LOGO
Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 12-22-2009, 05:23 PM   #1
pirinosa

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
444
Senior Member
Default Posthumanity
Francis Fukuyama argues that we are already in a posthuman world, largely because of pharmacokinetics, biomedical advances, and, specifically, prosthetics.

Is there a point we will reach when there will be a separation of humans and cyborgs, as imagined by Philip K. Dick and others? If so, then what will be the line that separates the two?

Along these same lines, is eugenics unethical?

As we proceed forward into a blurring of biology with technology, is this helpful or harmful? Or does it depend entirely on how the technology is harnessed?
pirinosa is offline


Old 12-22-2009, 05:29 PM   #2
Gscvbhhv

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
358
Senior Member
Default
Francis Fukuyama argues that we are already in a posthuman world, largely because of pharmacokinetics, biomedical advances, and, specifically, prosthetics.

Is there a point we will reach when there will be a separation of humans and cyborgs, as imagined by Philip K. Dick and others? If so, then what will be the line that separates the two?

Along these same lines, is eugenics unethical?

As we proceed forward into a blurring of biology with technology, is this helpful or harmful? Or does it depend entirely on how the technology is harnessed?
Francis Fukuyama also argued with a straight face that we had reached the "end of history" and that the historic struggle between ideologies had been won and the world was now destined to settle down into an epoch of liberal democracy.

Which is, of course, a thunderously stupid and a-historical point of view.

So I would feel safe in taking anything he says, including any description of the current weather or the time of day, with a huge grain of salt.
Gscvbhhv is offline


Old 12-22-2009, 08:14 PM   #3
Lt_Apple

Join Date
Dec 2008
Posts
4,489
Senior Member
Default
Francis Fukuyama argues that we are already in a posthuman world, largely because of pharmacokinetics, biomedical advances, and, specifically, prosthetics.
How do any of those stop humans from being human? You might agrue they are interferring with natural selection to a small extent, as now those who are not best adapted to their enviroment might indeed survive & reproduce, but humanity hasn't ceased to be in any way.

Along these same lines, is eugenics unethical?
One might argue allowing a person to live knowing they will not experience the highest quality of life possible is also unethical. Not me, but I can see the argument being made.

As we proceed forward into a blurring of biology with technology, is this helpful or harmful? Or does it depend entirely on how the technology is harnessed?
Helpful. Even if the technology is harnessed in a 'bad' way, chances are, in the end, it will be used for helping humanity. We're social, altruistic animals.
Lt_Apple is offline


Old 12-23-2009, 04:30 AM   #4
Kokomoxcv

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
380
Senior Member
Default
…Along these same lines, is eugenics unethical?
As it was practiced by Margaret Sanger, it was unethical. She was the founder of Planned Parenthood (a major promoter of abortions in America today). She has been given the unusual title, "Father of Modern Society."

What some may not realize is that the same poisonous philosophy that infected Hitler also influenced Margaret Sanger. She said Charles Darwin observed "that we do not permit helpless human beings to die off, but we create philanthropies and charities, build asylums and hospitals and keep the medical profession busy preserving those who could not otherwise survive." Her view was that such philanthropies and charities were "ameliorative" at best, and that some so-called benevolences were "positively injurious to the community and the future of the race."

Her following words (content-wise) sound like they could have been spoken by Adolf Hitler himself: "The most serious charge that can be brought against modern 'benevolence' is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression."

One wonders how far Sanger would like to have taken her eugenics. She reported a study of the United States Army and concluded that "nearly half—47.3 percent—of the population had the mentality of twelve-year-old children or less—in other words, that they were morons."

On the racial dimension, Linda Gordon quotes from a letter written by Margaret Sanger to Clarence Gamble on October 19, 1939: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Many years prior, Sanger said, "Whether or not the white races will be ultimately wiped off the face of the earth depends, to my mind, largely upon the conduct and behavior of the white people themselves. (Applause.)"

Ms. Sanger assumed "the evolutionary process of man" and argued that the "intelligence of a people is of slow evolutional development" She hoped for a motherhood that would refuse "to bring forth weaklings." Such a motherhood "withholds the unfit brings forth the fit." She wrote of "woman's upward struggle" and described the "lack of balance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit'" as "the greatest present menace to civilization."

