What is your opinion of Transhumanism?
I've been interested in Transhumanism for about six or seven years. And in that time, I've observed a growth in both the support and disapproval of the "movement" or "worldview" that is Transhumanism.
With that said, what is your opinion of Transhumanism? It will be interesting to see how we collectively perceive this technological, philosophical cultural phenomenon.
There us much that could be said about Transhumanism, but it (in my opinion) probably best to leave those observations for another post. The purpose of this thread is to query the zeitgeist of our community concerning an "underground" current that will certainly, eventually become mainstream.
With that said, what is your opinion of Transhumanism? It will be interesting to see how we collectively perceive this technological, philosophical cultural phenomenon.
There us much that could be said about Transhumanism, but it (in my opinion) probably best to leave those observations for another post. The purpose of this thread is to query the zeitgeist of our community concerning an "underground" current that will certainly, eventually become mainstream.
Comments (71)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/35/david-pearce
I am currently rebuilding my website. It will be published there, but for now there isn't much to look at.
But would not mind being proved wrong.
:up:
Transhumanism tends to lack any understanding of what I can't think to call properly other than "the human condition". We're flawed, and technology won't fix our flaws.
Oh how the giraffes suffer, yes it's our duty to help them, rah-rah-rah. Pass the lube, my dick is getting dry.
Someone actually thinks that?
Aside from the immediate answers that are best conveyed as questions ie. "Who wants to live forever anyway?" or "Yeah what happens if you get trapped in a cave or something. Would you rather starve to death in a few weeks or live in darkness for the next few hundred years?" or what about "Yeah what if a political rival implants you with a 'transhuman' device that amplifies pain and prolongs your life to withstand amounts of torture.that would make a god jealous?" All these very rational concerns aside.. what would be the point? It all leads to one place, which is a simulated reality that is not organic in nature. All transhumanist roads lead to "uploading" oneself and discarding (or at least not being around to prevent discarding) the human body, which is a lie, you'll think it's you, but it's really not. And people will be deceived by this and run to it in droves.
Edit: We already have our feet wet so to speak as far as more broader definitions of transhumanism. Pacemakers, prosthetics, "life extending" supplements, etc.
Edit 2: Also, fun fact. Some religious types may oppose it due to eerie similarities in popular religious texts, one being: "Men will seek death and will not find it", kinda like what I was saying. It takes a bit of thought, and even than is an uncomfortable if not fleeting truth, but sometimes, death is a blessing not a curse. Not saying death is good, I don't want to, nor would I wish that on pretty much anyone, but the fact we're mortal and can die is what is good.. for reasons I've explained. Wisdom of the gods, don't you know.
As proposed in the main, Transhumanism is (still) a philosophically naive project which is too scientistic and more technocratic than libertarian in the name of "the abolition of all suffering". Here's a quote of an objection I had raised months ago (follow the link in my handle below for the response and further discussion).
Quoting 180 Proof
:chin:
:ok:
Pretty much.
Solving death has always concerned me. 70 years of life ain't enough for me.
Anyone who's acquainted with buddhism will make the connection. I'd even go so far as to say that transhumanism is buddhism adapted to science in general and technology in particular. If buddhism makes sense, it does, transhumanism does too.
Maybe you don't know this. The correct saying is "I haven't drunk the Kool-aid." It refers to the People's Temple cult who all drank poisoned Kool-Aid given them by their guru. "Drinking the Kool-aid" means buying in to a deluded way of thinking.
The core of Buddhism is about letting go. Transhumanism seems to be about grasping, in the form of daydreaming.
And there was me thinking it referred to the Cool-Aid Acid Test.
A proposal for a new political-ideological method of submission to the species, through hope superimposed on technology.
I'm totally unsupportive of it.
Technology is a means, not an end.
I was a bit startled when a guest speaker on this site who was a transhumanist, David Pearce, spoke of people having head replacements. Also, we have a struggle for resources as it is and if people just lived and lived there would just be too many people on the planet. So, I don't support transhumanism, and if new heads are possible while I am still alive I won't be queuing up for one.
If you're interested, look up "People's Temple" and "Georgetown."
I don't think you can pass a test on acid...
'Eliminating' the fear of death (however that's done) is a fundamental aspect of Epicurean hedonism (aponia –> ataraxia); basically, transhumanism is a speculative technological apotheosis of the venerable Tetrapharmakos.
I agree. So, what's wrong with living longer?
You have no idea about the impact dreams and daydreams have had on the world.
Also, mind remodeling isn't the same as a body makeover.
Unfortunately, letting go has had little impact.
Quoting TheMadFool
Mind and body are inextricably linked.
I was talking about dreaming & daydreaming.
Quoting praxis
Quoting praxis
:up: Not transcending it; rather steering it.
