Do you agree with transhumanism?

[salty mud]

Let's start with a definition:

Transhumanism (abbreviated as H+ or h+) is an international cultural and intellectual movement with an eventual goal of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.

Until recently, transhumanism was something found only in the likes of comic books, sci-fi films and to the human imagination. But as technology progresses, we are getting closer and closer to a state that could eventually be called "transhuman." I suppose what you would label as transhuman varies from person to person. A "minor upgrade" to someone may be seen as more serious to another. It could be argued that anything from simple eye corrective surgery to full limb replacement with added functions could be termed transhuman.

There's multiple things that people get upset about when discussing transhumanism. Some would argue it is a way of losing your humanity and the body life gave you when you were born. It could be termed "selfish" or a power-fantasy, trying to cheat death or improve what you already have. Is it wrong, for example, to theoretically reduce your risk of catching infectious diseases while those from poorer countries die by the dozen? Most of it comes down to morals, again varying wildly from person to person.

Personally, I'm open to the idea, to a point. I was born with bad eyesight. I have to wear glasses or contact lenses everyday to function. I know there are methods out there to repair my eyes in the form of laser surgery but that is only temporary and within 10 years my eyesight would once again be poor. If I could get new eyes guaranteeing me perfect vision that will last forever would I be open to the idea? I'd think about it.

I know it's all space age stuff, but in 20-30 years this discussion may be had once again. Where do you stand?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I find my body's more of a weight being dragged along instead of a temple of the mind.

 

[Silurian]

It is already starting to happen to a limited extent.

I am not sure how far it should be allowed to go.

 

[Borachio]

I'm not sure it matters where I stand on this issue.

If it can be done, is there any reason not to do it?

On a related note, while pondering on uploading a person's personality into a computer, the reverse prospect occurred to me. That is: if it's conceivable to do the former by reading someone's memories into a computer, why not the reverse?

I was a bit alarmed at the thought, to be honest. Though learning a skill that way might be useful.

 

[Antilogic]

This sounds like the plot to Orphan Black.

Are there specific limits on this definition? Because it sounds like it could be applied to modern medicine like your eyesight example above or new artificial limbs for amputees.

 

[Glassfan]

There's multiple things that people get upset about when discussing transhumanism...

Including the fact that the rich and powerful will enjoy the greatest range of benefits - as they do in all things. Superhuman intelligence, extended lifespans, enhanced physical prowess - not for commoners like us.

Some critics of libertarian transhumanism have focused on its likely socioeconomic consequences in societies in which divisions between rich and poor are on the rise. Bill McKibben, for example, suggests that emerging human enhancement technologies would be disproportionately available to those with greater financial resources, thereby exacerbating the gap between rich and poor and creating a "genetic divide".

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm fully in favor. If the price we pay for a polio vaccine is that rich kids get polio vaccines first, I'm not totally against the idea. The alternative is to suggest that no one should have houses, because the rich will have mansions. The entire idea of transhumanism is that augmenting technologies should drop in price over time. Now, good luck buying a Model T these days, but I figure being able to buy an economy car is a reasonable proxy.

In fact, I think we have a moral imperative to pursue transhumanism. If there are people suffering from a fixable problem, then that problem should be fixed!

And then there's augmentation. People see augmentation as going 'above' some type of 'baseline'. It's just a heuristic. If you suffer any relative (or absolute) disadvantage for being too weak, too slow, too dumb, too frail ... then it's okay to shuck away those traits.

What is transhumanism? To me, it's when we put a technology into a body to improve something. Vaccines, laser eye surgery, vitamin pill, brain-computer interfaces. External modifications? Ehn, it's great that amputees have crutches, don't get me wrong. I just don't think of it as transhumanism. Now, if you're modifying your body to gain an external modification? That might be different. Wake me when people chop off their legs in order to attach cyborg legs externally, and I'll likely change my definitions.

The issue arise when you have to buy a car, just to tread water financially. Yeah, that seems like a serious issue.

 

[Daird]

Yeah, El Mach, I agree with you. We should try to better this ugly old meatsack. It was great for 3.5 billion years, but we need upgrades. Bring on Kurzweil and Itskov, I say! And if it don't come fast enough for me, well, there's always the Philip J. Fry/Austin Powers plan as a backup.

 

[Smellincoffee]

I find the idea of becoming Borg-like repugnant.

 

[KevinLancaster]

You won't find it repugnant once you are assimilated .

I feel like if we don't destroy ourselves it might be the only way forward.

 

[azzaman333]

I'm not opposed to the idea, but the consequences it'd have on sport concerns me.

 

[Traitorfish]

I agree with the broad thrust of transhumanism- that we can, should and will become cyborgs- but the actual transhumanist movement always strikes me as a bit detached from reality. As Glassfan says, a lot of transhumanist ideas are formulated with little regard for the political or social realities of modern life.

I find the idea of becoming Borg-like repugnant.

Naturally; they're so inefficient! All that processing power, and you slave it to a single central processor? Bonkers! Network that stuff, ferchrissake! That's how bees do it, and they've been hive-minding for a lot longer than we have.

mischief:, yet also )

 

[Azale]

Including the fact that the rich and powerful will enjoy the greatest range of benefits - as they do in all things. Superhuman intelligence, extended lifespans, enhanced physical prowess - not for commoners like us.

Some critics of libertarian transhumanism have focused on its likely socioeconomic consequences in societies in which divisions between rich and poor are on the rise. Bill McKibben, for example, suggests that emerging human enhancement technologies would be disproportionately available to those with greater financial resources, thereby exacerbating the gap between rich and poor and creating a "genetic divide".

And the rich/powerful will deserve these upgrades because they are better than us, and they are better than us because they have these upgrades.

If we can package transhumanism in some good ol' fashioned egalitarian redistribution, I'm onboard!

 

[KevinLancaster]

Hmm, so what will happen if the rich take over the world. I mean, first they make themselves better, then they replace those who work for them with robots, then they kill everyone else for more resources (I mean, there will be no workers, the majority will lose wages, so they aren't even consumers anymore), then they start colonizing the solar system, then they explore the rest of space and repeat what they did on Earth, etc. Will they reproduce, or will they just live endless hedonistic lives and not worry about wealth distribution. Might get lonely and/or boring though.

 

[timtofly]

Survival of the richest. The poor will eventually die off and all that is left is the rich, and machines will be doing all the work.

 

[KevinLancaster]

Is that a desirable end for the human race?

 

[BvBPL]

There's multiple types of transhumanist thought. It may mean genetic modification, cybernetic enhancement, or other things.

Pharmaceutical enhancement of the human mind and body is among the most common means of transhumanist development. We have things like steroids and drugs to enhance learning ability and attention span. Pharmaceutical enhancement is the least expensive means to modify the human body because drugs can be produced en masse.

 

[timtofly]

Drugs being produced in mass is not the issue. It is the economics of profit margins that is the issue. It is still the people with the money making the money. There are even ways of modifying the drugs to make people think they are getting what they need and only those who fit a certain criteria will be able to get what is actually needed.

If it was humane to use human guinea pigs, we would probably be further ahead or so we have been led to believe.

 

[Narz]

I feel like if we don't destroy ourselves it might be the only way forward.

Agreed.

I agree with the broad thrust of transhumanism- that we can, should and will become cyborgs- but the actual transhumanist movement always strikes me as a bit detached from reality. As Glassfan says, a lot of transhumanist ideas are formulated with little regard for the political or social realities of modern life.

Also agreed.

I don't want to die so if you can replace my heart with an artificial one & put chips in my brain to keep it from dying, sure, sign me up. I don't really want to end up on a hard drive though, I'd like to keep my fleshy body if at all possible.

 

[GoodGame]

It will logically lead to social upheaval as you'd expect from the all the transhumanist science fiction.