History Analysis / NoTranshumanismAllowed

In fact, it is actually the rapid pace of technological advancement that makes up some of the greatest challenges transhumanism has to overcome. Consider one of the genre-favorites -- a cybernetic brain implant. Now imagine a new model with twice the capacity coming out every 12-16 months. Now imagine if every three to five years an entirely new hardware standard appears that is not backwards compatible. Added to which we have the inevitable bugs, security glitches and hardware failures -- think Windows Vista, UsefulNotes/{{Xbox 360}}'s RROD, etc. How many times would it be practical, ethical, or even sane for the average person to undergo brain surgery to replace or upgrade their implants? Far more convenient to put that chip in something like a wristwatch, or a cellphone; some device which can be easily and conveniently upgraded and replaced, and won't fry your brain in the event of an unexpected glitch. At most, we could use external augmentations connected to the brain through some sort of universal ''interface'' -- preferably a wireless one -- rather than directly implanting the entire thing. The idea isn't entirely crazy: no matter how fast computer technology advances, barring radical advances in bioengineering, the Human brain will always have an upper limit on the amount of input/output it can handle at one time. Once you have a brain/computer interface that can handle that level of I/O with perfect fidelity, just implant one with options for external hardware connections and you shouldn't need any more surgery. Show of hands -- who wants an UnusualUserInterface?

Though transhumanism is currently largely theoretical, the philosophy has numerous supporters... and numerous detractors, who regard said supporters as overly optimistic and misguided at best, and dangerous cultists masquerading as scholars at worst.

One of the main issues in executing Transhumanism in reality is due the Human body being a bunch of biological systems that are not only incredibly complex, but also made up of organs and other building blocks that have been built upon and modified by natural selection through ''millions of years''. While so far there haven't been any discoveries that show the practice of transhumanism to be impossible, the human body has been proven to be a very fickle thing indeed.

Take the brain, for example. Even as [[https://www.cnet.com/news/moores-law-is-dead-nvidias-ceo-jensen-huang-says-at-ces-2019/ Moore's Law's obituary is all but writen]], the brain still reigns as the ultimate computing machine, with its absurdly low 20 watt power consumption and [[https://www.livescience.com/53751-brain-could-store-internet.html enough memory to hold the internet]]. We currently don't know exactly ''why'' the brain is so powerful, but a good theory is that, seeing as it's a (bio)chemical machine instead of an electrical one, it's more or less immune to data corruption due to EM interference. This doesn't just protect it from {{EMP}}s, it also means it doesn't have to work with binary. Rather, the brain (''probably'') works with analog, which drastically reduces the number of components needed to process data. This lets you cheat past Moore's Law's death, as it enables the processing of massive amounts of data without requiring impossibilities such as subatomic transistors. The brain is, essentially, the holy grail of computers, which is why the most powerful and innovative computers being developed right now have [[https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-neuromorphic-engineering-is-and-why-its-triggered-an-analog-revolution/ resorted to]] [[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/01/210107112418.htm mimicking it]]. But if the only way to make computers that can perform on par with the brain is to just build another brain, and the idea of building a computer that surpasses the brain is right out, then that whole BrainUploading thing seems pretty silly, doesn't it? Of course, if you told a man little more than a century earlier that one day we'll be building heavier then air machines that outperform birds, he'd have probably laughed in your face as well. Never underestimate science's capability to [[ScienceMarchesOn march ever forward]].

The current scientific consensus seems to be that aside from some minor improvements like bio-engineered resistance to certain diseases and ''maybe'' the copying of certain remarkable abilities from elsewhere in the animal kingdom (like the [[TheAgeless negligible senescence]] from lobsters and sea turtles), this whole thing is unlikely to ever happen. The human body is a machine that is not only incredibly complex, but also made up of organs and other building blocks that have been perfected by natural selection through ''millions of years''. Even if understanding such a system is possible within the lifetime of an advanced civilization (and that's a ''big'' "if"), actually improving upon it so thouroughly that the end product is irrecognizeable from what it started out as -- or from anything else in the animal kingdom, for that matter -- may just be physically impossible.

Incresing energy efficiency is not an option, as the human metabolism is already capable of converting 40% of the energy in carbohydrates and oxygen into ATP. This is more than what street-legal car engines can pull off, and is the reason why the human body has an insanely low average power consumption of 100 watts. Increasing energy density of your bodily fuel reserves is also a tough sell, seeing as carbohydrates are already some of the most energy-dense forms of chemical energy storage out there. How else do you think the human body can go 3 weeks without food? To be fair, other hydrocarbons, like gasoline, are more energetic than sugars or lipids. But do you know what they also are? Highly flammable and annoyingly prone to evaporating into the atmosphere. To turn the average man into ComicBook/SuperMan, it'd be most practical to implant a nuclear power plant into people's bodies and have them somehow feed off of that like those [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus fungi from Chernobyl]]. That'll ''[[https://xkcd.com/1162/ certainly]]'' solve the energy issue, but it'll lead to [[NuclearNasty quite a few new problems]] that people may find even more objectionable. Really, for those who want SuperStrength, it's much simpler to put on a suit of PoweredArmor, where all that fuel guzzling high-power machinery and its dangerous power source is ''outside'' of your body. And for those who want to evolve past the need to eat and breathe... eh, sorry. Future technology might expand society's energy budget, but you'll still have to resort to using that energy to produce food, ship it to people and then have the good old human metabolism -- or, if we're optimistic, a disease-resistant, aging-proof version of it -- turn that food into back into usable energy.

However, even if we manage to successfully upgrade the human brain, that's still only half the equation. To have a proper transhuman utopia one needs to also figure out how to upgrade the rest of the human body. And these are not minor upgrades, either -- we're talking about gaining [[StockSuperpowers superhuman abilities]] and/or [[TheNeedless getting rid of those pesky needs of the flesh]], like food, water and oxygen, all through the magic of technology. But to do so, one needs to one-up millions of years of evolution dedicated to tackling ''the'' fundamental limiting factor of life: energy.

However, even if we manage to successfully upgrade the human brain, that's still only half the equation. To have a proper transhuman utopia one needs to also figure out how to upgrade the rest of the human body. And these are not minor upgrades, either -- we're talking about gaining [[StockSuperpowers superhuman abilities]] and/or to [[TheNeedless rid oneself of those pesky needs of the flesh]], like food, water and oxygen, all through the magic of technology. But to do so, one needs to one-up millions of years of evolution dedicated to tackling ''the'' fundamental limiting factor of life: energy.

However, even if we manage to successfully upgrade the human brain, that's still only half the equation. To have a proper transhuman utopia one needs to also figure out how to gain [[StockSuperpowers superhuman abilities]] and/or to [[TheNeedless rid oneself of those pesky needs of the flesh]] -- like food, water and oxygen -- through the magic of technology. But to do so, one needs to one-up millions of years of evolution dedicated to tackling ''the'' fundamental limiting factor of life: energy. Incresing energy efficiency is not an option, as the human metabolism is already capable of converting 40% of the energy in carbohydrates and oxygen into ATP. This is more than what street-legal car engines can pull off, and is the reason why the human body has an insanely low average power consumption of 100 watts. Increasing energy density of your bodily fuel reserves is also a tough sell, seeing as carbohydrates are already some of the most energy-dense forms of chemical energy storage out there. How else do you think the human body can go 3 weeks without food? To be fair, other hydrocarbons, like gasoline, are more energetic than sugars or lipids. But do you know what they also are? Highly flammable and annoyingly prone to evaporating into the atmosphere. To turn the average man into ComicBook/SuperMan, it'd be most practical to implant a nuclear power plant into people's bodies and have them somehow feed off of that like those [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus fungi from Chernobyl]]. That'll ''[[https://xkcd.com/1162/ certainly]]'' solve the energy issue, but it'll lead to [[NuclearNasty quite a few new problems]] that people may find even more objectionable. Really, for those who want SuperStrength, it's much simpler to put on a suit of PoweredArmor, where all that fuel guzzling high-power machinery and its dangerous power source is ''outside'' of your body. And for those who want to evolve past the need to eat and breathe... eh, sorry. Future technology might expand society's energy budget, but you'll still have to resort to using that energy to produce food, ship it to people and then have the good old human metabolism -- or, if we're optimistic, a disease-resistant, aging-proof version of it -- turn that food into back into usable energy.

Though transhumanism is currently largely theoretical, the philosophy has numerous supporters... and numerous detractors, who regard it as somewhere between misguided and an abomination.

The current scientific consensus seems to be that aside from some minor improvements like bio-engineered resistance to certain diseases and ''maybe'' [[TheAgeless aging]], it's unlikely to ever happen. The human body is a machine that is not only incredibly complex, but also made up of organs and other building blocks that have been perfected by natural selection through ''millions of years''. Even if understanding such a system is possible within the lifetime of an advanced civilization (and that's a ''big'' "if"), actually improving upon it so thouroughly that the end product is irrecognizeable from what it started out as -- or from anything else in the animal kingdom, for that matter -- may just be physically impossible.

