Transhumanism

Post Reply New Topic

Not all transhumanism has to be robot arms either. None of the poll options were entirely serious.


Yeah, I know, I have his book. I actually don't think his book is really much different than "No, Jebus don't like no messing with his creation", it is just a secular version of it. I think Fukuyama's conservatism on the matter is not really that compelling unless one already has a lot of "essentialist" thinking, as otherwise, what is so special about the current way people work that altering it is unreasonable? Nothing that could be said is really reasonable given how every single other technology people develop has unknown consequences.

I read your posts, and wonder to myself. Can you purport a position that's not a supposition or proposition or expostulation or decimation or exposition of someone else's theories? Eventually, surely, you have to have your own opinion, one that doesn't have the caveat "Here's what someone else thought about it, so if you attack my position, you're really attacking his".

I also have to wonder, you said, So we lose a gender. So what? I wonder how anyone could misinterpret that...

Why must I have my own opinion? If one studies issues a lot, then one finds that often the ideas that one wants in order to be clear are exposited to some extent already. Taking advantage of this, so long as one isn't being unreasonable, is fair, especially if one is not expected to be a ground-breaking intellectual(which almost nobody is). Even further, when presenting an argument, it is better to take ground on lines that have already been explored, so that way silly mistakes are avoided, and because often-times, the lines of academic debate reflect real intellectual issues.

I don't really understand what you are looking for, or why it is important. As it stands, I would imagine that the way I put together a lot of different ideas has some uniqueness to it, but... I see no real reason to have opinions that don't reference external things.


Honestly, I wonder the same thing. I mean, my clear point was an utter indifference to losing a gender. That's it.

^^^^

Fukuyama considers hyper individualism to be the biggest threat to democracy. I think he is wrong in general. However in relation to transhumanism he is more right than wrong.

You left off probably the best answer - likely because it would get 90% of the votes:

It would be okay if I had lost a limb in an accident and could be given a prosthetic.

Well, right, I mean, the fact of the matter is that I don't think that we will ever end up opposing transhumanism. It will just get introduced in a manner that is to cure people, and then just keep on pushing forward.

Thank you. I just realised two things. One, why you think I'm stupid. Two, your visceral hated of Ayn Rand. I wonder, does your hatred of her extend to a hatred of Aristotle? You know, logic is the key to everything? Personal interpretation and creativity and whatnot?

And, just to introduce another off-topic here, how can you be ambivalent to the loss of a gender? How is that progression, even without transhumanisation?

I'll take a new voice, if you please. Also, one more arm would get interesting.

I am not a big fan of Aristotle either. I think Plato is a lot worse though. Frankly though, Ayn Rand just isn't really rightly considered a philosopher, period. This is not to say that libertarians can't be philosophers. This is not to say that Greek influenced ideas cannot be philosophy(but rather a lot of philosophy is influenced by the Ancient Greeks) etc.


I can be very easily ambivalent. I just wouldn't care. This isn't to say anything about progress, just thinking it isn't a big deal. I mean, we could substitute any other sub-group, and if the human race survives, it likely wouldn't matter.