Out of Pod Experience

exactly. the issue is not what you are, but what you will.



and that is the biggest question here.

Whole this discussion would be pointless without some exhibits. Blind people, deaf people, savants, we have so much common with those people, but we cant communicate easily, maybe we could by the new technologies that will translate ones sensations to another one being. An ultimate empathy. Then we could biologically grow more brains and use them to rule the world!

Transhumanism cons:
* Cannot reproduce. If cyborg Alice and cyborg Bob get together and have a baby, they will have a human baby, not a cyborg baby. Ergo, transhumanism isn't necessary for survival, and most likely deters people from having babies, thus risking the extinction of humanity. Meaning, transhumanism (i.e. cyborgs) would offer distractions that keep people from actually living (Matrix style MMOs in your head, extreme sports via an extreme body, etc..)

* Hyper-Specialization. Huxley's Brave New World. People as specialized machines designed to do one job.

* Loss of connections. Transhumanists could become so enhanced that they could become unable to interact with normal humans. It's like a billionaire giving a rat's butt about a homeless person or the working poor. They're so far apart in terms of lifestyles, that there's no common ground with which to foster communication, empathy, etc.. This leads to class warfare, benign neglect, segregation, and so on until you lose an entire part of society. Think East Germany's reunification with West Germany, with the West Germans getting a bit cranky at the sudden influx of poorly educated/trained people who were also poor.

* Evolve into a non-human species. Your body influences your mind. (e.g. if your body is sick or in pain, your thinking suffers as well.) Transhumanist modification to a human body could change the mind to something that is no longer recognizable as human, or into something that no longer identifies as human. No common ground == higher likelihood of genocide, segregation, warfare, etc..

* Fragmentation of humanity into disparate species. Transhuman changes could be so great and so rapid, that differing species are created. Transhumans modified to live in space or at the bottom of the ocean, would necessarily develop different outlooks and assumptions about life.

* Complacency. Transhumanism would allow for "easy" adaptability thus reducing the human drive to succeed/exceed. Humanity could stagnate.

Pros:
* Adaptability is key to a species' survival. Transhumanism would fit that bill

* Equalizer. Technology could equalize people. (Equality of opportunity.)

What stoicfaux said is just similar to evolution steered by man with one big con, cannot reproduce normally biologically if you talk about mechanical upgrades, if we are ttalking genetic enhancement, it is not a con anymore. Frome the point of ethics, Humans should take responsibility for everything they do, so every scientist willing to practice human genetic enhancements would be treated like potential criminal for spoiling genetic material of the race. IF someone would be a cancerous blob of tissue in the age of 10, who would you blame then? Of course scientists.

autism is an even bigger reason why we should thread carefully in all this.

I think the fear of dehumanization is a baseless fear of the unknown. There is no reason to believe that a change in our abilities will change us from doing what we want to do to doing something other than what we want to do. In short: regardless of the paths we take, we will always be proud of our own accomplishments.

I'm for transhumanism. I don't expect others to follow me but I do expect them to not try to stop me.

I think that the trend is for technological increases to diminish the gap between the rich and the poor, or the high status and the low status. While transhumanism and cybernetics can make for a larger separation of humans than ever before, the sort of widespread education and access to knowledge they bring will help people conquer their fears of each other. I believe it is pretty much certain that transhumanism cannot possibly cause more harm than it helps, in terms of human vs. human aggression and persecution. No matter which way you cut it, the end result is happier, more peaceful, and less violent for the vast majority, primarily the ones who accept the changes. The worst remaining violence will be perpetrated by those who are unwilling to change for religious reasons and their most successful attacks will be against others who are unchanged.

That's true if the technology is widely available and affordable. That, of course, would be the ideal case.

If not, there will be jealousy and an even wider gap between rich and poor.

I think education and access to knowledge in general will have a positive effect as you describe it. It's not enough by itself, though. There will still be hateful people.

Especially if they will be attacked by those who cannot achieve transhumanism themselves, be it for monetery or other reasons.

Edit: I'm painting a bit of a pessimistic picture here, I know. I don't think it too likely to be that bad, either, but I do think it's a possibility and worth to take into consideration and to find measures to counter-act such developments.

Maybe we did, Astro.. but I've spent hours at zoos mesmerized by chimpanzees playing with paint and canvases, and one time .. a snoozing orangutan whose eyes kept bobbing inside her closed eyelids and she would toss and turn like she's having a dream. A monkey in India was able to trick me out of my lunch.

I'm not really convinced we're the superior species here..

well, I think it's more an "external" issue than "internal".

since that for every action there is a counter-action, it might be quite possible that "cyber-ing up" might create groups of people that look at cyborgs or any people with cybernetic implants, as "impure" and/or "no longer human"

so, the issue of dehumanization might come from the society itself, and not the individual.