Transhumanism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhu...

I've always been curious what other people think on the issue, but I've never been able to put my ideas into words. In short, I'm all but a card-carrying member of the Transhumanist Society. (Though I think we'll have more luck with straight tech, as opposed to genetic modification.) I put this in P&C because... well, just look at the controversy surrounding it. (The article gives it in short-form).

Especially with the new pope declaring human modification (paraphrasing) a sin, and the general Davidian idea of humanity as sacred, I was wondering about the opinions of some of the more religious goojers here.

I'm also curious, if there was a neural interface that wasn't horribly glitchy, buggy, and infection prone (I've got a few ideas on the issue), would you get one? I would, in a heartbeat.

Considering the social aspects of it, I deeply believe it's something that needs to be covered under socialized medicine. It'd prevent the class-struggle in one fell swoop. (If nothing else, it needs to be covered under medicaid). I'm pretty sure it'd help us out, as people wouldn't have to retire for much longer, injuries would be less of a problem... I could go on and on. (I likely will in the thread.)

But, just thinking at it from here isn't a very good way to expand my views on the subject. And most of the people writing on it are set-in-stone opposed to it, which isn't a good basis for discussion.

Even if you think it's a horrible idea, I want to hear why. Just, don't be too offended if I try to take apart your argument point-by-point. I expect you to do the same.

With all the other weird stuff we already do to our bodies and to manipulate our health, I don't see how this is anything but the next step. I'm sure the first clearly "trans-human" "augmentations" will go down like any new and scary technology or social change. Early adopters will love it and call it a right, detractors will call it unnatural (and/or the mark of the beast, which everyone knows is an RFID chip!), it'll be legally limited for a generation, those limitations will eventually be struck down as unconstitutional, and in 50 years kids will wonder why people made such a big fuss over it at all.

I want to be a gd cyborg. Will this line of thinking accomplish my goals?

Seth wrote:

I want to be a gd cyborg. Will this line of thinking accomplish my goals?

Only if you're a billionaire. Even if we get this stuff working it's not like it'll be cheap.

I see nothing wrong with the idea, but I probably won't be getting upgrades for myself, especially since it won't be offered in my lifetime. Something doesn't seem right to me to purposely augment myself with synthetic parts ( in general, I can see some uses in some parts. Also, this is not about transplants/false limbs/etc ), but I don't have a problem if other people decide to do it.
EDIT: Also, I'm not one of the religious folk on here. You asked, so I thought I would tell.

Got to ask... why is this not about transplants and false limbs?

LobsterMobster wrote:

Got to ask... why is this not about transplants and false limbs?

The same reason the people against stem cell research never mention all the frozen zygotes from in vitro fertilizations that get destroyed. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Got to ask... why is this not about transplants and false limbs?

Let me explain what I meant when I mentioned false limbs and transplants/implants. I'm not going to go out and cut off my hand in order to get an 'enhanced' version of a hand. If I am already missing a hand, sure I'll go get a false limb. In my case, I'm not going to replace parts of my already functioning body for technically superior ones. Just doesn't sit well with myself. On that note, other people can do what they want, it is their body after all.

We'd have X-ray vision! And the strength of five gorillas!

OG_slinger wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

Got to ask... why is this not about transplants and false limbs?

The same reason the people against stem cell research never mention all the frozen zygotes from in vitro fertilizations that get destroyed. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Not sure that's fair, Slinger. I can definitely understand Datyedyeguy not wanting to mutilate himself for the sake of enhancement. After all, his mother gave that to him! As long as he's saying, "and you will feel that way too or I'll use the law to force you," it's all cool.

I don't get tattoos or piercings for much the same reason. Once you lop off that arm, you can't really get it back. And y'know, if there's a nuclear zombie apocalypse or global socio-economic collapse, my nice biological body doesn't require much maintenance outside of food, water, and the occasional bandaid. Can you say the same of a complicated high-tech prosthetic?

Not that it's particularly reasonable to base any major decision on how it will inconvenience you during the End Times...

Quintin_Stone wrote:

We'd have X-ray vision! And the strength of five gorillas!

But why so short?...

LobsterMobster wrote:

Not sure that's fair, Slinger. I can definitely understand Datyedyeguy not wanting to mutilate himself for the sake of enhancement. After all, his mother gave that to him! As long as he's saying, "and you will feel that way too or I'll use the law to force you," it's all cool.

My snark wasn't directed at Datyedyeguy. It was directed to the folks that gleefully take advantage of science and technology in some circumstances and cast it as the Devil incarnate in others. If you want sparks to fly, just wait for gene therapy and stem cell research to start paying dividends...

Didn't a double amputee sprinter get booted from the 'normal' Olympic team because his replacement limbs performed better than his natural limbs? Wait... Yup. Found it. It's already here, we just haven't figured out how to deal with it.

No worries, I didn't take it personally, especially since I didn't think it was directly targeted at me.

About that Olympic sprinter, that is a touchy subject. Personally, I'm not outraged that he was denied entry into the Olympics because of his prosthetic legs, as are detailed in their rules "any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels or any other element that provides the user with an advantage over another athlete not using such a device". Even if replaces his legs in normal life, you can't expect people with those legs and normal legs to compete at a separate level. Now, a league specifically for people with enhanced human parts/features/etc should be fun to watch, and could even be it's own sport, NASCAR sponsorships and all.

I'm going to have a hard time putting this into words but I'll try.
I wouldn't do it because I feel in some way that it's laziness or cheating. What I mean is as a society we already strive to find the easy way in our daily lives. In order to get smarter you should try and learn. To get faster or stronger you need to lift weights or excersise. The idea of a mechanical part being augmented to you for these reasons is a shortcut as far as I can see. I certainly don't disagree with it at all. I just view it as the same way with people who get liposucktion rather than a treadmill. I hope I don't offend anyone with this idea I just wanted to comment on the topic with my oppinion and poor spelling/gramer.

P.S.
I do want to add however that if it were pertaining to someone without a limb or poor eyesight that can't be overcome with sheer willpower and determination then I fully support the idea.

Yeah, got to agree on the Olympian. The Olympics are about reaching for the peak of human physical performance. You can say human achievement is overrated but that doesn't change the meaning of the Games. When it becomes less about the athlete and more about the machine, you lose that. NASCAR is a good analogy since that really is about the machines rather than the drivers.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Yeah, got to agree on the Olympian. The Olympics are about reaching for the peak of human physical performance. You can say human achievement is overrated but that doesn't change the meaning of the Games. When it becomes less about the athlete and more about the machine, you lose that. NASCAR is a good analogy since that really is about the machines rather than the drivers.

Hence the big debate about that new fancy swimsuit in the Olympics this year. Now imagine modifying your skin with that suit material. Banned from Olympics?

LobsterMobster wrote:

Yeah, got to agree on the Olympian. The Olympics are about reaching for the peak of human physical performance. You can say human achievement is overrated but that doesn't change the meaning of the Games. When it becomes less about the athlete and more about the machine, you lose that. NASCAR is a good analogy since that really is about the machines rather than the drivers.

But really what's the difference between an athete having specially-designed artifical limb and another one that dopes himself with extra red blood cells or growth hormones before an event?

But really what's the difference between an athete having specially-designed artifical limb and another one that dopes himself with extra red blood cells or growth hormones before an event?

They're not allowed to do that either?

JoeBedurndurn wrote:
But really what's the difference between an athete having specially-designed artifical limb and another one that dopes himself with extra red blood cells or growth hormones before an event?

They're not allowed to do that either?

Yeah, I'm not sure I see your point, Slinger.

They're not allowed to, but they still do it. I mean how many athletes got tossed from the Tour de France because of doping last year? Competitive people will always exploit loopholes to boost their performance, especially when the tests for catching them lag behind. Specially designed legs are just a much more visible enhancement.

From a religious standpoint I've got no problem with this sort of thing. As to whether or not the Buddha would've approved, heck if I know. It's not exactly spelled out. I have a feeling he wouldn't have been big on the idea personally as it could alter the human state in a fundamental way but I definitely don't think he would've begrudged others the choice.

On a social level I don't think this is any different than plastic surgery or any kind of high-priced product. If tech like this became mainstream then it would just serve to amplify the gulf between the rich and poor because now instead of having stories of multi-millionaire athletes coming up from the projects through hard work and natural ability you'd have stories of the children of billionaires becoming billionaire athletes because of their cutting edge tech. At least that's my guess. Heck, maybe you'd be able to up military enlistment just because people wanted to sign up for a set period in order to get their government provided enhancements.

I read The Singularity is Near by Ray Kurzweil and I liked the ideas he expressed. I think transhumanism is a good thing. We will probably experience some of the biggest changes that humankind has ever seen and transplants are only a small part of it.

Ultimately, we might be able to give up our mortal bodies and then we will truly transcend humanity (you could say we're turning into Nietzsche's Übermensch). At least I hope so.

OG_slinger wrote:

They're not allowed to, but they still do it. I mean how many athletes got tossed from the Tour de France because of doping last year? Competitive people will always exploit loopholes to boost their performance, especially when the tests for catching them lag behind. Specially designed legs are just a much more visible enhancement.

What are you talking about? It's not like they're ALLOWED to do it. If doping is detected the athlete's out on their ass. Are you suggesting prosthetic enhancement should be allowed because it's not fair for an athlete to get caught just because his or her cheat is more visible?

That's like saying it should be illegal for cops to respond to reports of gunshots because knives are quieter.

Andy wrote:

I read The Singularity is Near by Ray Kurzweil and I liked the ideas he expressed. I think transhumanism is a good thing. We will probably experience some of the biggest changes that humankind has ever seen and transplants are only a small part of it.

Ultimately, we might be able to give up our mortal bodies and then we will truly transcend humanity (you could say we're turning into Nietzsche's Übermensch). At least I hope so.

I hope not. That idea right there frightens me. The fact that we could have the possibility to live 'forever' changes who we are as people, but then again that might be what you mean by 'transcend humanity'. I like being a fleshy, thank you very much.

OG_slinger wrote:

They're not allowed to, but they still do it. I mean how many athletes got tossed from the Tour de France because of doping last year? Competitive people will always exploit loopholes to boost their performance, especially when the tests for catching them lag behind. Specially designed legs are just a much more visible enhancement.

Just because they do it doesn't mean that it's right. People do get caught, and that's a good thing. Just because some people get away with it for a limited period of time doesn't mean we should allow such enhancements, in my opinion. Whatever the Olympian board says on this though is what will happen.

I'm pretty sure Jesus wants me to get a laser guided missile system imbedded in my forearm.

The Blue Brain project has successfully modeled a complete rat neocortical column. This is an actual biological model of the neurons. The computer simulation provides a better model than actual biological samples (the computer models are consistent, while the variation in biological samples requires a large sample size for accuracy). The next step is modeling an entire mammalian neocortex, and extending the simulation down to the molecular level. For some perspective, a rat cortical column is about 10,000 neurons. A human's is 60,000, and the brain has about 1,000,000 of these columns. Once you can simulate a mammalian brain, the next step is copying a mammalian brain. My goal is to live long enough to download my brain into a computer. Then I've got all the time in the world for them to perfect biological sciences and grow me a new body. Unless the power goes out.

This sh*t starts all cool and usefull, it ends with the god damn apocalypse and me rummaging through a burnt out DC for a iguanakabob while some asshole with radar embedded in his eyes hunts me for sport.

A few things I'd like to see (and if they were available, I'd go for it).

Live HUD display. You could do so incredibly much with this, it's not even funny. And there's a huge variety of ways to do it. The most immediately practical is wireless glasses. Ordinarily clear, but with the ability of projecting stuff so you could see it at that close range. (Which would take some optical trickery). Eventually, hard-wired contacts, retinal implants, or direct stimulation of the visual cortex. (Or if you replaced the eyeballs entirely....)

What got projected could depend a lot on what you're doing. Live directions, a map display, silent visual notification of an email or message, Reminders to take medicine, a patient's chart, view from an IR camera (you could do a soft-color heat overlay, even). With the idea below, the ideas grow exponentially. I can see this being the first thing we do.

Some form of neural control mechanism. To be honest, I've got absolutely no ideas.

There are three things it'd need to do.

A: Be able to translate "internal monologue" style thoughts to text. Likely the most insanely difficult. But the rewards would be tremendous. Especially with personal networking. Send a text message through your phone (connected by bluetooth or something.) with your BRAIN! Or email, or just a close-range bluetooth text message.

B: Some form of equivalent to a mouse cursor. There's bound to be a way to do it. Dunno what it'd be, but there's bound to be a way. The way I see it, you could easily have it be acceleration controlled (like a mouse), or think-it-into-place style controls with the same system.

