Transhumanism

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

Simple: he is vitterfolk (a troll with a human-like appearance).

[Nyarlathotep]

Simple: he is vitterfolk (a troll with a human-like appearance).

So... I need to get the new flamethrower upgrade...? Or if I'm a bio-mod, the psychokinesis plasmid?

*shot for feeding trolls*

[Yakk]

On the other hand, I don't think anyone saw iPods coming. I didn't even notice until recently; they just sort of snuck in there. Oh, there was hype around the release, but a solid state music player craze that would have huge numbers of people walking the streets 'plugged in' was not (that I know of) a predicted scenario, at least, not a popular one.

For an explicit claim of "I wanted an iPod decades before there was one":
http://www.macobserver.com/columns/ipon ... 0823.shtml

Most reasonably, the portable music player has been around since 1963. An iPod is just that, made smaller, with more capacity, and an interface to get at the song you want. I can pretty much guarantee that the engineer who made the first portable cassette player was thinking about "so, how much smaller can I make this, and how much more can I cram in"?

And portable computers (which is what iPods are) where ridiculously well predicted. The iPod has shown up early, because the interface requirements to play back entertainment in the form of video and audio are simpler than what would be required for a full-fledged computer, and it lacks the connectivity difficulties that modern computers consider essential.

The iPhone is closer to the portable computer that has been long projected. Because it has some connectivity, it has access to ridiculously huge data banks: things like google maps are part of what an iPhone can provide you. As the internet becomes more practical, and the bandwidth of portable computers increases, and the interfaces cater more and more to portable computers, things will get better.

But already at this point many cell phones can web browse over to the Wikipaedia and extract out reasonably accurate information about ridiculously obscure subjects.

[Adalwolf]

Then I suggest you go out and try it. Seriously. Start honing your skills, meet a couple other people who advocate the destruction of technology, and actually go out into the wild and try to live that way, eschewing any technology past the Agricultural Revolution. Don't just idolize a world you've never experienced, sitting in a comfy chair talking about it on the Internet. Live it -- live it with the intent of never returning. And I'm not saying that I want to get rid of you, just to understand the perspective this requires, the fact that this isn't just camping.

Don't be like the head of PETA, which demonizes scientists who do animal testing, then depend on medicines which use such testing, rationalizing it by saying that "getting the message out is more important." Actually live your ideology.

I intend to. It takes time, however, to learn on the skills necessary, as I wasn't raised in a society who passed those skills on to me.

You talk of freedom, but I don't see how having to think every day how to not starve, having a life expectancy that of the Upper Paleolithic (the era before agriculture) -- somewhere from 20 to 33 years -- can be freedom in any sense.

How do you know that tendencies to agriculture aren't "natural?" If people in your ideal society start to farm, will you use force to stop them? Will you go against people's natural desires to live longer and better? Doesn't sound like freedom to me.

At least with our idea of the future, we won't stop people from living their own lives as primitively as they want. After all, we don't need to force you. We just need to outlive you.

The life expectancy figures are misleading due to the child mortality rate, which is fairly high in every species. If make past childhood, you'll probably make it to 40. If you would like to know more of hunter-gatherers, please read Limited Wants, Unlimited Means by John Gowdy. It is a collection of famous essays, case studies, and in depth work on the subject.

They're also what lead to thought, ideas, philosophies. They're what give you the time to even dedicate your thoughts to how great living as a hunter-gatherer is.

And it's not as if there was never inequality or dependency. The gender gap, for example, was always there in hunter-gatherer societies. Men were the hunters, women were the caretakers. If anything, a primitive society is more beholden to inequalities, having no way to rise beyond them.

Men and women played complementary roles. Men generally hunted, which provided about 30% or so of hunter-gatherer diet. Women provided the rest through the gathering of wild plants. Women's role was highly valued, and they were not viewed as property. Women could leave their husband at anytime, and even leave to join another band. Also, in many societies women hunted as well.

If you really cared about the dangers of specialization, you would get off the Internet. The digital divide is one of the biggest issues in the modern world, and by spending your time posting here, you are contributing to it.

Probably correct. Its and indulgence.