Take the brain, for example. Even as [[https://www.cnet.com/news/moores-law-is-dead-nvidias-ceo-jensen-huang-says-at-ces-2019/ Moore's Law's obituary is all but writen]], the brain still reigns as the ultimate computing machine, with its absurdly low 20 watt power consumption and [[https://www.livescience.com/53751-brain-could-store-internet.html enough memory to hold the internet]]. We currently don't know exactly ''why'' the brain is so powerful, but a good theory is that, seeing as it's a (bio)chemical machine instead of an electrical one, it's more or less immune to data corruption due to EM interference. This doesn't just protect it from {{EMP}}s, it also means it doesn't have to work with binary. Rather, the brain (''probably'') works with analog, which drastically reduces the number of components needed to process data. This lets you cheat past Moore's Law's death, as it enables the processing of massive amounts of data without requiring impossibilities such as subatomic transistors. The brain is, essentially, the holy grail of computers, which is why the most powerful and innovative computers being developed right now have [[https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-neuromorphic-engineering-is-and-why-its-triggered-an-analog-revolution/ resorted to]] [[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/01/210107112418.htm mimicking it]]. But if the only way to make computers that can perform on par with the brain is to just build another brain (and even then, you'd struggle to gain even a slight increase in performance), then the whole idea of BrainUploading seems pretty silly, doesn't it? Of course, if you told a man little more than a century earlier that one day we'll be building heavier then air machines that outperform birds, he'd have probably laughed in your face as well. Never underestimate science's capability to [[ScienceMarchesOn march ever forward]].

Take the brain, for example. Even as [[https://www.cnet.com/news/moores-law-is-dead-nvidias-ceo-jensen-huang-says-at-ces-2019/ Moore's Law's obituary is all but writen]], the brain still reigns as the ultimate computing machine, with its absurdly low 20 watt power consumption and [[https://www.livescience.com/53751-brain-could-store-internet.html enough memory to hold the internet]]. We currently don't know exactly ''why'' the brain is so powerful, but a good theory is that, seeing as it's a (bio)chemical machine instead of an electrical one, it's more or less immune to data corruption due to EM interference. This doesn't just protect it from {{EMP}}s, it also means it doesn't have to work with binary. Rather, the brain (''probably'') works with analog, which drastically reduces the number of components needed to process data. This lets you cheat past Moore's Law's death, as it enables the processing of massive amounts of data without requiring impossibilities such as subatomic transistors. The brain is, essentially, the holy grail of computers, which is why the most powerful and innovative computers being developed right now have [[https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-neuromorphic-engineering-is-and-why-its-triggered-an-analog-revolution/ resorted to]] [[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/01/210107112418.htm mimicking it]]. But if the only way to make computers that can perform on par with the brain is to just build another brain -- and even then, you'd only gain a slight increase in performance --, then the whole idea of BrainUploading seems pretty silly, doesn't it? Of course, if you told a man little more than a century earlier that one day we'll be building heavier then air machines that outperform birds, he'd have probably laughed in your face as well. Never underestimate science's capability to [[ScienceMarchesOn march ever forward]].

Take the brain, for example. Even as [[https://www.cnet.com/news/moores-law-is-dead-nvidias-ceo-jensen-huang-says-at-ces-2019/ Moore's Law's obituary is all but writen]], the brain still reigns as the ultimate computing machine, with its absurdly low 20 watt power consumption and [[https://www.livescience.com/53751-brain-could-store-internet.html enough memory to hold the internet]]. We currently don't know exactly ''why'' the brain is so powerful, but a good theory is that, seeing as it's a (bio)chemical machine instead of an electrical one, it's more or less immune to data corruption due to EM interference. This doesn't just protect it from {{EMP}}s, it also means it doesn't have to work with binary. Rather, the brain (''probably'') works with analog, which drastically reduces the number of components needed to process data. This lets you cheat past Moore's Law's death, as it enables the processing of massive amounts of data without requiring impossibilities such as subatomic transistors. The brain is, essentially, the holy grail of computers, which is why the most powerful and innovative computers being developed right now have [[https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-neuromorphic-engineering-is-and-why-its-triggered-an-analog-revolution/ resorted to]] [[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/01/210107112418.htm mimicking it]]. But if the only way to make computers that can perform on par with the brain is to just build another brain, then the whole idea of BrainUploading seems pretty silly, doesn't it? Of course, if you told a man little more than a century earlier that one day we'll be building heavier then air machines that outperform birds, he'd have probably laughed in your face as well. Never underestimate science's capability to [[ScienceMarchesOn march ever forward]].

