Transhumanism

[Fnord]

You don't have to accept them. They're coming anyway. Honestly, what's the problem with a cyborg body? If you can accept stuff like clone transplants (and possibly memory recording, I didn't see that there) whats wrong with cyborg? At least cyborgs you aren't overwriting a blank mind with yours, essentially destroying a human life to survive.

Clone transplants? Maybe. I'd prefer regeneration en vivo. Then the regenerated body part would be truly mine.

Memory Recording? Okay ... how about recording your memory, updating it once a month, and then downloading it into a blank-minded clone upon your original body's physical death? I could go for that.

Call me old-fashioned, if you will, but I've become rather attached to this pustulent meat-bag of mine in the last fifty years. Putting a human central nervous system into a robot body seems too much like putting someone in prison.

Hmm ...

A person is convicted of a heinous crime, and for punishment, his/her brain is removed and placed into a large, mobile machine. Their new purpose would be to terraform the Sahara desert into a tropical paradise. After 20 years, their brain gets put back into a compatible body.

I think I'm starting to channel the spirit of Philip K. Dick

 

[sinclairmcevoy]

Breeding is a problem that would have to be handled. Once again though, if we adjust our biology, we could colonize the ocean, mars, the moon, probably large numbers of Jupiter's moons, and... well, who knows where the future will take us. Heck, given enough time, we could upload our consciousness into computers, and breed entirely in the non-organic.

The real problem you seem to have here is the good ol' "God's design." Wake up! God's design isn't. There's no driving force, no master plan, nothing beyond 'live long enough to impregnate a woman (can happen by age 12), raise a kid, and die.' Hell, you could be done your master plan at age 20 - and probably in prehistory, were. Oh, 25 or 30 at the outside. That's all you were 'designed' for - to be a baby factory/protector. That's it. That's nature's grand design.

If we want a design that is useful beyond that, we're going to have to make it. Evolution is completely useless for that.

I never mentioned the good ol' God's Design. Designing humans to live in a specific environment would limit them to those conditions. As it is, we are able to live in a variety of conditions because of the way we are designed. There's little difference between someone being adapted to life on Venus needing protection to visit Earth and Earthlings needing it to go to to Venus. You'd just be creating the problem that you see with humans now.
Would you volunteer for a new set of legs if they looked good on paper and appeared to be mechanically superior to your own?

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Stockholm Syndrome! Here's a question for you - by what incredibly fortuitous mechanism do we find ourselves with precisely the right lifespan? Do you think increasing it from 90 to 100 years is a good plan? How about decreasing it to 80 years, because apparently scarcity (in this case, scarcity of life) is a priori good? Briefness is not valuable.

No, death is a travesty that we've grown to rationalize. Have a story that might not convince you but at least entertained me.

Cute story.

It assumes that death is an enemy, though, and I don't think it is.

It's a way to clear away old buildings and ideas to make room for the new.

Also: Where will they live?

If we start with an initial population of, say 100 million, and death is beaten, and everyone, being human, still wants to have kids, say, each married couple has three per generation, lets look at 5 generations....

100,000,000
250,000,000
625,000,000
1,562,500,000
3,906,250,000

Five generations to almost 4 billion people.

If we start with OUR world, at about 6.7 billion already, in five generations, you're looking at something like 26 trillion humans running around looking for a place to stand or sleep.

670,000,000,000
1,675,000,000,000
4,187,500,000,000
10,468,750,000,000
26,171,875,000,000

Thanks, but no. I'll take my ninety years plus-or-minus however much. I'll enjoy it to the best of my ability, leave it in as good a shape as I'm able, then head on out and make room for the next one or two in line.

[eta] Oops - 6.7 billion, not 670 million... drat....

6,700,000,000,000
16,750,000,000,000
41,875,000,000,000
104,687,500,000,000
261,718,750,000,000

two hundred sixty-one trillion people.

Better hope people can adapt to living in the seas and on the Antarctic.

Better design them not to have to sit down, either. [/eta]

[eta2] On the other hand, it's probably a good thing to fight against death. All the innovations you find in the meantime that improve the quality of life for everyone are probably a good thing.

Oh - and - also - ask me again when I'm near the ninety-or-so-years. Objects in the rear-view mirror may appear closer than they are. [/eta2]

 

[rocketdodger]

Also: Where will they live?

If we start with an initial population of, say 100 million, and death is beaten, and everyone, being human, still wants to have kids, say, each married couple has three per generation, lets look at 5 generations....

You can ethically tell people that if they want a child, then they can have a child -- once. That limits the population to 0.5x growth per generation at most, which is asymptotically stable in a small number of generations.

 

[rocketdodger]

I just wanted to say that I am also a Transhumanist and I claim that anyone who says they wouldn't pursue transhuman options is a hypocrite.

We already rely on technology to live the now standard life expectancy, yet I don't see any of you refusing it. Why draw an arbitrary distinction between what we have now and what we will have in the future?

The life expectancy and standard of living used to be much lower than it is now. Yet I don't see any of you complaining that a 30 year life is "enough to enjoy all I need to enjoy" or any other nonsense you people speak of.

Pull your heads out of your stubborn rear ends people.

 

[rocketdodger]

I never mentioned the good ol' God's Design. Designing humans to live in a specific environment would limit them to those conditions. As it is, we are able to live in a variety of conditions because of the way we are designed.

Yes, a variety of conditions inside inside a narrow temperature range on only a few portions of the planet we were "designed" to inhabit.

Would you volunteer for a new set of legs if they looked good on paper and appeared to be mechanically superior to your own?

How about "if they were tested for thousands of hours and found to be mechanically superior to my own?"

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

You can ethically tell people that if they want a child, then they can have a child -- once. That limits the population to 0.5x growth per generation at most, which is asymptotically stable in a small number of generations.

You can ethically tell teenagers that they're not to get drunk or have sex, and because human beings are so altruistic and ethical, they won't do it, right?

It's asymptotically stable in a small number of generations because you run out of allowed breeders.

I think my estimate is more realistic, and it's not realistic at all!

 

[GreyICE]

I never mentioned the good ol' God's Design. Designing humans to live in a specific environment would limit them to those conditions. As it is, we are able to live in a variety of conditions because of the way we are designed. There's little difference between someone being adapted to life on Venus needing protection to visit Earth and Earthlings needing it to go to to Venus. You'd just be creating the problem that you see with humans now.

So the people on Venus visit earth what, once every 5-10 years, tops? Maybe 20-40? I mean how many people seriously go to different continents frequently, and jaunting from continent to continent is a joke compared to interplanetary travel.

The problem is humans were really suited to their environment 10,000 years ago. Their environment being a cave, their daily activity being gathering food and trapping small animals with snares, and their expected lifespan being 20 years if they were lucky.

We're NOT adapted for our environment anymore.

Would you volunteer for a new set of legs if they looked good on paper and appeared to be mechanically superior to your own?

Yes. I dunno why they wouldn't go to people who lost their legs first, but yes. I would volunteer.

 

[rocketdodger]

Hi


You can ethically tell teenagers that they're not to get drunk or have sex, and because human beings are so altruistic and ethical, they won't do it, right?

It's asymptotically stable in a small number of generations because you run out of allowed breeders.

I think my estimate is more realistic, and it's not realistic at all!

Yes but what portion of the population will be able to pursue transhuman options? Most people can't even afford a decent living, never mind near immortality.

 

[CapelDodger]

Wrong forum. The conspiracy theory forum is thataways. I'm talking about transhumanism, not the chinese plot to invade Africa.

Neither am I. I was just addressing practicalities, which is pretty much what I've stuck to on this thread.

I'm not averse to re-designing humans but getting into it now would be like giving a baby a razor-blade to play with. It makes for a steep learning-curve, true, but the process is pretty ugly.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

... clip ...

How about "if they were tested for thousands of hours and found to be mechanically superior to my own?"

You know... actually... there was this runner I read about recently that had double below-the-knee amputations, but he wanted to keep running.

He got a set of those special prosthetics, and now, they won't let him run in the Olympics because the prosthetics are, "an unfair advantage."

Runner With Double Amputation Not Eligible to Compete in Olympics

Maybe there is something to this transhuman stuff....

No promises, though. No promises.

 

[GreyICE]

Clone transplants? Maybe. I'd prefer regeneration en vivo. Then the regenerated body part would be truly mine.

Huh, seems a little woo to me. I mean are transplanted organs not truly yours? Is it not your eye if you have an eye transplant? But yeah, sure, whatever

Memory Recording? Okay ... how about recording your memory, updating it once a month, and then downloading it into a blank-minded clone upon your original body's physical death? I could go for that.

That would be one of the first uses, yes.

Call me old-fashioned, if you will, but I've become rather attached to this pustulent meat-bag of mine in the last fifty years. Putting a human central nervous system into a robot body seems too much like putting someone in prison.

I dunno. With my 'prison' fully attached to my central nervous system, and having complete feeling and control over it, I can't imagine it being anything like being locked in a cell all day. But hey, transhumanism isn't about forcing people to do things, so keep the meat bag. I have no real plans to.

Hmm ...

A person is convicted of a heinous crime, and for punishment, his/her brain is removed and placed into a large, mobile machine. Their new purpose would be to terraform the Sahara desert into a tropical paradise. After 20 years, their brain gets put back into a compatible body.

I think I'm starting to channel the spirit of Philip K. Dick

More like Richard K. Morgan

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Yes but what portion of the population will be able to pursue transhuman options? Most people can't even afford a decent living, never mind near immortality.

Ah, yes.

The New Elite: Solving the World's Problems by Walking Over the Corpses of the Hoi Polloi... One Step at a Time.

Ok - I'm back to my original position.

 

[GreyICE]

I just wanted to say that I am also a Transhumanist and I claim that anyone who says they wouldn't pursue transhuman options is a hypocrite.

We already rely on technology to live the now standard life expectancy, yet I don't see any of you refusing it. Why draw an arbitrary distinction between what we have now and what we will have in the future?

The life expectancy and standard of living used to be much lower than it is now. Yet I don't see any of you complaining that a 30 year life is "enough to enjoy all I need to enjoy" or any other nonsense you people speak of.

Pull your heads out of your stubborn rear ends people.

Welcome! I knew we'd start coming out of the woodwork. A nice, concise summary of the subject IMHO.

 

[GreyICE]

Hi




Ah, yes.

The New Elite: Solving the World's Problems by Walking Over the Corpses of the Hoi Polloi... One Step at a Time.

Ok - I'm back to my original position.

At first, only the rich had access to modes of transportation besides walking. Now everyone can have a bicycle, many can have cars, and we can travel in public transportation happily.

At first, only the rich (and milkmaids) had access to vaccines. Now we vaccinate millions with regularity.

At first, only a few elites had computers. Now, we're starting $100 dollar laptop programs for Africa.

At first, only a few technological elite could access the internet. Now anyone can walk into a library.

At first, doctors were a luxury only kings could afford. Now most of the earth can get better medical treatment than that which used to be worth a fortune.

At first, books were worth their weight in gold. Now they're cheap enough that almost anyone can buy them, and with the internet, the written word is only getting cheaper.


See any trends here?

Of course now we can do it differently. Now we can do it humanely. Now we can try to spread the life-saving advances to as many as possible. Now we can focus on bringing the application into broad scope instead of starting specialized. Now we can intelligently start a new technology, instead of organically.

But only if we develop a plan for doing that. Otherwise it's going to be a series of regional fights, with no concentrated effort to make it beneficial for mankind, and it will spread like everything else has - first the rich will get it, then it will gradually come down in price.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

You almost had me.

You ALMOST had me.

I was even willing to put up with the Geheime Vermehrung Staats-polizei, but that, "how many will be able to afford it," done you in.

Speaking as... ummm... I guess I'd be Hoi Pollus, I intend to leave the wings, extra breathing tubes, kangaroo legs and eternal life to my, "betters."

 

[Prometheus]

At first, only the rich had access to modes of transportation besides walking. Now everyone can have a bicycle, many can have cars, and we can travel in public transportation happily.

At first, only the rich (and milkmaids) had access to vaccines. Now we vaccinate millions with regularity.

At first, only a few elites had computers. Now, we're starting $100 dollar laptop programs for Africa.

At first, only a few technological elite could access the internet. Now anyone can walk into a library.

At first, doctors were a luxury only kings could afford. Now most of the earth can get better medical treatment than that which used to be worth a fortune.

At first, books were worth their weight in gold. Now they're cheap enough that almost anyone can buy them, and with the internet, the written word is only getting cheaper.


See any trends here?

Of course now we can do it differently. Now we can do it humanely. Now we can try to spread the life-saving advances to as many as possible. Now we can focus on bringing the application into broad scope instead of starting specialized. Now we can intelligently start a new technology, instead of organically.

But only if we develop a plan for doing that. Otherwise it's going to be a series of regional fights, with no concentrated effort to make it beneficial for mankind, and it will spread like everything else has - first the rich will get it, then it will gradually come down in price.

Yep. The day when I can walk into my local Wal-Mart to grab an organ transplant and a couple o' cheap Chinese knock-off bionic limbs is on its way!

 

[GreyICE]

Yep. The day when I can walk into my local Wal-Mart to grab an organ transplant and a couple o' cheap Chinese knock-off bionic limbs is on its way!

Yup! Of course tide of history being what it is, we're talking 2-3 centuries at least before they're off-the-shelf installs, but hopefully we'll be able to do it simply long before then.

 

[sinclairmcevoy]

It all sounds too good to be true. If you really believe that this is something that will be provided to the masses, you're way out in left field.

 

[Prometheus]

Yup! Of course tide of history being what it is, we're talking 2-3 centuries at least before they're off-the-shelf installs, but hopefully we'll be able to do it simply long before then.

Have you read anything by Vernor Vinge? I think you'd like his stuff.