No. All biological life, currently, ages and dies. Except sharks. And Carp. They live until something kills them.

Why? Because it's a pretty good evolutionary mechanism. The old genome dies and makes room for the new genome to possibly improve on it.

If we can improve our own genome, that is totally unnecessary.

No. The old must always make way for the new, eventually.

Yeah. There are two ways of doing that: try to dismantle society, or try to make society *even more efficient* until it no longer hurts the environment.

Let's examine the first option.

If *everyone on earth* reverted to a hunter gatherer lifestyle tomorrow, two things would happen. First, half the population would die in short order. People won't let that happen. It is not natural to go willingly into death. Nearly every animal on earth will do everything in their power to stay alive. Choosing to undermine your sources of food and shelter (which is what we would be doing if we dismantled farms and cities) is an extremely "unnatural" act. So there's a problem there.

Second, the remaining percentage of the population would quickly strip the planet bare. Right now, our desire for food only touches the environment in remote ways: our fertilizer runoff, our displaced wilderness, and so on. The animals and plants we eat aren't part of any natural ecosystem, so it doesn't matter how many of them we kill, it just matters how much space they occupy. If the entire human population just started eating wild plants and wild animals exclusively, we'd eat *everything* in about a year flat. The extinctions would be *monumental*.

The only reason hunter gatherers were "sustainable" back in the day was because there weren't very many of them

Now, the other way.

If we can *isolate* or *improve* our food, energy and shelter processes, so that they don't damage the environment, then we can live as we do now without hurting our support system (the earth). This requires making *more* advances, not fewer.

Well I think way more than half the population would die. I'd say at least 2/3's would die in a few week. And over the following year I think the many more would die. I'd be surprised if the world can sustain more than 1 billion people (more likely about 500mil or less).

Dismantling society would be great. Its already spiraling out of control. Working to speed up the crash would be admirable. Although I'd like to try reduce its damage to the environment during its last years, through environmental laws, increased conservation efforts, etc.

Okay. That's neat for you. Go do that. No one is going to stop you. But why does what you consider fun dictate what is natural or good? Why is having a knowledge base that consists of "how to eat" better than one that is more complex and varied?

Furthermore, what gives you the idea that *choosing* to give up advantages and go live like that is natural? Like I said, it's not natural to shorten your lifespan, give up advantages, and intentionally hobble yourself. No animal does this. An animal in a state of nature will grasp at any advantage it can perceive, use any resources it can access, and do anything it has to to keep itself and its own alive.

The thing is, we can see (well, some of us can) that civilization is not sustainable. Civilization destroys everything it touches. Yes it has give improved lifespan, but increased human and nonhuman suffering. It has allowed human population to skyrocket, but that cannot be sustained, and the population will crash, at great cost to the environment. Once populations overshoot carrying capacity, carrying capacity is lowered.

We can use our knowledge to see the problems, and see that the future lies in the past.

No, they are not. First, we have the mass extinction of large "game" animals done by hunter-gatherer societies.

Second, the environment includes asteroids slamming into the planet with enough force that every animal on the planet larger than a squirrel dies. As hunter-gatherer societies cannot survive such an impact, they are not sustainable in the environment of "planet earth". Sure, in the short term, then can sustain themselves. But anything can sustain itself in the short term, that's not that impressive.

First its not understood exactly why the megafauna went extinct. Humans likely played a role, but humans were not the sole cause. After the initial trouble, hunter gatherer societies lived in equilibrium with their environments.

To your second part. So? Once earth goes, we go. We are part of Earth.

[Adalwolf]

Adalwolf is Ásatrú... That's the glorious life you want to recreate?

Not exactly. I'd like to go back further, but if the best we were able to do was go back 1500 or so years, I'd be fine with it.

I'm still not sure why he's sitting on his computer yelling at Transhumanists instead of going out with his spear and bearskins and living this glorious life of his... why not do that, and leave us dreamers to our folly...?

Because I'm learning the skills to go out and live off the land, I don't know them, yet. And because I see Transhumanism as one of the most dangerous ideologies in history. I'd like to combat it.

[Belial]

Men and women played complementary roles.

