Taijitu
Forum Meta => Archive => General Discussion Archive => Topic started by: Khem on January 30, 2007, 09:36:21 AM
-
heres a good link check it out. its pretty much my belief system. hey if its not for you then at least its thought provoking.
http://www.aleph.se/Trans/index-2.html (http://www.aleph.se/Trans/index-2.html)
-
heres a good link check it out. its pretty much my belief system. hey if its not for you then at least its thought provoking.
http://www.aleph.se/Trans/index-2.html (http://www.aleph.se/Trans/index-2.html)
Yay!Now let's watch ideots hit other ideots with a fish and whip! :trout: :whip:
-
That´s cool.
-
heres a good link check it out. its pretty much my belief system. hey if its not for you then at least its thought provoking.
http://www.aleph.se/Trans/index-2.html (http://www.aleph.se/Trans/index-2.html)
Yay!Now let's watch ideots hit other ideots with a fish and whip! :trout: :whip:
How is that relavent to anything?
And Transhumanism sounds cool, except it delves too much into believing we have the kind of technology to do migrate to other universes and things. Humans will die, and there's no question about it.
-
Interesting.
-
Humans will die, and there's no question about it.
Yes. That´s because governments spend more money on weaponry as in development. Humanity will destroy itself, if there won´t a radical change take place.
-
Transhumanism is fairly science-fictiony-y at the moment, but I do not doubt that mankind will start enhancing itself somewhere in the future.
-
With half of the worlds species probaly toast by 2100, i'm not sure humanity i'll survive that long.
-
90% of species are extinct already, did you mean 50% of the world's present species gone by 2100?
I'm very liberal, in every area... but I don't think that the data in Inconvenient Truth is wholly accurate, there maybe a smidgen of liberal bias in there somewhere.
-
I'm a biologist and a socialist so I like some of this, it seems to match a lot of what I believe already.
-
To be honest, I really don't care about the environment. As far as I'm concerned, we didn't get to the status of dominant species for nothing. Global Warming is 3 degrees in 100 years, wow. I feel the glaciers melting already. Whatever, let's just use the Earth for our own purposes. That's why we're here.
-
uhhh.....idnt know what it meant, skimmed it, but........ok........
-
yes but If I remember rightly (if I'm wrong please tell me) the Permian extinction was caused by a change of something like 6-9 degree change and that took out over 90% of all known species.
Also most of the predictions about climate change are too optimistic as they often forgot to factor in release of carbon from the ocean and also they are often based on us reducing emissions much more then we are.
Also its not just that it will get warmer (which it will only do on average on the world scale) but that the climate will change (global warming is a misnomer and many people involved with it wish the title had never been coined (a bit like survival of the fittest when they meant survival of the most fit)) and quite dramatically, rain pattens will shift, climatic regions will move and currents will alter. Some things predicted that have nothing to do with sea levels rising are:
desertification of the grain producing areas in the Americas and possibly in eastern Europe.
Disappearance of much of the rain forest to be replaced by grassland.
Disappearance of the taiga (note the destruction of two of our most important carbon storing ecosystems)
thawing of tundra areas (releasing huge amounts are carbon)
End of the gulf stream (the current which causes most of western Europe to be temperate (and Britain not to be an Ice locked hell hole))
these are just a hand full of things that mean you should be interested in the environment and in global warming
-
Sorry, I didn't read through the article, but just its introduction brought an issue to my mind. Concerning the development of humans, will we strive to eliminate our flaws or to amplify our better qualities? Because in my opinion, having no flaws means that there is no natural direction for the person to go. If you can do anything, why bother?
So if Transhumanism is going for a flawless humanity, thanks, I'll pass, I like being a personality. Being without error is effective, but not very interesting or humane. I think I'll hold on to my "flawed, but perfect" point-of-view for the time being.
Interesting line of thought, though. It's about time someone published that.
-
i prefer eliminating certain flaws and amplifying our better qualities.
-
Sorry, I didn't read through the article, but just its introduction brought an issue to my mind. Concerning the development of humans, will we strive to eliminate our flaws or to amplify our better qualities? Because in my opinion, having no flaws means that there is no natural direction for the person to go. If you can do anything, why bother?
So if Transhumanism is going for a flawless humanity, thanks, I'll pass, I like being a personality. Being without error is effective, but not very interesting or humane. I think I'll hold on to my "flawed, but perfect" point-of-view for the time being.
