Transhumanism: Will you live long enough to live forever?

[Baba Yaga]

I don't get terribly excited about a great many topics, but this is an area of immense intrigue for me, and I believe it should be for you, too. Before we get the ball rolling, let's take a wack at defining transhumanism.

The best and most thorough description I can find is on wikipedia.

Transhumanism (abbreviated as H+ or h+) is an international cultural and intellectual movement with an eventual goal of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.[1] Transhumanist thinkers study the potential benefits and dangers of emerging technologies that could overcome fundamental human limitations, as well as the ethics of developing and using such technologies.[2] The most common thesis put forward is that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into beings with such greatly expanded abilities as to merit the label posthuman.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

To make things more simple, transhumanism is essentially the belief that mankind will be able to utilize science in such a way that we will be able to beat death and end involuntary suffering. This is an extraordinary claim, so naturally those of us with the capacity to think critically have a responsibility to analyze such a grandiose proposition with a skeptical eye. I've noticed a lot of backlash against the movement, backlash that goes beyond just mere skepticism. People that entertain transhumanist thought have been labeled "quacks", "crackpots", "kooks", and some critics go as far as labeling transhumanist advocates as the deluded followers of a secular religion.

Personally, I occupy the middle ground. I think that the goals of transhumanism are becoming increasingly more plausible every year. In fact, many of the life extension technologies that transhumanists are interested in, such as brain-computer interfacing and nano-technology are being developed right now, and they show little signs of slowing down in progress. I don't know whether something like transferring your consciousness to a computer is possible. I don't know whether something like reverse engineering the human brain is possible. I don't know whether we'll be able to augment human mental and physical capacity beyond our wildest dreams. Partly because I'm just not an expert in the fields involved in such goals. I'm not a geneticist, bio-engineer, or roboticist. What I do know, as a neutral observer, is that this seems to be the direction that we're slowly headed in. In fact, transhumanisms harshest critics usually don't go so far as to deny that humans will eventually be able to beat death, what they debate is the extremely optimistic timescale that some its advocates propose.

You may or may not have heard of the 2045 initiative, which you can read about here.

http://www.wfs.org/blogs/len-rosen/latest-info-2045-initiative-human-machine-immortality-mid-century

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/ru...try-itskov-plans-on-becoming-immortal-by-2045

Whether the timeline is completely foolish or not, I think this is really telling in that lots of really big companies that have the capacity to pour money into this kind of research are getting involved. If there's one self evident truth, it's that money makes things happen. If developing transhumanist technologies continue to attract extremely rich and powerful entities like Google to invest in them, I think it's only a matter of time.

Speaking of google, one of transhumanisms biggest advocates is the director of engineering there, Ray Kurzweil. Now, to be fair, Kurzeil does display some quackish tendencies. His research is fueled by extreme paranoia about death and he even believes that he can bring back his dead father. Kookish tendencies aside though, he's also a genius of sorts who predicted the explosion of the internet and has created multiple technologically advanced inventions.

If you really want to get a better idea and feel of where transhumanism is going, I recommend listening to some of his talks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4axEZwLdno

Yes, even your favorite theoretical physicist Michio Kaku is on board the transhumanist train. He's also giving a presentation to the Saudi royal family. Think about that for a moment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlRTbl_IB-s

He isn't without critics though. In fact, my favorite biologist PZ Meyers has written a brutal piece taking him to task on a lot of his claims. As far as PZ Meyers is concerned, Kurzweil is nothing more than a peddler of new age superstition. You can read his piece here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/17/ray-kurzweil-does-not-understa/

Kurzweil has released a response to this criticism, and PZ Meyers has yet written another response to his response. So, I'll let you do the reading and decide for yourself.

Anyways, I think this is a sufficient enough introduction to the topic. The scientific and philosophical objections to transhumanism are so numerous that it's nigh impossible to address them all in an opening post. So, a few questions.

1. Are the goals of transhumanism possible? Can mankind beat death, disease, and suffering?

2. Assuming 1 is true, should we?

 

[Creyk]

1) Yes, of course they are possible. if we keep working towards a solution, sooner or later we will find one
2) should we? Well, of course. the question is, should all people get it. Obviously criminals shouldn't while people who wouldn't harm others should get them no problem. But those kinds of things are difficult to control

 

[KantoPkmnMaster]

1) Not now.
2) No, for a myriad of reasons.

 

[Baba Yaga]

2) should we? Well, of course. the question is, should all people get it. Obviously criminals shouldn't while people who wouldn't harm others should get them no problem. But those kinds of things are difficult to control

I think that it would have to be given to everyone. Whether murderers and rapists should live forever seems like it has an obvious answer, but if we're hypothetically assuming we have the technology to let people live indefinitely, we'd also probably have the technology to identify what makes people commit violent crimes and simply tweak the brain accordingly. We know that psychopaths have a distinct brain physiology, which in theory can be altered.

The immediate issue for me that comes up is that the earth has limited resources, so death is necessary to keep the balance. I think there would have to be something of a compromise. If you want immortality, you would have to forfeit your right to reproduce, assuming non biological technology gets advanced enough to mimic the body that closely. That may not happen though, the machine or robot that harbors your consciousness could be able to mimic the sensations of eating, drinking, or even sex without without the costs of actually consuming resources or having children that consume more resources. In that sense, immortality doesn't have to pose an existential threat to the world.

I think that if it's possible, we should strive for it. We would have to be extremely careful and watch its development with a hawkishly close eye, but I don't think there is any inherent reason to oppose it. I think that any technology is a double edged sword that has the capability of helping or hurting us depending on how we wield it, but if you had to give an answer right now, would say that technology has helped us or hurt us, overall? I think the very clear answer is that our lives are overwhelmingly better. We can't stand in the way of scientific progress just because we're scared of a dystopian future. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be scared of one, that fear is both good and necessary, but that fear should motivate us to account and plan for every possible variable, not cripple us and keep us in the same spot.

To quote Kurzeil: "Progress cannot be stopped because that would require a totalitarian system, and any attempt to do so would drive dangerous technologies underground and deprive responsible scientists of the tools needed for defense."

I think that the ability to live indefinitely offers something profoundly beautiful. It would give people the ability to die on their own terms. People could still die, they would be immortal, not invulnerable. So, you could live life and experience everything that you wanted to experience and see everything that you wanted to see until you were satisfied. This is more or less my answer to people that say "Well, wouldn't you get bored? Wouldn't it be a nightmare if you had to spend the rest of eternity being bored?" Maybe, maybe not. I lean toward no, that you most likely wouldn't get bored. I think human creativity is near infinite, and as long as people continue to create things for you to consume, that wouldn't be a problem. At the very least, I think you would have to be alive for a very, very long time before that happened. Though, even if that were the case, I think it's much more fulfilling for people to choose to die satisfied with what they've done than wishing for more time. You wouldn't have to leave the party until you're good and ready, and I think that alone is cause enough to seriously consider the possibility of living forever.

2) No, for a myriad of reasons.

Baby I love you, but sometimes...

Can you give me a bit more to work with?

By the way, something else related to the discussion considering A.I. is one of the pillar technologies involved in achieving transhumanist goals, but we now have a robot that's passed a self awareness test.

http://www.sciencealert.com/a-robot-has-just-passed-a-classic-self-awareness-test-for-the-first-time

Ah, and here's a conference that goes over in detail just what kind of progress is being made.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrp_RlatXlo