Transhumanism; the shedding of our primitive chrysalis.

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The World Transhumanist Association is currently holding its annual convention in Toronto; Transhumanism is defined as the next technological evolutionary step toward a better, possibly 'posthuman' world.
The thrust is the advocacy of embracing the potential for change in the human animal, toward improving the potential of each member of society, by social, and technological research.
______________________________________________________________

"Transhumanism represents a radical new approach to future-oriented thinking that is based on the premise that the human species does not represent the end of our evolution, but rather, its beginning. Transhumanists believe it will be possible, and desirable to fundamentally alter the human condition, through applied reason, using technology to eliminate aging, and greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities. Transhumanists believe things can be much better, but not that a better future is inevitable. We are also working to address the potential dangers that come with our new technological powers.

Transhumanists think that through the accelerating pace of technological development and scientific understanding, we are entering a whole new stage in the history of the human species. In the near future, we will face the prospect of real artificial intelligence. New kinds of cognitive tools will be built that combine a.i. with new interface technology."

Quotations from Tranhumanist literature; a more complete account is available on the web site: www.transhumanism.org
______________________________________________________________

It is philosophically an extension of 'humanism' adding the specie's potential for adaptive improvement, to the promotion of existing creeds of equality and freedom.

I feel a discussion of this world view of the future would be intellectually profitable.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,379 • Replies: 66

No top replies

Wow! Bo. Great thread. I was just reminded of Alvin Toffler's book, Future Shock, a different approach on culture shock.

Back later when I have more thoroughly researched your topic.

0 Replies

My memories of Future Shock are dim at best, but I do agree that we are far from reaching our potential on an evolutionary scale, and I welcome scientific advances into the process. Shoot, all I need to do is walk down the street to go shopping and I can see that we are still basically monkeys with credit, hardly creatures of merit. Laughing

0 Replies

Cav, Future Shock was simply a book about the fact that humans are living in the future and haven't discovered it as yet. I think the book was quite prophetic for its time, as was McLuhan as we discussed before. Hmmmm. Trying to recall if Piaget was one of your boys, too.

0 Replies

Piaget I haven't read. McLuhan yes, Future Shock I read in junior high and really don't recall the thesis. However, your description rings a bit of a bell. Wink

0 Replies

Nope, he was Swiss:

http://www.piaget.org/biography/biog.html

0 Replies

"His interest for mollusks was developed during his late adolescence to the point that he became a well-known malacologist by finishing school. He published many papers in the field that remained of interest for him all along his life."

Oh Freud, what say you?

0 Replies

Rings a bell, Cav? Nah. That's Pavlov. Smile

Where did BoGO?

0 Replies

Pavlov can go to the dogs for all I care.

0 Replies

do i detect a degree of levity, on such a serious and learned topic?

you know how i shun humour as a form of expression! Cool

Er, any actual 'thoughts' about any of this, or am i just providing a source of
'page blanc' for your daliances.............

Damn i wish we'd get some of these proposed improvements in place; getting a mite pissed with the 'state of the art' debating team!

oops, was the mike on??......... Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Bo, I have your conference saved to favorites. A pill popping party? I didn't understand that, TO. Surely Transhumanism doesn't suggest that as a solution. Confused

Cav and I were just marking time until you returned.

0 Replies

I couldn't find a link to pill popping party.

0 Replies

Hmm, pill popping? where did that come from?

There is an openness to investigating pharmaceutical repair, and enhancement, but not a flagrant 'hippylike' chemical feast mentality.

I must admit i am torn between modifying the human species to a better radically different creature, or scrapping the whole thing, and inventing a replacement.

It depends on the degree of success we can have with deprogramming.
Changing the inate bios, to allow the being to function to its potential!

0 Replies

Hmmm, Letty, that post sounds like a rant against our current society of pill poppers, or at least a relevent oppurtunity for debate on the subject. I do not see it as advocating what we now have, which is an over-medicated work-force.

0 Replies

I agree, Cav. That's the part of the link that I didn't quite understand. Perhaps I should have read further, except I have a back ache and I need an aspirin and a peanut butter and banana sandwich.

Later, yawl.

0 Replies

BoGoWo,

I checked out the website.

From what I can see, it appears the concept is basically to apply technology to improve and prolong human lives.

I think its great on one level. On another level, I'm not sure...
Where do we draw the line?

If I take a pill and suddenly my IQ jumps 20 points, am I a truly improved human being? (I know, a lot of you here will scream "Yes!," in my case...but you know what I mean).

How about if we come up with a pill that will add 20 years to our natural life? Should we do it?

Interesting ethical question. Of course we'd want to know whether those 20 years were productive, not a drag on society, etc.

If everyone lived 20 extra years starting right now, that would be interesting. We'd probably need to revamp a lot of infrastructure, social institution type things, etc.

Oh well. What the heck. Seems like Viagra didn't kill that many people so far. Gimmee the pills.

I just wish we'd focus more on doing things like helping the starving in Africa first. Perhaps the trickle down theory will work, and the benefits will reach them in time.

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

do i detect a degree of levity, on such a serious and learned topic?

They were just having fun on your thread, not making fun OF your thread. Like some people make fun of my threads. Oh well, I didn't fit in in high school, so why should I fit in here...

~~~

As for the transhumanists, I think they are a mixed bunch (not necessarily a mixed up bunch). Some seem ethicaly obtuse IMO, advocating genetic engineering of 'their' offspring and such. Others just want to think and discuss the implications of future technologies, which is a good thing since it might help humanity prepare for what's next.

I think life extension (for the wealthy) is a given. There are already supplements available which may actually 'work'. It isn't such a bad thing, since it seems that the result is mainly to lengthen the healthy, active period of people's lives. I'm interested in longevity supplements but I don't want to live all that long, I just don't want to age any more than I have to.

When StarTrek TNG was running, I used to groan at the episodes showing genetic modifications of adults. How silly! Well, it looks like I was wrong; it seems that genetic engineering of people who are of age and can decide for themselves whether they want it may be possible. In that case, I can't really object; it seems to be a matter of personal freedom. If someone wants purple feathers instead of hair, who am I to stop them?

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

do i detect a degree of levity, on such a serious and learned topic?

bromeliad wrote:

They were just having fun on your thread, not making fun OF your thread.....

my tongue is numb from having been stuck so firmly into my cheek! :wink:

What we are looking at here is the ultimate outcome of the enlargement of choice.
The question is, to me, how can we monitor, and control the potential harm derivative of the choices people make, without unnecessary interference with those choices.
We need a broad all encompassing code of ethics, that takes into account the complete spectrum of research done on all forms of modification, chemical, genetic, and even physical intervention.
But who is to write these codes, enact them into law, enforce and monitor them?

0 Replies

Transhumanism; the shedding of our primitive chrysalis.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know