So I tried to have a serious dialogue in the YouTube comment section with the usual results. So I'll try it here.
5 Likes
i agree with everything he said. natural selection is still going on, except the 'survival of the fittest' now means who can make the most money.
Relationship Between Poverty and Obesity
people with the most money tend to be fitter than the the economic class below. of course there are many reasons and the main reason like in nature's natural selection is access to resource.
2 Likes
but yes, we are not just human bodies, we are the embodiment of all that humans have and can achieve.
My biggest concern with a transition to transhumanism is "Who writes the code?"
Could you imagine Zuckerberg with direct access to you your brain?
im guessing we will with the assistance of AI
We have already made evolution redundant. Just look at how many babies now live thanks to science. Men and women dont pick mates based on health and survivability.
The more diseases we beat the more people live to breed when they would not have. When we start implanting tech into brains to stop epilepsy and alzheimer's etc. When we change the DNA of an unborn child to cure an illness.
It just more of the same thing we have been doing since medicine started.
1 Like
Evolution is still here. Just taken on a different form. Not that it hasn't always been many forms, yet still one, that's what I was getting from his skin bag bias comment.
there is also the train of thought that technology is a 'natural part' of our evolution.
throughout our species history we have invented tech that has changed our evolutionary traits as a result - animal husbandry being one - changed the chemical compositions of our brains/increased parasites/ allowed us to become more intelligent as a species due to increased protein uptake/allowed us to specialise and become stable (relative to hunter gatherer)...
this is just one eg, think of the invention of fire, tools etc as an eg, this is just an extension of this because we have become better at it. we have consistently been moderating our species evolution throughout our history, we have just never been as aware/capable of it as we have been now.
Jared diamond wrote a fantastic book that deals with this in part called 'guns, Germs and steel' he does a series of well worth it books dealing more with evolution and the things that have driven it/will drive it, but not really about trans humanism itself (things like 'Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed' etc)
Local Storage + Open Source Firewall=Done
1 Like
That is absolutely a big concern.
I have to wonder how deeply and quickly transhumanism is going to affect us. Will it be like the Matrix where we just plug in? Will we actually be putting our brains into machines? Why? When it gets to that point, wouldn't a computer have more cognitive ability than a person anyway? Would we put everyone in a computer? What would we gain by digitally encoding a 6 year old? Would it be for them and for humanity? Would that matter? What would be gained or lost by having every individual on an inseparable machine, capable of processing everyone's thoughts, and would it matter? Would it be just as, or more effective to have all of the thoughts and feelings of the population of the planet categorized with copies deleted and only a single thinking a.i. remains? Would that be lonely?
The end result, is probably unimaginable.
Firstly, I have not watch the Vid yet (at work)
But my first and foremost question will always be; "If we are 'placed' into the 'internet' will we cease being us?"
Now I don't mean 'us' in some humanity/homo sapiens sense, but rather individual identity.
How do we identify ourselves when access to all the worlds information is available at once? would you be you if you knew what everyone knew?
This may be just a play on the situation but it is curious - without our physically present selves would we lose our sense of self?
Food for thought
My ideal scenario is to have direct network interface, hard drive memory back-ups, augmented reality and peer to peer connections. And of course full personality back-up on file in case of accidental and catastrophic death for upload into a robotic chassis.
@Jeghost an open question relating to your comment, (which i will quedtion out of interest of other peoples views/also play devils advocate)
Why is loss of the individual a 'bad' thing? Why do you/we fear it?
Should we?
Are there benefits to both/has one greater benefits?
Will the continued growth of intellect/connectability/understanding/elimination of diverse cultures naturally lead to a loss of individuality without direct transhumanism (even though this is still partlt transhumanism)?
Do we value individuality too much/for the wrong reasons?
Nb; please present logical/reasoned responses not just knee-jerk dogmatic responses.
Just like the economy, life is a self correcting "bubble".
In the words of Bender Bending Rodriguez, "Bodies are for fat people and hookers".
1 Like
That is honesty the least of our worries.
The people who write the code will be irrelevant to the 3rd party people who intentionally abuse the code.
1 Like
Or more likely 3rd parties that take advantage of back doors or sloppy code written by primary vendors.
last i checked i dont dig poor fat chicks.
1 Like
https://forum.teksyndicate.com/t/transhumanism-discuss/95065/2?u
I strongly disagree. Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with money. Biological fitness is all about how many of your genes make it to the next generation. Today, wealth is actually a disadvantage when it comes to fitness. Even though rich people have more things and live longer, nearly all poor people live long enough to reproduce and tend to have more kids (and have them younger) than the rich.
1 Like
I think these days Welfare cretins reproduce more than productive members of society due to increased food stamps and welfare for more kids and it's a way of life for many bottom feeders in this society we live in. it's survival of the laziest.