Transhumanism

[SteveS]

We're kind of the most destructive species to inhabit the planet.

Our negatives aside, at least give us credit for our positives --- are we not the most creative and constructive species?

"What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals!"

 :wink:

[pjkeeley]

Returning to this topic for a mo', I've been thinking about transhumanism again and I've worked out what exactly it is that I don't like about the idea.

The basis for transhumanism seems to be rooted in Utilitarianism: happiness being the ultimate good, the best action is thus to maximise happiness. Suppose therefore that science one day makes the ultimate breakthrough: a machine that can provide its user constant, vivid happiness. As long as you are plugged in, you experience bliss your entire life. To me though there's some wrong with the idea of substituting a life of action for being plugged into a happiness machine. Yet rationally, if we hold happiness to be the ultimate good, surely those who plug themselves into the machine permanently will lead happier, and therefore better, lives?

This leads me to the conclusion that I guess I've probably always known but rarely acknowledged: a satisfying life requires a range of emotions, not just good ones. We want to be sad some of the time, why else would we read sad poems, watch sad movies or engage with our fellow human beings (who we know will sometimes make us sad)? We want to be angry some of the time, why else do we let ourselves get mad over trivial things, let ourselves become emotionally committed to arguments, discuss politics? The truth is, we like being scared, confused, frustrated, lonely, bitter, and outraged AT LEAST some of the time. I would argue that not only do we enjoy these 'negative' emotions for their own sake, but they also help us to appreciate just how wonderful it is to be happy, and how beautifully bitter-sweet life really is.

So if we eliminate the bad and 'amplify' the good, what do we become? I say transhumanism is not about 'transcending' humanity, but about becoming less than human. How would a digital simulation of me live a more fulfilling life in a simulated world of my own making? I would argue that since we would be no longer restrained to the unpredicable nature of reality, boredom would become inevitable. In the same vein, do we really want or need an absence of physical pain, let alone emotional pain? Doesn't the numbness of 'overcoming' pain and becoming more like machines seem more like a nightmare than a dream? I'm being melodramatic of course, but I think in a crucial way the best argument against transhumanism isn't rational, it's very much an emotional response.

I'm not saying it's all bad. I think transhumanism is a pretty vague blanket term. I think if we just define it as simply humans intervening in aspects of our nature, then transhumanism has been taking place ever since humans started using tools, or at least when we developed medicine. And I think there are some important medical breakthroughs yet to come that will improve the conditions of life for a great many people. But in terms of improving our conditions of life, I see the sensible cut-off point as being when your physical and mental state becomes equivalent to a healthy, sane, fit, able-bodied human being. The goal of every other development should be to sustain this ideal. Because the ultimate goal for human potential, it seems to me, is there right in front of us! That is to say, if you are unsatisfied with what life has to offer for a 'normal' person as described above, you're unlikely to find anything better in the promises of transhumanism.

The most important means for improving people's lives should therefore be political, because at the moment the promise of improving our lives by transhumanism would seem a little daft to someone who doesn't even have enough food to eat or a roof over their heads. I don't mean that we need some sort of utopia before we can even acknowledge transhumanism, I just mean that morally speaking, surely everyone's basic needs should be met first? When that day comes I feel that transhumanism should ultimately be a choice. If those who can afford to do so choose to want to alter their humanity, they shouldn't be stopped. But the problem then becomes: what happens to the people who choose not to or are unable to? Will we be able to live alongside neo-humans? What will be the social implications? This was discussed in other posts and I think it's a very important question.

To sum up my argument: just because humanity doesn't seem to be perfect, doesn't mean we should stop being human. I think one day we will come to realise that it was the imperfections all along that made being human worthwhile.

Transhumanism is hubris.

[McQ]

Lots of good thoughts here to play with and discuss.

Returning to this topic for a mo', I've been thinking about transhumanism again and I've worked out what exactly it is that I don't like about the idea.

The basis for transhumanism seems to be rooted in Utilitarianism:

Agreed, if what you mean is that TH is more about utility and function than anything else.

happiness being the ultimate good, the best action is thus to maximise happiness.

This would not be my idea of the point of TH. My point with TH is improving life of any sort by available means. I don't view it as the search for ultimate happiness.

Suppose therefore that science one day makes the ultimate breakthrough: a machine that can provide its user constant, vivid happiness. As long as you are plugged in, you experience bliss your entire life. To me though there's some wrong with the idea of substituting a life of action for being plugged into a happiness machine. Yet rationally, if we hold happiness to be the ultimate good, surely those who plug themselves into the machine permanently will lead happier, and therefore better, lives?

