Metanet Forums

It'd cost money, lots of it. And that ultimately leads to having two entirely different species of humans. Those who are rich will have the funds to genetically modify themselves and their future generations, making them superhuman. Those who are poor will be left with what mankind has been for centuries. I think it'd be a cool thing to try, but it's something that people could easily go overboard with and create the perfect human, making itself superior to everyone else. Would we still be able to classify the biological monster as a human? Or is it just a creature fitting itself into a human body?
Is it worth it? Because transhumanism will only be available to a select group of people. Those people, although perfect in theory, would be too perfect for themselves. And that creates a conflict not only between transhumans and humans, but a one within the transhuman community.

Eh, I think a lot of people misunderstand transhumanism. It doesn't mean we'll magically create some kind of "perfect" human and everyone else will be left to rot. Technically, our use of pacemakers, prosthetic limbs and the like is already skirting the boundary of transhumanism. And I think people often overestimate how expensive these things will be. Think about it; you can get a palmtop computer for $100 or so. Once someone finds a cheap way to hook that up to the nervous system, everyone can have a built-in calendar, calender, several gigs of storage space, camera, etc. etc, for a price no higher than a mobile phone or iPod. Sure, the rich people will probably get the shiny things first, and they might be able to get some more exotic cyberware, but if it follows the same trend as previous technology cybernetics will pretty quickly become cheap enough for virtually everyone to enjoy.

Well I guess I see what you mean with that. And the way you look at it makes it seem more achievable.

Just a afterthought though, should we be spending time trying to advance ourselves, versus making life for the less fortunate better? I know it's cliché to revert back to the "think about the poor people" argument, but this is simply increasing the margin of their lifestyles to ours even more.

TribulatioN wrote:Just a afterthought though, should we be spending time trying to advance ourselves, versus making life for the less fortunate better? I know it's cliché to revert back to the "think about the poor people" argument, but this is simply increasing the margin of their lifestyles to ours even more.

I agree with you but I think that western society has sort of made its choice. I know I have.

I'm all for #3.
But I do think the idea of a human as we are now (the result of biological evolution before it became irrelevant) will remain to remind us of what we are underneath any improvements we might make on ourselves, at the very least because that's what our genes would determine we be. That is, until we find a way to splice whatever artificial modifications we'd make to a "natural" human infant into our DNA so that we don't have a biomod-implanting ritual to perform for every new human child.
I actually expect that at some point an unmodified human would be a curiosity.

I think the major barrier to the popularity of human modification will be that most people prefer technology that can be removed or turned-off.

I also think there will be, as exists now, a huge gap in the popularity of essential and non-essential modifications. A one-legged man will happily sign up for a prosthetic limb, but artificial leg technology would have to be pretty damn advanced and failproof before anybody would be prepared to cut their own legs off and have them replaced.

SkyPanda wrote:A one-legged man will happily sign up for a prosthetic limb, but artificial leg technology would have to be pretty damn advanced and failproof before anybody would be prepared to cut their own legs off and have them replaced.

Beta-test me!

But anyway, I amuse myself with the idea of a biotech-heavy future that's still extremely capitalistic -- families purchasing improvements from one of multiple companies.
"The Microsoft Neural Interface firmware update 4.6.21-3 greatly reduces the frequency of the following side-effects: headaches, insomnia, seizures, brain hemorrhage, stroke, aggravated death, and spontaneous-onset schizophrenia*. Find out today why Microsoft is leading the wetware industry!"
*reduced likelihood of stroke only observed in a minority of testing trials, the rest of which showed increased likelihood for the same

Tsukatu wrote:"The Microsoft Neural Interface firmware update 4.6.21-3 greatly reduces the frequency of the following side-effects: headaches, insomnia, seizures, brain hemorrhage, stroke, aggravated death, and spontaneous-onset schizophrenia*. Find out today why Microsoft is leading the wetware industry!"
*reduced likelihood of stroke only observed in a minority of testing trials, the rest of which showed increased likelihood for the same

Haha.


I don't really want to be like Firefox.

Even If I'd love to have superior reproduction capabilities, and have an eternal life, I like the way I am, a natural being, without all those technological things on or in me. It would most certainly limit my freeness, and would just lead to more and more materialism. (I'm writing this, but these are not my "fixed" ideas, I mean, I can easily change my mind on this)

TribulatioN wrote:Just a afterthought though, should we be spending time trying to advance ourselves, versus making life for the less fortunate better? I know it's cliché to revert back to the "think about the poor people" argument, but this is simply increasing the margin of their lifestyles to ours even more.

