# Transhumanism



## Holdek (Jun 12, 2013)

Since the thread was rightly locked at LOLcow General, and Surtur suggested talking about it here if we wanted to, I thought I would start a thread.

A couple of corrections to the OP over there:

1. Ray Kurzweil predicts the singularity around 2045, not 2029.  

2. Singularitarianism is a subset of transhumanism.  Not all transhumanists believe in the idea of a technological singularity, or believe its prospect is so distant into the future that it isn't worth seriously discussing a lot.

3. Singularitarianis understand that acceleration in the power of raw computation is not enough to bring out human-level AI, which is why an important (although sometimes overlooked) focus of theirs is advances in spatial imaging of the brain.  Kurzweil promotes "reverse engineering" the brain to find out how the human brain is able to do the things it does better than computers (pattern recognition, abstract thinking, and even emotion) and with this knowledge develop a neural simulator.  Then we would combine that with the advantages that electronic computing has (speed and memory).

Also, I'm unaware of Randroids or feminists jumping on this idea.  It's a serious part of future studies involving some serious people (read Kurzweil's bona fides, for example-- MIT educated, numerous patents, awards, associations with technology companies and government organizations).


----------



## Great Unclean Chris (Jun 17, 2013)

So whats the point of this thread? to talk about the possibilities of artificially creating the ubermench? The ethics, the morals of why its wrong/right? Or some other thing I didn't list?


----------



## Holdek (Jun 17, 2013)

Great Unclean Chris said:
			
		

> So whats the point of this thread? to talk about the possibilities of artificially creating the ubermench? The ethics, the morals of why its wrong/right? Or some other thing I didn't list?



No, just to talk about transhumanism if you want.


----------



## KatsuKitty (Jun 17, 2013)

I've kept a close eye on this and even wrote an entire term paper on it. I'm simultaneously excited by the prospect of ending death, and terrified at the thought such "enhancements" would ever be made de facto mandatory (like a driver's license, telephone, or a photo ID).

If you ask me, it's brightest prospects are in ending disease and death. I'd be loathe to touch healthy tissue because some academic thinks he knows better than thousands of years of evolution.


----------



## Great Unclean Chris (Jun 19, 2013)

Holdek said:
			
		

> No, just to talk about transhumanism if you want.



Ok then. Personally I think that our society should NOT embrace transhumanism. Its just to exploitable for various reasons.

A few examples would be. A creation of a slave race caste of docile automatons, the weaponizing of humans, the creation of a superior master race (don't say i'm racist for this, I'm saying its WRONG), sporadic mutations and other genetic disorders, the removal of free will, etc.

If we do however embrace it. The only way I could see this happening is through the use of a new super stimulant (A good example of this would be Melange or Spice from Dune) that would increase our mental capabilities to the max and restore the other 90% of our brain that we don't use, but this is all purely theory and my opinion.


----------



## Holdek (Jun 22, 2013)

Great Unclean Chris said:
			
		

> Holdek said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We are already in the beginning stages of embracing it.  Pacemakers and brain implants for sufferers of Parkinson's already exist as robotic enhancements to our bodies.  Neurologically-controlled robotic arms for quadriplegics have been successfully used in testing situations.  Genetic screening and therapy currently occurs, stem cell research as well, and just recently human embryos have been cloned.  

I only see this trend continuing and trending into the future.


----------



## Anchuent Christory (Jun 23, 2013)

KatsuKitty said:
			
		

> I'm simultaneously excited by the prospect of ending death,



You really think that's a good idea? i'd find that prospect terrifying personally, the world's overpopulated enough as it is.


----------



## KatsuKitty (Jun 23, 2013)

Anchuent Christory said:
			
		

> KatsuKitty said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Which is why space colonization goes hand-in-hand with this goal. People have been saying from dawn of the space age that our future is in the stars, and any long term sustainability plan necessitates us getting the hell off this rock.


----------



## Anchuent Christory (Jun 23, 2013)

KatsuKitty said:
			
		

> Anchuent Christory said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fair enough, but unfortunately I'd imagine the cessation of aging would be happening long before any viable form of interplanetary travel. The resources required just to put a man on the moon were mind-boggling. 

Also, personally,I don't want to live forever. Growing old and feeble doesn't appeal to me, but never aging would drive me insane.


----------



## The Hunter (Jun 23, 2013)

KatsuKitty said:
			
		

> Anchuent Christory said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think death is a necessary part of life. No matter how many advances we make in medical science, all we can do is delay death. We can't stop it from ever happening. Not that I'm concerned about overpopulation. Just that everyone has to go eventually.


----------



## Bgheff (Jun 23, 2013)

Anchuent Christory said:
			
		

> KatsuKitty said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I doubt the common person could afford immortality.  It would be for the rich.  With only a small portion of the population able to avoid death, no population issues.

If we can't afford to give basic health care to all people, there is no way everyone gets to prolong their life.


----------



## KatsuKitty (Jun 23, 2013)

Bgheff said:
			
		

> Anchuent Christory said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



James Hughes wrote about this at length in _Citizen Cyborg_. His proposition was rather radical, basically guaranteeing everyone their own tugboat and treating access to enhancement technology with the same moral obligation that people view universal healthcare with. Even I was put off by a lot of the ideas he mentioned, but they may very well be necessarry to avoid that radical gap between the poor and the rich that such technology can create.


----------



## Holdek (Jun 24, 2013)

KatsuKitty said:
			
		

> Anchuent Christory said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Even if overpopulation wasn't a problem, there's a high risk of getting wiped out by an asteroid (Well, "high" in terms of millions of years I guess [maybe less?], basically that's what took the dinosaurs out.) or melted when the sun goes supernova.  Or any other celestial event that screws up our planet.  It's usually good not to put all our eggs in one basket, existentially speaking.



