Transhumanism

[Di0nysys]

I think Transhumanism will have a profound effect on social class. Just as now only those who do well in life get access to cosmetic surgery, Cybernetic Augmentation is gonna have a similar pronounced effect. The haves will enjoy access to best and latest augmentations, better cognitive abilities, etc, which are naturally the most expensive, while the have-nots will be restricted to what level of tech they can access.

That apart from the people who will outright refuse to augment themselves. Think of other situations where your co-worker get better implants than you, allowing them better social performance or data access, giving them an edge over you. How many people will take out loans just to stay ahead. It's interesting and a little frightening all the same. I'm really fascinated by Cyberpunk and these Transhumanist trends. We'll have to see i guess.

[kthompsen]

 

 

We as a species have so polluted our planet that extinction of all species is being contemplated.

 

That is a whole other debate that is off topic to this thread :ermm:

 

 

Which brings me back to the topic at hand, transhumanism. In the effort to improve the human condition via selective alteration, would using genetic selection to raise human intelligence be preferable to raising 'physical attributes'? Or should the focus be on physical prowess, eventually reducing humanity to hairy, chest slapping, monosyllabic Neanderthals?

 

By raising intelligence, we could reduce or eliminate those who summarily discount scientific discovery simply because it doesn't fit their preconceived world view. By raising intelligence, we could improve the quality of thought by giving humanity the ability to process complex ideas and not just focus on one single simple thought at a time. By raising intelligence, we could improve the clarity of communications by developing peoples ability to understand things like a sentence and its relationship to a paragraph and potentially reduce or eliminate those who take a sentence from a paragraph and use that out of context sentence as a distraction. By raising intelligence we could reduce or eliminate people who spout spurious and nonsensical thoughts.

 

Nah. We better leave 'smarter' out of the 'better, faster, stronger' saw. Humanity only needs their brains as a spacer to keep their skulls from imploding. Besides; given a sufficiently sized stone, even a Neanderthal can become smart.

 

 

 

 

Intelligence has nothing to do with worldviews though. The worldview is just an application /focus. Not the result of intelligence (or lack thereof). Someone can still have a peculiar worldview, but be an intellectual giant. Theologians and philosophers of all stripes come to mind. Be it a Kant or Augustine. Newton is another with theological views (even fringe views among other theological students. He was obsessed with eschatology).

 

You could force people to apply themselves in specific ways, but this is the realm of politics and social engineering.. and it'll backfire anyhow. It's the suppression of free thought and free speech and everyone loses in the end. Especially the intelligent.

 

I suggest we just do what we're already doing. Take the good along with the bad. Life has a way of rewarding excellence in it's own way.. and punishing the losers. And if something isn't really losing, maybe it's time to question one's own worldview and wonder why.

 

edit: Darnit.. quoted the wrong post at first.

Edited August 8, 2017 by kthompsen

[kthompsen]

I think Transhumanism will have a profound effect on social class. Just as now only those who do well in life get access to cosmetic surgery, Cybernetic Augmentation is gonna have a similar pronounced effect. The haves will enjoy access to best and latest augmentations, better cognitive abilities, etc, which are naturally the most expensive, while the have-nots will be restricted to what level of tech they can access.

 

That apart from the people who will outright refuse to augment themselves. Think of other situations where your co-worker get better implants than you, allowing them better social performance or data access, giving them an edge over you. How many people will take out loans just to stay ahead. It's interesting and a little frightening all the same. I'm really fascinated by Cyberpunk and these Transhumanist trends. We'll have to see i guess.

 

For some reason, I'm reminded of Mass Effect. As corny as it was, it had some interesting points about a society like this. I always liked the "default" Soldier Shepard over others. He was kind of their flagship image for the series, but if you look at his background, he's the bottom of the social class. Earthborn/Ghetto kid, grew up extremely self-reliant and with hardship, mostly relies on weaponry. The second game contrasted you with Miranda especially, who was a privileged, genetic mutant. She ends up envying Shepard, who had none of the benefits and had that extra "something" that could inspire and lead people into hell itself. There's a little bit of truth to it imo. Even if there was a society like you speak of, evolution would find a way to create an impressive "alpha" specimen that people would still end up admiring. Especially if they're crazy. Nothing tops sheer ballsiness.

