Human Enhancement

Yeah, unfortunately, "solving the problem of death" would create far more and far bigger problems.

When we start getting too crowded for this planet, we can always expand to new planets. Like, say, a Mars colony or a Europa colony.

I don't honestly care that death is natural. Smallpox is natural, too, but you don't see anyone complaining about curing it because it's "natural". While death might not be a disease, it is something that I find to be a bad thing, so it's something I wish to solve. You may be ok with people dying, but I'm not.

Like?

edited 2nd Jan '13 8:48:31 PM by deathpigeon

We are setting the foundation for cybernetics and body mods to become more accessible, to which I applaude and encourage.

I have no problems with dying. But I would like to die when I choose as a strong, capable, and independent adult. I don't want to be in a nursing home. I don't want to live in pain. I don't want my son to have to find a nurse to bathe and feed me because my body gave out.

I don't want my son to experience that for himself. I would love to see an age where the only way someone can die naturally anymore would be to just fall asleep peacefully and never wake up.

We should try to not only strive to live to the upmost o our capacity, but also give ourselfs the dignity of a clean and painless death.

Relevant to the death thing: One story I read had people outlaw having babies. Anyone who was a mother would be hunted down by the law and it was hinted they and their babies were executed. Or the babies were denied the immortality drug, which in this scenario was essentially a slow death penalty. The society had stagnated to the point of not being able to come up with much new because of this wide ban on parenthood.

Yes, I know, fiction, but fiction is good for bringing up problems that could occur. You know, like how it gave us the idea of cybernetic enhancements to begin with.

edited 2nd Jan '13 8:54:41 PM by AceofSpades

Which would be a natural effect of no children, but not necessarily to an end to death. The universe is effectively infinite. If we become too populous for Earth, we don't have to stop making babies, we just have to expand beyond Earth.

There's no gaurantee we will, though. There's no gaurantee about anything, and it's a possibility that eliminating death (which I don't find possible, really) would lead to cultural stagnation and outlawing having children.

^

I was born blind in one eye, and that's something I'd love to fix.

But going beyond that, if I could have my left eye not just brought into the baseline of what normal people are born with, what if I could go further? What if I could see in different spectrums? What if I could have night vision?(an obvious augmentation for the military, with obvious reasons and applications)

What if I could have the ability to use that eye as a camera? Taking snapshots or video with it that I could save and upload?

Those are enhancements above and beyond the normal human eye, with very obvious utility and benefits to them. I don't see how it's a reasonable argument to say that such pursuits are "futile". Implanted eyeballs are something that are obviously within reach, and someday I could actually see for shit out of that eye. The concept is not science fiction, it's a quickly approaching reality. Now one can ponder the morality of such technology, but the possibility really isn't open to dispute. It's possible, easily so.

My grandfather lost his leg below the knee in a motorcycle accident, and has a primitive prosthetic that is basically a plastic leg that is strapped to his knee. It works really well, all things considered. You can't tell it's fake when you see him walk, but look at how much more advanced we've gotten when you look at leg prosthesis that have been developed and are actually being used today? Developments in the concept of neural plasticity and being able to actually connect prosthetics to people that can interface with human physiology in order to move on command just like a normal human limb are real and available. Imagine what that would mean for people like him? But beyond that, look at Oscar Pistorius to see all the implications and possibilities for human enhancement. Oscar set world records with prosthetic limbs. It's still a subject of debate if he receives any advantage from his situation, or if is on a level playing field with other athletes.

edited 2nd Jan '13 9:10:31 PM by Barkey

What lawmaker in his or her right mind would choose to outlaw childbirth? That would loose them their job practically immediately, get overturned by the Supreme Court, and make them a social pariah. Plus, even if one country outlaws it, plenty of countries won't. We already have space programs and long term plans for making colonies on other planets, even with death being a thing. Lawmakers won't go with the option that will loose them their jobs over the option that we're going to do anyway.

I never said they were futile, Barkey. Where did I say that?

We already have cameras, it's not that big a leap to make a camera with a wifi connection since phones have both those things already, and I have to wonder what the point is in seeing in spectrums we're not evolved for is when we already have tools that do that.

