Transhumanism: is it viable?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Genetics engineering of crops and animals is already in use for commercial purposes. Fail sir.

Because plants are totally the same as humans, and inserting pre-existing chromosomes from other organisms into other organisms is totally the same thing as coding new traits.

Or not.

To be fair, it is usually single genes not whole chromosomes. If you moved a whole chromosome you would end up (usually) with something that at BEST has Down Syndrome but at worst looks like some of the Ripley Copies in Alien Resurrection...

"Please.... kill.... me"

Personally, I like having a primate body. Spiders can't do parkour.

Yes they can.... what with being able to crawl upside down on a ceiling. Maybe a treefrog body rather than spider for each of us... You can do Parkour with a frog body.

[Formless]

Genetics engineering of crops and animals is already in use for commercial purposes. Fail sir.

Because plants are totally the same as humans, and inserting pre-existing chromosomes from other organisms into other organisms is totally the same thing as coding new traits.

Or not.

To be fair, it is usually single genes not whole chromosomes. If you moved a whole chromosome you would end up (usually) with something that at BEST has Down Syndrome but at worst looks like some of the Ripley Copies in Alien Resurrection...

"Please.... kill.... me"

True, true. I worded that badly. You get the idea, though.

Just out of curiosity... I was under the impression that inserting a new artificial chromosome would be a comparatively easier way to introduce new traits to an organism than modifying existing genes, but is that actually true?

Personally, I like having a primate body. Spiders can't do parkour.

Yes they can.... what with being able to crawl upside down on a ceiling. Maybe a treefrog body rather than spider for each of us... You can do Parkour with a frog body.

Well, neither frogs nor spiders can run nearly as fast or for as long as a human body, and what they can do one would think is allowed in part because of their small size.

[Anguirus]

You're confusing the transhumanist movement in general with the Near Singularian subset of it, which is kind of like confusing, say, the Left Wing in general with people who think that Gaia is alive and there's an evil industrialist conspiracy to steal our brainwaves.

I wish that Near Singularians would stop saying that "I'm a transhumanist, so I believe that the Singularity will solve that problem." I'm sure you wish that too.

This is anecdotal, but in my experience on the Internet, the word "transhumanism" is far more associated with this Singularity Kurzweil-talk than with simple human modification.

[lazerus]

This would be well beyond the scope of this thread, but I would be interested in seeing a bonafide, dedicated definition of transhumanism, and then a defense of that ideology. My knowledge about it basically comes from people around here spouting off, combined with reading a few essays that left me rather unconvinced.

Give me a day or two and I'll get right on that.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

What I don't get is why transhumanists talk about uplifting when by the time we have the technology to think about it even according to their optimistic predictions, we could just build android catgirls which will continue to exist for centuries or longer instead of being limited by fundamental biological lifespans.

[lazerus]

What I don't get is why transhumanists talk about uplifting when by the time we have the technology to think about it even according to their optimistic predictions, we could just build android catgirls which will continue to exist for centuries or longer instead of being limited by fundamental biological lifespans.

Because it was the subject of several highly successful sci-fi novels.

[LionElJonson]

What I don't get is why transhumanists talk about uplifting when by the time we have the technology to think about it even according to their optimistic predictions, we could just build android catgirls which will continue to exist for centuries or longer instead of being limited by fundamental biological lifespans.

Who says we can't do both? Besides, odds are we're going to figure out biological immortality (probably right around the time we cure cancer, since the two are interrelated), so it's not like a robot would last any longer than a biological person.

As for "why", my answer is simple. "Why not?"

[Simon_Jester]

What I don't get is why transhumanists talk about uplifting when by the time we have the technology to think about it even according to their optimistic predictions, we could just build android catgirls which will continue to exist for centuries or longer instead of being limited by fundamental biological lifespans.

As the previous poster illustrates, the reason is simple: this stripe of transhumanist tends to substitute "the Singularity" for "the Rapture" on a one for one basis.

In consequence, all constraints on resources are ignored, as are any ethical constraints that do not tickle the speaker's fancy. If it does not appeal to the speaker to care about the fate of those left behind, or those poor unfortunate beings given just enough intelligence by uplifting to perceive the suffering of uplifting gone wrong... well, then the speaker does not care, and the speaker does not see the problem. Thus the question "why not?"

This is the sort of thinking I very much hope does not take charge after any Singularity that may occur, or we wind up with a world dominated by a race of very unpleasant beings.

[LionElJonson]

Yeah, well, for the record, I fully support morphological freedom, and I fully expect that people will begin modifying themselves and their children heavily. People living in space with hand-feet; teenage girls going down to the local plastic surgeon in the mall to have a tail or a pair of vestigial wings installed; professionals going to an upgrade clinic to have their intelligence or social skills upgraded. These are the sorts of things I fully expect to become ubiquitous in the decades to come.

On that note, why not give those animals capable of recieving it the benefits of living in our technological civilization, the same way we try to help black people in Africa? They might not be smart enough to appreciate the gift we're giving them, but we'd be giving them a demonstrable and calculable increase in their quality of life. You could even argue that we have a moral duty to do so.

[Setzer]

What I don't get is why transhumanists talk about uplifting when by the time we have the technology to think about it even according to their optimistic predictions, we could just build android catgirls which will continue to exist for centuries or longer instead of being limited by fundamental biological lifespans.

Because it was the subject of several highly successful sci-fi novels.

To say nothing of all the Disney movies where the cute widdle cuddly animals could talk to Snow White. Really, that seems to be the logical end result of "uplifting' animals.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

On that note, why not give those animals capable of recieving it the benefits of living in our technological civilization, the same way we try to help black people in Africa? They might not be smart enough to appreciate the gift we're giving them, but we'd be giving them a demonstrable and calculable increase in their quality of life. You could even argue that we have a moral duty to do so.

Do you even realize the connotations that the moral equivalency you just made has?

[Alyrium Denryle]

On that note, why not give those animals capable of recieving it the benefits of living in our technological civilization, the same way we try to help black people in Africa? They might not be smart enough to appreciate the gift we're giving them, but we'd be giving them a demonstrable and calculable increase in their quality of life. You could even argue that we have a moral duty to do so.

Do you even realize the connotations that the moral equivalency you just made has?

I will spell it out:

He is not only a fundamentalist nutjuar who cares not for human suffering it is does not affect him and his race to Nergasm, but he is also a racist.

[Surlethe]

Hmm. I split the tangent.

LionElJonson:
We are watching you.

[LionElJonson]

I'm not a racist; what color your skin is has no bearing on your worth as a person. I'm simply saying that uplifting a stone-age society to a modern one is a moral good, and most of these animals don't even possess that much technology (and in any case, both flint weapons and fire pre-dated modern humans). Western culture is superior to basically all the others to date, with East-Asian cultures running a close second, but the color of a person's skin is irrelevant. If we weren't superior, we wouldn't have dominated the world like we did.

[Zixinus]

As for "why", my answer is simple. "Why not?"

Because as of now, there are already minorities suffering discrimination and there are still essentially second-class citizens even in First World countries that do not have the same job opportunities as the mayority even if they have the same qualifications, do not have access to several things like healthcare or higher education, etc. These people are human beings, yet they still have problems fitting into mainstream society.

And you want to create one? Are you mad? Do non-sentient animals not suffer enough by pollution, deforestation and abuse?

Think about what these uplifted animals would be: chimps will require protesis or even further alteration to use things that are designed for human-use. Dolphins will require special housing and elaborate protesis (or to be further altered to look like a mishapen man-beast) to even live. Then there are the dietary requirements (uplifted wolves can't eat chocolate, elephants will have to order as they can't even fit inside the supermarket, etc). All of these are disadvantages compared to a human being. This is to say nothing of the problems that may appear due to genetic modification that Alyrium has suggested.

In other words, you are creating disabled people in a world that is supposed to be free of that. Why would you want that?

If you create a large variety of humanoids from the ground-up and only take anatomical designs from existing animals (ie, make a creature that looks like a wolf and can even act like a wolf, can do things that a wolf can, but isn't built on wolf DNA or even "wild" biology), that are easier to engineer (and thus debug and modify) and can be adapted to human world far easier (ie, catgirl)?

[Anguirus]

most of these animals don't even possess that much technology (and in any case, both flint weapons and fire pre-dated modern humans

Ha!

Holy hell, do you really not realize that you sound like an eight year old? "Most" animals don't possess "that much" technology?

There is ONE non-human living animal that manufactures tools...the New Caledonian crow. It's pretty awesome; look it up.

A few other animals demonstrate tool use...scattered across a spectrum from chimps to ants. Most of us do not consider using a stick to reach insects to be "that much" technology. None of it is remotely comparable to flint weapons or fire.

I honestly don't think that you're a racist (well...not an incredibly bad one anyway), but you are an exceptional idiot. You've ignored several pages of this thread and "contributed" moronic pie-in-the-sky nonsense that makes no sense. You also can't comprehend the alarming connotations and implications of your own statements.

Not only can't you resist spouting off about things you don't remotely understand, you did it in a way that made you look like a horrible human being (IMO the jury's still out, but I'm a much nicer guy than Alyrium).

Lazerus, the nail has been hit, on the head, by you.

[Molyneux]

most of these animals don't even possess that much technology (and in any case, both flint weapons and fire pre-dated modern humans

Ha!

Holy hell, do you really not realize that you sound like an eight year old? "Most" animals don't possess "that much" technology?

There is ONE non-human living animal that manufactures tools...the New Caledonian crow. It's pretty awesome; look it up.

A few other animals demonstrate tool use...scattered across a spectrum from chimps to ants. Most of us do not consider using a stick to reach insects to be "that much" technology. None of it is remotely comparable to flint weapons or fire.

For the record, dolphins have been shown to use (primitive) tools, as well. Grab an appropriate sponge off the sea floor, trim it to the right shape, use it as a "glove" for their beak to pick up sea urchins. They even appear to be teaching that tool use mother-to-daughter.

I tend to think that the rationale behind "uplifting" is the same as that behind people who search for extraterrestrial civilizations - we want to see a non-human, intelligent creature's outlook on the universe. I'd love to see a truly intelligent dolphin's perspective. I do think that anyone who would (if they could) try to uplift a chimpanzee is fucking insane, though - I don't think they have the best reputation for mental stability or aggression as it is.

[Starglider]

Given sufficient computing power, it would be quite possible to simulate the entire development of an organism from fertilised embryo to adult creature. This doesn't require atomic level simulation, just monte-carlo simulation of all the repeated structures and chemical interactions feeding into a higher level structural model (probably through several layers). We already have the software to simulate the chemisty and the ability to synthesise arbitrary DNA sequences. Sufficient computing power would unquestionably be available if we could build arbitrary nanostructures, people have already designed and simulated electronic, nanomechanical and quantum computers of the required capability, we just don't have the tools to make them yet. If technological civilisation doesn't collapse and we do continue to progress towards nanotechnology, then I would absolutely expect de novo creation of new designer species to be possible. That's not to say that it's a particularly sensible thing to do, for one thing if we had that kind of computing power we'd long since have developed transhuman AI, but I am sure some people will want to do it and it will happen unless there is an effective enforcement mechanism to stop them.

The question of whether people would try to impose a near-human mindset, would try to preserve the source species cognitive structure as much as possible, or do something completely alien is unanswerable. It entirely depends on the motives and capabilities of whoever does finally attempt this. Certainly there is nothing specially human about general intelligence. Human cognitive architecture is just one (very flakey) implementation, special only to the extent that it's the only one currently in existence on planet Earth.

The dismissal of transhumanism in this thread has amounted to nothing more than 'it seems silly to me' aka argument from incredulity aka rampant idiocy.

[Ryan Thunder]

Western culture is superior to basically all the others to date, with East-Asian cultures running a close second, but the color of a person's skin is irrelevant. If we weren't superior, we wouldn't have dominated the world like we did.

That has to be the funniest thing I've read all fucking month. So I suppose Mongol culture was superior to European culture at the time because they were easily beating the shit out of everybody else they came across, right?

[Starglider]

That has to be the funniest thing I've read all fucking month. So I suppose Mongol culture was superior to European culture at the time because they were easily beating the shit out of everybody else they came across, right?

If you are a social darwinist (which LionElJonson presumably is) then yes. It's not so much funny as just sad.