			
				KatsuKitty said:
			
		

> Bgheff said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



These technologies will become less expensive as they scale up.  You've got people in third-world Africa that do most of their business by cell phone, essentially a miniature, far more powerful version of a computer that cost millions of dollars each a few decades ago.   The same thing happens in healthcare.  Look at MRI machines; I'm sure the first few cost a lot more to make than the ones all over the place now.


----------



## Holdek (Jun 29, 2013)

The Man With A 'Battery Operated Brain (NPR)

[youtube]uBh2LxTW0s0[/youtube]


----------



## Hyperion (Jun 29, 2013)

Transhumanism is little more than a right wing scam to fleece the tech savvy but common sense deficient out of their cash.


----------



## Holdek (Jun 29, 2013)

Crazy Pacer said:
			
		

> Transhumanism is little more than a right wing scam to fleece the tech savvy but common sense deficient out of their cash.



 

You don't have to purchase anything to be interested in transhumanism.


----------



## NobleGreyHorse (Jul 4, 2013)

If the DBS in the video made by the guy with Parkinson's is a "scam," then I'd love to know what you'd consider sensible. It was Rush Limbaugh, not exactly a lefty, who accused Michael J. Fox of faking his own tremors and dystonia....


----------



## PrimeCutDiggityDog (Jul 20, 2013)

Bgheff said:
			
		

> I doubt the common person could afford immortality.  It would be for the rich.  With only a small portion of the population able to avoid death, no population issues.
> 
> If we can't afford to give basic health care to all people, there is no way everyone gets to prolong their life.



Are you sure about that? Consider that the most powerful and expensive supercomputers of the last decade are now in the average Joe's pocket. It's called depreciation, my friend, and _even that_ is faster than ever.


----------



## Picklepower (Jul 20, 2013)

I know I'm just a lay man, but what Ray Kurzweil says, sounds like some kind of tech worship to me, that I think could backfire, if this whole thing gets off the ground at all. I don't get how computers could make someone immortal though, computers don't last forever. Your consciousness in a machine, would that be considered living?


----------



## Bgheff (Jul 20, 2013)

PrimeCutDiggityDog said:
			
		

> Bgheff said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, but that's because there is something bigger and better that is more expensive.  It's in the average joes pocket now because it's not top of the line.  Unless you can improve on immortality somehow, I assume it will always be expensive unless there is a need for it to be affordable.  An example being we went to the moon decades ago.  However, very few improvements have been made so it is still expensive if you want to buy a ticket to go.  I assume life extensions if possible would get cheaper, but immortality will always be a biggy, since it's always the best.


----------



## PrimeCutDiggityDog (Jul 21, 2013)

The values of items depreciate as the resources required to produce them inevitably shrink. Immortality the best, nay perfection? Perhaps so, but the nanobots (just as an example) that may halt  or even reverse the aging process will be improved upon still.


----------



## Picklepower (Nov 12, 2013)

Immortality would drive me nuts, but wait isn't the sun gonna explode in like a billion years? (I just through out a big number, cuz I don't know the real one) so I don't see how anyone could be "immortal". And about the population problem I'm confused like, if we master space colonization, people will be given tug boats and everything will just be fine? huh? people would HAVE to be sacrificed just to keep resources from running out, wouldn't they? This just sounds so crazy, I doubt your average white trash would be allowed access to this future technology. Does anyone think this future earth government, would be that gracious? or would there be some kind of eugenics at play? Look at the messed up condition of Earth now, and in the past and tell me with a straight face that this Jetsons utopia is actually possible. All organisms die eventually, people have chased the dream of immortality since they learned to think. Prolonging life is great, but why would you even want to be immortal? some of your best memories would fade out, and the way you experience time will change, to where a day will feel like an hour etc. People really wouldn't be human anymore, if this stuff actually got off the ground. And what about all the litter, and emissions? we are already fucking up Earth, are we gonna do the same to Mars, and then what? I don't believe in utopias, or perfection in general.


----------



## Watcher (Nov 12, 2013)

There's a really good Star Trek episode about Transhumanism called "What are little girls made of"

The gist of the episode is that Kirk meets a doctor who has been experimenting with androids and... you know what just watch the episode. You won't regret it.


----------



## Smokedaddy (Nov 12, 2013)

Picklepower said:
			
		

> Immortality would drive me nuts, but wait isn't the sun gonna explode in like a billion years? (I just through out a big number, cuz I don't know the real one)


Four billion, and no, it's not going to explode.  It will cool and expand, veeery slowly becoming a red giant.  Mercury + Venus + Earth (and maybe even + Mars) will be engulfed ('cause their aphelia would be < the Sun's radius).  It'll eventually spew off its outer layers, forming a a planetary nebula, and collapse into a white dwarf.  To explode, It would have to mass several times what it does.



			
				Picklepower said:
			
		

> so I don't see how anyone could be "immortal".


Go outside at night and look up.  Those little bright points are a long way away and there's a speed limit, so it won't be easy. But they are out there, and we have a few billion years to work the problem.

Then there's the whole "heat death of the Universe thing" but we'd have lots of time to figure that one out.

As far as transhumanism is concerned, it is widely known that my body secretes nothing that you cannot eat like candy, or drink like wine.