 

It's also why I picked "Destroy" in that crappy ME3 ending. Even with the AI's foresight and all of his talk of inevitability, it simply didn't understand the intangibles.. the survival mechanisms and willpower of humans. The same goes for why the Krogan were so resilient. They were kind of like default Shepard as well. This is more than just putting brutes and jarheads on a pedestal. It was kind of Nietzschean in a way.

[Di0nysys]

 

Mass Effect

Great game.

[kthompsen]

 

 

Mass Effect

Great game.

 

 

Yeah, I still have a soft spot for the series.

 

I should correct myself on calling 3 a "crappy ending" though. Fundamentally, it got it's point across. Destroy represented my views I stated earlier. Synthesis was sort for transhumanist fans (although a bit wonky and mystical) and Control.... well.. Not sure what the hell that is. It's for people who hate humanity and think they all need to be monitored like little children.

 

So the one thing I can agree with transhumanists is they want to see the species thrive at least.

[PretentiousElizabeth]

 

Nah. We better leave 'smarter' out of the 'better, faster, stronger' saw. Humanity only needs their brains as a spacer to keep their skulls from imploding. Besides; given a sufficiently sized stone, even a Neanderthal can become smart.

 

 

I think a problem with considering augmenting our intelligence in the current age is that it's really, really hard to do even conceptually. Changing ourselves physically is all well and good, hell I'm pretty young in the grand scheme of things and it might be something I have to consider properly in my lifetime, but being able to make someone smarter isn't as easy as making someone harder,better,faster,stronger, etc.

It's not that humans don't want to be smarter, it's that we pretty much don't know how. If we find a way to give everyone eidetic memories, awesome, I'm first in line if I ever got the cash together - but we don't know how. The difference between the two isn't that intelligence isn't physical so we don't care about it, it's that intelligence isn't physical so it's an intangible thing we can't change in such a quick and easy way. Intelligence is such a broad concept interlinked with so many things that trying to modify it genetically is kind of a crapshoot that's liable to do more harm than good, especially considering we still don't fully know what affects it and those that we do are often associated with drawbacks, like anxiety, depression or schizophrenia. That's just our genetics though, is our intelligence not also built on an environment where we and/or others nurture our intelligence and have a desire to do so? Transhumanism might be able to increase the capacity for intelligence, but it can't force people to develop more intelligence.

 

I think if the technology was there that it was such an easy consideration and so easily understandable as physical modifications, we'd be considering it. As it stands, the ability simply isn't there, not the desire. Sure, we might be able to do so, but it's risky and might not get that big a payoff. The risk/reward of trying to modify the biology of people for intelligence is high on the risk without the promise of a vast reward at our current level of understanding.

 

I stress that I'm nothing more than a laymen in this field, if I'm wrong please feel free to correct me!

 

So if biological augmentation is too far off to consider right now, the discussion becomes one of mechanical augments. The problem with this is that, as I understand it, the idea of modifying one's intellect mechanically is pure science fiction for now. We're making progress, like mapping out the connections of the human brain thanks to the Human Connectome Project, but there's not really much we can affect physically. Using nanotechnology one could perhaps make, repair, and strengthen synaptic connections to give people better information recall and quicker thinking, but that's not necessarily affecting intelligence so much as how quickly you can apply your intelligence.

 

So if both biological and mechanical augmentation is so far from being able to have any real applications (barring a major scientific breakthrough, of course), but physical augmentations of both varieties are much closer, it makes sense we discuss the physical augments as we can already easily envision them and consider their applications.

 

Or maybe I just have too much faith in humanity's value of our intellect and preserving it and we will just devolve into cyborg apes as time goes on, who knows? :tongue:

I think a problem with considering augmenting our intelligence in the current age is that it's really, really hard to do even conceptually. Changing ourselves physically is all well and good, hell I'm pretty young and it might be something I have to consider properly in my lifetime, but being able to make someone smarter isn't as easy as making someone harder,better,faster,stronger, etc.