[Serafina]

That has to be the funniest thing I've read all fucking month. So I suppose Mongol culture was superior to European culture at the time because they were easily beating the shit out of everybody else they came across, right?

That depends on how you define "superior". If you define it by "militarily stronger", then that is correct. If you define it by something else, it may or maybe not (depending on the definition).
If you use things like education, standard of living and individual freedom, then most likely not.



Regarding the uplifting of animals:
Unless your civilisation is so advanced that physical bodies do not matter anymore, it's not a moral thing to do.
Why?
Because you purposefully create a being with human-like sentience that is seriously hampered in our society. Nearly all animals do not have the means to use tools. But that is an absolute necessity in our society.
Maneuverability is the second great problem - a dolphin can't access anything on the land without serious technological help, an elephant is too large to fit into most rooms and so on.
You might say that that can be solved with further technology - but then you are pretty much at the point where physical bodies do not matter, as i stated above.

Furthermore, i am not so sure that "we will gain a new perspective on life" would actually be correct. An uplifted brain would essentially ne created by us. If we can create a brain with an alien perspective to us, then we do not need to use animals.

The dismissal of transhumanism in this thread has amounted to nothing more than 'it seems silly to me' aka argument from incredulity aka rampant idiocy.

Well, that's because some ideas of it just ARE silly. Animal uplifting is one such silly idea - at the point where it is feasible, it is just utterly pointless. It's cool, but arguing for something solely because it's cool hardly seems rational.
I do not dismiss transhumanism in general - i actually call myself a transhumanist because i do not oppose enhancing and surpassing humanity and because i think some of it will eventually be possible. But many transhumanists just seem to be naive, especially some singularity-worshippers - it will eventually occur if we do not run out of resources or hit some unknown limit, but to think that it will automatically be beneficial is just stupid and IMO dangerous.

[Starglider]

Well, that's because some ideas of it just ARE silly. Animal uplifting is one such silly idea - at the point where it is feasible, it is just utterly pointless.

Granted, I was objecting to the dismissal of the engineering plausibility of doing it, not the motives. Frankly I never saw the point of say David Brin's Uplift series even given the presumption that genetic engineered uplift (to human equivalent level only) is vastly easier than human enhancement or AGIs. I mean it's kind of cute for some hugely enlightened future utopia to do it just to increase cultural diversity, but in a more realistic sci-fi society the only reasons to do it would be (a) crazy religious nuts doing it for the reason Eleas mentioned or (b) massively expensive workaround for laws preventing human slavery.

That said, if such a species was created, I wonder how they would respond to the people here saying 'you never should have existed, it was cruel and pointless to create you at all, please sterilise yourselves and end your species right now'. I rather doubt they would agree.

But many transhumanists just seem to be naive, especially some singularity-worshippers - it will eventually occur if we do not run out of resources or hit some unknown limit, but to think that it will automatically be beneficial is just stupid and IMO dangerous.

Oh sure. I have long since lost count of the amount of insanely optimistic idiots like that I've had the displeasure of debating. Sadly, quite a few people doing real biotech, nanotech and general AI research fall into this category. That's consequences and motives again though, not hard physical plausibility.

[Akhlut]

That has to be the funniest thing I've read all fucking month. So I suppose Mongol culture was superior to European culture at the time because they were easily beating the shit out of everybody else they came across, right?

That depends on how you define "superior". If you define it by "militarily stronger", then that is correct. If you define it by something else, it may or maybe not (depending on the definition).
If you use things like education, standard of living and individual freedom, then most likely not.

The Mongols under Temujin/Chingghis Khan actually had a meritocratic society, and spread a fairly unified code of law throughout their empire. They were at least the equals of European and Asian states at the time, if not exceeding them in several areas. Religious freedom was allowed, and Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, and Tengrists all had equal rights and freedoms in the early Mongol Empire.

Regarding the uplifting of animals:
Unless your civilisation is so advanced that physical bodies do not matter anymore, it's not a moral thing to do.
Why?
Because you purposefully create a being with human-like sentience that is seriously hampered in our society. Nearly all animals do not have the means to use tools. But that is an absolute necessity in our society.
Maneuverability is the second great problem - a dolphin can't access anything on the land without serious technological help, an elephant is too large to fit into most rooms and so on.
You might say that that can be solved with further technology - but then you are pretty much at the point where physical bodies do not matter, as i stated above.

Plus, one has to consider how the animals to be uplifted feel about it. We can handle our intelligence (mostly) because we evolved to handle it; what about other animals, especially those far less intelligent than us? How are they going to reconcile powerful instincts with a greater intelligence? An sapient lion is going to have to continually prevent himself from running after playing human children because they are engaging his prey drive. How is he going to feel about constantly wanting to kill and being unable to due to laws and, possibly, his own morality? Why should he be burdened with such an extreme dilemma? Because we wanted to hold a conversation with a lion?

Which leads to another problem: how the hell are they supposed to communicate with us? Will dolphins have to use morse code? Will elephants have to write everything down their trunks? Will chimps have to learn sign language? They are hugely burdened with simple communication!

[Ziggy Stardust]

People living in space with hand-feet; teenage girls going down to the local plastic surgeon in the mall to have a tail or a pair of vestigial wings installed; professionals going to an upgrade clinic to have their intelligence or social skills upgraded. These are the sorts of things I fully expect to become ubiquitous in the decades to come.

Well, that's because you're a moron.

You could even argue that we have a moral duty to do so.

You could. But you shouldn't. Because it's stupid.

---------------------------

Anyway, that troll aside, time for some substance:

We already have the software to simulate the chemisty and the ability to synthesise arbitrary DNA sequences.

Simulating the chemistry of DNA itself isn't actually all the hard, as it is fairly basic. What we can't do is simulate the complex regulatory elements of the genome, the way they interact (and the way these interactions change over the course of development or in response to different stimuli), and their precise effects. There is no software that comes even close to that. And yes, we can synthesize DNA sequences, but there are significant constraints on what we can do (for one thing, it is a fairly expensive and time consuming process, that is incredibly prone to error). Natural DNA synthesis is still significantly better, and we still don't entirely understand all the interactions involved in that, either.

[LionElJonson]

Western culture is superior to basically all the others to date, with East-Asian cultures running a close second, but the color of a person's skin is irrelevant. If we weren't superior, we wouldn't have dominated the world like we did.

That has to be the funniest thing I've read all fucking month. So I suppose Mongol culture was superior to European culture at the time because they were easily beating the shit out of everybody else they came across, right?

Hmm... yes, I suppose they would be, at least as far as their military goes, otherwise they never would have been able to do as well as they did with their conquests in the first place. That said, their cultural influence was relatively small; we're talking English, not Mongolian, after all.

I wasn't just talking about military stuff, either. I was talking about cultural stuff. Go to any major city, anywhere in the world, and you'll probably find someone you can talk to in English quite quickly. Then take a look around you. Those buildings? Designed in the styles of the West. Those water pipes and electrical grids? Designed with Western engineering techniques and technology, if not Western engineers outright. Open your laptop; that's a Western wireless protocol you're using to connect to the Western Internet. Google the local McDonalds address, and walk in; that's Western food you're eating. You pay for it with Western money, with your Western credit card, with the money transfers going through Western banking systems.

Do I need to keep going?

Regarding humans uplifting animals: "For the hell of it" is actually a fairly good reason. By this point, noone will really have any jobs anymore; unskilled labor can be handled easily by zillions of nonsapient robots, and the price for skilled labor will drop precipitously following the development of economically-feasible human uploading, because you upload one expert and make zillions of copies of them. Long story short, almost noone will have any jobs anymore (at which point post-scarcity economics have to start rolling in before people start rioting in the streets over being unable to afford food and rent), but some people will still want to contribute to society rather than spending all day plugged into VR systems or getting drunk and having sex. Some people will become colonists; some people will become artists; some people will design new body modifications or uplift new species. Purely as hobbies, since at least that way they feel like they're contributing something.

Akhlut: By this point it's likely that basically everyone has something similar to a 3g cell phone installed in their heads; an uplifted animal incapable of human speech like uplifted dolphins or octopi would likely be fully capable of communicating with the aid of these devices. Cybernetic implants would also give dolphins the mobility they'd probably want to properly interact with human society; cybernetic legs and arms to let them get around and manipulate things (possibly being both at once, depending on how the feet/hands are designed). Remote-controlled drones would also be a possibility.