----------



## Holdek (Nov 12, 2013)

Picklepower said:
			
		

> Immortality would drive me nuts, but wait isn't the sun gonna explode in like a billion years? (I just through out a big number, cuz I don't know the real one) so I don't see how anyone could be "immortal". And about the population problem I'm confused like, if we master space colonization, people will be given tug boats and everything will just be fine? huh? people would HAVE to be sacrificed just to keep resources from running out, wouldn't they? This just sounds so crazy, I doubt your average white trash would be allowed access to this future technology. Does anyone think this future earth government, would be that gracious? or would there be some kind of eugenics at play? Look at the messed up condition of Earth now, and in the past and tell me with a straight face that this Jetsons utopia is actually possible. All organisms die eventually, people have chased the dream of immortality since they learned to think. Prolonging life is great, but why would you even want to be immortal? some of your best memories would fade out, and the way you experience time will change, to where a day will feel like an hour etc. People really wouldn't be human anymore, if this stuff actually got off the ground. And what about all the litter, and emissions? we are already fucking up Earth, are we gonna do the same to Mars, and then what? I don't believe in utopias, or perfection in general.



Pickle that's a lot of questions/issues you've raised...

Probably the quintessential tome on all of this is _The Singularity Is Near_ by Ray Kurzweil.  You may not agree with everything he writes but he's a serious figure in the scientific community and his book addresses a lot of these concerns from the transhumanist standpoint.


----------



## Picklepower (Nov 12, 2013)

Holdek said:
			
		

> Picklepower said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL oh god your right. I'll see if that book is at the library, cuz I'm going tomorrow anyway.


----------



## Hollywood Hulk Hogan (Nov 12, 2013)

Ya know something, brother? There was already a singularity. On March 29, 1987, at the Pontiac Silverdome in Detroit, Michigan, there was an epic battle between two forces. Those forces being 7'4, 550 lb Andre the Giant and the awesome power of Hulkamania. When the Hulkster was down and out, summoning up the power of the little Hulksters was all that was needed. The Hulkster picked up the giant and slammed him into the mat, man. And you know something else, brother? The impact was so powerful it created a point of infinite density, a singularity... The result was a black hole, man. Thank God that all the Hulkamaniacs trained, said their prayers and ate their vitamins, man. They're survivors, man. The Hulkster saw the damage that was occurring to the stadium, so the Hulkster went against the ropes and dropped a big leg drop on the black hole, man. The black hole immediately vaporized upon impact from the Hulkster's 6'8 303 lb frame, and the Hulkster covered the giant for the three-count.


----------



## Holdek (Nov 12, 2013)

Hulk Hogan said:
			
		

> Ya know something, brother? There was already a singularity. On March 29, 1987, at the Pontiac Silverdome in Detroit, Michigan, there was an epic battle between two forces. Those forces being 7'4, 550 lb Andre the Giant and the awesome power of Hulkamania. When the Hulkster was down and out, summoning up the power of the little Hulksters was all that was needed. The Hulkster picked up the giant and slammed him into the mat, man. And you know something else, brother? The impact was so powerful it created a point of infinite density, a singularity... The result was a black hole, man. Thank God that all the Hulkamaniacs trained, said their prayers and ate their vitamins, man. They're survivors, man. The Hulkster saw the damage that was occurring to the stadium, so the Hulkster went against the ropes and dropped a big leg drop on the black hole, man. The black hole immediately vaporized upon impact from the Hulkster's 6'8 303 lb frame, and the Hulkster covered the giant for the three-count.



Thank you Hulkster, that black hole would have eventually swallowed us all, man, including a five-year-old little Hulkster named Holdek!


----------



## Zim (Nov 15, 2013)

My argument for why we don't need immortality can be summed up in one word.

Politicians.


----------



## Watcher (Nov 15, 2013)

Zim said:
			
		

> My argument for why we don't need immortality can be summed up in one three words.
> 
> Politicians Christian Weston Chandler.



Fix'd that for you.


----------



## SlowInTheMinds (Nov 15, 2013)

Dr. Cuddlebug said:
			
		

> Zim said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LordCustos3 (Aug 2, 2014)

Anchuent Christory said:


> Fair enough, but unfortunately I'd imagine the cessation of aging would be happening long before any viable form of interplanetary travel. The resources required just to put a man on the moon were mind-boggling.
> 
> Also, personally,I don't want to live forever. Growing old and feeble doesn't appeal to me, _*but never aging would drive me insane.*_



Another facet of defeating death is that you don't die _*against your will*_. You can defeat death, and still partake of it, when you feel it is your time to go.

Notice I say when _*YOU*_ feel it is your time to go. Not when your failing organs and foreshortened telomeres feel it is time to go.



Zim said:


> My argument for why we don't need immortality can be summed up in one word.
> Politicians.



I think -- as part of an overall policy of total cultural improvement -- we should implement the same system the ancient Celts had. They had a great idea for Term Limits: you have a seven year term. At the end of the seven years, they build a huge funeral pyre and you voluntarily walk into it.

Ah, but enough retro-stuff....lets look forward instead....back to transhumanism.
Sure, with technologies like "brain downloading" you would, hypothetically, have to put up with Louis Gohmert or Newt Gingrich until the end of time.......
except if you had */root_superuser* access and just delete *gohmert.iso* and *gingrich.iso*
Ding! Problem solved!


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Aug 3, 2014)

They tried mind uploading in "Total Annihilation" and look how well that turned out...

Seriously though, putting aside the ethical, technological, and biological difficulties (for example: are you killed in the uploading process and a copy of you is simulated on machine?), the idea of uploading mind to machine is a little unsettling to say the least.


----------



## ASoulMan (Aug 4, 2014)

I'd imagine humanity trying to create cyborgs before dumping people's brains into computers.

Like you know, replacing failing organs and body parts with mechanical parts and components in order to increase lifespan? Either way, it's all at the expense of your humanity.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Aug 5, 2014)

ASoulMan said:


> Either way, it's all at the expense of your humanity.


There's this one book for this famous scifi series about a war in the stars where these monks on Skywalker's desert planet have their brains in domes on robotic spiders. I don't think I'd enjoy that much.

Cyborgs are also reminiscent of the Borg, which is probably why transhumanism isn't too appealing to at least some.

That being said, there are some good aspects to what could be regarded as transhumanism. We already have the technology to control machines with our minds via special sensors. The technology could be used to bypass injured spinal cords and aid quadriplegics and paraplegics, for example.


----------



## A Hotdog (Mar 1, 2015)

I think as a species we should strive for colonization of other worlds sooner rather than later.
Even though this planet is still within its threshold of humans it can hold, Getting it up to the point of no return would benefit no one.

However, I only see it happen when money can be made from it.
As a species we are greedy and terribly lazy.
And even in the scenario of us finally running out of resources which humanity needs to continue we still wouldn't suddenly decide to pack our proverbial bags and gtfo.

That's why I think this has to be done in a pro-profit manner, Either for colonization of planets that can be exploited like we do with Earth.
Just in a way more widescale way. Because if we can colonize one planet, We can colonize all of them (in due time).

Maybe in 120 years when we are all cyberbrains, hanging out on the Kiwifarm Neural Hub Nexus, While Null is pushing more black ICE to fend of dang dirty trolls, we can finally get our asses to mars.

I hope so, For our sake.


----------



## KingGeedorah (Mar 5, 2015)

Y'all got way deeper into Elysium then I did.


----------



## Yog-Spergoth (Mar 21, 2015)

A Hotdog said:


> I think as a species we should strive for colonization of other worlds sooner rather than later.
> Even though this planet is still within its threshold of humans it can hold, Getting it up to the point of no return would benefit no one.
> 
> However, I only see it happen when money can be made from it.
> ...



I am gonna be so impressed if this is a Shadowrun reference


----------



## A Hotdog (Mar 21, 2015)

Yog-Spergoth said:


> I am gonna be so impressed if this is a Shadowrun reference


Maybe the awakening will be soon friend. Soon.


----------



## Holdek (Mar 24, 2015)

ASoulMan said:


> I'd imagine humanity trying to create cyborgs before dumping people's brains into computers.
> 
> Like you know, replacing failing organs and body parts with mechanical parts and components in order to increase lifespan? Either way, it's all at the expense of your humanity.


What's our "humanity?"  Our kidneys and livers?


----------



## Zorceror44 (Aug 19, 2015)

I guess we would have to create laws in order to prevent genetically modified humans being used for nefarious purposes. I'm not sure if we could prevent death, but I'm sure that we could at least add  some years to the average human lifespan.


----------



## Drawets Rednaxela (Aug 19, 2015)

Great Unclean Chris said:


> ...the other 90% of our brain that we don't use...



What?


----------



## Yawning Bulbasaur (Sep 27, 2015)

I do think it's the most practical solution for humanity's future survival, considering that if we were converted into (theoretically) immortal robots or had our consciousness exist within a virtual metaphysical network, we would no longer have to rely on food, air, water or medical care and therefore require fewer resources and put less strain on our rapidly deteriorating ecosystem. On the other hand, not everyone will be accepting of this idea, especially when worldwide we have rapid overpopulation of Muslims/Catholics/fundamentalist Protestants (and in some of the most ecologically important areas no less) who will undoubtedly condemn transhumanism (like with atheism) as heresy and will try their damnedest to shut the whole thing down, and even among the political left in the first-world we have anti-GMO/anti-vaxxer activists who are actively lobbying against research and trying to impede any scientific progress in those areas on the grounds of them being "un-natural" (SPOILER ALERT: So is your hybrid car and almost every "all natural" overpriced food you happen to eat)


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Sep 27, 2015)

Yawning Bulbasaur said:


> I do think it's the most practical solution for humanity's future survival, considering that if we were converted into (theoretically) immortal robots or had our consciousness exist within a virtual metaphysical network, we would no longer have to rely on food, air, water or medical care and therefore require fewer resources and put less strain on our rapidly deteriorating ecosystem. On the other hand, not everyone will be accepting of this idea, especially when worldwide we have rapid overpopulation of Muslims/Catholics/fundamentalist Protestants (and in some of the most ecologically important areas no less) who will undoubtedly condemn transhumanism (like with atheism) as heresy and will try their damnedest to shut the whole thing down, and even among the political left in the first-world we have anti-GMO/anti-vaxxer activists who are actively lobbying against research and trying to impede any scientific progress in those areas on the grounds of them being "un-natural" (SPOILER ALERT: So is your hybrid car and almost every "all natural" overpriced food you happen to eat)


I think that transhumanism will take too long for any of what you said to occur. That technology will likely take at least 1000 years to develop and most likely the entire world will be atheist (but not necessarily liberal) at the end of the 21st century. We should just adapt to our current biological limitations because that would be the most cost effective, the upfront cost of what you propose will likely exceed 100,000,000,000% of all available resources for the next 10000 years at least and by that point we will likely simply not get any payout from it anymore


----------



## Hat (Sep 27, 2015)

Anyone that wants to turn the whole world into a bunch of immortal robots should get his head looked at.


----------



## AnOminous (Sep 27, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> I think that transhumanism will take too long for any of what you said to occur. That technology will likely take at least 1000 years to develop and most likely the entire world will be atheist (but not necessarily liberal) at the end of the 21st century. We should just adapt to our current biological limitations because that would be the most cost effective, the upfront cost of what you propose will likely exceed 100,000,000,000% of all available resources for the next 10000 years at least and by that point we will likely simply not get any payout from it anymore



Something like 100,000,000,000 and a bunch of zeroes% of the energy we're currently using is dissipating uselessly away into space from a giant fusion reactor called the Sun.  Put a sphere of solar panels around it and capture most of that, and you have all the energy you need to do most anything imaginable.  That is called a Dyson sphere after theoretical physicist Freeman R. Dyson, who originated the concept.

