Like defenders of libertarian free will, transhumanists believe we can make ourselves into who we are today and, should the mood strike us, remake ourselves into who we will be tomorrow.
But this is impossible. Because of evolution, we got made. We did not bring ourselves out of the primeval soup. And everything we have done since we became a species has been a consequence of being made. No matter what we do, it will be what we were made to do—and nothing else.
In this sense, transhumanism is a secular version of the Christian rapture, and some of its true believers foresee it as happening within the lifetime of many who are alive today, just as the early Christians believed in an impending Judgment Day.
7
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
9 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Wait. Are you saying that we as a species are incapable of evolution beyond an external impetus? Is evolution limited to genetic variation sans a human observer or manipulator?
If we as a species were to harness cellular rejuvenation, even utilizing gene splicing and stem cell regeneration, in order to produce new organs and tissues from our own DNA, would you say that the resulting increase in longevity was a natural development? And if our species--assuming we are still around--were to achieve the technology to create a Borg-like amalgam of human tissue and machine, would you insist that this development is 'impossible?'
p-nullifidian
Level 8
Apr 12, 2022
2
Great strides have been made in designing neural interfaces between the human body and machines. Ocular implants, cochlear implants, and prosthetic arms and legs that move like natural limbs and provide sensory feedback are already a reality. This certainly represents a step towards some kind of new human (if a cyborg can be considered human). And, perhaps even more significant is the progress being made in understanding and manipulating DNA. The field of molecular biology is arguably still in an early stage. Down the road, combining genetic engineering with robotics, who knows what is possible? This is not to say that I am in favor of such change. It seems alien and cold to me. And l suspect that any attempt to do an end run around nature is bound to have negative consequences. Sooner or later, natural selection is bound to have its say. Which brings up another question. Haven't we already created a civilization populated with people whose immune systems would be inadequate for survival without the help of vaccines and other miracles of modern medicine? Any large-scale breakdown in the delivery of such modern developments is bound to result in a massive dieback, as less fit individuals face environmental challenges they are simply not equipped to overcome. And if we leave it up to humans to design themselves, instead of letting nature take its course, aren't we just crawling further out on a slender limb? In biology we have a sub-field called population dynamics. One of its lessons is that when any population, whether it be bacteria bats, grows beyond the carrying capacity (a population size that the environment can sustain indefinitely) there will come a drastic rise in the death rate due to limiting factors such as the buildup of wastes (think greenhouse gases and the global warming they cause), or introduction of contagious disease (for instance, a virus like SARS CoV2 only more deadly). I personally have little faith in mankind's ability to design better than natural selection trims. But that's just me.
Flyingsaucesir
Level 8
Apr 12, 2022
2
Years ago the Discovery Channel had a series titled "The Science of Sex." [medium.com]. There was a ton of information showing we hadn't a clue when it comes to this subject. Our bodies, most of the time, rule and the basic idea is to push us into mating to creating offspring and cares not a bit if we are happy. Bottom line, we may think we are in control but are not. With all our 'intelligence' we still cannot see the destiny of our and millions of other species if we continue on the road of destruction we are on. Emotions still drive us and reason often is sleeping in the trunk.
As per the last paragraph I see many of us 'atheists' as still clinging on to the idea, somehow we are the center of the planet (libertarians). Our wants always comes first. I was aware of a scenario done at MIT decades ago but is still on track. I wanted to post it but would get a lot of negative comments.
[medium.com] ”A computer program developed at MIT predicts that we will see the end of our civilization in 2040. We must expect the first catastrophes already in 2020.MIT researchers originally developed the “World One” program in 1973 to simulate global sustainability — instead, it predicted the end of the world. In contrast to various other theories about the end of civilizations and ultimately the world, the predictions made by the computer in the 1970s have so far proved to be true to an alarming degree of accuracy and variety. The program produced the required model, but in a form that the scientists had not expected. It predicted that population and industry expansion would lead the world to global collapse by 2040. The first milestone set by the algorithm in 2020 was an abrupt drop in tstandard of living.” This is one of many predictions made in regards to the total unsustainability of overpopulation and a constant economic growth mantra.
