• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
Hi


...and I'll stand there, happily watching, battering in my solar plexus with the back of a chair as the enzyme released to open the secondary breathing tube dissolves your lungs!

Oh, what fun we'll have.
If I have an enzyme to open a muscle, I deserve to die.

Anyway, why wouldn't you implant a device in your lung to give you breathable air for at least 5-10 minutes? It would come in seriously handy quite frequently. Or perhaps a rebreather for the air that gets into your lungs (the hardest part would be the sensation of not breathing, but you'd probably figure that one out eventually). Use a battery to electrolyze the CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen, collect the waste carbon from the process, and close off the entire throat thing unless its needed.


Watch out for walnuts, Grey.

....
Hah! I like the story. Good ol' God knows best, it perfectly sums up half the objections in one neat package - who are we to play God?

The answer is, of course, the only players on the block.
And, if you all are busy cooking up new kinds of humans, may I please, Please, PLEASE have one that looks like Summer Glau or Jessica Alba?
Full editing of the human body's appearance? Not only could you have a woman who looked like that (if you could convince them), you could look like that.

<<sigh>> I know, I know.. I AM a troglodyte, but I'm OLD, not DEAD!!
Huh, you're not old until you're on at least your fourth or fifth century. Anything before that means we need to start moving faster.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, the major reasons for transhumanism are simple.

First, our environment. We're horribly maldapted to our current environment. There's lots of problems with being essentially hunter-gatherers in an urban, industrial environment. Changing our bodies and our minds could solve lots of those.

The second is the singularity. Frankly, we have only three real choices in the long run - stop developing and hope nothing kick starts the singularity, try to BECOME the singularity, or sit back and hope its benevolent. I really don't like the two options that boil down to 'cross your fingers.'
 
Three words: Battle of Mogadishu.

One question : what were they doing there?

The worst possible situation you can imagine for the soldiers - outnumbered, outgunned, in a battle they didn't plan for, didn't prepare for, and didn't want.

You see what prompts my question.

End result? 19 American dead, 73 wounded. 500-2000 Somalians killed.

Quite. I don't see the Chinese having much of a problem when they go in knowing what they want.

Superior training and superior weaponry have a geometric effect on force multipliers.

The Chinese have those multipliers, and a bigger force to start with. The Brits had those multipliers, a much smaller force, and knew what they were doing there and they walked all over East Africa. Even the frickin' Beligians ended up with the Congo.

That's why supersoldiers would never replace computer-driven forces, and why masses of men do nothing. That's why we repealed the draft, among other reasons - all it did was give us sub-par troops.

The US draft was repealed when they got out of South-East Asia - and why were they there? For the heroin?

As and when the Chinese go into Africa, they'll know why - to get control of the mineral resources primarily, perhaps of the land secondarily, and just possibly for the women. One thing it will do is get a lot of potentially disruptive excess males abroad, where they can't do any harm. Obviously, any Chinese draft will no more encompass the children of the rich and influential than the US draft encompassed the likes of Bush or Cheney.
 
I admit it, I am a transhumanist. I don't want to hop right into some ideological rant about the entire concept, so I'll just open the floor for discussion.

Let me just say that its incredibly obvious that there are numerous design flaws in the human body, and anyone who glorifies it as anything other than a rather obnoxious meat shell severely lacking in basic capability is delusional about the quality of the 'design.'
My obnoxious meat shell has served me pretty well, I am not really in a hurry to trade it in.

Humans can't build a robot with anything even approaching the abilities of a human body so what makes you think anyway that they will be able to improve on the design? And would running a little faster improve the quality of my life? Most of the things that I can think of that have made my life worthwhile do not seem to be things that can be improved on - would the Clash have sounded any better if I had improved ears?
 
Hi
If I have an enzyme to open a muscle, I deserve to die.

Anyway, why wouldn't you implant a device in your lung to give you breathable air for at least 5-10 minutes? It would come in seriously handy quite frequently. Or perhaps a rebreather for the air that gets into your lungs (the hardest part would be the sensation of not breathing, but you'd probably figure that one out eventually). Use a battery to electrolyze the CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen, collect the waste carbon from the process, and close off the entire throat thing unless its needed.
Probably true about the enzyme.

Only thing is, after I put all the things in my chest that, "would come in seriously handy quite frequently," I either have to lose my lungs or have a wheelbarrow to carry them around.

An external adapter and a quick connect to change out stuff quickly and some backpack-mounted devices would work better: The old Grab-and-Bag full of adaptations.
Hah! I like the story. Good ol' God knows best, it perfectly sums up half the objections in one neat package - who are we to play God?

The answer is, of course, the only players on the block.
It wasn't about God. It was about someone, "knowing," what was, "best," from a very limited point of view.

God or evolution has spend a very long time tinkering with the equipment and has a pretty good handle on what's working reasonably well for everyone, and once a person takes to changing the system, well, those huge-melon trees don't really work well in the yard with the kids and the dog.
Full editing of the human body's appearance? Not only could you have a woman who looked like that (if you could convince them), you could look like that.

Ok - now, THAT almost has me sold. Mmm... almost. If I looked like Jessica Alba, you'd never get me into cloths or out of the house.

Huh, you're not old until you're on at least your fourth or fifth century. Anything before that means we need to start moving faster.

Are you kidding? Most of the folks that wants to live forever can't figure out what to do with a rainy Saturday afternoon!

Imagine 1,000 years of rainy Saturday afternoons.

After 500 years, you'd be a professional, full-time couch-potato. After a thousand, if you were still moving around, you'd have been everywhere and done everything you'd ever wanted (except maybe for dating Jessica Alba) and you'd be doing stupid, semi-suicidal stuff just to give yourself enough of a thrill to make it to the next MacDonald's.

No thanks. I'll be ready to go in my alloted 90 or so years. It's the very briefness of the thing that gives it such value.
 
Hi

Probably true about the enzyme.

Only thing is, after I put all the things in my chest that, "would come in seriously handy quite frequently," I either have to lose my lungs or have a wheelbarrow to carry them around.

An external adapter and a quick connect to change out stuff quickly and some backpack-mounted devices would work better: The old Grab-and-Bag full of adaptations.
Sure, grab bag full of adapters and connections to the body. Whatever works. Hey, check it out, we're agreeing the system needs improvement.
It wasn't about God. It was about someone, "knowing," what was, "best," from a very limited point of view.

God or evolution has spend a very long time tinkering with the equipment and has a pretty good handle on what's working reasonably well for everyone, and once a person takes to changing the system, well, those huge-melon trees don't really work well in the yard with the kids and the dog.
Oddly enough, given our wonderful state 10,000 years ago before we started seriously tinkering with the human condition, I'm not too worried.


Are you kidding? Most of the folks that wants to live forever can't figure out what to do with a rainy Saturday afternoon!

Imagine 1,000 years of rainy Saturday afternoons.

After 500 years, you'd be a professional, full-time couch-potato. After a thousand, if you were still moving around, you'd have been everywhere and done everything you'd ever wanted (except maybe for dating Jessica Alba) and you'd be doing stupid, semi-suicidal stuff just to give yourself enough of a thrill to make it to the next MacDonald's.
You kidding? I could never do everything I want to do in a thousand years. A lifespan like that would give us so much perspective. Imagine taking a decade or two off to live in the wilderness and really understand it. Or spending 20 years mastering cooking. Or just spending a few months in a park, camping.
No thanks. I'll be ready to go in my alloted 90 or so years. It's the very briefness of the thing that gives it such value.
I've never found that to be so.
 
You mean show you a kangaroo hobbling along in an inefficient, poorly-designed manner? Why would a kangaroo want to do such a thing?

It's like saying, "Oh yeah? Show me a bird jogging! Yeah! Didn't think of that, did ya?"

I'm guess you have never seen an emu then. And yes the far superior kangeroo leg that can't move sideways, cant move backwards.....yeah great design work
 
I'm guess you have never seen an emu then. And yes the far superior kangeroo leg that can't move sideways, cant move backwards.....yeah great design work

Okay, straight question: In your opinion, is the human leg the optimal design for a bipedal creature living in our environment?

Optimal design is defined as a design that could not be improved upon.
 
Are you kidding? Most of the folks that wants to live forever can't figure out what to do with a rainy Saturday afternoon!

Imagine 1,000 years of rainy Saturday afternoons.

After 500 years, you'd be a professional, full-time couch-potato. After a thousand, if you were still moving around, you'd have been everywhere and done everything you'd ever wanted (except maybe for dating Jessica Alba) and you'd be doing stupid, semi-suicidal stuff just to give yourself enough of a thrill to make it to the next MacDonald's.

No thanks. I'll be ready to go in my alloted 90 or so years. It's the very briefness of the thing that gives it such value.
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.
 
I think you might have that confused with life after death.

~~ Paul

Why? Life after death is part of the rationalization for death, to make it seem more palatable. There is no good reason to die, except for accidents of biology. Lets correct them, and live as long as we like. I think it will take me at least a couple millenia to get bored.
 
Hi
Sure, grab bag full of adapters and connections to the body. Whatever works. Hey, check it out, we're agreeing the system needs improvement.

... snip ...
Nope.

I mean use the existing adaptation.

Not running fast enough? Grow kangaroo legs or invent the bicycle or the automobile. Getting wet in the rain? Modify your hair with more density, a topcoat and undercoat, or invent an umbrella. Unable to breathe underwater? Grow gills or invent a gill pack (ask me about that one, sometime).

What appendage will you grow if you want to go into interstellar space, or into some interesting magma?

If you can make my jessiccalbanization instantaneous, things may be different.

If I have to grow the various things I want, and the exigencies of my life remain pretty much unchanged, I'll be spending about half, maybe two thirds, my time in the growth tanks.

I'd much rather view myself as a general-use platform with lots of options than end-user specified hardware. I know what end-users do to critical system specifications.

I can make my computer into a stop-light controller with a little work and a few pieces of interface hardware. I can't get the stop-light sequencer to play World of Warcraft without some truly superior time and effort. I can use my computer as a word processor, but the best thing Lanier ever made won't let me on the internet.

I like my general-use platform, thanks, unjessiccalbanized though it may be.
 
Why? Life after death is part of the rationalization for death, to make it seem more palatable. There is no good reason to die, except for accidents of biology. Lets correct them, and live as long as we like. I think it will take me at least a couple millenia to get bored.

Has it occurred to you that in 2000 years, a couple could have 100's of offspring? If people don't die, and still reproduce, won't the planet get full in a hurry? Or is breeding a mistake that should be corrected? Frankly, your ideas are interesting in a strange way, but Kangaroo legs work for Kangaroos. That's why THEY have them. Wings work for birds, that's why THEY have them. We didn't evolve to the state we're at now by accident or mistake. Sorry if you don't like the way humans are equipped, I don't think anyone can improve on it without unwanted consequences.
BTW having an extra tube in case you choke is not something that would come in handy for many.
 
Hi

Nope.

I mean use the existing adaptation.

Not running fast enough? Grow kangaroo legs or invent the bicycle or the automobile. Getting wet in the rain? Modify your hair with more density, a topcoat and undercoat, or invent an umbrella. Unable to breathe underwater? Grow gills or invent a gill pack (ask me about that one, sometime).

What appendage will you grow if you want to go into interstellar space, or into some interesting magma?
Interstellar space is reasonably difficult, but not impossible. The major challenges are getting rid of the heat, surviving the vacuum, and dealing with the lack of oxygen. The advantages are absurdly low gravity forces.

Since the gravity is so low, muscles are a complete weakness. The more you have, the more likely you are to injure yourself, and the more mass you have to support. Reducing the musculature to that of a severely atrophied person, but with the tone necessary for fine motor control would significantly increase manuverability in space.

The skin would have to be replaced by a hardened exoskeleton. That would probably allow us to cut down on the bone mass, especially when you combine it with the lack of muscle, which should give us more than enough room. The eyes would need to go. Replace them with video cameras that plug directly into the optical nerve. Not only would that give you a much wider range of vision than visible light, it would give you significant advantages in dealing with the sun. I'd suggest organics, except for the entire liquid problem.

Oxygen could be supplied through a recycler in the lung. With reduced muscle mass we should need less anyway. Power would be provided by coating the skin in solar cells - the power is abundant out there, and it would allow you to drive many systems.

Heat is the hardest to deal with. We currently deal with heat by flushing it into space. Its possible for long term we could create gigantic unfurable heat fins, to store and radiate the heat when not directly in line of sight of the sun. But honestly the easiest way would be to use the bloodstream to move heat into a central location, and vent very hot matter through an organic refrigeration system.

Food would have to be transported directly into the stomach, through liquid feeding tubes. Waste would be expelled probably similarly to the way it is now, although waste expulsion would serve the very important purpose of expelling waste heat, thus keeping you alive.

Magma presents a much harder problem. I dunno how we'd go about doing that one.
If you can make my jessiccalbanization instantaneous, things may be different.

If I have to grow the various things I want, and the exigencies of my life remain pretty much unchanged, I'll be spending about half, maybe two thirds, my time in the growth tanks.
Uh, why would you want to change your body that often? I mean if you do, more power to you, but you have to assume the average person will get gills, use them for 5-10 years, instead of trying to take weekend trips to the ocean and then spend the next weekend in space.
I'd much rather view myself as a general-use platform with lots of options than end-user specified hardware. I know what end-users do to critical system specifications.
Here's the problem - we can't live in space. Not for more than a week or two. We can't live underwater, period. We can't live on mars. Think about terraforming - absurdly difficult, time consuming, dangerous, expensive, and prone to failure. Now think about human-forming. Much easier, testable before hand, and overall quick. We could settle Mars. Mercury (we'd probably still need some sort of tents, but they could be much less demanding), the ocean. How much of our planet can we really live on? Deserts? Don't make me laugh, we barely survive there as it is. Siberia, Northern Canada, Antarctica? Once again, we desperately try to create the terrain we need. The entire bloody ocean? Nope, once again, hostile turf.
I can make my computer into a stop-light controller with a little work and a few pieces of interface hardware. I can't get the stop-light sequencer to play World of Warcraft without some truly superior time and effort. I can use my computer as a word processor, but the best thing Lanier ever made won't let me on the internet.
So why does anyone buy stop-light controllers? Oh yeah, specialty stuff trumps heavy equipment. Your computer can malfunction for a dozen reasons. The stop light controller just works. Only a malfunction, in the case of living in space, or underwater, means one thing - you die. Very quickly, very messily, and with little hope of rescue. You have to live constantly at war with your own environment, policing your protections to make sure not a single thing can pass them. A leak, a faulty gage, a bad readout, and you die.

By transforming our body, we adapt to the environment. That which was once hostile becomes friendly. Instead of protecting our body with systems designed to keep our fragile flesh safe, our flesh becomes one of our systems, and works in tune with the new environment.
I like my general-use platform, thanks, unjessiccalbanized though it may be.
I'd rather live forever.
 
One question : what were they doing there?



You see what prompts my question.



Quite. I don't see the Chinese having much of a problem when they go in knowing what they want.



The Chinese have those multipliers, and a bigger force to start with. The Brits had those multipliers, a much smaller force, and knew what they were doing there and they walked all over East Africa. Even the frickin' Beligians ended up with the Congo.



The US draft was repealed when they got out of South-East Asia - and why were they there? For the heroin?

As and when the Chinese go into Africa, they'll know why - to get control of the mineral resources primarily, perhaps of the land secondarily, and just possibly for the women. One thing it will do is get a lot of potentially disruptive excess males abroad, where they can't do any harm. Obviously, any Chinese draft will no more encompass the children of the rich and influential than the US draft encompassed the likes of Bush or Cheney.

Wrong forum. The conspiracy theory forum is thataways. I'm talking about transhumanism, not the chinese plot to invade Africa.
 
Has it occurred to you that in 2000 years, a couple could have 100's of offspring? If people don't die, and still reproduce, won't the planet get full in a hurry? Or is breeding a mistake that should be corrected? Frankly, your ideas are interesting in a strange way, but Kangaroo legs work for Kangaroos. That's why THEY have them. Wings work for birds, that's why THEY have them. We didn't evolve to the state we're at now by accident or mistake. Sorry if you don't like the way humans are equipped, I don't think anyone can improve on it without unwanted consequences.
BTW having an extra tube in case you choke is not something that would come in handy for many.

Evolution is great, but we can do better. Evolution created birds with wings after more time than I can comprehend - we created vehicles that can fly to Mars in relatively little time. Our state is an accident. Evolution was going to create something, but there was no need for it to be us. You don't think anyone can improve on it? Speak to the deaf. Without unwanted consequences? Sure, everything's a trade-off, but blind faith in evolution having already perfected the human form beyond hope of improvement is very silly.
 
Last edited:
I'm not entirely sure what would be wrong with breeding slaves per se. The problem with slavery, as I see it, is that slavery is not conducive to the well-being of humans. People don't generally like being slaves, and even when they are relatively okay with it you are preventing them from being able to aspire to higher things. With sufficiently advanced genetic engineering, you could create creatures who are content and who flourish with an iron boot stamping on their face forever. I wouldn't personally want transhumanism to be directed in such directions, but I'm not sure if there's anything objectively bad about it.
 
Last edited:
Has it occurred to you that in 2000 years, a couple could have 100's of offspring? If people don't die, and still reproduce, won't the planet get full in a hurry? Or is breeding a mistake that should be corrected? Frankly, your ideas are interesting in a strange way, but Kangaroo legs work for Kangaroos. That's why THEY have them. Wings work for birds, that's why THEY have them. We didn't evolve to the state we're at now by accident or mistake. Sorry if you don't like the way humans are equipped, I don't think anyone can improve on it without unwanted consequences.
BTW having an extra tube in case you choke is not something that would come in handy for many.
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'm not entirely sure what would be wrong with breeding slaves per se. The problem with slavery, as I see it, is that slavery is not conducive to the well-being of humans. People don't generally like being slaves, and even when they are relatively okay with it you are preventing them from being able to aspire to higher things. With sufficiently advanced genetic engineering, you could create creatures who are content and who flourish with an iron boot stamping on their face forever. I wouldn't personally want transhumanism to be directed in such directions, but I'm not sure if there's anything objectively bad about it.
We have them already. We call them robots.

But honestly, what do we need slaves for? To manufacture goods? Too complicated. Genetically engineer ways to grow certain goods. Have machines guide them into the proper design. To serve us? Boring. Give us ways to better serve ourselves.

Even by the time of the revolutionary war, slavery was dying because having an involuntary, unskilled labor force just simply isn't that useful.

If we did make them, the only real use I can think would be retail. And honestly, retail in its present form is eventually going to die out. Too many ways to replace it.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom