Out of Pod Experience

I brought up the dehumanisation because even without genetic or technological enhancements to the base human template, we're not exactly ... consistent or rational.

As a species we can be xenophobic, volatile, aggressive, paranoid and very judgemental.
We are also socially driven, we seek out people that we can be comfortable with, people that share our ideologies.
If someone moves to a large city, where they don't know anyone, they can get quite unhappy because that social interaction is missing from their life.

Skin colour, religion, political stance and preference in sexual partner are just some of the things that can divide people.
When you then add cybernetic enhancements or genetic modification for 'improved traits' you're just going to create an additional layer of intolerance, hatred and egotism, because that's how people are.

We're the sanest people in the asylum, but we're still mad.

I don't believe we need technology or genetics to change this. I think this kind of change could be made on a personal level with nothing but a blank wall and some time (meditation).


Do you think this is a bad thing? Sometimes I am not sure..


But I think that the more "things" there are to "hate", the more the human mind becomes inundated and confused. Big cities are centers of diversity, and "diversity fatigue" sometimes contributes to the death of intolerance. Because after a while you see something else that's different and say "meh, ok. we are all cool". It's just my theory..

I like this theory and it sorta makes sense.

Then again, it could backfire if enough people consider enhanced humans as such a perversity that they focus their hatred on those people and care less about other diversities. The "common foe" kinda thing, causing less confusion and focussed hatred.

This could be enforced by how the transhumans act themselves. It takes only a few individuals who use their new-found advantages to take advantage of non-enhanced people or to oppress or hurt them. Such acts could make transhumans be viewed as a risk even by sensible people. And from there everything is possible from sensible resolutions of problems and peaceful coexistance, to the attempts of controlling the "risk" of transhumanism devolving into a spiral of suspicion, hate and violence.

I don't have the slightest idea what would happen, and I'm sure it'd depend on a wide variety of variables.

I don't think transhumanism is a good idea. Reasons why:
-Homo sapiens evolved into a successful organism over a period of about 65 million years. That's a lot of repeated iterations, and screening out of unsuccessful traits the hard way (i.e. death by starvation, accident, disease, predation or violence).

-A human's psychological and emotional make-up, and it's social behavior, are products of that long evolutionary experience. Our thought patterns, responses to stimuli, and emotions don't exist independently of the organic body and nervous system-- they are products of them.

-Are we intelligent enough to wisely plan our own next evolutionary step? That's basically what transhumanism would be doing-- artificially evolving ourselves into something else. And doing it very rapidly, compared to the long trial-and-error development of evolution so far. I don't think we're wise enough for that. We hardly even understand our own human minds and emotions. (If we had complete understanding of "the human condition," would there even be literature, poetry, art or film? We wouldn't need them, we'd have no interest in exploring the quirks of the human condition). Is it a good idea to try to engineer changes in something that one doesn't have full knowledge of or fully understand?

-Life in modern societies has already separated us from the lifestyle we had over 99% of our career as a species. We no longer have the extended family clan unit, in which an individual's social needs are taken care of as a matter of course. We live more isolated, individualized lives. Finding companions and mates is harder than ever in our history. So we have psychological pressures that our ancestors never dreamed up. Would transhumanism going to address that, or would it make us even more isolated and compartmentalized? It seems the latter, to me.

-Transhumanist development would necessarily be leading edge, scientifically/technologically. Therefore projects would probably require a lot of concentrated resources. In other words, a lot of money. Concentration of money-- hmm, who has that? Banks? Corporations? Other benevolent, wise, and forward-thinking institutions of that nature? If concentration of money is involved, then it's very likely that the motive is profit. The profit motive drives a lot of innovation, but do we want that motive to be what tinkers with homo sapiens' fundamental design? As we know, people buy what appeals to them, not necessarily what's good for them. And sellers/developers know that very well.

Completely off-topic, and don't let this derail the thread, but.... I've always thought something like that would be a good New Eden story to explore. In the context of transneural burning a mindprint into a new clone. The clone body isn't identical to the regular body. It doesn't have the same experiences, it's a blank. Not the same muscle memories, same predelictions in the way it moves (due to prior injuries or infirmities), or neural pathways "burned in" due to being favored over years of habit. So the transplanted mind is partially in an alien vehicle. That would be bound to cause some degree of dysfunction or confusion. And incomplete/confused transmission of information with the brain and nervous system is what causes bipolar disorder and schizophrenic symptoms.

So after repeated transneural burnings into new clones, the capsuleer could experience a gradual aggregating of disorientation/confusion effect. (Each clone was slightly less mentally healthy than the one before). So there could eventually be a "capsuleer's psychosis" problem. (Speaking of transneural burning and cloning, I highly recommend this horrifying horror story "The Attrition Initiative," by Kazicht Cixit A brilliant concept, and creepy).

Anyway, off on a tangent there, carry on all.

This is something I've thought of myself from time to time. Usually when I'm in a class concerning human behavior: Psych, Sociology, Philosophy, etc.

Honestly, the way we live now has effectively stopped the survival of the fittest evolution, which has driven practically every species since the Earth could support life.

Edit: I mean in nature, you don't see animals coddling there young. If there is a problem, physically and/or mentally, with the infant *insert animal here*, the mother will probably leave it and let it die.

Agreed

Yeah we might get lazy and turn into the jello-humans in the starship in Wall-E. I actually think that's the most accurate portrayal of our distant future i've seen in a movie..

@OP: Why would there only be two sides to the "ethics" of transhumanism?

That aside... The discipline of transhumanism tends to presuppose that either the general public or a select few are smart enough to take over the evolutionary process and accelerate it by identifying and overcoming "limitations". What could possibly be wrong with that notion?

I think you are mistaking tool use with Transhumanism. They aren't the same thing. Transhumanism is a movement, ergo, not a facet of everyday experience.