Transhumanism h+

[Subduction Zone]

Unfortunately, apples taste good. We'll keep eatin' 'em.
Have you noticed that dying seems systemic? Everybody does it. Seems kinda like a plan.

No plan needed. Why do you think that there is one?

 

[MikeF]

What are your thoughts on the philosophy of transhumanism?

Transhumanism - Wikipedia

"Transhumanism is a philosophical and intellectual movement which advocates the enhancement of the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies that can greatly enhance longevity and cognition....
Some transhumanists believe that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into beings with abilities so greatly expanded from the current condition as to merit the label of posthuman beings."

Do you think this is a good idea, or a dangerous endeavor? Using technology to fundamentally change oneself to something other than human?

Humans, genus Homo, has never been anything other than in transition, as is true for all life. Change is the only constant, only guarantee.

Change, however, is incremental enough that each new generation sees as "normal" the environment in which they are raised and can adapt and adopt some change to that baseline. The baseline, then, is constantly shifting for each subsequent generation. Any shock and horror we may feel if we met our cyborg descendants of 500 years hence would probably be reciprocated with pity towards us in our primitive state.

Whatever we evolve into will be "normal", the standard of what it means to be Homo at that point in time.

 

[We Never Know]

What is the evidence, where are the precedents for a bad outcome?
Do they outweigh what pacemakers, prosthetics and other tech have done?

To name one...climate change

 

[Nakosis]

What are your thoughts on the philosophy of transhumanism?

Transhumanism - Wikipedia

"Transhumanism is a philosophical and intellectual movement which advocates the enhancement of the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies that can greatly enhance longevity and cognition....
Some transhumanists believe that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into beings with abilities so greatly expanded from the current condition as to merit the label of posthuman beings."

Do you think this is a good idea, or a dangerous endeavor? Using technology to fundamentally change oneself to something other than human?

I suspect it will gradually as is gradually happening so eventually it will become acceptable and is the norm.
The technology we already have has the potential for abuse. So there will probably be misuse of it but society will find ways to curtail the abuse it will be in all of our best interests.

It will probably start out simply like an earphone implant or a medical device to monitor your health. Something beneficial that will outweigh all of the risks.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I say let the chips fall where they may.

A lot of folks here seem to be concerned that our morality will not advance with the technology, that some would use it for greed or that some would use it for war... I think that longevity is better nonetheless, because that gives us more time to learn and grow from our mistakes as a species. The world is not rainbows and unicorns, but in the more developed countries our moral standards are better than they were in the 1500s, for example. Good will prevail, or if it doesn't then the society will not last.

 

[The Hammer]

I think that his point was that any invention can be abused but for the most part their uses are positive. The spear's ability to gather more food provided life for far more people its use as a weapon killed people.

If one only focuses on the negative we would still be starving savages wondering how to light a fire.

I know what they meant. But their point subsequently proves mine. (You can't have one without the other).

I don't think our species was ever "starving savages" regardless of our technological abilities or lack thereof.

 

[The Hammer]

Unless humans gain wisdom at the same pace as they gain technological functionality, the species is doomed, and sooner rather than later.

Yup, my thoughts exactly.

 

[Heyo]

To name one...climate change

Yep, that is a problem. And as I see it, it is also one, technology may get us out of.
The alternative, back to horse and buggy will not have much acclaim. We are already addicted to tech.

 

[Heyo]

Unless humans gain wisdom at the same pace as they gain technological functionality, the species is doomed, and sooner rather than later.

Yep, but we are also doomed without technology. Take away all technology developed in the last 200 years and within 20 years we will have the population of the early 19th c.
The problem is less the tech and more the lack of wisdom.

 

[WalterTrull]

No plan needed. Why do you think that there is one?

Well… everyone dies, and roughly after about the same number of years. We inhabit bodies that are apparently self-healing, but only for a while. Kinda counter intuitive. Seems like we should have a bunch of thousand-year-olds around. Nope.

To me, the appearance of a structured life cycle implies a plan. I adhere to the mental universe theory, however, and have hope that this iteration of our apparent cycle is merely the viewable segment of a much longer, possibly infinite, continuum. The question often on my mind though: “Is the psyche bound to the apparent cycle?”. I guess we’ll see (or not).

 

[PureX]

Yep, but we are also doomed without technology. Take away all technology developed in the last 200 years and within 20 years we will have the population of the early 19th c.
The problem is less the tech and more the lack of wisdom.

If there is a correlation between functional knowledge and wisdom, it appears to runs antithetically. The more clever we get (in the pursuit of increased functionality) the less wise we become. When was the last time we chose NOT to chase functional knowledge because the result appeared to be unwise to pursue? The answer is never. We never choose wisdom over increasing functional knowledge. While we do choose increasing our functional knowledge over the practice of wisdom all the time.

 

[MikeF]

If there is a correlation between functional knowledge and wisdom, it appears to runs antithetically. The more clever we get (in the pursuit of increased functionality) the less wise we become. When was the last time we chose NOT to chase functional knowledge because the result appeared to be unwise to pursue? The answer is never. We never choose wisdom over increasing functional knowledge. While we do choose increasing our functional knowledge over the practice of wisdom all the time.

I don't see that humanity (on average across the whole of it) is any more or less wise than it has ever been, nor do I expect that to change.

What has changed, on average, is the standard of living. That I see continuing, and is aided by what you term "functional knowledge".

 

[PureX]

I don't see that humanity (on average across the whole of it) is any more or less wise than it has ever been, nor do I expect that to change.

What has changed, on average, is the standard of living. That I see continuing, and is aided by what you term "functional knowledge".