Interesting line of thought, though. It's about time someone published that.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831
-
The Permian extinction is believed to be either from an impact event, plate tectonics, or increased volcanism which increased the temperature more than just 8 or 9 degrees. And besides, we're not dumb creatures. We have control over our destiny. The Earth has recovered time and time before, and if we do die (which we won't), it'll be nothing big. It's practically guaranteed there's other intelligent life in the universe, and humanity is just another little part of the big picture.
-
The climate warming up is actually not caused by humans, but greatly accelerated by us. After all, the planet is just coming out of an ice age.
-
what ^ said
The earth goes through its periods of Warm Ages and Ice Ages. we are about the near ending of a Ice Age. We have just speed up the porcess futher. Eco-Fantics thinks it is just humans
-
I'm not saying its just humans as that would be stupid however it is being greatly accelerated by humans (cold periods generally set on quickly not the warming up periods) secondly it is being made worse then it would be by humans.
I know the Permian is generally related to the deacon traps (a major volcanic event) and also to a possible impact, it is however being noticed that there seems to have been die back for considerable time before, also one of the major reasons the climate changed was due to these events altering the way the earths climate worked, if the climate hadn't changed then the extinction would have been no where near as severe, so it seems that climate was changing which was pushing species to the brink and then the events pushed them over, roughly the same can be seen with the KT event.
The earth does change but generally not this quickly, also believe it or not I'd rather people didn't have cars if it saves the lives of millions possibly billions of people who may well include me.
-
Look around you. Those of you who are older will be able to recognize that things have most certainly changed. When I was a kid, there might have been one or two kids in an entire grade at a school who had asthma. Not many kids had allergies. There was only ONE kid out of all that I ever met at school who could have been described as hyper, and I went to several different schools in different areas. I'm not talking about the broad spectrum of ADHD here - much of that would require diagnosis by a physician as it's not obvious to the general population. I mean the kids who are in a constant state of super-energized to the point where they can't concentrate or sit still - the ones that are quite obvious even to those who are not trained to spot it.
Now childhood asthma is common, it seems as though nearly every kid has some sort of allergy, and there are hyper kids everywhere you look. So what's changed? Some have suggested that changes and pollutants in our environment and food sources are causing ripple effects of this sort. If that's true, how much farther will it go? If it's causing kids to develop health problems now, how bad is this going to get?
I read a few science articles on how global warming was likely to affect weather patterns. Those particular articles stated that it is not likely to affect the frequency of storms as much as the intensity of those storms. Hurricanes are stronger, and outlying areas that in the past only got the tail end of a tropical storm could now get hurricanes because the storm doesn't die down as quickly, that sort of thing.
I think most people live in their own egocentric little world in their heads and pay little to no attention to anything that doesn't directly affect them right this minute now. And that would be why so many people just shrug off environmental concerns such as pollution and global warming.
-
Gaia is cutting us down. Diseases are just the planet's white-cells in action.
But global warming is noticeable, even on a small scale. We got snow properly at the end of January, in contrast to the beginning of December ten years ago.
-
one of my favorite things is that it seems more of the population is dyspraxic then was originally thought so they've tried giving out Efalex in effect and it works, they are thinking of using it to control prisons in Britain now (I'm not sure but they might already in Denmark and/or the Netherlands).
A lot of people who are diagnosed ADHD have Dyspraxcia (might have spelled that wrong (sorry I'm dyspraxic one of the things is poor spelling)) or some related condition, which means they would be fine if they had the proper support and treatment (i.e. not ritalin as it makes us safe but dumb).
if you think the end of times is upon us then I give you the fact that the mark of the beast is evident, relatively recently we discovered one of the major ways in which plants sense light levels was using a chemical called phytochrome which has the absorbance frequency of 666nm
-
I got a foot of snow here. It's the middle of March.
The number of the beast? Please. One: it's 616, not 666. Two: We need to stop listening to the Bible word for word. I've got nothing against religion, but it implyes someone lived to be something like 300 years old and that four horsemen will kill us all.
And I don't consider ADHD a disease. When I have kids, and they talk back to me, I'll spank them. There's a cure for ADHD. Oops, that's child abuse in this politically correct world.
-
i agree garth corporal punishment is good for developing into a contributing member of society as long as the rules are clear.
-
firstly I know the actual number of the beast (if you want to get into it that much but whats the point) is 616 but in popular culture its 666 hence my statement. Also i'm an atheist so I think its all bunk (like the books written by moses which include the line "and moses was the most humble of men" which if written by moses is the most arrogant thing to say ever.
ADHD is actually a condition, however I think that most people with it probably have something else but the local diagnostics are not good enough to recognize it. The reason why ADHD is linked to poor behavior is due to the fact that it means you can't do certain things for example its much harder to learn to read, write or do complicated mathematics as you can't concentrate on one thing for more then a few minutes. This would be especially true if they are really dyspraxic/dyslexic or something else on the autism spectrum.
Dyspraxics especially seem to be a much higher percentage group of the population then is normally thought, especially in men.
Symptoms include:
difficulty in communication.
dislike of touch (especially unfamiliar touch)
hypersensitivity (so you only feel happy wearing certain fabrics, also the baggy/tightness of clothes is very important, ties are generally not a good thing)
difficulty memorizing number pattens beyond 4 numbers (this is why the pin numbers are 4 numbers (maximum security due to the fact you can remember them and also it gives the maximum number of combinations))
inability to multitask
poor organizational skills
poor nervous system (so hand eye coordination is impaired)
The reason we are seeing a huge increase in the number of these people is A we have become better at seeing them, and B as the correct diet can cause these symptoms to go (i.e. one high in fatty acids) as the quality of diet in the western world falls this is going to become more evident. How many ADHD children are there in Finland where everyone gets school dinners that are sourced locally from organic sourses? I bet you not many.
One of the problems is that if you are Dyspraxic and of high intelligence then your diagnosed Dyspraxic, if your of average intelligence your ADHD and if your bellow average intelligence your naughty and stupid.
Dyspraxia is almost entirely a condition of the educated classes, while ADHD is almost entirely a condition of the poor.
I'm in university studying biology and I've noticed that a really high percentage of people here doing sciences especially are dyspraxic or dyslexic, which backs up my point entirly I think.
Corporal punishment isn't the best method of disciplining children, psychology is much more effective trust me. glad i'm somewhere corporal punishment is ilegal.
-
well now boy-oh i would have to disagree as someone who should be struggling in life. you need physical discipline in order to get proper self motivation. i believe modern psychology is a fucking cult so i think its bullshit. the teachings of Jung replaced the teachings of christ come now its bullshit organized religion in a new shiny package. just because you have some sort of mental/emotional/physical defect dousn't mean theres anything you can't do, thats bullshit anyone can do anything if given the right motivation and due to the way the human mind works, physical punishment is much clearer than anything else in developement of motivations and morals. fuck damn i'm pissed off now.
-
well now boy-oh i would have to disagree as someone who should be struggling in life. you need physical discipline in order to get proper self motivation. i believe modern psychology is a fucking cult so i think its bullshit. the teachings of Jung replaced the teachings of christ come now its bullshit organized religion in a new shiny package. just because you have some sort of mental/emotional/physical defect dousn't mean theres anything you can't do, thats bullshit anyone can do anything if given the right motivation and due to the way the human mind works, physical punishment is much clearer than anything else in developement of motivations and morals. fuck damn i'm pissed off now.
To an extent, I agree. Physical punishment is probably the only concrete way of retaining full self-motivation. However, in some people physical punishment can also cause severe psychological problems. Afterall, motivation can be achieved in other forms, such as rewards - maybe not as effective, but certainly ensuring a stable state of mind.
Also, I think forms of punishment as motivation may in fact, in the case of people with mental abilites, only force them to achieve, rather then want to. Therefore, someone with special needs may live in fear of physical punishment - yes, they'll will push themselves in order to develop, but in this case is self-motivation replaced by fear?
-
well now boy-oh i would have to disagree as someone who should be struggling in life. you need physical discipline in order to get proper self motivation. i believe modern psychology is a fucking cult so i think its bullshit. the teachings of Jung replaced the teachings of christ come now its bullshit organized religion in a new shiny package. just because you have some sort of mental/emotional/physical defect dousn't mean theres anything you can't do, thats bullshit anyone can do anything if given the right motivation and due to the way the human mind works, physical punishment is much clearer than anything else in developement of motivations and morals. fuck damn i'm pissed off now.
Firstly as someone who has been psychoanalyzed yes I think psychology the pseudo science is rubbish (i.e. psychoanalysis). however the the idea that the mind is important is still valid, just because Freud and his allies were nutters doesn't mean that the original concept isn't valid, most of our modern world is based on psychology, advertising, marketing, propaganda, traffic management, health and safety laws food packaging, health care etc etc.....
Psychology is mearly working out how peoples minds work and then using this information either to get them to do what you want or to improve their life. Every time you try to put yourself in someone elses shoes, you are using psychology, every time you try to work out what someone is going to do you are using psychology. If you ignore it then it can be used against you its like going to war not only without a gun but with a complete absence of any form of knowledge of any projectile weapon.
When they are little your children look up to you, you are their favorite person in the world, you being demonstratively annoyed, angry, upset with them will often be enough (NO! very loudly and firmly works wonders), there are other things you can do for example when I was little we had a concept of the naughty stair now as I hated to be left out of things this was a big punishment. Now with this my parents managed to discipline me through out my childhood.
When I was teenager on occasion due to various reasons (one of the most obvious being the fact that when your going through the various stages of puberty you tend to come into conflict with your parents as your views change, habits alter and so on) I was a bit of a git sometimes. Now when your a teenager often this is due to some reason in your life (for example girl/boy trouble, difficulty with school work, bullying) so the first method is to try to fix it (i.e. positive action) the sencond method is if the problem has been fixed is to then use negative reinforcement, this can be cutting off allowance, grounding, extra housework, confiscations (i.e. computer games for example) in case of continued unacceptable behavior.
Also try treating children as equals (just think of them as not very experienced adults who have lots of free time) it works wonders.
I'm not saying dyspraxics aren't as good, I think we're better then you normal people I actually pity you people who can't think like we do. There are certain things we can't do as well however there are many things we can do you lot can't. Its thought that one of the major things driving forward human development have been people like me, because we come up with new ideas all the time because we look at the world differently, think of the stereotype of the genius inventor/scientist, they are absent minded eccentric and often have great difficulty relating to people all of which are the stereotypes of dyspraxics. To live in your world we require treatment but thats mainly because your world is so godawful, we run on logic and take what people say at face value, we are truthful and generally pleasant mainly because its harder to lie and we didn't notice if your being insulting or unpleasant. we get drugged to stop us damaging you lot because sometimes we just get so frustrated at the idiocy of some of you people. Also its been for most of human history an advantage as if our abililty to spell or do maths isn't an issue we are nothing but an advantage, 200 years ago it was an advantage in 10 20 years it will be an advantage your looking at the last generation of us who will have any major problem with life as after this the world is designed by us.
-
i agree with alot of what you say its just i get sick of people saying disciplining children is a terrible thing. and that people with mental/emotional/learning issues shouldn't be treated as equals and held to the same standards. hence why i became pissy. but anyhow good arguement.
-
#1 the number of the beast IS 666, do not confuse the beast the whore of Babylon rides upon (i think its actually Gilgamesh, but i forget) with Satan, which is 616
#2 we dont need trees. oceans produce over 2/3 the worlds oxygen. Keep the oceans clean, cut down ALL the trees.
#3 we have air conditioning in case of global warming, and if worst comes to worse we'll have massive death in Asia and Africa and South America to lower the amount of food we need to produce, and with genetically altered foods im sure the plants will survive.
#4 how cool would it be to watch roaches and ants become the next civilized race? Asia be teh pwn
#5 psychology is idiotic and hypothetical, i have yet to meet a person who did not have a psychological flaw. besides, who's to say what is normal and what is deviant, with the prevalence rate of ADHD i would consider normal deviant.
#6 i'd be more worried about desertification rather than ice melting. More salt water = better desalinization industry, more desert = less fertile land for plants, and if worse comes to worse we'll have increased storms, which means rain water collection cisterns and more fertile land... for food we can grow rice and, since many ports will be destroyed, the fish will replenish themselves in many oceans since we wont be able to exterminate them with mass fishing
#7 without global warming and melting ice caps the Mediterranean would dry up and become a giant salt flat. im sure that'd boost Venice's tourism, it'd also significantly diminish the ocean size, which means less phytoplankton (earth's premier source of oxygen) more water > ice caps
#8 it is human flaw and error that makes the species great, i have no quarrel with humanity as is, let evolution take us anywhere, we can't play god with everything imo
#9 if the ice caps melt... and temperatures rise, maybe i won't have to shave things to please my girl... after all evolution would eliminate the need for unnecessary functions. of course it's also my belief that baldness is evolutionary progression caused by hats. We lost body hair b/c of clothes, we're losing hair on our head b/c of hats.
sorry PUR, im all for humanity altering nature and forging a path for itself, but i think altering ourselves is slightly beyond ourselves unless we understand ourselves, and that my friend i beyond our grasp
-
Basically what I'm saying is that some conditions e.g. dyspraxia is a disadvantage in the modern world due to the fact that some things we either can't do or cannot do as well as "normal" people, there are advantages for instance we make great architects due to the fact that we can think in 3D while the norms need to do it on paper or on a computer.
Its the climate change I'm worried about more then the warming (though if the cascade kicks in then we burn my lovelies then we burn) as it would screw over almost all the inland crop areas and also destroy huge amounts or really important/interesting ecological areas. note I said inland crop areas, the coastal crop areas would be screwed by the flooding.
