transhumanism- a belief that makes sense

[Khem]

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.

[LLANYDERN]

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)

[Turdganistan]

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?

[Khem]

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."

[Turdganistan]

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.

[LLANYDERN]

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.

[Turdganistan]

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.

[LLANYDERN]

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.

[Turdganistan]

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.

[Bara]

heck, i know what we should do with igeall immgrients!
Hire boba fett!

[Ryazania]

Borders of countries that are not owned by a private citizen are just imaginary lines with no meanings.

[Khem]

alright guys back on topic.

[Castavithius]

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.

[Solnath]

Bumped because transhumanism gets my vote.

[Myroria]

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.