With the advances in biotechnology, nanotechnology, and computers some degree of transhumanism seems inevitable. The temptation to start augmenting ourselves is only going to get stronger as the technology gets better. Hell even now there are people who are starting to experiment on themselves >>99155 →.
So how should our societies approach the augmentation question? I don't think this is one the free market can handle if the elite get this technology before the rest of us then we are fucked. If we try to ban it entirely then the elites will still have access to augmentations and the law is unlikely to deter biohackers. We can't put the djinni back in the bottle. So what are your thoughts on transhumanism /mlpol/?
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): CC351E1C27F01FEAA6F054DF0DDD6F52-77046.png (75.2 KB, 600x600, medium.png)
File (): A2EB80A41EA7DF3733866A7E9FBE7EAE-27892.jpg (27.2 KB, 600x338, Nanomachines.jpg)
I think we should subsidize cognitive enhancement technologies. The rest of the population would be able to keep up with the rich and the increase in average IQ would lead to more technological innovation.
We'll see a new phenotypic revolution and surely lose whatever in ourselves that makes us human. Transhumanism is no paradise, and is in the sort an instrumentality that will leave no gaps in humanity as we all become one. We mean, it's not like much of us is doing anything to change it. Populism is fickle. Merely a phase of disruption that encourages acceleration. So far no confrontation has been made to limit the consumption that drives us forever forth to a new reality. There never has been a question to it. Technology would eventually would have led to our downfall anyways. The only stop being collapse.
>>99933
>We'll see a new phenotypic revolution and surely lose whatever in ourselves that makes us human.
How are we going to lose what makes us human?
>We'll see a new phenotypic revolution and surely lose whatever in ourselves that makes us human.
How are we going to lose what makes us human?
>>99940
The replication of humans in due time will become more efficient. Just as the role of RNA was eventually dominated by DNA, the formal reproduction process too will be phased out. Eventually the humans, rather beings if they can be called "human", that come out through this new method will grow attached to their own means of replication and survival, so will occur a new man. A man that loses himself more and more as the system that produces sees fit. Evolution will shed the odd, illogical behaviours that plague us. Many of these quips are unneeded. A better form is possible. And, that's what the vision of transhumanism truely entails.
The replication of humans in due time will become more efficient. Just as the role of RNA was eventually dominated by DNA, the formal reproduction process too will be phased out. Eventually the humans, rather beings if they can be called "human", that come out through this new method will grow attached to their own means of replication and survival, so will occur a new man. A man that loses himself more and more as the system that produces sees fit. Evolution will shed the odd, illogical behaviours that plague us. Many of these quips are unneeded. A better form is possible. And, that's what the vision of transhumanism truely entails.
>>99946
>Just as the role of RNA was eventually dominated by DNA, the formal reproduction process too will be phased out. Eventually the humans, rather beings if they can be called "human", that come out through this new method will grow attached to their own means of replication and survival, so will occur a new man.
What's going to happen to all the people that are still around from the old methods of replication. Augmentations and life extension will be available for them too.
>Just as the role of RNA was eventually dominated by DNA, the formal reproduction process too will be phased out. Eventually the humans, rather beings if they can be called "human", that come out through this new method will grow attached to their own means of replication and survival, so will occur a new man.
What's going to happen to all the people that are still around from the old methods of replication. Augmentations and life extension will be available for them too.
File (): 8D41350794B526C43DCDD1036BB605ED-44283.jpg (43.2 KB, 557x557, 1498120379236.jpg)
>>99766
Slightly weary of the abuses possible through Transhumanism. It would be the perfect opportunity for (((them))) to be able to fully control us. Or maybe that's just me being paranoid.
Slightly weary of the abuses possible through Transhumanism. It would be the perfect opportunity for (((them))) to be able to fully control us. Or maybe that's just me being paranoid.
File (): 8C6D4C3370D73B98A7A4A73C5464C47E-93841.jpg (91.6 KB, 511x511, 1514671410621.jpg)
>>99974
The ones with hundreds or maybe even thousands of years worth of experience will be the ones with the odds in their favor.
>>99976
So is everything else in the modern world, but I don't see you giving up computers or modern medicine.
>>99977
Or it could be the perfect opportunity for us gain the upper hand. The FDA is afraid of biohackers for a reason.
The ones with hundreds or maybe even thousands of years worth of experience will be the ones with the odds in their favor.
>>99976
So is everything else in the modern world, but I don't see you giving up computers or modern medicine.
>>99977
Or it could be the perfect opportunity for us gain the upper hand. The FDA is afraid of biohackers for a reason.
>>100024
>giving up your body is completely different (((anon)))
How? If I could have a better body what is wrong with that? What is wrong with wanting to improve yourself?
>giving up your body is completely different (((anon)))
How? If I could have a better body what is wrong with that? What is wrong with wanting to improve yourself?
File (): 12BED1FD3CD173C5BC69580C9942EA65-172684.png (168.6 KB, 2810x4096, 1514670930333.png)
>>100039
no by removing your flesh and reject the natuaral world and you are making yourself vulnerable to jew hat hackers.
no by removing your flesh and reject the natuaral world and you are making yourself vulnerable to jew hat hackers.
>>100052
It's pretty easy to avoid taking pharmaceutical drugs. It's not so easy to avoid being hacked if you're a cyborg.
It's pretty easy to avoid taking pharmaceutical drugs. It's not so easy to avoid being hacked if you're a cyborg.
>>100059
>It's not so easy to avoid being hacked if you're a cyborg.
Just don't ever connect to the internet. Provided you aren't wireless you won't be hacked.
>It's not so easy to avoid being hacked if you're a cyborg.
Just don't ever connect to the internet. Provided you aren't wireless you won't be hacked.
I remember a thread on /pol/ about how transhumanism was partially invented by and is pushed by kikes, but I'm far too hung over to remember the specifics
File (): BEA613D4C26F23E0B03E7907F2BCAEEE-1266256.png (1.2 MB, 1354x1606, 6xrwsX.png)
Threadly reminder.