It's not that humans don't want to be smarter, it's that we pretty much don't know how. If we find a way to give everyone eidetic memories, awesome - but we don't know how. The difference between the two isn't that intelligence isn't physical so we don't care about it, it's that intelligence isn't physical so it's an intangible thing we can't change in such a quick and easy way. Intelligence is such a broad concept interlinked with so many things that trying to modify it genetically is kind of a crapshoot that's liable to do more harm than good, especially considering we still don't fully know what affects it and those that we do are often associated with drawbacks, like anxiety, depression or schizophrenia. That's just our genetics though, is our intelligence not also built on an environment where we and/or others nurture our intelligence and have a desire to do so?

 

If genetic modification of our intelligence, whether that be through strengthening synapses or modifying neurotransmitters to make people think faster and remember more, or getting a better understand of the genome so as to modify ourselves safely and knowingly by giving ourselves eidetic memory or something, we probably would.

As it stands, the ability simply isn't there, not the desire.

[HeyYou]

 

 

Nah. We better leave 'smarter' out of the 'better, faster, stronger' saw. Humanity only needs their brains as a spacer to keep their skulls from imploding. Besides; given a sufficiently sized stone, even a Neanderthal can become smart.

 

 

I think a problem with considering augmenting our intelligence in the current age is that it's really, really hard to do even conceptually. Changing ourselves physically is all well and good, hell I'm pretty young in the grand scheme of things and it might be something I have to consider properly in my lifetime, but being able to make someone smarter isn't as easy as making someone harder,better,faster,stronger, etc.

It's not that humans don't want to be smarter, it's that we pretty much don't know how. If we find a way to give everyone eidetic memories, awesome, I'm first in line if I ever got the cash together - but we don't know how. The difference between the two isn't that intelligence isn't physical so we don't care about it, it's that intelligence isn't physical so it's an intangible thing we can't change in such a quick and easy way. Intelligence is such a broad concept interlinked with so many things that trying to modify it genetically is kind of a crapshoot that's liable to do more harm than good, especially considering we still don't fully know what affects it and those that we do are often associated with drawbacks, like anxiety, depression or schizophrenia. That's just our genetics though, is our intelligence not also built on an environment where we and/or others nurture our intelligence and have a desire to do so? Transhumanism might be able to increase the capacity for intelligence, but it can't force people to develop more intelligence.

 

I think if the technology was there that it was such an easy consideration and so easily understandable as physical modifications, we'd be considering it. As it stands, the ability simply isn't there, not the desire. Sure, we might be able to do so, but it's risky and might not get that big a payoff. The risk/reward of trying to modify the biology of people for intelligence is high on the risk without the promise of a vast reward at our current level of understanding.

 

I stress that I'm nothing more than a laymen in this field, if I'm wrong please feel free to correct me!

 

So if biological augmentation is too far off to consider right now, the discussion becomes one of mechanical augments. The problem with this is that, as I understand it, the idea of modifying one's intellect mechanically is pure science fiction for now. We're making progress, like mapping out the connections of the human brain thanks to the Human Connectome Project, but there's not really much we can affect physically. Using nanotechnology one could perhaps make, repair, and strengthen synaptic connections to give people better information recall and quicker thinking, but that's not necessarily affecting intelligence so much as how quickly you can apply your intelligence.

 

So if both biological and mechanical augmentation is so far from being able to have any real applications (barring a major scientific breakthrough, of course), but physical augmentations of both varieties are much closer, it makes sense we discuss the physical augments as we can already easily envision them and consider their applications.

 

Or maybe I just have too much faith in humanity's value of our intellect and preserving it and we will just devolve into cyborg apes as time goes on, who knows? :tongue:

I think a problem with considering augmenting our intelligence in the current age is that it's really, really hard to do even conceptually. Changing ourselves physically is all well and good, hell I'm pretty young and it might be something I have to consider properly in my lifetime, but being able to make someone smarter isn't as easy as making someone harder,better,faster,stronger, etc.

It's not that humans don't want to be smarter, it's that we pretty much don't know how. If we find a way to give everyone eidetic memories, awesome - but we don't know how. The difference between the two isn't that intelligence isn't physical so we don't care about it, it's that intelligence isn't physical so it's an intangible thing we can't change in such a quick and easy way. Intelligence is such a broad concept interlinked with so many things that trying to modify it genetically is kind of a crapshoot that's liable to do more harm than good, especially considering we still don't fully know what affects it and those that we do are often associated with drawbacks, like anxiety, depression or schizophrenia. That's just our genetics though, is our intelligence not also built on an environment where we and/or others nurture our intelligence and have a desire to do so?

