To be more than human is to be human

[ItalianStereotype]

So are there any transhumanists in the ranks? Not sure what a transhumanist is? EDUCATE YOURSELF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism)

In order to be a transhumanist, one must accept the idea of the technological singularity. Basically, the singularity represents the point in technological advancement where there is nothing that humanity can do that AI cannot do for itself, including self-improvement. It's almost like Skynet. Acheiving this is an important evolutionary step for humanity, though it may seem difficult to understand why. Ultimately, this will change the course, but not the direction, of evolution.

A transhumanist desires above all else to be more than human. Only once we've reached the singularity will we really understand how to pursue this end. We've already begun dabbling in at our relatively primitive stage of advancement, but most of us don't realize it. Artificial organs, retinal implants, our constant connection to AI in one form or another, all of these and more represent a massive paradigm shift towards a posthuman culture. Eventually, we will be able to able to integrate technology and biology to the point where we can transcend the human condition and quite possibly overcome even involuntary death.

Sooooo, what's up, guys? How is your day going?

[pac-man]

Fine and yours?

[ItalianStereotype]

Oh, you know

[pac-man]

So do you think Deckard was a replicant?

[ItalianStereotype]

who D:

[pac-man]

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MG/188768%7EBlade-Runner-Posters.jpg

Deckard is Harrison Ford's character from Blade Runner. You gotta see it. I don't know jack about transhumanism, but there's an old guy who makes robots in the movie who says that his replicants are "more human than human."

[pac-man]

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MG/188768%7EBlade-Runner-Posters.jpg

Deckard is Harrison Ford's character from Blade Runner. You gotta see it. I don't know jack about transhumanism, but there's an old guy who makes robots in the movie who says that his replicants are "more human than human." Anyway, there's a decades old debate on whether or not Deckard was a person or a replicant.

[pac-man]

Yeeesh.... sorry for the double post. I don't even know how the first one went through.

[ItalianStereotype]

I never got around to seeing blade runner. MAN, what a douche D:

[Dimnos]

Deckard was not a replicant just like Han solo shot first

[Tadao]

It's too late to watch Blade Runner for the first time. You'll fall asleep in 15 minutes. You all have ADD by now.

[pac-man]

That's not true.... some of us have ADHD!

[ItalianStereotype]

transhumanism can fix that, you know

[Grislygus]

Can it fix your unwillingness to watching Blade Runner >:

[Grislygus]

And can it fix my apparently deplorable grammar

[wobzire]

Wow! I am a transhumanist and I didn't even know it!

[Guitar Woman]

What's with the Blade Runner references? This smacks of Ghost in the Shell more than anything.

[VaporTrailx1]

Just a personal rant...

Eliminate Suburbia.

No more damn suburbs! Suburbs are bullshit and wastes of space. Suburbs must either be annexed by their parent city and be planned in a compact urbanized block style or be bulldozed. Did you ever see how much space suburbs waste? Cities may pollute more, but at least the buildings are built right next to each other in orderly fashions.

[Guitar Woman]

Portland is building all these self sufficient living complexes, now, with like, grocery stores, restaurants, convenience stores, office space, and apartments, all in the same building. The people living inside will, theoretically, all work there, buy groceries and other necessities from the stores there, and live in the apartments there.

It's cool sounding at first, but when I gave serious thought to this it's really unsettling. I'd rather have suburbs than another step towards dystopia.

[pac-man]

One man's dystopia is another man's utopia.

[Tadao]

Portland is building all these self sufficient living complexes, now, with like, grocery stores, restaurants, convenience stores, office space, and apartments, all in the same building. The people living inside will, theoretically, all work there, buy groceries and other necessities from the stores there, and live in the apartments there.

It's cool sounding at first, but when I gave serious thought to this it's really unsettling. I'd rather have suburbs than another step towards dystopia.

People would have to send their children to another complex to stop inbreeding.

[Guitar Woman]

If transhumanization is achieved we wouldn't be able to reproduce, seeing as a race of immortals shitting out kids all the time would cause a really annoying population problem.

So, we live forever, but don't make new ones. Hope nobody was planning on being reincarnated any time soon.

[ItalianStereotype]

Vapor, I think this is a fascinating conversation and I'm glad you brought this up. Residential zoning is probably one of the best topics of conversation that we've ever had on this board and I'm HONORED that you decided to bring it to my thread. We should go to the Hadron Collider thread and talk about Santa Claus.

[pac-man]

What's with the Blade Runner references? This smacks of Ghost in the Shell more than anything.

Yeah, but Blade Runner is better than Ghost in the Shell.

[wobzire]

Don't tempt him.

[Guitar Woman]

Ok, but Ghost in the Shell is at least about the integration of technology and the human race, as well as the problems arising from such, which relates to this thread probably slightly more than Han Solo fighting renegade robots.

For clarity's sake I'm not talking about the TV series, which is only slightly worse than watching an abortion being performed.

[Tadao]

http://www.crichton-official.com/images/big-terminalman.jpg

[kahljorn]

so has anybody brought up the sirens of titan yet the robots in that are totally transhumaned!

[pac-man]

Never read it but it's on my list.

[kahljorn]

it's an alright book but i thought that part about the robot was awesome ;9

[executioneer]

http://www.pcguru.hu/pcguru/img/szemelyes/66197.jpg Tirelessly, I will work to strip away the barriers that keep living beings from realizing their full potential.

[Jeanette X]

So are there any transhumanists in the ranks? Not sure what a transhumanist is? EDUCATE YOURSELF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism)

In order to be a transhumanist, one must accept the idea of the technological singularity. Basically, the singularity represents the point in technological advancement where there is nothing that humanity can do that AI cannot do for itself, including self-improvement. It's almost like Skynet. Acheiving this is an important evolutionary step for humanity, though it may seem difficult to understand why. Ultimately, this will change the course, but not the direction, of evolution.

A transhumanist desires above all else to be more than human. Only once we've reached the singularity will we really understand how to pursue this end. We've already begun dabbling in at our relatively primitive stage of advancement, but most of us don't realize it. Artificial organs, retinal implants, our constant connection to AI in one form or another, all of these and more represent a massive paradigm shift towards a posthuman culture. Eventually, we will be able to able to integrate technology and biology to the point where we can transcend the human condition and quite possibly overcome even involuntary death.

Sooooo, what's up, guys? How is your day going?