The current scientific consensus seems to be that aside from some minor improvements like bio-engineered resistance to certain diseases and ''maybe'' [[TheAgeless aging]], it's unlikely to ever happen. The human body is a machine that is not only an incredibly complex, but also made up of organs and other building blocks that have been perfected by natural selection through ''millions of years''. Even if understanding such a system is possible within the lifetime of an advanced civilization (and that's a ''big'' "if"), actually improving upon it so thouroughly that the end product is irrecognizeable from what it started out as -- or from anything else in the animal kingdom, for that matter -- may just be physically impossible.

Take the brain, for example. Even as [[https://www.cnet.com/news/moores-law-is-dead-nvidias-ceo-jensen-huang-says-at-ces-2019/ Moore's Law's obituary is all but writen]], the brain still reigns as the ultimate computing machine, with its absurdly low 20 watt power consumption and [[https://www.livescience.com/53751-brain-could-store-internet.html enough memory to hold the internet]]. We currently don't know exactly ''why'' the brain is so powerful, but a good theory is that, seeing as it's a (bio)chemical machine instead of an electrical one, it's more or less immune to data corruption due to EM interference. This doesn't just protect it from {{EMP}}s, it also means it doesn't have to work with binary. Rather, the brain (''probably'') works with analog, which drastically reduces the number of components needed to process data. This lets you cheat past Moore's Law's death, as it enables the processing of massive amounts of data without requiring impossibilities such as subatomic transistors. The brain is, essentially, the holy grail of computers, which is why the most powerful and innovative computers being developed right now have resorted to [[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/01/210107112418.htm mimicking it]]. But if the only way to make computers that can perform on par with the brain is to just build another brain, then the whole idea of BrainUploading seems pretty silly, doesn't it? Of course, if you told a man little more than a century earlier that one day we'll be building heavier then air machines that outperform birds, he'd have probably laughed in your face as well. Never underestimate science's capability to [[ScienceMarchesOn march ever forward]].

The current scientific consensus seems to be that aside from some minor improvements like bio-engineered resistance to certain diseases and ''maybe'' [[TheAgeless aging]], it's unlikely to ever happen. The human body is a machine that is not only an incredibly complex, but also made up of organs and other building blocks that have been perfected by natural selection through ''millions of years''. Even if understanding such a system is possible within the lifetime of an advanced civilization (and that's a ''big'' "if"), actually improving upon it so thouroughly that the end product is irrecognizeable from what it started out as may just be physically impossible.

The current scientific consensus seems to be that aside from some minor improvements like bio-engineered resistance to certain diseases, it's unlikely to ever happen. The human body is a machine that is not only an incredibly complex, but also made up of organs and other building blocks that have been perfected by natural selection through ''millions of years''. Even if understanding such a system is possible within the lifetime of an advanced civilization (and that's a ''big'' "if"), actually improving upon it so thouroughly that the end product is irrecognizeable from what it started out as may just be physically impossible.

The current scientific consensus seems to be that aside from some minor improvements like bio-engineered resistance to certain diseases, it's unlikely to ever happen. The human body is not only an incredibly complex machine, but also the result of millions of years of natural selection. Even if understanding such a system is possible within the lifetime of an advanced civilization (and that's a ''big'' "if"), actually improving upon it so thouroughly that the end product is irrecognizeable from what it started out as may be forbidden not by the laws of a FeudalFuture, but by the laws of physics themselves.