 

If genetic modification of our intelligence, whether that be through strengthening synapses or modifying neurotransmitters to make people think faster and remember more, or getting a better understand of the genome so as to modify ourselves safely and knowingly by giving ourselves eidetic memory or something, we probably would.

As it stands, the ability simply isn't there, not the desire.

 

I think initially, it will be more about 'augmented reality' than making folks smarter. Give them more information about the world around them, and they can make better decisions.

[PoorlyAged]

 

 

Nah. We better leave 'smarter' out of the 'better, faster, stronger' saw. Humanity only needs their brains as a spacer to keep their skulls from imploding. Besides; given a sufficiently sized stone, even a Neanderthal can become smart.

 

 

 

 

I think a problem with considering augmenting our intelligence in the current age is that it's really, really hard to do even conceptually. Changing ourselves physically is all well and good, hell I'm pretty young in the grand scheme of things and it might be something I have to consider properly in my lifetime, but being able to make someone smarter isn't as easy as making someone harder,better,faster,stronger, etc.

It's not that humans don't want to be smarter, it's that we pretty much don't know how. If we find a way to give everyone eidetic memories, awesome, I'm first in line if I ever got the cash together - but we don't know how. The difference between the two isn't that intelligence isn't physical so we don't care about it, it's that intelligence isn't physical so it's an intangible thing we can't change in such a quick and easy way. Intelligence is such a broad concept interlinked with so many things that trying to modify it genetically is kind of a crapshoot that's liable to do more harm than good, especially considering we still don't fully know what affects it and those that we do are often associated with drawbacks, like anxiety, depression or schizophrenia. That's just our genetics though, is our intelligence not also built on an environment where we and/or others nurture our intelligence and have a desire to do so? Transhumanism might be able to increase the capacity for intelligence, but it can't force people to develop more intelligence.

 

I think if the technology was there that it was such an easy consideration and so easily understandable as physical modifications, we'd be considering it. As it stands, the ability simply isn't there, not the desire. Sure, we might be able to do so, but it's risky and might not get that big a payoff. The risk/reward of trying to modify the biology of people for intelligence is high on the risk without the promise of a vast reward at our current level of understanding.

 

I stress that I'm nothing more than a laymen in this field, if I'm wrong please feel free to correct me!

 

So if biological augmentation is too far off to consider right now, the discussion becomes one of mechanical augments. The problem with this is that, as I understand it, the idea of modifying one's intellect mechanically is pure science fiction for now. We're making progress, like mapping out the connections of the human brain thanks to the Human Connectome Project, but there's not really much we can affect physically. Using nanotechnology one could perhaps make, repair, and strengthen synaptic connections to give people better information recall and quicker thinking, but that's not necessarily affecting intelligence so much as how quickly you can apply your intelligence.

 

So if both biological and mechanical augmentation is so far from being able to have any real applications (barring a major scientific breakthrough, of course), but physical augmentations of both varieties are much closer, it makes sense we discuss the physical augments as we can already easily envision them and consider their applications.

 

Or maybe I just have too much faith in humanity's value of our intellect and preserving it and we will just devolve into cyborg apes as time goes on, who knows? :tongue:

I think a problem with considering augmenting our intelligence in the current age is that it's really, really hard to do even conceptually. Changing ourselves physically is all well and good, hell I'm pretty young and it might be something I have to consider properly in my lifetime, but being able to make someone smarter isn't as easy as making someone harder,better,faster,stronger, etc.

It's not that humans don't want to be smarter, it's that we pretty much don't know how. If we find a way to give everyone eidetic memories, awesome - but we don't know how. The difference between the two isn't that intelligence isn't physical so we don't care about it, it's that intelligence isn't physical so it's an intangible thing we can't change in such a quick and easy way. Intelligence is such a broad concept interlinked with so many things that trying to modify it genetically is kind of a crapshoot that's liable to do more harm than good, especially considering we still don't fully know what affects it and those that we do are often associated with drawbacks, like anxiety, depression or schizophrenia. That's just our genetics though, is our intelligence not also built on an environment where we and/or others nurture our intelligence and have a desire to do so?

 

 

 

If genetic modification of our intelligence, whether that be through strengthening synapses or modifying neurotransmitters to make people think faster and remember more, or getting a better understand of the genome so as to modify ourselves safely and knowingly by giving ourselves eidetic memory or something, we probably would.

As it stands, the ability simply isn't there, not the desire.

 

 

It is a sad thing to ponder, but sarcasm doesn't translate very well through the keyboard.

 

With that observation out of the way, here are some facts.

 

First, the human brain is a non-linear processor that works at approximately 100 million MIPS (Million Instructions Per Second). By way of demonstration, what is 1483 * 6842? My linear computer had the answer as fast as I typed it while you are still working to copy and paste the numbers into your calculator. Now, describe the layout of your desk. You can do that pretty quickly, and in a number of different ways, but your computer does not understand the question.

• There are no non-linear processors. All current processor technologies are linear.
• The fastest linear processors are 25,000 Million FLOPS (Floating-point Operations Per Second) Super-Computers. They are about the size of a warehouse.

Second, the best current estimates from the SAK institute place the storage capacity of the human brain at about 25 PETA bytes or 25000 Terabytes. That is sufficient to store everything on the internet and the complete American Library of Congress. Twice. There is no comparable storage device. Anywhere.

 

Finally, the human brain has been likened to a recall engine coupled with a search engine. Our brains best work is done with memory location, recall and reapplication of learning.

 

So mechanical enhancement of the human brain is pretty much science fiction (sorry Johnny Mnemonic). Besides, there is no proof that enhancing the mechanics of the brain will increase intelligence.

 

Recent scientific discovery has led to defining intelligence as the ability to create connections between the cells of the brain and on the strength of those connections. As I pointed out above, the brain works as a recall engine coupled with a search engine. Our 'intelligence' is a measure of the number of connections, the multiplicity of those connections, and the strength of those connections.

 

The number of connections is simple. How much is stored in the brain. This is a function of life experience, learning opportunities taken advantage of, books read, documentaries viewed, concerts attended, plays watched, etc. In other words, you can only get out of your brain what you put into it. Put in Bugs Bunny and Road Runner cartoons, and that is all there is (Beep Beep). Put in Sesame Street and Mr Rogers Neighborhood and something different is there (Would you be my neighbor?). The quality of what goes into the brain affects intelligence. To re-purpose the old computer GIGO rule, "Garbage In, Garbage Out".

 

The multiplicity of connections is the different ways that things connect in the brain. In reading this, you are connecting the words serially. However, each word has connections and meaning attached which have nothing to do with what is written here. These words will trigger other memories. How often have you been in a conversation and asked "How did we get here"? If you review the conversation, you will see something like cold beer led to baseball led to stadiums led to concerts led to rolling stones let to drug use led to rehab center led to whats his name. A series of random connections? No. Memories are connected to other memories, and the number of connections to a specific memory enable it to be found and recalled quicker. These multiple connections to multiple memories makes our brain more efficient as a search and recall processor.

 

The strength of a connection is also easy. Remember a wedding. Odds are that the memory was there as quickly as you read that simple sentence. Some things are etched in our memory so strongly that they spring to the fore at the slightest provocation. But things we want to remember, we must reinforce. How many times have you repeated a phone number you just received to commit it to memory? Or read and reread a passage from a book to help you remember it? These actions reinforce the connections to a memory and strengthen that connection. Here again, this allows the brain to more quickly find and recall a memory.

 

Given all of that, there is virtually no way that we can mechanically reproduce or enhance the human brain to increase intelligence. The bio-electrical processes are just to complex to reproduce mechanically given our current state of technologies. And the numbers of connections are literally astronomical. (Sorry Mike, R Daneel Olivaw, Robbie, et al.)

 

What is left?

 

One option is to improve the quality of the input What?!?!. How is that? Improve education? Make students read books and write a report on them? Require science and math in schools? Test for measurable learning objectives and repeat courses if necessary? Require parents to take part in and foster their children's education? Nah. Who cares if little Johnny can't read or write, the popular sentiment seems to coincide with the sentiment in Pink Floyd's The Wall.

 

We don't need no education

We don't need no thought control

No dark sarcasm in the classroom

Teachers leave them kids alone

Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!

 

And it shows.

