Transhumanisim

[Web Rider]

Since I didn't want to see the genetic engineering thread get into this and have a weird combo debate, I thought I'd make a separate topic.

 

In a nutshell, transhumanism is the belief that technology will overcome the problems inherent in the human condition. Longevity, disease, health, weakness, disconnectedness, ect... In short, it's the technological counterpart to eugenics and genetic engineering.

 

Transhumanism is the backbone of the technology industry, portraying each advancement in technology as chipping away at the wall of all those petty little things that humans do/can't do, that are generally considered faults in humanity.

 

So I'm curious, comparatively to the gentic modification idea, would you be more for or against mechanical modification, and just what you're general thoughts are?

[Jae Onasi]

I think we're headed in that direction already with artificial limbs, mechanical hearts, ventilators (e.g. for quadriplegics who don't have adequate diaphragm activity). If it's an adjunct to our humanity, that's fine. If it somehow replaces humanity, that could become problematic.

[Web Rider]

I think we're headed in that direction already with artificial limbs, mechanical hearts, ventilators (e.g. for quadriplegics who don't have adequate diaphragm activity). If it's an adjunct to our humanity, that's fine. If it somehow replaces humanity, that could become problematic.

 

Replaces humanity? How so? You mean like mechanical humanoids who do our work? Or physical alteration to the point that we lose what makes us "human"?

 

There's a variety of arguments along that line on the Wiki transhumanisim page, but I didn't read them.

 

So what makes us "human" in your mind? And to what extent would technological alteration make us lose whatever that is?

[El Sitherino]

We're already machines, the way I see it "cybernetics" is basically the duct tape on our fender. I see no issue with it.

[MdKnightR]

I have said for years that I hope to live long enough to see someone invent a way to digitize the human consciousness so that our thoughts and knowledge as individuals will outlive our physical bodies. I know it sounds far fetched, but I'm certainly not the original thinker of such things.

 

Take for instance the movies Freejack and The Sixth Day. They offer an interesting perspective on such things. It was interesting that The Sixth Day seemed to be meant to show the evils of human cloning, but I found myself desiring that such a technology existed. The technology itself, IMHO, wouldn't be bad, but how people used it could be. If that kind of cloning did exist, and a backup of my consciousness could be downloaded into it, it would be the next best thing to everlasting life.

[Ray Jones]

I think that this might look risky and creepy to us today but there was also a time when cars were considered utterly useless and their speed of 10-20 mph was seen as silly and deadly.

 

My point is, whatever we might be able to do and will do to our bodies, will, to some degree, belong to our evolutionary path in the long run. Insane is correct when he says we *are* machines, from a certain point of view.

 

If we manage to repair/rebuild/enhance/control our bodies in a way that will not cause them to explode when brought together with water, the evolutionary machinery will do the rest. Whether this fits into any current view on things, or if "original" humans will be replaced in 1 million years is rather unimportant. One species replaces another because that's how it is since the beginning of life.

[SilentScope001]

Of course, there is ALWAYS the possiblity transhumanism will create new technologies, but innate human nature always intervene and use those technologies for other actions than what the Transhumanists thought possible.

 

Or transhumanism doesn't work at all. Remember jetpacks?

 

Just stay alert. In 50 years, we'll find out.

[Corinthian]

I don't like it. I'm rather partial to being a bleeding, fleshy meatbag.

[PoiuyWired]

I think we're headed in that direction already with artificial limbs, mechanical hearts, ventilators (e.g. for quadriplegics who don't have adequate diaphragm activity). If it's an adjunct to our humanity, that's fine. If it somehow replaces humanity, that could become problematic.

 

Which brings us to the point... WHAT REALLY IS HUMANITY.

 

I mean, humanity should not be defined by having so-and-so pieces of flesh and bones on the bory, or looking like this and this. Physical forms are useufl, but really it is not the definition of humanity. Hack, with so many mental aids and stuff we use nowadays even our brain function is greatly aided by too the things we have.