Most people these days aren't really keen on that idea. Try telling a woman that she isn't allowed to do a man's job, but that the jobs she *is* allowed to do are "just as good".

No. The old must always make way for the new, eventually.

And I'm a different person from second to second. What's your point?

Well I think way more than half the population would die. I'd say at least 2/3's would die in a few week. And over the following year I think the many more would die. I'd be surprised if the world can sustain more than 1 billion people (more likely about 500mil or less).

True. "Half" was a word I pulled from the air randomly. Point is, you'd be asking humans to die, voluntarily, in huge numbers to satisfy your ideology. What's natural about that?

And my other point still stands: just enough people would live to be able to strip the planet bare in short order.

Though, realistically, what would actually happen is everyone would go "guys, starving sucks, this was a stupid idea. Does anyone remember how to farm? And can we grow some penicillin or something?" And then they'd start rebuilding society. You really want to put the natural world through another industrial revolution? That was harsh.

Dismantling society would be great. Its already spiraling out of control. Working to speed up the crash would be admirable. Although I'd like to try reduce its damage to the environment during its last years, through environmental laws, increased conservation efforts, etc.

You're working at cross purposes to yourself, then. environmental laws, conservation, green energy sources, switching to renewable resources: all of these are ways of making civilization even longer lived. To become more sustainable we must become more advanced, and with both of those things, we ensure our own continued surivival as a civilization. If green technology ever became sufficiently advanced that society became 100% long term sustainable, you would have effectively made that society immortal.

Likewise, if society were to ever begin "disintegrating" as you seem to think it will, I promise that it will behave like a cornered animal: It will rip, tear, claw, and clamp down on anything and everything around it in a desparate attempt to stay alive just a little bit longer, consequences be damned. Do you really think any "green" laws would stay in place for even a second once people started dying in mass numbers? If metal becomes too rare, the anti-strip-mining activists will lose support and the wild places will be torn and gutted. If wood and farmland becomes too rare, we'll clearcut the world. Energy too scarce? Drill the wildlife refuges and fuck the greenhouse gas limits. If society were to collapse, it would destroy everything you claim to care about in the death throes.

So which will it be? I vote option number 1, personally.

To your second part. So? Once earth goes, we go. We are part of Earth.

Of course. Just like a hunter-gatherer, upon realizing that his longhouse was unstable and doomed to collapse, would refuse to leave it and build another. After all, it's his house. If it goes, he goes.

Oh wait, no.

[Adalwolf]

Belial, you have some good points.

No one told women they couldn't go hunt. In many societies they did.
I don't think people are going to abandon civilization willingly. Its going to crash, and the crash will be bad. Really really bad.

[Indon]

I'm having difficulty grasping what it would take to completely destroy civilization.

I mean, say there's a superflu. Wipes out 90% of the people on Earth... that leaves you with fewer people, but it doesn't destroy civilization.

Or say we run out of oil. Oh, man! We better start walking, and use Ethanol to transport goods, and solar power for your home. That's really not so much Mad Max, as it is... Greenpeace.

[Belial]

I don't think people are going to abandon civilization willingly. Its going to crash, and the crash will be bad. Really really bad.

Okay. We'll cross that bridge if and when we come to it. But what if we don't? Society has looked like it could never go on any further numerous times. But we're clever monkeys, we keep increasing our carrying capacity by developing new technologies.

I prefer to, rather than directing my energies and my thoughts to wishing society would go away, direct them toward wishing and thinking on how it could become sustainable. This works for me in two ways: nature gets to go on being nature relatively unmolested (or at least, not *further* molested), and I get to be comfortable and knowledgeable and healthy. And if I'm lucky, superpowered, supersmart, and immortal.

Furthermore, since it's always easier to go backward than forward, anyone who *wanted* to go hunt buffalo with spears while being slow, weak, limited, shortlived and dumb like an unmodified human, could. No skin off my nose. In fact, I'd probably be pretty pleased that *someone* was doing that, because it's cool. I just wouldn't sacrifice all of society and human advancement for everyone just to achieve it.

As a sidenote, I seriously feel like I'm having an argument with myself from five or six years ago. It's truly disorienting.

