Comments on: Decision time, become a transhumanist or not.

By: Thoughts on H+ « BIOpinionated

Thoughts on H+ « BIOpinionated — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:38:30 +0000

[...] soon rid ourselves of our bodies, mood swings and even the physical acts of sexual relations. I am still a transhumanist, but will have to distance myself from H+ if this continues [...]

By: sciphu

sciphu — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:29:18 +0000

Ryan. You argue that “It’s apparent beyond a reasonable doubt that those who embrace these changes will be more successful than those who do not.”

My point is exactly the opposite: if all or some of, this technology does not work in our favor then the group of people that haven’t been using it would be the ones with an advantage, and that this diversity will work like an insurance for our future. Remember that diversity is the foundation for evolution (by the way, – Happy birthday Darwin).

By: ryan

ryan — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:11:18 +0000

#3: if survival of the fittest maintains those that adapt most to changing conditions survive and pass on their genes, agreeing to let those say “no” is actually negating #1.

It’s apparent beyond a reasonable doubt that those who embrace these changes will be more successful than those who do not.

To ‘allow’ some to say no is to enforce competition, which #1 purports to eliminate. I don’t believe #1 & #3 can coexist.

Does this logic hold?

By: A train (wreck) of (religious) thoughts « BIOpinionated

A train (wreck) of (religious) thoughts « BIOpinionated — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:51:24 +0000

[...] made this argument in the last post that being “natural” (or biologically unaltered, which is more accurate in this [...]

By: Sergio Stagnaro

Sergio Stagnaro — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:59:27 +0000

Since I was a General Practitioner for more than four decades, practical discussion are far better than acadèmic one. In addition, I have been always trying to obtain from two opposite view-points, a synthesis: Romans sayd CONCURSUM OPPOSITORUM. For instance, I love technological advancement (e.g.,oncological biomarkers), but when rationally applied in individuals involved by both ONCOLOGICAL TERRAIN “and” Inherite Real Risk, bedside detected rapidly whith a stethoscope, i.e., in clinical way, avoiding Jatrogenetic Psychological Terrorism … among other events (= useless expensive examinations, a.s.o.).

By: Andrew Yates

Andrew Yates — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:38:58 +0000

I’ve never understood the excuse “self reliant.” That is, where do you draw the line for “reliance?” Naked, alone in the woods? In practice, “self reliance” means “how you are now.”

By: sciphu

sciphu — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:51:28 +0000

Jim. I meant “biologically unaltered”. Natural is not very accurate in this setting – and my point was the one Andrew makes: “self-enhancing technologies still has a veneer of “cheating” or “shallowness.””, which I think is related to (or a consequence of ?) the fear of loosing self reliance …..

By: Andrew Yates

Andrew Yates — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 01:46:19 +0000

In my experience, even self-purported transhumanists only endorse it in the abstract future. Opportunities exist now for improvement including cognitive enhancing drugs, lasik and cosmetic surgery, and increasingly, gamete genomic screening. Yet, partaking in any of these self-enhancing technologies still has a veneer of “cheating” or “shallowness.”

By: Jim H

Jim H — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:12:59 +0000

So, why is something “man made” unnatural? Are humans not a part of Nature, derived from Nature or are we somehow “Supernatural”? Humans have evolved from nature and what we do is purely natural. This supposition renders so many belief systems invalid.