, cybernetics, things like that. In the future we could have robots do all our work for us. We could cure all diseases, cheat death, alter our brains to remove suffering and amplify pleasure. We could becomes super-intelligent, upload ourselves into virtual realities or create some sort of hive-mind or shared experience. We could do just about anything.

The answers are fairly consistent so far, but let me chime and say all this sounds good to me, too.

I really hate it when people argue against genetic engineering (or research) because they say "it's wrong to play god". Or how about this one, "people will make all their kids tall, smart, blonde-haired and blue-eyed". Is that really so terrible? What if the benefits included never contracting any debilitating diseases (cancer, MS, organ-failure, etc.)? Choosing hair color is such an evil that we can't tolerate it, even if nobody ever got cancer again? Makes no sense to me.

Whitney · June 09, 2007, 01:35:12 AM

I have no problems with utilizing technology to make life better. However, the idea of transhumanism does bring into question what is a person. If we are ever capeable of downloading out thoughts and memories into a computer system or robot in such a fashion that lets the self live on indefinately....would that also mean that we would have to grant personhood to any created "self", such as robots which are able to have emotions, memories, a will etc? Personally, I wouldn't feel much like me if I didn't have my body...so much of life's greatests experiences are expereinced through touch. Maybe they will be able to replicate everything about the human body through robotics some day, but I think it is so far off in the future that it almost isn't worth entertaining at this point.

Will · June 09, 2007, 02:44:23 AM

Resistance is futile!!

Borg me up. It'll be a gas.

Scrybe · June 13, 2007, 12:03:49 AM

The moral behind the story of the film Gattaca comes to mind. The intrinsic problem with making us better is that it will inevitably not be evenhanded. (In any way I can think of.) The rich and privileged will get more so, and the poor shmoes will loose even harder.

McQ · June 13, 2007, 12:32:42 AM

Quote from: "Scrybe"The moral behind the story of the film Gattaca comes to mind. The intrinsic problem with making us better is that it will inevitably not be evenhanded. (In any way I can think of.) The rich and privileged will get more so, and the poor shmoes will loose even harder.

And this differs from all of human history how? :wink:

No, really, I understand what you're saying, Scrybe. I don't know if there really is that much difference though in what may happen and what has already happened. When you look at all of human recorded history, there has never been a time of "evenness" for all people at all times. And only in the last hundred years or so has there been any real progress of any kind toward something resembling it.

I didn't see Gattica, so I can't comment on it, but I don't believe that technology itself is a bad thing. We just keep using it badly. That will happen, unfortunately, with or without "transhumanism", etc.

Kind of stinks to know that with or without technology, we still will do all the good things and bad things we've always done. I do believe that with enhanced human technology, the chances of schmoes getting an even break is better. Just look at the difference between medicine 100 years ago and now. Even with all the current griping about inadequate health care around the world, what we have now sure beats the hell out of what was. And the important thing is that more people, including the schmoes, have access to it.

donkeyhoty · June 14, 2007, 09:13:40 AM

"I'm thinking about getting metal legs. It's a risky operation, but it'll be worth it."

If you can identify that quote, you're cool with me.

SteveS · June 15, 2007, 12:58:34 AM

I did see Gattica - remember the guy he was getting urine and blood samples from? He could do whatever he wanted, didn't get sick, didn't get cancer. I know in the movie it didn't make him happy, but .... I'm game. I'm sure it would help me!

It's like they say being rich doesn't make you happy. I'd sure like to try before I pass judgment on that!

Understand that tech advances (or transhumanism) aren't magic silver bullets that will solve all problems, but surely they'll make a lot of things better?

Zatarra · August 02, 2007, 12:53:58 PM

As soon as I saw the words 'genetic engineering' in pjkeeley's though-provoking post, I just knew someone would pull Gattaca out of their arse. McQ beat me to the punch by adducing the health care system, but I'll just reiterate: yes, rich people have access to better health care (esp. in the USA as I understand) but does that mean we shouldn't have any health care?
I think it's reasonably likely that (at least initially) it will be the well-to-do who will be able to afford having their embryos 'screened' for 'imperfections' and so forth. But will this create a genetic underclass as depicted in Gattaca? Quite unlikely IMO. The film depicts virtually all non-geneered* people (God-children as they're called) working as janitors and the like. As I understand it, in theory it's much easier to geneer physically fit individuals than 'talented' ones. In other words, it's easier to geneer a race of athletes than virtuosos or physicists.
So, while embryonic screening techniques may at first benefit the rich, and even eventually make it very difficult for natural-born children with working-class parents to become astronauts, athletes etc (where physical fitness is vital) it will not prevent them from having access to high-paying managerial etc. positions (where physical fitness is almost irrelevant) and thus won't lead to an 'underclass'.

*geneered= genetically engineered

MommaSquid · August 02, 2007, 07:22:21 PM

Quote from: "laetusatheos"I have no problems with utilizing technology to make life better. However, the idea of transhumanism does bring into question what is a person. If we are ever capeable of downloading out thoughts and memories into a computer system or robot in such a fashion that lets the self live on indefinately....would that also mean that we would have to grant personhood to any created "self", such as robots which are able to have emotions, memories, a will etc? Personally, I wouldn't feel much like me if I didn't have my body...so much of life's greatests experiences are expereinced through touch. Maybe they will be able to replicate everything about the human body through robotics some day, but I think it is so far off in the future that it almost isn't worth entertaining at this point.

As usual, our fearless leader has hit the nail on the head. When would we cease to be human? Sure, technology to improve health and happiness would be great, but people often take things too far simply because they can. What would that do to society? Aren't we screwed up enough already?

I wouldn't want an organ transplant, human or techy, to improve or extend my life...that's just me. I'm sure there are those who would gladly abandon their bodies altogether if it meant a longer existence, but would it really be a "life"?

Too many deep thoughts for me.

:borg:

MikeyV · August 02, 2007, 10:07:15 PM

Hook me up!

I, for one, want to live forever. Not that I'm afraid of death, but just to see what the world will be like 1000 years from now...count me in!

I missed out on the generation that saw the greatest change. Imagine being born in the late 1800's, early 1900's. You started life with covered wagons, and ended it with space shuttles...wow.

By the by...it's Gattaca, not Gattica. (G)uanine, (A)denine, (T)hymine, and (C)ytosine...the nucleotide bases of DNA. I love this movie. It has so many subtle references that science wonks find fun. For instance...Jude Law's character asks to be called Eugene, his middle name. Eugene in Greek is "Well born", and also implies Eugenics...the theme of the movie.

Uma Thurman's character is Irene Cassini, in tribute to Jean Cassini, the French astronomer, and the Cassini mission launched to study the moons of Saturn in 1997, the same year the film came out. In the movie, she was working on a launch to Saturn.

Several characters were named Anton, in reference to Orson Scott Card's novel Ender's Game. People that had Anton's Key, a genetic mutation, would die young of congestive heart failure...the same condition that Ethan Hawke's character had.

The PA announcements in the Gattaca corporation are in Esperanto.

McQ · August 02, 2007, 10:31:27 PM

I'm not so certain that being non-human would be such a bad thing. As long as I had my thoughts and memories, I'm still me. Being bionic, being trans-human wouldn't bother me a bit.

Humans aren't the end all be all of life on Earth. We're kind of the most destructive species to inhabit the planet. Anything to improve out rack record is OK by me.

News:

Transhumanism