[Jessica]

Really, belial? That's kinda strange.

Personally, I can't understand people who think that humanity is crap and needs to be destroyed. I guess there was a time long ago when I thought I was better than everyone and under my rule things would be better. Then I realized that I was being a egotistical eugenic jerk, and actually realized how awesome humans are.

But, that's my own personal journey.

[Goplat]

Well I think way more than half the population would die. I'd say at least 2/3's would die in a few week. And over the following year I think the many more would die. I'd be surprised if the world can sustain more than 1 billion people (more likely about 500mil or less).

Dismantling society would be great.

At least you're honest. Too many primitivists try to gloss over this little point.

Kill 100 people and it's called mass-murder. Kill 1,000,000 people and it's called genocide. What is it called to kill 5,000,000,000 people? "Great"

[Adalwolf]

Well I think way more than half the population would die. I'd say at least 2/3's would die in a few week. And over the following year I think the many more would die. I'd be surprised if the world can sustain more than 1 billion people (more likely about 500mil or less).

Dismantling society would be great.

At least you're honest. Too many primitivists try to gloss over this little point.

Kill 100 people and it's called mass-murder. Kill 1,000,000 people and it's called genocide. What is it called to kill 5,000,000,000 people? "Great"

I'm not saying they should be killed. I'm saying they are going to die after the crash.

[Aluminus]

Holy crap I've missed a lot. Is Adalwolf really convinced that his method will work?
I don't want to be around when he takes over.

One of the reasons I've seen people (luddites, anti-transhumanists) oppose technology, is religion.
Is this what it is about? Contempt of the Flesh? Too much Hubris? Afraid of Playing God?

As a sentient being (who may or may not have free will) I feel that I should be able to make the decision as to how technologically advanced I want my life to be. If someone is going to come around to me and say that "Civilization should be dismantled because..." and then lists a ream of arguments; well, I'm not going to be happy about that. Not at all.

I don't think that going backwards in time is going to make life better, per se, it will just make it simpler. For some people, that's good enough.
I want to live long enough to buy a computer that can outperform my own brain. For some people that is absolutely frightening. For some it is blasphemy. For some, it is a sign of the apocralyse[sic]. For me, I'm a scientist: what does this button do?

BONUS NUMEROLOGY:

Spoiler:

A=1, B=2, C=3 etc.
C+O+M+P+U+T+E+R
=6x(3+15+13+16+21+20+5+18)
=666

[Rook]

I'm a Christian, and personally I don't see much wrong with the more general transhumanist ideals. After all, creation of God or not, the body is around for what, 100 years at best? (I know it's often less and sometimes more, but roll with it for simplicity's sake) The main focus [of my religion at least] is on the growth of the soul, not changes to the body. Once I'm dead, those changes will be nullified anyway, so the only vice I can see is in focusing on 'upgrades' to the exclusion of everything else.

But then, that's true of anything really. To the technological aspect of transhumanism, I have no real problems with the idea of 'enhanced' humans, provided they a) realise that this does not make them better people and b) stayed largely within the realms of good taste. And be honest [unnamed fanatic], just because this is a future scenario, and not immediately plausible, does not mean you'd really be OK with someone elevating themselves to a god-like status in terms of mental and physical abilities, any more than you would accept a militaristic warlord setting up camp in your back garden today.

I mean heck, you can hardly imagine that any advance would be equal can you? If anything, the ability to 'enhance' humans to some undefined level of power would quite probably result in a rather large social schism (between those who could afford the best, those who could not, those who wanted none of it, and those who resented those in power. There may be some overlap possibly), or many, with people of vastly different mental and physical levels becoming increasingly alienated from each other. Possibly to the point of war maybe, and when a large number of these people essentially have a small army strapped to their arm, you can bet it would be bloody.*

I'm not saying they should be killed. I'm saying they are going to die after the crash.

The crash which you want to instigate. If I demolish a building while there are still people inside, am I not responsible for their deaths? I didn't have anything against them; but if they were smart, they'd have been outside.

*Now that I have said this, the probability of occurrence of this future has shrunk almost to zero, in accordance with the law of 'Everything happens somewhere, unless you want it to, or make a reasonably detailed prediction about it'.