 

While I would be happy to be able to choose to die and rot, I do think that there is really nothing wrong to get a few upgrades to our body, to make it safer, better and more effective. Obviously maintinancemay be a problem in the short run, but so did everything once upon a time in the beginning.

 

But yeah... brain in a jar with spider legs... sounds fun. Though my love may complain about the lack of kissyness of my grey matter.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I don't like it. I'm rather partial to being a bleeding, fleshy meatbag.

So no glasses, contact lenses, artificial limbs or organs, hearing aids, or whatever else for you, should the need arise?

[Q]

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

[PoiuyWired]

So no glasses, contact lenses, artificial limbs or organs, hearing aids, or whatever else for you, should the need arise?

 

I am partially agreeing with him. Well, I am happy with my glasses, and I will probably need hearing aid when I am old and limp, and hopefully not earlier. Should the need arise I would happily get a robotic arm or two, though IT SHOULD BE either a rocket fist or is swappable with a hyper combat drill, or that megaman/cobra handgun.

 

But if I really need some robotic organ to stay alive, then No Please No. I don't want my freedom of dying naturally to be robbed away (hack I don't have the freedom to take my life at least please let me die). Though it should note that Thank You for giving me a choice to take on those organs and live on should I choose to accept.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Why wouldn't you take an artificial heart or to stay alive? Is it any more natural to have a heart transplant or blood donation? Or, for that matter, to read using glasses?

[Web Rider]

I am partially agreeing with him. Well, I am happy with my glasses, and I will probably need hearing aid when I am old and limp, and hopefully not earlier. Should the need arise I would happily get a robotic arm or two, though IT SHOULD BE either a rocket fist or is swappable with a hyper combat drill, or that megaman/cobra handgun.

 

But if I really need some robotic organ to stay alive, then No Please No. I don't want my freedom of dying naturally to be robbed away (hack I don't have the freedom to take my life at least please let me die). Though it should note that Thank You for giving me a choice to take on those organs and live on should I choose to accept.

 

Yeah I'm equally confused here, you'd replace any given part of your body if it was damaged to the point of needing to be removed or it was destroyed somehow, but you wouldn't replace a lung, or a kidney? People already replace hearts, and that's more important than a lung or kidney(which you can live with only one of). Heck, think of it for Diabetics, they could have a new, working pancreas.

 

I don't see why you'd turn down an artificial organ but not an artificial arm. There's no difference.

 

Yeah, if you are on your deathbed naturally from old age, yeah, fine, but say you're 30 and you get shot in the stomach. You can be given a fake stomach and live the rest of your life. Why no to that and yes to glasses?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Thinking about it, you already have artificial stomachs. Only that they come in the form of plastic bag-like thingies that you attach to the outside of your body. Not very flattering.

 

But yes, what constitutes a natural death? Remember, there's very little medicine in nature. You don't even get CPR, far less more advanced things like defibrilation, controlled coma on a respirator until you wake up, and so on.

[PoiuyWired]

Well, my keyword is "CHOICE". I have no problems with people continuing their lives supported by the help of technology, in fact, cudos to them. It shows our dedication and value to life. And yes I do understand that it would be especially helpful to accident victims and such. Plus, it would be a more widely available alternative to the currently "natural" organ transplant.

 

I am just saying that I would really don't want to be 130 and being supported by a bunch of machines like a floating brain in a jar or something like that. Being enhanced by technology to overcome difficulties is one thing, being sustained by it is quite a bit different.

 

Personally I think that being able to die naturally one day is a bliss, in fact it gives me more initiative to life. I mean, I know I would be much lazier if I know that I would live til, say, 500, instead of the estimated 100 or so for my generation, granted that I don't need to save up retirement fund for 400 plus years.

 

Guess its the whole "nearly eternal life makes living meaningless" thing that I am fear about. Then again, the curiosity of any events after death would be some motivation also, whatever it is to one's believe.

[Jae Onasi]

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

 

 

Qliveur wins Best Post in this thread.

