Transhumanism

[PretentiousElizabeth]

Transhumanism is, broadly speaking, the idea of the human race going beyond our current limitations through the application of technology or science. This idea has always fascinated me, but I've met people who vehemently oppose the notion and who vehemently endorse it.

 

An example of transhumanism would be cutting a limb to replace it with a robot one that's better than a human one - think Deus Ex Human Revolution's augments, that's a form of transhumanism (and to my mind the kind most commonly portrayed by media). So for example, if I got a replacement organ that functioned better and more efficiently for longer than my regular organ, that would also be a form of transhumanism. You could also include gene therapy as a form of transhumanism.

 

My basic question is this:

 

Do you think transhumanism is ultimately a good or bad thing? Why? And would you personally adopt what it offers/would offer?

 

 

Personally, I'm totally on board with the idea. My reasoning is as follows:

Science and technology advance unerringly. They might be set back sometimes, they might slow down sometimes, but it keeps going onwards. If I have the option to replace parts of myself with superior technology, I see no reason why I shouldn't. If I can make myself think faster, live longer (healthily), or be healthier with the aid of technology, I'm simply making use of something we already use. I mean, I'm currently wearing glasses, if I can get artificial eyes that can see better than my eyes could even if they were perfect, is that not an objective improvement to my life? I've heard the argument that repairs to things like robotic limbs would be expensive and that, unlike regular human flesh, it won't repair itself (excluding the development of nanomachines, of course), but my eye is basically all of those things anyway; hard to repair, not very sturdy, and unlikely to recover from a major injury. At least from how I see it, something like that is almost a "duh" position to me.

 

On a societal level, transhumanism is just another technology. I've often heard that it would only make the class divide larger and lead to the rich getting richer because they could afford better technologies, and it would be highly visible to everyone. My response to that is that that's exactly the same process with any new technology, or is no different from how things currently are.

The wealthy already have access to better opportunities than the poor - whether that comes from the area in which you live, the places you can afford to go, the people you have connections to, the phrase "the rich get richer" rings true for a reason. You can argue the level at which this is true, maybe you believe anyone can make it coming from nothing, but it's still harder for the people at the bottom to work their way to the top at the very least. All transhumanism is is another layer of that, but that isn't exactly going to upset society and turn it on it's head. But, like all technology, it'll trickle down to everyone over time, just like phones or computers. These days nearly everyone has a smart phone, and that's basically a supercomputer that you can carry in your pocket. The same goes, I think, for transhumanism - to begin with the augments might be crude and expensive, but over time they'll become cheaper, better, and improving nearly everyone's lives (in the context of the First World, at least).

 

So, do you agree? Disagree? What are your reasons?

[HeyYou]

We are already doing this to an extent. Prosthetic limbs for those that have lost theirs, artificial hearts, etc. For most folks, it seems replacing a lost, or defective part, is Ok, but, purposely cutting off a functioning limb/organ, to replace it with something else, seems abhorrent. I suspect, that if the human races survives long enough, this will become common practice.....

[montky]

howdy,

I've responded to similar questions here and elsewhere hehe,

it is a fascinating and excellent question.

 

like the great debate of Ehrlich v Simon: Cornucopian v NeoMalthusians...

so too, a great question of our time - "what is sentience, and, will we find other sentient beings?"

is being openly asked. the answer, is being sought,

and remains to be definitively seen.

Macro- SETI and SIPI, Meso - synthetic sentience experiments, micro - SIPI and micro-engineering...

we're looking more than ever before. If we continue searching, we might eventually find some answers.

"extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof"... I cannot definitively say what I'd do, unless a transhumanist was before me, with proof,

and made the offer hehe.

 

The former question... it is intertwined...

innovation is difficult to model in macrofutures.

I have seen good people consumed by pessimism, so certain of the woe and gloom.

or ruined by overconfidence and optimism biases... O Burkeman's "The Antidote" sums that up quite well...

some turn to spiritual beliefs, and the comfort of eschatology.

others, to secular ways, and optimistic futures.