If i choose transhumanism, they will promise and fulfill finally be with her.
Or they will just lie me and destroy everything i cared about?
Or they will just lie me and destroy everything i cared about?
>>100519
Isaac Asimov died before transhumanism was a thing. Charles Stross follows the standard SJW package of beliefs (and makes sure everyone knows) but is if anything pushing back against the "technological salvation" narrative.
Also, both are/were authors of speculative fiction, not primarily advocates for where humanity should be going.
Stanislaw Lem seems like an odd one to be included as well, but I can't say I really know his work.
t. used to read a lot of SF
Isaac Asimov died before transhumanism was a thing. Charles Stross follows the standard SJW package of beliefs (and makes sure everyone knows) but is if anything pushing back against the "technological salvation" narrative.
Also, both are/were authors of speculative fiction, not primarily advocates for where humanity should be going.
Stanislaw Lem seems like an odd one to be included as well, but I can't say I really know his work.
t. used to read a lot of SF
Does the idea of consiousness being stored and transfered across bodies fit in with transhumanism?
If so I recommend reading The Phantom of Kansas by John Varley. Decent story if you're into the kind of stuff like that.
If so I recommend reading The Phantom of Kansas by John Varley. Decent story if you're into the kind of stuff like that.
transhumanism is an abomination, like the society built today by banks and megacorporations controlling the media, the social networks and what is perceived as truth today wasn't enough, human being are going to become the property of some company.
Fear Factory tried to warn us about this future 20 years ago.
Fear Factory tried to warn us about this future 20 years ago.
transhumanism is a bad idea because of the humanism, it seeks to include humanity but move away from human nature. If you want an actual future based that heavily in technology it'd make more sense to just make sentient machines and replace humans outright rather than try to upgrade humans. Humans will always be flawed because they'll always be human no amount of technology will change that if you want a future that includes humanity you should accept humanity and human nature for what it is, not these bizarre ideas about what you think it could or should be.
Heresy.
>>100584
By that logic, fucking animals would result in some sort of off spring. And there's a difference between fucking a nigger and fucking a horse before you try to play that card.
By that logic, fucking animals would result in some sort of off spring. And there's a difference between fucking a nigger and fucking a horse before you try to play that card.
>>100585
I'm just saying that niggers and jews are made using natural ingredients, as is race-mixing. You went with broad strokes so I did too to counter the generalities you suggest.
I'm just saying that niggers and jews are made using natural ingredients, as is race-mixing. You went with broad strokes so I did too to counter the generalities you suggest.
I can hear it now:
“Leftists now ban all magnets and other items that my harm our new cyborg, single race citizens. What monster would oppose this new bill that will save lives?”
First it was multiculturalism to weaken whites, then transgenderism to weaken males, now they want to weaken humanity as a whole. Now, I’m no expert... but isn’t the idea to connect the mechanics and electronics to your brain for maximum efficiency, at least that’s the goal? Maybe I am mistaken, but can’t a signal potentially travel two ways? You control some things and those that made this possible control the rest. Sounds like a real bargain doesn’t it? They want to flush away any free thought and choice.
And now a little conspiracy theory off the top of my head at what could come next. I bet you anything they will hook this stuff up to AI to “help you gain better control of the new equipment” while it does all the controlling. Another priority would be installing cashless payment options right into the hardware. And for those stupid people that get into trouble: new software that makes any violent thoughts shut the systems down. No more war, no more resistance, the perfect little world (((they))) desperately desire. It just costs us all we are.
Please excuse my rant, but I feel we are going to see something big happen down the road with this. Just make sure to watch those little steps toward disaster.
“Leftists now ban all magnets and other items that my harm our new cyborg, single race citizens. What monster would oppose this new bill that will save lives?”
First it was multiculturalism to weaken whites, then transgenderism to weaken males, now they want to weaken humanity as a whole. Now, I’m no expert... but isn’t the idea to connect the mechanics and electronics to your brain for maximum efficiency, at least that’s the goal? Maybe I am mistaken, but can’t a signal potentially travel two ways? You control some things and those that made this possible control the rest. Sounds like a real bargain doesn’t it? They want to flush away any free thought and choice.
And now a little conspiracy theory off the top of my head at what could come next. I bet you anything they will hook this stuff up to AI to “help you gain better control of the new equipment” while it does all the controlling. Another priority would be installing cashless payment options right into the hardware. And for those stupid people that get into trouble: new software that makes any violent thoughts shut the systems down. No more war, no more resistance, the perfect little world (((they))) desperately desire. It just costs us all we are.
Please excuse my rant, but I feel we are going to see something big happen down the road with this. Just make sure to watch those little steps toward disaster.
>>100608
but isn’t the idea to connect the mechanics and electronics to your brain for maximum efficiency, at least that’s the goal?
There are other ways to improve the brain besides implants. Implants are not very desirable because they are expensive and you risk infection from the surgery. Psychobiotics, nootropics, and transcranial electrical brain stimulation are better options.
but isn’t the idea to connect the mechanics and electronics to your brain for maximum efficiency, at least that’s the goal?
There are other ways to improve the brain besides implants. Implants are not very desirable because they are expensive and you risk infection from the surgery. Psychobiotics, nootropics, and transcranial electrical brain stimulation are better options.
>>100612
Again, no expert when it comes to the brain, but from what I gather, those processes involve stimulating the brain. While not direct control, do you argue that they can never effect the brain in a way to control a person? What about overstimulation if the person falls out of line?
I will have to look into this field more to see if there are safe ways of going about this, but I will bet anything the upgrades down the road will push for faster connections and the like, just like phones and computers, which the elite will add to the software and hardware little by little to gain more control. You at least see my concern here don’t you?