Since TH isn't really all about the search for happiness, I can't agree with the preceding "what if" scenario. We could do the "suppose that" or "what if" all day long, but if the assumptions are faulty, the "what if" scenario is pointless.

This leads me to the conclusion that I guess I've probably always known but rarely acknowledged: a satisfying life requires a range of emotions, not just good ones. We want to be sad some of the time, why else would we read sad poems, watch sad movies or engage with our fellow human beings (who we know will sometimes make us sad)? We want to be angry some of the time, why else do we let ourselves get mad over trivial things, let ourselves become emotionally committed to arguments, discuss politics? The truth is, we like being scared, confused, frustrated, lonely, bitter, and outraged AT LEAST some of the time. I would argue that not only do we enjoy these 'negative' emotions for their own sake, but they also help us to appreciate just how wonderful it is to be happy, and how beautifully bitter-sweet life really is.

I agree with all of this, at least in the context of being human (which, of course, we are). But TH is about something different. In fact, TH may be about becoming something VERY different than human in the long (very long) term.
This is where TH loses most people, because we WANT to be human. However, there are those who believe that humanity is not the end-all, be-all of life, and that being human is simply being one of countless species of life on Earth. No more special, no less special. No more purpose, and no less, than any other life. This scares people (because we do have emotion and the ability to be self aware). But to play Devil's Advocate, why should it scare us?

The truth is that we ARE no more or less special than any other form of life, when you look at the entirety of life everywhere, not just on Earth, but invariably in the universe. And it is not about humans being happy, but being purposeful. Face it, humans aren't going to conquer the earth, disease, the environment, etc. THAT is the real hubris. Thinking that humans are special enough to be able to do all those things. TH is about trying to see what else is possible. We already try to modify life in every way we have thought of so far, so why not this too? The big thing to remember is that we have to do what we can without thinking that we own the planet and can arbitrarily destroy or harm other life in the process.  

So if we eliminate the bad and 'amplify' the good, what do we become?

Transhuman. No problem with that here.


This is a great discussion, but man, it takes me a long time to type this shit! LOL!

[SteveS]

For me, pjkeeley, its all about choice.  What I'm getting at is that I may choose to risk my life sailing across an ocean - but I would not choose to risk perishing of cancer just by going about my daily life - currently I am risking this although I did not choose to.  To me, this sort of technological transhumanism could give me the ability to avoid things (pain and disease, physical limitation, bad eye sight, rotten teeth, whatever else) that I am stuck with that I never would have chosen.

For the record, I would not choose to be plugged into the proposed happiness machine, mostly for all the reasons you listed.

One thing about this,

The most important means for improving people's lives should therefore be political, because at the moment the promise of improving our lives by transhumanism would seem a little daft to someone who doesn't even have enough food to eat or a roof over their heads.

I view politics and politicians as some of the biggest threats to my life, liberty and happiness!  I agree that someone without enough to eat or without a roof over the head is probably not at all interested in transhumanism -- but what does that have to do with the people who are?  Unless you're saying that the potential "transhumanists" should be prevented from exploring this area and should instead be spending their efforts improving the lives of the impoverished --- but I really can't agree with that at all.

[pjkeeley]

McQ, we have different ideas about what TH is. I can't imagine far enough into the future to envisage being a different species so I was just defining it as stuff like: cybernetics, virtual reality, genetic engineering, etc. so there are some points that you picked up on that only refer to those things.

I agree with you that human beings aren't any more or less significant than any other species. I never claimed we were. That's not why I object to TH. Where I disagree with you is here:

My point with TH is improving life of any sort by available means. I don't view it as the search for ultimate happiness.

and here:

it is not about humans being happy, but being purposeful.

I see happiness as being purposeful. It isn't the purpose for which we are born: there is no such purpose. We are, as you pointed out, insignificant. Happiness makes life worth living. The question for me is: can TH make us happier? On the face of it, it does seem so. But my argument is all about why I don't think it can. And if it can't, I don't think it's purposeful.

Overcoming physical pain is bad how? At least overcoming unnecessary pain. Also, I wouldn't want to become an emotionless "machine", but how bad is it to have better control of emotions, or mental illness, for that matter? I can't see the downside there.

Unnecessary pain is obviously something I think should be overcome and I think I covered that in my rant, re: medical benefits. Control over emotions is a different matter.

I guess I need to clarify my position more. I am pro-unpredictability. I like the idea that we don't really get to control our emotions. That we might potentially hurt ourselves sometimes. I feel that a wide range of human experience is necessary for a worthwhile existence and that includes the potential for suffering. It seems so harsh when I write it out like this, but it's what I actually believe. I think human existence as I know it is sufficient, and TH in at least as far as I conceive of it (I don't know how you define it) would be boring.

And where is the equality now? Even without TH, is the world equal? Will it ever be? In my opinion, this is one of the biggest points to make in favor of TH! Humans essentially suck with one another! We can do great things, yes, but there has NEVER been any equality in any human society. Like Animal Farm, "some pigs are more equal than others".

I don't want equality. Or at least, I am no so foolish as to believe it is possible. You are misinterpreting me. My point is this: suppose some of us decide not to become transhuman. If there are homo sapiens walking around alongside whatever other species you chose to become, will we get along? Who has the upper hand? See where I'm going with this? It's a little different from the inequalities between humans. It's precisely because we can't have equality that TH complicates matter so much more. These are valid questions to raise before we even begin to contemplate something like TH.

Face it, humans aren't going to conquer the earth, disease, the environment, etc. THAT is the real hubris.

I don't believe we will do those things either; I agree, it would be hubris to think so. It would also be boring. A world without those things sounds tedious to me.

For me, pjkeeley, its all about choice. What I'm getting at is that I may choose to risk my life sailing across an ocean - but I would not choose to risk perishing of cancer just by going about my daily life - currently I am risking this although I did not choose to. To me, this sort of technological transhumanism could give me the ability to avoid things (pain and disease, physical limitation, bad eye sight, rotten teeth, whatever else) that I am stuck with that I never would have chosen.

Fair enough.

I view politics and politicians as some of the biggest threats to my life, liberty and happiness!

Politicians? Yes! Politics? No. Politics is ideas. You just made a political statement right there, for example. Ideas can't threaten anyone's life or liberty or happiness, at least not until someone (eg. a politician) decides to act on them. When I said politics, I wasn't referring to the suited men that govern us.

[SteveS]

Politicians? Yes! Politics? No. Politics is ideas. You just made a political statement right there, for example. Ideas can't threaten anyone's life or liberty or happiness, at least not until someone (eg. a politician) decides to act on them. When I said politics, I wasn't referring to the suited men that govern us.

Okay;  I see what you mean --- and I agree with your response.

One other thing,

My point is this: suppose some of us decide not to become transhuman. If there are homo sapiens walking around alongside whatever other species you chose to become, will we get along? Who has the upper hand? See where I'm going with this? It's a little different from the inequalities between humans. It's precisely because we can't have equality that TH complicates matter so much more. These are valid questions to raise before we even begin to contemplate something like TH.

I think this is a valid concern --- but I think it is surmountable.  What if we encountered an intelligent but mostly peaceful, potentially cooperative, alien species?  We'd have the same sort of problem (although this event seems less likely that transhumanism to me --- although I'm not sure how I define transhumanism either, I guess to me this means maybe engineering children instead of letting haphazard biological reproduction do its thing; I'm not really prepared to list a concise and clear definition I suppose, but I would think genetic engineering would be a major component of what I would call TH).

I would say we would have to approach it the same way we approach humanity currently.  Maybe we're not all equal in practice, but we at least try to make us all equal in theory, right?  In other words, when a person is accused of a crime, or wants to purchase property, we only consider the actions of the person, not their race, DNA profile, sex, religion (or lack thereof  :wink:  ), etc.  At least, we're not supposed to  :roll:  

All I'm getting at is that I agree that your concern is valid:  I just don't think its enough to warrant leaving something with so much promise unexplored.  I also realize you didn't explicitly say we shouldn't explore it - I'm just spewing my thoughts on the matter.

As a speculation: if we could implement the lifestyle you laid out in your "Idleness" post (the one over here), where we're less competitive and more about just enjoying life in our own ways, wouldn't TH fit in okay?

[McQ]

pjkeeley, thanks for the response. I've been traveling a bit, and a little busy so I haven't had much time to dig into stuff here.

I think one of the things I failed to do was try to first make sure that we were talking about the same thing with TH. Thanks for bringing that up. I'm usually pretty good about coming to an agreement on terms and definitions before discussing complex issues. Got in a bit of a rush, and didn't do that this time.

I wish I had more time right now, but I'm supposed to be writing a review of an oncology paper, so I'm goofing off by coming in here!