That's like asking what lawmaker would block the VAWA act, deathpigeon. Or vote for your previous idea to outlaw raising their own children. In a situation where no one was dying and resources were getting strained, banning childbirth would seem like a sensible thing to do. Particularly as time went on and more and more people were starving to death due to lack of resources.

edited 2nd Jan '13 9:03:35 PM by AceofSpades

Sensible isn't necessarily what lawmakers do, and a bill that bans childbirth would have opposition from conservative minded people, moderate minded people, and liberal minded people. Conservatives would find it to be way too extreme of a solution and going against tradition way too much. Moderates would also find it to be way too extreme of a solution for their tastes. Liberals would find it to be too much of an infringement on freedom, especially when there exists another solution that doesn't infringe on anyone's freedom. VAWA has support form liberals and some moderates, but not much from conservatives. That is a bad comparison.

Also, by the time we've conquered death, we'll already be to the point that we could reasonably make at least a manned mission to Mars, which will put a colony there, or, at the very least, on the moon to be well within our reach, so we'd be able to make colonies on other planets, and there are enough people in favor of it now that we'd be able to do it once Earth starts getting crowded.

People starving to death after we end death? Are you forgetting about our basic premise here that we're arguing about?

What's the point to being able to see perfectly in the dark without exposing yourself by using a flashlight? Are you serious?

Hell, even just the concept of how hands free that would be. Even current generation military NOD's(Night Observation Devices) are bulky as all hell and really clunky to use, as spatial recognition suffers by essentially having a massive set of glasses that weigh a lot dangling from your helmet. Would I rather have to use a set of NOD's, or would I rather have an integrated night vision system in my body that is completely invisible and hands free? I think that's a no-brainer.

The military applications are huge, but even the personal applications are convenient. Power goes out? You never need a flashlight.

^^

Not futile so much as you saying "What's the benefit?" I like to think the benefits are rather obvious.

edited 2nd Jan '13 9:22:18 PM by Barkey

I'm not forgetting the basic premise, I'm presenting a scenario where we don't necessarily do all those things at the same time. Or otherwise something else goes wonky. The future isn't going to be golden streets and rainbows, it's going to be clunky climbs to the top. You are being a pure idealist here, deathpigeon. You want to imagine the future, you have to be willing to imagine the scenarios where something goes wrong. Because we'll find a way to make it do that in some manner, or otherwise life will simply provide a challenge we didn't account for.

Yeah, I don't think regular use is going to be something that they let happen all that quickly. Particularly as that's going to be expensive as the most obvious thing that prohibits that sort of thing. And ND Os can be made less clunky in the same manner that computers and the like have.

The benefits don't necessarily give people enough bang for the buck, is what I'm saying. Most people seem to like this simply for the novelty.

edited 2nd Jan '13 9:23:27 PM by AceofSpades

That's how miniaturization comes into play. Give enough time spent developing technology, and it gets smaller and more efficient.

The least clunky that NODS could ever be would be integration into the human eye, either as a contact lens or an actual replacement eye.

If the upgrade is better than what was there before, how is it not a good thing?

And shit, people do plenty of expensive things for the sake of vanity. Just look at a set of fake tits.

edited 2nd Jan '13 9:26:19 PM by Barkey

A boob job is going to be pennies compared to getting new eyes, Barkey.

Lasik used to be thousands of dollars and thought of the same way, now it's pretty accessible.

Depends on the boobs being put in.

@Ace: Sure, it's not sunshine and rainbows, but arguing that we shouldn't attempt to fight against death because every country in the world will decide to ban childbirth because of it, despite that being a solution that would be universally reviled, and there's another solution we're already implementing for the problem that banning childbirth would seek to overcome. Expanding outside of Earth is not some far off goal or advancement, it is the reality of the now. People are already working their asses off to expand off of Earth. Meanwhile, a universal banning of childbirth has little to no chance since this would have to be something that would happen in every country in the world. I mean, I could see it being banned in some countries, but what would happen is that, when it gets banned in those countries, there would be mass protests and an exodus of people who want children to go to a country which hasn't banned childbirth, and, thus, would make those countries have a higher percentage of people who are against childbirth being banned than they would before the other countries did ban it making it even more unlikely that those countries would ban childbirth. Meanwhile, in contrast, only one country needs to have a space program for us to be able to expand off of Earth, eventually, and, based off of the lessons of the discovery of the New World, once one country starts colonizing space, many other countries will jump on the bandwagon.

Also, it is forgetting the basic premise when, in an argument against ending death, you talk about people dying after we end death.

General improvements to the human design. There was another one that went far more in depth, but my google foo isn't doing so well right now.

How is deciding that the bang is worth the buck novelty? It doesn't have to be a significant improvement to still be one. There's no value in staying the way we started, it's the basic foundation of technology itself. We build ourselves better tools all the time, I see nothing that separates a better wrench from a better hand besides the chemistry. If the improvement costs money I need for something else, I can see forgoing it, but just sticking with something older when something better is available, what's the point in that?