[Belial]

I mean heck, you can hardly imagine that any advance would be equal can you? If anything, the ability to 'enhance' humans to some undefined level of power would quite probably result in a rather large social schism (between those who could afford the best, those who could not, those who wanted none of it, and those who resented those in power. There may be some overlap possibly), or many, with people of vastly different mental and physical levels becoming increasingly alienated from each other.

You mean like how I can access boundless information nearly instantly, and have machines to do entire villages worth of work for me, and others have neither?

[Nyarlathotep]

I'm a Christian, and personally I don't see much wrong with the more general transhumanist ideals. After all, creation of God or not, the body is around for what, 100 years at best? (I know it's often less and sometimes more, but roll with it for simplicity's sake) The main focus [of my religion at least] is on the growth of the soul, not changes to the body. Once I'm dead, those changes will be nullified anyway, so the only vice I can see is in focusing on 'upgrades' to the exclusion of everything else.

To take it from a religious standpoint...

If the focus of your religion is on the growth of the soul, not the body, imagine how much more time one has to refine the soul while on this earth (if we consider that perhaps once in the afterlife that's 'it' and you have no more chances to 'improve'.)*

*note that I'm agnosticish who thinks that the coolest afterlife would involve reincarnation but who is skeptical about its existence.

But seriously... imagine having centuries in which to contemplate and refine one's spiritual existence.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

And be honest [unnamed fanatic], just because this is a future scenario, and not immediately plausible, does not mean you'd really be OK with someone elevating themselves to a god-like status in terms of mental and physical abilities, any more than you would accept a militaristic warlord setting up camp in your back garden today.

What's wrong with becoming god-like?

[Aluminus]

Because if there are lots of god-like people, then they would just fight each other, trying to prove their omnipotence.
Transformers, deities in disguise

[loratwopointone]

And be honest [unnamed fanatic], just because this is a future scenario, and not immediately plausible, does not mean you'd really be OK with someone elevating themselves to a god-like status in terms of mental and physical abilities, any more than you would accept a militaristic warlord setting up camp in your back garden today.

What's wrong with becoming god-like?

I don't think a beard and sandels would suit me

Seriously though, I can't see a problem with the human race trying to improve itself through means of science. Through science and technology we've evolved from living in caves and hunting to what we are today. Through healthcare and research into illnesses we've added years onto the average life expectancy. What is wrong with taking that a step further?

[Rook]

You mean like how I can access boundless information nearly instantly, and have machines to do entire villages worth of work for me, and others have neither?

Yes, exactly like that. My point being that although transhumanists envision a utopia, it's still likely that unless they really can change the way people think, there will be haves and have-nots, and at least some (if by no means all) of the have-nots will resent the haves.

In any case, would you mind clarifying that sentence? I detect some degree of sarcasm, but I can't really see what you're getting at.

To take it from a religious standpoint...

If the focus of your religion is on the growth of the soul, not the body, imagine how much more time one has to refine the soul while on this earth (if we consider that perhaps once in the afterlife that's 'it' and you have no more chances to 'improve'.)*

*note that I'm agnostic who thinks that the coolest afterlife would involve reincarnation but who is skeptical about its existence.

But seriously... imagine having centuries in which to contemplate and refine one's spiritual existence.

Ah, but that would be cheating

Seriously though, I don't have a real answer to that one. I'm not one of these that's against all forms of artificial extension of life up to and including all medical treatment (something I feel is silly, since 'knowledge of stuff' is supposed to be our thing, like having lots of teeth is the sharks' thing). This is one of those areas I placed into 'good taste', since I feel it would be a very circumstantial thing. If someone extended their life nearly indefinitely simply to further their own position, gain power or evade death, I can't say I'd approve. If someone did the same because they felt they needed more time in order to 'put things right' I can't say I wouldn't. Note, I tend to judge more on circumstances than principles.

I absolutely refuse to cite the Bicentennial Man.

What's wrong with becoming god-like?

What's wrong with one visionary obtaining god-like power with which to reshape the world before everyone else?

