Transhumanism

WanderingTaoist · 19th December 2006, 11:33 AM

I'd be very curious to hear what you all think of TRANSHUMANISM.

For those unfamiliar with the movement, here's a few more links:

The Extropy Institute

The Transhumanist Blog

"Designer Evolution"

"The Abolition of Man" a critical, Christian look at transhumanism

It's been described by conservative political philosopher Francis Fukuyama as "the world's most dangerous idea", while its proponents hail it as an inevitable salvation. Where does the truth lie? With either of these perspectives, or none of them?

There's a whole nest of philosophical issues here, so have at it, my friends.

WanderingTaoist · 19th December 2006, 11:50 AM

The following is quoted from a section of the movie Waking Life, which I reccomend to everyone who is not afraid of psychadelic animation and is in the mood for philosophy. A copy of the script of Waking Life is available here.

In this scene, Eamonn Healy, a Chemistry professor at University of Texas at Austin, shares his views on transhumanism:

If we’re looking at the highlights of human development, you have to look at the evolution of the organism and then at the development of its interaction with the environment. Evolution of the organism will begin with the evolution of life perceived through the hominid coming to the evolution of mankind. Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man. Now, interestingly, what you’re looking at here are three strings: biological, anthropological — development of the cities — and cultural, which is human expression.

Now, what you’ve seen here is the evolution of populations, not so much the evolution of individuals. And in addition, if you look at the time scales that are involved here — two billion years for life, six million years for the hominid, 100,000 years for mankind as we know it — you’re beginning to see the telescoping nature of the evolutionary paradigm. And then when you get to agricultural, when you get to scientific revolution and industrial revolution, you’re looking at 10,000 years, 400 years, 150 years. Uou’re seeing a further telescoping of this evolutionary time. What that means is that as we go through the new evolution, it’s gonna telescope to the point we should be able to see it manifest itself within our lifetime, within this generation.

The new evolution stems from information, and it stems from two types of information: digital and analog. The digital is artificial intelligence. The analog results from molecular biology, the cloning of the organism. And you knit the two together with neurobiology. Before on the old evolutionary paradigm, one would die and the other would grow and dominate. But under the new paradigm, they would exist as a mutually supportive, noncompetitive grouping. Okay, independent from the external.

And what is interesting here is that evolution now becomes an individually centered process, emanating from the needs and desires of the individual, and not an external process, a passive process where the individual is just at the whim of the collective. So, you produce a neo-human, okay, with a new individuality and a new consciousness. But that’s only the beginning of the evolutionary cycle because as the next cycle proceeds, the input is now this new intelligence. As intelligence piles on intelligence, as ability piles on ability, the speed changes. Until what? Until we reach a crescendo in a way could be imagined as an enormous instantaneous fulfillment of human, human and neo-human potential. It could be something totally different. It could be the amplification of the individual, the multiplication of individual existences. Parallel existences now with the individual no longer restricted by time and space.

And the manifestations of this neo-human-type evolution, manifestations could be dramatically counter-intuitive. That’s the interesting part. The old evolution is cold. It’s sterile. It’s efficient, okay? And its manifestations of those social adaptations. We’re talking about parasitism, dominance, morality, okay? Uh, war, predation, these would be subject to de-emphasis. These will be subject to de-evolution. The new evolutionary paradigm will give us the human traits of truth, of loyalty, of justice, of freedom. These will be the manifestations of the new evolution. And that is what we would hope to see from this. That would be nice.

scameter · 19th December 2006, 11:51 AM

Well, personally I don't think that there's anything we can do about it. Or that I can do anyways. It either will happen, if we are capable of it, or it will not, because we won't be capable of it. But, speaking from an ethical standpoint, I think that transhumanism is really just an extension of our communicative abilities. We already evolve ourselves by communicating information; we change our minds, as we change our bodies through things such as skin care, surgery, etc. So, why would the manipulation of our brains or genetic qualities be anything more than the next step? But, I don't think it will be totally permissed. Especially things such as growing embryos outside the body, to allow for a larger brain size; to women, having a baby growing in them is one of the best feelings they can have, and they'd never sacrifice that. So, really, it depends on the relative ethics of individual humans and what they hold as being good or sacred.