On eyes vs boobs. I'm not so sure on the cost. It would depend on the amount of surgery necessary. There's a lot more nerve tissue in eyes, but I suspect a lot of it would be on the meat end of the adaption. Boob jobs seem to focus on material as well as focusing a great deal on cosmetics, which if buildings are anything to go by, would make up the bulk of the cost. That and you don't really need to customize eyes at all iirc, irregularities are flaws, not benefits.

And who says boob jobs can't grow to be an ehancement?

If you are a natural woman, your breasts are interesting storage compartments naturally built it.

And consider those who aren't natural women and have gone through sex changes or those who have had mysectomies. What if a cure for breast cancer was to cut off the infected breast and replace it with a breast enclosing a special pump or nanomachine deposit that circulated or functioned to keep cancer away?

That would be awesome!

Or a testicular implant that would cure ED, cancer, prostate problems, etc.

Also, transhumanism for me is more about choices as opposed to "enhancement". People should have the rights to choose what abilities they have and do not have. Somebody with no talent in maths should be able to be altered to be able to become an engineer if s/he wishes. In the same way as a blind person should be allowed to stay blind without the social stigma of "being inferior".

It is not about the technologies itself it's about the ''attitude' towards it. If you like to be altered to be better in something, sure. If you don't want to for whatever reason, it should be perfectly fine too. And I think that avoiding the development of such technologies because people can be nasty is counterproductive, because people are not going to improve their attitudes without some sort of stimulus, and transhumanist technologies is probably the stimulus required to get that happening.

You know, usually I'm all for scientific progress. If it were up to me, scientists would be paid twice as much. But this, along with "designer babies", are some of the things where I feel I need to leave my For Science! mentality at the door and take a long hard look at what would happen.

Frankly, I don't think it will be worth it. At first, only the rich will be able to afford augmentations, and after that, only the rich will be able to afford the best augmentations. People born into money already have so many advantages, but now they are actually objectively better at everything as well? What would be the point of being alive if you are born poor and hopelessly stuck at the bottom of the barrel because there is no way you'll ever be able to compete with those that can afford shinier equipment at all times?

The disenfranchisement will cause an increase in the wealth gap, which will result in an increase in crime, which will result in a shittier life for anyone unlucky enough not to be born in a penthouse. Fuck that noise, no enhancement ever in my opinion.

And carrying on with that story the disenfranchisement will lead up to people thinking that this is not working and something needs to be done, and a cultural change in regards to resource management and how the "enhancement" and other resources are distributed amongst the people.

I think avoiding the development of such technologies because of current attitudes and social injustice is avoiding the Elephant in the Room, where the divide between the rich and the poor is a problem in the first place, which is going to going to stay as an issue until something like transhumanism acts as a stimulus for cultural reform.

Edit: Not to mention that argument can be used for any developments, given that any developments are supposed to give an advantage to the people to have assess to it. Should we finding a cure for cancer and other diseases because only the rich people can access them at first and that would give them another head start over poor people?

edited 2nd Jan '13 10:53:49 PM by IraTheSquire

That's a problem with this capitalistic society, not transhumanism, but that's hardly the subject of this thread.

It's one worth considering, though, as both would be social forces that end up colliding, should the current problem persist into "enhancements" being a thing that happens regularly. Nothing happens in a vacuum, after all. Plus, money is one of the driving forces behind scientific debelopment. This is unlikely to stop being true any time soon.

@Gabrael: I'm a little confused about what you're suggesting here? Like, just nanomachines designed to figh cancer? Encased in the silicon or something? Seems simpler if you could just inject those without dealing with surgery. Though I'm not sure how far along we are in the nano part of technology. Just seems like doctors would prefer something that isn't invasive surgery. (The trend in medicine seems to be trying to be as un-invasive in procedures as possible. )

Also, I don't consider lasik to be as extreme a thing as replacing an entire eye. Lasik surgery isn't replacing the nerve connections, for instance. Which makes me thing that certaing cybernetics aren't going to be mechanical so much as biomechanical, which is a whole field we haven't even gone into yet. At least I don't think we have; putting a chip in a brain doesn't seem quite biomechanical to me. I'm not an expert by any means, though.

Also, I think "fighting death" tends to serve as a distraction.

To me, it's the end goal of all of medical science. Medical science is, one by one, eliminating causes of death. If we can, eventually, eliminate them all, then we will have effectively eliminated death. This includes aging, btw.