To be more than human is to be human

[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.

[kahljorn]

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.

I didn't say it would be so "nice and neat," or anything of the sort. I said that 95% of the transhumanist argument is that technology will continue to advance and at increasing rates. And no matter what type of problem you introduce they merely point out that there's a solution.

there's not really a good way to argue against a transhumanist, or argue transhumanism, cause it's kind of non-rational in a lot of ways. Might as well argue about god, really ;/

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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

Must we argue semantics here? Even if it isn't technically a malfunction, its still a very negative side effect. And don't tell me you don't believe in global warming.

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.

I'm not saying that the problems won't be resolved, I'm saying it will be a long time before they are and thus I am a little unnerved by this rush to embrace the technology.

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.

Same strawman as before.

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.

I make this arguement because virtually everything I've read about transhumanist ideology throws caution to the wind.

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.

I'm saying that you are overly optimistic about fixing these problems. And I believe you are the first transhumanist I've ever seen who even acknowledged the possibilty of these problems occuring. Pardon me if I'm a little unsettled by that.



http://plif.courageunfettered.com/archive/wc233.gif

I would hotlink, but I don't want to suck up this guy's bandwidth.

[kahljorn]

I make this arguement because virtually everything I've read about transhumanist ideology throws caution to the wind.

Well, I didn't. So there ya go. I say, let caution be the wind beneath our sails.

I'm not saying that the problems won't be resolved, I'm saying it will be a long time before they are and thus I am a little unnerved by this rush to embrace the technology.

There's no time-frame on this. and i wouldn't say there's an official rush, per se. Although I'm sure there's some who think it should happen now.

Same strawman as before.

That's not a strawman. It's the logical extension of your idea ;/ If you really think that's a straw-man then i dunno you need to study more or something.

Saying we should be CAUTIOUS is NOT saying we SHOULDNT DO ANYTHING (except be uncautious or not be cautious whatever). It's just saying to be cautious. Sorry; it's not an argument against transhumanism. The only way it could be an argument against transhumanism is if you said that transhumanists are uncautious, and being uncautious is bad since it leads to bad results, therefore we shouldn't be transhumanists. Or if you could suggest a route that requires less caution than transhumanism to reach the same goal.

Furthermore, it can't be a strawman because I haven't really acted as though by misleading you from your original point and changing the topic i have defeated your whole argument because I defeated that new argument that i represented you as having.
In fact, I have consistently used your same logic against you, like when I said that if transhumanists were cautious, you would have no problem with it.

I'm saying that you are overly optimistic about fixing these problems.

You seem overly pessimistic, or at least like you let your pessimism argue for you. and anyway that's why i mentioned such stringent control methods!

And I believe you are the first transhumanist I've ever seen who even acknowledged the possibilty of these problems occuring. Pardon me if I'm a little unsettled by that.

Probably because I'm not at all a transhumanist and really have absolutely no interest in the idea.