To be more than human is to be human

[kahljorn]

What makes you think that humans could deal with any of your proposals psychologically or biologicallly? I find the idea of a cramped spaceship infinintely less scary than being made into a Borg.

I'm not necessarily proposing us becoming BORG, we might still have some FUN. Anyway, in this view you could argue that any type of utopian society would be Borgeseque :L( just with slightly different values. But really, it doesn't matter what YOU would want, it's just the fact that people could do it and it would depart from your meaning of human.

[quote]So is that how humans will be regarded by this new species? Chimps? The prospect of being treated like a chimp doesn't exactly enthrall me.[//quote]

ya you're so good at understanding points. Humans are a lot like chimps in a lot of ways, that's why in many psychological and physiological studies they use chimps in the place of human beings; i think the psychological portion of that is especially important.

Well, given your insistance that cybernetics would allow for fundamental changes in the negative aspects of human nature, what is to stop those in power from forcing it on the masses "for their own good"? Sure, in an ideal world the technology would be used fairly and justly and never forced upon anyone, but in the real world, that doesn't happen.

So? Who gives a shit. This has nothing to do with transhumanism.

ITS POSSIBLE THAT BAD THINGS CAN HAPPEN IN THE UNIVERSE< THEREFORE NOTHING GOOD. We shouldn't have a justice system because it's possible that it might be abused! Those in power eventually abuse government!

Sure they could choose. But are the powers that be going to let them? And is everyone going to have equal access to this technology, or is it just the wealthy?

*sigh* I don't know, I imagine that at the *very least* some remnant of modern economics might persist thousands of years from now and that technology will become more and more available as new production methods and newer forms of technology are developed. but i dunno maybe they won't be capitalist society.

Jeanette I think this is getting to ridiculous Will all these possibilities that you're bringing up are possible, it doesn't mean the other possibilities couldn't occur at some point in some history of some civilization. And furthermore, these things which we consider negative might not be so negative in the future! Maybe we can be blissful an d completely content by while being ruled.

or maybe it will be anarchist i dunno!

Not that I'm aware of.

yea i think that happened ill try to find a news story.

Alike and equal are not the same, not to mention the fact that intelligence is notoriously difficult to quantify and measure. If we "equalize" one type of intelligence, what is to prevent this change in the brain from lowering a different type of intelligence. We know very little about how the brain works, and I am quite reluctant to tinker with something that we have little understanding of. I have only the most minimal understanding of how my car works, so therefore, it would be an extremely bad idea for me to start tinkering around under the hood to make it go faster.

Okay well let's assume for a moment that the scientists and engineers of the future actually have some kind of idea about what they are diong and have maybe been trying to do it for a couple of hundred years or something.

no just kidding in the future most of the scientists have a 75 iq and the smartest ones are jeanette thats why we can take this here testimony as an authority. If jeanette doesn't understand modifying the brain, and all intelligent scientists of the future are jeanette, then we can't possibly hope that jeanette i mean intelligent scientists of the future will save us from inequality of the brain

[Jeanette X]

ya you're so good at understanding points. Humans are a lot like chimps in a lot of ways, that's why in many psychological and physiological studies they use chimps in the place of human beings; i think the psychological portion of that is especially important.

So we will be studied and treated like chimps? Sorry, but that comparision gives me the willies.

So? Who gives a shit. This has nothing to do with transhumanism.

ITS POSSIBLE THAT BAD THINGS CAN HAPPEN IN THE UNIVERSE< THEREFORE NOTHING GOOD. We shouldn't have a justice system because it's possible that it might be abused! Those in power eventually abuse government!

It has everything to do with transhumanism. And comparing these new technologies to a fundamentally neccessary social institution such as a government or a justice system is like comparing apples to oranges.

Jeanette I think this is getting to ridiculous Will all these possibilities that you're bringing up are possible, it doesn't mean the other possibilities couldn't occur at some point in some history of some civilization. And furthermore, these things which we consider negative might not be so negative in the future! Maybe we can be blissful an d completely content by while being ruled.

The main problem I see with your arguements is that whenever I make a counterpoint that the technology will pose some problem, you argue that the technology will be advanced to the point where that problem won't be an issue. Trouble is, I doubt that will happen. These things are a matter of trial and error, and the possibilty of something going horribly wrong is far more likely than everything going perfectly.

Okay well let's assume for a moment that the scientists and engineers of the future actually have some kind of idea about what they are diong and have maybe been trying to do it for a couple of hundred years or something.

no just kidding in the future most of the scientists have a 75 iq and the smartest ones are jeanette thats why we can take this here testimony as an authority. If jeanette doesn't understand modifying the brain, and all intelligent scientists of the future are jeanette, then we can't possibly hope that jeanette i mean intelligent scientists of the future will save us from inequality of the brain

Believe it or not, scientists make mistakes too. I can offer you countless examples of mistakes with dire consequences if you like.

[kahljorn]

So we will be studied and treated like chimps? Sorry, but that comparision gives me the willies.

Nope, we won't be studied like chimps at all. I only brought that up to demonstrate how similar we are and how many of the things we consider "human" are also chimp; including our psychology.

It has everything to do with transhumanism. And comparing these new technologies to a fundamentally neccessary social institution such as a government or a justice system is like comparing apples to oranges.

Actually I'm comparing your reasoning. Your reasoning is that, ABUSE COULD OCCUR THEREFORE WE SHOULDNT DO IT. Abuse can occur in justice/government/welfare, therefore we shouldn't do it. This means that we can't rely on the potentiality of abuse to judge if it's wrong. In fact, if anything, this means we should develop ways to protect it from being abused.

These things are a matter of trial and error, and the possibilty of something going horribly wrong is far more likely than everything going perfectly.

The entire idea of trial and error implies that it will likely improve over time ;/ No new technologies work completely at first, and many have horrible difficulties. Also when you have problems y ou try to fix them ;/ it's not like they'll go, "Hey, look... there's a problem here. Let's keep replicating the same exact experiment over and over."

Do you think it's more likely that they would develop this problem and have some problems and then would have these problems for eternity or that they would have these problems for maybe a decade and then begin to have it fine-tuned by then? hmm.

and anyway all the problems you bring up are gay. OH THIS POWER TO MODIFY BRAINS COULD BE ABUSED. Well, then... obviously, the problem isn't the TECHNOLOGY but that it could be abused. So you have to protect from that. Not abolish the technology.

IMMORTALITY COULD CAUSE INSANITY! Well, then let people kill themsleves or find some way to satisfy themselves otherwise; whether technologically or spiritually or whatever. I mean, even not dying unexpectadly is a vast improvement in the human condition; it doesn't necessarily have to be immortality.

The problems you're bringing up aren't impossible to overcome ;/

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

The entire idea of trial and error implies that it will likely improve over time ;/ No new technologies work completely at first, and many have horrible difficulties. Also when you have problems y ou try to fix them ;/ it's not like they'll go, "Hey, look... there's a problem here. Let's keep replicating the same exact experiment over and over."

Do you think it's more likely that they would develop this problem and have some problems and then would have these problems for eternity or that they would have these problems for maybe a decade and then begin to have it fine-tuned by then? hmm.

Yeah? And how long do you think its going to be until the problems are totally worked out? Lets see, we've had powerplants for...well over half a century. Sure, they've improved, but are they problem free today? Are they not making any negative environmental impact? If we can't so much as get our power plants in order over the time that we've had so far what on Earth makes you think we can overcome the probelms that cybernetics might pose in timely fashion?

and anyway all the problems you bring up are gay. OH THIS POWER TO MODIFY BRAINS COULD BE ABUSED. Well, then... obviously, the problem isn't the TECHNOLOGY but that it could be abused. So you have to protect from that.Not abolish the technology.

Now who's making a strawman? I'm not proposing we abolish the technology, you utter moron. I'm just saying that it may not be as wonderful and utopia-creating as you seem to think it is, and that rushing to embrace it without anticipating these negative consequences is unwise. Having certain reservations about a new technology is not "gay", they are reasonable concerns to have.

The problems you're bringing up aren't impossible to overcome ;/

No they are not. And World Peace isn't impossible either. That doesn't mean I expect it to arrive quickly.

[kahljorn]

Yeah? And how long do you think its going to be until the problems are totally worked out? Lets see, we've had powerplants for...well over half a century. Sure, they've improved, but are they problem free today? Are they not making any negative environmental impact? If we can't so much as get our power plants in order over the time that we've had so far what on Earth makes you think we can overcome the probelms that cybernetics might pose in timely fashion?

The environmental impact isn't a malfunction ;/. It's not like power plants have been consistently exploding for "well over half a century." The environmental "problems" are a side-effect that is widely known and accepted ;/

Anyway, my retort tot his still stands. What you're saying only means that we might have problems we will have to work out. Or this:

And not to be a jerk like you would be: whether or not the technologies will have a problem or two isn't really relevant. Transhumanism doesn't posit that we will be perfect. If anything, it posits that we will be significantly more perfect as a whole. And further, it doesn't posit that we will have NO problems, only that many of the problems we have will be either eradicated or lessened in effect, and that a new host of previously unhuman problems may arise.

It doesn't really matter if the problems are completely worked out, either, anytime soon. It could be tomorrow it could be ten billion years from now.

Now who's making a strawman? I'm not proposing we abolish the technology, you utter moron. I'm just saying that it may not be as wonderful and utopia-creating as you seem to think it is, and that rushing to embrace it without anticipating these negative consequences is unwise.

Okay, I guess I stood to understand what you were saying in the only way that it could possibly mean anything.

Well, given your insistance that cybernetics would allow for fundamental changes in the negative aspects of human nature, what is to stop those in power from forcing it on the masses "for their own good"? Sure, in an ideal world the technology would be used fairly and justly and never forced upon anyone, but in the real world, that doesn't happen.

the natural conclusion to draw from this is that we shouldn't do it. For me, at least.

Also, I would like to add that the failure to achieve an ideal is not the same thing as the ideal. There can't really be such a thing as a "Flawed transhumanism." I don't doubt that these possibilities aren't possible to happen. Sure, a civilization could go awry with their technology. But the ideal and the technologies are not the same thing. the technology is merely a means to an end. The reason it is so fascinating for the achieval of such an ideal, however, is the fact that it fundamentally alters people. So yes, it could be used to fundamentally alter people for the achievement of evil, but again, what this means is that we should try to keep it from being used that way ;/

also i don't think anybody is rushing to achieve this, either. Too much natural fear of, basically, exactly what you've been saying... that natural human fear of becoming unhuman.

No they are not. And World Peace isn't impossible either. That doesn't mean I expect it to arrive quickly.

Transhumanism doesn't necessarily have a time frame, so BOOYAH! I guess.
although I'm sure most transhumanists would argue that it's just around the corner with the kaleidoscopinng parascoping nature of advancing technologies! someday your paradigm will shift and you will understand that the future comes faster than the future; here time turns into space!

[kahljorn]

The main problem I see with your arguements is that whenever I make a counterpoint that the technology will pose some problem, you argue that the technology will be advanced to the point where that problem won't be an issue.

and duh that's like 95% of the point with transhumanists

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

The environmental impact isn't a dysfunction. It's not like power plants have been exploding for "well over half a century." The environmental "problems" are a side-effect that is widely known and accepted ;/

Global warming from energy production isn't a huge problem? Gee whiz, I guess all those scientists are wrong.

And not to be a jerk like you would be: whether or not the technologies will have a problem or two isn't really relevant. Transhumanism doesn't posit that we will be perfect. If anything, it posits that we will be significantly more perfect as a whole. And further, it doesn't posit that we will have NO problems, only that many of the problems we have will be either eradicated or lessened in effect, and that a new host of previously unhuman problems may arise.

Care to explain us being more perfect as a whole with a new host of previously unhuman problems?

I don't think anybody seriously thinks that this will be an error-free technology.

You seemed to.

Basically, jeanette, what I'm getting from this is that you have absolutely nothing to say and really no conclusion. yes, technologies have problems. Thius one prolly will too. Big whooptifuckingdoo, thanks for teling me something i didnt know.

My point is that trashumanists are overly optimistic and glib.

Okay, I guess I stood to understand what you were saying in the only way that it could possibly mean anything.
the natural conclusion to draw from this is that we shouldn't do it. For me, at least.

Why must everything be in this stark either-or dichotomy? Why can't I take a middle ground in my attitudes without being denounced as neo-Luddite merely because I think we should proceed with caution? Do you honestly believe that wholeheartedly embracing the new techonology and abolishing it are our only two options here?

Originally Posted by kahljorn

and duh that's like 95% of the point with transhumanists

Now this is what I mean by masturbatory. Pardon me if I'm reluctant to believe that it'll all be so nice and neat.

[kahljorn]

Global warming from energy production isn't a huge problem? Gee whiz, I guess all those scientists are wrong.

It's not even a fact. And agan; that's not a MALFUNCTION: power plants are known to create emissions. Plus it's not just power plants don't be silly lol

Care to explain us being more perfect as a whole with a new host of previously unhuman problems?

Okay...
PERFECT:
----------
US CURRENTLY:
----......
US AFTER SOME TECHNOLOGY AND TRANSHUMANISM BUt WIth NEW PROBLEMS LIKE DEALING WQITH IMMORTALITY:
--------..

You seemed to.

that's prolly because you're gay. You already said in one of your other posts that whenever you say there's a problem I say it will be fixed. That means I ascent that it's not an error-free technology but disagree with you in that i think those problems will be resolved; thus refuting this "Seeming" of which you speak.

you're the one acting like the technology will be in the pits for 7,000 years.

Why must everything be in this stark either-or dichotomy? Why can't I take a middle ground in my attitudes without being denounced as neo-Luddite merely because I think we should proceed with caution? Do you honestly believe that wholeheartedly embracing the new techonology and abolishing it are our only two options here?

Didn't I say like 30 times including after what you quoted that the real solution is to FIX THE PROBLEMS. If something causes problems you either FIX THE PROBLEMS. FIX THE PROBLEMS BY ABOLISHING THE PROBLEM MAKER. OR IGNORE ThE PROBLEM. But obviously the last one would be a "bad" decision.

To bring up what you're saying as an ARGUMENT AGAINST TRANSHUMANISM is fucking retarded.
Here's your argument:
WE SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS BECAUSE BAD THINGS MIGHT HAPPEN.

That's not an argument against transhumanism: it's an argument to be cautious. that can apply to anything and everything, but not specifically to transhumanists; only to uncautious transhumanists.

Are you saying that transhumanists are inherently uncautious? or that I'm submitting an reckless pursuit of transhumanism? Because I never did so, in fact, I've consistently said that we should be very careful to fix problems and perform rigorous experimentation if we care about not getting bad results.

In fact I don't even see how its possible to be that incautious especially with some of the things we've discussed: like how long the technology will take to develop and you know the scientific method.

From this point forward in history I decree that all transhumanists should be careful and if not they are jerks who don't care about anyone but themselves and their foolish search for an ideal!
k happy now jeanette obviously that resolves your argument and makes you a believer in transhumanism oh look how nothing you said was ever an argument about transhumanism but against uncautious acts.