Take the brain, for example. Even as [[https://www.cnet.com/news/moores-law-is-dead-nvidias-ceo-jensen-huang-says-at-ces-2019/ Moore's Law's obituary is all but writen]], the brain still reigns as the ultimate computing machine, with its absurdly low 20 watt power consumption and [[https://www.livescience.com/53751-brain-could-store-internet.html enough memory to hold the internet]]. We currently don't know exactly ''why'' the brain is so powerful, but a good theory is that, seeing as it's a (bio)chemical machine, it's more or less immune to data corruption due to EM interference. This doesn't just protect it from {{EMP}}s, it also means it doesn't have to work with binary. Rather, the brain (''probably'') works with analog, which drastically reduces the number of components needed to process data. This lets you cheat past Moore's Law's death, as it enables the processing of massive amounts of data without requiring impossibilities such as subatomic transistors. The brain is, essentially, the holy grail of computers, which is why the most powerful and innovative computers being developed right now have resorted to [[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/01/210107112418.htm mimicking it]]. But if the only way to make computers that can perform on par with the brain is to just build another brain, then the whole idea of BrainUploading seems pretty silly, doesn't it? Of course, if you told a man little more than a century earlier that one day we'll be building heavier then air machines that outperform birds, he'd have probably laughed in your face as well. Never underestimate science's capability to [[ScienceMarchesOn march ever forward]].

Take the brain, for example. Even as [[https://www.cnet.com/news/moores-law-is-dead-nvidias-ceo-jensen-huang-says-at-ces-2019/ Moore's Law's obituary is all but writen]], the brain still reigns as the ultimate computing machine, with its absurdly low 20 watt power consumption and [[https://www.livescience.com/53751-brain-could-store-internet.html enough memory to hold the internet]]. We currently don't know exactly ''why'' the brain is so powerful, but a good theory is that, seeing as it's (bio)chemical machine, it's more or less immune to data corruption due to EM interference. This doesn't just protect it from {{EMP}}s, it also means it doesn't have to work with binary. Rather, the brain (''probably'') works with analog, which drastically reduces the number of components needed to process data. This lets you cheat past Moore's Law's death, as it enables the processing of massive amounts of data without requiring impossibilities such as subatomic transistors. The brain is, essentially, the holy grail of computers, which is why the most powerful and innovative computers being developed right now have resorted to [[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/01/210107112418.htm mimicking it]]. But if the only way to make computers that can perform on par with the brain is to just build another brain, then the whole idea of BrainUploading seems pretty silly, doesn't it? Of course, if you told a man little more than a century earlier that one day we'll be building heavier then air machines that outperform birds, he'd have probably laughed in your face as well. Never underestimate science's capability to [[ScienceMarchesOn march ever forward]].

Take the brain, for example. Even as [[https://www.cnet.com/news/moores-law-is-dead-nvidias-ceo-jensen-huang-says-at-ces-2019/ Moore's Law's obituary is all but writen]], the brain still reigns as the ultimate computing machine, with its absurdly low 20 watt power consumption and [[https://www.livescience.com/53751-brain-could-store-internet.html enough memory to hold the internet]]. We currently don't know exactly ''why'' brains are so powerful, but a good theory is that, seeing as they're chemical machines, they're more or less immune to data corruption due to EM interference. This doesn't just protect them from {{EMP}}s, it also means they don't have to work with binary. Rather, the brain (''probably'') works with analog, which drastically reduces the number of components needed to process data. This lets you cheat past Moore's Law's death, as it enables the processing of massive amounts of data without requiring impossibilities such as subatomic transistors. The brain is, essentially, the holy grail of computers, which is why the most powerful and innovative computers being developed right now have resorted to [[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/01/210107112418.htm mimicking it]]. But if the only way to make computers that can perform on par with the brain is to just build another brain, then the whole idea of BrainUploading seems pretty silly, doesn't it? Of course, if you told a man little more than a century earlier that one day we'll be building heavier then air machines that outperform birds, he'd have probably laughed in your face as well. Never underestimate science's capability to [[ScienceMarchesOn march ever forward]].

Take the brain, for example. Even as [[https://www.cnet.com/news/moores-law-is-dead-nvidias-ceo-jensen-huang-says-at-ces-2019/ Moore's Law's obituary is all but writen]], the brain still reigns as the ultimate computing machine, with its absurdly low 20 watt power consumption and [[https://www.livescience.com/53751-brain-could-store-internet.html enough memory to hold the internet]]. We currently don't know exactly ''why'' brains are so powerful, but a good theory is that, seeing as they're chemical machines, they're more or less immune to data corruption due to EM interference. This doesn't just protect them from {{EMP}}s, it also means they don't have to work with binary. Rather, the brain (''probably'') works with analog, which drastically reduces the number of components needed to process data. This lets you cheat past Moore's Law's death, as it enables the processing of massive amounts of data without requiring impossibilities such as subatomic transistors. The brain is, essentially, the holy grail of computers. But if the only way to make computers that can perform on par with the brain is to just build another brain, then the whole idea of BrainUploading seems pretty silly, doesn't it? Of course, if you told a man little more than a century earlier that one day we'll be building heavier then air machines that outperform birds, he'd have probably laughed in your face as well. Never underestimate science's capability to [[ScienceMarchesOn march ever forward]].

