Why is almost every other transhumanist I meet online utterly batshit? I mean, the most famous transhumanist on this website alone has some kind of human pet fetish.
I don’t think I’m crazy
Wait, you’re transhumanist, too? Ah, so that makes you pretty much the only other sane transhumanist I’ve met over the internet so far.
My biggest statement/sentiment is “Never gonna die”, either through technological lengthening of centomeres, the digitization of the mind (Yes, I know that I have a 50/50 shot of actually living forever with that method, but it’s still me), or the replacing of organic components with technological ones.
My biggest reservation is the matter of security.
I’m a transhumanist and the concept of extended/infinite life for human beings is absolutely terrifying. Bring on the cyborgs and cool prosthetics and personhood for artificial intelligence and all that jazz, but when humanity overcomes aging we are absolutely fucked as a species. We will see inequality the likes of which we cannot even fathom today, and there will be no end to it.
The march of progress treads on the back of death and it will grind to a halt. Violence will be not just a valid political tactic but in many cases the only tactic. Sustainable living will be impossible; human economy will be based by necessity on endless growth. Innovation will stagnate as fresh perspectives fade away; undoubtedly, the loss of aging means a decline in the birth rate. Along with that, the youngest generation will be more powerless than ever before, and the oldest generation more entrenched in power than they could ever dream of today.
The good will still die young, and the bad will live forever. People do not understand how beneficial it is to humanity that all men must someday die. Seriously. It’s not worth it. The adult lifespan of a human being is already very long, just make it count.
Recently I was looking at synths – I play guitar and flute and want to learn a keyboard instrument for a full combo – and then I realized that, no, not really possible.
Between what I already play, and gardening, and making tools to assist in gardening, and cooking, and amateur electronics, and my vague hopes to learn how to draw, all in the spare time from providing my body with daily (insufficient!) downtime and doing someone else’s work every day so that I can feed my body with nutrients, wrap it in protective cloth, and pay someone else money so that I have a place to keep the latter three and maintain its other forms of daily maintenance, I won’t have time for this in my entire life, unless I suddenly come into wealth, retire at the age of 30, and dedicate my life to being a Reinassance Man.
Humans live for, let’s say, 60 years. Twenty of those we spend on just learning how to function in a modern society. The amount of learning is not going to become any smaller, you know.
Humans don’t live long. Humans live so little that it’s almost criminal.
>Pursuer of […] immortality
Being that this is at the top of your sidebar, I sense I am not going to move you on this issue. I do not sympathize with your anguish at only being able to play two kinds of instruments instead of three. Good day.
Agelessness is not immortality.
It’s time to put down the Orson Scott Card. Everything you say today could have been said fifty years ago for fighting against disease, heart failure, cancer. And yes, I take offense to the implication that modern medicine, which is responsible for diminishing many diseases that kill the young and middle-aged, prolonging human lifespan, is an evil to be avoided.
If we mitigate the cellular mechanisms of aging, it will prolong life even more – but not indefinitely. Damage and disease will still accumulate, and in lieu of that, accidents. It is treating one more illness that we could not cure with leeches.
Yes, the rich will get it first and for a very long time there will be people without access to it. The rich get everything first. The rich had cell phones first, and now they bring together people where the infrastructure for phone lines has never been economically feasible. Everything other warning you make is just a pessimistic outlook on what life today is like, with a warning of “it will be worse.”
And toward the concept of digitized minds, or the kind of technological human integration that would be required to eliminate all disease and damage, us guessing what such a world is like is best described as, and I’m borrowing this analogy, being a goldfish as a person is trying to describe to it our present world. It may be that none of our society’s characteristics apply.
“It’s time to put down the Orson Scott Card.”
What, go on an insane racist/homophobic rant?
Agelessness is “not” immortality in a technical sense, but when we are talking about this subject they are functionally identical. I’m just gonna give a light overview of a rebuttal since you guys never fucking read any of my full ones.
“Everything you say today could have been said fifty years ago for fighting against disease, heart failure, cancer.”
No, it couldn’t. Here is a list of just some things I said:
1. Violence will be not just a valid political tactic but in many cases the only tactic.
2. Human economy will be based by necessity on endless unsustainable growth.
3. The youngest generation will be more powerless than ever before.
4. The good will still die young, and the bad will live forever.
Please, do attempt to explain how these are relevant arguments against fighting cancer. I will wait, until I die of old age.
“If we mitigate the cellular mechanisms of aging, it will prolong life even more – but not indefinitely.”
R&E began the discussion with his motto of “never gonna die.” Ranma’s blog description specifically names immortality. Framing this as merely prolonging lifespan, rather than discussing the consequences of eternal life, is moving the goalposts.
“The rich had cell phones first, and now they bring together people where the infrastructure for phone lines has never been economically feasible.”
And they exploit third world workers for assembly and the means to collect rare minerals. This argument has a fundamental flaw: You point out in the exact same sentence that wired phones already existed. Cellphones were a revolutionary technology, to be sure, but they did not bring anything new, they only made existing technology more portable and convenient. Non-rich people could still affordably communicate over the phone before cellphones were invented.
Not to mention that this is a completely false equivalency. How exactly did cellphones allow rich people to consolidate power? How do any of the things I listed above apply to the invention of the cellphone? The cellphone is something more akin to the invention of advanced prosthetic limbs – something I said in my first post I was excited for. It’s not comparable.
Also, things like cellphones and the Internet have reduced poverty and inequality. Twitter helps citizens resist oppressive regimes. Please make an argument for how immortality as a product will reduce poverty and inequality. I’d love to hear it.
“It may be that none of our society’s characteristics apply.”
A cheap cop-out to forethought you find difficult. If technologies are so far-flung into the future that we cannot even imagine a society that contains them, they aren’t worth arguing about. If they’re more imminent, then we should be able to imagine how they would affect society as it exists today. And if we can do that, then we should acknowledge the negative impacts they are likely to have on it – and I can think of no invention that would have a more negative impact than immortality.