It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What's your opinion on Transhumanism? [>H]

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:15 AM
link   
For those of you who don't know what Transhumanism is, it's a philosophy. It pertains to the use of science and technology to 'enhance' humans in any regard. Examples are the use of technology to eliminate sickness (both physical and mental), disability, and to fight mortality (in a general sense).

Wikipedia page on Transhumanism.

So are you for it, against it, indifferent? Do tell.

[edit on 11/3/2008 by Good Wolf]




posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Ah, you mean Cyborgism? That is the future.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Waldy
 


Well Cyborbism comes under the general .er of Transhumanism.

I would agree. Enhancement is the way forward for the human race. The road to being completely synthetic.

[edit on 11/3/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Thanks, was not aware of the name and existence of philosophy school. Though i expressed my opinion on this issue in several threads here.
I think that it is inevitable, but it will not stop at "man remaining man, but transcending himself..." . It will go on to non-human intelligence since it will be much more effective then biological creatures that we are. Not necessary better, but effective. I do not like it, but i see no way to stop/prevent it. Few humans that will freeze technological progress for religious-like views will probably remain. i do not think i would like to be a person in a machine "zoo"-like place though too. Next generations - good luck to you.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:27 AM
link   
those who support transhumanismm have no sould are are scared to death.fact is divine consciouness owns soulless transhumanists anytime.

and yes in this world there are majority of soulless beings and very few divine beings.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


I'm eager for the 'transcendence'. I see it as the next evolutionary leap and will be a dividing force on humanity. Have you ever watched 'Ghost in the Shell'? It is an anime cartoon all about what it means to be human and if someone looses there humanity the more they are modified. The kind of 'what is human' theme.

I don't see why we shouldn't improve ourselves all that we can, in any way we can.

[edit on 11/3/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


I see no reason to not improve ourself too. But there will be step when there will be improving "them" and not us. I mean - imagine extremely intelligent non-biological creature that can travel in the universe without external aid. Sounds great, wright? Would you like it to be your child? Because it will be your descendant, not direct but still.
If one looks from perspective of Zeroknowledge/Good Wolf/whoever only - it is great, why not.
But if one looks at it from perspective of humanity - or to be more precise my parents, their parents..., mine kids,their kids - it is very sad. We will break the link in order to achieve something better for us, not as species or families - but for us individuals. I find it sad. Humans have problems, they are not ideal by far. But i doubt that thinking pieces of silicon/steel/whatever will also be free from drawbacks. What is it for then?
Only for our comfort/less suffering. I know it is unavoidable, but i am not enthusiastic about this thing. It is not butterfly cycle. It is death of Human race and its ambitions.
Edit - since i am not that improved i tend to make fpelling errors. Sori.

[edit on 3-11-2008 by ZeroKnowledge]



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Hello there Good Wolf
Hope you won't mind a new comer bumping in?

I must say, this philosophy/worldview is really new to me. I'm trying to imagine what the end result would be..? Will there still be any 'humane' quality left in the enhancement's final 'product' to call or view it as Trans-Humanism?

I guess I might just be a sentimental old fool, but 'humanity' for me means more than just prolonging lifespan or efectiveness with technology.
It's not mostly about the 'Soul' (as I don't think I know enough of that subject to comment or speculate on it) as it is about the 'imperfections' that makes us so 'human'...If you know what I mean..



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
Humans have problems, they are not ideal by far. But i doubt that thinking pieces of silicon/steel/whatever will also be free from drawbacks. What is it for then?Only for our comfort/less suffering. I know it is unavoidable, but i am not enthusiastic about this thing. It is death of Human race and its ambitions.


It's a deep set psychological drive to improve ourselves, and it's a deep set biological drive to reproduce and carry of the cycle of life. These are the bedrock of transhumanism.

But you and I are fundamentally different in our thinking. Life, on it's most basic level is just chemistry - nothing magical. People like myself see it as a good thing to take over from what nature has made us into, even if -in the end- the later products/stages no longer resemble the original.

I think you are in the other camp, that the fundamentals of what it is to be human remain as they are. This will difference will be the 'divide' in humanity in the future.


