Jump to content

» «

transhumanism vs. genetic modification vs. pure nature

2 replies to this topic
  • Xavierr


  • Joined: 18 Dec 2013
  • None


Posted 07 July 2014 - 11:28 PM Edited by Xavierr, 08 July 2014 - 12:04 AM.

In this developing world, which one do you hope prevails in the end and why?



Here's what Transhumanism is:




Here's a pretty good idea of why I'm against Transhuamism








humans + ego + power= usually a bad combination, and also, the more we integrate ourselves with technology , the less we'll need nature


leaving earth to end up looking something like this




absolutely no trees, no nature, just smog and buildings.


and in the process we'd probably end up messing up our natural bodies' regular processes such as drinking water, using the bathroom, or giving birth.



Genetic modification:


I know there's a huge ethical controversy on genetic modification but i still support it:


one of the main reasons being , I was bullied for my looks although throughout middle school and high-school , often convincing myself I would die alone, or that I should just end it.


No one should have to go through that,


I believe that if humans were all genetically equal , things like racism, social engineering and eugenics would diminish greatly.


also, natural selection wouldn't be such a problem for certain people = less single . lonely , and depressed people, and more people in relationships


everyone would be smart, attractive,psychically fit and happy= less crimes, a more functional society


here's some more info on this:



and of course there's nature. I do support nature, it just feels the most right to me.


not to bring any pseudoscience into this ( I'm a skeptic, but I'm also an idealist...so I'll believe in something if I like the idea of it :p ) but some people believe that people can evolve by meditation, and living a certain peace-oriented lifestyle.





I do want to believe in this fully, but until I see a ghost for myself, dimension warp, or astral project I'll wait patiently for my skepticism to diminish

  • sivispacem

    Ännu en dag, ännu ett slag, i betongens krävande skugga

  • Sheriff
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Best Poster in Debates 2017
    Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011


Posted 08 July 2014 - 07:42 AM

There's a lot of very wooly speculation in your post. The fact is that transhumanism has been taking place for years; just at a much more gradual pace than science fiction and the paranoid luddites would have you believe.

We've reached a point where artificial limbs are beginning to exceed the capabilities of tissue and bone in terms of strength, speed and carrying capacity. Tell me, why should we deny the disabled, who already experience societal harassment and ridicule, these physical capabilities?

I simply don't buy the ideal that transhumanism is apocalyptic. I understand the technology + ego = potential chaos equation, but this argument makes the false assumption that such development is driven by shady corporations with no oversight. That's simply not the case; the main driving force behind transhumanism is the small groups and individuals building at home or in hacker spaces, or in universities where a great degree of oversight takes place. The simple fact of the natter is that so many people are so unbelievably and illogically paranoid about transhumanism that corporate bodies can't really be seen to dabble in it.
  • Tyler likes this

  • Rown

    He who fights monsters

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2005
  • None


Posted 11 July 2014 - 02:23 AM

There was a topic in genchat a while back that dealt with something pretty similar. Maybe we should bring it back here now that it's been sufficiently buried?  

OT: If we survive long enough to get to synthetic evolution and picking our own traits I'll be proud of the species. 

Rown :rampage:

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users