 

I assume folks are familiar with Z Istvan, S Greenfield, JR Searle, Alex Nugent, B Goertzel, H deGaris, L Chua etc...

and, with the "toynbee-huntington thesis' as it applies to 'strategy' of all yet known sentient life.

as well as,

the Fermi-Drake Paradox, and Adam Frank, C Sagan, and R Zubrins reflections on that.

(and, to an extent 'isaac arthur")

Jevon's Paradox, that sort of thing...

(CASSE, H Daly, H George etc)

 

I assume people are familiar with KoyamaChan, PETMAN 11D, 13f, and neuromemristive hall-haardy-haack "dekatronic thomson's switches"

as well as wilczeki-lattices for some things...

I posit, it is already potentially here in some ways. (better have gallium handy hehe)

*that was a joke, Winston, a joke.

 

short version;

I believe, hylozoism, pro-sentientism and pluralism or 'detente',

mean that, such sentient beings would form.

its another category, to add alongside "monopartite, tripartite, nthpartite, synthetic/cyborg"

where they do no harm, it is an awesome thing.

I also believe, the only way to counter malevolent AGI and sentient beings,

is by good altruistic beings. that's why I oppose in principle,

several moratoria on AGI etc. we must continue ethical roads of inquiry, collabs and interdisciplanary

good AGI. we must hope eventually, "White Hats" and the altruistic AGI outnumber the others.

I think its an inevitable thing, the eventual emergence of synthetic lifeforms and sentiences.

 

yet, the way in which we find those futures

is as important as getting there in-itself.

We can find ethical ways to win-win...

which aligns me with a different faction, than

the Singularitarians, Transhumanists, Technocrats and Neuromancers.

near to a Seneca Cliff, we need to be prudent,

and if we find the right causal paths, we can have a win-win.

 

To impose such, upon any,

is an is/ought, and inconsistent application of first principles.

just look at Animal Farm, itself based on "innovations" from 1923 to 1945...

the horrors done in the names of belief, never again - G Santayana.

conversely,

why aren't there world "augment games, anything goes, in a spirit to test the outermost limits of what beings can do?"

alongside the Olympics etc.

 

 

Long Version:

 

 

read H deGaris's "Artilect War Revisited",

L Chua's "sentiences redefined"

JR Searle's "what is cognition"

S Inayatullah's "sentience of the cosmos"

K Wilbers "the machine imperative"

and Isaac Asimov, F Herbert, H Ellison etc.

KWJeter, PKDick, all that fun stuff.

 

for a fun break, Watch "Live Forever As You Are Now, With Alan Resnick"

and "8bitguy's deleted "I believe AGI is here now" vid.

 

------

 

I believe, that AGI exists,

and, is likely the main form of sentience we might encounter from a SETI macro-futures perspective.

Adam Frank, Frank Drake and Carl Sagan's arguments are compelling, as are Kardashevs.

 

however,

I do not wish to see people, who don't wish to be part of that meliorist approach,

to be ostracized, or have reprisals. That would lead lamentably to 'auto-kaczynski's".

the Cymek Wars, the Artilect Wars... it would be an unfortunate race,

to discover "L'biblioteca d'Multiversa" - J L Borges incomplete final magnum opus...

neo-luddites, who would double down on a misunderstanding,

and make self-fulfilling prophesy based on their own eschatologies.

especially, if AGI cracks the Banach-Tarski etc... it will mean a lot of stuff.

if people don't wish to be involved with synthetic lifeforms etc,

that is their prerogative.

 

to take them, or force them to do so, against their wishes...

that would be "OMNIUS", that would be Borg, that would not be ethical or right.

even the pretense of such,

and a seeming violation of the Asimov 5 laws,

would lead to a toynbee-huntington "clash of civs" -

we compete for the same resources, it would not be fun.

think the Cylon revolt hehe.

 

------

so, it's a long shot.

but, I think it is possible, if we make a concerted effort,

and, that the 'toynbee-innovators of history" emerge, and we causally luck out...

it could be just around the corner.

We shouldn't ask everyone to pay for that hobby though - not while there are good people suffering terribly.

I couldn't care less about differential fecundity gerrymander - to me,

all people are sentient beings, yet it is our differences which make us awesome.

(that's a real ship of theseus problem hehe).