Again, no expert when it comes to the brain, but from what I gather, those processes involve stimulating the brain. While not direct control, do you argue that they can never effect the brain in a way to control a person? What about overstimulation if the person falls out of line?
I will have to look into this field more to see if there are safe ways of going about this, but I will bet anything the upgrades down the road will push for faster connections and the like, just like phones and computers, which the elite will add to the software and hardware little by little to gain more control. You at least see my concern here don’t you?
>>100621
I feel like when we're talking about body augmentation there's a few different ways of thinking about it. Anything that involves directly connecting a computer to the brain, particularly if it's networked, I would be against for the obvious reasons you stated. What I'm envisioning when I think of transhuman augmentation is something along the lines of nanobots or artificial cells that can be used to either improve the functionality of your existing organs and replace cells that die off, not necessarily replacing parts of your body or brain with electronic machinery.
The benefits of this kind of technology as far as replacing organs like the liver or kidneys in the event of failure would be hard to argue with. You could probably also augment muscle tissue with artificial cells to make yourself swole or modify your body chemistry to burn food more efficiently and keep yourself in better shape with less effort. Brain function could probably be improved without necessarily altering the structure of the brain or giving control of it to an outside system. You could have artificial cells that target cancer cells, kill them off and then replicate to replace the lost tissue. The way I imagine it is more about improving existing processes and making your body function more optimally. It's really not that different from drug therapy when you think about it, considering that a drug is just a foreign substance introduced into the body in an effort to modify or augment natural processes.
I feel like when we're talking about body augmentation there's a few different ways of thinking about it. Anything that involves directly connecting a computer to the brain, particularly if it's networked, I would be against for the obvious reasons you stated. What I'm envisioning when I think of transhuman augmentation is something along the lines of nanobots or artificial cells that can be used to either improve the functionality of your existing organs and replace cells that die off, not necessarily replacing parts of your body or brain with electronic machinery.
The benefits of this kind of technology as far as replacing organs like the liver or kidneys in the event of failure would be hard to argue with. You could probably also augment muscle tissue with artificial cells to make yourself swole or modify your body chemistry to burn food more efficiently and keep yourself in better shape with less effort. Brain function could probably be improved without necessarily altering the structure of the brain or giving control of it to an outside system. You could have artificial cells that target cancer cells, kill them off and then replicate to replace the lost tissue. The way I imagine it is more about improving existing processes and making your body function more optimally. It's really not that different from drug therapy when you think about it, considering that a drug is just a foreign substance introduced into the body in an effort to modify or augment natural processes.
File (): C0A55AEF6880F7DBB49AE0E4EC6F7B9F-66422.jpg (64.9 KB, 634x636, HETHICC.jpg)
>>100650
Who do you have to sell your soul to in order to obtain the ability to replace organs constantly? Your talking about a prototype for immortality here. Replacing cells is well and all until you start thinking though the setbacks and problems you are going to face.
To integrate machine with man is to lose control of at least some part. With your idea, it is to give yourself up to the doctors and elites, because who is going to sell these things? Your local Walmart?
You argue that this is no different than drugs. While drugs alter the physical makeup of people, they can wear off. To put nanotechnology inside of you is to make way for who knows how many operations that can go on without your knowledge or approval anytime. You said it could help your brain without altering it, but what is the hidden cost?
Last argument is more philosophy and religion and can be disregarded, but I will still mention it. From the viewpoint of Christianity and even evolutionist you can’t say this is a great step in the right direction. For a Christian, why put machines in your body to run from death? Christians don’t fear death because they are saved from hell. You may desire to help your fellow man in suffering diseases with the promise the tech many save him, but knowing that this is a step to make man immortal should be a warning not to get involved.
And evolutionists should see this as an attempt to make the weak more powerful, thereby canceling out the philosophy of the strong prevail and pass on the genetic traits that will continue the species. Transhumanism will boost everyone who is weakened as whoever can afford the most machine enhancements and a reason to augment, such as a disease or feeling of inferiority, will prevail. Some may see this as the next step in evolution, but why would a species need to augment itself to be strong if it should be getting stronger naturally through evolution?
Man, I got to shorten my rants. I hope these concerns are understood.
Who do you have to sell your soul to in order to obtain the ability to replace organs constantly? Your talking about a prototype for immortality here. Replacing cells is well and all until you start thinking though the setbacks and problems you are going to face.
To integrate machine with man is to lose control of at least some part. With your idea, it is to give yourself up to the doctors and elites, because who is going to sell these things? Your local Walmart?
You argue that this is no different than drugs. While drugs alter the physical makeup of people, they can wear off. To put nanotechnology inside of you is to make way for who knows how many operations that can go on without your knowledge or approval anytime. You said it could help your brain without altering it, but what is the hidden cost?
Last argument is more philosophy and religion and can be disregarded, but I will still mention it. From the viewpoint of Christianity and even evolutionist you can’t say this is a great step in the right direction. For a Christian, why put machines in your body to run from death? Christians don’t fear death because they are saved from hell. You may desire to help your fellow man in suffering diseases with the promise the tech many save him, but knowing that this is a step to make man immortal should be a warning not to get involved.
And evolutionists should see this as an attempt to make the weak more powerful, thereby canceling out the philosophy of the strong prevail and pass on the genetic traits that will continue the species. Transhumanism will boost everyone who is weakened as whoever can afford the most machine enhancements and a reason to augment, such as a disease or feeling of inferiority, will prevail. Some may see this as the next step in evolution, but why would a species need to augment itself to be strong if it should be getting stronger naturally through evolution?
Man, I got to shorten my rants. I hope these concerns are understood.
>>100677
>And evolutionists should see this as an attempt to make the weak more powerful, thereby canceling out the philosophy of the strong prevail and pass on the genetic traits that will continue the species. Transhumanism will boost everyone who is weakened as whoever can afford the most machine enhancements and a reason to augment, such as a disease or feeling of inferiority, will prevail. Some may see this as the next step in evolution, but why would a species need to augment itself to be strong if it should be getting stronger naturally through evolution?
