Conservatives VS Transhumanists

I'm very interested in the consequences that will follow the explosion of artificial intelligence. It is very logical that the fundamentalists will become even more conservative and the separation between conservatives and transumanists will sharpen a lot. The conservatives won't accept such a huge and rapid change that will destroy the image of a human as they know it. Luckily, the advanced technologies are on our side. But first we have to learn how to deal with adapting and modifying our minds and bodies. Now is the time when we all have to say goodbye to our useless human-attachments, to our leftover conservative notions.
Are you prepared to accept that you may not be a human any more? Would you accept that as a part of the evolution of the human race? Would you put the information from your brain in a machine that won't look like a human but it will be a lot better (enduring, powerful, skillful...) than the human body?

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ni Geo on August 20, 2009 at 1:12pm: If I ask me, I will. =)
I think I will be brave enough to overcome my body in order to broaden my physical and mental capacities.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Abaddon on August 22, 2009 at 5:34am: There's already been what I feel to be a clear indication that Congress will seek to ban genetic engineering. Going by what I've seen locally where I live though, most feel that it should have limitations imposed by society...instead of something the parents/individual decide on their own. So I'm going to lean on the side of caution and say that conservatives & co. will demonize and prohibit nanomedicine that is self replicating/repairing.

So with each step we'll encounter larger amounts of resistance, till we reach a point where we decide that we want to live in a society where science isn't limited by archaic thinking. I can understand hesitancy, that's legitimate considering how easily technology can be abused. But I truly feel that this will fall into an argument in which theists seek to impose their religious values on those who don't believe.

Anyways, I apologize for being longwinded...but it helps for me to imagine the numerical shift with each step in technological evolution. As for myself, I don't find it immoral to desire immortality. But if it came to a decision of living in a virtual reality versus living in a physical body, then I'll choose the augmented, physical body. Going by simple technological upgrades we'll more then likely have a petabyte sized drive in which to experience this virtual reality while still being somewhat corporeal. Though the big danger is that how will data corruption affect our personalities....that is if we can even reach that point.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Abaddon on August 22, 2009 at 7:58am: I realize I came off as an us vs. them mentality. But I really do feel this has the potential to turn into a proverbial witch hunt, in which those who're superstitious will feel that post-humans and those who side with them. We might be lucky with religious moderates, but I feel that the group will shrink noticeably when this technology comes out. You'll probably even see some of them try to develop computer viruses, if not diseases themselves, to kill/maim those who're transhumanist.

Meh, maybe I'm just letting my paranoia run rampant. Either way though, we will not have a smooth transition.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Miguel Antonio Cortés Muñoz on October 5, 2009 at 7:14pm: I think that in a couple of decades all people are going to be transhumanists.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike Fabrizi on November 15, 2009 at 6:21pm: I guess my view is that conservatives are not monolithic. I would certainly agree with you that the religious right will feel threatened by an explosion of AI and the other GRIN technologies. In fact, I seem to recall a papal pronouncement anathematizing transhumanism as radically immoral. On the other hand, however, you have other people who are sometimes (wrongfully) lumped in the same camp, such as libertarians, objectivists, and many entrepreneurs, who will probably welcome these new technologies. Creative destruction is what capitalism, rightly understood, is all about, and this is a GOOD thing.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Chad on January 11, 2010 at 1:06am: I think that Mike F. Hit the nail on the head. I'm a little concerned that it appears that the dominant view is that conservatives are anti-transhumanistic. I consider myself to be a fairly conservative libertarian. I would personally welcome an opportunity to become an "upload" (as Kurzweil puts it). I definitely agree that there will be those who opposed to the idea, labeling it as "unhuman," and that group with probably be made up primarily of conservatives, but I definitely think it's an unfair assumption to say that conservatives as a whole will be anti-transhumantstic.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Syzygy on January 15, 2010 at 5:15pm: Well, I'm a conservative and transhumanist myself, so there ya go.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Frank Whittemore on January 16, 2010 at 10:57am: "the separation between conservatives and transhumanists will sharpen a lot."

That much seems guaranteed.

Who will decide to what extent to approach transhumanism conservatively or not? You? Me? Christians? Jews? Muslims? Agnostics? Atheists? The U.S.? Russia? The EU? China? Iran? India? The UN? A new World Order?

Who decides who decides?

My voice seems very small to non-existent in all of this. How significant is your voice?