It's already failing, and in just a few hundred years. And we will not survive a few hundred more unless we somehow make some huge leaps in terms of wisdom, not technology. Otherwise we are going to destroy ourselves with all that technological functionality that we already have. We must face and address our innate greed. We must face and address our instinct for violence as a solution to our problems with each other. We must learn to recognize that the drive for power and the will to control everything and everyone around us are the main indicators that one we insufficiently suited to take on those responsibility of doing so. And we need to learn to see ourselves as members of a collective human experience, and not just as individuals being forced to share our human experience with others. And we need to learn these lessons soon, because we're running out of time.

And technology is not going to help us in this regard. All it's going to do is continue to distract us with fantasies of magical "techie" solutions that are not going to solve anything.

 

[Heyo]

If there is a correlation between functional knowledge and wisdom, it appears to runs antithetically. The more clever we get (in the pursuit of increased functionality) the less wise we become. When was the last time we chose NOT to chase functional knowledge because the result appeared to be unwise to pursue? The answer is never. We never choose wisdom over increasing functional knowledge. While we do choose increasing our functional knowledge over the practice of wisdom all the time.

When was the last time functional knowledge proved to be unwise?
In fact, our functional knowledge is so successful that our morals and ethics can't keep up. That doesn't mean that they didn't improve. At no time in history humanity was more moral and less violent than today. That is in part a result of the technologies that keep us healthy and happy.
But I agree with you that we have to grow and we have to develop an ethics that lets us handle future technologies without killing ourselves.

 

[PureX]

When was the last time functional knowledge proved to be unwise?

You kidding me? Systemic capitalism, the constant ongoing race for ever-more deadly and destructive weapons, industrial pollution, the 'space race', planned obsolescence, the drug epidemic, ... what advance in technological functionality HAVEN'T we unwisely abused???

At no time in history humanity was more moral and less violent than today.

And yet, at no time in history were we ever this close to annihilating ourselves as a species, and destroying the Earth is we know it. So apparently, "morality" is relative to functionality. And because our functionality has so outstripped our morality, we are effectively far LESS moral than we ever have been, historically.

 

[Heyo]

You kidding me? Systemic capitalism, the constant ongoing race for ever-more deadly and destructive weapons, industrial pollution, the 'space race', planned obsolescence, the drug epidemic, ... what advance in technological functionality HAVEN'T we unwisely abused???

Most of those aren't technologies (or "functional knowledge") and those which are, are either net positive or at least amoral. Only our ignorance (sometimes wilful) has turned them against us.

And yet, at no time in history were we ever this close to annihilating ourselves as a species, and destroying the Earth is we know it. So apparently, "morality" is relative to functionality. And because our functionality has so outstripped our morality, we are effectively far LESS moral than we ever have been, historically.

We are more moral - it's only that the powers we have are too much, even for our increased morality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Most of those aren't technologies (or "functional knowledge") and those which are, are either net positive or at least amoral. Only our ignorance (sometimes wilful) has turned them against us.

We are more moral - it's only that the powers we have are too much, even for our increased morality.

You really should try to be really unlucky in this world. Yes, I know you have some bad luck, but overall you and I are lucky.

 

[MikeF]

It's already failing, and in just a few hundred years.

Apologies, but it is unclear to me as to what it is that you consider to be failing, a decline of what over the last few hundred years? I referenced average wisdom and average standard of living in my post.

We must face and address our innate greed. We must face and address our instinct for violence as a solution to our problems with each other. We must learn to recognize that the drive for power and the will to control others are the main indicators that one is insufficiently suited to take on those responsibilities. And we need to learn to see ourselves as members of a collective human experience, and not just as individuals being forced to share our humans experience with others. And we need to learn these lessons soon, because we're running out of time.

Each of the problems to which you refer originate from our hard-wired biological instincts. As such they are always present no matter our level of technological advancement. In other words, our level of technology does not matter. The only avenue available to address these would be to change the environment, the society and culture in which we develop, in which we are socialized and conditioned. This cannot completely solve or eliminate the problems you raise, only mitigate them sufficiently. To eliminate these problems would require changes at the genetic level, through controlled breeding or altering DNA. I do not see that happening.

And what we see, through the historical record, is that society and culture have changed and continues to do so. Society has improved on many fronts, including human rights, health and longevity, and standards of living.

And we will not survive a few hundred more unless we somehow make some huge leaps in terms of wisdom, not technology. Otherwise we are going to destroy ourselves with all that technological functionality.

I do not share your pessimism here. I do not foresee our self-destruction. We are a dynamic and flexible species and I see us continually adjusting and adapting. Given the historical record, things have only improved over the last several hundred years. I fail to see what you characterize as a decline.

And technology is not going to help us in this regard. All it's going to do is continue to distract us with fantasies of magical "techie" solutions that are not going to solve anything.

Would disagree again. Health and longevity along with improved standards of living all aided by technology.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Apologies, but it is unclear to me as to what it is that you consider to be failing, a decline of what over the last few hundred years? I referenced average wisdom and average standard of living in my post.

...

I can't find the study. Got any links?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well… everyone dies, and roughly after about the same number of years. We inhabit bodies that are apparently self-healing, but only for a while. Kinda counter intuitive. Seems like we should have a bunch of thousand-year-olds around. Nope.

To me, the appearance of a structured life cycle implies a plan. I adhere to the mental universe theory, however, and have hope that this iteration of our apparent cycle is merely the viewable segment of a much longer, possibly infinite, continuum. The question often on my mind though: “Is the psyche bound to the apparent cycle?”. I guess we’ll see (or not).

So what? That is not evidence for a God or a plan. It looks like all that you have is an argument from ignorance.