We would be changing the method of evolution. Evolution is not necessarily the survival of the strongest and brightest. Evolution is who ever reproduces wins. Transhumanism would allow us to select what traits are passed on.
>And evolutionists should see this as an attempt to make the weak more powerful, thereby canceling out the philosophy of the strong prevail and pass on the genetic traits that will continue the species. Transhumanism will boost everyone who is weakened as whoever can afford the most machine enhancements and a reason to augment, such as a disease or feeling of inferiority, will prevail. Some may see this as the next step in evolution, but why would a species need to augment itself to be strong if it should be getting stronger naturally through evolution?
We would be changing the method of evolution. Evolution is not necessarily the survival of the strongest and brightest. Evolution is who ever reproduces wins. Transhumanism would allow us to select what traits are passed on.
>>100678
And your saying mankind knows which traits are going to make the best out of your species? You know we screw up everything we touch right? And your saying, us, humans who can’t wake up everyone to the (((threat))), are going to make the evolutionary choices... this I got to see. You do realize we wouldn’t be making the choices right? It will be normies if not the elite directly.
And your saying mankind knows which traits are going to make the best out of your species? You know we screw up everything we touch right? And your saying, us, humans who can’t wake up everyone to the (((threat))), are going to make the evolutionary choices... this I got to see. You do realize we wouldn’t be making the choices right? It will be normies if not the elite directly.
>>100680
>And your saying mankind knows which traits are going to make the best out of your species?
>You know we screw up everything we touch right?
A humanist wouldn't agree with you. This goes back to the question of whether humanity is inherently good or bad, and ultimately comes down to fundamental beliefs.
>And your saying mankind knows which traits are going to make the best out of your species?
>You know we screw up everything we touch right?
A humanist wouldn't agree with you. This goes back to the question of whether humanity is inherently good or bad, and ultimately comes down to fundamental beliefs.
>>100680
>And your saying mankind knows which traits are going to make the best out of your species?
I'm saying people will have the option to be smarter and stronger.
>You know we screw up everything we touch right?
That's an exaggeration. We put a man on the moon and sequenced our genome. We fuck up sometimes sure, but we can do great things.
>And your saying, us, humans who can’t wake up everyone to the (((threat))), are going to make the evolutionary choices… this I got to see
We are already making evolutionary choices. Right now we are choosing to let third worlders outbreed us.
>And your saying mankind knows which traits are going to make the best out of your species?
I'm saying people will have the option to be smarter and stronger.
>You know we screw up everything we touch right?
That's an exaggeration. We put a man on the moon and sequenced our genome. We fuck up sometimes sure, but we can do great things.
>And your saying, us, humans who can’t wake up everyone to the (((threat))), are going to make the evolutionary choices… this I got to see
We are already making evolutionary choices. Right now we are choosing to let third worlders outbreed us.
>>100682
You don’t have to believe in good or bad to see this is going to have negative consequences on society if we goof something or leave it in the hands of those that are power hungry.
You don’t have to believe in good or bad to see this is going to have negative consequences on society if we goof something or leave it in the hands of those that are power hungry.
>>100677
I get what you're saying, but I have a couple of rebuttals. First of all, as far as the cost goes there's no reason to assume that this would only be available to elites or the super-wealthy; most successful products, including in the field of medicine, are ones that can be marketed to the average consumer. I think in its early experimental stages the cost might be high, but as with any technology the cost would drop significantly as the tech improves. Computers for example used to be large and expensive enough that it was only practical for universities and large companies to own them, now we carry them around in our pockets. A shitty laptop you can pick up for $200 at WalMart has specs that would have been considered high-end in the 1980s. The first computer my family ever owned had a 40mb hard drive for fuck's sake. Of course it's impossible to know exactly how much it's going to cost until the tech is actually developed, I would say that basic body augmentation/organ replacement would be reasonably affordable for an average middle-class person living in the first world within a decade or two of its initial development, probably on par with laser eye surgery and that kind of thing.
You also have to consider that synthetic organ replacement would probably be cheaper and simpler than the solutions we currently have available. For instance if someone needs a heart or a liver it basically means waiting for someone else to die so they can have theirs. Doctors already install plastic heart valves and things like that, it's not that far of a jump to consider creating entire artificial organ systems to replace real ones, particularly since it would eliminate the reliance on actual human organs. It would effectively kill the black market organ harvesting racket too, which I think is something we can all agree would be beneficial.
As far as the philosophical/religious aspect goes, I can see your point but I guess I tend not to agree with you. I'm not particularly religious and I tend to think there's probably nothing after this, which I won't lie depresses me a little sometimes. If there's a way I can extend my natural life as much as possible I'd like to do it. Probably the most significant big-picture issues I see are some population control issues and the evolution issues that you mentioned. Population will probably be less of a factor since white childbirth rates are declining anyway, if whites who don't have children or have children later in life start living longer it could actually help us offset the shitskin population growth, especially since the vast majority of them will likely be in the category of people who won't be able to afford augmentation. I also don't think we're talking about literal immortality here; even artificial systems will degrade over time, and we don't know exactly how the artificial components will interact with the human ones. It could be that once enough of your human cells die the machine cells would stop working, who knows. But I definitely think a significant life extension could be possible, and I see no reason not to go for it.
I get what you're saying, but I have a couple of rebuttals. First of all, as far as the cost goes there's no reason to assume that this would only be available to elites or the super-wealthy; most successful products, including in the field of medicine, are ones that can be marketed to the average consumer. I think in its early experimental stages the cost might be high, but as with any technology the cost would drop significantly as the tech improves. Computers for example used to be large and expensive enough that it was only practical for universities and large companies to own them, now we carry them around in our pockets. A shitty laptop you can pick up for $200 at WalMart has specs that would have been considered high-end in the 1980s. The first computer my family ever owned had a 40mb hard drive for fuck's sake. Of course it's impossible to know exactly how much it's going to cost until the tech is actually developed, I would say that basic body augmentation/organ replacement would be reasonably affordable for an average middle-class person living in the first world within a decade or two of its initial development, probably on par with laser eye surgery and that kind of thing.
