Edited by Koh, 06 October 2016 - 04:03 PM.
Transhumanism Discussion
#1
Posted 06 October 2016 - 04:02 PM
- Deedee likes this
#2
Posted 06 October 2016 - 04:05 PM
Inspired by this sit down with Zoltan Istvan on The Rubin ReportSo of course the first question would be what do you think about this discussion, but also, what do you think about the role of technology in biology and our future as a species, but also the potential societal impact it'll have. Do you think Istvan hits some points that could be concerning, like the aristocracy being the first to have access to such life changing things, and leaving everyone else behind as a species? Do you think the pros would outweigh the cons, and we'll figure out issues as they come up?
By transhumanism, do we mean fusing with technology, or using genes from animals and even artificially created genes to improve ourselves and change our bodily makeup?
#3
Posted 06 October 2016 - 04:06 PM
I think both would fall into it, because it all involves genetic modification and enhancement through technology and science.
- Deedee likes this
#4
Posted 06 October 2016 - 04:09 PM
I approve mostly of the latter. Fusing with technology... that can end up horribly. Changing our genetic makeup to improve our species biologically? That can do wonders.
As for AI, I think that as long as they have morals like humans and have no real power (like nukes), I'm okay with it.
#5
Posted 06 October 2016 - 04:29 PM
Edited by Lunaria, 06 October 2016 - 04:29 PM.
- Anthus and Matthew like this
#6
Posted 06 October 2016 - 10:36 PM
Trans-humanism with technology is the way its progressing now and I'm completely for it! It's already helping people today, my favorite are the bionic eyes. However just like anything humans do it'll have it's goods, it's bads, and the oddities. If trans-humanism is here to stay then I could see our future world being divided. The issue of trans-humanism, outside of prosthetic limbs/organs, may start out first as a religious sin before moving on to mainstream politics and daily life were governments and populations would debate on what kind of alterations are legal. I believe that the divide will be mostly between human naturalist and trans-humanist, following a similar path to how transgender is treated today.
I don't agree with altering genetics. Genetics can be rather unpredictable long term not to mention this hole genetics thing was already tried before and that's a dark time in human history. In the 1900s genetics was closely tied to the philosophy of eugenics. Both of these have been abused in human history time and time again, mostly as an excuse for the discrimination of specific populations. After the Nazi's used it to justify the purity of the Aryan race it fell out of the spot light. It's still researched today however. Cryonics, cloning, artificial insemination and abortion (to a degree) are all branches of this line of research. It's not hard to find just how much friction these projects caused and I view future projects to be even greater forms of social friction.
Between the two technology is probably safer, more reliable and not so permanent. Unlike technology, genetic alterations can't be simply "fixed".
#7
Posted 07 October 2016 - 08:57 AM
#8
Posted 07 October 2016 - 02:06 PM
all this remembe to me Ephemerial Phantasia, whit the CANON clan that "bioenchange" themeself whit weird tecnology called "magic science" and was divided in 3 different class...but i'm going out of theme here...
Retuning on topic : I wish to have the immunitary system of a crocodile, genetic may reallybe useful for cure people or..turn them into monsters
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users