Transhumanism vs Bioconservatism.

[Tev]

Originally Posted by Eltargrim

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.

Actually all much of that requires is that we begin using more of our brains than we currently do. Granted the visible light thing may take some finagling with the eye lens but your brain actually holds and catalogues far more than you give it credit for. It's one of those "use it or lose" it things though.

[Pip Boy]

Originally Posted by Krylo

Why?

Also: Define failure.

Well, since many things like Vaccines are technologies derived from medical research that improve the quality of human life, to be 100% bioconservative would mean to abandon any technology that directly interacts with human biology meaning we have...

No vaccines
No unnatural methods of childbirth
No unnatural methods of conception
pretty much no medicines whatsoever, since nearly all medicine is biotechnology in this sense.

On the other hand, a 100% transhumanist culture that totally jumps that the opportunity to ebrace any and all new human enhancements runs into other problems. We'll have people running around with massive modifications to their physical abilities, but still the same mental and emotional flaws and an ordinary human being. All these technologies won't come to exist at the same time, so odds are the more dangerous and simple ones will come before we find the DNA sequence for morality and enlightenment.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Eltargrim

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.

All I can think of when you say this is that billboards will become the new banner ads. Or even the sides of buildings. Or logos on shirts. Or even just looking at a dog or bush for too long. The very sidewalks might become an endless ad feed.

In short, fuck augmented reality. I'm not going to pay a premium to not have Head-On commercials playing on the backs of my eyelids.

Originally Posted by Tev

Actually all much of that requires is that we begin using more of our brains than we currently do. Granted the visible light thing may take some finagling with the eye lens but your brain actually holds and catalogues far more than you give it credit for. It's one of those "use it or lose" it things though.

Lens has nothing to do with it. The idea is sound, though. We've already run experiments wherein a modified virus was injected into the eyes of monkeys of some sort and successfully granted them trichromacy like our own vision. All it would take to start seeing into other parts of the spectrum would be to tweak some genes, load up a needle, and BAM, instant UV-vision.

Of course then you'd never be able to use a public bathroom again, so again, the benefits of doing so are questionable.

[Eltargrim]

Originally Posted by Tev

Actually all much of that requires is that we begin using more of our brains than we currently do. Granted the visible light thing may take some finagling with the eye lens but your brain actually holds and catalogues far more than you give it credit for. It's one of those "use it or lose" it things though.

Common misconception: we only use 10% of our brains. Truth: we rarely use all of our brains at once, but that's because an electrical shitstorm isn't productive.

Sending images to the brain would require an external source (likely radio-wave based), and a transducer (convert the raster to electric signals). Expanding the visible wavelengths would explicitly require retinal my bad, lens augments. Retinal too, but the lens has a high degree of UV opacity. Either way, IR is more my style.

[Tev]

Originally Posted by Pip Boy

On the other hand, a 100% transhumanist culture that totally jumps that the opportunity to ebrace any and all new human enhancements runs into other problems.

Actually this is my fear about technological human enhancements and our instant-gratification iWhatever culture.

I would much rather go for the harder, more invasive, "requires more signatures than you have ink in two pens for" gene-splicing treatments that are the result of a lot of research and development than having someone cut into my brain to install a chip-deck that may be out-moded by Christmas.

Besides, if we get the technology to alter the human form on a genetic level consistently, then doing it more than once shouldn't be as hard as trying to find space for another USB port in your arm.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Pip Boy

We'll have people running around with massive modifications to their physical abilities, but still the same mental and emotional flaws and an ordinary human being.

Which is why we should ban guns among the civilian populace.

[Premmy]

Nahhhhhh

[Nique]

No vaccines
No unnatural methods of childbirth
No unnatural methods of conception
pretty much no medicines whatsoever, since nearly all medicine is biotechnology in this sense

Would we not, arguably, be left with a much more resilient human race if we did this though? Was there any disease that threatened to wipe us out as a species if left untreated by devilish medicines?

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Nique

Would we not, arguably, be left with a much more resilient human race if we did this though? Was there any disease that threatened to wipe us out as a species if left untreated by devilish medicines?

Do you want the list ordered alphabetically or chronologically? There are a LOT of diseases that took out large portions of the population. And with modern medicine, we're ironically even less biologically prepared to survive them than when they were originally decimating us.

[Nique]

I'm not saying our population wouldn't be tiny. I'm just highly in favor of selective breeding! Ubermensch! (sp?)