Take the brain, for example. Even as [[https://www.cnet.com/news/moores-law-is-dead-nvidias-ceo-jensen-huang-says-at-ces-2019/ Moore's Law's obituary is all but writen]], the brain still reigns as the ultimate computing machine, with its absurdly low 20 watt power consumption and [[https://www.livescience.com/53751-brain-could-store-internet.html enough memory to hold the internet]]. We currently don't know exactly ''why'' brains are so powerful, but a good theory is that, seeing as they're chemical machines, they're more or less immune to data corruption due to EM interference. This doesn't just protect them from {{EMP}}s, it also means they don't have to work with binary. Rather, the brain likely works with analog, which drastically reduces the number of components needed to process data. This lets you cheat past Moore's Law's death, as it enables the processing of massive amounts of data without requiring impossibilities such as subatomic transistors. The brain is, essentially, the holy grail of computers. But if the only way to make computers that can perform on par with the brain is to just build another brain, then the whole idea of BrainUploading seems pretty silly, doesn't it? Of course, if you told a man little more than a century earlier that one day we'll be building heavier then air machines that outperform birds, he'd have probably laughed in your face as well. Never underestimate science's capability to [[ScienceMarchesOn march ever forward]].

Take the brain, for example. Even as [[https://www.cnet.com/news/moores-law-is-dead-nvidias-ceo-jensen-huang-says-at-ces-2019/ Moore's Law's obituary is all but writen]], the brain still reigns as the ultimate computing machine, with its absurdly low 20 watt power consumption and [[https://www.livescience.com/53751-brain-could-store-internet.html enough memory to hold the internet]]. We currently don't know exactly ''why'' brains are so powerful, but a good theory is that, seeing as they're chemical machines, they're more or less immune to data corruption due to EM interference. This doesn't just protect them from {{EMP}}s, it also means they don't have to work with binary, which drastically reduces the number of components they need to use. In fact, it's very likely that the brain is something of a holy grail among computer designers: a ''practical'' analogue microcomputer. This brings up a concerning question: if the only way to make computers that can perform on par with the brain is to just build another brain, then the whole idea of BrainUploading seems pretty silly, doesn't it? Of course, if you told a man little more than a century earlier that one day we'll be building heavier then air machines that outperform birds, he'd have probably laughed in your face as well. Never underestimate science's capability to [[ScienceMarchesOn march ever forward]].

The current scientific consensus seems to be that aside from some minor improvements like bio-engineered resistance to certain diseases, it's unlikely to ever happen. The human body is not only an incredibly complex machine, but also the result of millions of years of natural selection. Even if understanding such a system is possible within the lifetime of an advanced civilization (and that's a ''big'' "if"), actually improving upon it so thouroughly that the end product is irrecognizeable from what it started out as may be forbidden not by the laws of a FeudalFuture, but by the laws of physics themselves. Take the brain, for example. Even as [[https://www.cnet.com/news/moores-law-is-dead-nvidias-ceo-jensen-huang-says-at-ces-2019/ Moore's Law's obituary is all but writen]], the brain still reigns as the ultimate computing machine, with its absurdly low 20 watt power consumption and [[https://www.livescience.com/53751-brain-could-store-internet.html enough memory to hold the internet]]. We currently don't know exactly ''why'' brains are so powerful, but a good theory is that, seeing as they're chemical machines, they're more or less immune to data corruption due to EM interference. This doesn't just protect them from {{EMP}}s, it also means they don't have to work with binary, which drastically reduces the number of components they need to use. In fact, it's very likely that the brain is something of a holy grail among computer designers: a ''practical'' analogue microcomputer. This brings up a concerning question: if the only way to make computers that can perform on par with the brain is to just build another brain, then the whole idea of BrainUploading seems pretty silly, doesn't it? Of course, if you told a man little more than a century earlier that one day we'll be building heavier then air machines that outperform birds, he'd have probably laughed in your face as well. Never underestimate science's capability to [[ScienceMarchesOn march ever forward]].