You also have to consider that synthetic organ replacement would probably be cheaper and simpler than the solutions we currently have available. For instance if someone needs a heart or a liver it basically means waiting for someone else to die so they can have theirs. Doctors already install plastic heart valves and things like that, it's not that far of a jump to consider creating entire artificial organ systems to replace real ones, particularly since it would eliminate the reliance on actual human organs. It would effectively kill the black market organ harvesting racket too, which I think is something we can all agree would be beneficial.
As far as the philosophical/religious aspect goes, I can see your point but I guess I tend not to agree with you. I'm not particularly religious and I tend to think there's probably nothing after this, which I won't lie depresses me a little sometimes. If there's a way I can extend my natural life as much as possible I'd like to do it. Probably the most significant big-picture issues I see are some population control issues and the evolution issues that you mentioned. Population will probably be less of a factor since white childbirth rates are declining anyway, if whites who don't have children or have children later in life start living longer it could actually help us offset the shitskin population growth, especially since the vast majority of them will likely be in the category of people who won't be able to afford augmentation. I also don't think we're talking about literal immortality here; even artificial systems will degrade over time, and we don't know exactly how the artificial components will interact with the human ones. It could be that once enough of your human cells die the machine cells would stop working, who knows. But I definitely think a significant life extension could be possible, and I see no reason not to go for it.
I don't think transhumanism will ever reach the public unless capitalism and the state are subverted, primarily because I see mainstream access to transhumanist technology as a threat thereof. It would give people the ability to subvert the norms put in place by capitalism, destroying the current superstructure and thus preventing reproduction of the base.
>>101367
Biohackers are already making it accessible. Even if they crack down on it there will be enough of a black market to keep it going and there are plenty of un/underemployed biology and chemistry majors out there who could use some extra cash.
Biohackers are already making it accessible. Even if they crack down on it there will be enough of a black market to keep it going and there are plenty of un/underemployed biology and chemistry majors out there who could use some extra cash.
>>99766
It's inevitable, maybe the answers to the problems likely to be caused by the technology lies in the technology itself.
It's inevitable, maybe the answers to the problems likely to be caused by the technology lies in the technology itself.
>>99766
Augmentations will be mandated by the government just as denographics are controlled, too, in the future. Expect multinational groups to manage population flows hand-in-hand with augmentations.
Augmentations will be mandated by the government just as denographics are controlled, too, in the future. Expect multinational groups to manage population flows hand-in-hand with augmentations.
Eugenics mark two.
Full support, but only for white people. All others must be gassed to make room for the biological and technological supermen.
Full support, but only for white people. All others must be gassed to make room for the biological and technological supermen.
File (): 9940782BC22627C9D72FA83260DB03D6-232679.png (227.2 KB, 528x566, 1491774678184.png)
I am absolutely disgusted by this shit.
First things first: Why call it augmentation? It is a fucking marketing move. It is a change first and foremost and if it augments us is not proven. What is for sure that it is a change.
>implying artificial shit in your body will make you better.
So what are you gonna do? Add some extra sensors to your body so you can better detect UV radiation or some shit? whoop-de-fucking-doo. Implant some uplink so you won't have to take out your smartphone anymore? Holy shit what a jump in human evolution!
So you add a foreign body into your system, which your body will try to get rid off, via invasive sugery that destroys your cells. To expand your sensory system for information that have no use? Are you going to change organs that have been field-tested for hundreds of thousands of years for the latest artificial shit?
The human body is an amzing blossom of evelution that has been optimized since the dawn of life.
It can previal in almost any circumstance. From survival in the vacuum of space and its radiation to 20bar pressure (bloodshift) from negative degrees to 100°C air temterature. It is resilent to physical chemical and biological attacks, can archieve extraorinary results and it heals on its own.
Swapping my appendixes for a trip in the desert or going diving just so I don't have to use any tools is bullshit.
Being relient on batterys, maintainance and the new software upgrade is shit.
Don't get me started on the negative shit! How about getting fucking hacked? Walk past a transformer station and have a seizure?
Being relient on companies? "We stop support for the current model get a new one or you face the risk." "Our poo in the loo scientist made some mistakes you are fucked."
Even if you just get the internet uplink shit how can I even take you seriously?
>You see a coworker coming up to you and you can't think of a joke so you use your uplink
Is it you telling the joke or google?
What part of you can I even trust?
How much of you is still in there or are you just a fucking drone? The last cog in a machine.
Also I dounbt it raises the IQ on a long term.
http://www.euronews.com/2017/12/29/the-iq-of-europeans-is-dropping-due-to-technology-say-researchers
http://scienceblogs.com/observations/2010/04/01/domesticated-dummies/
While these thing are not 100% proven and not 100% transferable to human I still think it indicates that there will be physical degeneracy ensueing.
Also tells you about the importance of stuggle.
BTW physical degeneracy is a topic that is a little underrepresented.
Humans get taller but more sickly and more stupid. Children become allergic to everything and spend their first years in hospitals when they come into contact with the world that doesn't consist of Febreeze, Sagrotan and backseats.
tl;dr
You do you but don't expect me to take you seriously if you cut away healthy tissue to brag with your hipster shit and don't expect me to accept you when you are nothing more than a google outlet.
I'd take natural +10 IQ or stronger muscles over that ever fucking day.
It's shit.
Kurzweil is a kike on crack. Fuck him.
First things first: Why call it augmentation? It is a fucking marketing move. It is a change first and foremost and if it augments us is not proven. What is for sure that it is a change.
>implying artificial shit in your body will make you better.
