Transhumanism and the WTA

www.transhumanism.org...

Well, I've been reading about this for awhile, and it really seems like something that might become a reality someday, and issues like bioethics and the likes will become more commonplace. Maybe it's just because I'm a sucker for Cyberpunk and it's my dream to someday get myself an extended memory and all sorts of bionic enhancements.

What do you think of overcoming our biological limitations?

I signed up for their mailing list and etc. What do you think of their views on these issues? Or the transhumanist views in general?

[edit on 10-11-2007 by Al]

I think TH is an over-rated pipe dream until we see some real practical applications of the philosophy.

I agree,it could be cool to be enhanced by cybernetic mechanisms etc.,but I think the biggest problem with that is who would be supplying these upgrades.

To me the people manufacturing these "parts" would have too much temptation to install tracking chips,overrides,faulty parts you name it for a large number of sinister purposes.

Also....we can't even get toys that are safe for kids to play with. I'm gonna allow someone to replace my organic arm with a robotic one that was made in China? Hopefully they'll have sense enough to use lead paint on my shiny new appendage.

Well some of the idea of a "post human" race bothers me.
Especially when you note that post means after.

We must worry when the time comes that a sub-species of homo-sapien arises that regards standard humans as "lesser creatures". I doubt any good will come of that.

I think some aspects of transhumanism are inevitable, while other parts
I'm not too certain. The fact that both political sides seem to be pushing
this coming 'convergence' agenda is what bothers me most.

There's not nearly enough attention paid to what is being called:

the US’s biggest government commitment to technological research since the space programme, uniting the military, Nasa, leading high-tech companies and the NSF under a single vision. source

There's a film made by the Immortality Institute, its called "Exploring Life Extension"

I haven't really watched it, but they quote Bill Clinton saying:

"Weve treated the Human Genome Project as a priority
since day one because we all want to live forever",
and, "We want to live forever, and were getting there."

Newt Gingrich is all about riding the wave. (of humanity's destruction)
He also seems quite familiar with Clinton and the genome project...

In the article "Vision for the Converging Technologies" Newt Gingrich proposes to reinvent government for the "Age of Transition" that we have just entered, where the combined effect of converging NBIC technologies accelerates. Gingrich believes in explaining new options to the voters in the clearest possible language: "They may not understand plasma physics or the highest levels of the human genome project. But they can surely understand the alternative between having Alzheimer and not having it". Explaining his vision for the Age of Transition, he proposes riding the NBIC wave instead of trying to delay it, and acknowledges that current public policies and initiatives are moving much slower than technological change. source

[all emphasis mine]

It's all public access: "Vision for the Converging Technologies"

If there's anyone on this forum that has covered most
of the coming NBIC convergence it would have to be IIB:

Beyond Conspiracy: Artificial General Intelligence
Dubya and Al Gore's unknown unholy alliance

IIB videos:
DARPA’s iXo Artificial Intelligence Control Grid: ‘The Official Version’

Google Video Link

They Want Your Soul

Google Video Link

Addtional ATS threads:
DARPA AI .mil & more
"Kill Proof," Animal-Esque Soldiers: DARPA Goal

I think the only good that can come from this is helping the disabled. The people who can't walk, amputees... etc. Maybe. If I was disabled, then maybe I'd go for that option. But other than that I don't want that because to me it takes away your humanity. We were made like this for a reason... start messing with that and I think all heck will break loose.

Essentially, what you do or do not want does not matter. There are people who do want this, and there are scientists making it happen.

There are some people who advocate for a neo-luddite attitude towards any of the GRIN technologies because they will fundamentally change what it is to be human in such a way that the entire length of history never has.

Change causes fear, especially such radical and extreme change as Transhumanism. Fear, in itself, will lead to hatred and most likely give rise to a Human Originalist movement that shuns any and all enhancements to human existence.

Yet even so, there will be others who fully embrace leaving their bodies behind, adapting, becoming something else. Something beyond human or machine.

Others will ride the genetic engineering wagon and the human race itself will split into a myriad of different races... though such subraces will be a small fractional percentage of the rest of the human populace.

The only way to avoid transcendence is to halt technological progress in the G.R.I.N. (Genetics, Robotis, Intelligence, Nanotechnology) field. To do so would end the human race, as we need to develop the technology to save ourselves from the mess we've made of things.

Transhumanism is simply a byproduct of that. So, strap yourselves in for the future, because it's coming hard and fast.

reply to post by TheColdDragon


Spoken like a true believer. Unless we blow ourselves up, or into the stone age. Or something does it for us. Calling something like this an inevitability sounds to me like hubris.

And is it not Hubris to believe that you can halt the progress of science in its tracks?

I think the greater pride is the idea that one can stop the world from spinning.

I am not going to deny that I have hubris, being only human I am certain that I do. In a practical sense, how exactly would you propose we stop certain technologies from being developed?