The current scientific consensus seems to be that aside from some minor improvements like bio-engineered resistance to certain diseases, it's unlikely to ever happen. The human body is not only an incredibly complex machine, but also the result of millions of years of natural selection. Even if understanding such a system is possible within the lifetime of an advanced civilization (and that's a ''big'' "if"), actually improving upon it so thouroughly that the end product is irrecognizeable from what it started out as may be forbidden not by the laws of a FeudalFuture, but by the laws of physics themselves. Take the brain, for example. Even as [[https://www.cnet.com/news/moores-law-is-dead-nvidias-ceo-jensen-huang-says-at-ces-2019/ Moore's Law's obituary is all but writen]], the brain still reigns as the ultimate computing machine, with its immunity to {{EMP}}s, absurdly low 20 watt power consumption, and [[https://www.livescience.com/53751-brain-could-store-internet.html enough memory to hold the internet]]. We currently don't know exactly ''why'' brains are so powerful, but a good theory is that, seeing as they're chemical machines, they're more or less immune to data corruption due to EM interference. This means they don't have to work with binary, which drastically reduces the number of components they need to use. In fact, it's very likely that the brain is something of a holy grail among computer designers: a ''practical'' analogue microcomputer. This brings up a concerning question: if the only way to make computers that can perform on par with the brain is to just build another brain, then the whole idea of BrainUploading seems pretty silly, doesn't it? Of course, if you told a man little more than a century earlier that one day we'll be building heavier then air machines that outperform birds, he'd have probably laughed in your face as well. Never underestimate science's capability to [[ScienceMarchesOn march ever forward]].

The current scientific consensus seems to be that aside from some minor improvements like bio-engineered resistance to certain diseases, it's unlikely to ever happen. The human body is not only an incredibly complex machine, but also the result of millions of years of natural selection. Even if understanding such a system is possible within the lifetime of an advanced civilization (and that's a ''big'' "if"), actually improving upon it so thouroughly that the end product is irrecognizeable from what it started out as may be forbidden not by the laws of a FeudalFuture, but by the laws of physics themselves. Take the brain, for example. Even as [[https://www.cnet.com/news/moores-law-is-dead-nvidias-ceo-jensen-huang-says-at-ces-2019/ Moore's Law's obituary is all but writen]], the brain still reigns as the ultimate computing machine, with its immunity to {{EMP}}s, absurdly low 20 watt power consumption, and [[https://www.livescience.com/53751-brain-could-store-internet.html enough memory to hold the internet]]. If the only way to make computers that can perform on par with the brain is to just build another brain, then the whole idea of BrainUploading seems pretty silly, doesn't it? Of course, if you told a man little more than a century earlier that one day we'll be building heavier then air machines that outperform birds, he'd have probably laughed in your face as well. Never underestimate science's capability to [[ScienceMarchesOn march ever forward]].

But still, just because it seems implausible or even flat-out impossible, doesn't mean we shouldn't research it. Consider information technology: once problematic, unreliable and surrounded by naysayers, it now controls everything from critical infrastructure to nuclear weapons. From this point of view, there is still reason to believe that following one or two unexpected breakthroughs in technology, the human body may be next. There are setbacks, as there always will be for new technology, but in the end, the reward typically outweighs the risk.

However, even if we manage to successfully upgrade the human brain, that's still only half the equation. To have a proper transhuman utopia one needs to also figure out how to gain [[StockSuperpowers superhuman abilities]] and/or to [[TheNeedless rid oneself of those pesky needs of the flesh]] -- like food, water and oxygen -- through the magic of technology. But to do so, one needs to one-up millions of years of evolution dedicated to tackling ''the'' fundamental limiting factor of life: energy. Incresing energy efficiency is not an option, as the human metabolism is already capable of converting 40% of the energy in carbohydrates and oxygen into ATP. This is more than what street-legal car engines can pull off, and is the reason why the human body has an insanely low average power consumption of 100 watts. Increasing energy density of your bodily fuel reserves is also a tough sell, seeing as carbohydrates are already some of the most energy-dense forms of chemical energy storage out there. How else do you think the human body can go 3 weeks without food? To be fair, other hydrocarbons, like gasoline, are more energetic than sugars or lipids. But do you know what they also are? Highly flammable and annoyingly prone to evaporating into the atmosphere. To turn the average man into ComicBook/SuperMan, it'd be most practical to implant a nuclear power plant into people's bodies and have them somehow feed off of that like those fungi from Chernobyl. That'll ''[[https://xkcd.com/1162/ certainly]]'' solve the energy issue, but it'll lead to [[NuclearNasty quite a few new problems]] that people may find even more objectionable. Really, for those who want SuperStrength, it's much simpler to put on a suit of PoweredArmor, where all that fuel guzzling high-power machinery and its dangerous power source is ''outside'' of your body. And for those who want to evolve past the need to eat and breathe... eh, sorry. Future technology might expand society's energy budget, but you'll still have to resort to using that energy to produce food, ship it to people and then have the good old human metabolism -- or, if we're optimistic, a disease-resistant, aging-proof version of it -- turn that food into back into usable energy.