My point was, if it wasn't you, you wouldn't likely be happy with one (or a small few) reaching such a level before anyone else, and certainly not if they had Plans.

Seriously though, I can't see a problem with the human race trying to improve itself through means of science. Through science and technology we've evolved from living in caves and hunting to what we are today. Through healthcare and research into illnesses we've added years onto the average life expectancy. What is wrong with taking that a step further?

Well, me neither, but like I said, I feel there are limits imposed by good taste. If the shift towards longer and longer life was gradual and general, fine; my only concern lies with the possibility of using directly artificial means (i.e.: robotic bodies) to vastly extend the lives of those who could afford it, while normal humans might still live only a tenth of that time.

Also, your last statement is scary. It sounds innocent enough, but apply it to other scientific fields and you might see what I mean. To get you started: Genetic Modification, crops are fine*, but what's wrong with taking that a step further? Experimental Particle Physics, the LHC was alright, but let's make an even bigger atom smasher**. I mean, what's wrong with taking that a step further?

All I'm saying is, there's such a thing as a step too far, even in what are currently quite benign fields.


*There are talks about growing chimeras with human organs as 'transplant farms'.

**Citing worries that the LHC might produce some kind of black hole (not a worry I bought into mind, as I'm a firm believer in Hawking Radiation).

[Belial]

In any case, would you mind clarifying that sentence? I detect some degree of sarcasm, but I can't really see what you're getting at.

You detect correctly. Both of those things are things I can already do. An increase in technology won't create a gap between the technology'd and the technologyless, that gap already exists. Which was the crux of my point.

However, as technology progresses, older technology becomes (comparatively) easier and easier to make, mass produce, and sell. It becomes cheaper, partially because the process of making it is comparatively less "hi tech" and partially because nobody in the rich regions wants it anymore, thus granting access to those less fortunate. So while the gap won't be leaving any time soon, the less fortunate regions/classes *will* be progressing.

If someone extended their life nearly indefinitely simply to further their own position, gain power or evade death, I can't say I'd approve. If someone did the same because they felt they needed more time in order to 'put things right' I can't say I wouldn't.

But do you think it's up to you to decide whose use of life extension is "worthy"?

Well, me neither, but like I said, I feel there are limits imposed by good taste. If the shift towards longer and longer life was gradual and general, fine; my only concern lies with the possibility of using directly artificial means (i.e.: robotic bodies) to vastly extend the lives of those who could afford it, while normal humans might still live only a tenth of that time.

First: the only way life extension can get cheaper is if it is used and improved. So yes, it *might* be prohibitively expensive at first, much as an iPod or a CAT Scan was prohibitively expensive for early adopters, but as it was used and improved upon, it became more and more affordable and the new technology on the horizon was prohibitively expensive. That is, unfortunately, how things work.

Second: Where is the merit of gradual life extension, if full life extension is possible and feasible?

"Oh sorry, sir, you have to die after one hundred and twenty years. We could let you live forever, but it wouldn't be tasteful."
"But...I'm going to die."
"Yes"
"But I could go on living and happy?"
"Yes, but wouldn't that be *so* tasteless?"
"So you're letting me die for good taste?"
"It's the only civilized thing to do."
"I hate you."

[bigglesworth]

Personally I see no reason why humanity couldn't weather any problems with technology. We've coped with a doubling in lifespan, we're about to do it again, and the problems are being dealt with.

(Since this is transhumanism, and futurology, I may as well put forward my predictions:)

As soon as we can, we build the space elevator and start spreading out, first in carbon-based existence, then electronic, following the von Neumann probes. Strip a planet, build a paridise big enough for the settlers, move on.

[Rook]

"So you're letting me die for good taste?"
"It's the only civilized thing to do."
"I hate you."

So perhaps I made a poor choice of words.

If someone extended their life nearly indefinitely simply to further their own position, gain power or evade death, I can't say I'd approve. If someone did the same because they felt they needed more time in order to 'put things right' I can't say I wouldn't.

But do you think it's up to you to decide whose use of life extension is "worthy"?