We are stunned by and empathetic for thinkers, that postulate life to be intrinsically bad and death intrinsically good, but feel some sort of disgust or arrogance towards those who say vice versa. Maybe it’s because triviality bores those who ,,have chosen a path of enigmatic discovery’’, since most (if not all and not constantly) of us live in the total belief of personal immortality.
Despite my personal doubts regarding transhumanism, that consider historical experience from the failed ,,homo soveticus’’ project, hence the effectiveness and optimality of the problem-solution path, I do find the movement rather refreshing in terms of daring life-approvement absolutism.
Since transhumanism aims at the limits of human beings, there may be limitless potential there. The concept in itself is intriguing to me. With the knowledge of how to adapt an organism, it seems like the obvious next step to bring forth artificial evolutionary change rather than wait on the slow process of biological evolution.
The great concern remains with my first statement. Generally I am in support of transhumanism - but I have no doubt that somewhere down the line someone would do something awful with it. It doesn't have to be intentional either. We often misjudge the causal effect of our actions.
TheMadFool must...grunt...download...grunt...Brave New World...grunt!
Quoting 180 Proof
Improve the Talking Bald Ape? Nah, we don't know enough – won't any time soon, I suspect – to adequately ape a billion years of natural selection with sufficient engineering precision to avoid devolving into civilization-wide, dystopian, Franken-freak show. Synthetic metacognitive agents – I'm placing my bitcoins on that bet instead. :mask:
There will be byproducts, some beneficial, others harmful beyond imagination. It's impossible to predict what the future holds. What now?
Now we wait until transhumanism lets us predict what the future holds so that we make no further mistakes in the field of transhumanism ;)
Not really. The future will bring chaos, barren soil, reduction of biodiversity, more pollution, suffering, fire and water, superstorms and superlightnings, stupidity, the first trillionair (in dollars), poverty at max, acid rain again, crumbling towers, and if we're lucky some exploding thermonuclear devices. It remains to be seen if a movie will be made about his era.
I think it's really dumd. To think technique can replace human parts is to be ignorant, seriously ignorant, about the beauty of biological functioning. And about its nature, which is incompatible, even incommensurable, with biological processes.
But if people wanna spend their time and money on it, who am I to forbid?
All this being said... an iron computerized AI dick...Mmmmm... would be nice.... viagra starts wearing out...
[quote=Brave New World, Q & A]
What is soma?
Soma is a drug that is handed out for free to all the citizens of the World State. In small doses, soma makes people feel good. In large doses, it creates pleasant hallucinations and a sense of timelessness. The citizens of the World State are encouraged to take soma by “hypnopaedic” sayings like “A gram is better than a damn.” When they experience strong negative emotions, citizens take a soma “holiday” to distract them from the unpleasant feelings. John sees soma as a tool of social control. He says that taking soma makes the citizens of the World State “slaves.”[/quote]
[quote=Wikipedia]
The Ludovico Technique
Alex is convicted of murder and sentenced to 14 years in Wandsworth Prison. His parents visit one day to inform him that Georgie has been killed in a botched robbery. Two years into his term, he has obtained a job in one of the prison chapels, playing music on the stereo to accompany the Sunday Christian services. The chaplain mistakes Alex's Bible studies for stirrings of faith; in reality, Alex is only reading Scripture for the violent or sexual passages. After his fellow cellmates blame him for beating a troublesome cellmate to death, he is chosen to undergo an experimental behaviour modification treatment called the Ludovico Technique in exchange for having the remainder of his sentence commuted. The technique is a form of aversion therapy, in which Alex is injected with nausea-inducing drugs while watching graphically violent films, eventually conditioning him to become severely ill at the mere thought of violence. As an unintended consequence, the soundtrack to one of the films, Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, renders Alex unable to enjoy his beloved classical music as before.[/quote]
This is the paradox of psychology. It takes a human brain to realize that the human brain is an animal brain after all - trainable just like animals. The human brain is not an animal brain (the former can do things the latter can't) and yet, it is an animal brain (we can train humans just like we can train animals).
Sheldon Trains Penny
Transhumanism must deal with the paradox of hedonism formulated by Henry Sidgwick.
[quote=Wikipedia]
Paradox of hedonism:
When one pursues happiness itself, one is miserable; but, when one pursues something else, one achieves happiness.[/quote]
Doomsayer!
Sounds like a plan! :up:
Sounds like alcohol in present times. Consumed by those living in in-between limbolands or by those in the class of compliant loan slaves. To keep them compliant (even obedient). Big money for the big dealers like Heineken, once kidnapped.
:smile:
You maybe onto something.
Quoting Soma
Did Aldous Huxley take a page out of Indo-Aryan culture. What if, what Huxley predicts already happened, a failed social expermient lost to history?
Looks like it indeed! I didn't know about soma being used by Indo-Aryans way back (?). I think I ask for an operation. To transform me into an Indo-Aryan... ?
Most certainly. Huxley was a great fan of Indian philosophy and published various articles on the Vedanta school.
Soma was a huge part of Indian culture. The earliest hymns of the Rigveda mentions it almost as often as the major deities of the time. In fact it was so significant to early Indian belief that the mixture itself was considered a deity and it's psychedelic nature likely went on to inspire much of the latter mythology.
I'm not sure if Soma really ought to be considered all bad in Brave New World either. It's a double-sided coin. Yes, it is used to control the masses. But on the other side, it's what makes that dystopian society bearable for the masses.
In a way legitimizing drugs.
Huxley having done a fair amount of experiments with psychedelics as well, perhaps his ulterior motive was simply to sell both governments and consumers on the idea to solve all their problems with drugs :D
You never know what people are up to these days, just like it was in the past and will be in the future.
Interesting distinction. I think I agree.
It seems that a few English idioms are not within my house for wheels.
I do appreciate the tender attention to my details.
:up:
What excites me is a willingness to fuck with the code. It may be a terrible idea, but it's hard for me to expect much from the tired, other ideas that leave the code as it is. I don't expect to live long enough to see any brave new world that might arrive, so it's more of a theoretical-aesthetic point for me.
I fuck with the code every night. My wife likes it. I'm currently try to change the code (helped by the brain that radiates into the body) of tooth cells and their surroundings so a lost tooth will grow back.
To be sure, God will liquidate them if they are abominations, but this could be the next step in our redemption. The ape brain isn't so good at avoiding sin.
Plus the Chinese are already looking at it so we have to, and then I'm sure the ETs already did it so humanity has to. It's a highly modified techno dog eats regular bio dog universe out there if Earth is any example.
I don't get what the OP is trying to get to here.
Best shit?
Quoting Zugzwang
Excuse me?
I agree it's inevitable that human beings will continue to use technology to enhance and expand their natural powers (so long as we continue to exist as a species with advanced technological culture). Accordingly, it's important, perhaps even urgent, that we manage this transition in a rational and humane way.
Interesting overview of the "movement" on the front page of whatistranshumanism.org.
Reminds me of Hawking's talk of the "self-design phase of evolution" in his 1996 lecture, "Life in the Universe".
The overview on whatistranshumanism.org was one of the first websites I stumbled upon while first learning about Transhumanism. I agree, it is a useful overview of the "movement".
I see Transhumanism as being largely a coalescence of individual and environmental conditions that naturally lead a growing number (one day a majority) of people to view technological progress optimistically. These factors are present in every person's life in today's world, whether they're aware of those influences or not. How people respond to the omnipresence of technology is what defines their relationship to the future, now.
Stephen Hawking, Ray Kurzweil and many others are all pointing at the same thing. Even Terence McKenna and Tim Leary knew about this moment in history. What is happening now has been carefully documented, well in advance.
I'd say there's a great deal more involved in defining people's "relationship to the future". But of course the progress of technological culture is one of the most important drivers of change for our species and our planet.
Is optimism an essential feature of transhumanism?
Consider the following three definitional formulations from the whatistranshumanism landing page. I suggest that each of them is as consistent with pessimism as it is with optimism about prospective outcomes, and of course as consistent with the moderate mean between those extremes.
It's one thing to seek an outcome, another to expect (optimistically or otherwise) that the outcome will come to pass. One reason to allocate resources to "the continuation and acceleration of the evolution of intelligent life", and thus to the implementation of "life-promoting principles and values" is that we recognize the dangers inherent in our technological culture and in human nature as it stands. We can take this stand -- seek this outcome, promote these principles and values -- whether we are pessimistic, neutral, or optimistic about our prospects for success.
Likewise, we may "affirm the possibility and desirability" of using reason and technology to make basic improvements to the human condition, regardless of whether we are pessimistic, neutral, or optimistic about the prospective outcome.
In this blurb the downside risk is especially prominent. It gives equal emphasis to "promises" and to "dangers". It mentions human limitations and "ethical matters", which present us with obstacles to progress.
Perhaps the phrase "will enable us" leans optimistically. I might swap it out for "would enable us". But even taking it as it stands: It's one thing to study technologies that will enable us to overcome our limitations, and another thing to actually use those technologies to overcome our limitations while adequately avoiding negative outcomes.
Quoting Bret Bernhoft
The prospect of self-destruction plays an important role in Hawking's "Life in the Universe". On my reading, he presents this prospect with a rather pessimistic tone. Tone aside, I concur with Hawking in emphasizing the downside risks of human (and transhuman) technological culture.
As I've suggested, in my view a sober grasp of the downside may function as a powerful motivation for the transhumanist agenda. It seems imprudent and even irresponsible to neglect that downside.