However, even if we manage to successfully upgrade the human brain, that's still only half the equation. To have a proper transhuman utopia one needs to also figure out how to gain [[StockSuperpowers superhuman abilities]] and/or to [[TheNeedless rid oneself of those pesky needs of the flesh]] -- like food, water and oxygen -- through the magic of technology. But to do so, one needs to one-up millions of years of evolution dedicated to tackling ''the'' fundamental limiting factor of life: energy. Incresing energy efficiency is not an option, as the human metabolism is already capable of converting 40% of the energy in carbohydrates and oxygen into ATP. This is more than what street-legal car engines can pull off, and is the reason why the human body has an insanely low average power consumption of 100 watts. Increasing energy density of your bodily fuel reserves is also a tough sell, seeing as carbohydrates are already some of the most energy-dense forms of chemical energy storage out there. How else do you think the human body can go 3 weeks without food? To be fair, other hydrocarbons, like gasoline, are more energetic than sugars or lipids. But do you know what they also are? Highly flammable and annoyingly prone to evaporating into the atmosphere. To turn the average man into ComicBook/SuperMan, it'd be most practical to implant a nuclear power plant into people's bodies and have them somehow feed off of that like those fungi from Chernobyl. That'll ''certainly'' solve the energy issue, but it'll lead to [[NuclearNasty quite a few new problems]] that people may find even more objectionable. Really, for those who want SuperStrength, it's much simpler to put on a suit of PoweredArmor, where all that fuel guzzling high-power machinery and its dangerous power source is ''outside'' of your body. And for those who want to evolve past the need to eat and breathe... eh, sorry. Future technology might expand society's energy budget, but you'll still have to resort to using that energy to produce food, ship it to people and then have the good old human metabolism -- or, if we're optimistic, a disease-resistant, aging-proof version of it -- turn that food into back into usable energy.

Such problems have not prevented the developed world from trusting developing and buggy new technology in the past, though. Consider information technology: problematic and often unreliable, it now controls everything from critical infrastructure to nuclear weapons. From this point of view, there is still reason to believe that the human body may be next. There are setbacks, as there always will be for new technology, but in the end, the reward typically outweighs the risk.

However, even if we manage to successfully upgrade the human brain, that's still only half the equation. To have a proper transhuman utopia one needs to also figure out how to gain [[StockSuperpowers superhuman abilities]] and/or to [[TheNeedless rid oneself of those pesky needs of the flesh]] -- like food, water and oxygen -- through the magic of technology. But to do so, one needs to one-up millions of years of evolution dedicated to tackling ''the'' fundamental challenge of life: getting enough energy. Incresing energy efficiency is not an option, as the human metabolism is already capable of converting 40% of the energy in carbohydrates and oxygen into ATP. This is more than what street-legal car engines can pull off, and is the reason why the human body has an insanely low average power consumption of 100 watts. Increasing energy density of your bodily fuel reserves is also a tough sell, seeing as carbohydrates are already some of the most energy-dense forms of chemical energy storage out there. How else do you think the human body can go 3 weeks without food? To be fair, other hydrocarbons, like gasoline, are more energetic than sugars or lipids, but do you know what they also are? Highly flammable and annoyingly prone to evaporating into the atmosphere. To turn the average man into ComicBook/SuperMan, you'd need to somehow find a way to implant a nuclear power plant into people's bodies and have them feed off of that like those fungi from Chernobyl. That'll ''certainly'' solve the energy issue, but it'll lead to [[NuclearNasty quite a few new problems]] that people may find even more objectionable. Really for those who want SuperStrength, it's much simpler to put on a suit of PoweredArmor, where all that fuel guzzling high-power machinery and its dangerous power source is ''outside'' of your body. And for those who want to evolve past the need to eat or breathe... eh, sorry. Future technology might expand society's energy budget, but you'll still have to resort to using that energy to produce food, ship it to people and then have the good old human metabolism -- or, if we're optimistic, a disease-resistant, aging-proof version of it -- turn that food into back into usable energy.