Your points are well taken. I think this is such a fascinating (and frightening for many) subject. Hopefully, we'll be able to continue exploring it, but with my schedule right now and for the near future, I'm probably only going to be able to only briefly do so.

OK, back to Multiple Myeloma and all that fun stuff!

[tigerlily46514]

But should we? If not, why not?

Interesting question.  It is kinda hard to imagine it could ever get to the point you would HAVE to go along with it against your own will.  The people of the future will probably get to decide if this type bioengineering is available on a case by case basis.
I myself see no harm in scientist studying this and advancing it along.  Many cures may be found along the way.  If one wants it, fine.  I doubt it would be forced onto anyone.  

Like Laes, i think it is so far off, melding our minds into computers, it is only fun as an academic concept, not a viable threat.  I know some who can't meld their minds into an ordinary conversation, bah ha ha!!!

Each step along the way has been met with some resistance, but you know, having seen a teenager who no longer had to endure dialysis (which totally sucks for anyone who has never seen it)
because she got a kidney, i am all for it!!!!!!  But it was not FORCED onto her.  see? it'll probably continue on in a case by case basis, even into the future....

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

I SECOND THAT, McQ!!

[McQ]

As a way to clarify my idea of TH....

TH is more than just fixing problems with humans via transplants and bionics. Bionic prostheses do not change the human into another species.

What I am getting at with TH is the creation, or near creation of an entirely separate species. Trans-Human. I am all for screwing with nature, because we've been doing it as a species sine we've been a species. There is nothing sacreligious or deviant about it. It's just a matter of degrees. Where most of us get uncomfortable is when we talk about the creation of a species not compatible with humans, but still seeming human.

This is much closer than most people think, and it will happen, whether we like it or not.

Now, that said....do I want to be human?

Yes. I do. I don't want to live forever, and I don't want to be perfect. That's impossible. But I also am firmly convinced that humans are not the species that deserve the primary spot on the planet. For all of our wonderful achievements and potential, we are doomed to evolutionary failure because we are biologically weak and emotionally unprepared to deal with the discoveries we have made.

All the proof you need to see this is in the fact that we have religion. Period. Our need to believe in any myth is our Achilles Heel.  

How does TH help? It may not. But it may be a way to drop the pacifying need for that supernatural crutch and step out into a world of realism and progress.

This message brought to you by insanity. And Diet Canada Dry Ginger Ale.

[ReflectingNarcissist]

Transhumanism is merely the major eugenics of the contemporary era. I remain convinced that any kind of eugenics is wrong, and any kind of human advancement outside of mental caliber, intelligence, and perception is equally wrong.

In theory, and when one observes only the exterior, transhumanism is immaculate. Nobody wants physical human weakness, and everybody seeks to overcome imperfection. But, when one steps outside, and evaluates the subject wholly, they will discover shortcomings they could never of unearthed with a simple exoteric analysis.

As atheists, we apparently don't believe in a deity. As such, we can't believe that an objective morality, if one exists, has it's advent at the hands of a deity. That much is obvious. Arising from this, morality is nothing more than a value system by which we have claimed management to regulate commodity. Perfection, the idea of perfection atleast, is a commodity. When we attempt to integrate technology into the search for perfection, we blind ourselves to obvious problems because we see only the goal:perfection. We trap ourselves in a corner of a pristine paradise.

When perfection becomes measured by efficiency, everything changes. Perfection becomes a drug; we use it to escape pain and worry. Escape, but not eliminate. We aren't fixing a problem if we have to become artificial to become perfect. Because it's already been said good, I'll just quote:

a satisfying life requires a range of emotions, not just good ones. We want to be sad some of the time, why else would we read sad poems, watch sad movies or engage with our fellow human beings (who we know will sometimes make us sad)? We want to be angry some of the time, why else do we let ourselves get mad over trivial things, let ourselves become emotionally committed to arguments, discuss politics? The truth is, we like being scared, confused, frustrated, lonely, bitter, and outraged AT LEAST some of the time. I would argue that not only do we enjoy these 'negative' emotions for their own sake, but they also help us to appreciate just how wonderful it is to be happy, and how beautifully bitter-sweet life really is.

In order to become "efficient", and in order to become "perfect", we must experience the entire spectrum of things. If you will indulge, it is similar to the overman. In order to become "perfect" and remove themself from nihilism, one must embrace it first. However, we don't want to accept that. We're neurophobic. We want to ignore the implications of not only being fed happiness but the ability to block everything else out. That indeed makes us less than human.