The Lord Jesus said we should care for the weak. I’ll take Jesus over Sanger any day.
Kokomoxcv is offline


Old 12-23-2009, 04:41 AM   #5
Flalafuse

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
387
Senior Member
Default
As it was practiced by Margaret Sanger, it was unethical. She was the founder of Planned Parenthood (a major promoter of abortions in America today). She has been given the unusual title, "Father of Modern Society."
Yeah, and the leader of the pro life movement in America is a used car salesman whose prom date had an abortion because of his irresponsible behavior. Your point?
Flalafuse is offline


Old 12-23-2009, 05:44 AM   #6
Muesrasrs

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
382
Senior Member
Default
I think her estimate of the percentage of morons in the population might be optimistic.
Muesrasrs is offline


Old 01-15-2010, 07:53 AM   #7
Assauraarguck

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
464
Senior Member
Default
Yeah, and the leader of the pro life movement in America is a used car salesman whose prom date had an abortion because of his irresponsible behavior. Your point?
The Leader of the Pro-Life Movement in America is the same as in any other country. He is the Author of Life Himself. He created you. He never did “irresponsible behavior”, but He did sanctify life in the womb by being in one for 9 months.
Assauraarguck is offline


Old 01-15-2010, 08:03 AM   #8
Noxassope

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
449
Senior Member
Default
WTF does this mean? Charles Manson was in a womb for 9 months- does that sanctify him?

And if you're trying to twist words and say that Jesus was in the womb for 9 months then you are twisting the good book.
The Leader of the Pro-Life Movement in America is the same as in any other country. He is the Author of Life Himself. He created you. He never did “irresponsible behavior”, but He did sanctify life in the womb by being in one for 9 months.
Noxassope is offline


Old 01-15-2010, 05:02 PM   #9
Creelaleps

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
356
Senior Member
Default
Jesus may have said to care or the weak and the pro-life movement asks for protection for the unborn but let an agency try to open a group home for mentally retarded adults and watch the neighbors rise up in protest. Words are nothing without actions.
Creelaleps is offline


Old 01-16-2010, 01:02 AM   #10
Hetgvwic

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
523
Senior Member
Default
Francis Fukuyama also argued with a straight face that we had reached the "end of history" and that the historic struggle between ideologies had been won and the world was now destined to settle down into an epoch of liberal democracy.

Which is, of course, a thunderously stupid and a-historical point of view.

So I would feel safe in taking anything he says, including any description of the current weather or the time of day, with a huge grain of salt.
These are two entirely different issues. Do you not agree with the premise posited in the post?
Hetgvwic is offline


Old 01-16-2010, 01:06 AM   #11
orapope

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
523
Senior Member
Default
How do any of those stop humans from being human? You might agrue they are interferring with natural selection to a small extent, as now those who are not best adapted to their enviroment might indeed survive & reproduce, but humanity hasn't ceased to be in any way.

One might argue allowing a person to live knowing they will not experience the highest quality of life possible is also unethical. Not me, but I can see the argument being made.

Helpful. Even if the technology is harnessed in a 'bad' way, chances are, in the end, it will be used for helping humanity. We're social, altruistic animals.
I'll agree that transhuman may be a better term than posthuman, concerning Fukuyama's argument, but these enhancements have created bionic humans. In this sense, we're headed toward a world of uploaded minds and Snow Crash type interworlds.

I think that quality of life depends on one's worldview, or perhaps religious ground, but we're talking about eugenics, such as designer babies.
orapope is offline


Old 01-16-2010, 01:16 AM   #12
Trercakaressy

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
490
Senior Member
Default
These are two entirely different issues. Do you not agree with the premise posited in the post?
I am afraid that the "premise posited in the post" is far from clear to me - it appears more to be some random musings.

But if you are asking about whether we are in a "Post-human world," I would say no, that's just a bit of nifty-sounding sophistry. There may come a day when something definably non-human, such as artificially intelligent computers, can claim some status in society. Then we can talk about a "post-human world."

Until then, humans are pretty much all we have. And we can dress up in increasingly sophisticated spacesuits and whizz around in really advanced vehicles, even replace our limbs with way cool machines, but inside we're still humans, with all the weaknesses, foibles, and quirks that our ancestors had when struggling to survive the ice age.

