Intergalactic Summit

Awesome. This Edit is amazingly synthetic and worth for everything at the same time. Well done.

As if you're more competent to judge what is outdated than the Theology Council, Cpt. Farel.
They don't debate it for religious purposes only, but also for various ontological and metaphysical reasons, of which you are clearely uninformed, if not ignorant. As is quite obvious given your confusion of the concept of a biological species and what follows from that for the relation of human body and mind. The argument you give there is obviously a non sequitur.

I'll debate this no further with you, as you're just reiterating your stance and not reacting to my arguments, as - and we agree in that: You do not understand my reasoning.

I recommend a few courses in ontology, metaphysics and aesthetics at Hedion to familiarize you with the philosophy behind it before you hand out blanket statements.

Regards
- N. Mithra

It is a value judgment.

I have one opinion. You have another. The question is not simply who is right or wrong. It is a question of what is most beneficial to both sides. Some will look at the dilemma and think of themselves first. Some will think of what is best for others. How do you reconcile these two viewpoints in any given situation? Is it possible to balance the needs of the many with the wants of the few?

It is so easy to detach yourself from the situation. Sometimes it is far easier to do so. That's the problem though; it is easy to detach. It is easy to accept an answer given to you. It is easy to judge a situation based on initial impressions and ignore situation-dependent variables.

Let us take the example of "humanity". You are predisposed to believe yourself human due to your upbringing. Your thought process is "human". Your body is "human". The question becomes this; what happens to you when you die?

You are a capsuleer. If you die in the pod, you are cloned. A copy of one specific part of your human body is scanned. The information is transferred to another body, which has at least one similar aspect to that of your previous body; a brain. That "intrinsic" part, your thought process, is unchanged. That other intrinsic aspect, your body, may not be exactly the same. However, your thought process stems from functions within the brain.

This is where the "transhuman" aspect becomes murky. You may think of yourself as human. That is a perfectly human thing to think, and since your brain state is that of a human, you are human in your own consciousness. However you are not the "you" that that mind state is based on. You are a copy. A very good copy, but a copy in every sense of the word.

For me, this is a useless dichotomy. The me "now" is not the same "me" as the me five seconds ago. Biochemical changes have occurred. There have been new perceptions, thoughts, etc. The only thing that is different with the scanning that takes place during a pod breach is that there is an interruption in the continuity of consciousness and the body in which the end result is deposited.

That's the crux of the matter, Kybernetes. It's my answer. From my point of view this is why it is a dangerous thing to suggest detachment.

Transhumanism is not a state of being. It is a state of mind. If you are looking for something more, if you believe this to be only a single pitstop in your evolution, you are a transhuman. You wish to transcend your condition. Many more, however, are perfectly fine reveling in their flaws and considering themselves the pinnacle of what they are and what they will ever be.

Which viewpoint is more valid to a greater number of individuals? Is it possible to coexist? Can the needs of the many be balanced with the wants of the few?

Even among demigods there are dichotomies that may at first seem insurmountable. If we cannot overcome these, how can we consider ourselves in any position to dictate the future of others? If we are seen as an enemy to anyone, what does that say about them? We are fractured, divisive, and individualistic. Transhumanism is such a minor (yet vitally important) concept that it pales in comparison to nearly every other dilemma facing us.

We are not gods. We are not demigods. We have no inherent right to rule other than that which we earn through the respect and power others give us. Just as we must watch against tyranny, we must watch against complacency. We have the responsibility to defend our views, our own actions, our own thoughts. We also have the responsibility to understand the reasons and repercussions of our actions, and how they affect not only us but those around us.

Those are my views. What do you think Kybernetes Moros?