Will these issues be decided democratically?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by tleilaxu_chemist on February 12, 2010 at 6:40pm: While I agree that all conservatives are not the religious right but lets look at the current state of conservativism. They try to blame the religious right for interferring in peoples lives but a majority of all self identified conservatives do not think that I have the right to do with my body what I want. Because I'm gay, a an almost meaningless distinction outside of a modern religious context, I do not deserve the same legal rights. Because they cannot accept anyone's definition of what it means to be human, they desperately want to lock up any woman that decides not to carry her pregnacy to term. What are they gonna think when we start puting implants in ourselves, reshaping our bodies, rewriting our genes, and forging a new virtual world for ourselves. Does anyone really think they will accept us as "normal", "right", or "natural" (a label I imagine we'd openly reject)? Yes many conservatives claim to be tolerant and only fiscally conservative, but those numbers come from some where. They have tried to regulate our bodies before, I have no doubts they will do it again.
Oh and for you "small government, fiscal conservatives" how do you expect to regulate the production and distribution of new technologies like synthetic biology and nanotech, which have amazing capacity to help us as a species but an amazing capacity for destuction if missused, possibly permanently hampering the transhumanist movement? If we do not create a system to prevent abuse, eventually a catastrophy will happen that could cause a major backlash against our cause. Who is going to do that but the government?
Finally I cannot speak for anyone else, but I do not want to see transhumanism falling into the hands of the corporate world, deciding who deserves to update themseleves. I believe our advancements should strive to help others, to advance humanity past our limits. Yes to evaluate all ideas fairly and support the ones that are sound and do away with those that fail but then to provided that evaluation to all man kind, not the priveleged few. I'm realistic, I know Americans and other first world citizens will be the first to possess the first small upgrades, but eventually our medical technologies and the virtual world should be open to all people.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Syzygy on February 12, 2010 at 7:02pm: Well, Chemist, while it's nice to think that GOvernment can solve all our problems, the fact of the matter is it can't. History will vindicate me on this one. Not all corporations are huge, evil forest-raping goliaths who step on the little guy. Becoming transhuman will be incredibly expensive, how would our government pay for all those people who want to extend their lives or expand their minds? They'd levy huge taxes on us for one, and probably make up new things to charge us for (Have you ever wondered why you can be ticketed for not having up-to-date tabs on your vehicle? Now you know) That, and the surgery required to become transhuman will probably be replete with casualties, as a million things can go wrong druing even simple surgery that can complicate the entire procedure or do horrendous damage to the patient. If we trust the government and ONLY the government, how can we file a lawsuit if their employees get sloppy one day or forget to sterilize an instrument? If your wife/husband died because of that, or was severly crippled, you couldn't sue for damages, since all transhuman procedures are the sole responsibility of the government. All the money they get from the public is already spent keeping the government running, paying off foreign debts, and running the transhuman procedures.

Now if we allow independant corporations to handle it, not only would the competition spur rapid advancement (After all, you wouldn't want to pay for an inferior part[s], would you?) but they'd be forced to exercise greater caution when undergoing these procedures since anyone could easily sue them witouth fear of throwing the entire system out of wack (If one company does a bad job and gets sued, there would still be many other companies offering the same [better or worse] products/surgeries)

I will concede that the government will have to be responsible for handling transhuman secrutiy and monitor the companies that provide the services. We wouldn't want anyone to reprogram our brains now, would we?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike Fabrizi on February 14, 2010 at 6:41pm: You have absolutely nothing to fear from libertarians, objectivists, or the market, as such. It values only value-add, and does not care a wit if you are straight, gay, or whatever. I am straight but not narrow, and an appalled that gay people do not enjoy the same rights taken for granted by straights. This is, however, not the fault of the markets. It is vestige of Abrahamatic faiths. I have worked for, and worked with, a fair number of gay staff in various companies. That they were gay made no difference whatsoever; what counted was performance and value add. Free enterprise and global capitalism are your friends, guy, not your enemies. As for the government??? It will be there, but as a diminishing force. Global supply chains are global. They respect no national boundaries. The symbolic economy transfers gigantic sums of wealth every day at the click of a mouse. As I see it, the one remaining function of government, its remaining raison d' etre, is to facilitate commerce and profitability.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike Fabrizi on February 14, 2010 at 7:01pm: Besides this, it is well to remember that words like reactionary, conservative, liberal, and radical come to us from 1789. The world of today is a far different place than was revolutionary France. The post singularity world will be vastly different, and better, than is the world of today. Perhaps we should begin to discard eighteenth century mental models.; ▶ Reply to This