Transhumanism all sounds rather masturbatory to me, frankly. Besides, evolutionary success is not measured by the complexity of the organism, it is measured by the ability of the organism to surivive and reproduce, or at least that was my understanding of it. Furthermore, what are the parameters that define "human" in the first place that must be overcome?

[kahljorn]

jeanette x i think the point of this thread is that science fiction and technologu and nanotechnologu and also quantum mechanics.

the internet

that's the point ok

[pac-man]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXpbrGBIGxw

Now that's transhumanism! :rock

[Pub Lover]

I've had that song in my head all day because of this thread.


:(

[Jeanette X]

Aww. I seriously wanted to debate transhumanism. Dammit. :\

[Pub Lover]

Then your first statement that it was just wanking was a pretty stupid move.

Even if you do hold jacking off in high esteem.

[Jeanette X]

Then your first statement that it was just wanking was a pretty stupid move.


Well why doesn't anyone come charging in to prove my deliberately outrageous statement wrong?! >:

[kahljorn]

ok here's an example for example did evolution for example plan to create human beings who build buildings and have complex social situations and internet message boards?

if so, isn't it also possible it also had in mind lol us becoming some kind of ROBOT SUPERMEN?

[Jeanette X]

ok here's an example for example did evolution for example plan to create human beings who build buildings and have complex social situations and internet message boards?

if so, isn't it also possible it also had in mind lol us becoming some kind of ROBOT SUPERMEN?

Your question operates on the presupposition that evolution is "planning" something, like a conscious entity, which it does not. Evolution is shaped by outside environmental forces, which are rather unpredictable.

[Sethomas]

evolutionary success is not measured by the complexity of the organism, it is measured by the ability of the organism to surivive and reproduce, or at least that was my understanding of it.

The problem with this statement, while 100% correct in certain vantages, is that it seems to set a universal standard of "evolutionary success" that is incoherent with the idea of passing such a judgment that evolution "succeeds". That is, evolution itself has no reason to CARE whether or not it is successful because as a mere statistical model that describes the process of speciation it really doesn't bear any emotional or rational judgment. If evolution guides a species one direction to benefit a generation, only humans would say "evolution has succeeded." Likewise, when the same adaptation encounters an evolutionary bottleneck where it actually sees to the demise of all those who have it, evolution doesn't have a voice to say, "oh shit, I failed".

Hence, in this context "evolutionary success" a purely anthropocentric judgment as it ever shall be, but in relation to an anthropentric motion then axiomatically it reduces to "whatever we think is a good thing".

Thus, your question of what it is about being human (as we now know it) that sucks so fantastically becomes more relevant than the goal of excluding ourselves from a definition that would recognize it.

[Jeanette X]

The problem with this statement, while 100% correct in certain vantages, is that it seems to set a universal standard of "evolutionary success" that is incoherent with the idea of passing such a judgment that evolution "succeeds". That is, evolution itself has no reason to CARE whether or not it is successful because as a mere statistical model that describes the process of speciation it really doesn't bear any emotional or rational judgment. If evolution guides a species one direction to benefit a generation, only humans would say "evolution has succeeded." Likewise, when the same adaptation encounters an evolutionary bottleneck where it actually sees to the demise of all those who have it, evolution doesn't have a voice to say, "oh shit, I failed".

Hence, in this context "evolutionary success" a purely anthropocentric judgment as it ever shall be, but in relation to an anthropentric motion then axiomatically it reduces to "whatever we think is a good thing".

So? Transhumanism is anthropocentric, why should it matter if "evolutionary success" is an anthropoocentric judgement? This just seems like a needless disgression.


Thus, your question of what it is about being human (as we now know it) that sucks so fantastically becomes more relevant than the goal of excluding ourselves from a definition that would recognize it.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you agreeing with me that the definition of what is human to begin must be established before transhumanism can be strived for? I'm so fucking tired right now I can barely think, this had better make more sense tommorow morning.

[kahljorn]

yea, that was kind of the response i was expecting you to have and my response is that you then assume evolution is the all encompassing factor in life -- and evolution as is understood by only some people.

and furthermore, disregarding the idea of "planning," there's always the idea of not planning and it just happening ; did evolution really ever plan anything? no but it happened :( obviously they can exist along side each other, assuming we transhumaned... Also, the change from biological to mechanical or some mixture would certainly mark some CHANGE which, from further scientists minds living in the wake of such events, if evolution were still believed in, would have to mark some evolutionary event and certainly an evolutionary POSSIBILITY.

finally, the idea of evolution being influenced by "outside forces" encompasses this since technology is kinda outside us but can be placed inside us! whether "planned" or merely demanded by the possibilities of the world or whatever...

my example still stands you just attacked my word usage.

Besides, evolutionary success is not measured by the complexity of the organism, it is measured by the ability of the organism to surivive and reproduce, or at least that was my understanding of it. Furthermore, what are the parameters that define "human" in the first place that must be overcome?How can you measure things like successes if there's no plan to be sucessful based on? iin this case, survival would be increased manifoldly, more than likely, by the switch to mechanical life. indeed, life could perhaps be extended indefinitley!

The parameters in this case would obviously be mostly biological, and over-coming biological limitations -- through technologu.

[Jeanette X]

How can you measure things like successes if there's no plan to be sucessful based on? iin this case, survival would be increased manifoldly, more than likely, by the switch to mechanical life. indeed, life could perhaps be extended indefinitley!

The parameters in this case would obviously be mostly biological, and over-coming biological limitations -- through technologu.

Yeah, but are we really psychologically equipped to live forever?

[kahljorn]

I don't know but couldn't technology potentially equip us with something like that? Also immortality isn't really central to anything I'm saying and I don't appreciate you coping out! the point is that technology could certainly allow us to "survive" better, thus fitting into whatever evolutionary perspective you have.

People could still choose to end their lives rationally, if immortality became such a hell.

[Jeanette X]

Also immortality isn't really central to anything I'm saying and I don't appreciate you coping out!.
I wasn't copping out, you're the one who brought it up. >: Besides, clinical immortality seems like it would cause society to stagnate. If there are immortals, then there are by neccessity fewer children because of the resources they take up, and therefore very few new modes of thinking.


the point is that technology could certainly allow us to "survive" better, thus fitting into whatever evolutionary perspective you have.


It already does that. What difference does it make if it is incorperated into the body or not? Why does having it in your body somehow cause you to transcend your own humanity?