Even capturing a minuscule fraction of it would be far more energy than we already have and would provide the energy for completing the project.


----------



## Tehshigelisok (Sep 30, 2015)

Personally, I'm starting to get into the idea.

At its core, I see transhumanism as a greatly magnified extension of the fact that we as humans have already greatly expanded the average lifespan over the past century through all sorts of technological and scientific advancements. The average life expectancy has gone up about 30 years in the past century alone, and even people who aren't necessarily transhumanists are researching ways to make us live longer. I've heard even conservative estimates say that the first person to live to 200 is already alive, and possibly even already an adult.

I admit that I have a generally optimistic outlook on humanity as a whole, but at the same time, I'm not blind to the many ills still rampant in the world, nor to the risks and ethics that transhumanism presents. Could it bring a wider gap between the rich and the poor, or those who choose to shun technology? If/when AIs become advanced enough to become self-aware, then what ethics will arise then? Will political red tape hold up anything that would otherwise be beneficial? Will we truly achieve immortality? If so, how will we counter overpopulation? How long will any of these advances take before they're in place? How do we know that none of this will give way to a dystopian future?

And frankly, that's what fascinates me about it — exploring the knowns and the unknowns, the risks and benefits, and all the variables that fall under the label of transhumanism. I love seeing the discussion that the concept generates, whether it be from big names like Ray Kurzweil or Aubrey de Grey, or even just ordinary Joes on the Internet. I caught wind of the idea through a friend who's a transhumanist with a positive outlook on the world, but I didn't blindly follow him; I did my own research on both sides of many arguments before coming to my own conclusion. And that's what I like to see in this thread: the fact that, whether for or against it, almost everyone who's spoken here seems to have at least made an _informed_ opinion.


----------



## AnOminous (Sep 30, 2015)

Tehshigelisok said:


> Personally, I'm starting to get into the idea.
> 
> At its core, I see transhumanism as a greatly magnified extension of the fact that we as humans have already greatly expanded the average lifespan over the past century through all sorts of technological and scientific advancements. The average life expectancy has gone up about 30 years in the past century alone, and even people who aren't necessarily transhumanists are researching ways to make us live longer. I've heard even conservative estimates say that the first person to live to 200 is already alive, and possibly even already an adult.



Superannuated people have always existed, they were just far fewer in number because usually, in more primitive times, something would kill you before you reached those ages.  We have eliminated a lot of those things that kill you, but that hasn't increased the natural potential lifespan humans have, and there may be as-yet unknown barriers to doing that.

A lot of transhuman dogma relies on simply extrapolating current trends.  The problem is that this disregards that there are reasons that just, say, extrapolating Moore's law and doubling processing power every X number of years doesn't go asymptotic next Thursday and lead to superintelligent computer gods.


----------



## Tehshigelisok (Sep 30, 2015)

AnOminous said:


> Superannuated people have always existed, they were just far fewer in number because usually, in more primitive times, something would kill you before you reached those ages.  We have eliminated a lot of those things that kill you, but that hasn't increased the natural potential lifespan humans have, and there may be as-yet unknown barriers to doing that.
> 
> A lot of transhuman dogma relies on simply extrapolating current trends.  The problem is that this disregards that there are reasons that just, say, extrapolating Moore's law and doubling processing power every X number of years doesn't go asymptotic next Thursday and lead to superintelligent computer gods.



And that is part of what I'm trying to get at. The unknowns fascinate me; I _want_ to see them become known. Likewise, I _want_ to stay informed on what already _is_ known, and what potential risks and benefits it has. I've spent most of my life being an incredibly linear thinker, and I think I'm just driven by finding a concept that both fascinates me in its aims, and challenges my way of thinking by being so open-ended.


----------



## Marvin (Oct 1, 2015)

AnOminous said:


> Superannuated people have always existed, they were just far fewer in number because usually, in more primitive times, something would kill you before you reached those ages.  We have eliminated a lot of those things that kill you, but that hasn't increased the natural potential lifespan humans have, and there may be as-yet unknown barriers to doing that.
> 
> A lot of transhuman dogma relies on simply extrapolating current trends.  The problem is that this disregards that there are reasons that just, say, extrapolating Moore's law and doubling processing power every X number of years doesn't go asymptotic next Thursday and lead to superintelligent computer gods.


Oh definitely.

Personally, I find "transhumanism" goofy. That is, the definition of the term as most internet nerds apply it.

When you press them on their claims, it just breaks down. After that, they just resort to pointing to ordinary scientific advancement. Which is amazing, and I love to encourage. But it's not the same as the matrix and robot limbs and shit like that.

Yes, science is advancing. We should do everything we can to contribute to it. But no, it's not going to lead to you being a posthuman conscious entity living in the internet a la Ghost in the Shell.


----------



## Save Goober (Oct 1, 2015)

Maybe I'm being optimistic because I think most of the philosophical issues with transhumanism (souls, free will, what is human etc) are nonsense, but I think at some point people will honestly just start to get over them. If you told people 50 years ago that in the future there would be devices that track your every movement and send information to the government and everyone has one willingly people would say you are nuts but here we are. As someone pointed out in another topic, people used to be very afraid of online privacy and wouldn't even shop online and then at some point everyone just stopped giving a shit and posting everything about themselves everywhere. The benefits and convenience outweigh everything else.
So I can see people getting over the weirdness of cybernetic parts, etc. Just because everyone else would start doing it and the benefits would just be so great that I think a lot of people would just naturally come to ignore the potential issues.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure it's way more likely that aging/death from old age will be solved biologically speaking far before cybernetic bodies/uploading your consciousness i.e. functional immortality, iirc that is not actually all that far off from becoming reality. Or at the very least, significantly extending lifespans. I really think it's possible that some of us will live to 200, 300 or maybe more. But if it doesn't happen, I won't be disappointed either. And I don't think I would want to live much longer but I guess it depends. I just hope they figure out some serious antiaging shit because it would suck if they figured out how to stop aging and death but if you're already old then you're just stuck in a 60 year old body forever.