[Web Rider]

Well, my keyword is "CHOICE". I have no problems with people continuing their lives supported by the help of technology, in fact, cudos to them. It shows our dedication and value to life. And yes I do understand that it would be especially helpful to accident victims and such. Plus, it would be a more widely available alternative to the currently "natural" organ transplant.

But my question was as to why you would replace an arm but not a lung?

 

I am just saying that I would really don't want to be 130 and being supported by a bunch of machines like a floating brain in a jar or something like that. Being enhanced by technology to overcome difficulties is one thing, being sustained by it is quite a bit different.

And I get that, but lets take the Ghost in the Shell concept, where you're not some useless brain in a jar, but you've got a fully functional cybernetic body.

 

Personally I think that being able to die naturally one day is a bliss, in fact it gives me more initiative to life. I mean, I know I would be much lazier if I know that I would live til, say, 500, instead of the estimated 100 or so for my generation, granted that I don't need to save up retirement fund for 400 plus years.

I can't say I would be lazier, I think as a culture, humans are too hooked up in doing everything super fast, if we took things slower and paced ourselves more, I think we'd be better off. If we lived to say, 300 in good health, we could do things slower and still accomplish more. Not to mention if your body isn't going to degrade since it's robotic, social security is kinda a waste.

 

Guess its the whole "nearly eternal life makes living meaningless" thing that I am fear about. Then again, the curiosity of any events after death would be some motivation also, whatever it is to one's believe.

Immortality(the kind where you live forever in a youthful state and can't be destroyed), yes, that could make things rather tedious, but I don't think that living REALLY long is going to make living meaningless. There's ALWAYS going to be more to do in the universe, once you get one thing done, move on to another.

[El Sitherino]

Your brain will still most likely die off at a reasonably acceptable rate. So not to worry too much about the whole "immortal life" thing.

 

Me, I think I'd be in to it just for the Vader fanboyism.

[Corinthian]

Thanks but no thanks on that. Vader didn't exactly live in the Candy Mountain Cave.

[Web Rider]

Your brain will still most likely die off at a reasonably acceptable rate. So not to worry too much about the whole "immortal life" thing.

 

Me, I think I'd be in to it just for the Vader fanboyism.

 

I suppose that's the most complicated part to replace since we're not entirely sure what all of it does. Though I'm fairly certain that by the time we figure out every last function of the brain, we'll have a sufficiently advanced computer system that the "data" of your mind can be transferred into. If it's big and black and retains a 1x4x9 ratio, well then I'll start worrying.

[True_Avery]

Your brain will still most likely die off at a reasonably acceptable rate. So not to worry too much about the whole "immortal life" thing.

 

Me, I think I'd be in to it just for the Vader fanboyism.

Yeah. You can give yourself an entire robotic body, but eventually your brain will die due to natural causes. We have yet to find a way to download the brain itself, seeing as it processes faster than any known computer system, and even if we found a way to transfer over the computer could lack memory space, processing power, etc to have you existing in the same way you had before.

 

You can extend your life with mechanical pieces, but you cannot gain immortality through them. Now cloning, on the other hand, could make that kind of possible if you could transfer information from one brain to another.

 

And nothing we do to our body could be considered "natural" from a certain point of view. A hundred years ago, before advanced medicine, living past 30 was amazing. Now, the average human life span is about 70. We have blood transplants of blood that is not ours. We get organs from other people that are not ours. We have a number of things done to ourselves medically, and on a daily basis that would have never occurred naturally.

 

But, as Ray said, who is to say that this is not just evolution at work? We are getting closer to genetic engineering humans and transhumanisim. It is fast evolution, but it could still be defined as evolution if the altered humans end up having a better survival rate than "normal" humans.

 

And I get that, but lets take the Ghost in the Shell concept, where you're not some useless brain in a jar, but you've got a fully functional cybernetic body.

Haha, we are far far away from Ghost in the Shell technology... but so far that is the best representation of what humans could one day be, in my opinion. Prosthetic bodies and digital brains that can interact on a net, but with realistic limitations and problems. Love that anime.

