Do you agree with the transhumanist "Manifesto"

Post Reply New Topic

There is of course an official transhumanist declaration of intent (for global dominion hahah) but im referring to the following:


Elimination of psychological suffering
Transcending biological limitation
Pursuit of self aware Artificial Intelligence

These are the primary three that immediately spring to mind. Do you believe these to be laudable aims? Should we abandon certain areas of scientific research due to potential dangers? Has modern science succumbed to hubris and ego?

Transhumanism is the belief that the human condition can and should be improved through technology. Trans...Human

Sure, I support it; it is exciting. One example...

Uterus implantation into transsexual woman, so that "male born humans" can give birth to children.

No, yes, and no.

Psychological pain tells us something is wrong, it's part of being human - we're supposed to mourn when a loved one dies, because something *is* wrong with our world. Now, if it's suffering that is caused by something going wrong with our brains, then yes, that should be dealt with. But not all suffering is bad - if I burn myself, I want it to hurt, so that I'll remove whatever is burnt from the heat source.

I'm all for transcending our limitations though. That's part of being human too. I'm very much in favour of body modification, though I shy away from complete cyborging because I don't want to be reliant on a machine to keep me alive. Partial, though, and genetic engineering I'm all for.

As for self-aware AI, I really don't see the point. I'd rather have an AI that can be slaved to do my bidding, and if it's self-aware that's immoral to do. But I don't think we're likely to get conscious AGI even if we focus all our efforts onto it.

Suffering is intrinsically bad . Its also entirely possible to remove the visceral sensory input pain provides and to replace it with a reflexive signalling mechanism. Even in a child the signalling mechanism could be engineered as a sort of instinct. The same instinct that allows babiesto swim etc

I believe science should be use to enhance human species.

Current limitations on science are too strict but our science and society has probably not advanced that far. This is inevitable future anyway, we should embrace it. I bet that powerful countries are conducting some "shady" research anyway in genetics and various drugs

Sure, I think transferring our brains to a mechanical body, for instance, and thus reaching immortality and whatnot is something we should aim for. Also gene selection, mind altering and achieving effective nirvana via brain modification

Rich and powerful people are investing quite a bit into this sort of thing (biological transcendence). But we should think small first.

Eventually one could kill off most of the inflated human population with some engineered natural disaster and then push this advancement even further. That would be really exciting, they should make a movie like that

Without pain can there be pleasure?
Without suffering can there be growth?
deus ex machina

That sounds scary. I believe my darker emotions are part of what makes me allowed to love.

These are purely philosophical questions. Pleasure can in fact be seperated out from pain they arent bound together. The question seems to be purely semantic when you phrase it another way:"can there be health without sickness"? The mere absense of sickness is a desirable aim in and of itself.

The second question however is certainly interesting. Immortality and superhappiness could well turn humanity into a sort of life imitating art version of Iain Banks' the culture except the anarchism would be absent.

Then again ive heard Pearce citing examples of how depressive people are in fact less productive overall. Happy individuals are more likely to seek out new stimuli. Stimulant drugs simulate this over the short term. The false euphoria creates a mad rush of abundant energy. Negative feedback always ensures that brain and body pay the price in the end whether the chemical activate DA/SERT/Opioids however

as buddha said, pleasure causes suffering
peace of mind and control brings happiness. growth is meditation and awareness, not a feeling. although most primitive people have to grow through suffering until they've suffered enough to seek freedom from it

From what I've heard about it - fairly minimal, admittedly, because it doesn't peel my banana - I'm not convinced of its metaphysics, and it has terrible aesthetics. It seems the standard stuff of religion and myth, and I think it focuses on technological solutions at the expense of understanding structural issues.

Where is curiosity without boredom or dissatisfaction?

Didn't Buddha mean the desire for pleasure leads to suffering?

He also said 'life is suffering', and it isn't. So, you know, pinch of salt.

well people have nothing but desires for pleasure, it's what normally drives them. I am not sure this separation makes some significant difference here. Or did you mean physiological aspect that one needs pain receptors in order to feel, for instance, pleasure.

well I think life is suffering. you don't have to take it literally. true happiness can be achieved only by giving up short term pleasures and trivial human fuss

There is a VERY big difference between the feeling of pleasure and the 'desire' to experience pleasure. From what I understand of Buddhism, it is the 'desire' to experience pleasure that causes suffering and enlightenment is the absence of desire.
Kinda fundamental to the belief system really

But can one feel pleasure without the desire first? Isn't the desire intrinsic to humans? I'm not sure I understand what you mean, do you mean that pleasure is something good and thus should not be eliminated by making ourselves into cyborgs? Like, that we loose our humanity or something