How would you stop certain medical technologies from coming into being that may be used for reasons OTHER than saving lives?

reply to post by TheColdDragon

And is it not Hubris to believe that you can halt the progress of science in its tracks?

Didn't say that I could. But its only logical to say that if there is no humanity to persue science it's stopped. Or if a major cataclysm turns us to concentrate (with vastly reduced numbers on top) more on survival, til that is over scientific advance is stopped. The possiblities are many.

I think the greater pride is the idea that one can stop the world from spinning.

Ah how people love to equate a rather weak claim of inveitability with a strong one. But there are things that could stop the world from spinning sorry to burst your bubble.

In a practical sense, how exactly would you propose we stop certain technologies from being developed?
How would you stop certain medical technologies from coming into being that may be used for reasons OTHER than saving lives?

See towards the top.


In otherwords. Stop humanity, stop his lovely little toy called science.
Put a sevre hurting on humanity, push back or even return to start science.

I am garnering that you are of the opinion that mankind is a problem and a plague and would do well to remove 90% or more of mankind?

Barring actually killing off a majority of mankind (Which is an idea I personally find appalling), I really don't see scientists stopping in their pursuit of many different fields.

I mean, scientists are actively working towards transhumanism. There are many that want it to happen. Others merely research to try and improve the world.

And that is, after all, just the thing isn't it? Continuing to improve the world eventually leads to such things like the Singularity, and Transhumanism.

While I personally hate to present dichotomies, if you actually ignore all the middle ground there really is only two possibilities; improve mankind and the world, or let mankind die off.

I'm for the former, though I would imagine that is unsurprising.

reply to post by TheColdDragon


Whoa whoa whoa whoa.
Stop putting words in my mouth.
I said nothing about my opinion on humanity.
Lay off the assumptions (of which you make a great many).
Any of a number of reasons could make "transhumanism" not possible or never actually becoming a reality. Get over it.

[edit on 12-11-2007 by WraothAscendant]

I put no words into your mouth. I also have not said that you said something.

What I did do was ask if your opinion was that most of Humanity should die off, as that was the impression I was getting from your responses.

What assumptions have I made, if I can ask?

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Essentially, what you do or do not want does not matter. There are people who do want this, and there are scientists making it happen.

That's what I think, but sometimes you know, people try to put some limits to what happens in some areas of science, and that is where the whole bio ethics and morphological freedom issue comes in when it comes to this stuff. Personally in terms of all science, remove the bars and let it flow.

reply to post by TheColdDragon

I am garnering that you are of the opinion that mankind is a problem and a plague and would do well to remove 90% or more of mankind?

When I have said nothing even close to saying "People should die off".

Wraoth: Indeed. I don't believe I said that you HAD claimed such a stance. However, that was the impression I was receiving from some of the comments in your posts.

Would you put forward that it is a good thing if Science were to stop where it is now? No future medical, engineering, or many other fields of study?

Either you're proposing some level of luddite approach to the subject of technology, or you're for the development of the G.R.I.N. technologies. Am I safe to assume you prefer some form of Luddite approach, as that is what I have garnered from your responses?

finally a great nbic thread! that report blew my mind and i can't stop thinking about it - the future is gonna be a wild ride!

starred and flagged!

From what I have read on research into extending life, our children or our grandchildren may be able to live several hundred years. Bio-enhancement probably will be a part of our future if we continue on our current paths. Some people will be more than eager to participate.

If you could plug a chip into the back of your head, and suddenly be able to fly a helicopter, or supersonic jet, why not? Vast numbers of people are already willing to commit to cosmetic surgery, do you think they will hold back when they can have other numerous enhancements made?

We are at the dawn of technological advancement. Only a little over a hundred years ago, we relied on fire for light at night and horses for transportation.
The future will be ugly and beautiful at the same time. It is going to get interesting.

To tie a few threads together, in another thread people are discussing how a child who was born selectively to lack a certain gene which causes breastcancer... and in that thread, I don't think many would argue that it is bad for children to be freed from the burden of genetic disease.

However, as Aubrey DeGrey often argues, there is a very large subset of society who have a Deathist belief that it is wrong to make a human being immortal, that Death is the natural way of life and that any technology contributing towards Immortality should be banned.

What they are really saying? They want you to die. They want me to die. They want everyone to die, but when they are facing their own death, they don't want to die.

It is irrational to expect science to not look at curing aging. Medicine since it's inception has been about defeating death, and now that we are within sight of the goal, people suddenly recoil in horror from life everlasting?

I want to see Colonies established in Alpha Centauri, I want to see a vibrant flourishing of mankind across the Cosmos. I want to see suffering, famine, war, pestilence and greed conquered and subdued.

I want to tread the stars until such a time as my capacity for wonder has all but burned into a lifeless husk!

What right do ANY of you have to deny me life? To tell me that I must die?

[edit on 11-1-2009 by TheColdDragon]