Heck no, but I'm still entitled to an opinion

As to the last part of your post, I was comparing the merits of a scenario in which longer lifespans were developed slowly against one in which you could suddenly be immortal. A scenario where extreme longevity was developed quickly, then handed out in small doses was never in it.

And there was no need to make the guy you put on my side of the fence sound like a camp fashion designer.

[william]

Really, belial? That's kinda strange.

Personally, I can't understand people who think that humanity is crap and needs to be destroyed. I guess there was a time long ago when I thought I was better than everyone and under my rule things would be better. Then I realized that I was being a egotistical eugenic jerk, and actually realized how awesome humans are.

But, that's my own personal journey.

I can't understand people who think that humanity is perfect and needs to be preserved like a crystal never to be allowed to change(not saying that's you, but the sentence structure was irresistable). Although you're right about the whole "I'm better than everyone and under my rule things would be better"--anybody saying that is almost certainly wrong.

As for "what it means to be human", that changes and it will continue to change.

Because if there are lots of god-like people, then they would just fight each other, trying to prove their omnipotence.
Transformers, deities in disguise

Actually, a lot of Japanese mecha series call their mecha 'gods' or a derivative thereof.

[Belial]

As to the last part of your post, I was comparing the merits of a scenario in which longer lifespans were developed slowly against one in which you could suddenly be immortal. A scenario where extreme longevity was developed quickly, then handed out in small doses was never in it.

But there's no real difference. If we have the ability to develop it more quickly, and we choose not to, it's essentially the same as developing it and refusing to hand it out: either way, you have the capability, and you're choosing on behalf of humanity that they don't need it.

If you *don't* have the capability, and life extension happens gradually by necessity, then it's not even worth discussing: there's no decision there, just reality.

And there was no need to make the guy you put on my side of the fence sound like a camp fashion designer.

I've been watching "Project Runway" all morning, cut me some damn slack.

[parkaboy]

hahah you've been watching girly shows.

[Belial]

I should go perform atonement in the man thread, shouldn't I?

[Rook]

If you *don't* have the capability, and life extension happens gradually by necessity, then it's not even worth discussing: there's no decision there, just reality.

So you feel reality is not worth discussion?



My Hobby: witty, yet disappointingly accurate comebacks.

[Belial]

If you *don't* have the capability, and life extension happens gradually by necessity, then it's not even worth discussing: there's no decision there, just reality.

So you feel reality is not worth discussion?

I feel that it's not worth discussing "should we develop longevity quickly or slowly" if the only option we *have* in reality is "slowly".

If we actually *do* have a choice between "fast" and "slow" then I hold that "fast" is the better option, and that intentionally developing it slowly is more or less condemning the people who die in the intervening period.

[Aluminus]

Everyone who is twenty years or younger today could live to be one hundred and twenty.
No two ways around it.

[Rook]

I feel that it's not worth discussing "should we develop longevity quickly or slowly" if the only option we *have* in reality is "slowly".

But that's wasn't what I was discussing; this thread is built on conjecture, so surely [since you are here] you are able to compare the merits of two completely separate possible realities, one where longevity is developed quickly, and one where the only option is slowly. My argument doesn't care which of these happens; what I'm saying is I feel society would benefit from a slow progression of increasing lifespans, as this would be more likely to give everyone a roughly equal footing.

Sure, fast is more likely, but we ain't here to talk probabilities. We're here to discuss hopes, dreams, ethics, morals, and visions of the world of tomorrow. There was never any stipulation that the visions put forward should only be the most plausible/likely of a given selection.


Try taking off your hat and writing what you see. I would, but I'm wearing a bandana, so I don't count.

[Yakk]

But will everyone 120 or less in 100 years be able to live to 320?

Aren't mathematical singularities fun? If the rate at which we extend human lifespan is faster than the rate people age, you can have infinite expected lifespan without figuring it out all at once.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

I feel that it's not worth discussing "should we develop longevity quickly or slowly" if the only option we *have* in reality is "slowly".

But that's wasn't what I was discussing; this thread is built on conjecture, so surely [since you are here] you are able to compare the merits of two completely separate possible realities, one where longevity is developed quickly, and one where the only option is slowly. My argument doesn't care which of these happens; what I'm saying is I feel society would benefit from a slow progression of increasing lifespans, as this would be more likely to give everyone a roughly equal footing.