WanderingTaoist · 19th December 2006, 12:16 PM

to women, having a baby growing in them is one of the best feelings they can have

ummmm.....ask a woman in labor if having a baby growing inside of them is the best feeling they can have!

(just kidding)

So, really, it depends on the relative ethics of individual humans and what they hold as being good or sacred.

What about possibility that this technology might be either a ) banned by certain governments, or b ) forced on unwilling humans?

Thomas Knierim · 19th December 2006, 02:52 PM

One word: escapist.

Cheers, Thomas

scameter · 19th December 2006, 07:00 PM

ummmm.....ask a woman in labor if having a baby growing inside of them is the best feeling they can have!

Hopefully, if the baby's coming out, it's not still growing.

What about possibility that this technology might be either a ) banned by certain governments, or b ) forced on unwilling humans?

That's very possible. But only if the majority of people approve of it.

One word: escapist.

How so?

Thomas Knierim · 20th December 2006, 08:33 AM

Thomas: One word: escapist.
Scameter: How so?

Because our science is not advanced enough to understand all evolutionary and developmental phenomena. Our technology is not advanced enough to produce designer babies, nano-implants and the like. I have a feeling that we won't get to this point very soon.

Hence, transhumanism contains too much wishful thinking for my taste.

I have no objections against the philosophical basis of the transhumanist utopia. I don't believe it is immoral to take our biological future in our own hands. But I think we need not concern ourselves with this right now.

Right now we have other problems to solve. Overpopulation, global warming, mass extinction, environmental degradation, inequality, poverty, war, just to name a few.

Cheers, Thomas

DRImperius · 20th December 2006, 10:57 AM

That we are able to solve problems is a certainty; the extent of our powers to change things and solve problems of such grandeur is the true question, yes?

The technology we have now is impressive as far as animals go...we thrive, we can explore the depths of the seas, far reaches of space (in time, no doubt,) we even have extensive wanderings on our own philosophical existence.... Now we see ourselves powerful.

This ideology of transhumanism is itself indicative of how much we overestimate our powers over nature, the universe....it is as if we claim to have evolved into "the" absolute.

Take for instance the subject of global warming. Well, we now have so much scientific evidence supporting the matter that to openly deny it without mountains of counter-evidence would be dumb, to put it bluntly. But look a few decades back...back then when scientists seriously thought that the world was cooling down at a dangerous rate. How much do we really know, understand, see? Because everytime we make such claims, we appear as if...we knew everything...at the time, at least--perhaps why science always moves forward....Alas, but that's besides the point and might be on a completely different discussion.

scameter · 20th December 2006, 03:32 PM

Thomas, although I think we're closer to it than you might would think, I agree with you. We have more immediate problems, like the ones you listed, to be attending to. The reason most people prefer dealing with the less immediate ones is because there's nothing to solve or go against; it's not happening right now.

And psyche, we could solve them, we just don't want to. Most societal problems are done by choice, and are desired by those who do them, such as war and crime, and problems like poverty and inequality could be fixed, it's just those who could fix them don't want to, because they profit off them, or would otherwise not be profitted by fixing them. Ease.

schrodinger · 20th December 2006, 08:07 PM

Quote:

And what is interesting here is that evolution now becomes an individually centered process, emanating from the needs and desires of the individual, and not an external process, a passive process where the individual is just at the whim of the collective. So, you produce a neo-human, okay, with a new individuality and a new consciousness. But that’s only the beginning of the evolutionary cycle because as the next cycle proceeds, the input is now this new intelligence. As intelligence piles on intelligence, as ability piles on ability, the speed changes. Until what? Until we reach a crescendo in a way could be imagined as an enormous instantaneous fulfillment of human, human and neo-human potential. It could be something totally different. It could be the amplification of the individual, the multiplication of individual existences. Parallel existences now with the individual no longer restricted by time and space.--Wandering Taoist, quoting "Walking Life"

Until what? That is a good question indeed! Look at what a science student has to contend with today, 100 years of non-stop, break-neck paced progress that has left many scientists straggling in the dust! Even those who we consider to be leaders are only capable of leading in very narrow fields. They can never hope to be conversant, let alone master, the entire realm of scientific achievement. How can a student ever catch up with the pace? I think it is already close to impossible. So the “crescendo” mentioned here may well be a backlash, a call for a return to normal, perhaps a retrenchment into a new dark age. In fact, I believe we are already experiencing this, if not, why has it been nearly 40 years since the Apollo moon landings? If not a retrenchment, the crescendo may well be a mass hysteria or mass insanity, which leads us once and for all over the brink to self-destruction. We are not ready for such”advancement” and maybe we never will be.