 

Past that, there is exercising the brain with puzzles and games. There is an entire industry geared toward training the brain in an effort to offset the effects of Alzheimer's Disease. There is even an APP for that.

 

If we do attack intelligence from biology and human DNA, let's focus on something fundamental. Start by reinforcing the youthful motivation to learn. The desire in children and young adults to increase ones own knowledge is probably the best bet for 'artificially' enchaining intelligence. That and providing suitable learning opportunities. What good is a motivation to learn when the only available source of information are Looney Toons, Roy Rogers, My Friend Flicka and Sky King? (If that doesn't date me, nothing else will.) But guess what. We don't need some scientific magic to improve our own learning opportunities and exercise our brain at the same time. Just simply trundle your little bundle down to the local library and read something. Anything will do. But first, you have got to want too and "there's the rub". The flick "Idiocracy" may be more prophesy than comedy.

Edited August 8, 2017 by PoorlyAged

[kthompsen]

 

 

 

Nah. We better leave 'smarter' out of the 'better, faster, stronger' saw. Humanity only needs their brains as a spacer to keep their skulls from imploding. Besides; given a sufficiently sized stone, even a Neanderthal can become smart.

 

 

 

 

I think a problem with considering augmenting our intelligence in the current age is that it's really, really hard to do even conceptually. Changing ourselves physically is all well and good, hell I'm pretty young in the grand scheme of things and it might be something I have to consider properly in my lifetime, but being able to make someone smarter isn't as easy as making someone harder,better,faster,stronger, etc.

It's not that humans don't want to be smarter, it's that we pretty much don't know how. If we find a way to give everyone eidetic memories, awesome, I'm first in line if I ever got the cash together - but we don't know how. The difference between the two isn't that intelligence isn't physical so we don't care about it, it's that intelligence isn't physical so it's an intangible thing we can't change in such a quick and easy way. Intelligence is such a broad concept interlinked with so many things that trying to modify it genetically is kind of a crapshoot that's liable to do more harm than good, especially considering we still don't fully know what affects it and those that we do are often associated with drawbacks, like anxiety, depression or schizophrenia. That's just our genetics though, is our intelligence not also built on an environment where we and/or others nurture our intelligence and have a desire to do so? Transhumanism might be able to increase the capacity for intelligence, but it can't force people to develop more intelligence.

 

I think if the technology was there that it was such an easy consideration and so easily understandable as physical modifications, we'd be considering it. As it stands, the ability simply isn't there, not the desire. Sure, we might be able to do so, but it's risky and might not get that big a payoff. The risk/reward of trying to modify the biology of people for intelligence is high on the risk without the promise of a vast reward at our current level of understanding.

 

I stress that I'm nothing more than a laymen in this field, if I'm wrong please feel free to correct me!

 

So if biological augmentation is too far off to consider right now, the discussion becomes one of mechanical augments. The problem with this is that, as I understand it, the idea of modifying one's intellect mechanically is pure science fiction for now. We're making progress, like mapping out the connections of the human brain thanks to the Human Connectome Project, but there's not really much we can affect physically. Using nanotechnology one could perhaps make, repair, and strengthen synaptic connections to give people better information recall and quicker thinking, but that's not necessarily affecting intelligence so much as how quickly you can apply your intelligence.

 

So if both biological and mechanical augmentation is so far from being able to have any real applications (barring a major scientific breakthrough, of course), but physical augmentations of both varieties are much closer, it makes sense we discuss the physical augments as we can already easily envision them and consider their applications.

 

Or maybe I just have too much faith in humanity's value of our intellect and preserving it and we will just devolve into cyborg apes as time goes on, who knows? :tongue:

I think a problem with considering augmenting our intelligence in the current age is that it's really, really hard to do even conceptually. Changing ourselves physically is all well and good, hell I'm pretty young and it might be something I have to consider properly in my lifetime, but being able to make someone smarter isn't as easy as making someone harder,better,faster,stronger, etc.

