We see it already: Cosmetic surgery, sexual performance enhancers, sports enhancement substances, various drugs/medicines, etc.
These are but the heralds to the envisioned advances: bodies that don't age, genetic splicing before conception to determine a baby's traits, or during life to alter deformities, super-intelligent machines, augmentations that allow us to interface with machines, weaponry, and information. Nanites that will help us metabolize food more efficiently, thereby allowing for food and water shortages to become a things of the past.
Some already exist. Mice have been genetically altered so that they are able to learn faster. A machine that interfaces with the brain was hooked up to a blind man...the resulting images fed to him via electrical signals allowed him to drive a car.
The prevailing thought is that people will invent these things in the coming decades (or prototype precursors to them), and they will be used by some regardless of ethical concerns. So it is in our best interests to start thinking about it before we find these technologies being used improperly, or not at all, when they could potentially improve human life.
...
So, if you are familiar with transhuman developments, this is where you can wax poetic about states of consciousness and evolution in a post-Singularity universe (if the Singularity is possible, that is).
And if not, talk about how cool it would be to be a bionic human being.
What are the ethics of such a world? Will Luddite conservatives stop the movement before it picks up full steam, relegating it to fugitive status in mainsteam culture? Are the technologies too far-fetched, or will we see them within the century? Will they lead to mutual human benefit or continued and exponential destruction? Discuss...
I do not know anyone who has had any sort of cosmetic surgery, but I suppose they see it as a sort of medicine. To them, it is likely just like taking a pill to make sure you do not get sick (I am assuming in this statement they can easily afford it).
I doubt they view it any worse than that.
__________________ "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." - Thomas Gray
Transhumanism (and its follow-up, post-humanism) is one of my favorite topics. In brief, I'd like to paraphrase Carl Sagan by saying that, the tech modifications to the human mind and body we currently imagine will be nothing like what we will really be able to do one day.
On the bright side, we will discover/invent things completely out of left field in contrast to today's paradigm. On the dark side, there will be repercussions, side-effects, whatever--both individual and societal--which will serve as vital reality checks for what is ultimately possible.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Exactly. The Singularity I mentioned refers to the point at which genetic and/or technological enhancements allow us to push humanity past humanity, which is the post-humanism you mentioned (I'm just summarizing for others, since Mindship obviously knows something about this).
Imagine, for example, a 5-dimensional cube. Not 5-sided. 5 dimensions.
You can't. I can't...none of us can. That ability would be an example of a post-human capability. It's literally beyond what our minds can currently fathom, and such a being would rightly be called the next stage in our evolution.
...
My thoughts:
1. Some think the Singularity is an ever-increasing exponential curve of advancement. This is ridiculous for a number of reasons, the main reason being that all advancement in any field comes incrementally, regardless of intelligence. The Model T wasn't "invented" altogether. First came the wheel. Then various other gears and machincations. Then the combustion engine, etc. etc. Eventually it equals something profound, but it took time. Other reasons include the sheer absurdity that the rate of increase itself will continue to increase indefinitely...it's not a sustainable system.
2. I think, by and large, the changes will be so incremental that the public won't have the "awe factor" that we associate with many of these ideas. 1970 would have been floored with today's computer tech. We can admire it today, but data processing, for example, doesn't baffle us simply because there were incremental steps all the way from 1970 to the present. Convervatives in various fields will also slow things down, or at least prevent them from becoming accepted (try introducing gene splicing in America's Bible Belt, for example). In 50 years, blind people driving (or any of these others technologies) might be as routine as i-pods in today's world.
3. Similarly, good and bad will arise from it, but the utopia projected by some (and dystopia by others) are likely both false. Also, I can't imagine that even a post-human world would be free of the conflict experienced by nearly every being in creation (both external violent conflict and internal emotional/intellectual conflict) though I realize that my opinion here is strictly invalid because post-human is just that: after us. Therefore, we're not really qualified to comment on it, just work toward it.
With all our knowledge of chemistry we cannot make a human life in our laboratories because we lack the unifying, vivifying principle of a soul which comes only from God. Life is not a push from below; it is a gift from above. It is not the result of the necessary ascent of man, but the descent of God. It is not the term of progress; it is the fruit of the incarnation.
__________________ Dig the massive energy and don't take it too seriously
Meh, we're not discussing "creating" a human, simply improving the quality of human life, and also the abilities of the human being, via technological advances.
And we're not really discussing religion either, but I guess you're entitled to your opinions. I won't bite on a few of your views, to which I could respond, because I'd rather not turn this thread into something it's not supposed to be. And we already have plenty of creation/evolution threads on the forums.
On a serious note however, transhumanism as a pseudo science is slowly gaining ground. The Catholic Church has made claims that this fringe science is verging on 'playing god' with the possible creation of "virtual humans" via bioinformatics development. The earlier post refers to this categorical imperative in terms of the Church's statements on transhumanism.
Although there are plenty of issues which may be discussed on the matter like, the trivialization of human identity, the genetic divide, dehumanization, specter of coercive eugenism, and what have you,
I chose to discuss the point of view of the Roman Catholic Church in hopes of sparking enough controversy to make this a more debatable subject.
__________________ Dig the massive energy and don't take it too seriously
Last edited by RUNMAN on Sep 12th, 2007 at 09:39 PM
You don't necessarily need debate to have intelligent discussion about something. And honestly, I can't see this becoming more productive thread with the direction you seem to want to take the debate.
I figure it's not getting many hits because, as you stated, it's more a "fringe" science than anything at the moment....not lacking in validity, but in public awareness.
...
And as for your complaints (if I must..) I already mentioned in an earlier post how the conservative religious sects, at least in this country, will impede the process rather than rationally explore its virtues and vices. No one in transhumanism is forcing anything upon us, and the "trivilalization of human identity" is more a paranoid pipe-dream of cliche machine-takeover movies than anything grounded in reality. It may come to that level of debate someday in decades/centuries down the road, but for the moment the focus of transhumanism is on improving the quality of life, or the expansion of that which is human by allowing us greater mental and physical facultie.
Above all, it's a voluntary process that will happen incrementally (like all advances) that is only demonized by those who don't properly appreciate it. I'm sure, for example, that Satanic Flying Machines (i.e. airplanes) would have been condemned by Middle Ages religious authorities had they ever been exposed to one. An affront to God, surely, since we were not made to fly as the birds are. God in His wisdom hath made it clear to us.
This is no different, and is simply more advanced than the advances that have come before us.
Thank you for taking the statesmanlike approach Much appreciated! You truly are venerable.
As for your comments, I believe that despite it being a 'voluntary process' which "may" improve the quality of life of humans, it is still susceptible to economics along with the socio-political implications of the increasing use of technology to transform human capacities. Some say that we will soon need to worry about the possibility of stigmatization and discrimination, either against or on behalf of technologically enhanced individuals. Social justice is also mentioned to be at stake as we are required to ensure that enhancement options are made available as widely and as affordable as possible.
What it boils down to, in my opinion, is that in any issue: abortion, right to life, war, taxes, public education, and what have you, there will inevitably be a point where reasonable people disagree. One can trace the contention that a good argument, in order to be good, requires that counter-arguments be accounted for, to the conceptualization of this science. The moment will come when the arguments for something will equal the number and weight of the arguments against it, or vice versa, and all of a sudden it becomes incredibly gray and no clear conclusion is in sight any longer. This is true of the Transhumanism debate as well. In the end (if it ends), however, the answer 'may' be seen in the 'incremental approach' you have been espousing. Considering our country, 'incremental' in the strictest sense of the word ...
__________________ Dig the massive energy and don't take it too seriously
Neural correlates of intelligence. Seeing as there are already ways to integrate technology and neurons, something that is able to boost the performance of the relevant cortical areas is that much closer!
Agreed, I guess. Assuming discrimination is a bit dangerous, and one might wonder how you can be so sure of such negativity, but persecution hasn't stopped any worthy cause thus far in most of the civilized world (women's rights, minority rights, etc.)
This assumes that religious people are reasonable.
I understand the occasional benefit of a competing opinion strengthening another one, but it doesn't always need to have a foil.
But basically your approach is to say "There's going to be a disagreement, and eventually it will reach the point where no progress can be made because of this". Not exactly progressive, eh? Assuming a counter-argument that will negate the process is tantamount to ignoring it altogether or brushing it off as a fad. But unlike the more-definable arguments such as abortion, death penalty, etc. you don't have 1 single thing to point to. Due to commerical success (and medical success), technology moves forward regardless of political or religious influences, and it enters many different realms of our lives. Being a capitolistic society, we have the choice to purchase/use (or not use) any of these technologies. So too with any of this.
Which is precisely why the "incremental" approach I mentioned, that seems to be disparaged quite a bite, will sidestep your supposed anti-revolution. It won't be heralded by definitive legislation or protest rallies. It will simply slowly become a part of our culture, much like the airplane or the i-pod. Alarms will be raised in magazines randomly, fundamentalist religious leaders will speak out against it, etc, etc. But it won't stop the progress, which is why I'm trying to stress that we need to come to terms with it now....perhaps only for our children's and grandchildrens' sake, and possibly our own as well.
Cool, thanks. This is the first steps to helping "cure" mental retardation by understanding what processes aren't taking place that would be in a normal brain. I hadn't seen that particular research, but a few of the points were familiar.
In particular, the fact that women have more connective centers in the brain, making it easier to access various brain locations and use them in conjunction with one another. This is used by psychologists to describe left brain/right brain people. If you are left brained, for example, it is easier for a women access traits and characteristics of right brain useage than a man (though certainly not impossible for men), but men are encouraged to diversify their behavior if they are very much to one side of the brain, in order to keep the connective centers healthy.
I totally understand your point and I myself agree that the incremental approach will most likely be the scenario in this slowly emerging science. But, if we place in this equation the right wingers representing 52% of our country, the word 'incremental' may be more incremental than what we perceive it to be...
__________________ Dig the massive energy and don't take it too seriously
Gender: Unspecified Location: Elysian Fields, Blue planet
Hah, The Roman Catholic Church, a church filled with corruption and self-contradiction... if they put their myths against our God of light, they will fall. Only through us, only through the law, is there freedom and life.
The pope, nor the church, can oppose the living word, the living law, the LOGOS. We deists created the most powerful nation in the world, now we have constructed a web across the globe, the wired, our goals cannot be opposed. You can no more stop what the instruments of EL, have started than you can stop L. Either through the sword or through our words the world shall be unified.
A God of Wisdom, Minerva|Athena, the world wide web, the evolution of the wired, its destiny... it is destiny, fate.
KMC Community Forums
Sep 1st, 2007 01:23 AM