C: voluntary muscle emulation/simulation. For example, you could link an arm into the system for an amputee. You could also just have a completely neurally controlled machine. (Pipe the audio/video into the eye ware and hearing (next), and use normal voluntary muscle controls for moving machinery. Hell, I bet it wouldn't take too long to train someone to be able to do do that and still be able to move their actual arms.

For extra win, you could figure out a system that taps directly into the visual/audio/language parts of your brain, and you could make a phone call to someone without anything being audible. Or wire replacement eyes to the visual cortex. Or directly feed the HUD to there. Vital system monitoring (heart rate, respiration, blood oxygen, core temp...) would be awesome as well.

Realistically, there's multiple (surmountable) problems. First is figuring out the brain's "language". Once you do that, the rest is cake. Figure out how the brain internally represents internal monologue, figure out how to control a cursor with your brain (Some work is being done on a smaller scale.), basically figure out how to turn some overall switches, and you're golden. Silicone backing and hair-fine wires, and you're golden. Figure out where to put them, and it's a viable system. (For example, tell the system to listen for your internal monologue, tell it when you're done, so on.)

Second is output. Ideally, this would be one of two systems requiring surgery. If I'm remembering correctly, you could theoretically use a transdermal laser to transmit information through the skin. No recurrent infection or injuries. Use 2-3, and you'd have substantial bandwidth, as well.

Third is power. The circutry and laser-output wouldn't require tremendous amounts of power, but they would need power. Ideally, you'd be able to power the internal stuff, well, internally. I dunno how, but there's bound to be a way.

You'd want something for networking. Bluetooth would work quite well. Good range for what we would want, not too much power. Plus, it'd integrate with cell phones, all that fun stuff.

As far as expanding our intelligence goes, I don't really see much in the way of mechanical alterations we could make. By and large, I can think of two things that would help, but they're far more in the realm of what we have in computer science. Namely: Offloading, and offsite storage.

First, offloading. Think of it this way: How much faster could you get through a complex problem, if you didn't have to stop and crunch numbers frequently. What if you had the capability to offload math quickly and efficiently (Faster than a calculator, in other words). It'd go a lot faster, I bet.

Second: Offsite storage. I'm thinking primarily of having a quickly searchable database of information stored in a SD card or something. We've got 16gb of microSD now. Imagine how much we'll have when we have the rest of the capability. And how much time do you waste just trying to recall something. Eventually it'll be just like pulling up something from your memory. Just much faster.

The idea is to essentially leave your brain for RAM and main processing. As well as important life memories.

Some unorganized thoughts. I didn't know that there's actually a term for transhumanism. When I had the chance to think about the conflict between what humans strive to be and what we really are, I often get confused by the irony that in order to achieve the intellectual and moral ideal which we set for ourselves, we need to become something that is something other than us. Or maybe this is just semantics. Maybe humans are beings that are bound to change, made to change as changes come along.

Transhumanism shouldn't just be a minor technological modification to our body that is simply in some way cool or fun or fresh. Transhumanism implies a fundamental change that affects the core of our way of life. I thought about a universal consciousness, which allows absolute communication and cooperation between humans. In that scenerio we become a single immortal being, free of the inefficiency created by internal conflicts and free from all moral difficulties, supremely powerful and intelligent, some will say god-like, at the cost of individual privacy and identity. I thought about individual immortality and loss of atrophy, which can provide chance for higher levels of understanding, but may come with unanticipated side-effect. In either cases, all of our life's priorities will be changed.

It reminds me of 2001: A Space Odyssey, which suggests that our current form is only one intermediary step to an eventual goal. Given that the process of evolution is nearly canceled out by our life-preserving technology, the next step of evolution will have to be artificial - genetic, biotic, what have you. Kannon's post is all about details of a similar creation, something that can put thoughts into words. Language is just a tool that allows us to communicate when there is no other way. The device, I imagine, is going to allow us to communicate not with words, but with figures, concepts, sensory memories, and emotions. The consummate ideas formed from these components will be in such complexity that makes language seem inconvenient, even obsolete. Left and Right hemispheres don't communicate with words, why should we?

And what if the change does come. The prospect of becoming something else is thoroughly terrifying, but if the change comes, it will come with our full agreement. Like Lobster said, it is a gradual, generational change. Several generations down, our children may not be so skeptical of the idea of a universal consciousness.

Kannon wrote:

C: voluntary muscle emulation/simulation. For example, you could link an arm into the system for an amputee. You could also just have a completely neurally controlled machine. (Pipe the audio/video into the eye ware and hearing (next), and use normal voluntary muscle controls for moving machinery. Hell, I bet it wouldn't take too long to train someone to be able to do do that and still be able to move their actual arms.

Like this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/n...

I also think scientist are making significant progress on the mental cursor angle as well.

Thirteenth wrote:

Stuff.

That's the idea. Me being the practical person that I am, I look for short-ranged incremental steps we can take to get from human -> h+ -> whatever's next (posthuman, for simplicities sake). Now, whatever posthuman is, I'm pretty sure we can't get there from here directly. However, I'm not entirely sure we'll stick around transhuman too long. It's the singularity concept. Computers changed our lives so fundamentally, in such a short timeframe, I can't help but think neural interfacing will do the same thing.

Once you have the basics down, it'd be trivial to rig a system that if you had a heart attack, it'd give you a dose of nitro. No opening a container, and taking a tiny pill necessary. Same thing with asthma attacks. The idea is get it stopgapped until we can remove the problem. Eventually, through genetic modification, or technological fixing, neither will be a problem.(I.E, we could eventually rig and tune the electrical impulses to the heart to the specific heart. Or look at the genetics for people that have really strong hearts, and make appropriate modifications. You could do the same with people that have really dense bones, or really good eyesight...)

There are two world-changing technologies on the edge of discovery right now. Nanotechnology, and the neural interface. (Fusion power, as well.) Once we get those sorted, we can look at what's next.

The only problem I see, and something we'll need to be very careful of, is the wealth divide. It's one of the reasons I support truly socialized healthcare. (Don't want to derail, but it needed to be said.) If we get it right, we could have a pretty flawless transition. If we don't it could end up... badly. It _needs_ to be available to everyone to work. Considering, it needs to be open as well. It's, I think the one thing I'd support rigorous standardizing of. (For example, a x binary processor, (AMD/Intel compatable, say.), with x networking support. (Ideally, Bluetooth and WiFi or similar, with the ability to use cell phones as extra devices.).

That way, it'd support consumer freedom. (You could run whatever OS you wanted, no lock-in), and still support consumer inter-connectedness. It's a lot like the internet. Useful at first, but quickly grows to world-changing critical mass.

I am not opposed to the idea of human self-improvement, but there are aspects of implementation that are very worrying. Kannon mentioned this, but no one else has touched it... who would benefit?

I think LobsterMobster is right - larger social acceptance will begin with RFID chips. They will not be introduced in some mandatory sweep, there will be a parallel system introduced that has less cost, less hassle for the individual if they have an RFID chip. Easy examples are near walk-through security in an airport, just scanning your chipped hand (or whatever) to pay for anything, no need to carry incresingly suggested voter ID. Eventually they will become required, not by law but by practicality.

Parallel but far more important will be more sophisticated replacement parts for injured persons. This has, and will, face almost no opposition outside of the absolute hard-core religionists. Constant improvement in robotic parts that interface with the human nervous system are important, but I do not doubt we will see the introduction of engineered microbes. It is easy to imagine microbes who will perform some basic function like breaking down chloresterol deposits on blood vessel walls. Right now my father is very successfully being treated with lab-grown monoclonal anti-bodies to treat lymphoma.

Some time will come when the question is not convenience, basic replacement or even maintenance but improvement. Perhaps the turning point will come when the Michael Jordon of the day plays with a robotic foot or hand. At some point it will come and then the question will be asked... who benefits?

There seems to be a popular notion that the eugenics movement died in the ashes of the Holocaust. I do not think this is true, and transhumanism will be its new face unless major steps are taken to socialise cost and benefit from the very moment the first person asks to 'improve' themselves.

For a long time I have been repulsed by the idea of a private health system, for it immediately accepts the principal that people should recieve medical assistance for reasons other than they are in need. If transhumanism is pioneered in the US, and I think it will, and the current system and ideology is not changed this will lead to a whole new level of stratification hitherto unimagined.