So what are you gonna do? Add some extra sensors to your body so you can better detect UV radiation or some shit? whoop-de-fucking-doo. Implant some uplink so you won't have to take out your smartphone anymore? Holy shit what a jump in human evolution!
So you add a foreign body into your system, which your body will try to get rid off, via invasive sugery that destroys your cells. To expand your sensory system for information that have no use? Are you going to change organs that have been field-tested for hundreds of thousands of years for the latest artificial shit?
The human body is an amzing blossom of evelution that has been optimized since the dawn of life.
It can previal in almost any circumstance. From survival in the vacuum of space and its radiation to 20bar pressure (bloodshift) from negative degrees to 100°C air temterature. It is resilent to physical chemical and biological attacks, can archieve extraorinary results and it heals on its own.
Swapping my appendixes for a trip in the desert or going diving just so I don't have to use any tools is bullshit.
Being relient on batterys, maintainance and the new software upgrade is shit.
Don't get me started on the negative shit! How about getting fucking hacked? Walk past a transformer station and have a seizure?
Being relient on companies? "We stop support for the current model get a new one or you face the risk." "Our poo in the loo scientist made some mistakes you are fucked."
Even if you just get the internet uplink shit how can I even take you seriously?
>You see a coworker coming up to you and you can't think of a joke so you use your uplink
Is it you telling the joke or google?
What part of you can I even trust?
How much of you is still in there or are you just a fucking drone? The last cog in a machine.
Also I dounbt it raises the IQ on a long term.
http://www.euronews.com/2017/12/29/the-iq-of-europeans-is-dropping-due-to-technology-say-researchers
http://scienceblogs.com/observations/2010/04/01/domesticated-dummies/
While these thing are not 100% proven and not 100% transferable to human I still think it indicates that there will be physical degeneracy ensueing.
Also tells you about the importance of stuggle.
BTW physical degeneracy is a topic that is a little underrepresented.
Humans get taller but more sickly and more stupid. Children become allergic to everything and spend their first years in hospitals when they come into contact with the world that doesn't consist of Febreeze, Sagrotan and backseats.
tl;dr
You do you but don't expect me to take you seriously if you cut away healthy tissue to brag with your hipster shit and don't expect me to accept you when you are nothing more than a google outlet.
I'd take natural +10 IQ or stronger muscles over that ever fucking day.
It's shit.
Kurzweil is a kike on crack. Fuck him.
Ohh and how about actually fixing the problems like healthcare or education instead of trying to fix it with this bullshit that will cause more harm than good in the long run.
Seems better to me
Seems better to me
Transhumanism is a jew scam. That said, I do support partial Mechanical augmentation.
>>104311
How do you feel about gene doping or hyperbiotics? I can understand why people would want to avoid the surgeries or foreign objects, but what about the less invasive means.
How do you feel about gene doping or hyperbiotics? I can understand why people would want to avoid the surgeries or foreign objects, but what about the less invasive means.
>>104339
Honestly pretty much the same.
We may have decoded the human genome but that doesn't mean we understand it.
The whole thing is complex.
There are hundreds of genes involved in single traits plus epigenetiks.
Some years ago people thought the Appendix vermiformis was useless and you should pay some bucks to get it out, now we know it is nice to have and should only be removed if it might kill you.
So if you decide to change something it is hard to tell what also it effects. There are possipble interdependencies between various traits.
Who decides what things are good? Is it good to reduce the genetik variation on a larger scale?
Is it even necessary to do those things when most of our greatest archievments come from a time where these methods were not available?
Changing the bacteria in our digestive system with what (((companies))) think is an improvement to a running system needs a pretty good reason.
The only studies I know that show any positive effect that are more than a placebo-effect are those done or payed by said companies.
It is just some hipster marketing shit.
Don't eat too much trash and you are fine.
As I said calling the whole thing augmentation is a stretch and what good/bad it brings has to figured out.
Maybe you can have stronger limbs. Improvement.
Maybe it also fucks up your system and makes you relient on shit.
Maybe it weakens your ability to cope with heat.
Fuck being a guneia pig and fuck doing changes that are simply not needed. Especially if there are less risky ways for most of the supposed issues.
I would be cautious about the whole thing.
>>104336
What would you get?
Honestly pretty much the same.
We may have decoded the human genome but that doesn't mean we understand it.
The whole thing is complex.
There are hundreds of genes involved in single traits plus epigenetiks.
Some years ago people thought the Appendix vermiformis was useless and you should pay some bucks to get it out, now we know it is nice to have and should only be removed if it might kill you.
So if you decide to change something it is hard to tell what also it effects. There are possipble interdependencies between various traits.
Who decides what things are good? Is it good to reduce the genetik variation on a larger scale?
Is it even necessary to do those things when most of our greatest archievments come from a time where these methods were not available?
Changing the bacteria in our digestive system with what (((companies))) think is an improvement to a running system needs a pretty good reason.
The only studies I know that show any positive effect that are more than a placebo-effect are those done or payed by said companies.
It is just some hipster marketing shit.
Don't eat too much trash and you are fine.
As I said calling the whole thing augmentation is a stretch and what good/bad it brings has to figured out.
Maybe you can have stronger limbs. Improvement.
Maybe it also fucks up your system and makes you relient on shit.
Maybe it weakens your ability to cope with heat.
Fuck being a guneia pig and fuck doing changes that are simply not needed. Especially if there are less risky ways for most of the supposed issues.
I would be cautious about the whole thing.
>>104336
What would you get?
>>104342
>Who decides what things are good?
I do. Ideally I would get to choose what genes I want to put in my body.
>Is it good to reduce the genetik variation on a larger scale?
Why would this reduce genetic variation? We could use different genes that had similar effects. You don't need to add the same genes to everyone.
>Is it even necessary to do those things when most of our greatest archievments come from a time where these methods were not available?