It's not that humans don't want to be smarter, it's that we pretty much don't know how. If we find a way to give everyone eidetic memories, awesome - but we don't know how. The difference between the two isn't that intelligence isn't physical so we don't care about it, it's that intelligence isn't physical so it's an intangible thing we can't change in such a quick and easy way. Intelligence is such a broad concept interlinked with so many things that trying to modify it genetically is kind of a crapshoot that's liable to do more harm than good, especially considering we still don't fully know what affects it and those that we do are often associated with drawbacks, like anxiety, depression or schizophrenia. That's just our genetics though, is our intelligence not also built on an environment where we and/or others nurture our intelligence and have a desire to do so?

 

 

 

If genetic modification of our intelligence, whether that be through strengthening synapses or modifying neurotransmitters to make people think faster and remember more, or getting a better understand of the genome so as to modify ourselves safely and knowingly by giving ourselves eidetic memory or something, we probably would.

As it stands, the ability simply isn't there, not the desire.

 

 

 

 

If we do attack intelligence from biology and human DNA, let's focus on something fundamental. Start by reinforcing the youthful motivation to learn. The desire in children and young adults to increase ones own knowledge is probably the best bet for 'artificially' enchaining intelligence. That and providing suitable learning opportunities. What good is a motivation to learn when the only available source of information are Looney Toons, Roy Rogers, My Friend Flicka and Sky King? (If that doesn't date me, nothing else will.) But guess what. We don't need some scientific magic to improve our own learning opportunities and exercise our brain at the same time. Just simply trundle your little bundle down to the local library and read something. Anything will do. But first, you have got to want too and "there's the rub". The flick "Idiocracy" may be more prophesy than comedy.

 

 

One could rewind back 50, or hell 100 years, and just read the letters of many people.. not scholars or nobles.. but average couples and family members.. and see how intelligent they came across. There's a lot to be said for simple literacy and the impact it has.

[Signette]

One of my favorite topics raised, so I can't ignore it.

 

Yes, I'm fascinated by idea of humanity enhancing itself, because let's face it, human kind went far off the rails of natural selection (broadly speaking) and genetically is in heavy decay which will have severe consequences for our kind in the future. To make my point clearer, consider this: with our science and generally medical advancements, when two parents breed child and one of parents had or has some sicknesses, it transfers genetically to the rest of the bloodline. In ancient times, when life was harsh, such people usually died when they were still young and couldn't leave any offsprings, so only most healthy ones survived, and overall genome of population was stronger. Now some can say that if medicine can save people it should, absolutely, but consider heap of ailments increased with each generation, dreadful, isn't it? And that's just one of the many examples.

 

Some people put a lot of faith in biotechnologies, which involves genetical enhancements and other types of manipulations with live matter, which might be considered as part of transhumanism ideas. But personally I think it's not the best path for technological advancement, because pretty much any serious scientist having experience with genetics would say that any manipulations with it can have millions of variables, which is simply impossible to predict, like if you try to enhance gene of embryo to safeguard it from certain illnesses, it can cause any types of by-effect at any stage of life, which has extremely low chance of predictability.

 

Thus I think best way would be focusing on mechanical advancements, so human could merge his own body with artificial components, and maybe in the future perform full transition from biological body to mechanical one. This could have almost unlimited advantages which I'm not sure even worth listing. The only problem is that our current science is currently as far from any real applications of it as possible and right now it is only a distant dream which might not ever be possible to achieve, and that's very sad.

 

On classic theme often raised in some futuristic novels about class division in society leading to some outbrakes and etc, I think it's the least of concerns, because obviously it won't have any more dire effect than what we have now, where people may not be able to reach immortality, but small percentage of society lives in unimaginable luxury, having access to best kinds of food, medical treatment and etc. while others are living in the slums or even jungles and hunting animals or insects to eat or finding food in the dump while average death age is around 30-40s. Assuming technologies will undergo some serious breakthroughs, for the first time any cybernetic enhancements would be practically impossible to obtain (like cars some 80 years ago, or computers relatively recently), but it will be more and more accessible to the masses, which in the end would be better thing despite all the shortcomings.

 

Though I'm more curious about psychological aspect. For example, just as an author (I presume) I would jump on operation table to replace as much living matter as possible right now if I could, but many people would hesitate. I had some debates where people hold their bodies precious, thinking it as some vessel which holds their soul and some other explanations why they think it is unacceptable for them. The sole idea of human being rejecting prolonged life of better quality or even immortality out of beliefs might be even more fascinating for me than entire transhumanism...

Edited August 14, 2017 by Signette