It can be said that we are already on the advent of reliance on transhumanism. 70% of hospital deaths are due to the withdraw of support from machines. Is there a major difference?

For scientific inquiry, I support transhumanism. But I can't imagine the periphery of it's usage in controlled and non-controlled enviroments continuing to exist for very long. It wouldn't be long before regulation extended beyond a lab, and those in positions of power and authority could use it. When that happens, an individual could create their own definition of perfection, utilizing perfection in the form of a commodity.

[SteveS]

I see sort of a major divergence occurring in this thread.  In light of this, I must say that I concur dramatically with the following sentiment:

I think one of the things I failed to do was try to first make sure that we were talking about the same thing with TH. Thanks for bringing that up. I'm usually pretty good about coming to an agreement on terms and definitions before discussing complex issues.

To qualify, while McQ and pjkeeley identified this issue, I think the blame more properly lies with all of us.

To assist with this issue, and to elaborate on my position, I don't think TH involves becoming emotionless, or restricting our emotions to pleasure.  I see the issue more as eliminating non-chosen physical or biological hardships through genetic engineering and the incorporation of technology with our bodies.  Not because I believe this would benefit society, but because I believe this would benefit me.

If "liberty" is the ideal of allowing people to live by their own choices, free of arbitrary or external control, then I see my conception of TH as furthering the interests of liberty.  If I say that I desire to be sad, frightened, or upset at least part of the time, then this is a choice that I am making: my liberty should allow me to choose these options.  I would not agree with any aspect of TH that effectively limits or restricts our choices.

ReflectingNarcissist - I've got several responses to your post, although at times I found some of your thoughts hard to follow.  If I've misinterpreted or failed to understanding something please feel free to set me straight.  Also, apologies up front for my lengthy post - I find this topic thought provoking!

Transhumanism is merely the major eugenics of the contemporary era.

I don't agree, at least as I envision TH - eugenics implies disallowing reproduction, or encouraging reproduction, of people with undesirable/desirable inheritable traits.  The problem being that the people in control are choosing what is "desirable", not the individuals.  I don't agree with disallowing certain peoples to reproduce because I find this contrary to my libertarian principles - how is liberty served by restricting reproduction?  Also, I state that genetic engineering is an aspect of what I consider TH --- if I can engineer my own DNA then I don't have to worry about people with inheritable traits --- I'm throwing inheritance down the drain by choosing traits instead of letting good old fashion sexual biological reproduction choose the traits for me.  Can you see where I'm coming from on this?  If "the TH movement" begins to behave "eugenically" (if that's a word), then I will be among the first to protest.

In theory, and when one observes only the exterior, transhumanism is immaculate. Nobody wants physical human weakness, and everybody seeks to overcome imperfection. But, when one steps outside, and evaluates the subject wholly, they will discover shortcomings they could never of unearthed with a simple exoteric analysis.

Okay - personally I don't understand why accepting a seemingly random chance at developing diseases like cancer or blindness is in my best interest.  If you feel this is in your best interest, then my liberty-driven personal philosophy would say "feel free not to correct this in yourself, but don't tell me that I must live with these choices if I don't want to and have the means to not have to".  If I have failed to see a shortcoming in my choice, then I will live with it.  My point is that this should be my choice, not somebody else's.

morality is nothing more than a value system by which we have claimed management to regulate commodity.

I may not be entirely sure what you mean by this, but I would say morality is meant to regulate how we interact with one another --- while this may involve commodities, I certainly don't see this as restricted to commodities.

When we attempt to integrate technology into the search for perfection, we blind ourselves to obvious problems because we see only the goal:perfection. We trap ourselves in a corner of a pristine paradise.

Again - I would not define my interest in TH as a search for perfection - more like a search for freedom.  Perfection is such a troubling word - in no small way because none of us will agree on what is perfect!  If one or the other of us gets to decide what constitutes perfection, then how can I have liberty?  To see what I'm getting at, consider the following statement:

In order to become "efficient", and in order to become "perfect", we must experience the entire spectrum of things.

So says you --- so must we all agree?  If I must accept somebody else's definition of my own perfection, then all you've had me do is throw out the church of religion and replace it with the church of personal philosophy --- only its not my personal philosophy, its yours.  But, I would never tell you that you must agree with my ideal!  I would say we should each be allowed to seek our own.

Just a few further thoughts,

We aren't fixing a problem if we have to become artificial to become perfect.

Why is "artificial" any more or less perfect than "natural"?  I just plain don't understand this one.  If human beings are "natural", then aren't our actions and byproducts "natural"?  I find the distinction between "artificial" and "natural" meaningless, maybe even bordering on superstitious - what the heck difference does it make?

It wouldn't be long before regulation extended beyond a lab, and those in positions of power and authority could use it.

I would say "those with means could use it".  If the means are ethically and morally obtained, where is the problem?  Anyway, it seems like this objection is really a result of the fact that there are people in positions of power and authority.  They could abuse any commodity, as you've defined it, in similar fashion, right?  But the only way this situation perpetuates is because we reject the libertarian ideal;  I say we should not have people in positions of power (as in power over other people) and authority (as in authority over other people).  I don't care if its a priest, a scientist, or a philosopher - I don't want anyone to have authority over me.  Is the objection here that the people in positions of power and authority are merely making bad choices, and we should substitute them with others who make choices more to our liking?  Or, is it really that we should not allow people to have authority and control over others - and instead embrace the concept of liberty?

Partly this could be considered a pragmatic argument against TH - and I would agree that there are practical issues with the idea.  But these objections are pragmatic, not fundamental.  The reason I draw the distinction is because pragmatic issues of this nature are hardly a result of what TH is specifically;  a whole host of concepts would be subject to the same objections on the same basis.  So, maybe what we're really objecting to here is the structure of our society (plenty to object to, IMO).

When that happens, an individual could create their own definition of perfection

Continuing on my "libertarian" theme - I'd say this idea sounds perfect (no pun intended  :wink:  ).

[ReflectingNarcissist]

I don't agree, at least as I envision TH - eugenics implies disallowing reproduction, or encouraging reproduction, of people with undesirable/desirable inheritable traits.  The problem being that the people in control are choosing what is "desirable", not the individuals.  I don't agree with disallowing certain peoples to reproduce because I find this contrary to my libertarian principles - how is liberty served by restricting reproduction?  Also, I state that genetic engineering is an aspect of what I consider TH --- if I can engineer my own DNA then I don't have to worry about people with inheritable traits --- I'm throwing inheritance down the drain by choosing traits instead of letting good old fashion sexual biological reproduction choose the traits for me.  Can you see where I'm coming from on this?  If "the TH movement" begins to behave "eugenically" (if that's a word), then I will be among the first to protest.

Transhumanism and eugenics differ only in their modus operandi. Both wish to enhance the capabilities of their users and omit weakness. The wished eventuality of both are to see the users come out as a better group of people in some respect. If transhumanism went copious in everyday activity, do you honestly believe the state would not regulate it or that it would be accepted as common recreational purpose?

Okay - personally I don't understand why accepting a seemingly random chance at developing diseases like cancer or blindness is in my best interest.  If you feel this is in your best interest, then my liberty-driven personal philosophy would say "feel free not to correct this in yourself, but don't tell me that I must live with these choices if I don't want to and have the means to not have to".  If I have failed to see a shortcoming in my choice, then I will live with it.  My point is that this should be my choice, not somebody else's.

I'm just discussing transhumanism. Not transhumanism and it pertains solely to the individual or solely to the collective. However, since it is transhumanism in it's entirety, I'm going to view the issue from a more collective-leaning stance. The theory of transhumanism is a possibility for everyone, and thus individuals may decide rather or not they comply with it. I could say "Unless, of course, you don't agree with that." after all my statements. But, that would not only get tedious and redundant, but useless as it can automatically be assumed.

If you want transhumanism for yourself and you alone, then by all means fight for it. However, one of my major ideas is that exploiting transhumanism would be simple if it became methodical, and thus rather or not you want it may not be a factor.

I may not be entirely sure what you mean by this, but I would say morality is meant to regulate how we interact with one another --- while this may involve commodities, I certainly don't see this as restricted to commodities.

I was speaking metaphorically. As far as I define it, a commodity is anything we can use to serve our own needs and service. Rather it be a product one can purchase or an idea one can present.

Again - I would not define my interest in TH as a search for perfection - more like a search for freedom.  Perfection is such a troubling word - in no small way because none of us will agree on what is perfect!  If one or the other of us gets to decide what constitutes perfection, then how can I have liberty?

So says you --- so must we all agree?  If I must accept somebody else's definition of my own perfection, then all you've had me do is throw out the church of religion and replace it with the church of personal philosophy --- only its not my personal philosophy, its yours.  But, I would never tell you that you must agree with my ideal!  I would say we should each be allowed to seek our own.

