Transhumanism

[TheMastersSon]

I love Annie Lennox. ;)

 

My post wasn't a defense of Hitler, or eugenics, and I'd slightly correct Orwell by saying the essence of being human is that one understands the perfection of imperfection. A man's reach must exceed his grasp or else what's a heaven for etc. IMO it's essentially human to seek improvement, not perfection. And I'm not sure what any of that has to do with my point, which is that the only difference between human and transhuman is time.

[TexMex477]

The very definition of transhumanism is seek perfection by becoming something not of human.

 

You said humans should reach for the stars to which no one can disagree, but when you transend humanity it is no

longer humans reaching for the stars. The keyword being humans. Transhumanism is the idea there is something fundamentally wrong with the limits of humanity.

The idea is to transcend being human either by means of genetic alteration or replacing the human mind with a computer.

 

When you change the fundamentals of what it means to be human you change the idea of humanity.

For example Hitler hated the idea of people with defects such as blind and the mentally disabled. His goal was to round them up and ensure they never breed

to pass on any traits.

 

He used as you suggested eugenics to attempt to transcend humanity to create a super race of perfection.

The goal of course being using selective breeding (man made evolution) to promote transhumanism. It is fairly hard to talk about

transhumanism without talking about eugenics or Adolf.

 

We use to call faults, mistakes and struggle character building a quality that most people use to look highly upon.

 

"Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, ambition inspired, and success achieved", Helen Keller

Edited August 6, 2017 by TexMex477

[RatB0Y68]

The whole principle of eugenics is based on a flawed understanding of genetics. Attempting to get rid of faulty genes by removing the carriers from circulation depletes the gene pool, and lowers the potential variation of genes. This means that defective genes can more easily be expressed.

 

The most pronounced examples of this are in cosanguinous relationships. In families that practise incest, there is often a very closed and restricted gene pool, allowing harmful genes to be passed on unchecked. In an ordinary family whose members produce offspring with unrelated partners, there is a fresh addition of new genes in new variations, making it easier for faulty genes to be bred out. This is not limited to humans either, selective breeding of purebred dogs and cats by more irresponsible breeders produces breeds with health problems and deformities.

 

Also, the whole notion of culling faulty carriers to get rid of a small selection of defective genes is wasteful and disproportionate, akin to getting rid of the rat infestation by blowing up the house.

 

Sure, you could say that the downsides of eugenics won't affect us much in a population of millions, but there are other more abstract factors to consider. The standard for what constitutes a 'defect' is flexible, and as faulty gene carriers are eliminated, the goalposts are vulnerable to being moved to encompass less severe defects, or things that are only allegedly defects depending on who is talking. Add to the fact that many deformities and disablities can be influenced by the environment and it quickly becomes obvious the eugenics would never be a viable solution. A regime with an axe to grind against notions of impurity and weakness may happily round up amputees or paraplegics, despite them being genetically healthy.

 

TLDR: Eugenics is based on a warped understanding of science; it not only doesn't work but it is counterproductive, producing over time the very thing it seeks to eliminate. If you want to create a superior species via genetics, find a way to develop medical treatments that remove specific defective genes or repair them. For all I know something like this could already exist.

[PretentiousElizabeth]

Tex, I think you've got a false equivalence going there.

 

Eugenics, at it's most extreme, is a desire to change humanity by removing certain people or peoples from it. Of course, the actual meaning of eugenics has been a matter of debate since it was coined - some would call any form of meddling with our genetics eugenics.

Transhumanism is a desire to change humanity by altering things in people whom are already living (or by some definitions like ones which include gene therapy, soon to be living).

One is depriving people of life or the ability to procreate if they so wish, the other doesn't effect this.

That's not to say there isn't a discussion to be had about transhumanism potentially leading to eugenics, but that support of transhumanism doesn't make one a supporter of eugenics, especially insofar as the eugenics practices by the Nazis.

If you think that transhumanism would lead to "seeking perfection" and destroying humanity in the process, then I ask what, at our core, makes or breaks us from being human? As ProConsul said,

 

 

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?

 

Is being a homo sapien, the scientific term, the same as being human, the philosophical term? Is it our physical form that dictates whether we're human, or something mental, perhaps even emotional? Would mechanical or biological augments effect this, and if so, why?

 

Though your point about stem cells and the ability to do some small edits to them is interesting, as genetic engineering could be considered a form of transhumanism. For example, if there was some way to screen embryos for a genetic condition, like Huntington's, and then cure it, do you think it would be right to do so? Would you partake in such a thing, would you allow it to be legal for others if they so chose? Do you think it would start a slippery slope toward further edits, and if so, do you think perhaps we're already on that route? Do you think people would fall into eugenics, even with such horrific examples so readily available and remembered in history that even the word itself is tainted to some extent now?

