From what I understand of transhumanism -- as it is held in the "mainstream" -- its logical conclusion is vastly different than my own.
There seems to be an underlying assumption that humanity has not and therefore cannot make it. And, since humanity has seemingly destroyed any hope of biologically evolving as a species, our only hope is to inject our consciousness into machines. If you are at all interested in pop culture and what it projects onto and into people, you can see how we are being groomed for this idea as well.
However, as I said: I disagree this is the only way out of our current predicament as a species, as I am sure many of you do as well. We have not fully understood our human capacity for greatness. With so much ability to destroy, it is my hypothesis, that we have just as much ability to create. I do not think our story is over and that it would be a great unnecessary tragedy to give up our humanity when we have not fully possessed ourselves as individuals or as a species.
I have spoken with a few people about these things and many people see no other option. However, these are the same people who think that the "super"natural has no credence. That there are not sixth senses, that Olympians and geniuses are not examples of the potential humanity has etc.
I would like to have an honest discussion about another direction for transhumanism.
Note: I am not against technological progress in any way. However, I do see us as a species who need to mature more before we implement such changes. We cannot even agree to save our planet or to act correctly in the face of obvious injustice.
Thank you.
Umm, it doesn't have to be this way. You're assuming the technology will get there, which it's not in danger of doing anytime soon, and ignoring the grayer area of: do I start implanting biochips into my body. The question there becomes less about morals and more risks and trade-offs. No technology will be perfect, and how many 9's of reliability do you need before you start putting that crazy retina chip in your body.There seems to be an underlying assumption that humanity has not and therefore cannot make it. And, since humanity has seemingly destroyed any hope of biologically evolving as a species, our only hope is to inject our consciousness into machines. If you are at all interested in pop culture and what it projects onto and into people, you can see how we are being groomed for this idea as well.
Here are my thoughts on the topic: The brain has allowed humanity to transcend biological evolution and replace it with technological evolution. Man has created tools to make life easier in almost every regard. So it seems almost inevitable that we look no further than ourselves to develop technology around. I love my biological appendages as much as the next guy who up until now never thought about any alternatives. However, what happens when science gets us to the point where the prosthetics arms and legs are superior in every way to our biological ones? At that point (assuming social stigma fades away), being a cyborg will not only be better than organic, but actually sought after. Imagine having the look and feel of a model without having to put in the time to perfectly calculate a diet. Imagine having superhuman strength without stepping foot in a gym once. Maintenance? Maybe a yearly tune up. At this point, humanity would have nothing but our brain left that has any semblance of "old-world" humanity. What happens when we crack the neurological code and can now augment our ability to remember, to think to perceive? When this technology comes to a point where there's no downside and severely upsides the change over will be inevitable.
I think this is exactly right - we have largely removed ourselves from the normal evolutionary process of natural selection. I myself would very likely have died at age 10 from appendicitis; there are myriad other examples. The trend towards cybernetic enhancement goes back at least as far as eyeglasses, and is not likely to slow down any time soon, unless catastrophe knocks us all back into the natural selection game.
So aren't we assuming being non-biological is better? Just based on our own intellectual missteps?
Here's a link listing out various reasons people have for being against transhumanism, more academic than opinionated: http://future.wikia.com/wiki/Transhumanism_Criticisms
Okay. I do understand these arguments. People believe transhumanism is the way to go basically because they are lazy. That they want just another way to "one up" one another rather than seek either peace or equality. What can we do about that? I think there are biological alternatives -- such as transcending the relatively "average" definition of humanity via willpower and a more evolved societal system. For instance -- and this gets into some conspiratorial things: there may be already people on this planet which are/were "more" than human and this 'anomalous' state is indicative of our potential, as I posited before. The grasp for transhumanism as it stands today is therefore actually a faux pas by people who have no comprehension of our capacity and/or are engineers of our current situation.
This is not what I am talking about. I have no issue with medical advancements. This response seems rather obtuse to me.
Can you explain how this is actually a response to what I posted? Besides the whole, "Humanity hopes someone will wave their hands and we'll all be fixed" part? Everything is work after all and if you don't know that, you're probably not going to make it anyway. Which is part of my point: we're giving up on one option for another when we haven't done enough work as it is.
<sigh> Here's a general definition of transhumanism: That's courtesy define:transhumanism into Google. Here's a similarly pedigreed definition of the singularity: What you're talking about is: Which you defined as "transhumanism." Effectively, you wish to discuss the singularity, but misapplied your title. "Transhumanism" is basically cybernetics: ...as applied to augmentation beyond the baseline. The whole "vanishing into the machine" thing is much more commonly discussed as the technological singularity. I gave you two discussions - the first about transhumanism (because you asked) and the second about the singularity (because apparently giving you a conversation about transhumanism pissed you off). So your turn - can you explain how this is not a response to what you posted?the belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and technology.
a hypothetical moment in time when artificial intelligence and other technologies have become so advanced that humanity undergoes a dramatic and irreversible change.
There seems to be an underlying assumption that humanity has not and therefore cannot make it. And, since humanity has seemingly destroyed any hope of biologically evolving as a species, our only hope is to inject our consciousness into machines.
the science of communications and automatic control systems in both machines and living things
Definitely what I was saying. How was that not clear?
What isn't explicit? Why do people think the only way we can evolve is through -- basically -- becoming cyborgs (by giving up the humanity we have not fully explored)?
You talk about biological evolution, but you're not talking about eugenics. Do you mean "will we keep evolving naturally" then? I would think so, if we face evolutionary pressure, but I'm not a biologist. Then below you describe something that sounds like Nietzschean self-overcoming, but that has nothing to do with evolution and arose out of a creative misunderstanding of it.
...We are a species capable of deciding. We can choose how this goes. I do not think it is viable nor intelligent of us to give up a humanity we have not explored. That does not mean forcing anything that isn't there. It means using it to our advantage. We have destroyed so much without altering ourselves genetically, then it stands to reason we can create just as much. That is all I meant.
Because what I'm talking about is not specifically defined as having anything to do with technologically enhancing ourselves in any way...? And I said, "in the mainstream" for a reason. Many people do not think there is any reasonable way for humanity to evolve besides becoming more mechanical in one way or another.
I swear this guy posts stuff and argues with people simply to argue. Just ignore this troll.
So you're saying I'm a troll because.. this is a place for discussion and I don't agree with you? Wow. Such logic.
No, you're claiming to want discussion but try to shoot down any opinions that aren't yours without offering intelligent counterarguments.
I have had to explain every little thing I've said to people who say they're capable of understanding complex arguments.