19th December 2006, 11:33 AM	#1
WanderingTaoist Advanced Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 265	I'd be very curious to hear what you all think of TRANSHUMANISM. For those unfamiliar with the movement, here's a few more links: The Extropy Institute The Transhumanist Blog "Designer Evolution" "The Abolition of Man" a critical, Christian look at transhumanism It's been described by conservative political philosopher Francis Fukuyama as "the world's most dangerous idea", while its proponents hail it as an inevitable salvation. Where does the truth lie? With either of these perspectives, or none of them? There's a whole nest of philosophical issues here, so have at it, my friends. __________________ Tao is the good man's treasure, the bad man's refuge.

19th December 2006, 11:50 AM	#2
WanderingTaoist Advanced Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 265	The following is quoted from a section of the movie Waking Life, which I reccomend to everyone who is not afraid of psychadelic animation and is in the mood for philosophy. A copy of the script of Waking Life is available here. In this scene, Eamonn Healy, a Chemistry professor at University of Texas at Austin, shares his views on transhumanism: If we’re looking at the highlights of human development, you have to look at the evolution of the organism and then at the development of its interaction with the environment. Evolution of the organism will begin with the evolution of life perceived through the hominid coming to the evolution of mankind. Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man. Now, interestingly, what you’re looking at here are three strings: biological, anthropological — development of the cities — and cultural, which is human expression. Now, what you’ve seen here is the evolution of populations, not so much the evolution of individuals. And in addition, if you look at the time scales that are involved here — two billion years for life, six million years for the hominid, 100,000 years for mankind as we know it — you’re beginning to see the telescoping nature of the evolutionary paradigm. And then when you get to agricultural, when you get to scientific revolution and industrial revolution, you’re looking at 10,000 years, 400 years, 150 years. Uou’re seeing a further telescoping of this evolutionary time. What that means is that as we go through the new evolution, it’s gonna telescope to the point we should be able to see it manifest itself within our lifetime, within this generation. The new evolution stems from information, and it stems from two types of information: digital and analog. The digital is artificial intelligence. The analog results from molecular biology, the cloning of the organism. And you knit the two together with neurobiology. Before on the old evolutionary paradigm, one would die and the other would grow and dominate. But under the new paradigm, they would exist as a mutually supportive, noncompetitive grouping. Okay, independent from the external. And what is interesting here is that evolution now becomes an individually centered process, emanating from the needs and desires of the individual, and not an external process, a passive process where the individual is just at the whim of the collective. So, you produce a neo-human, okay, with a new individuality and a new consciousness. But that’s only the beginning of the evolutionary cycle because as the next cycle proceeds, the input is now this new intelligence. As intelligence piles on intelligence, as ability piles on ability, the speed changes. Until what? Until we reach a crescendo in a way could be imagined as an enormous instantaneous fulfillment of human, human and neo-human potential. It could be something totally different. It could be the amplification of the individual, the multiplication of individual existences. Parallel existences now with the individual no longer restricted by time and space. And the manifestations of this neo-human-type evolution, manifestations could be dramatically counter-intuitive. That’s the interesting part. The old evolution is cold. It’s sterile. It’s efficient, okay? And its manifestations of those social adaptations. We’re talking about parasitism, dominance, morality, okay? Uh, war, predation, these would be subject to de-emphasis. These will be subject to de-evolution. The new evolutionary paradigm will give us the human traits of truth, of loyalty, of justice, of freedom. These will be the manifestations of the new evolution. And that is what we would hope to see from this. That would be nice. __________________ Tao is the good man's treasure, the bad man's refuge.