 

Personally I think that being able to die naturally one day is a bliss, in fact it gives me more initiative to life. I mean, I know I would be much lazier if I know that I would live til, say, 500, instead of the estimated 100 or so for my generation, granted that I don't need to save up retirement fund for 400 plus years.

Lazier is one word. I prefer careful.

 

If we lived a lot longer, we could be less hasty in everything we do. We could be able to see the long term effects of our choices, instead of dieing and never seeing what happens. Education would be a lot longer and less forced on the young, for example. People could also be less, or more inclined to have bunchs of children.

 

Guess its the whole "nearly eternal life makes living meaningless" thing that I am fear about. Then again, the curiosity of any events after death would be some motivation also, whatever it is to one's believe.

If you lived a lot longer, how would life be meaningly? It would eventually get tiring and boring, but I doubt meaningless. Always more to learn, and a longer life brings forth more opportunity.

 

I am just saying that I would really don't want to be 130 and being supported by a bunch of machines like a floating brain in a jar or something like that. Being enhanced by technology to overcome difficulties is one thing, being sustained by it is quite a bit different.

Despite age, that happens a lot now. Due to people's beliefs and emotions, we can keep a terminal person alive for extended periods of time even if that person would like to die. Vegetables end up getting hooked up to machines and kept alive, even though they will never function ever again. The mentally handicapped would have been eaten at birth in the wild, but humans keep many of them alive through unnatural means, though if left alone some could die within ten minutes.

 

Humans use technology to keep terminal people alive way past their expiration date, but we will always attempt that with what we have. You cannot really avoid that.

 

Thanks but no thanks on that. Vader didn't exactly live in the Candy Mountain Cave.

Indeed, but he is still alive. You may not want to live like that, but I think we would be suprised how many people would sign up to get that done to them if they were very close to death. Everything eventually dies, but this could open up opportunity to live a little longer.

 

I dunno what I would do personally. Being kept alive when I am worn out and in pain does not seem all too pleasant. But outright dieing is not something I'm looking forward to at the moment either, seeing as I am questionable to the beliefs that there is in fact an afterlife. Comes down to the choice of living half alive, or not existing at all.

[tk102]

Sing along everyone:

I Am the Very Model of a Singularitarian!

[Tommycat]

Hmmm maybe its the mechanic in me, but I don't see replacing biological parts with mechanical as a way to go to a more stable platform. I've seen more mechanical devices fail more quickly than an arm/heart/legs/lungs. Sure they fail, but not as often as mechanical parts. The more mechanical parts you get the more likely something will fail. Being friends with an amputee, he says that he has to constantly go to have his arm adjusted.

 

I really don't see the point of it. Granted you could be stronger, or even tougher, but at the cost or the sensory loss, I personally wouldn't do it. It has its military applications, possibly even medical applications, but much of that you can do by remote rather than an actual replacement.

[Web Rider]

Hmmm maybe its the mechanic in me, but I don't see replacing biological parts with mechanical as a way to go to a more stable platform. I've seen more mechanical devices fail more quickly than an arm/heart/legs/lungs. Sure they fail, but not as often as mechanical parts. The more mechanical parts you get the more likely something will fail. Being friends with an amputee, he says that he has to constantly go to have his arm adjusted.

 

I really don't see the point of it. Granted you could be stronger, or even tougher, but at the cost or the sensory loss, I personally wouldn't do it. It has its military applications, possibly even medical applications, but much of that you can do by remote rather than an actual replacement.

 

To be technically(heh...) correct, your body is a super-advanced machine. The basic principles and designs in the human body are mimicked by almost every machine in existance, rotator cups, cooling system, electrical wiring for veins.

 

Of course the human body fails less, it's had ages to perfect itsself. Given we had that much time, I'm pretty certain we could do the same thing. Of course, we'd have a "machine" so human, it would probly be considered organic and not mechanical.