I never attempted to define perfection. I merely referred to the concept of perfection. How one wishes to view perfection is their own. None have the right to state what constitutes perfection, unless they also state that they realize it is purely subjective. But for the sake of this discussion, I'll view perfection in terms of how it is used in transhumanism. That being the pinnacle of what human capacity can be.

Why is "artificial" any more or less perfect than "natural"?  I just plain don't understand this one.  If human beings are "natural", then aren't our actions and byproducts "natural"?  I find the distinction between "artificial" and "natural" meaningless, maybe even bordering on superstitious - what the heck difference does it make?

They differ in their eventuality. Artificial is anything imitation. But, more importantly, the things they are imitations of are meant to be paragons of what that thing is. When something is artificial, anything it is better then can be considered antiquated or obsolete. Thus, this can go back to the argument about how natural people (people as we are now) would be treated in a world where people with superior capabilities, outside of social hierarchy, exist. If transhumanism becomes fully inacted and humanity, in a corporeal, mental, and emotional sense; become truly simulated, it sets a bar for what is methodical. By proxy, it sets a bar by what can be commonly accepted. In this sense, anything below the bar can be considered unacceptable and, as a result, obsolete.

I would say "those with means could use it".  If the means are ethically and morally obtained, where is the problem?  Anyway, it seems like this objection is really a result of the fact that there are people in positions of power and authority.  They could abuse any commodity, as you've defined it, in similar fashion, right?  But the only way this situation perpetuates is because we reject the libertarian ideal;  I say we should not have people in positions of power (as in power over other people) and authority (as in authority over other people).  I don't care if its a priest, a scientist, or a philosopher - I don't want anyone to have authority over me.  Is the objection here that the people in positions of power and authority are merely making bad choices, and we should substitute them with others who make choices more to our liking?  Or, is it really that we should not allow people to have authority and control over others - and instead embrace the concept of liberty?

Partly this could be considered a pragmatic argument against TH - and I would agree that there are practical issues with the idea.  But these objections are pragmatic, not fundamental.  The reason I draw the distinction is because pragmatic issues of this nature are hardly a result of what TH is specifically;  a whole host of concepts would be subject to the same objections on the same basis.  So, maybe what we're really objecting to here is the structure of our society (plenty to object to, IMO).

Nothing assures the means are ethically and morally obtainable. That is the problem.
As well, most of my viewpoints have been from a pragmatic stance.

This obviously isn't the best thread for me to go into great detail on the subject, but for the sake of clarification I will say that I don't comply with a libertarion ideology. I used to consider myself a libertarian, however, so I can understand their positions and viewpoints. However, both libertarianism and transhumanism have the same problem. Both are great in theory. Who doesn't want absolute control over their lives? Who doesn't want to adopt a live and let live outlook to everything? If everybody just attended to their own business, their would be no conflict. People could practice what they wish without worry. No more strife. No more fighting. Just happiness.
But reality has a nasty habit of getting in the way of things.
If the world was comprised of a tiny island, there was a small population, everybody worshipped the same god, everybody was the same color, and everybody had the same amount of material goods, then yes, libertarianism could flourish. For a time. Gender superiority could arise. People would want more than their neighbors, and would most likely obtain these things by any means necessary. Congregations would be constructed, in which only the elite or the initiated would be welcomed.  People would want more control eventually, and seek to establish dominance. The population would get too high, and people would become either pro-life or pro-choice. As all these events occur, people would begin to view the world differently then they already had, and would begin differnt interpretations of god. Splinter factions would evolve from this, and disagreement would arise.
Of course, this is all assumption on my part. But it's assumption based on probability and empirical evidence.
When libertarianism is applied to transhumanism, we open a whole new dimension of debate. How would transhumanism exist in the realm of laissez-faire? As well, you must take into account biological determinism and decide what role this plays in individual liberty.

Continuing on my "libertarian" theme - I'd say this idea sounds perfect (no pun intended  :wink:  ).

Lol.

As I said previously, people have the right to construct their own idea of what is perfection. However, few people are content with just letting themselves know of their idea. They will want others to recognize it as well. Thus, what somebody considers perfect for someone else may be in direct contrast to what that person wants. With transhumanism, we are provided an answer to what implies perfection. Even if you prefer to think of it in terms of freedom, the majority don't. You have the freedom to wear what you want, but orthdox fashion sense dictates what is acceptable. To apply more to the subject of transhumanism, you have the freedom to operate on an ENIAC, but it is obsolete, and something more aptly called a "perfect" computer is readily available, and much more sensible. With transhumanism, you have the freedom to choose rather or not you want it done to you. But rather or not it is done to you is a different matter.

