Transhumanism vs Bioconservatism.

Pip Boy · 10-20-2010, 05:20 PM

Writing a paper on this, and while your comments won't actually count as citeable material that can help with my assignment, I thought it would be interesting and enlightening to hear everyone's opinions on the matter.

Transhumanism is the philosophy of openly accepting new forms of artificial human enhancement.

Bioconservatism is the philosophy of keeping humans free of such enhancements.

While any society that goes completely in one direction is doomed to failure, there is a lot of middle ground. So what are your takes on Stem Cell research, Neural Implants, Physical and Mental performance enhancers etc? Will it make us into a utopian society without disease or strife, or will it further separate the upper and lower classes until we lower beings are ruled by a genetically modified master race (Or we all get assimilated by the Borg)?

Tev · 10-20-2010, 05:32 PM

I'm actually more down with biological enhancements than I am with technological implants when it comes to Transhumanism. I hate the idea of being saddled with an obsolete modem in my head because hardware upgrades wouldn't fit right.

I'm really only Bioconservative enough to care about not buying into "first-gen" or "experimental" bio-upgrades. When animal/human splicing technology comes along you most likely won't see me near the front of the line.....but I'd be open to dating the first or second catgirl out of the vat.

Nique · 10-20-2010, 05:42 PM

Uhh, I guess I would say Bioconservatism in princepal, and Transhumanism by nessecity. I guess such a view might be outmodded if we reach a point where the tech becomes indistinguishable, or more effective, than our biological components (Cylons?).

Krylo · 10-20-2010, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pip Boy

While any society that goes completely in one direction is doomed to failure

Why?

Also: Define failure.

Kim · 10-20-2010, 05:44 PM

I look forward to our cyborg clone future.

Tev · 10-20-2010, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NonCon

I look forward to our cyborg clone future.

With cat ears!

Premmy · 10-20-2010, 06:02 PM

I'm also more Transhumanist than Bioconservative, but I'm with Tev on the more Bio than tech angle. I WOULD like to have at least basic technology interface things involve biotech, but I figure any energy in the field of enhancing humankind would be best directed in the fields of biology.

bluestarultor · 10-20-2010, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tev

With cat ears!

Somehow I don't think Tripod is the future. In fact, why the hell does that even exist anymore?

I have to say that I'm pretty well against human enhancements. Curing stuff? Great! If blind people can see, deaf people can hear, lame people can walk, etc., I think we're doing the right thing. But plugging mutant genes into our eyes to see into the UV spectrum or putting chips in our brains, in my opinion, destroys a little bit of what makes us special. That kind of attitude says being human isn't good enough, which I think is wrong. Humans are a wonderful work of art that doesn't really need "improvement" that way and I personally think it ruins our appreciation of ourselves.

Tev · 10-20-2010, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

Humans are a wonderful work of art that doesn't really need "improvement" that way and I personally think it ruins our appreciation of ourselves.

Yes but that line of thinking is more based on the idea that our physical body and its inherent versatility/limitations are what make us human. For people that believe humanity is a concept or expression of thought, the idea that adding in some gills so you can explore underwater or an alternate skin-graft and a horn because tattoos and piercings were sooo "last century" isn't that big a deal.

EDIT: Actually that didn't come out quite like I meant it but I guess we'll get to that once someone picks up on the theme.

Eltargrim · 10-20-2010, 06:13 PM

I'm all for transhumanism, but I worry about the consequences of a partially transhumanist culture. We already have a huge divide between the rich and the poor; transhumanist treatments will only further exacerbate the difference between the two.

I think that transhumanism will result from a blend of inorganic and organic processes. Some tasks will require inorganic assets, while others can be approached from either side. There isn't an awful lot that biology can accomplish that technology can't, but the biological option may well be better than the tech alternative.

My personal focus on transhumanism involves integrated augmented reality. Images projected directly into your brain; advanced processing of what your eyes see. Expanding the range of visible light; true photographic memory.

10-20-2010, 05:20 PM	#1
Pip Boy Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: A right and proper Nerd Cave Posts: 2,460	Transhumanism vs Bioconservatism. Writing a paper on this, and while your comments won't actually count as citeable material that can help with my assignment, I thought it would be interesting and enlightening to hear everyone's opinions on the matter. Transhumanism is the philosophy of openly accepting new forms of artificial human enhancement. Bioconservatism is the philosophy of keeping humans free of such enhancements. While any society that goes completely in one direction is doomed to failure, there is a lot of middle ground. So what are your takes on Stem Cell research, Neural Implants, Physical and Mental performance enhancers etc? Will it make us into a utopian society without disease or strife, or will it further separate the upper and lower classes until we lower beings are ruled by a genetically modified master race (Or we all get assimilated by the Borg)?

10-20-2010, 05:44 PM	#5
Kim adorable Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 12,950	I look forward to our cyborg clone future. __________________ this post is about how to successfully H the Kimmy

10-20-2010, 06:02 PM	#7
Premmy Stop the hate Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a nice web on fifty first street Posts: 4,466	I'm also more Transhumanist than Bioconservative, but I'm with Tev on the more Bio than tech angle. I WOULD like to have at least basic technology interface things involve biotech, but I figure any energy in the field of enhancing humankind would be best directed in the fields of biology. __________________ Drank

10-20-2010, 06:13 PM	#10
Eltargrim Fifty-Talents Haversham Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: FABULOUS Posts: 1,904	I'm all for transhumanism, but I worry about the consequences of a partially transhumanist culture. We already have a huge divide between the rich and the poor; transhumanist treatments will only further exacerbate the difference between the two. I think that transhumanism will result from a blend of inorganic and organic processes. Some tasks will require inorganic assets, while others can be approached from either side. There isn't an awful lot that biology can accomplish that technology can't, but the biological option may well be better than the tech alternative. My personal focus on transhumanism involves integrated augmented reality. Images projected directly into your brain; advanced processing of what your eyes see. Expanding the range of visible light; true photographic memory. __________________ <Insert witticism here; get credit; ???; profit!>