[Pub Lover]

Have you started to seriously debate like you said you wanted, or are you still making deliberately outrageous stupid statements?

Because I can't tell.

[Jeanette X]

Have you started to seriously debate like you said you wanted, or are you still making deliberately outrageous stupid statements?

Because I can't tell.
:blah

[kahljorn]

possibly, but like I said, people can still choose to die rationally, and it's possible that technologu could eradicate the resources problem. Wouldn't part of the point of replacing many organs and becoming near immortal or whatever (which I only used as an example to over-coming a limitation generally thought of as human) be that it takes less resources?

or like rebirth or something i dunno there's ideas! (which is i take it the point of ghost in the shell)

What difference does it make if it is incorperated into the body or not? Why does having it in your body somehow cause you to transcend your own humanity?cause human beings are biological and have brains. converting to mechanical is obviously way different than normal human beings.

i get what you're getting at with the whole WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO B E HUMAN thing but i think there's already set perimeters so ;o

[Dixie]

The atom germ wars gone precipitate genetic mutation
social degeneration
creatures born of malignant science
the children of technology
plutonium anthropology
who will cleanse the mess left by the past
who will expurgate the scared cytoplasm
to rid the earth of abomination I proclaim my nomination
as the thermonuclear warrior
Strands of malformed DNA strangulate our future
chromosomal executioners

I seek the dying, sick and deformed
all who would taint the species
stabbing and choking and burning
and drowning exterminate subhuman feces
to every problem an answer must lie
to this I have a solution

Crush kill destroy
I will smash any resistance
crush kill destroy
the reason for my divine existence

You may ask what's right have I
to take human life this way
well I'm in control I make the rules
and I don't need your o.k.
genocide is my way of life
it's a fact I will not hide
the millions I've killed to sterilize
euthanasia's not homicide

Crush kill destroy
I will not tolerate imperfection
crush kill destroy
I will impede the spread of infection
I was born my own master
-Carnivore

[Jeanette X]

cause human beings are biological and have brains. converting to mechanical is obviously way different than normal human beings.


We'll still be biological and have brains with cybernetics. I really don't understand why it totally changes the human condition to have a machine inside your body rather than outside it.

[kahljorn]

Okay well what if everything that was biological were replaced and there was nothing left of our biological humanity?

A few more things:

I think what you're saying about being tortured by immortality is more a problem of either consciousness in general (which makes it irrelevant in some ways) or just the general psychology of people -- which can probably be influenced by having computers for brains.

Well i dont really see the difference if we were human on the outside but elephant on the inside.

furthermore you've said things like, if we were immortal, then society would stagnate and there would be no reproduction; isn't that something non-human? Reproduction is really just a vehicle for survival, immortality renders it useless ;o change/reproduction could occur in other forms by advancements in technology etc. It could get to the point where people are just robots and build other robots or do other things to other robots whatever robots wanna do.

did anybody notice that i used vonneguht as my argument?

[Jeanette X]

I think what you're saying about being tortured by immortality is more a problem of either consciousness in general (which makes it irrelevant in some ways) or just the general psychology of people -- which can probably be influenced by having computers for brains.
Having computers for brains, in my opinion, transcends the definition of human, as the brain is the seat of conciousness. But that's simply my opinion, I'm sure many people would argue that you remain human.

Well i dont really see the difference if we were human on the outside but elephant on the inside.
If you had an elephant brain in a human body, that would be one thing, but a human brain in a mechanical/cybernetic body is still, in my opinion, human.

furthermore you've said things like, if we were immortal, then society would stagnate and there would be no reproduction; isn't that something non-human?
I suppose it could be. But is that neccessarily something good?

Reproduction is really just a vehicle for survival, immortality renders it useless ;o change/reproduction could occur in other forms by advancements in technology etc. It could get to the point where people are just robots and build other robots or do other things to other robots whatever robots wanna do.
By robots, you mean artifical lifeforms that evolve instead of us?

[kahljorn]

Having computers for brains, in my opinion, transcends the definition of human, as the brain is the seat of conciousness.yea, I would tend to think so as well.. What about replacing the nervous system or various other organs? Stomach/intestines? NO MORE POOP?

also i dunno if the brain is the seat of consciousness and i don't see over-coming consciousness to be the same thing as over-coming humanity.
If you had an elephant brain in a human body, that would be one thing, but a human brain in a mechanical/cybernetic body is still, in my opinion, human.Even if it's a highly modified human brain in a highly modified body, huh? Why draw a line of distinction at all between our primate ancestors and ourselves?

And are you saying it is impossible to over-come our humanity as long as we have a brain/other biological organs?

I suppose it could be. But is that neccessarily something good? Maybe. Is it necessarily something bad? What does goodness have to do with it...

By robots, you mean artifical lifeforms that evolve instead of us? By robots I mean US if we replaced every organ (or really most of them) in the body including the brain so that we were mostly/entirely mechanical. Like the robots in sirens of titan!

Imagine a society that has been around for trillions of years and over the years of technological development slowly replaced all of it's body parts in order to become immune to diseases and be able to travel in space and gain robot abilities!. This society no longer ever remembers what they looked like as biological life-forms before they started converting to mechanical :O

[Jeanette X]

yea, I would tend to think so as well.. What about replacing the nervous system or various other organs? Stomach/intestines? NO MORE POOP?
I can live with that.

also i dunno if the brain is the seat of consciousness
Then what is? Your ass?!

and i don't see over-coming consciousness to be the same thing as over-coming humanity.
Then what do you see as overcoming humanity?


And are you saying it is impossible to over-come our humanity as long as we have a brain/other biological organs?

No, I'm saying that it is impossible as long as our conciousness remains ultimately human.

Imagine a society that has been around for trillions of years and over the years of technological development slowly replaced all of it's body parts in order to become immune to diseases and be able to travel in space and gain robot abilities!. This society no longer ever remembers what they looked like as biological life-forms before they started converting to mechanical :O

Why would totally abandoning our biological bodies be so great? I wouldn't mind travelling in space and such, but what's wrong with keeping your flesh and blood?

[kahljorn]

Uh the subject is transhumanism don't ask me these questions about WHATS SO BAD ABOUT DECAYING FLESH AND BLOOD AND DYING EARLY.

What makes you think space travel and flesh and blood are compatible..?

No, I'm saying that it is impossible as long as our conciousness remains ultimately humanOkay... so then we could pose your own question to you; what is human, and what is consciousness exactly? And why is it impossible for our consciousness to change from human to something different?

I think when you say, "Ultimately human" you're really saying similar in the way that we are now with similar qualities and things like consciousness and a social structure and stuff but just because THOSE THINGSG are similar doesn't mean that we haven't departed from i dunno ignorance and evil and social injustice or somethin\g whatever and aprt of this thred is that to be more than human is to be human but i think thats the piece of the puzzle you're missing.

Then what do you see as overcoming humanity?didn't we already discuss that the parameters were biological?

Then what is? Your ass?!My ass is the seat of your consciousness.

[McClain]

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MG/188768~Blade-Runner-Posters.jpg
Deckard is Harrison Ford's character from Blade Runner. You gotta see it. I don't know jack about transhumanism, but there's an old guy who makes robots in the movie who says that his replicants are "more human than human." Anyway, there's a decades old debate on whether or not Deckard was a person or a replicant.

[pac-man]

I call plagiarism, McClain.

[Jeanette X]

What makes you think space travel and flesh and blood are compatible..?

Spaceships, you twatwaffle.


Okay... so then we could pose your own question to you; what is human, and what is consciousness exactly? And why is it impossible for our consciousness to change from human to something different?

I'm not sure. I'll have to chew that one over for a while, actually.

I think when you say, "Ultimately human" you're really saying similar in the way that we are now with similar qualities and things like consciousness and a social structure and stuff but just because THOSE THINGSG are similar doesn't mean that we haven't departed from i dunno ignorance and evil and social injustice or somethin\g whatever and aprt of this thred is that to be more than human is to be human but i think thats the piece of the puzzle you're missing.
If I am making sense of this gobbeldeygook that you call a paragraph, you are telling me that transhumanism will overcome ignorance, evil, and social injustice. My question is, why would it do that? The thinkers of the Enlightenment insisted that they could do that, the proponents of the industrial revolution insisted they could do that, and the 19th century colonialists insisted they could do that in Africa, South America, and Asia. Look how that turned out. Why the hell should transhumanism end any differently?

[kahljorn]

Spaceships, you twatwaffle.Ya and the furthest we have gone is the moon which took forever. Imagine trying to fly to another solar system or galaxy...

If I am making sense of this gobbeldeygook that you call a paragraph, you are telling me that transhumanism will overcome ignorance, evil, and social injustice. My question is, why would it do that?because of technologu and nanotechnologu. we can replace our brains and become more smarter, obviously. Plus the world around us will be vastly different with all the technology we have the access to resources and many of the normal drives and desires of human beings could even be eradicated. And those were just examples. Poverty and starvation could maybe b ehandled by things that make us not get hungry anymore and inequalities like physical strength and intelligence could be easily diminished...

The thinkers of the Enlightenment insisted that they could do that, the proponents of the industrial revolution insisted they could do that, and the 19th century colonialists insisted they could do that in Africa, South America, and Asia. Look how that turned out.So what? Were they replacing their bodies entirely with robots and living thousands of years in the future from now?

and anyway it's not as if the enlightenment and the industrial revolution didn't have a huge affect on our society; even if it didn't solve our problems completely.

I'm not sure. I'll have to chew that one over for a while, actually.You're a real deep thinker.

Be careful because you risk either making it so nobody is human or so that chimps are human :O

and also what distinguishes humans from equally/more intelligent/developed/emotionally-sensitive extra-terrestrials?

you know transhumanism does seem pretty optimistic though!

[Dimnos]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/97/Cyberman.jpg/200px-Cyberman.jpg

Upgrades for all!

[pac-man]

http://www.tubearoo.com/m2/89034/117490_the_simpsons_citizen_kang_1.jpg

Upgrades for some; miniature American flags for others!

[wobzire]

Both are excellent choices.

[Jeanette X]

Ya and the furthest we have gone is the moon which took forever. Imagine trying to fly to another solar system or galaxy...
What makes you think that robo-bodies would be easier to create than spaceships?

because of technologu and nanotechnologu. we can replace our brains and become more smarter, obviously. Plus the world around us will be vastly different with all the technology we have the access to resources and many of the normal drives and desires of human beings could even be eradicated.
And who would be the one to decide what drives and desires should be eradicated in the first place? Who is going to put force their view of morality upon the masses by tinkering with their brains?

Good Lord. Even Kulturekampf could write more intelligently.

[kahljorn]

What makes you think that robo-bodies would be easier to create than spaceships?All your arguments are picking on stupid details ;/ The nearest star is like 5 light years away which would take like 30 years or something i don't know the calculation but it would be a very long time. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK HUMANS CAN DEAL WITH THIS PSYCHOLOGICALLY OR BIOLOGICALLY? Some people theorize some type of hibernation to over-come this, but what type of life is that, and how healthy physically and psychologically.

I don't know personally I think space travel is ABSOLUTELY HORRIFYING.

And it doesn't have to be completely robotic, I only brought up the completely robotic thing to show you how far it could go, potentially, since all your arguments were like HAY THARS STILL LIKE 2 BIOLOGICAL CELLS IN THER THATS HUMAN.

It's not like transhumanism is going to drastically depart from the details of being human, just like, if a new evolution occured which "advanced the species," in a purely biological way it could POSSIBLY (LOOK AT THE WORD POSSIBLY) be considered transhuman; but regardless, it is a different species yet it will still share many qualities with humans, just like chimps do.

And who would be the one to decide what drives and desires should be eradicated in the first place? Who is going to put force their view of morality upon the masses by tinkering with their brains?How is this even remotely relevant to the fact that it could happen and according to most of the standards you set and the standard i set and you refused to agree or disagree with it's done shut up don't insult my intelligence when you're not even arguing ;/

I like how you go from me talking about poverty and starvation to CONTROLING THE MASSES MINDS WITH BRAIN CONTROL VIA ROBOTIFICATION. It's possible people could CHOOSE to become robotic or some kind of mixture of the two, for benefits for themselves and family. In fact, in modern times, haven't people installed chips or something in their child's brain which is supposed to make them smarter?

Furthermore, I like how you ignore good parts of an argument such as the fact that it could help to equalize intelligence and physical abilities, and your only point in return is that WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO CONTROL PEOPLES MINDS LIKE THAT? then declare me stupid. Sounds like a strawman.

I'm only doing you a favor by arguing with you so dont be a fallacious jerk

[Jeanette X]

All your arguments are picking on stupid details ;/ The nearest star is like 5 light years away which would take like 30 years or something i don't know the calculation but it would be a very long time. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK HUMANS CAN DEAL WITH THIS PSYCHOLOGICALLY OR BIOLOGICALLY?
What makes you think that humans could deal with any of your proposals psychologically or biologicallly? I find the idea of a cramped spaceship infinintely less scary than being made into a Borg.

It's not like transhumanism is going to drastically depart from the details of being human, just like, if a new evolution occured which "advanced the species," in a purely biological way it could POSSIBLY (LOOK AT THE WORD POSSIBLY) be considered transhuman; but regardless, it is a different species yet it will still share many qualities with humans, just like chimps do.
So is that how humans will be regarded by this new species? Chimps? The prospect of being treated like a chimp doesn't exactly enthrall me.

I like how you go from me talking about poverty and starvation to CONTROLING THE MASSES MINDS WITH BRAIN CONTROL VIA ROBOTIFICATION.
Well, given your insistance that cybernetics would allow for fundamental changes in the negative aspects of human nature, what is to stop those in power from forcing it on the masses "for their own good"? Sure, in an ideal world the technology would be used fairly and justly and never forced upon anyone, but in the real world, that doesn't happen.

It's possible people could CHOOSE to become robotic or some kind of mixture of the two, for benefits for themselves and family.
Sure they could choose. But are the powers that be going to let them? And is everyone going to have equal access to this technology, or is it just the wealthy?

In fact, in modern times, haven't people installed chips or something in their child's brain which is supposed to make them smarter?
Not that I'm aware of.


Furthermore, I like how you ignore good parts of an argument such as the fact that it could help to equalize intelligence and physical features, and your only point in return is that WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO CONTROL PEOPLES MINDS LIKE THAT? then declare me stupid. Sounds like a strawman.

Alike and equal are not the same, not to mention the fact that intelligence is notoriously difficult to quantify and measure. If we "equalize" one type of intelligence, what is to prevent this change in the brain from lowering a different type of intelligence. We know very little about how the brain works, and I am quite reluctant to tinker with something that we have little understanding of. I have only the most minimal understanding of how my car works, so therefore, it would be an extremely bad idea for me to start tinkering around under the hood to make it go faster.

[kahljorn]

What makes you think that humans could deal with any of your proposals psychologically or biologicallly? I find the idea of a cramped spaceship infinintely less scary than being made into a Borg. I'm not necessarily proposing us becoming BORG, we might still have some FUN. Anyway, in this view you could argue that any type of utopian society would be Borgeseque :L( just with slightly different values. But really, it doesn't matter what YOU would want, it's just the fact that people could do it and it would depart from your meaning of human.

So is that how humans will be regarded by this new species? Chimps? The prospect of being treated like a chimp doesn't exactly enthrall me.[//quote]

ya you're so good at understanding points. Humans are a lot like chimps in a lot of ways, that's why in many psychological and physiological studies they use chimps in the place of human beings; i think the psychological portion of that is especially important.

[quote]Well, given your insistance that cybernetics would allow for fundamental changes in the negative aspects of human nature, what is to stop those in power from forcing it on the masses "for their own good"? Sure, in an ideal world the technology would be used fairly and justly and never forced upon anyone, but in the real world, that doesn't happen.So? Who gives a shit. This has nothing to do with transhumanism.

ITS POSSIBLE THAT BAD THINGS CAN HAPPEN IN THE UNIVERSE< THEREFORE NOTHING GOOD. We shouldn't have a justice system because it's possible that it might be abused! Those in power eventually abuse government!

Sure they could choose. But are the powers that be going to let them? And is everyone going to have equal access to this technology, or is it just the wealthy? *sigh* I don't know, I imagine that at the *very least* some remnant of modern economics might persist thousands of years from now and that technology will become more and more available as new production methods and newer forms of technology are developed. but i dunno maybe they won't be capitalist society.

Jeanette I think this is getting to ridiculous :( Will all these possibilities that you're bringing up are possible, it doesn't mean the other possibilities couldn't occur at some point in some history of some civilization. And furthermore, these things which we consider negative might not be so negative in the future! Maybe we can be blissful an d completely content by while being ruled.

or maybe it will be anarchist i dunno!

Not that I'm aware of.yea i think that happened ill try to find a news story.

Alike and equal are not the same, not to mention the fact that intelligence is notoriously difficult to quantify and measure. If we "equalize" one type of intelligence, what is to prevent this change in the brain from lowering a different type of intelligence. We know very little about how the brain works, and I am quite reluctant to tinker with something that we have little understanding of. I have only the most minimal understanding of how my car works, so therefore, it would be an extremely bad idea for me to start tinkering around under the hood to make it go faster.Okay well let's assume for a moment that the scientists and engineers of the future actually have some kind of idea about what they are diong and have maybe been trying to do it for a couple of hundred years or something.

no just kidding in the future most of the scientists have a 75 iq and the smartest ones are jeanette thats why we can take this here testimony as an authority. If jeanette doesn't understand modifying the brain, and all intelligent scientists of the future are jeanette, then we can't possibly hope that jeanette i mean intelligent scientists of the future will save us from inequality of the brain :(

[Big Papa Goat]

The only thing that is a bigger waste of time than being a transhumanist is talking about transhumanism.

[kahljorn]

yea that's true :(

it's a giant appeal to ignorance :O

[Jeanette X]

ya you're so good at understanding points. Humans are a lot like chimps in a lot of ways, that's why in many psychological and physiological studies they use chimps in the place of human beings; i think the psychological portion of that is especially important.

So we will be studied and treated like chimps? Sorry, but that comparision gives me the willies.



So? Who gives a shit. This has nothing to do with transhumanism.

ITS POSSIBLE THAT BAD THINGS CAN HAPPEN IN THE UNIVERSE< THEREFORE NOTHING GOOD. We shouldn't have a justice system because it's possible that it might be abused! Those in power eventually abuse government!

It has everything to do with transhumanism. And comparing these new technologies to a fundamentally neccessary social institution such as a government or a justice system is like comparing apples to oranges.



Jeanette I think this is getting to ridiculous :( Will all these possibilities that you're bringing up are possible, it doesn't mean the other possibilities couldn't occur at some point in some history of some civilization. And furthermore, these things which we consider negative might not be so negative in the future! Maybe we can be blissful an d completely content by while being ruled.

