Transhumanism and you
- Thread starter BangSmashBoom
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't get why anyone would ever be against transhumanism, then again I don't get why people are against abortion or gay-marriage.Kalezian said:
Like how Adam Jensen is all "I never asked for this..." in Deus Ex Human Revolution in regards to his augmentations. I mean come on? I'd go all (in Yahtzee's words) "WOOOT LOOK AT ME I AM A MONSTER TRUCK THAT WALKS LIKE A MAN!!!!".
i support Transhumanism, our body just can't keep up with technology as well as we need less fragile bodies for space exploration and colonization.
Having Adam Jensen as an avatar seems appropriate for the topic.BangSmashBoom said:
Personally I'm kinda for it, but definitely won't be the first to jump into it. I'd rather see how it works for others first before considering it myself.
Also, the fear of immortality is there. What's the point of existence when you have a mind-numbing eternity ahead of you. Who's to say you won't be driven to madness through eventual boredom, and don't even have the option to take yourself out?
That being said though, I am still for it, but it does have some questions to answer first.
Downloading a digitized version of your brain into a droid would still not be the original you, so to speak. Still probably act, feel and have same memories as you, but the original you of flesh and blood would still be around, unless disposed of in the process.
The movie The Prestige (2006)
show a situation similar to this theory. Also a damn fine movie.
Putting your brain into a casing and then implement it into cyberbodies ala Ghost In The Shell style, now that is infinitely better for you as a person and much more likely to happen.
The movie The Prestige (2006)
The twist at the end when Robert realise that the original him was killed off long time ago, and that what he thought was "luck" that he survived every night on stage was infact only what the new copy thought was luck.
Putting your brain into a casing and then implement it into cyberbodies ala Ghost In The Shell style, now that is infinitely better for you as a person and much more likely to happen.
Perhaps not, but even so, would it not -selfishly speaking- be a superior form of immortality to having children?ultrachicken said:
I wouldn't mind if I was simply copied, as long as my copy acts and makes decisions the same way as me I'm okay with that.Alcamonic said:
I do like this idea a lot more.Alcamonic said:
I think immortality through technology is still a long ways to go.
The latest thing I've heard about someone using technology (in both a form of hardware and software) to augment themselves is this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Harbisson
I don't see a good end to this. The two sides of the debate will only become more and more highly charged, and eventual conflict is sadly inevitable. I reckon the pro-transhumanist lobby (they'll need a snappy name, probably CORE) will easily become the more powerful of the two, whilst the separatist movement (lets call them ARM) will strongly resist what they'll probably see as digital slavery.
But we'll all get mechs, so that's cool.
But we'll all get mechs, so that's cool.
Ethics has never been an impenetrable barrier to scientists in their quest to improve humanity. But at some point the time will come when scientists re-define what being human is, and invariably determine our humanity. I feel the most unfiltered, unregulated embracing of this course is exponential hubris.
Technology certainly has a defining role in our lives, but in my opinion we shouldn't let ourselves go so far as to have it literally replace us. To be sure there is a lot of good that it can do, but there is a line that needs to be drawn somewhere.
Far more troubling, in my view, isn't tech but mucking about with genetics, especially with how it relates to reproduction. The thought of choosing gender, customizing and/or cleansing DNA to make "ideal" offspring, or granting supernatural enhancement (think athletes on steroids or engineering a woman's figure) makes my skin crawl.
And for what it's worth, can we decouple this idea that people waving caution and stoppage in this general domain have to be nature-huggers and/or God-fearing old men? Ethical reasoning shouldn't discriminate, it's actually good science to be critical of methodology and maintain discourse, especially when what we're examining is essentially taking control of our evolution.
Technology certainly has a defining role in our lives, but in my opinion we shouldn't let ourselves go so far as to have it literally replace us. To be sure there is a lot of good that it can do, but there is a line that needs to be drawn somewhere.
Far more troubling, in my view, isn't tech but mucking about with genetics, especially with how it relates to reproduction. The thought of choosing gender, customizing and/or cleansing DNA to make "ideal" offspring, or granting supernatural enhancement (think athletes on steroids or engineering a woman's figure) makes my skin crawl.
And for what it's worth, can we decouple this idea that people waving caution and stoppage in this general domain have to be nature-huggers and/or God-fearing old men? Ethical reasoning shouldn't discriminate, it's actually good science to be critical of methodology and maintain discourse, especially when what we're examining is essentially taking control of our evolution.
It's the question posed by The Prestige right. When you're copied, are you going to be the one that dies or the one that lives? Obviously when you're copied you can't "be in" both individuals at the same time and only one "you" will exist, but even if one dies, the other will live and the existence that is "Bealzibob" will continue, but the question is - is that enough? The whole point of immortality is because people want to live forever/are afraid of dying. If people want to ensure the existence of "you" then the whole copying thing misses the point if "you" as the consciousness dies anyway, that's more suited to leaving a legacy, in which case, they should just have a kid or something.Bealzibob said:
As I've mentioned in another topic which dealt with human augmentation via cybernetics and prosthetic limbs as a form of "technical evolution for humans," I wouldn't want to be involved with it too much and if it becomes mandatory, then I would only be involved in the lowest form possible.
I don't know; I've seen what I can do as a human and no doubt that I'd be able to do more if technology was more apart of me (be it cybernetics or cerebral download), but unless absolutely necessary, I wouldn't want to be apart of it. Maybe I'd be some of the few who are left behind to turn the nobs and levers, if it comes to that. I just want to live and die as a human for as long as naturally possible.
How devoted would you say I'd be? I've been considering NOT taking medication to keep me alive past my senior years if it comes down to it.
I don't know; I've seen what I can do as a human and no doubt that I'd be able to do more if technology was more apart of me (be it cybernetics or cerebral download), but unless absolutely necessary, I wouldn't want to be apart of it. Maybe I'd be some of the few who are left behind to turn the nobs and levers, if it comes to that. I just want to live and die as a human for as long as naturally possible.
How devoted would you say I'd be? I've been considering NOT taking medication to keep me alive past my senior years if it comes down to it.
this is the real question here:
Quoting lewis black "Even if we could achieve [immortality], do you think we're the generation that deserves it?"
Which is true because I personally don't think the human race needs it or deserves it, as deaths the only thing that prevents us from over population.
Quoting lewis black "Even if we could achieve [immortality], do you think we're the generation that deserves it?"
Which is true because I personally don't think the human race needs it or deserves it, as deaths the only thing that prevents us from over population.