Also I live in Wales I don't want tornadoes and hurricanes I also don't want another glaciation here (though my house would be alright I guess)
-
Children aren't equals. They don't know what the hell's going on, and just crap and cry all day. No pussy "time-out" bullshit. Any mental illness save real ones like OCD, Schizophrenia, and Dyslexia/Dyspraxia can be solved by spanking and/or smacking. It's not child abuse, it's discipline. Once you cross the line into beatings and bruisings, it's child abuse. They need discipline, otherwise all these kids will be running around watching Oprah, becoming emos, and cutting themselves.
(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/beatkid4.jpg)
We should have more people like Maddox.
-
This belief system is utopianism, and as unfeasible as Plato's Republic or the Christian Kingdom of Heaven (because an en masse genetic transformation is, to me, as unlikely as an en masse societal or spiritual transformation). It places excellence on genetics and, this, to me is more than than a bit disturbing. The horrors of Third Reich eugenics should make everyone very wary of such beliefs that have as the stated goal the creation of a human supercaste.
Just my :2c:
-
By that logic, the horrors of Chernobyl should prevent us from seeking nuclear power, the horrors of Hitler should deter us from Democracy (you must remember they did elect him into power), etc. If one bad thing justified it's end, nothing would be accomplished. We'd have ended the space program, and many other things.
The assumption that genes are perfect is a systemic problem caused by the fact there are parts of the gene we do not understand, it is the same for the people that believe if you unlock a higher percentage of your brain you can get psychic powers, etc. It's the mysteries of the unknown that conjure fantasies and marvels that, if possible, we would love to acheive, and if skeptical we would never have the courage to discover. It's also a problem because people are unsatisfied, on some level, with the life they lead. This is perpetuated by globalism and consumerism, but that's just another problem caused by dissatisfaction. Suicide is also caused by being dissatisfied with ones life, so you seek to make it better. Everything revolves around making ones life better, when one does not realize maybe it's fine the way it is. Don't fix something if it's not broken.
-
Hitler used the democratic process to seize power. I wouldn't call him a paragon of democracy by any means; the Munich Putsch of 1923 saw him land in jail for attempting to seize power by force in Bavaria. He failed, and then came out of jail and went about democratically gathering his power. That in itself says nothing to me; democracy pre-exited Hitler in Athens by over 2,500 years or so.
Anyways... You hit on a problem that transhumanism fails to address: all of the belief in genetic superiority and the eventual transhuman singularity fail to take into account that human life can be made better by simple effort to make one's life better. That's why mankind has a plurality of religions, philosophies, et cetera. It doesn't take a genetic superman to live well, and who determines who is fit to be one of these elites? That's why I refer to it as a utopian fantasy, like Eden or Shangri-La. People become fixated on these transcendent ideas and forget that real progress can be made right here, right now. Nature can't be forced, and I think that any attempt to play God in the part of humanity will backfire. Transhumanism sort of reminds me of the story of the Tower of Babel; humans wanted to reach heaven, and the powers-that-be tore their tower down and scattered humans to and fro.
-
Eugenic's was quite popular before Hitler, the only reason it seems the two appeared together is that the gene was not actually discovered until around the rise of Hitler. At the time, many determinists (including Hitler) were becoming eugenists, so Hitler isn't a paragon either. Nor is his anti-semitic dogma, which has been expressed by every European nation save Poland. To think Hitler was in any way unique is madness, his methods were, however, brilliant. To create a business out of burning Jews, why, that would make Bustos proud.
And your second point is quite valid, people seek better things, no matter what they be or the method they use. PUR is merely stating her belief that altering gene's is more logical and scientific than prayer as a method to attaining 'enlightenment', and the results are more real (you can see what altering genes does, you'll never know whether or not heaven exists unless you die, and no one has spoken to the dead)
Your point of the "Tower of Babel" humors me. I think of genetic modification as a parallel to designer babies. Who decides what "perfect" is? Is a elephant penis the size of a leg or breasts the size of a 5 year old child actually beneficial. And do not say it will not occur, I would be willing to bet not only would people create designer babies, they would alter their babies for money to permanently advertise companies, they would think of it as a joke and create a farce out of their child, and should rape victims not be allowed abortion, they could ask for some sort of genetic defect be applied to their baby.
The idea that creating perfection through genes yet calling psychology imperfect is foolish. Both require diagnosis and treatment and a stereotypical view or what is "right" and "wrong"
-
it is merely my belief system. we all need to believe in something and this is what i choose. i am glad you all took an interest in discussing this, i especialy thank Xyrael for sticking up for my beliefs even though they are not his own. but even more than transhumanism i believe in pluralism and as such i believe that everyone is entitled to believe and live as they wish. perhaps someday we will all share this ideal of pluralism but its farther off than designer babies.
-
Personally I think most religions are a bit mad but this one is one of the saner ones.
The main reason I disagree with religions is not because of what they were (or said they were) about originally but what they are like in practice.
So Christianity and Islam great original ideas but look at how they turned out.
Myro got me thinking about what he said and then the simpsons episode where Flanders finally snaps and ends up in the asylum, I just hope his/her kids arn't that screwed up.
-
Eugenic's was quite popular before Hitler, the only reason it seems the two appeared together is that the gene was not actually discovered until around the rise of Hitler. At the time, many determinists (including Hitler) were becoming eugenists, so Hitler isn't a paragon either. Nor is his anti-semitic dogma, which has been expressed by every European nation save Poland. To think Hitler was in any way unique is madness, his methods were, however, brilliant. To create a business out of burning Jews, why, that would make Bustos proud.
And your second point is quite valid, people seek better things, no matter what they be or the method they use. PUR is merely stating her belief that altering gene's is more logical and scientific than prayer as a method to attaining 'enlightenment', and the results are more real (you can see what altering genes does, you'll never know whether or not heaven exists unless you die, and no one has spoken to the dead)
Your point of the "Tower of Babel" humors me. I think of genetic modification as a parallel to designer babies. Who decides what "perfect" is? Is a elephant penis the size of a leg or breasts the size of a 5 year old child actually beneficial. And do not say it will not occur, I would be willing to bet not only would people create designer babies, they would alter their babies for money to permanently advertise companies, they would think of it as a joke and create a farce out of their child, and should rape victims not be allowed abortion, they could ask for some sort of genetic defect be applied to their baby.
The idea that creating perfection through genes yet calling psychology imperfect is foolish. Both require diagnosis and treatment and a stereotypical view or what is "right" and "wrong"
It's like you say, who decides what perfect is? Or who becomes perfect? I suspect that there will be a case of the supermen and the submen if this vision of the future comes to pass. The movie Gattaca is illustrative of a world with a genetically-engineered overcaste and an underclass that is only guilty of being born normal. That's why I used the Babel analogy of humans building a tower to heaven. They wanted to usurp God's prerogative, and they paid the price for it when heaven destroyed their little building project. Tinkering with Nature is bound to backfire, I'm sure of it. I also think that transhumanism looks to much to the imagined future, a would-be at best, and this is a trait of utopianism.
As to prayer, I think it's more beneficial because it directly plays upon human consciousness on a day-to-day basis. It might play up to a higher power (God Almighty, the god within, et cetera), but the devotee has a real desire to make progress as a person. This is what's important, not a potential utopia in the distant future populated by genetic superbeings. Is anyone alive right now that will be able to take advantage of this possibility, or should we let Nature run its course? Evolution can't be forced, and there's this hubris that humans have that they can now influence their own development as a species through the power of technology. Well, physical development, anyways. But what about moral development? Or the development of consciousness and conscience? Will the mind and spirit develop into godlike realms alongside the body? A transhuman superman might be as physical perfect as Adam or Eve, but still be an emotional idiot. I'd say this might be moreso, because a transhuman would have a very real reason for at least being narcissistic and arrogant. Look at the myths, the Greek gods are perfect examples of this sort of being: physically perfect, but oftentimes emotional and capricious to the point of stupidity.
I'm not going to gainsay anyone who wants to build a better world. That's been a dream for as long as there have been humans to dream about it. The better world isn't in the past (like the Garden of Eden) or in the future (like the Second Coming); it's here right now, and we all can pitch in to create it. I'm of the mind to allow Nature to play its own hand; whatever God is, God has done a fine job as far as I'm concerned. By saying this, allow Nature to play its own hand, I'm not saying "survival of the fittest." I don't like that phrase. What I'm saying is that humans should seek to "play God" by trying to undo natural processes. If humans are meant to evolve, it will happen on its own. Any attempts to force it might end up going very badly. In the meantime, real progress can be made by our own efforts. If humans could collectively come together, say, to do something about climate change, well, that'd be more of a miracle than a possible future inhabited by genetic superbeings. :clap:
-
actualy transhumanists wish to do alot about current ecological, geopolitical and medical problems. whats the point of a longer life in a shitty world.
anyhow hees another nifty link for ya.
http://www.changesurfer.com/Acad/TranshumPolitics.htm
-
It still doesn't strike me as being a very useful belief system because it doesn't focus on behavioral aspects and it relies entirely on technology and the power if science, neither of which I am entirely trustful of. I like the old adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
I prefer the approach that the theists take on the condition of the world, “and behold it was very good,” as they say God said after he made the world. I'd hate to think that the world, including mankind, is an unfinished project.
If the world is in an unfinished state, then it's incumbent upon humans to finish it up. This can't be a short process, given the age of the earth, and we'd have two have a transformation so as to redefine what it means to be human, as an entire species. It just can't be confined to a few who can afford gene therapy, it has to affect us all in the same way- a universal benchmark like the day when our primate ancestors first came down from the trees.
-
well this is where my libertarian side comes out. people who wish to do this should be allowed to. hell we transhumanists are already working on our evolutionary paths with a widespread eugenics program. *grumbles* damned neo-Luddite. the addage if it ain't broke don't fix it is silly for this case because we aren't fixing anything we are merely looking to upgrade. yet just like the socialist movement we are currently too fractured a group to do anything major.
-
Sorry, I didn't read through the article, but just its introduction brought an issue to my mind. Concerning the development of humans, will we strive to eliminate our flaws or to amplify our better qualities? Because in my opinion, having no flaws means that there is no natural direction for the person to go. If you can do anything, why bother?
So if Transhumanism is going for a flawless humanity, thanks, I'll pass, I like being a personality. Being without error is effective, but not very interesting or humane. I think I'll hold on to my "flawed, but perfect" point-of-view for the time being.
Interesting line of thought, though. It's about time someone published that.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831
Finally they made that video. I hate global warming crack theories. I remember reading the atmosphere of the Earth, I saw that Carbon Dioxide was a very very small part of the atmos. This confused me, How could such a small thing create an apocalyptic effect. I also found it strange that we weren't the only ones giving out CO2. I kept reading and reading in it, looking at damn charts that made no sense. The graphs on an inconvenient truth are brilliant at getting people, they're measured in 1000s of years on such a small scale that it looked like it had a great effect. Except when you look at it at a closer scale you see that it has no effect whatsoever and that the real reason is just the basic constants behind our climate. The sun, clouds, water, etc. Not some bizarre Commie Theory that's all against Capitalism progression. Any liberal/environmentalist is just fueling this Communist theory. What a waste of money, that's all this does.
-
well this is where my libertarian side comes out. people who wish to do this should be allowed to. hell we transhumanists are already working on our evolutionary paths with a widespread eugenics program. *grumbles* damned neo-Luddite. the addage if it ain't broke don't fix it is silly for this case because we aren't fixing anything we are merely looking to upgrade. yet just like the socialist movement we are currently too fractured a group to do anything major.
Neo-luddite? That's a bit extreme, I'd say. If I was opposed to technological progress, I'd smash my PC and go and live the lifestyle of a medieval peasant. Ned Ludd I ain't, but I am against drastic applications of technology. The creation of so-called posthumans is something that just doesn't sit well with me, and there are very real dangers involved: are human beings, a complex organism with several trillion cells, as easy to genetically modify as, say, a single-celled bacterium? Or a stalk of corn? What agencies will oversee and regulate such activity? What's to stop someone from creating transhuman supersoldiers?
Just some questions to ponder.
-
indeed they are the correct questions to come up with solutions to. but neo-luddite is a term we use for anyone opposed to bio-enhancement. if we can solve those problems we will be able to march foreward as a united humanity.
-
Global warming is accepted as a fact by the majority of the scientific community even to the extent its accepted by governments and world bodies (hell in Britain even the mainstream right wing party is using being green to try to get elected).
He's not a luddite as he isn't against the technology on the grounds that it will cause his life to get considerably worse (the luddites smashed looms as they were weavers being put out of work not because they were afraid of new technology (until just before this they had been one of the driving forces behind it)), hes against it on moral grounds and I kind of agree though for more practical reasons. One of the reasons being that if we alter humanity then we are causing divisions, we already have enough trouble with the genetic differences now. Now I'm all for screening for major defects, neo-natal cures and organ cloning but all of these are tweaking problems with humanity rather then altering majorly.
I also have a pet theory that Homo sapians sapians is going through a period of speciation, now as the two groups (I'll call them proto species) drift apart we should begin to notice difference in height, weight, behavior. Also fertility should drop due to the lessened chance of a viable offspring being created between members of the different proto species. Now to make it even more confusing there could be a myriad of different proto species some of whom might never make it even to the sub species stage and many who won't make it beyond that (evolution is a harsh mistress).
This is one of the reasons I always push for the use of people/person rather then human as this is wider and contains all eventuallities (such as speciation in humans (or just finding other hominid species (anyone remember Homo florentis)), allians, machine inteligences and all the other weirdness that could be out there)
-
but neo-luddite is a term we use for anyone opposed to bio-enhancement.