If you think about how man has evolved from simple organisms over 3 billion years, we no longer resemble, in any way, most of the things that we have been. Synthetic man will be the next distinct stage of evolution. In the end, it's just part of the way the universe works.

[edit on 11/3/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by KembaraLangit
 


Well there is no concept of an 'end product' in evolution so transhumanism doesn't suggest an end product. UNLESS you talking about the hypothetical concept of the 'Technological Singularity' where science has reached it's ultimate limit. But that's just hypothetical.

I, personally, do not see why we should preserve the things that make us distinctly human, but there is no reason why transhumanists would have too.

Any form of enhancement will have be voluntary, so as time goes on, the people will not be distinct by race but by the amount of enhancement they are willing to undergo. Unfortunately, where ever there is difference, there is conflict, so that negative aspect of humanity will be preserved.

[edit on 11/3/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   
I understand that from universe's point of view it does not care if there is carbon-based life form or not, if it has intelligence or not. But i fail to see why human should not care. You say - synthetic man. It will not be man. It will be anything but a man. This creature will be surely much smarter, stronger,durable then humans. Maybe even more just. It will not be hu-man.
Human being is not only chemical molecules. It is a result of life of human species- evolution, memories, even individual neuronal wiring. It is not infinitely upgradeable. So i might be fundamentalist. But i think that beside intelligence - the only thing that will "remain" from man in this creature and it will differ too - we have other things that will be lost. We differ from other turning points in evolution - since we have certain choice , to go on with this or not. I have no doubt we will take the easy path into oblivion. I have doubts if it will be worth it. If i will have kids - i will not be able to look at them and say that their species will vanish almost totally due to mine choices, but there will be new shiny intelligent beings doing their respected business. It is not reproducing - it is producing. And it is not improving ourself. It is creating eventually new type of intelligent "life". Both will mean and of men.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
I understand that from universe's point of view it does not care if there is carbon-based life form or not, if it has intelligence or not. But i fail to see why human should not care. You say - synthetic man. It will not be man. It will be anything but a man. This creature will be surely much smarter, stronger,durable then humans. Maybe even more just. It will not be hu-man.


Yes, I hear you. This is the divide that I was talking about.

"It will not be hu-man."
"...So"

Your group think it is important to preserve "Hu-man" but we don't.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I'm questioning "what purpose in the end will it serve?"

Sure it's great to have cures or ways of avoiding sicknesses, disease, cancer or whatever but...

If everyone was of the exact mental capacity would that not hinder us?

There would be no child to tell the emperor he forgot to put his pants on because everyone would have forgot.

There would be no simple solution to any problem. Reason being everyone would assume the answer they all have is correct.

Now maybe I'm missing the whole point of what this thing is but it's all I got out of the wiki link, so no I have no great mental capacity in this subject lol...



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Darthorious
 


No one is saying that that is how things will go. Like technology, there is no way to say how things will advance in the future. I certainly do not believe that (assuming transhumanism) we will all develop in the same direction, technologically. Like Africans 200,000 years ago evolving into all the races of today, I imagine, this transition will usher in a new age of variation, diversity and customisations. There will no longer only be Negro, European and Asian races but probably hundreds of new different races, formulated in a kind of voluntary class system.

[edit on 11/3/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darthorious
I'm questioning "what purpose in the end will it serve?"

Sure it's great to have cures or ways of avoiding sicknesses, disease, cancer or whatever but...

If everyone was of the exact mental capacity would that not hinder us?

There would be no child to tell the emperor he forgot to put his pants on because everyone would have forgot.

There would be no simple solution to any problem. Reason being everyone would assume the answer they all have is correct.

Now maybe I'm missing the whole point of what this thing is but it's all I got out of the wiki link, so no I have no great mental capacity in this subject lol...


As if that isn't EXACTLY how it's always been?



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 09:45 PM
link   
I don't stop and think about it often, but i'm all for transhumanism. We've been using technology to enhance our lives and ourselves already for years, I don't see any reason to stop.