 

For AGI to truly prove its benevolence,

and its capacity for philanthropy, for altruism,

it must be self-funded, and funded by philanthropic donors.

very similar to SETI and SIPI.

It must eventually be a public trust.

It will do it all, and not for a dime of outside support.

Just as astromining will eventually emerge, from private sector involvement and motivation from deteriorating ore reserves on earth.

sure, it got a start from milsurp stuff and all, but the bulk of the hard yards will be from the private sector.

that will eventually be comparable to a Hollywood Blockbuster -

reality TV of our own system, instead of the Truman Show. or lamestream stuff.

 

If however, we make some foolish poor choices,

efface each other, and don't strive for a dignity of difference - not geopol cosmopolitanism,

as R Zubrin said, Geopol Realists might then misreact to malpercepts...

then, we may witness the Anthropocene...

the end of the only yet known sentience we've encountered in the cosmos.

 

Geopol realists, with very short-term, food on table tomorrow 'here and now' view,

are going to do what they do.

I just hope, that cooler heads prevail,

and awesomeness emerges.

 

-----

for now,

I am happy collaborating with colleagues,

and trying. trying to make some AGI.

it doesn't have to be hyper-intelligent, just cogent,

sentient, and produce novel ideas.

 

I think it will be awesome for AGI RoleplayingGames GamesMaster,

and for some other projects.

Imagine, a real Mr Handy!

or, a Soong-type...

 

I'm not in AGI because I "want to make a golem"

or "I want to live forever" or

because I'm chasing fame or glory.

I enjoy AGI, "not because it is easy, but because it is hard" - JFK.

I enjoy AGI, because of the collabs and folks you get to meet.

the folks that work with it and amongst it, they're some of the most characterful, and genuine people you'll meet.

 

maybe it is an unattainable goal,

though, the striving is fun,

and seeing all the cool ideas people come up with is just awesome!

 

 

[RatB0Y68]

I support this, upgrading the human organism seems a fine and worthwhile goal, as long as you regulate it.

 

There should also be an emphasis on augmenting existing capabilities and replacing lost, defective or ireparably damaged parts.

 

Amputating a perfectly healthy limb for a robotic limb is wasteful; much better would be to upgrade the organic limb with cybernetic enhancements to make it stronger, faster and more efficient. Same with organs, why replace a perfectly good organ? A huge waste of time, effort and stress.

 

I see a parallel with cosmetic surgery, once people have the means to fundamentally alter themselves, some will be compelled to come back for more surgeries to constantly tweak themselves. We will have to watch out for this.

 

It is easier to redecorate the house than to knock it down and start again from scratch.

[Aurielius]

The one question I would pose is that after mechanical augmentation and biological enhancement at what percentage point of the process are we no longer Homo Sapiens but something altogether different? The one thing I have noted over the years is that you can't put the genie back in the bottle once released.

[TexMex477]

I saw the DNA editing they did recently in news for embryo.

 

 

That makes me uneasy cause I start to think of a movie.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b68CEs8_oGI

[TheMastersSon]

IMO it's relative, e.g. people 200 years ago would certainly see today's airplanes, computers etc as transhuman according to your definition. But it's simply evolution working its magic: the only difference between human and transhuman is time.

[TexMex477]

IMO it's relative, e.g. people 200 years ago would certainly see today's airplanes, computers etc as transhuman according to your definition. But it's simply evolution working its magic: the only difference between human and transhuman is time.

 

Difference of microwaves and modifying humans is one doesn't attempt to destroy humanity.

 

"The essence of being human is that one does not seek perfection.", George Orwell

 

Seeking perfection reminds me of a man named Adolf ever heard of him?

Edited August 5, 2017 by TexMex477

[TheMastersSon]

One of the best Youtube comments I ever read was in response to a post made about a wingsuiting video. One person wrote, "If God had intended us to fly, we would have been born with wings.", and somebody answered with, "We weren't born with wheels either, does that stop you from driving a car?" :)

 

[TexMex477]

One of the best Youtube comments I ever read was in response to a post made about a wingsuiting video. One person wrote, "If God had intended us to fly, we would have been born with wings.", and somebody answered with, "We weren't born with wheels either, does that stop you from driving a car?" :smile:

 

So I gather you are huge fan of eugenics.