It is absolutely necessary. Machines are about to make a lot of people obsolete and the chinks are already looking into this technology. Either we start improving ourselves or we give the world to the machines and the Chinese.
>The only studies I know that show any positive effect that are more than a placebo-effect are those done or payed by said companies
Genetically modified probiotics will give you a lot more than a placebo effect.
>Maybe it also fucks up your system and makes you relient on shit.
>Maybe it weakens your ability to cope with heat.
Maybe these trade-offs are worth it. And if they aren't maybe I could add something to silence the new gene or remove it. Or if we went the hyperbiotic route we could just kill the bacteria.
>Who decides what things are good?
I do. Ideally I would get to choose what genes I want to put in my body.
>Is it good to reduce the genetik variation on a larger scale?
Why would this reduce genetic variation? We could use different genes that had similar effects. You don't need to add the same genes to everyone.
>Is it even necessary to do those things when most of our greatest archievments come from a time where these methods were not available?
It is absolutely necessary. Machines are about to make a lot of people obsolete and the chinks are already looking into this technology. Either we start improving ourselves or we give the world to the machines and the Chinese.
>The only studies I know that show any positive effect that are more than a placebo-effect are those done or payed by said companies
Genetically modified probiotics will give you a lot more than a placebo effect.
>Maybe it also fucks up your system and makes you relient on shit.
>Maybe it weakens your ability to cope with heat.
Maybe these trade-offs are worth it. And if they aren't maybe I could add something to silence the new gene or remove it. Or if we went the hyperbiotic route we could just kill the bacteria.
>>104352
As long as you are not an expert in the field all you do is choose in a catalog of what other people think is good.
A few paragraphs about picked arguments.
>Why would this reduce genetic variation? We could use different genes that had similar effects. You don't need to add the same genes to everyone.
Fair point but in an industrialized system it is unlikely that there is a high variation.
>It is absolutely necessary.
I disargree.
>Genetically modified probiotics will give you a lot more than a placebo effect.
Any links?
>Maybe these trade-offs are worth it. And if they aren't maybe I could add something to silence the new gene or remove it. Or if we went the hyperbiotic route we could just kill the bacteria.
Maybe. But in a closed system one change always effects something else. The artificial bacteria supersede the naturals with all benefits and drawbacks. And the potential damage will already be done.
Maybe I am too harsh on this but all I see is hype, hybris and cherrypicking.
I doubt that it will solve problems. I will displace them.
As long as you are not an expert in the field all you do is choose in a catalog of what other people think is good.
A few paragraphs about picked arguments.
>Why would this reduce genetic variation? We could use different genes that had similar effects. You don't need to add the same genes to everyone.
Fair point but in an industrialized system it is unlikely that there is a high variation.
>It is absolutely necessary.
I disargree.
>Genetically modified probiotics will give you a lot more than a placebo effect.
Any links?
>Maybe these trade-offs are worth it. And if they aren't maybe I could add something to silence the new gene or remove it. Or if we went the hyperbiotic route we could just kill the bacteria.
Maybe. But in a closed system one change always effects something else. The artificial bacteria supersede the naturals with all benefits and drawbacks. And the potential damage will already be done.
Maybe I am too harsh on this but all I see is hype, hybris and cherrypicking.
I doubt that it will solve problems. I will displace them.
>>104356
>Fair point but in an industrialized system it is unlikely that there is a high variation.
I disagree. I think we will see a lot of people doing it at home in the beginning. All the restriction enzymes, genes, and equipment necessary to modify bacteria can be found online (addgene.com, NEB.com, ebay)
>Any links?
A phase 1 human trial using genetically modified bacteria to treat crohn's disease.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1542356506003314
Using bacteria to prevent cavities in rats
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12369203/
We can make bacteria produce different proteins and compounds in your body. The potential here is limitless.
>Fair point but in an industrialized system it is unlikely that there is a high variation.
I disagree. I think we will see a lot of people doing it at home in the beginning. All the restriction enzymes, genes, and equipment necessary to modify bacteria can be found online (addgene.com, NEB.com, ebay)
>Any links?
A phase 1 human trial using genetically modified bacteria to treat crohn's disease.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1542356506003314
Using bacteria to prevent cavities in rats
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12369203/
We can make bacteria produce different proteins and compounds in your body. The potential here is limitless.
>>104394
Was talking more about gene-editing.
Still on a larger scale I think it is most likely that we get a couple of products that will be wiedly available.
Anyways thanks for the links going to give it a look.
Was talking more about gene-editing.
Still on a larger scale I think it is most likely that we get a couple of products that will be wiedly available.
Anyways thanks for the links going to give it a look.
>>104394
You are right when you say the potential is near limitless but there is much work to do before it should be widely applied.
You are right when you say the potential is near limitless but there is much work to do before it should be widely applied.
>>104405
There is a lot of work to be done, but I think we know enough to start applying it. I think we should start with GM bacteria to improve immunity and metabolism.
There is a lot of work to be done, but I think we know enough to start applying it. I think we should start with GM bacteria to improve immunity and metabolism.
>>104419
Okay to get my story straight:
Uplink to the web and transhumanism is fucking disgusting.
Artificial limbs are aswell as long as you you replace healthy tissue. (Prosthetic are okay)
Changing of human genes is shit aswell unless there is a really good reason to it.
Manipulation of bacteria is sort of borderline because these are much easier to deal with than a complete complex system that is the human.
I still think there are A LOT of major issues with the whole topic.
>but I think we know enough to start applying it.
We can run tests, yes. We can even have studies to try to stabilize sick persons. Apllying it to the public to (((augment))) them is a completely different deal though.
>I think we should start with GM bacteria to improve immunity and metabolism.
I am all for science and increasing the knowledge. Bacteria is on a level I am willing to talk about but this needs much more research before we can even think of making it something ordinary.
Fixing damge is one thing, trying to improve something else.
There are too many things we don't know about, too many questions that can't be answered.