JackPedigo
Level 9
Apr 12, 2022
1
MizJ:
Give me ten minutes with an eight year old and they will understand why billions of humans on this planet is not sustainable. It would be rather cruel for the child to hear this and they would leave screaming and crying, too bad the adults aren't screaming and crying.
I remember at around that age learning about the conservation of resources, recycling and such. When I tried to talk to adults abut it I was ignored and told to go outside and play.
That which is unpleasant most do not care to hear.
@TheMiddleWay You last Par. misrepresents what he is saying with the Straw Man Fallacy. Road Rage exists precisely because of what we have inherited from our ancestors. But it takes the stress of urban capitalist life to activate those negative impulses. Social solutions to our problems are possible. But we have to change the socioeconomic conditions that are impelling us to disaster. So you are correct is saying that genetic fatalism is misplaced. But that is only correct if we change our destrutive socioeconomic structures. Under present condtions, our destructive genes will lead us to disaster because that is what Capitalism brings out.
@TheMiddleWay Yes, we are not in control. Many times I go home knowing exactly what I am going to eat and I end up fixing something else. This happens to all of us.
@TheMiddleWay The science of sex series have shown insofar as this issue goes we have a lot less control than we think. I have read, several times more studies have said we have much less if any control of what we think we do. A myriad of studies are easy to look up and I found one [brightside.me]
@MizJ You must be a teacher. My late partner did a lot with her 1st and 2nd years old along these lines.
She once asked her 2nd graders what is more important people or dirt. Almost everyone got it wrong. She also turned a few families into vegetarians because of what she told her students. Unfortunately, as in so many things, too often the messenger carries more weight than the message.
We don't stop as kids but carry this antipathy even in adulthood. I recently heard of an experiment started in 1973 by MIT with programing a computer with how society will fare in the future. One thing it predicted was that in 2020 there would be a major event that would change society. I have that report but dare not post it. It is not a pretty picture.
@Krish55 Try as I might I was unable to divine any provocation pertaining to 'road rage,' 'capitalistic life' or 'genetic fatalism' in the remark by @TheMiddleWay that might have prompted your reply.
@TheMiddleWay And mine too. I actually got to see this 'force' at work with my last partner. She was the model of reason and her motto was "Discipline first then love." She translated this as "reason first then emotion." It's on her urn. She often balanced the two and if she got pleasure from something and knew it would lead to pain later (chronic headaches) was it worthwhile. Sometimes yes and sometimes no. When a brain scan was done the doctor, who was almost crying, told her of the prognosis. The first words out of her mouth and with a straight face was, "would he honor her enrollment in the states Death with Dignity program. The doctor was actually surprised but said he would.
@TheMiddleWay Thanks! You explained my point well. I appreciate that you saw it....
@TheMiddleWay She was very rare and everyone who met her agreed. Still, I learned a lot and from this relationship especially how to handle any additional one, should I be again so lucky.
@TheMiddleWay God is an unreal abstract. Evolution is a physical reality manifest in our genes and makeup. This is not an equivalent substitution. He is substituting actual physical reality for an unreal abstraction.
Basically a FATALISIC philosophy. May as well simply roll over and die now and save the planet.
phoenixone1
Level 8
Apr 12, 2022
1
Interesting first 2 paragraphs, but the 3rd paragraph earns you an OHFERPETESSAKE.
AnneWimsey
Level 9
Apr 12, 2022
2
I have never understood the ‘no free will’ argument. I think, because nobody gives a precise definition of ‘free will’.
So they are telling us we have no X but they won’t tell us what X is. So that is really no argument at all.
What is free will?
Sam Harris goes on at length telling us how free will is impossible, but then acknowledges that we do have ‘choice’.
What the …!
Dan Dennett says we have whatever kind of free will we would want.
What?!!
What is the scientific definition of free will?
skado
Level 9
Apr 12, 2022
4
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.