JenniferB Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 If you know me, you know I really enjoy discussing religion, especially church history, but I also enjoy discussing philosophies, ideologies, social structures, and the like. Today I learned about a new philosophy, or some are calling it an emerging religion, Transhumanism. Why have I just heard about this? Apparently this is not a new movement. Is it a philosophy or a religion? Are the ideologies of this movement good for humanity? Do you see elements of this movement creeping into your religion or your social circles? I want to know your thoughts. (I'm horrified.) Here are a few articles on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism http://www.singularitysymposium.com/transhumanism.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zoltan-istvan/a-new-generation-of-trans_b_4921319.html And you can find much more with Google. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 No thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo I know a person who talks about this all the time, and they give me the creeps. Because of how deeply troubled they are to be, in fact, human, I mean. In any case, it's incredibly theoretical atm. To the point of being completely useless as an organizing mechanism. The nature of future innovation is that we do not know what it will be, nor where it will lead. The only "posthuman" life I can envision on earth is one completely devoid of humans, period. Maybe b/c of AI (??maaayyyyybeee) maybe b/c of environmental catastrophe. But evolved humans that are no longer human? Theoretically as possible as anything else I guess. But it's taken like DIRECTLY from an Isaac Asimov short story (and I'm sure loads of other sci fi stories) in which a scientist makes a machine that you can get into and go through millions of years of evolution in a few minutes. His brain gets bigger and he becomes increasingly dismissive of mere human intelligence. Then his brain gets so big he doesn't havea body any more. Then his brain gets so big he can't even think of anything new anymore. Then he cops a heavy duty sad. Then he dies. wah-wah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaeFlowers Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I would argue that it is a philosophy, not a religion. However, I could see someone making a religion of it. I've never heard of it before today. I'm always wary of moments led by science fiction. However, it may inspire creativity and may, in fact, lead to something that benefits society. (I have no idea what.) The thing I find most disturbing is that they want to end mortality. While I would love to have some of my family members still around I think the implications of this could be dire. For some reason, my mind wonders to Brave New World type of stuff. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenniferB Posted November 4, 2015 Author Share Posted November 4, 2015 I would argue that it is a philosophy, not a religion. However, I could see someone making a religion of it. I've never heard of it before today. I'm always wary of moments led by science fiction. However, it may inspire creativity and may, in fact, lead to something that benefits society. (I have no idea what.) The thing I find most disturbing is that they want to end mortality. While I would love to have some of my family members still around I think the implications of this could be dire. For some reason, my mind wonders to Brave New World type of stuff. I just read Brave New World for the first time. Reading about Transhuman ideals reminded me of that society. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalea Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 The negative reactions are fascinating! I am 51 and have been ready to be plugged into the machine since I was 18. I could be considered part machine now as I have lenses in my eyes due to cataract surgery. I would be blind without this futurist tool. I want to run arms wide open and embrace the future. My father would have been dead long ago without multiple medical interventions. Society will have to be restructured when/if we have longer lives. We will unhesitatingly "divorce" ourselves from negative family. Maybe we will celebrate Christmas only once every four years to keep things interesting. We will reinvent ourselves and move to different social groups. We may take long hiatuses. We will need to colonize space my hollowing out asteroids and creating artificial habitats. The possibilities are endless! And you know scientists will conquer this obesity thing in the future, that right there is enough to get me excited. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seasider Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 This philosophy is the focus of Dan Brown's latest work, Inferno. I think that while it's inherently new since the rise of technology & medical advances, this "religion" has been seen before. I can never remember the name of the group I'm thinking of, I'll have to look it up and ETA if I find it. Personally, I disagree. In fact I find it frightening. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 It's a "political party" too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalea Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I'm really anti super extended lifespans. It seems to me that it has the potential to create an underclass of young people. In the natural order of things, we die and make way for new generations. What happens to the generations under us, and the just born and the yet to be born if we don't give way ? The planet can't sustain endless generations who don't die. So then do we stop giving birth ? What would that mean to be a species who doesn't birth their young ? I see the severing of that connection to our mammalian selves as potentially dangerous to other species on earth. Death is an important leveller. We all die. It keeps us humble. What happens if only the wealthy among us can afford not to die ? Do the poor among us become slaves, expendable ? If I live for 200 years and my domestic servant lives for 50, do I care about her in the same way ? Or does she become a moth - short lived, tragic, replaceable ? I am excited about technology that enhances our human lives, which is a different thing to transcending our human lives. I don't think anything about our history as a species enables us to posit a utopia arising from transhuman goals; there is plenty about our history to suggest that transhuman goals will benefit some and harm others (both in our own species and in other species). Longer lifespans aren't interesting to me unless they come with vastly improved physical and mental health. This will likely include a boost in our overall intelligence. Smart people will find smart solutions. Eventually, people will have to choose that they have had enough of this world, we are already starting this now with our advanced medical directives. To continue as a species, we will have to find other homes besides planet Earth. That's inevitable regardless of whether we extend lifespans or not. Evil will persist and the future will be messy. But in my experience, the people I have known who are the kindest and the most ethical are those who are the most intelligent and best educated. Be optimists! The future's so bright we have to wear shades! All of this change is inevitable anyway. I will continue to consider the other ideas you have raised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Longer lifespans aren't interesting to me unless they come with vastly improved physical and mental health. This will likely include a boost in our overall intelligence. Smart people will find smart solutions. Eventually, people will have to choose that they have had enough of this world, we are already starting this now with our advanced medical directives. To continue as a species, we will have to find other homes besides planet Earth. That's inevitable regardless of whether we extend lifespans or not. Evil will persist and the future will be messy. But in my experience, the people I have known who are the kindest and the most ethical are those who are the most intelligent and best educated. Be optimists! The future's so bright we have to wear shades! All of this change is inevitable anyway. I will continue to consider the other ideas you have raised. If I thought I knew exactly how the future would inevitably play out, and it was exactly how I wanted it to go, I'd be next-level optimistic too. I really don't understand the connections you are making between medical advances and leaving the planet. Nor between intelligence and kindness. Norwhat any of that has to do with literally ceasing to exist as a human species. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessMommy Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I know very little but I've heard about it via SciFi stuff - Orphan Black has elements of Transhumanism as did Continuium (I think that was the name). It seems fringe to me and makes for good Sci-fi story-lines :) Then again, I bet Scientology seemed fringe back in the 70's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpyTheFrog Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Let's see...how has this worked out in sci-fi shows on TV and in movies (not that they are real)? The Borg (cyborgs from Star Trek) - no thanks The Augments (genetically engineered humans from Enterprise) - nope Zed (cybersoldier in Earth 2) - I'll skip the person stripped of all feeling. Skinjob Cylons (Battlestar Galactica) - We're probably better off without them, too. Cybermen (Doctor Who) - also bad Crazy lady in Doctor Who that was a sheet of skin with a face - what a sad existence Gattica - I don't think this world of genetically engineered people is something we want to imitate. I'm trying to think if it ever works out in any TV show or movie. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpyTheFrog Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 I know very little but I've heard about it via SciFi stuff - Orphan Black has elements of Transhumanism as did Continuium (I think that was the name). What are you thinking of in Continuum? She has a cool suit, but I don't know if that counts. ETA: DH says the CMR counts. I forgot about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 We (you and me) are half cylon according to the Battlestar Gallactica universe (the newest one)!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 I'm really anti super extended lifespans. It seems to me that it has the potential to create an underclass of young people. In the natural order of things, we die and make way for new generations. What happens to the generations under us, and the just born and the yet to be born if we don't give way ? The planet can't sustain endless generations who don't die. So then do we stop giving birth ? What would that mean to be a species who doesn't birth their young ? I see the severing of that connection to our mammalian selves as potentially dangerous to other species on earth. Death is an important leveller. We all die. It keeps us humble. What happens if only the wealthy among us can afford not to die ? Do the poor among us become slaves, expendable ? If I live for 200 years and my domestic servant lives for 50, do I care about her in the same way ? Or does she become a moth - short lived, tragic, replaceable ? I am excited about technology that enhances our human lives, which is a different thing to transcending our human lives. I don't think anything about our history as a species enables us to posit a utopia arising from transhuman goals; there is plenty about our history to suggest that transhuman goals will benefit some and harm others (both in our own species and in other species). And honestly life would have to get a hell of a lot better for me to want to live for a very long time. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpyTheFrog Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Adding Stargate SG-1 - Goa'uld (spelling?) - mostly bad guys/symbionts posing as gods Deep Space Nine - Trills - these symbionts were mostly good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpyTheFrog Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Babylon 5 - Psy Corps - lots of bad guy psychics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Longer lifespans aren't interesting to me unless they come with vastly improved physical and mental health. This will likely include a boost in our overall intelligence. Smart people will find smart solutions. Eventually, people will have to choose that they have had enough of this world, we are already starting this now with our advanced medical directives. To continue as a species, we will have to find other homes besides planet Earth. That's inevitable regardless of whether we extend lifespans or not. Evil will persist and the future will be messy. But in my experience, the people I have known who are the kindest and the most ethical are those who are the most intelligent and best educated. Be optimists! The future's so bright we have to wear shades! All of this change is inevitable anyway. I will continue to consider the other ideas you have raised. I'd like to understand why you make this assertion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Disclaimer: I don't pretend to be a big sci-fi expert or to have watched many sci-fi movies or shows. The Regular Joe Stuff--Star Wars, Star Trek and the occasional Escape from XYZ kind of thing that you end up watching in a house with 2 guys. And I despise and seriously can't watch dystopian stuff. Or read it. THAT SAID: It has always struck me that there has yet to be a presentation of a city/planet that I would like to live on. They all look so hard and metal and ... functional. So little room for beauty. That's the thing that strikes me in the little i have read about the transhuman stuff. And it is very little. I am going to read more about it...and please consider these comments to be on the level of a three year old because I'm really not immersed in this. I'm just learning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seasider Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Let's see...how has this worked out in sci-fi shows on TV and in movies (not that they are real)? Crazy lady in Doctor Who that was a sheet of skin with a face - what a sad existence I'm trying to think if it ever works out in any TV show or movie. Cassandra! Though I wouldn't consider her evolved, just.... stretched. There was that time when the Daleks attempted to evolve to survive. That had a bad end. And yes, they definitely separated out a less intelligent underclass to be put into servitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpyTheFrog Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 When they showed Earth on Star Trek: TNG (at least near Star Fleet) it looked beautiful, like a nicely landscaped park. I'm sure Risa was nice, too. But yes, life in space is rarely shown as having much attempt at beauty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seasider Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Disclaimer: I don't pretend to be a big sci-fi expert or to have watched many sci-fi movies or shows. The Regular Joe Stuff--Star Wars, Star Trek and the occasional Escape from XYZ kind of thing that you end up watching in a house with 2 guys. And I despise and seriously can't watch dystopian stuff. Or read it. THAT SAID: It has always struck me that there has yet to be a presentation of a city/planet that I would like to live on. They all look so hard and metal and ... functional. So little room for beauty. That's the thing that strikes me in the little i have read about the transhuman stuff. And it is very little. I am going to read more about it...and please consider these comments to be on the level of a three year old because I'm really not immersed in this. I'm just learning. Well, Naboo looks promising. But generally I agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Well, Naboo looks promising. But generally I agree with you. The *exactly one* place. I meant to mention it in my post. NOW, here is the question: did the filmmakers "make" Naboo? Or did they film some beautiful place on earth (in other words, it is not of their creation)? The reason I ask is that I suspect the latter, and it makes it so my thesis still holds--there hasn't yet been a place "created" for the movies that I would want to live, or that I would call beautiful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kewb Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Have none of those people seen the terminator movies? Or the Matrix? Or the borg? Or Soylent Green? We will not transform to the next level. We will become slaves to our machine overlords. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halftime Hope Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 The *exactly one* place. I meant to mention it in my post. NOW, here is the question: did the filmmakers "make" Naboo? Or did they film some beautiful place on earth (in other words, it is not of their creation)? The reason I ask is that I suspect the latter, and it makes it so my thesis still holds--there hasn't yet been a place "created" for the movies that I would want to live, or that I would call beautiful. http://www.starwars.com/news/galactic-backpacking-part-2-visiting-real-world-naboo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessMommy Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 What are you thinking of in Continuum? She has a cool suit, but I don't know if that counts. ETA: DH says the CMR counts. I forgot about that. she had implants in her eyes, IIRC. Something like a mini-computer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpyTheFrog Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 she had implants in her eyes, IIRC. Something like a mini-computer. Yeah, DH reminded me of that. They call the implants her CMR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpyTheFrog Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Let me just say to a previous poster that have lenses or artificial limbs or any replacement parts for stuff that broke isn't the same thing, IMO. It sounds like the goal of transhumanism is enhancement beyond normal abilities, not having something designed to replicate healthy parts. So if your lenses gave you the vision of an eagle, I might say it counts, but trying to get back to normal with damaged by a disease doesn't qualify. Likewise, someone who gets artifical legs that let them run like a supersoldier isn't the same as artificial legs people get now. Can you imagine how much inequality there could be if some people had hundreds of years to invest and buy up everything, while the non-mega rich had normal lifespans? Think about if Carnegie, Rockefeller, and JP Morgan were still around trying to monopolize whatever they could. It seems like a biblical type Jubilee would be needed, where every fifty years ownership of property reverted to the original owners to keep one family from buying the entire planet. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 I know very little but I've heard about it via SciFi stuff - Orphan Black has elements of Transhumanism as did Continuium (I think that was the name). It seems fringe to me and makes for good Sci-fi story-lines :) Then again, I bet Scientology seemed fringe back in the 70's. I thought of the neolutionists on Orphan Black too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 I know very little but I've heard about it via SciFi stuff - Orphan Black has elements of Transhumanism as did Continuium (I think that was the name). It seems fringe to me and makes for good Sci-fi story-lines :) Then again, I bet Scientology seemed fringe back in the 70's. Isn't Scientology still considered fringe in 2015? Well, it seems to be here in Oz. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MamaBearTeacher Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Isn't Google moving towards having the Internet put into everyone's brains? They said that the technology will be there and it's just a matter of when. What will it be like when we all know everything? We are already moving in the direction of changing ourselves. Plastic surgery is becoming more common. Color contact lenses, braces, hair coloring. It"s a slippery slope into other things and change takes place over generations. I wonder what human beings will change ourselves into. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 To me, it seems that it will come down to what it means to be human. Our anthropology, which is rooted in philosophy and / or religion. At this point, I feel like even though I am smart enough to read the words, I don't know that I understand the words describing all of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalea Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 (I'd like to understand why you make this assertion. Re: needing to leave the planet. We will have an asteroid hit the planet or super volcanoes may explode which may leave Earth uninhabitable, at least for most of us. (I know this is just stating the obvious and y'all know this, not trying to lecture.) I suppose it is possible that small clusters of humanity will survive and we will have cycles of dark ages and prosperous times, but that doesn't seem like the most optimistic future. But more importantly, I think humankind needs the intellectual challenge of learning to survive in and create other habitats in order to progress to our potential. Some of us are want to be explorers, adventurers, and pioneers, we are running out of room to do that. Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy is a good read ​that explores this topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professormom Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Isn't Scientology still considered fringe in 2015? Well, it seems to be here in Oz. :lol: I was thinking the same thing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalea Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Disclaimer: I don't pretend to be a big sci-fi expert or to have watched many sci-fi movies or shows. The Regular Joe Stuff--Star Wars, Star Trek and the occasional Escape from XYZ kind of thing that you end up watching in a house with 2 guys. And I despise and seriously can't watch dystopian stuff. Or read it. THAT SAID: It has always struck me that there has yet to be a presentation of a city/planet that I would like to live on. They all look so hard and metal and ... functional. So little room for beauty. That's the thing that strikes me in the little i have read about the transhuman stuff. And it is very little. I am going to read more about it...and please consider these comments to be on the level of a three year old because I'm really not immersed in this. I'm just learning. I have read a lot of science fiction! I love a good dystopia :) To me, thinking about the ways that we could go wrong will help us avoid those paths. Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale is probably far more readable than most SF. It is a chilling reminder of how effortlessly women could be returned to second class citizens. Atwood provides us with such a visceral example of the true evil of patriarchy. One aspect of what is called "hard" SF (as opposed to fantasy) is often the multitude of futurist ideas that will be presented in a single novel, some good, some bad. I can't remember the book, but one lovely plot line had characters who were growing their home from a seed. Yes a House seed. As it grew, they pruned and trained it to grow to fit their needs, How cool would that be! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 I am somewhat familiar with this I think it has pretty serious problems. One of the things that has struck me is that the people I have heard or read who are really into it don't seem to really be philosophers or moralists so much as they are technophiles. I don't think I've been impressed with any of them. A few people have mentioned the social inequity aspect, and science fiction treatments. This reminds me of the Mars trilogy where there is a treatment discovered to substantially lengthen lifespans. It creates significant social uprisings and questions about where younger people will live and what they will do. I cannot see this or other enhancements NOT becoming a tool for oppression. I also find that most people who subscribe to this have a weird kind of fundamentalist faith in progressivism and in technology as always evolving to some kind of good - as if it is a teleology. Which is actually anti-scientific. Especially bizarre is the idea that these things will somehow make us into morally better beings, or make us better able to overcome our moral and social challenges. There is absolutely no reason to think this - it is purely the product of an assumption that technological innovation has a moral quality to it. I think though for me the most disturbing idea is that we can somehow transcend nature, or that we should want to. Alienation from nature has been one of the primary causes of our current serious problems. It mostly seems like a sort of materialist platonism to me, trying to flee nature and have an eternal perfect life. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalea Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Let me just say to a previous poster that have lenses or artificial limbs or any replacement parts for stuff that broke isn't the same thing, IMO. It sounds like the goal of transhumanism is enhancement beyond normal abilities, not having something designed to replicate healthy parts. So if your lenses gave you the vision of an eagle, I might say it counts, but trying to get back to normal with damaged by a disease doesn't qualify. Likewise, someone who gets artifical legs that let them run like a supersoldier isn't the same as artificial legs people get now. Can you imagine how much inequality there could be if some people had hundreds of years to invest and buy up everything, while the non-mega rich had normal lifespans? Think about if Carnegie, Rockefeller, and JP Morgan were still around trying to monopolize whatever they could. It seems like a biblical type Jubilee would be needed, where every fifty years ownership of property reverted to the original owners to keep one family from buying the entire planet. So having the vision of an eagle is transhumanism. How about having good vision in old age? Presbyopia, for those who are blissfully young and haven't experienced this yet, is what we all get when we are older that requires us to have 20 pairs of "reading" glasses scattered about the house. This is being cured now, http://ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory.cfm?storyid=25526, should it not be because there is nothing "natural" about having clear near vision past a certain age. If it's okay to fix this problem of aging, then is aging itself a disease that should/could be "fixed?" I like your idea of a Jubilee. See smart people coming up with solutions, example right there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpyTheFrog Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Our society can't seem to handle the idea that some people are intellectually gifted and have different educational needs. We also can't seem to accept that some people will likely never be capable of college level work unless we lower the standards of college work even more. If having people one or two standard deviations away from the median causes trouble, how much worse would it be if some (rich) people could have IQs of 300? Likewise, other large variations in other abilities could be problematic. As for eagle vision, there is a big difference between working ti help people retain 20/20 vision as they age and doing things that let some people have say 20/2 vision. That's why I don't consider preventing the damage of aging to be the same thing as giving people abilities no human could ever naturally have. I am not anti-technology. I just think that the idea of technology always being humanity's savior is wrong. I expect that if technology progresses like some people hope, eventually we'd see groups of ultra new order Amish spring up (with or without the religious beliefs). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalea Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 The *exactly one* place. I meant to mention it in my post. NOW, here is the question: did the filmmakers "make" Naboo? Or did they film some beautiful place on earth (in other words, it is not of their creation)? The reason I ask is that I suspect the latter, and it makes it so my thesis still holds--there hasn't yet been a place "created" for the movies that I would want to live, or that I would call beautiful. Kim Stanley Robinson's 2312, envisions a future where we hollow out asteroids to create biomes. The asteroids have gravity due to their rotation. The female protagonist uses these habitats to preserve endangered species. These beautiful habitats are used for work and vacations. See the very brief but well written synopisis of this aspect of the book on this page: http://www.tor.com/2015/10/29/five-books-about-asteroids-and-their-uses/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Solving individual, even if inter-connected, problems with technological advances is NOT transhumanism, which aims to be an organizing principle with it's own goals, methodologies and dogmas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Solving individual, even if inter-connected, problems with technological advances is NOT transhumanism, which aims to be an organizing principle with it's own goals, methodologies and dogmas. It seems to be very connected though with an idea of progress, or a higher sort of evolutionary state. But what is that really even supposed to mean? Progress to what? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom-ninja. Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Well, we have two paths ahead for humans....evolve into something beyond human (as we define it today) or go extinct. At this point I'd say our involvement in choosing either one of those paths is fairly equal. Eh, maybe a little closer to causing our own extinction. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 It seems to be very connected though with an idea of progress, or a higher sort of evolutionary state. But what is that really even supposed to mean? Progress to what? Evolving past human fallibility. It's definitely NOT not needing eyeglasses any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalea Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Solving individual, even if inter-connected, problems with technological advances is NOT transhumanism, which aims to be an organizing principle with it's own goals, methodologies and dogmas. To paraphrase from JenniferB's link - In brief, transhumanism is the belief that technology can allow us to improve, enhance and overcome the limits of our biology. Man and machine will merge. we will be smarter, stronger, emotionally more stable and long lived. This will fundamentally change us. Some call this posthumanism. Technology is already making these changes and the group does not seem to have a problem with small improvements like good eyesight. I got glasses when I was four, so the lenses I have in my eyes now give me vision beyond anything nature ever intended. What about giving a person other physical abilities beyond what they were given by nature but within the parameters of humankind, should that be allowed? Is it morally allowable for us all to become Olympics capable swimmers, runners, gymnasts? Where would you put the line in the sand? Would you elaborate on your thoughts about transhumanism being an organizing principle, etc? Any links? I really like to read opposing views. So far though most of our advances in biotechnology seem like a good thing to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Evolving past human fallibility. It's definitely NOT not needing eyeglasses any more. Another way to say that is evolving to human perfection. So, how are we defining perfection, or what counts as a falliable? It certainly suggests a kind of a priori idea of what a more perfect life would include. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Philosophy, religion, polical parties and movements, etc all represent organizing principles. Transhumanism isn't just embracing advancements in science. It is an "organizing principle" that literally aims to overtake all other organizing principles, necessarily, because all OTHER organizing principles are predicated on the human experience. I will now forego using the phrase organizing principle for at least a week lol Anyway, and since it originates *completely* in fiction, it's dumb. It's not looking to find some "funadmental truth" and live up to the standards that Truth sets, like (most?) existing legitimate religions**. It's taking something that some people look at and say "ohh neat idea" and wanting to engineer human bodies and human psyches to be NOT HUMAN ANY MORE. Which is plumb ridiculous because without being human you can't be post-human and then you're stuck in a circle-jerk of chicken or egg theoretical arguments, but like...before chickens even evolved as a lifeform on earth. So you've never seen a chicken OR an egg but you want to sit here and talk about what a chicken is and ask if the egg came first. It's exactly like reading Harry Potter and deciding to start a polical party and found a branch of philosophy all dedicated to turning human children into wizards,* eradicating normal children in favor of strictly wizards from here on out. *There are wizards in HP right? I've never read it. **Definitely not going to be sucked into a difference between a cult and a religion type argument. You know what I mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 So can I shortcut this and say that it is this generation's (as in "these days) version of utopianism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.