19th December 2006, 12:16 PM	#4
WanderingTaoist Advanced Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 265	to women, having a baby growing in them is one of the best feelings they can have ummmm.....ask a woman in labor if having a baby growing inside of them is the best feeling they can have! (just kidding) So, really, it depends on the relative ethics of individual humans and what they hold as being good or sacred. What about possibility that this technology might be either a ) banned by certain governments, or b ) forced on unwilling humans? __________________ Tao is the good man's treasure, the bad man's refuge.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

19th December 2006, 11:51 AM	#3
scameter Tankare Join Date: May 2005 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 6,224	Well, personally I don't think that there's anything we can do about it. Or that I can do anyways. It either will happen, if we are capable of it, or it will not, because we won't be capable of it. But, speaking from an ethical standpoint, I think that transhumanism is really just an extension of our communicative abilities. We already evolve ourselves by communicating information; we change our minds, as we change our bodies through things such as skin care, surgery, etc. So, why would the manipulation of our brains or genetic qualities be anything more than the next step? But, I don't think it will be totally permissed. Especially things such as growing embryos outside the body, to allow for a larger brain size; to women, having a baby growing in them is one of the best feelings they can have, and they'd never sacrifice that. So, really, it depends on the relative ethics of individual humans and what they hold as being good or sacred.

19th December 2006, 02:52 PM	#5
Thomas Knierim Administrator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand Posts: 2,031	One word: escapist. Cheers, Thomas

19th December 2006, 07:00 PM	#6
scameter Tankare Join Date: May 2005 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 6,224	ummmm.....ask a woman in labor if having a baby growing inside of them is the best feeling they can have! Hopefully, if the baby's coming out, it's not still growing. What about possibility that this technology might be either a ) banned by certain governments, or b ) forced on unwilling humans? That's very possible. But only if the majority of people approve of it. One word: escapist. How so?

20th December 2006, 08:33 AM	#7
Thomas Knierim Administrator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand Posts: 2,031	Thomas: One word: escapist. Scameter: How so? Because our science is not advanced enough to understand all evolutionary and developmental phenomena. Our technology is not advanced enough to produce designer babies, nano-implants and the like. I have a feeling that we won't get to this point very soon. Hence, transhumanism contains too much wishful thinking for my taste. I have no objections against the philosophical basis of the transhumanist utopia. I don't believe it is immoral to take our biological future in our own hands. But I think we need not concern ourselves with this right now. Right now we have other problems to solve. Overpopulation, global warming, mass extinction, environmental degradation, inequality, poverty, war, just to name a few. Cheers, Thomas

20th December 2006, 10:57 AM	#8
DRImperius Enthusiast Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 11	That we are able to solve problems is a certainty; the extent of our powers to change things and solve problems of such grandeur is the true question, yes? The technology we have now is impressive as far as animals go...we thrive, we can explore the depths of the seas, far reaches of space (in time, no doubt,) we even have extensive wanderings on our own philosophical existence.... Now we see ourselves powerful. This ideology of transhumanism is itself indicative of how much we overestimate our powers over nature, the universe....it is as if we claim to have evolved into "the" absolute. Take for instance the subject of global warming. Well, we now have so much scientific evidence supporting the matter that to openly deny it without mountains of counter-evidence would be dumb, to put it bluntly. But look a few decades back...back then when scientists seriously thought that the world was cooling down at a dangerous rate. How much do we really know, understand, see? Because everytime we make such claims, we appear as if...we knew everything...at the time, at least--perhaps why science always moves forward....Alas, but that's besides the point and might be on a completely different discussion.

20th December 2006, 03:32 PM	#9
scameter Tankare Join Date: May 2005 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 6,224	Thomas, although I think we're closer to it than you might would think, I agree with you. We have more immediate problems, like the ones you listed, to be attending to. The reason most people prefer dealing with the less immediate ones is because there's nothing to solve or go against; it's not happening right now. And psyche, we could solve them, we just don't want to. Most societal problems are done by choice, and are desired by those who do them, such as war and crime, and problems like poverty and inequality could be fixed, it's just those who could fix them don't want to, because they profit off them, or would otherwise not be profitted by fixing them. Ease.