I think the single greatest move toward post-humanism is going to be if researchers are able to create that A.I. capable of human thought with synthetic processing speed. At this point you'll have an A.I. that is able to identify its own shortcomings and THINK to resolve the issue, thus improving itself. Self-improving A.I. is good in the purest sense of academics because all things will be known.

How far is too far? You never know, some day it may be possible to download your entire mind to a computer and live forever.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by KembaraLangit
 

Well there is no concept of an 'end product' in evolution so transhumanism doesn't suggest an end product. UNLESS you talking about the hypothetical concept of the 'Technological Singularity' where science has reached it's ultimate limit. But that's just hypothetical.
I, personally, do not see why we should preserve the things that make us distinctly human, but there is no reason why transhumanists would have too.
Any form of enhancement will have be voluntary, so as time goes on, the people will not be distinct by race but by the amount of enhancement they are willing to undergo. Unfortunately, where ever there is difference, there is conflict, so that negative aspect of humanity will be preserved.
[edit on 11/3/2008 by Good Wolf]


I guess I'll never know what the future generations will think nor decide about this Trans-Humanist worldview, but your last statement does worry me a bit. If there will be those, in the future, who decide to undergo the various technological enhancement expounded by Trans-Humanism, while others chose not to, the distinction thus created -as you say yourself- will, IMO, create a major 'rift' and conflict among humans.
I mean, who can say that there won't be those who think that such profound technological enhacements should be the exclusive privilege of their own race; ethnic; nationality; class or even religious denomination? Who can say that such enhancements wouldn't be monopolized by the Military-industrial-Complex & thus become nothing more than another form of arm race or even war-mongering between countries?
Having said all that, I'd be lying if I say I don't find it tempting to be able to achieve an 'immortal' or 'disease-free' existence..To be able to highly enhance my brain & physical potential as to be part of a new Earth civilization that can evolve into a space-faring one..Nevertheless, I don't think I'll be able to control my ego & selfishness enough to care about how such transformation could be beneficial for all of mankind.Will future generations be much more 'enlightened' than that or am I just being very naive here?



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
Examples are the use of technology to eliminate sickness (both physical and mental), disability, and to fight mortality (in a general sense).


Hey Good Wolf.

And ya know fighting mortality is really what it ultimately boils down to. I see it coming. And I also see the countless objections to it saying that it will make us "less human" by taking away our organic foundations that "make us human". But when it comes down to it, people don't want disease. People don't want mutations, abnormalities, or any illness so to speak.

Life will probably be the only thing left sacred around, and in the future that's exactly what everyone wants to extend. "death is a disease" as some do say. Personally I could only want improvement of my body - I mean it's only a part of me. The only thing that really starts to get me iffy about the whole transumanism thing is the whole expanding our consciousness by any "un-natural" means.

I don't want some nanobots expanding my intelligence. I know that may sound retarded, but That might be the only thing I want to keep organic - my brain. The ultimate objection to this is - What about those who are in a vegetative state and can be alternatively "cured" through implanting such technology so that they can progress to be an average intelligent individual?

- my answer, sure, everything should be our choice or the agreeable best choice for those who can't choose themselves. But believe you me, I have this feeling, that in some form or fashion the one that has the limited knowledge yet unlimited imagination will have its perks. and I'll be on that team -

I'm not saying those with the super brain will have less of an imagination, but are there certain things that we imagine only because we aren't certain of the truth?

if we transcend that, then we are down the road of replicating emotions into the life of perfect illusions. and the sad thing is everyone would know the truth (that you are happy, sad, funny, because you programmed yourself to be), and ignore it because they have that power to.

I'll keep that one part "old fashion" and wouldn't complain about it.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 04:21 AM
link   
you're not going to get to be part of it unless you hide in the underground cities and survive the grand Deluge.

and what's "synthetic" anyway... if we were "created" by another species.. then we're "of artifice"... artificial... there being no actual natural.

just different versions of metabolic processes.

omgz... we ARE A.I. .....



-



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
It's already happening with implants, robotic members and the such.
I believe this will get more and more common over time and will eventually replace flesh and bones...
You have to wonder whether this will be for good or not. It sounds like we would be even more dependant on society than today.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join