I still doubt it's necessarity and that it is the only way.
Okay to get my story straight:
Uplink to the web and transhumanism is fucking disgusting.
Artificial limbs are aswell as long as you you replace healthy tissue. (Prosthetic are okay)
Changing of human genes is shit aswell unless there is a really good reason to it.
Manipulation of bacteria is sort of borderline because these are much easier to deal with than a complete complex system that is the human.
I still think there are A LOT of major issues with the whole topic.
>but I think we know enough to start applying it.
We can run tests, yes. We can even have studies to try to stabilize sick persons. Apllying it to the public to (((augment))) them is a completely different deal though.
>I think we should start with GM bacteria to improve immunity and metabolism.
I am all for science and increasing the knowledge. Bacteria is on a level I am willing to talk about but this needs much more research before we can even think of making it something ordinary.
Fixing damge is one thing, trying to improve something else.
There are too many things we don't know about, too many questions that can't be answered.
I still doubt it's necessarity and that it is the only way.
>>104423
>I still doubt it's necessarity and that it is the only way.
We are running out of effective antibiotics and healthcare costs too much. Preventative medicine is the most effective medicine.
>I still doubt it's necessarity and that it is the only way.
We are running out of effective antibiotics and healthcare costs too much. Preventative medicine is the most effective medicine.
>>104438
I think that's more to do with the retarded insurance system that encourages hospitals to overuse antibiotics like crazy. Trying transhumanism to overcome that would just put us temporarily ahead in a medical arms race that wouldn't end until we are all robots.
I think that's more to do with the retarded insurance system that encourages hospitals to overuse antibiotics like crazy. Trying transhumanism to overcome that would just put us temporarily ahead in a medical arms race that wouldn't end until we are all robots.
>>104441
>I think that's more to do with the retarded insurance system that encourages hospitals to overuse antibiotics like crazy.
It's also the meat industry. They use a lot of antibiotics. China was using last resort antibiotics on pigs now we have bacteria that are resistant to just about everything now.
>>104443
>>104444
Dying sucks.
>I think that's more to do with the retarded insurance system that encourages hospitals to overuse antibiotics like crazy.
It's also the meat industry. They use a lot of antibiotics. China was using last resort antibiotics on pigs now we have bacteria that are resistant to just about everything now.
>>104443
>>104444
Dying sucks.
>>104448
People being dead also changed things a lot too!
Death might come at any given time, its good to accept it.
People being dead also changed things a lot too!
Death might come at any given time, its good to accept it.
>>104460
Disagreed.
If man is immortal and can reproduce there is no limit to the population.
If man is immortal and can't reproduce mankind will fail to exist through unforseen circumstances. (Burried, sunken, burned to crisp.
The only way for a species to find any equilibrium with its natural surroundings is to be mortal and to reproduce more in time of danger.
No death = shit.
Disagreed.
If man is immortal and can reproduce there is no limit to the population.
If man is immortal and can't reproduce mankind will fail to exist through unforseen circumstances. (Burried, sunken, burned to crisp.
The only way for a species to find any equilibrium with its natural surroundings is to be mortal and to reproduce more in time of danger.
No death = shit.
>>104843
>If man is immortal and can reproduce there is no limit to the population.
Seems like this could be solved by regulation or moving off planet
>If man is immortal and can reproduce there is no limit to the population.
Seems like this could be solved by regulation or moving off planet
>>99766
In a perfect world, we could find a way to balance human biology and machine mechanics, but this isn't a perfect world and having such things is way too much of a risk. I mean sure I may of thought about how cool it would be to have robotic arms but what is the point unless I don't have any already?
>>100782
>It would effectively kill the black market organ harvesting racket too.
Or just create a black market for parts by kidnapping augmented people and forcibly removing them?
>>100650
>What I'm envisioning when I think of transhuman augmentation is something along the lines of nanobots or artificial cells that can be used to either improve the functionality of your existing organs and replace cells that die off…
Soooo you don't think these are not as, if not more dangerous then having mechanical augments on yourself? What if they break down or go haywire? Cancer is after all just cells in the body that forget to stop dividing, what's to say artificial ones wont do this?
What if you say something ((they)) don't like and ((they)) choose to just flick a switch (And don't bullshit me, there will be a master control for these, even if you don't want it.) and make the nano machines in you give a nice lil non invasive lobotomy? Or the artificial cells just replace all your cells?
I believe you should just leave the body the way it is and allow us to naturally adapt to our surroundings and the problems we face, it's how we have got to where we are.
Also you should all go look at Deus Ex: Human Revolution, it looks into many of these problems, plus has some nice gameplay too.
In a perfect world, we could find a way to balance human biology and machine mechanics, but this isn't a perfect world and having such things is way too much of a risk. I mean sure I may of thought about how cool it would be to have robotic arms but what is the point unless I don't have any already?
>>100782
>It would effectively kill the black market organ harvesting racket too.
Or just create a black market for parts by kidnapping augmented people and forcibly removing them?
>>100650
>What I'm envisioning when I think of transhuman augmentation is something along the lines of nanobots or artificial cells that can be used to either improve the functionality of your existing organs and replace cells that die off…
Soooo you don't think these are not as, if not more dangerous then having mechanical augments on yourself? What if they break down or go haywire? Cancer is after all just cells in the body that forget to stop dividing, what's to say artificial ones wont do this?
What if you say something ((they)) don't like and ((they)) choose to just flick a switch (And don't bullshit me, there will be a master control for these, even if you don't want it.) and make the nano machines in you give a nice lil non invasive lobotomy? Or the artificial cells just replace all your cells?
I believe you should just leave the body the way it is and allow us to naturally adapt to our surroundings and the problems we face, it's how we have got to where we are.
Also you should all go look at Deus Ex: Human Revolution, it looks into many of these problems, plus has some nice gameplay too.
86 replies | 13 files | 30 UUIDs | Archived