----------



## Sweet and Savoury (Oct 1, 2015)

Change will happen, technology will become part of us. I'm pretty confident this is a fact.

Will there be prejudice against early adopters? Given history I would assume so, will there be prejudice against those who later choose not to adapt?  Given history probably.

Should this stop us from pushing the limits of the human experience, hell no!


----------



## Picklepower (Nov 2, 2015)

Wow it was 2013 when I first posted in this thread, and now its almost 2016, are we any closer to Trans humanism? At the risk of sounding like an SJW, Transhumanism is something I only hear well off white guys speculate about, in between sharing pictures of space, from the, "I Fucking Love Science" Facebook page. Speculating is fun, but lets look at reality for a second, the Earth is full of poverty, imagining this future technology exists, we can tell it would be expensive, medicine can be expensive, who would be able to afford this stuff? wealthy people, in well off countries. Who wouldn't? poor people. "Oh no guiz they would get it free from the nice future government! that government would really care yippee! BULLSHIT! America it seems, cant even get its healthcare straightened out, and I don't believe rich people would give out free robot bodies or immortality pills, to the immigrants, and poor people, that they despise.


----------



## exball (Nov 2, 2015)

Picklepower said:


> Wow it was 2013 when I first posted in this thread, and now its almost 2016, are we any closer to Trans humanism? At the risk of sounding like an SJW, Transhumanism is something I only hear well off white guys speculate about, in between sharing pictures of space, from the, "I Fucking Love Science" Facebook page. Speculating is fun, but lets look at reality for a second, the Earth is full of poverty, imagining this future technology exists, we can tell it would be expensive, medicine can be expensive, who would be able to afford this stuff? wealthy people, in well off countries. Who wouldn't? poor people. "Oh no guiz they would get it free from the nice future government! that government would really care yippee! BULLSHIT! America it seems, cant even get its healthcare straightened out, and I don't believe rich people would give out free robot bodies or immortality pills, to the immigrants, and poor people, that they despise.


That doesn't mean the technology won't exist. Just that you don't get any of it.


----------



## Derbydollar (Nov 2, 2015)

Picklepower said:


> Wow it was 2013 when I first posted in this thread, and now its almost 2016, are we any closer to Trans humanism? At the risk of sounding like an SJW, Transhumanism is something I only hear well off white guys speculate about, in between sharing pictures of space, from the, "I Fucking Love Science" Facebook page. Speculating is fun, but lets look at reality for a second, the Earth is full of poverty, imagining this future technology exists, we can tell it would be expensive, medicine can be expensive, who would be able to afford this stuff? wealthy people, in well off countries. Who wouldn't? poor people. "Oh no guiz they would get it free from the nice future government! that government would really care yippee! BULLSHIT! America it seems, cant even get its healthcare straightened out, and I don't believe rich people would give out free robot bodies or immortality pills, to the immigrants, and poor people, that they despise.


Okay guys, we need to stop talking about crazy cool new technology because the poor might not be able to use it.
I guess by this logic we shouldn't talk about books, movies, or video games either.

You know, poor people are starving in the world and we're talking about entertainment all the time.
They can't afford stuff like that... I mean, how monstrous can we be to speculate about entertainment?
I bet it's mostly white guys who like space and technology talking about it too. Sheesh, they've probably never met adversity in their entire lives.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Nov 2, 2015)

Picklepower said:


> Wow it was 2013 when I first posted in this thread, and now its almost 2016, are we any closer to Trans humanism? At the risk of sounding like an SJW, Transhumanism is something I only hear well off white guys speculate about, in between sharing pictures of space, from the, "I Fucking Love Science" Facebook page. Speculating is fun, but lets look at reality for a second, the Earth is full of poverty, imagining this future technology exists, we can tell it would be expensive, medicine can be expensive, who would be able to afford this stuff? wealthy people, in well off countries. Who wouldn't? poor people. "Oh no guiz they would get it free from the nice future government! that government would really care yippee! BULLSHIT! America it seems, cant even get its healthcare straightened out, and I don't believe rich people would give out free robot bodies or immortality pills, to the immigrants, and poor people, that they despise.


You can say the same about any technology. The rich always have a technological edge and its the best reason to want to become rich. Being able to get gallstone surgery in the 1890s didn't increase the gap between the rich and the poor and neither will transhumanism in the long run


----------



## Picklepower (Nov 2, 2015)

No I'm saying that even if it existed, it wouldn't lead to a magical utopia, the poor would die out. People in the thread earlier, speculated that everyone would get this technology, and I'm saying that's bullshit. We are talking about immortality, not a Playstation 5.


----------



## exball (Nov 2, 2015)

Picklepower said:


> the poor would die out.


Lol no, the poor always have and always have been the best at breeding.


Picklepower said:


> People in the thread earlier, speculated that everyone would get this technology, and I'm saying that's bullshit. We are talking about immortality, not a Playstation 5.


Initially only the rich could afford cars, phones, microwaves, etc. As technology becomes older, more understood, and widespread, it becomes cheaper and more available.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Nov 2, 2015)

Picklepower said:


> No I'm saying that even if it existed, it wouldn't lead to a magical utopia, the poor would die out. People in the thread earlier, speculated that everyone would get this technology, and I'm saying that's bullshit. We are talking about immortality, not a Playstation 5.


The catch-up effect will prevent this from happening. Diminishing returns on capital investment would mean that poor people will be able to improve themselves with this technology more quickly than rich people who already have invested a lot in it all things being equal


----------



## Derbydollar (Nov 2, 2015)

Picklepower said:


> No I'm saying that even if it existed, it wouldn't lead to a magical utopia, the poor would die out. People in the thread earlier, speculated that everyone would get this technology, and I'm saying that's bullshit. We are talking about immortality, not a Playstation 5.


I hope you realize that you framed your post poorly. These kinds of technology trickle down as they are adopted and infrastructure is made to support them.
Just because the rich can afford 65" OLED 4k tvs doesn't mean we won't be able to someday. It means the technology isn't cheap enough yet.

There's also no reason I can think of to believe that immortality is any different. As the process to achieving it becomes better documented and honed, the price will come down.
The issue of over population will probably be fixed by the terraformation of different planets, too. So, not much reason to keep this kind of change from the public.
Let alone the kind of backlash there would be from the poor to the rich never dying and continuing to rule.


----------



## AnOminous (Nov 2, 2015)

Picklepower said:


> No I'm saying that even if it existed, it wouldn't lead to a magical utopia, the poor would die out. People in the thread earlier, speculated that everyone would get this technology, and I'm saying that's bullshit. We are talking about immortality, not a Playstation 5.



The immortal billionaires would still need slaves.  The slaves would get to live as long as they were useful and productive and didn't complain too much about their organs being harvested and so on.



Derbydollar said:


> Let alone the kind of backlash there would be from the poor to the rich never dying and continuing to rule.



The poor could be pretty easily controlled by limiting their access to these new technologies.

The spice must flow.


----------



## Picklepower (Nov 2, 2015)

An immortal population, that keeps breeding, yeah I'm sure our Earth could support that.


----------



## Derbydollar (Nov 2, 2015)

Picklepower said:


> An immortal population, that keeps breeding, yeah I'm sure our Earth could support that.


Our earth most likely won't have too.
Earth isn't the only planet in the universe, afterall.

In case of immortality being achieved before other habitable planets, people who are immortal would either be sterilized or have their legal rights to reproduction taken away.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Nov 2, 2015)

Picklepower said:


> An immortal population, that keeps breeding, yeah I'm sure our Earth could support that.


Who says that the population would be immortal. Just living  150 years would probably satisfy most people and they would just commit suicide then. Also it is more likely that we will just extend lives to very long lengths as opposed to actually being able to achieve immortality


----------



## exball (Nov 2, 2015)

Picklepower said:


> An immortal population, that keeps breeding, yeah I'm sure our Earth could support that.


I think if people can discover immortality it doesn't matter much about how long it takes to reach other galaxies.


----------



## AnOminous (Nov 2, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> Who says that the population would be immortal. Just living  150 years would probably satisfy most people and they would just commit suicide then. Also it is more likely that we will just extend lives to very long lengths as opposed to actually being able to achieve immortality



Sounds like bullshit to me.

How many superannuated people commit suicide for no reason just because they're bored?  Doesn't happen.


----------



## Johnny Bravo (Nov 2, 2015)

AnOminous said:


> Sounds like bullshit to me.
> 
> How many superannuated people commit suicide for no reason just because they're bored?  Doesn't happen.



It's true. There's always more to learn.

Old people are sad because they can't do as much as they could when they were young and all their friends are dead. Immortality solves both these problems. What's there to be sad about?


----------



## Picklepower (Nov 2, 2015)

What are some good papers on this subject? As a layperson, it sounds really farfetched to me, but I know I could be wrong about things, and I don't wanna dismiss something because I don't understand it.


----------



## Holdek (Nov 3, 2015)

Picklepower said:


> No I'm saying that even if it existed, it wouldn't lead to a magical utopia, the poor would die out. People in the thread earlier, speculated that everyone would get this technology, and I'm saying that's bullshit. We are talking about immortality, not a Playstation 5.


A major aspect of transhumanism (of the Ray Kurzweil variety, anyway) is how much technology is declining in price as it advances in capability.


----------



## Picklepower (Nov 3, 2015)

I might sound paranoid, but the thought of society being over dependent on technology scares me. What would we do if it all disappeared? And wouldn't all this make our privacy disappear? I listened to a Ted talk about this shit and it sounds scary, we will have less and less privacy as time goes on.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Nov 3, 2015)

Picklepower said:


> I might sound paranoid, but the thought of society being over dependent on technology scares me.


We have been over dependent on technology for hundreds of thousands of years so far and it has worked out


----------



## Picklepower (Nov 3, 2015)

What about the risk of EMP's? if having worries about these things is "Autistic" then haha I'm autistic, ok man.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Nov 3, 2015)

Picklepower said:


> What about the risk of EMP's?


What about the risk of smallpox?


----------



## Hat (Nov 3, 2015)

Picklepower said:


> if having worries about these things is "Autistic" then haha I'm autistic, ok man.


I think trying to have a serious conversation about a topic that uploading your mind to computers, becoming immortal, and living on other planets to accommodate for the population growth is your problem, not the part about having worries.



Picklepower said:


> What about the risk of EMP's?


I'd laugh.


----------



## exball (Nov 3, 2015)

Picklepower said:


> And wouldn't all this make our privacy disappear?


If you think anything you do online is private, you're pretty naive.


----------



## Holdek (Nov 7, 2015)

Derbydollar said:


> Our earth most likely won't have too.
> Earth isn't the only planet in the universe, afterall.