When the first atom bomb exploded, Albert Einstein made a remark to the effect that This Changes Everything - Except Us. And those were wise and sober words and they can be applied to almost any technology we have now or are likely to develop in the near term.

To be fair to Fukuyama, I have not read his "post-human" essay, so I can't judge it accurately. But my guess is that I will accord it roughly the same credibility I give to his "end of history" theory.
Trercakaressy is offline


Old 01-17-2010, 02:32 AM   #13
vladekad

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
445
Senior Member
Default
Well, it's an entire book. Fukuyama largely argues that if we are not careful, then biotechnology could be our ruin, both physically and morally. I cited him as an example, but I'm not here to argue for him.

One of the main arguments in posthuman thought is along the lines of defining when a human becomes something other; for instance, if we replace a single brain cell of a human with that of a synthetic nanochip, and continue to do so one by one, and the human remains to function in the same manner, yet with more and more nanochips replacing formerly biological substances, then at what point can we say that the thing before us is no longer human?

The next level consists of the brain-in-a-vat argument, or similarly, Nozick's experience machine. While the experience machine argument is more concerned with hedonism - as in would we choose the pleasure of an mental experience machine over our current everyday life - we could ask whether a brain-in-a-vat undergoing the experience of a similated environment - perhaps removing the brain of an individual from Locked-In syndrome and providing them with the outlet of living the life they have in a simulated environment, then at what point would the individual not be deemed human, and what would he or she then be called?

In simple terms, if we continuously replace the parts that make up a human, then at what point do we no longer have a human? Second, if an individual has her brain uploaded into a simulated environment, whether temporarily or permanently, at what point does she lose her human status?
vladekad is offline


Old 01-17-2010, 03:04 AM   #14
moopogyOvenny

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
657
Senior Member
Default
Well, it's an entire book. Fukuyama largely argues that if we are not careful, then biotechnology could be our ruin, both physically and morally. I cited him as an example, but I'm not here to argue for him.

One of the main arguments in posthuman thought is along the lines of defining when a human becomes something other; for instance, if we replace a single brain cell of a human with that of a synthetic nanochip, and continue to do so one by one, and the human remains to function in the same manner, yet with more and more nanochips replacing formerly biological substances, then at what point can we say that the thing before us is no longer human?

The next level consists of the brain-in-a-vat argument, or similarly, Nozick's experience machine. While the experience machine argument is more concerned with hedonism - as in would we choose the pleasure of an mental experience machine over our current everyday life - we could ask whether a brain-in-a-vat undergoing the experience of a similated environment - perhaps removing the brain of an individual from Locked-In syndrome and providing them with the outlet of living the life they have in a simulated environment, then at what point would the individual not be deemed human, and what would he or she then be called?

In simple terms, if we continuously replace the parts that make up a human, then at what point do we no longer have a human? Second, if an individual has her brain uploaded into a simulated environment, whether temporarily or permanently, at what point does she lose her human status?
Now that is an interesting question I could spend some time with. Thanks for clarifying.

I haven't thought it through deeply, obviously, but it seems to me that any "post-human" kind of effect would have to wait until we have radically, or maybe even unrecognizably, altered the biochemistry of the brain. Until then we will be, to one degree or another, constrained by the deep-set biochemical imperatives of the brain. In other words, I really do think our personalities and our identities are inextricably intertwined with the physical makeup of our brains - I don' think there is some freestanding "me" that is separate from the brain in which I reside. I don't think it is possible, therefore, to transfer one's consciousness to another body or machine, for example, nor do I think there is any kind of "life after death." So what would make us "post-human" would be to alter the makeup of the brain itself so radically that we become something different. It might be possible, for example, to insert a computer plug into the brain, as in The Matrix, but I suspect we'd still behave in a profoundly human fashion. On the other hand, it probably will be possible, some day, to program a computer to speak and act exactly like me, to the point that people who know me well might be fooled. But that entity, however like me, would be non-human since its brain would operate in an entirely different manner. That would be "post-human" or "trans-human." It would be an interesting experiment to program a computer to exactly mimic a specific human in every regard and then let them go their separate ways. I suspect that the original human and the artificial copy would develop and think in very different ways after some time apart.
moopogyOvenny is offline


Old 01-20-2010, 10:27 PM   #15
exsmoker

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
413
Senior Member
Default
Eugenics is unethical because it involves gene manipulation (via crossbreeding and other such tactics). It takes away our right to choose a partner of our wishes, as well as our genetic right to have descendants. (Of course, this begs the obvious question, but...)

As far as the premise of "posthumanity" goes--if you're familiar with futuretimeline.net, you'll know that its author believes that the future of humanity lays in the creation of a man-machine consciousness singularity. But, since I think Moore's law is predicated on the technical limits of the microchip--and there are limits--it will not last forever. Already, in CPUs, that limit has been reached--that's why there have been no single-core processors since the Pentium 4. In addition, the cyborg-ization of humanity would need to begin, at first, with (very expensive) surgery and be subject to theological inquiry. If mainstream churches at first reject these advancements and if politicians refuse to fund them, that would indefinitely stall this type of development.

In the short term, better education will make us smarter.
exsmoker is offline


Old 01-21-2010, 01:32 AM   #16
curcercanty

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
459
Senior Member
Default
In simple terms, if we continuously replace the parts that make up a human, then at what point do we no longer have a human?
Humans are more than mere bodies. We have an immaterial aspect which may be referred to as soul or spirit. When the soul leaves the body, we no long have a human. A dead body is not a human being. There must be life. So long as the person is living, we have a human being—regardless of how many mechanical implants there may be, etc.

Well, it's an entire book. Fukuyama largely argues that if we are not careful, then biotechnology could be our ruin, both physically and morally. I cited him as an example, but I'm not here to argue for him.

One of the main arguments in posthuman thought is along the lines of defining when a human becomes something other; for instance, if we replace a single brain cell of a human with that of a synthetic nanochip, and continue to do so one by one, and the human remains to function in the same manner, yet with more and more nanochips replacing formerly biological substances, then at what point can we say that the thing before us is no longer human?

The next level consists of the brain-in-a-vat argument, or similarly, Nozick's experience machine. While the experience machine argument is more concerned with hedonism - as in would we choose the pleasure of an mental experience machine over our current everyday life - we could ask whether a brain-in-a-vat undergoing the experience of a similated environment - perhaps removing the brain of an individual from Locked-In syndrome and providing them with the outlet of living the life they have in a simulated environment, then at what point would the individual not be deemed human, and what would he or she then be called?

In simple terms, if we continuously replace the parts that make up a human, then at what point do we no longer have a human? Second, if an individual has her brain uploaded into a simulated environment, whether temporarily or permanently, at what point does she lose her human status?
curcercanty is offline


Old 01-21-2010, 01:49 AM   #17
XqrkN4a0

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
387
Senior Member
Default
~~durr.

There is no soul.
XqrkN4a0 is offline


Old 01-21-2010, 03:00 AM   #18
abOfU9nJ

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
469
Senior Member
Default
~~durr.

There is no soul.
Oddly enough, Paul and I agree, but for different reasons. I am inclined ot believe that humans are a direct product of the structure and biochemistry of the brain, and I suspect it would be impossible to add enough cybernetic elements to make us NOT be human. Just a theory, though.
abOfU9nJ is offline


Old 01-21-2010, 03:30 AM   #19
leangarance

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
499
Senior Member
Default
Neurochemistry is the opposite of a soul.

Your point, that it would be difficult to cyber-out our neorochemistry, and therefore our humanity, is a valid theory. Paul's idea that there is some supra-human part of us that lives on after cybernetics & even death, however, is irrational & IMO silly.

A dead human body is still a human body. Humans are not seperate from their flesh.
leangarance is offline


Old 01-21-2010, 03:37 AM   #20
shanice

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
374
Senior Member
Default
Neurochemistry is the opposite of a soul.

Your point, that it would be difficult to cyber-out our neorochemistry, and therefore our humanity, is a valid theory. Paul's idea that there is some supra-human part of us that lives on after cybernetics & even death, however, is irrational & IMO silly.

A dead human body is still a human body. Humans are not seperate from their flesh.
Yes, I agree with that.

The part where I agree with Paul is strictly limited to the idea that it would be hard to put enough cyber junk in us to make us non-human.

The Supra-human stuff is nonsense. We are our brains and that's that.
shanice is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:26 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity