• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

Transhumanism

Keta

Keta

indubitably ineffectual
Pronoun
they
I know very little about the subject, but I became interested after reading this and some of this. Read the introduction section of the second link if you don't know anything about transhumanism

Should humanity start augmenting itself in this way? Should we do it technologically, bringing us closer to the digital world? Or genetically, so we stay closer to nature?
According to transhumanists, this should be available to everybody in general- but should we allow this? Should we limit it to those with disabilities? Should we give it to leaders so they can intelligently shape our society?
Is this morally correct?
Is this fair? (It seems to favor rich people who have the money and thus the means of paying for better things in general)
All in all, is it beneficial or harmful to human society to pursue transhumanist ideals?

Discuss.
 
The only difference between this and plastic surgery is that this is actually useful. Society has no qualms with someone who modifies their body for cosmetic purposes, so I see no reason why there's a problem with someone who modifies it for practical purposes. If anything, wouldn't it be better?
 
Hmmm. I found this very interesting.

Actually I agree with all of it.

EXCEPT!

The life extension. Seriously, this world has too many humans on it, and keeping them alive longer will only cause more suffering. (Come on Mars, we need a place to grow!)
 
One would presume we'd simply move up with life extensions. If we were to colonize the sea and sky, we'd have plenty of room.
Click to expand...

'Cause you know, us living on land hasn't killed the earth enough :3

Although, I don't think I said this in my post before (in fact, it isn't in there), but if this stuff is going to be available to people with money, it should be available to important people with money only (and the disabled)

We don't need movie stars become smarter, because then they'd realize how much they hate their lives

Movie starts don't need it because it won't affect us in anyway good. We need presidents (like Bush) getting it, and we need people who practicably run our lives (to an extent) getting it.
 
Only problem if we introduce this idea in the modern world, only the rich would be able to afford it. You people are already at the top of global society for having computers and internet access; many, many people do not have this privilege. Thus... in such a dog eat dog world like this, the gap between the rich and the poor would only widen, becoming a gap between the stronger/more intelligent and the weaker/dumber.

There is a faint possibility that in the far future things will become more equal. In one sci-fi novel I read a while ago, machines and science have become so advanced that production of food, clothing, electricity, and other common necessities has become virtually free. The society depends greatly on technology but has also become augmented with technology. (the main character has an implant in her head similar to an ipod/radio) (an AI is the ruler of the world; it has created back-up copies of people's minds just in case they die)

On an individual basis, I would not mind technological upgrades. My family has had a history of bad vision and other undesirable traits, so, hopefully, there will be ways to fix these things in the near future. I wouldn't mind memory upgrades either.
 
This is... really really weird.

I personally would probably not go for something like this, even if it became commonplace. I was born a human, I'd like to die a human.

And yet it sounds... I've often wondered if I did something like this I'd not be able to stop and turn evil. xD;
 
I just thought of a better alternative to human upgrades.

Having Chuck Noris breath on you, thus giving you super powers

There's always eating healthy... but then again, that's too much work (which happens to be another alternative) and can do so much (Pfft, natural limitations)

Only problem if we introduce this idea in the modern world, only the rich would be able to afford it. You people are already at the top of global society for having computers and internet access; many, many people do not have this privilege. Thus... in such a dog eat dog world like this, the gap between the rich and the poor would only widen, becoming a gap between the stronger/more intelligent and the weaker/dumber.
Click to expand...

Although, knowing how that world works, this is probably what's going to happen D:
 
Dragon_night said:
The life extension. Seriously, this world has too many humans on it, and keeping them alive longer will only cause more suffering. (Come on Mars, we need a place to grow!)
Click to expand...

But aren't medicines and surgery technically life-extenders?
I had a fairly mild asthma attack the other night, but it'd have been a lot worse if I didn't have my inhaler right by my bed. The inhaler kept me alive longer (assuming that without intervention in the form of medicine or surgery I wouldn't have been able to breathe and would have died of suffocation), but I don't really want to think that my continued existence has cause much suffering.

It's very easy to talk about human lives in the abstract, but if it directly affects them, most people change their tune.
 
But aren't medicines and surgery technically life-extenders?
I had a fairly mild asthma attack the other night, but it'd have been a lot worse if I didn't have my inhaler right by my bed. The inhaler kept me alive longer (assuming that without intervention in the form of medicine or surgery I wouldn't have been able to breathe and would have died of suffocation), but I don't really want to think that my continued existence has cause much suffering.

It's very easy to talk about human lives in the abstract, but if it directly affects them, most people change their tune.
Click to expand...

I agree. But what I meant by that is, if we do find a way to lengthen everyone's lives in the world, past what the natural limit is, then overall there would be more suffering. Sure, right now people can get past a hundred years old, but once they pass two-hundred, then it's a problem.

Why?

Because, I'm sure once whoever lives up to 130, or 140 (or even worse, less the 100), they would want to retire. For the next 60-70 years, they won't be doing anything but crowding up the place with money they well earned. If there happens to be a sudden baby boom, then 130-140 years later, there's going to be a problem with all the people re-tiring compared to the people working to support them (indirectly, but still, they're consuming resources)

But that's if they aren't killed by the many death traps the world has ;;>.>

So yeah, I agree, one person living won't cause non, if any, suffering. But in the large numbers the human race is coming up to (and not just what Medicine can save, because there are a lot more people going without medicine then with), there may be a problem...
 
I agree with you in theory, but eventually people die of degenerative dieseases - CHD, altzheimer's, cancer and what have you. And if humanity does find sure-fire cures for those, I can't imagine someone saying "Sorry; you're too old for this treatment. You just have to wait for your next heart attack to kill you.".

The problem with this kinda stuff is Kant's Rule of Universalization - if you're prepared to apply it to one person, you have to face the concequences of it happening to everyone. And vice-versa; if it's okay for everyone else to have X done to them, you and the people you love will have X done to them, too.
 
Dragon_night said:
Because, I'm sure once whoever lives up to 130, or 140 (or even worse, less the 100), they would want to retire. For the next 60-70 years, they won't be doing anything but crowding up the place with money they well earned. If there happens to be a sudden baby boom, then 130-140 years later, there's going to be a problem with all the people re-tiring compared to the people working to support them (indirectly, but still, they're consuming resources)
Click to expand...

Isn't something like that already happening on a smaller scale?
 
I remember hearing/reading somewhere that people in the UK aren't having anywhere near as many kids as they used to, meaning that when our parents' generation retires, without immigration, there won't be enough workers to support them.
 
I don't really like the thought of Trashumanism. But, I don't really like the thought of improving our bodies at all. It just seems like we're doing something unnatural. But, uh, I guess we do with with all the Medicine too...
 
They say that we shouldn't do such things because it's the way God intended, but weren't we modeled after God? Why is it so bad to try and become perfect humans and live without disabilitating diseases? Whats so wrong to genetically alter the human DNA so that we can become immune to HIV and AIDS, or diabetes, or Polio? (actually we've already irradicated polio, but still). Saying no kinda bothers me...
 
Aaand God enters the disscussion *looks at user title*

But anyway, I agree with Crazy Weavile and TheAssailant, to an extent. Sure, we have tools, but that would just give a crazy person reason to use his mega-bomb and kill everyone. He has the tools, right? Why not use them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom