Transhumanism

It's come up in a few threads over the years but I don't think we've ever had a dedicated discussion for it.

For those unaware of the concept. Transhumanism is the concept that between overconsumption and the evolutionary species arc, our species will go into decline if it hasn't already unless we intervene. As a species, our prime advantage is technology. Its what sets us apart from other earth species more than any other thing. Transhumanism posits that for our species to survive these natural limits we must do so by taking technology to its full effect to inure ourselves against mortality and improve ourselves that we might expand our reach beyond our planet. A wide variety of technologies are required to achieve these goals but more than even that, transhumanism, without the metaphysical and social groundwork laid down before hand, would lead to anarchy.

As a transhumanist myself I don't think any of this conflicts with Jedi teachings but to take it to the point of discussion. How do you feel transhumanism interacts with Jedi philosophy? Do you think transhumanism (or humanity+) is truly the best path to survival? If we replace our bodies, digitize our brains, and expand our perception beyond human limits, are we still human?

Red Lila wrote: It's come up in a few threads over the years but I don't think we've ever had a dedicated discussion for it.

For those unaware of the concept. Transhumanism is the concept that between overconsumption and the evolutionary species arc, our species will go into decline if it hasn't already unless we intervene. As a species, our prime advantage is technology. Its what sets us apart from other earth species more than any other thing. Transhumanism posits that for our species to survive these natural limits we must do so by taking technology to its full effect to inure ourselves against mortality and improve ourselves that we might expand our reach beyond our planet. A wide variety of technologies are required to achieve these goals but more than even that, transhumanism, without the metaphysical and social groundwork laid down before hand, would lead to anarchy.

As a transhumanist myself I don't think any of this conflicts with Jedi teachings but to take it to the point of discussion. How do you feel transhumanism interacts with Jedi philosophy? Do you think transhumanism (or humanity+) is truly the best path to survival? If we replace our bodies, digitize our brains, and expand our perception beyond human limits, are we still human?

wow, Excellent topic, lila! and one of my favorites.

i believe this to be correct, and so do many sci fi writers and futurists. the future is populated by hi tech cyborgs in a lot of these visions, and barring world wide calamity, that is where we are headed. tho the movie 'elysium' deals with the inevitable fallout of the progression arc: there will be those who are left behind, either by choice or not. an even wider divide between the haves and the have nots than even exists today.

so is it the best path? no. but it is the path we seem to be going down as a species. so we must do what we do best, even better than the use of technology: we must adapt to the situation and the variables within it.

and given future digitization/cyborganizing, are we still human. i will go with a yes, as long as that entity still deigns to claim the lowly origins from whence s/he came. it may be possible that the non-cyborged will reject or discriminate against future 'borgs, who would then feel the need to distance themselves accordingly.

finally, scott adams, the writer of the dilbert comic strip and all around smart guy wrote a blog post on cyborg evolution some time ago. his comments on the topic have changed how i thought of cyborgs, and been incorporated into my own definitions. on smart phones (the first step down the path to cyborganization):

'Technically, you're already a cyborg. If you keep your cell phone with you most of the time, especially if the earpiece is in place, I think we can call that arrangement an exobrain. Don't protest that your cellphone isn't part of your body just because you can leave it in your other pants. If a cyborg can remove its digital eye and leave it on a shelf as a surveillance device, and I think we all agree that it can, then your cellphone qualifies as part of your body. In fact, one of the benefits of being a cyborg is that you can remove and upgrade parts easily. So don't give me that "It's not attached to me" argument. You're already a cyborg. Deal with it...

My suggestion, which I offer simply to prime the pump, is to call the phone your "head." This term recognizes that you are essentially a cyborg with a detachable brain. You offload a lot of your memory into your device, and it helps you communicate and gather information, just like the other parts of your general skull area.'

Well, as a former hardcore geek, SF fan and so on, it's a kind of fantasy to have a "bioport", or digitize our brain not for a medical purpose, of course.
But the older I get, the deeper I'm convinced that only taking care of nature and our planet can save us.

Desolous wrote: i believe this to be correct, and so do many sci fi writers and futurists. the future is populated by hi tech cyborgs in a lot of these visions, and barring world wide calamity, that is where we are headed. tho the movie 'elysium' deals with the inevitable fallout of the progression arc: there will be those who are left behind, either by choice or not. an even wider divide between the haves and the have nots than even exists today.

While I agree the notion of individuals being left behind is a given, I don't think its a necessity that it be a "haves vs have not" distinction. Rather perhaps only a philosophical divide. Whether their descendants will agree with the choices of their forebears though could create problems.

so is it the best path? no. but it is the path we seem to be going down as a species. so we must do what we do best, even better than the use of technology: we must adapt to the situation and the variables within it.

I think I see these things as inherently related. Technology is how we adapt our environment to match ourselves, ironically we change ourselves in doing so, though. So even as we "tame the wilderness" we are altering ourselves to accommodate the new environment and the technology.