This is what we really should be focusing on. Helping others, we're rapidly losing that capability, and I don't think any "add-on" can improve that thing.

This and space conquering.



Oh, just remembered, with this, we would have to face some more types of virus, but that is probably inevitable.

Is it even possible for humans to be superseded by our own technology? It's the old brain vs. machine debate--can we ever create something that is more complicated and better equipped for life than our brains already are?

That's slightly off-topic, however. I think that improving ourselves is alright up to a point--prosthetics are alright, perhaps testing fetuses for Down Syndrome, etc--but taken too far it is definitely bad. Fortunately, we won't have to deal with this in our lifetimes, unless something very surprising happens.

flagmyidol wrote:Fortunately, we won't have to deal with this in our lifetimes, unless something very surprising happens.

Have you seen what happened since 2000?

*insert list of really awesome stuff

Really, the rate of tech evolution is fast fast fast, and I don't see it stopping now.

flagmyidol wrote:Is it even possible for humans to be superseded by our own technology? It's the old brain vs. machine debate--can we ever create something that is more complicated and better equipped for life than our brains already are?

This isn't about humanity being "conquered" by technology. It's about a voluntary union. A symbiote, not a parasite. And the answer is a resounding "yes!" Simple calculators are already much, much better at equations than a human brain. If you read into transhumanist literature, a lot of people think that the Singularity will be brought on by the advent of a strong A.I. I don't doubt for a second that, at some point, there will be computers with metaphorical shotguns strapped to their foreheads because of their potential for abuse.

Funny how you should post this topic right after MIT researchers created this little oddity.

I actually expect that at some point an unmodified human would be a curiosity.

Same here. We've already long-exceeded expectations: a non-vaccinated human is very much a curiosity (and very much a health risk!). Our life expectancy, compared to the nomadic era, has close to doubled at the very least. In a very different sense, a human wearing no clothing is also an oddity, even in warm areas.

don't start none, wont be none.

eganic wrote:don't start none, wont be none.

Don't attempt to advance humans, we won't advance.
*Fixed*

I second Demonz notion: That is just fucking cool.

rennaT wrote:

flagmyidol wrote:Is it even possible for humans to be superseded by our own technology? It's the old brain vs. machine debate--can we ever create something that is more complicated and better equipped for life than our brains already are?

This isn't about humanity being "conquered" by technology. It's about a voluntary union. A symbiote, not a parasite. And the answer is a resounding "yes!" Simple calculators are already much, much better at equations than a human brain. If you read into transhumanist literature, a lot of people think that the Singularity will be brought on by the advent of a strong A.I. I don't doubt for a second that, at some point, there will be computers with metaphorical shotguns strapped to their foreheads because of their potential for abuse.

If we were "conquered" (your word, not mine) by technology that we had created, it would be of necessity at least somewhat voluntary, because we have realized the possibility of being outstripped by our own tech, yet we continue to look into cloning, prsothetics, etc.

As for calculators, that's not exactly what I meant, and I think you realize that. I said "for life", not for math. (See also: savants.)
Finally, computers already have a huge potential for abuse, as you called it. But viruses, as of now, still need human force behind them. It may be that they won't in the future--who knows?

Oh, one more thing. I realize that technology has expanded exponentially in the last hundred years especially, but I still doubt that we personally will see many of the things being discussed in this thread.


~Sorry for any typos or clarity issues; I'm typing this at school and having to tab over to my work whenever the teacher walks by... :P

flagmyidol wrote:If we were "conquered" (your word, not mine) by technology that we had created, it would be of necessity at least somewhat voluntary, because we have realized the possibility of being outstripped by our own tech, yet we continue to look into cloning, prosthetic, etc.

I... I said that it wasn't about being conquered. It's not about being supplanted or replaced by technology. It's about taking our interactions with technology to the next level. Transhumanism isn't about turning a human into a computer. It's about turning a human and a computer into something better.

flagmyidol wrote:As for calculators, that's not exactly what I meant, and I think you realize that. I said "for life", not for math. (See also: savants.)

Math was an aspect of modern life the last time I checked. I also mentioned strong A.I. (that sentence you ignored in my previous post) because the advent of a true learning machine would essentially mean that there would be few if any things that computers wouldn't be better at us than.

flagmyidol wrote:Finally, computers already have a huge potential for abuse, as you called it. But viruses, as of now, still need human force behind them. It may be that they won't in the future--who knows?

Again, I was talking about strong A.I. You could tell I was talking about strong A.I. because I had mentioned it in my previous sentence. The sentence that you ignored.