England became overpopulated before the discovery of the New World too.

The advancement of technology and society are intertwined, and the next destination is the stars.


----------



## Bungleboy (Nov 8, 2015)

I'd respect transhumanism a lot more if they focused on how to use technology to end poverty before having wankfests over immortal robot bodies. Talking about the end of death coming when huge swaths of people in Africa and the Middle East consider themselves lucky if they have clean drinking water is delusional. 

That and how much of it has little to no actual scientific evidence for it, like cryonics.

There's respectable transhumanists but the majority I've seen are just nerds scared of dying.


----------



## Whatisgoingon (Nov 8, 2015)

It would be cool to live forever, but I highly doubt that the tech will be made in any of our lifetimes, if ever.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Nov 8, 2015)

Whatisgoingon said:


> It would be cool to live forever, but I highly doubt that the tech will be made in any of our lifetimes, if ever.


I would just be happy being able to live to 100 healthily and I think that is more reasonable


----------



## Holdek (Nov 8, 2015)

Picklepower said:


> What are some good papers on this subject? As a layperson, it sounds really farfetched to me, but I know I could be wrong about things, and I don't wanna dismiss something because I don't understand it.


Read _The Singularity is Near_ by Ray Kurzweil.  It's a bit pedantic and repetitive, but it's a good primer on the background for a lot of this stuff.


----------



## kuniqs (Nov 15, 2015)

Holdek said:


> Read _The Singularity is Near_ by Ray Kurzweil.  It's a bit pedantic and repetitive, but it's a good primer on the background for a lot of this stuff.


On his deathbed Kurzweil will be shouting "Singularity! Coming next Tuesday!"


----------



## Holdek (Nov 15, 2015)

kuniqs said:


> On his deathbed Kurzweil will be shouting "Singularity! Coming next Tuesday!"


When he says "near" he means decades from now, but yeah, still, he's on the liberal end of such projections.


----------



## TowinKarz (Nov 15, 2015)

The proposed timeline always puts the singularity juuuuust a few decades off..... 

Usually, it's framed as us being 90% of the way there already, what with our amazing technology right now we'd be worshiped as GODS if we went back in time and appeared before the ancients, we just need that one little technological advance that hasn't juuuuuuuuuuust yet happened, that trivial missing piece, and bingo! We're there!  

So, it's totally reasonable to assume that with our never-before seen computer networks that span the globe, we're *this* close to making that breakthrough! 

Yeah

When I was a wee kid there were crackpots talking about this too, and they had the projected date of technology-enabled immortality juuuuuust a few decades from now, because, surely, the development of the floppy disk that can store incredible amounts of information means that breakthrough can't be far off!!!

And you could read old science books from the 60's and 50's that, likewise, predicted that the singularity was juuuuuuuuuuuuuuust a few decades from now.... because with the invention of the integrated circuit, the ability to create an artificial brain surely can't be that far off!!

And you could read even OLDER science books from the 30's that said that surely, the vacuum tube meant that artificial "electric brains" weren't far off!

And... I'm sure at least a few clueless ancient Egyptians thought that since they could preserve dead bodies so well, it's only a matter of time before they find a way to do the same to a LIVE one! It can't be that far off!!!

I think you can see where this is going.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Mar 13, 2016)

I think that transhumanism is going to increase economic inequality as only the rich will be able to afford designer babies. It won't be as bad as some predict because probably for the first century or so the designer babies will only be at the levels of above average but still normal people as opposed to superhumans.

EDIT:this may be a better response to this thread https://kiwifarms.net/threads/a-future-i-dont-want-a-rant-by-connor.3228/ but I couldn't figure out which thread to post it in


----------



## kuniqs (Apr 11, 2016)

You could argue Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are already 'designer babies' by the fact that mean IQ among them is higher on average that mean IQ of white people. 
IQ is not everything, though. Both Asians and Jews have their own problems whites don't have.
Keep in mind that 'designing' DNA would be pretty much like breeding dogs, in that you get a dog that's great at running 100m but terrible at most other things than an average mutt, and riddled with genetic diseases to boot.

I guess once humans start living in a world of pure technology (say, inside Great Underground Vaults, or inside spaceships 100% of their lives), DNA design will become norm because people will be already living in 100% hermetic, designed environments.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Apr 11, 2016)

kuniqs said:


> You could argue Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are already 'designer babies' by the fact that mean IQ among them is higher on average that mean IQ of white people.
> IQ is not everything, though. Both Asians and Jews have their own problems whites don't have.
> Keep in mind that 'designing' DNA would be pretty much like breeding dogs, in that you get a dog that's great at running 100m but terrible at most other things than an average mutt, and riddled with genetic diseases to boot.


But Asians don't have higher IQs in Asia. Asian Americans have higher IQs because there are very few lower class Asian Americans and they just have average middle class IQs.
The same is the case with Ashkenazi Jews, there is a greater possibility as they do have higher IQs but there also aren't many ashkenazi jews in very different environments so we can't say much on it


kuniqs said:


> I guess once humans start living in a world of pure technology (say, inside Great Underground Vaults, or inside spaceships 100% of their lives), DNA design will become norm because people will be already living in 100% hermetic, designed environments.


I don't see why you consider that to be the case or why living in a city doesn't count as that


----------



## kuniqs (Apr 11, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> I don't see why you consider that to be the case or why living in a city doesn't count as that


You don't choose what air you breathe or whenever you'd have it raining or snowing. Designer DNA, and designed anything in biology has the disadvantage of specialization; If the environment has high variability then specialization is the wrong way to go.
I consider city environment to be a little too specialized. Whatever.


----------