The main problem I see with your arguements is that whenever I make a counterpoint that the technology will pose some problem, you argue that the technology will be advanced to the point where that problem won't be an issue. Trouble is, I doubt that will happen. These things are a matter of trial and error, and the possibilty of something going horribly wrong is far more likely than everything going perfectly.


Okay well let's assume for a moment that the scientists and engineers of the future actually have some kind of idea about what they are diong and have maybe been trying to do it for a couple of hundred years or something.

no just kidding in the future most of the scientists have a 75 iq and the smartest ones are jeanette thats why we can take this here testimony as an authority. If jeanette doesn't understand modifying the brain, and all intelligent scientists of the future are jeanette, then we can't possibly hope that jeanette i mean intelligent scientists of the future will save us from inequality of the brain :(

Believe it or not, scientists make mistakes too. I can offer you countless examples of mistakes with dire consequences if you like.

[kahljorn]

So we will be studied and treated like chimps? Sorry, but that comparision gives me the willies.Nope, we won't be studied like chimps at all. I only brought that up to demonstrate how similar we are and how many of the things we consider "human" are also chimp; including our psychology.

It has everything to do with transhumanism. And comparing these new technologies to a fundamentally neccessary social institution such as a government or a justice system is like comparing apples to oranges.Actually I'm comparing your reasoning. Your reasoning is that, ABUSE COULD OCCUR THEREFORE WE SHOULDNT DO IT. Abuse can occur in justice/government/welfare, therefore we shouldn't do it. This means that we can't rely on the potentiality of abuse to judge if it's wrong. In fact, if anything, this means we should develop ways to protect it from being abused.

These things are a matter of trial and error, and the possibilty of something going horribly wrong is far more likely than everything going perfectly.The entire idea of trial and error implies that it will likely improve over time ;/ No new technologies work completely at first, and many have horrible difficulties. Also when you have problems y ou try to fix them ;/ it's not like they'll go, "Hey, look... there's a problem here. Let's keep replicating the same exact experiment over and over."

Do you think it's more likely that they would develop this problem and have some problems and then would have these problems for eternity or that they would have these problems for maybe a decade and then begin to have it fine-tuned by then? hmm.

and anyway all the problems you bring up are gay. OH THIS POWER TO MODIFY BRAINS COULD BE ABUSED. Well, then... obviously, the problem isn't the TECHNOLOGY but that it could be abused. So you have to protect from that. Not abolish the technology.

IMMORTALITY COULD CAUSE INSANITY! Well, then let people kill themsleves or find some way to satisfy themselves otherwise; whether technologically or spiritually or whatever. I mean, even not dying unexpectadly is a vast improvement in the human condition; it doesn't necessarily have to be immortality.

The problems you're bringing up aren't impossible to overcome ;/

[Jeanette X]

The entire idea of trial and error implies that it will likely improve over time ;/ No new technologies work completely at first, and many have horrible difficulties. Also when you have problems y ou try to fix them ;/ it's not like they'll go, "Hey, look... there's a problem here. Let's keep replicating the same exact experiment over and over."

Do you think it's more likely that they would develop this problem and have some problems and then would have these problems for eternity or that they would have these problems for maybe a decade and then begin to have it fine-tuned by then? hmm.

Yeah? And how long do you think its going to be until the problems are totally worked out? Lets see, we've had powerplants for...well over half a century. Sure, they've improved, but are they problem free today? Are they not making any negative environmental impact? If we can't so much as get our power plants in order over the time that we've had so far what on Earth makes you think we can overcome the probelms that cybernetics might pose in timely fashion?

and anyway all the problems you bring up are gay. OH THIS POWER TO MODIFY BRAINS COULD BE ABUSED. Well, then... obviously, the problem isn't the TECHNOLOGY but that it could be abused. So you have to protect from that.Not abolish the technology.
Now who's making a strawman? I'm not proposing we abolish the technology, you utter moron. I'm just saying that it may not be as wonderful and utopia-creating as you seem to think it is, and that rushing to embrace it without anticipating these negative consequences is unwise. Having certain reservations about a new technology is not "gay", they are reasonable concerns to have.


The problems you're bringing up aren't impossible to overcome ;/

No they are not. And World Peace isn't impossible either. That doesn't mean I expect it to arrive quickly.

[kahljorn]

Yeah? And how long do you think its going to be until the problems are totally worked out? Lets see, we've had powerplants for...well over half a century. Sure, they've improved, but are they problem free today? Are they not making any negative environmental impact? If we can't so much as get our power plants in order over the time that we've had so far what on Earth makes you think we can overcome the probelms that cybernetics might pose in timely fashion?The environmental impact isn't a malfunction ;/. It's not like power plants have been consistently exploding for "well over half a century." The environmental "problems" are a side-effect that is widely known and accepted ;/

Anyway, my retort tot his still stands. What you're saying only means that we might have problems we will have to work out. Or this:

And not to be a jerk like you would be: whether or not the technologies will have a problem or two isn't really relevant. Transhumanism doesn't posit that we will be perfect. If anything, it posits that we will be significantly more perfect as a whole. And further, it doesn't posit that we will have NO problems, only that many of the problems we have will be either eradicated or lessened in effect, and that a new host of previously unhuman problems may arise.

It doesn't really matter if the problems are completely worked out, either, anytime soon. It could be tomorrow it could be ten billion years from now.

Now who's making a strawman? I'm not proposing we abolish the technology, you utter moron. I'm just saying that it may not be as wonderful and utopia-creating as you seem to think it is, and that rushing to embrace it without anticipating these negative consequences is unwise.Okay, I guess I stood to understand what you were saying in the only way that it could possibly mean anything.
Well, given your insistance that cybernetics would allow for fundamental changes in the negative aspects of human nature, what is to stop those in power from forcing it on the masses "for their own good"? Sure, in an ideal world the technology would be used fairly and justly and never forced upon anyone, but in the real world, that doesn't happen.the natural conclusion to draw from this is that we shouldn't do it. For me, at least.

Also, I would like to add that the failure to achieve an ideal is not the same thing as the ideal. There can't really be such a thing as a "Flawed transhumanism." I don't doubt that these possibilities aren't possible to happen. Sure, a civilization could go awry with their technology. But the ideal and the technologies are not the same thing. the technology is merely a means to an end. The reason it is so fascinating for the achieval of such an ideal, however, is the fact that it fundamentally alters people. So yes, it could be used to fundamentally alter people for the achievement of evil, but again, what this means is that we should try to keep it from being used that way ;/

also i don't think anybody is rushing to achieve this, either. Too much natural fear of, basically, exactly what you've been saying... that natural human fear of becoming unhuman.

No they are not. And World Peace isn't impossible either. That doesn't mean I expect it to arrive quickly.Transhumanism doesn't necessarily have a time frame, so BOOYAH! I guess.
although I'm sure most transhumanists would argue that it's just around the corner with the kaleidoscopinng parascoping nature of advancing technologies! someday your paradigm will shift and you will understand that the future comes faster than the future; here time turns into space!

[kahljorn]

The main problem I see with your arguements is that whenever I make a counterpoint that the technology will pose some problem, you argue that the technology will be advanced to the point where that problem won't be an issue.and duh that's like 95% of the point with transhumanists

[Jeanette X]

The environmental impact isn't a dysfunction. It's not like power plants have been exploding for "well over half a century." The environmental "problems" are a side-effect that is widely known and accepted ;/
Global warming from energy production isn't a huge problem? Gee whiz, I guess all those scientists are wrong.


And not to be a jerk like you would be: whether or not the technologies will have a problem or two isn't really relevant. Transhumanism doesn't posit that we will be perfect. If anything, it posits that we will be significantly more perfect as a whole. And further, it doesn't posit that we will have NO problems, only that many of the problems we have will be either eradicated or lessened in effect, and that a new host of previously unhuman problems may arise.
Care to explain us being more perfect as a whole with a new host of previously unhuman problems?


I don't think anybody seriously thinks that this will be an error-free technology.
You seemed to.


Basically, jeanette, what I'm getting from this is that you have absolutely nothing to say and really no conclusion. yes, technologies have problems. Thius one prolly will too. Big whooptifuckingdoo, thanks for teling me something i didnt know.

My point is that trashumanists are overly optimistic and glib.

Okay, I guess I stood to understand what you were saying in the only way that it could possibly mean anything.
the natural conclusion to draw from this is that we shouldn't do it. For me, at least.
Why must everything be in this stark either-or dichotomy? Why can't I take a middle ground in my attitudes without being denounced as neo-Luddite merely because I think we should proceed with caution? Do you honestly believe that wholeheartedly embracing the new techonology and abolishing it are our only two options here?

and duh that's like 95% of the point with transhumanists
Now this is what I mean by masturbatory. Pardon me if I'm reluctant to believe that it'll all be so nice and neat.

[Chojin]

i would just like to add to this thread that i don't think i'm ever going to die, because i will have a shiny robot body by the time i'm 80.

and a very, very large gun.

[Tadao]

Has anyone claimed the Adrienne Barbeau-bot yet?

[Chojin]

also, i'm pretty sure that right around the time quality VR becomes a reality, we'll all be too busy mentally masturbating to invent anything else.

[kahljorn]

Global warming from energy production isn't a huge problem? Gee whiz, I guess all those scientists are wrong.It's not even a fact. And agan; that's not a MALFUNCTION: power plants are known to create emissions. Plus it's not just power plants don't be silly :rolleyes lol

Care to explain us being more perfect as a whole with a new host of previously unhuman problems?Okay...
PERFECT:
----------
US CURRENTLY:
----......
US AFTER SOME TECHNOLOGY AND TRANSHUMANISM BUt WIth NEW PROBLEMS LIKE DEALING WQITH IMMORTALITY:
--------..

You seemed to. that's prolly because you're gay. You already said in one of your other posts that whenever you say there's a problem I say it will be fixed. That means I ascent that it's not an error-free technology but disagree with you in that i think those problems will be resolved; thus refuting this "Seeming" of which you speak.

you're the one acting like the technology will be in the pits for 7,000 years.

Why must everything be in this stark either-or dichotomy? Why can't I take a middle ground in my attitudes without being denounced as neo-Luddite merely because I think we should proceed with caution? Do you honestly believe that wholeheartedly embracing the new techonology and abolishing it are our only two options here?Didn't I say like 30 times including after what you quoted that the real solution is to FIX THE PROBLEMS. If something causes problems you either FIX THE PROBLEMS. FIX THE PROBLEMS BY ABOLISHING THE PROBLEM MAKER. OR IGNORE ThE PROBLEM. But obviously the last one would be a "bad" decision.

To bring up what you're saying as an ARGUMENT AGAINST TRANSHUMANISM is fucking retarded.
Here's your argument:
WE SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS BECAUSE BAD THINGS MIGHT HAPPEN.

That's not an argument against transhumanism: it's an argument to be cautious. that can apply to anything and everything, but not specifically to transhumanists; only to uncautious transhumanists.

Are you saying that transhumanists are inherently uncautious? or that I'm submitting an reckless pursuit of transhumanism? Because I never did so, in fact, I've consistently said that we should be very careful to fix problems and perform rigorous experimentation if we care about not getting bad results.

In fact I don't even see how its possible to be that incautious especially with some of the things we've discussed: like how long the technology will take to develop and you know the scientific method.

From this point forward in history I decree that all transhumanists should be careful and if not they are jerks who don't care about anyone but themselves and their foolish search for an ideal!
k happy now jeanette obviously that resolves your argument and makes you a believer in transhumanism oh look how nothing you said was ever an argument about transhumanism but against uncautious acts.

[kahljorn]

Now this is what I mean by masturbatory. Pardon me if I'm reluctant to believe that it'll all be so nice and neat.I didn't say it would be so "nice and neat," or anything of the sort. I said that 95% of the transhumanist argument is that technology will continue to advance and at increasing rates. And no matter what type of problem you introduce they merely point out that there's a solution.

there's not really a good way to argue against a transhumanist, or argue transhumanism, cause it's kind of non-rational in a lot of ways. Might as well argue about god, really ;/

[Jeanette X]

It's not even a fact. And agan; that's not a MALFUNCTION: power plants are known to create emissions. Plus it's not just power plants don't be silly :rolleyes lol
Must we argue semantics here? Even if it isn't technically a malfunction, its still a very negative side effect. And don't tell me you don't believe in global warming.


that's prolly because you're gay. You already said in one of your other posts that whenever you say there's a problem I say it will be fixed. That means I ascent that it's not an error-free technology but disagree with you in that i think those problems will be resolved; thus refuting this "Seeming" of which you speak.
I'm not saying that the problems won't be resolved, I'm saying it will be a long time before they are and thus I am a little unnerved by this rush to embrace the technology.