Sorry if I post this more than once or the format is messed up. I don't think the forum of the interface likes me very much.

[pjkeeley]

I see sort of a major divergence occurring in this thread.

Indeed. No one seems to agree on what constitutes transhumanism! Also, while I think libertarianism would be a good topic for further discussion in another thread, it might be best for the purposes of this discussion to assume that when transhumanism arrives we will be free to chose.

I don't have much else to add. Only these points:

if we could implement the lifestyle you laid out in your "Idleness" post (the one over here), where we're less competitive and more about just enjoying life in our own ways, wouldn't TH fit in okay?

Not necessarily. To clarify, I wasn't trying to say in that post that we should 'implement' anything, just that people on an everyday basis could be happier if they chose to be less competitive. Also, I never meant to suggest that idleness is a goal in and of itself. I like to be idle only because it happens to be when I'm most happy. And from my point of view, the purpose of anything is the way(s) in which it can contribute to our enjoyment of life. From this I concede that any technology that helps to keep us alive longer and in better physical health is worth advancing. But if (as I had assumed) altering our emotions is a transhumanist aim then I am against TH, because I find this self-defeating, for reasons I have explained. That is, by limiting ourselves to the pursuit of pleasure we are deprived of the range of emotions that contribute to our enjoyment of life.

If this point isn't relevent to a discussion about transhumanism per se then I apologise for having derailed the thread.

I also am firmly convinced that humans are not the species that deserve the primary spot on the planet. For all of our wonderful achievements and potential, we are doomed to evolutionary failure because we are biologically weak and emotionally unprepared to deal with the discoveries we have made.

McQ, how can it be that humans are, on the one hand, no better off than any other species, and at the same time worse off than transhumans? And if transhumans are no better off than us, then what good is transhumanism?

[SteveS]

Hey pjkeeley,

To clarify, I wasn't trying to say in that post that we should 'implement' anything

I understand - "implement" was a poor choice of words on my part.  I was struggling with how to express this - I probably should have said "realize" instead of "implement".

Also, I never meant to suggest that idleness is a goal in and of itself. I like to be idle only because it happens to be when I'm most happy.

I understand this too --- to reinforce my feeling on this, I would say that if this is how you're most happy than you should be allowed to pursue this.  Nobody should force you to refrain from being idle simply because they don't agree with idleness.

ReflectingNarcissist - suffice it to say that I accept your clarification in totality (I just don't totally agree with it).  My disagreements would be along the grounds that I've already covered.  The only things I'd like to "pull out" and recognize explicitly are:

Transhumanism and eugenics differ only in their modus operandi.

Understood - but it is the "modus operandi" of eugenics that I specifically object to - not the goal.

By proxy, it sets a bar by what can be commonly accepted. In this sense, anything below the bar can be considered unacceptable and, as a result, obsolete.

Sure - but presumably we would not all agree - "natural" humans may not feel they're obsolete at all.  They may value the way they are.  Where TH would go wrong is if the "obsolete" or "undesirable" are forced to change - as long as individuals are able to determine whether or not they should change then I don't see a philosophical problem with allowing them to do so.  "Undesirable" is just as subjective as "perfect".

But reality has a nasty habit of getting in the way of things.

I agree - my views on the topic of "libertarianism" are admittedly idealistic.  As such, they are subject to pragmatic concerns.  Since they are idealistic, I can't really recognize them without qualification.  Where they have value to me is as a "guideline", if you will.  I use my ideals to guide my actions.  There's always going to be messy grey zones in application, so my views can't be said to be complete.  To reiterate, I certainly do agree that there are pragmatic issues with this topic of transhumanism.

Since I'm unprepared to offer a better, more complete definition of what "transhumanism" is, I can't see that I have much more to offer on the topic.  Any opinion I have regarding embracing or rejecting TH is going to be heavily influenced by my philosophical/political views (as was probably made clear  :wink:  ), and I agree that this is not the best place to go into these details.  So, I'll happily let my views stand here as is.

Cheers all for a lively and engaging topic!

[Enigma]

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:

Why does it matter so much that you remain human?  What if it could offer something much better than being just human?  Are you saying you would just be content being not as good as you could be?