2

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:

eganic wrote:don't start none, wont be none.

Could you clarify what you mean by this? Like, with more specific nouns or something?

if we dont invent artificial intelligence, then there's no chance man-made machines will ever be able to do harm to man in any way. on purpose. i read it on a guys shirt a week ago and it seemed to fit the topic at the time.

TribulatioN wrote:

eganic wrote:don't start none, wont be none.

Don't attempt to advance humans, we won't advance.
*Fixed*

maybe its better if we dont advance. why do we need to? if we keep advancing and advancing, where does it end? perfection? impossible. we dont want the robots to do all the work do we?

eganic wrote:maybe its better if we dont advance. why do we need to?

Cancer, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, obesity, starvation, depression, heart failure, shall I go on?

rennaT wrote:

eganic wrote:maybe its better if we dont advance. why do we need to?

Cancer, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, obesity, starvation, depression, heart failure, shall I go on?

all those things, if solved, will be replaced by some other crisis. AIDs "didnt exist" a couple centurys ago (give or take)

nice point
there will always be problems in the world

yet we cannot simply watch people suffer, so we will continue blindly on until our doom

eganic wrote:

rennaT wrote:

eganic wrote:maybe its better if we dont advance. why do we need to?

Cancer, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, obesity, starvation, depression, heart failure, shall I go on?

all those things, if solved, will be replaced by some other crisis. AIDs "didnt exist" a couple centurys ago (give or take)

If everyone had your attitude, the sun would still be revolving around the moon and we'd still think leeches are pretty good as curing most diseases.

Firstly: Tanner, you can be sure that I ignored none of your sentences. About conquering: You can call it whatever you want, but if humans want to continue to improve both ourselves and computers, the next step is a combination of the two. This will result in some loss of human free will and individuality (that is merely my opinion, but it's one I stand by, and I won't be easily persuaded otherwise).

rennaT wrote:If you read into transhumanist literature, a lot of people think that the Singularity will be brought on by the advent of a strong A.I.

Now, what exactly do you mean by that? Of course this so-called "Singularity" will be brought on (if at all) by heavily improved AI. The AI we have now isn't close to good enough for the purpose.

Secondly: eganic, I must disagree. That's a somewhat anarchist way of thinking. Your argument is that even though we solve many problems with technology, we create new ones. True, but also think about this: humanity had problems before we began advancing. Bottom line, overall world life expectancy has gone way up, and should continue to go up. The only thing I can think of in relation to this that is negative is that once places like Borneo and Africa have been entirely opened up to the world (transportation anywhere, full trade, better SOL) diseases may be uncovered that have a plague-like effect on us. Ebola, for example.

rennaT wrote:If everyone had your attitude, the sun would still be revolving around the moon and we'd still think leeches are pretty good as curing most diseases.

whats wrong with that? if we all had my way of thinking way back when, then we wouldnt be thinking "boy i sure would like a car right now". how can we miss what we never had?

flagmyidol wrote:About conquering: You can call it whatever you want, but if humans want to continue to improve both ourselves and computers, the next step is a combination of the two. This will result in some loss of human free will and individuality (that is merely my opinion, but it's one I stand by, and I won't be easily persuaded otherwise).

Why do you think that?

flagmyidol wrote:

rennaT wrote:If you read into transhumanist literature, a lot of people think that the Singularity will be brought on by the advent of a strong A.I.

Now, what exactly do you mean by that? Of course this so-called "Singularity" will be brought on (if at all) by heavily improved AI. The AI we have now isn't close to good enough for the purpose.

Yeah, my bad. Let me define my terms.

Strong AI is artificial intelligence that matches or exceeds human intelligence—the intelligence of a machine that can successfully perform any intellectual task that a human being can as opposed to weak AI which is something that you see in computer controlled allies or enemies in a computer game.

The technological singularity is a theoretical future point of unprecedented technological progress, caused in part by the ability of machines to improve themselves using artificial intelligence.

eganic wrote:

rennaT wrote:If everyone had your attitude, the sun would still be revolving around the moon and we'd still think leeches are pretty good as curing most diseases.

whats wrong with that? if we all had my way of thinking way back when, then we wouldnt be thinking "boy i sure would like a car right now". how can we miss what we never had?

I agree. Thankfully, though, we can look back in hindsight and realize that we're in a better situation now than we were hundreds of years ago. Or, at least, now we have the choice between the two worlds. eganic, if you want to go back to living in the dirt, I encourage you to follow your dream. I will be asking for your machine-knit clothes, your glasses, your braces, your ability to read and, most likely, your mother's privilege of living through childbirth.