 

If we don't touch our genetics - whether that's by choice because of the concerns you raise (which is actually the case right now as the United Nations has a declaration forbidding the altering of the human genome, calling it the "common heritage of humanity" which should be preserved. Not explicitly illegal, but it perhaps shows what most nations think of the topic, as it was signed unanimously), or by making it explicitly illegal, so as to deliberately avoid the Gattaca reality - and instead focus upon more mechanical augments to ourselves which by their nature would only be available after we've reached adulthood and stopped growing, does your opinion of transhumanism change?

[PoorlyAged]

Just some random dumb questions, related or not.

 

Are 'legalities' or 'ethics' really valid considerations when discussing advances in science and technology? Both or these concepts are purely nebulous human constructs which are routinely abandoned in response to changing circumstances.

 

A number of people have undergone an exorbitant amount of plastic surgery to 'improve their physical appearance'. How is such surgery different than undergoing surgeries to 'improve their physical abilities'?

 

In spite of the UN proscription, recent advances have successfully allowed surgery to replace defective human DNA as a means to cure a genetic disease. Are we as humans at the cusp where DNA manipulation will allow for a 'better, faster, stronger' human to be artificially created at insemination?

 

And having reached 'better, faster, stronger', why is 'smarter' not first on that little litany?

 

We as a species have so polluted our planet that extinction of all species is being contemplated. May it become necessary to alter our DNA to allow for humanities continued survival in a world becoming increasingly toxic?

 

From a psychological standpoint, has humanity advanced to the point where we find our physical limitations simply a matter of self image and a negative measure of our self worth?

 

And just for laughs, Here is some inspiration:

 

[TexMex477]

 

Eugenics, at it's most extreme, is a desire to change humanity by removing certain people or peoples from it.

Transhumanism is a desire to change humanity by altering things in people whom are already living

 

I am just going based on well established understanding of the words.

Not sure what your understanding of the words is but that is not the normal accepted meaning.

 

"transcending human limits"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transhuman

 

"a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenics

 

The terms are much closer in relationship than you might have previously thought.

It is almost safe to say eugenics is transhumanism but transhumanism isn't eugenics.

 

 

 

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:

Edited August 7, 2017 by TexMex477

[kthompsen]

I think the way to advance humanity is through calamity and hardship, personally. But I highly doubt that fits anyone's definition of transhumanism :tongue:

 

There's a reason why the "Greatest Generation" is called that though. Hell, I'd go back even further and just say people in pre-industrial conditions had a lot of character too.

 

But I'm not a Luddite by any means. I love technology. I'm speaking merely about psychology. What use is technological advancement if you're petty and weak-minded? The average kid peacocking (or losing their self-confidence) on facebook or crying over a text message on their phone is proof of what I'm saying.

 

I'd go so far as to say that transhumanism itself is motivated by weak minded thinking. Especially the likes of Ray Kurzweil....who eats like a hundred vitamins a day or something crazy like that. The man is simply afraid of death -- and all of his musings on futurism stream from this premise. Death is natural to fear, but he takes it to such a level that I have nothing for contempt for him. Perhaps there are some things to be argued in favor of transhumanism, but it has be divorced from fear. It needs a positive motivation. Not a negative one.

Edited August 7, 2017 by kthompsen

[RatB0Y68]

Suggestions for possible regulations for transhuman operations:

 

1: Focus on replacing parts that are either genetically defective or lost/irreparably damaged through blameless accident. If someone drinks vodka and turpentine cocktails until their liver and kidneys dissolve, we should not consider upgrading them with new robotic ones. The danger is that we would engender a reckless, thoughtless, cavalier attitude to one's own body.

 

2: Don't amputate working organs and limbs; enhance them instead, less stressful on the body, less wasteful. The message one should give is not "your body is weak and inferior, dispose of it" but instead "your body is well evolved and strong, but we can make it even stronger."

 

3: Don't use transhuman research to give people new, non human limbs and organs eg: tails and webbed feet. It might sound comical, but changing the human condition like that brings in a whole new set of considerations and new headaches in predicting the fallout.

[PoorlyAged]

 

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.

Edited August 7, 2017 by PoorlyAged

[HeyYou]

Suggestions for possible regulations for transhuman operations:

 

1: Focus on replacing parts that are either genetically defective or lost/irreparably damaged through blameless accident. If someone drinks vodka and turpentine cocktails until their liver and kidneys dissolve, we should not consider upgrading them with new robotic ones. The danger is that we would engender a reckless, thoughtless, cavalier attitude to one's own body.

 

2: Don't amputate working organs and limbs; enhance them instead, less stressful on the body, less wasteful. The message one should give is not "your body is weak and inferior, dispose of it" but instead "your body is well evolved and strong, but we can make it even stronger."

 

3: Don't use transhuman research to give people new, non human limbs and organs eg: tails and webbed feet. It might sound comical, but changing the human condition like that brings in a whole new set of considerations and new headaches in predicting the fallout.

Oh man, c'mon. There are times when a prehensile tail would come in REALLY handy. :)