If you have the power to let someone live longer, and you choose not to help, are you committing murder?

[bananarchy]

But will everyone 120 or less in 100 years be able to live to 320?

Aren't mathematical singularities fun? If the rate at which we extend human lifespan is faster than the rate people age, you can have infinite expected lifespan without figuring it out all at once.

Holy crap, you're right. Awesome!

[Adalwolf]

If you have the power to let someone live longer, and you choose not to help, are you committing murder?

No.

[Belial]

You're just letting them die. If you walk past someone clinging to the edge of a cliff and refuse to pull them up, are you a murderer?

No, you're just a dick.

[dubsola]

This is a good thread. It's pretty important, because I don't think humanity can stay where it is - we will certainly either go forwards or backwards. Backwards will be incredibly painful, so, forwards it is then. That's how I look at it.

Some thoughts:

Adalwolf, you have a very simplistic view of what it means to be human, what it means to be in a civilised society, and a very idealised view of life as a hunter-gatherer society. I'm not sure it was the golden age of man. How can you know that everyone was happy, it could certainly have been brutal and uncomfortable for many people. I personally agree that a knowledge of the earth and nature that is rich and intimate is a good thing, and enjoy being out in the countryside, I enjoy camping, and learning about bushcraft and so on. I also enjoy living in a constructed environment - in a city. I like the Internet, I like a strong cup of espresso. Some people desire that, exclusively. What is wrong with that? You seem to think it is inherently wrong. It isn't. The only thing wrong with it is the damage done to the environment, but it is possible that one could have a lot of advanced technology, without damaging the enviroment. We are capable of having both.

Hypothetical situation. How would it be, for you, if space travel was clean and cheap, and we built cities in orbit. Somewhere where they weren't visible from earth. People who wanted to live in a city could live in space, and 'holiday' on earth. People who wanted to live simply, as you do, could live on earth. Would that be acceptable to you? Or is choice a bad thing? Because when you advocate for no choice, really, you put yourself on the same level as those who would force everyone to live in an artificial environment, or with implanted machinery, or immortality (for some examples).

That stuff scares me as much as your relishing of a potential crash in civilisation. I would hate to think that, as a result of changes to our environment or ourselves, we lose some of the basic things that make us human, or some of the basic things that make the earth a beautiful place.

Our perceptions and our thought processes are limited and tainted by biological idiosyncrasies and the imperfection of evolution

Something about this statement doesn't sit right with me. A few other people have said things here that seem to be... very dismissive of humans as they are currently. Isn't it possible that some of these 'taints', so to speak, are actually not that bad? I personally, I like certain things about being human. I like the craving for a cup of coffee, or the base desires around sex, or the satiated feeling after eating food. I think it would be a huge loss if these desires were eliminated because we evolved to no longer require food or sex, or that our chemistry was altered to remove addiction.

Basically what I'm saying is that each advancement in transhumanism must be examined carefully, and by many people, because what you desire and what I desire are different. If possible, we must never throw away something because we might need it again one day.

[Belial]

Something about this statement doesn't sit right with me. A few other people have said things here that seem to be... very dismissive of humans as they are currently. Isn't it possible that some of these 'taints', so to speak, are actually not that bad? I personally, I like certain things about being human. I like the craving for a cup of coffee, or the base desires around sex, or the satiated feeling after eating food. I think it would be a huge loss if these desires were eliminated because we evolved to no longer require food or sex, or that our chemistry was altered to remove addiction.

Of course, but it stands that we're not perfect. Sometimes, it's the imperfections that make things fun, and sometimes they just get in the way. I'd just like to be able to pick and choose which imperfections I want to keep. For example, visual perception is *all kinds of jury-rigged* in biological organisms. I'm pretty sure we could do better with technology and fix some of the glitches.

[Robin S]

Could we deal with the resulting flood of information, though?

[Belial]

Part of replacing or modifying visual perception would pretty much have to include augmenting or replacing the parts of the brain that deal with visual information (since that's where most of the jury-rigged weirdness is anyway). So I'd say....yes.