Transhumanism

Is Transhumanism the way to go?!

  • It is a scientific inevitability if humanity is to survive

    Votes: 8 57.1%
  • It is possible and desirable

    Votes: 4 28.6%
  • Such advancements are not desirable (Explain)

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • It's pure science fiction, such advancements will never happen.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    14

WhiteBeastofWotan

Apostitutes!
May 22, 2003
31,057
123
63
36
Philly
Visit site
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

Key points for the lazy:

Transhumanism is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of science and technology to improve human mental and physical characteristics and capacities. The movement regards aspects of the human condition, such as disability, suffering, disease, aging, and involuntary death as unnecessary and undesirable. Transhumanists look to biotechnologies and other emerging technologies for these purposes. Dangers, as well as benefits, are also of concern to the transhumanist movement.[1]
While many transhumanist theorists and advocates seek to apply reason, science and technology for the purposes of reducing poverty, disease, disability, and malnutrition around the globe, transhumanism is distinctive in its particular focus on the applications of technologies to the improvement of human bodies at the individual level. Many transhumanists actively assess the potential for future technologies and innovative social systems to improve the quality of all life, while seeking to make the material reality of the human condition fulfill the promise of legal and political equality by eliminating congenital mental and physical barriers.

Transhumanist philosophers argue that there not only exists a perfectionist ethical imperative for humans to strive for progress and improvement of the human condition but that it is possible and desirable for humanity to enter a transhuman phase of existence, in which humans are in control of their own evolution. In such a phase, natural evolution would be replaced with deliberate change.

Some theorists, such as Raymond Kurzweil, think that the pace of technological innovation is accelerating and that the next 50 years may yield not only radical technological advances but possibly a technological singularity, which may fundamentally change the nature of human beings.[40] Transhumanists who foresee this massive technological change generally maintain that it is desirable. However, some are also concerned with the possible dangers of extremely rapid technological change and propose options for ensuring that advanced technology is used responsibly. For example, Bostrom has written extensively on existential risks to humanity's future welfare, including risks that could be created by emerging technologies.[41]
Controversy

Transhumanist thought and research depart significantly from the mainstream and often directly challenge orthodox theories. The very notion and prospect of human enhancement and related issues also arouse public controversy.[78] Criticisms of transhumanism and its proposals take two main forms: those objecting to the likelihood of transhumanist goals being achieved (practical criticisms); and those objecting to the moral principles or world view sustaining transhumanist proposals or underlying transhumanism itself (ethical criticisms). However, these two strains sometimes converge and overlap, particularly when considering the ethics of changing human biology in the face of incomplete knowledge.

Critics or opponents often see transhumanists' goals as posing threats to human values. Some also argue that strong advocacy of a transhumanist approach to improving the human condition might divert attention and resources from social solutions. As most transhumanists support non-technological changes to society, such as the spread of civil rights and civil liberties, and most critics of transhumanism support technological advances in areas such as communications and health care, the difference is often a matter of emphasis. Sometimes, however, there are strong disagreements about the very principles involved, with divergent views on humanity, human nature, and the morality of transhumanist aspirations. At least one public interest organization, the U.S.-based Center for Genetics and Society, was formed, in 2001, with the specific goal of opposing transhumanist agendas that involve transgenerational modification of human biology, such as full-term human cloning and germinal choice technology. The Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future of the Chicago-Kent College of Law critically scrutinizes proposed applications of genetic and nanotechnologies to human biology in an academic setting.

Some of the most widely known critiques of the transhumanist program refer to novels and fictional films. These works of art, despite presenting imagined worlds rather than philosophical analyses, are used as touchstones for some of the more formal arguments.

1) It is a scientific inevitability if humanity is to survive
2) It is possible and desirable
3) Such advancements are not desirable (Explain)
4) It's pure science fiction, such advancements will never happen.
 
Sure it is desirable, but a massive transhumanist movement is not going to take the world by storm. The problem with these utopian world goals is that they are ultimately doomed to failure, as they don't take kind to dissenting world views. Yet again, as said in the other thread, it is an issue of clashing values between cultures and subcultures. People need the freedom to live however, even if it means being in the dark and burying live children for simply being born at the same time and the shaman says so.

Jeff
 
The biggest problem will be the social class distinctions that will result out of those more fortunate being able to afford better or "superior" enhancements than those of a lower social class to the point of not being able to afford any. I'm pretty sure that unless you live in france or england, whatever socialized healthcare system you've got in your country won't cover the new cyborg sonic hearing implant that just came out. Besides that, you still got a got 75% of the world as being a religious nut right now so you can expect a fuckton of mutinies, insurrection, and just relentless upheaval against your blasphemous godtoys. Then again, if it were up to me, I would just seize the vatican, set up a giant PA system, and blare Dechristianize and Icons of Evil until everyone's ears rupture. Or they move into a ditch and die.
 
If it was done right, that is to say if the "advancements" were able to be made accessible cheaply, it would eliminate the possiblity of the whole "gattaca" problem.


BTW, Dawn of the Apocalypse is better than both those albums.
 
I said it in the other thread, but i think the whole "point" of our sentience is the ability to overcome nature (which is vile, violent, and dirty) and create our own path.
 
I said it in the other thread, but i think the whole "point" of our sentience is the ability to overcome nature (which is vile, violent, and dirty) and create our own path.
Yeah, that's what mankind aims for. But I actually think we could step back a little.. Especially in that whole genetic engineering / gene technology field. I'm personally not very fond of it.
 
Battle Angel- Watch this guy :lol: He talks about this shit all the time. And is funny as hell, in his own depressive kind of way:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUjJ1CL-ANc&feature=channel_page[/ame]

He just made this video a few minutes ago too, haha
 
I'm ok with getting people an extra set of arms, and engineering spiked/horned demon tails and giant wings. But no change in natural eye color or hair color. As a fellow wielding blue eyes and brunette hair, the uncommonality of it seems to work my way just fine with ladies :D
 
Down with it. It hardly means we'll all become Robocop, but I think the human organism is ripe for all forms of enhancement, and I think many transhumanists believe a human will be born sometime before 2050 that can live to the age of 300.

I think this is all somewhat inevitable. What interests me more is the psychological impact of living to the age of 300, and also how it would affect culture and society. If, for example, you knew you had 300 years on this earth - would you choose to spend it all with one partner? or would it become common to separate life into chunks of, say, 80 years and then move on to a completely new "life"? I find that fascinating.
 
I'd do it. Long as Aaron Diaz stays the hell away from me... fucking prick.

Down with it. It hardly means we'll all become Robocop, but I think the human organism is ripe for all forms of enhancement, and I think many transhumanists believe a human will be born sometime before 2050 that can live to the age of 300.

I think this is all somewhat inevitable. What interests me more is the psychological impact of living to the age of 300, and also how it would affect culture and society. If, for example, you knew you had 300 years on this earth - would you choose to spend it all with one partner? or would it become common to separate life into chunks of, say, 80 years and then move on to a completely new "life"? I find that fascinating.

I'd probably spend most of it alone, just observing time pass, and technological and scientific progress advance... This is one of my secret dreams. To live for hundreds of years, just to be an observer.