Didn't I say like 30 times including after what you quoted that the real solution is to FIX THE PROBLEMS. If something causes problems you either FIX THE PROBLEMS. FIX THE PROBLEMS BY ABOLISHING THE PROBLEM MAKER. OR IGNORE ThE PROBLEM. But obviously the last one would be a "bad" decision.


Same strawman as before.


Here's your argument:
WE SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS BECAUSE BAD THINGS MIGHT HAPPEN.

That's not an argument against transhumanism: it's an argument to be cautious. that can apply to anything and everything, but not specifically to transhumanists; only to uncautious transhumanists.

I make this arguement because virtually everything I've read about transhumanist ideology throws caution to the wind.
Are you saying that transhumanists are inherently uncautious? or that I'm submitting an reckless pursuit of transhumanism? Because I never did so, in fact, I've consistently said that we should be very careful to fix problems and perform rigorous experimentation if we care about not getting bad results.
I'm saying that you are overly optimistic about fixing these problems. And I believe you are the first transhumanist I've ever seen who even acknowledged the possibilty of these problems occuring. Pardon me if I'm a little unsettled by that.



http://plif.courageunfettered.com/archive/wc233.gif

I would hotlink, but I don't want to suck up this guy's bandwidth.

[kahljorn]

I make this arguement because virtually everything I've read about transhumanist ideology throws caution to the wind. Well, I didn't. So there ya go. I say, let caution be the wind beneath our sails.

I'm not saying that the problems won't be resolved, I'm saying it will be a long time before they are and thus I am a little unnerved by this rush to embrace the technology.There's no time-frame on this. and i wouldn't say there's an official rush, per se. Although I'm sure there's some who think it should happen now.

Same strawman as before.That's not a strawman. It's the logical extension of your idea ;/ If you really think that's a straw-man then i dunno you need to study more or something.

Saying we should be CAUTIOUS is NOT saying we SHOULDNT DO ANYTHING (except be uncautious or not be cautious whatever). It's just saying to be cautious. Sorry; it's not an argument against transhumanism. The only way it could be an argument against transhumanism is if you said that transhumanists are uncautious, and being uncautious is bad since it leads to bad results, therefore we shouldn't be transhumanists. Or if you could suggest a route that requires less caution than transhumanism to reach the same goal.

Furthermore, it can't be a strawman because I haven't really acted as though by misleading you from your original point and changing the topic i have defeated your whole argument because I defeated that new argument that i represented you as having.
In fact, I have consistently used your same logic against you, like when I said that if transhumanists were cautious, you would have no problem with it.
I'm saying that you are overly optimistic about fixing these problems.You seem overly pessimistic, or at least like you let your pessimism argue for you. and anyway that's why i mentioned such stringent control methods!

And I believe you are the first transhumanist I've ever seen who even acknowledged the possibilty of these problems occuring. Pardon me if I'm a little unsettled by that.
Probably because I'm not at all a transhumanist and really have absolutely no interest in the idea.

[Dixie]

Come on extinction!

[kahljorn]

that's my kind of transhumanism :O

[Pub Lover]

I'm sorry if she already admitted that is was only playing the fool, but I stopped reading Jeanette's posts halfway down the last page because her pedantic and pointless idiocy wasn't being rescued by kahljorn's seemingly considered and well thought out counterpoints that Jeanette then consistantly ignored.

Haha, she probably got me good with her humourless vet attack of being dull, rite guys? :eek

[Pub Lover]

OK, I just read the posts I skipped. Jeanette is a humourless sack of shit that should shut up until she passes a course of joke getting, if not a minor seminar in having a point before trying to argue it.

[Jeanette X]

I know, I know. I haven't gotten into a serious debate with anyone for a while, and so I'm out of form. Like a boxer who's gotten soft and fat from not practicing. :\

[kahljorn]

its cool transhumanism is like the gayest subject and besides that i had home-team advantage. people arguing for transhumanism have all kinds of tricks but usually the whole caution argument does fuck with them because they are silly idiots who, like you said, never consider that there may be problem.
and yea usually they do say that it will happen WITHIN FIFTY YEARS. I think that transhumanists like that are just millenarianists in disguise!Q
although I'm sure most transhumanists would argue that it's just around the corner with the kaleidoscopinng parascoping nature of advancing technologies! someday your paradigm will shift and you will understand that the future comes faster than the future; here time turns into space!That's basically an accurate rendition of a transhumanist's thoughts, except with better punctuation and a quote of parsifal!

[Dimnos]

Have you guys not downloaded your consciousness into the Internet yet to battle this out on a massive IP server somewhere?

[Pub Lover]

They tried but the DNZ wouldn't resolve because Jeanette's mind is configured for mac. :x

[Dimnos]

They tried but the DNZ wouldn't resolve because Jeanette's mind is configured for mac. :x


Doh! :x

[Jeanette X]

They tried but the DNZ wouldn't resolve because Jeanette's mind is configured for mac. :x

Abort, Retry, Fail?

[VaporTrailx1]

All I know is we'll find out when we create the self replicating nano-bugs that might consume everything.

BTW I personally wouldn't mind having my consciousness uploaded into a computer system, as long as it was like Tron and not like The Matrix. I don't want anything close to reality. I want virtual consciousness to be retro, like Lawnmower Manish, hell maybe even like a quake 2 typa thing. something with some synth and some pixels.

[kahljorn]

nanotechnologu

[Rez]

why are we having this conversation when warren ellis isnt even around...

[Big Papa Goat]

Did anyone bring up grey goo yet? That's a good one. I'm actaully pretty surprised that no transhumanists have joined the forums for the purpose of arguing in this thread, I remember I made a post on my now defunct blog that was read by maybe 10 people about transhumanism and the executive director/founder of the World Transhumanist Association, a sociologist by the name of James Hughes, made a lengthy and detailed rebuttal of my dumbass remarks.

Maybe now that I've mentioned his name he'll swing by these parts.
Transhumanism makes me sad though, I failed at writing a thesis on it :(

[executioneer]

Did anyone bring up grey goo yet?

we'll find out when we create the self replicating nano-bugs that might consume everything

yes!