Isn't this rather like convervatives and neo-conservatives labeling anyone who opposes them a liberal?
-
pretty much.
He's not a luddite as he isn't against the technology on the grounds that it will cause his life to get considerably worse (the luddites smashed looms as they were weavers being put out of work not because they were afraid of new technology (until just before this they had been one of the driving forces behind it)), hes against it on moral grounds and I kind of agree though for more practical reasons. One of the reasons being that if we alter humanity then we are causing divisions, we already have enough trouble with the genetic differences now. Now I'm all for screening for major defects, neo-natal cures and organ cloning but all of these are tweaking problems with humanity rather then altering majorly.
I also have a pet theory that Homo sapians sapians is going through a period of speciation, now as the two groups (I'll call them proto species) drift apart we should begin to notice difference in height, weight, behavior. Also fertility should drop due to the lessened chance of a viable offspring being created between members of the different proto species. Now to make it even more confusing there could be a myriad of different proto species some of whom might never make it even to the sub species stage and many who won't make it beyond that (evolution is a harsh mistress).
This is one of the reasons I always push for the use of people/person rather then human as this is wider and contains all eventuallities (such as speciation in humans (or just finding other hominid species (anyone remember Homo florentis)), allians, machine inteligences and all the other weirdness that could be out there)
while the fertility is going to go down, lifespan is increasing. the reason is due to generations having children later and later in life. also i called him a neoluddite, this was a mistake i should have said "bio-luddite."
-
I agree that screening for genetic defects and such is common sense, but I'm utterly opposed to, as I've said, playing God with the human genome. The former is a practical application of medical and scientific knowledge. The latter opens up a genetic Pandora's box. Genetic variation is a part of basic evolutionary theory, and who's to say tinkering with human DNA would be any better than natural selection or speciation?
Minor advantages I'm not opposed to at all, it's the major ones that I'm wary of.
-
My problem with it is who would be deciding what would be better I'm dyspraxic I think that's better but I don't think non dyspraxics should be sterilized.
Bio-luddite is a better term.
Well life span is only increasing in the developed world (and even then not for everyone) many people's life expectancy is going down.
The main worry is that many countries have now gone bellow the maintenance rate i.e. the rate at which the nations population breeds is lower then the rate at which we die. This is happening in Germany, Japan and also Britain.
I'd prefer to think that we're speciating then dieing out through lack of interest.
-
First world countries have a lower birthrate than other countries. I think that this issue needs to be seriously addressed, but in what manner, I don't know.
-
the simplest manner of sorting the problem out would be to allow open door immigration (with exceptions for criminals and other neredowells) as this would at least keep our economies alive, though it would cause other problems.
-
Liberal immigration policies for skilled and useful immigrants is a good start, but you have to address the concerns of the current citizens who do not want a huge influx of immigrants and who live in areas that are directly affected by it- the U.S. border with Mexico is a prime example.
-
heck, i know what we should do with igeall immgrients!
Hire boba fett!
-
Borders of countries that are not owned by a private citizen are just imaginary lines with no meanings.
-
alright guys back on topic.
-
We have enormous power; we could destroy the Earth three times over, we can exterminate species at a whim, change our own genetic structures, even. This power will only continue to grow as we become more technologically advanced. I say, why not harness this power for good?
If we correct the flaws that mar the human race, we could eliminate all injustice/poverty/power-lust/blood-lust in our world. If we could create transhumans that did not experience those things in sufficient number, all our problems would be solved.
Of course, there would be the matter of the remaining humans. Also using genetic knowledge, we could engineer an infertility virus that targeted only unenhanced humans, and we would slowly die out.
Some may reject this theory as being cruel, but that is a human flaw.
-
Bumped because transhumanism gets my vote.
-
Transhumanism is alright, but it seems to tend to move toward Brave New World: Instead of governments banning books, jailing dissenters, and restricting love, it seems to encourage governments not banning books because no one cares to read them. Not jailing dissenters because there's nothing to dissent against. Not restricting love because there is no such thing. Maybe if it overcomes this, it'd be appealing, but to me individuality is the utmost to me, and transhumanism seems to suggest that trading individuality for world peace and long life is something to strive for.
-
The way I see transhumanism, there is no revocation of individualism. Instead, like now, it is based on certain principles which will change once the evolution of evolution reaches the next level.
-
well put and rather true.
also garth you should check out the libertarian transhumanists.
-
Eh, not my cup of tea, but if it works for you, have at it :)