'Technically, you're already a cyborg. If you keep your cell phone with you most of the time, especially if the earpiece is in place, I think we can call that arrangement an exobrain. Don't protest that your cellphone isn't part of your body just because you can leave it in your other pants. If a cyborg can remove its digital eye and leave it on a shelf as a surveillance device, and I think we all agree that it can, then your cellphone qualifies as part of your body. In fact, one of the benefits of being a cyborg is that you can remove and upgrade parts easily. So don't give me that "It's not attached to me" argument. You're already a cyborg. Deal with it...

My suggestion, which I offer simply to prime the pump, is to call the phone your "head." This term recognizes that you are essentially a cyborg with a detachable brain. You offload a lot of your memory into your device, and it helps you communicate and gather information, just like the other parts of your general skull area.'

I completely agree with this notion and on top of that, as a transgender woman you could say I'm "bioengineered" ^_~

mdk wrote: Well, as a former hardcore geek, SF fan and so on, it's a kind of fantasy to have a "bioport", or digitize our brain not for a medical purpose, of course.
But the older I get, the deeper I'm convinced that only taking care of nature and our planet can save us.

Politically I'm green party and I'm all for taking care of nature and our planet but I don't think that will be enough. I think we've expanded too far and too fast and all the care in the world will only slow the problem, not eliminate it.

"We have been in a feedback loop with out technology since language and stone tools."

Indeed.

Red Lila wrote: Do you think transhumanism (or humanity+) is truly the best path to survival? If we replace our bodies, digitize our brains, and expand our perception beyond human limits, are we still human?

I read a short story a few years ago that really stuck with me and you just reminded me of it. now I looked for it hut don't remember enough specifics to find it online so here is the paraphrase.

A human colony was on a space ship in stasis with only the AI to guide it to where they were going to seed humanity on a new world. Another ship caught up to it and hailed it. Turns out humans on earth have managed to digitize their brains. The ship was basically a human in a ship's form. He boasted of humanity's advances and wanted the AI to turn around and go back to earth where there was no longer death or suffering.
"let me tell you a story" the AI said. The engines onboard the ship were failing. The malfunction would destroys it. The AI awoke the emergency crew. There was a radiation leak that would endanger or probably kill the technician who tried to fix it. One woman disobeyed orders, geared up and went in. The AI described the pain and torment this woman went through in the heat and radiation. And how she managed to repair the engines and save the hundreds of people on board the ship with the sacrifice of her life.

"what do you think of that story?". The AI asked

" Doesn't matter." The human ship replied. "Now we would just upload all of their information. It was foolish."

The AI responded by flailing its ship engines and destroying the other ship. The AI had decided that a race that could not respect or honor the great sacrifices and suffering of mankind was not humanity. It continued onto its programmed destination with the last of the human race.

---
I don't know. I wish I could link you this story. It was so well written. But it poses the question. By transcending humanity, do we leave behind what truly makes us great?

Red Lila wrote: If we replace our bodies, digitize our brains, and expand our perception beyond human limits, are we still human?

Define human? Does it include keeping our DNA?

Who would do the reproducing if we had no bodies?

There were great sacrifices of man at our earliest points. Hunters putting their lives on the line to save their families. Then we invented agriculture. We learned to plant. I'm sure there were hunters who thought, "These are not men! These things that dig in the soil for sustenance, they are worms!" However, without that adaption and learning, we as a species would never have reached the development we have today. Civilizations would never have formed. Just because the change results in the loss of something doesn't mean that loss is bad. Even if the planters said, "These hunters, what they do is frivolous and meaningless." Without respect for their culture or ritual, it would not change the fact that both were still men and one was the cutting edge of our species and the other was becoming a relic.

Rickie The Grey wrote: Define human? Does it include keeping our DNA?

Who would do the reproducing if we had no bodies?

That's kind of the question isn't it? What definition of human do you use? What leap could humanity take in the name of progress that would cause it to cease to be human? DNA could be simulated, used as a method for determining offspring programs/machines though it wouldn't be wholly necessary. What role does reproduction have if life is infinite and we hold the ability to replicate our consciousness and direct it to different tasks? Company? Certainly. But how much of child rearing's fulfillment is knowing your knowledge will survive you and you have created a legacy. What meaning are legacies when we live forever?

If we replace our bodies, digitize our brains, and expand our perception beyond human limits, are we still human?

No,but thats neither here nor there really. However much DNA we share with chimps doesnt make us chimps,nor are we cro-magnon or Neanderthal( or the common ancestor) any longer.

Did you think the evolutionary chain(sorry if your a fundamental creationist.Well not really)ended with man? That is, homo-sapien?

Is it too much to presume that the next stage will be a more intimate merging with technology?

Think of how intimate you are already. Is it really such a stretch?

"What is great in man, is that he is a bridge, not an end."-Nietzche