Transhumanism, abbreviated as H+ or h+, is an international intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities. Transhumanist thinkers study the potential benefits and dangers of emerging technologies that could overcome fundamental human limitations, as well as study the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies. They predict that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into beings with such greatly expanded abilities as to merit the label "posthuman". Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism Techno-progressivism maintains that accounts of "progress" should focus on scientific and technical dimensions, as well as ethical and social ones. For most techno-progressive perspectives, then, the growth of scientific knowledge or the accumulation of technological powers will not represent the achievement of proper progress unless and until it is accompanied by a just distribution of the costs, risks, and benefits of these new knowledges and capacities. At the same time, for most techno-progressive critics and advocates, the achievement of better democracy, greater fairness, less violence, and a wider rights culture are all desirable, but inadequate in themselves to confront the quandaries of contemporary technological societies unless and until they are accompanied by progress in science and technology to support and implement these values. Strong techno-progressive positions include support for the civil right of a person to either maintain or modify his or her own mind and body, on his or her own terms, through informed, consensual recourse to, or refusal of, available therapeutic or enabling biomedical technology. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techno-progressivism Bioconservatism (a portmanteau word combining "biology" and "conservatism") is a stance of hesitancy about technological development especially if it is perceived to threaten a given social order. Strong bioconservative positions include opposition to genetic modification of food crops, the cloning and genetic engineering of livestock and pets, and, most prominently, rejection of the genetic, prosthetic, and cognitive modification of human beings to overcome what are broadly perceived as current human biological and cultural limitations. Bioconservatives range in political perspective from right-leaning religious and cultural conservatives to left-leaning environmentalists and technology critics. What unifies bioconservatives is skepticism about medical and other biotechnological transformations of the living world. Typically less sweeping as a critique of technological society than bioluddism, the bioconservative perspective is characterized by its defense of the natural, deployed as a moral category. Although techno-progressivism is the stance which contrasts with bioconservatism in the biopolitical spectrum, both techno-progressivism and bioconservatism, in their more moderate expressions, share an opposition to unsafe, unfair, undemocratic forms of technological development, and both recognize that such developmental modes can facilitate unacceptable recklessness and exploitation, exacerbate injustice and incubate dangerous social discontent. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techno-progressivism#Contrasting_stance And... Go!
I'm surprised no one has replied yet, this is some interesting stuff. I find it hard to stomach these kinds of discussions though. Most likely because I have a visceral reaction anytime I hear about H+ or anything akin to that along the lines of,"GAAAAH, FUCK YOU H+." I don't know why but greatly enhancing human intellect, physical, and psychological capacities, like you put it, strikes me all wrong. I'm content with human capabilities as they are, and I don't see the potential bad that could stem from it as worth it. I would prefer for humans to be altered by natural means, because massive and traumatic change over a short amount of time (When do you think some of this stuff is proposed to take effect?) is not exactly my idea of good fun. Just my personal feelings though, so sorry if it's a little inappropriate.
I haven't replied until now because this whole discussion freaks me out. I guess I'm with Melanthropist since I usually get the impression people have no idea what the fuck they are doing. In fact, any sort of environmentalism that doesn't interfere with my future spaceship I'm generally for (generally).
Odd. I was expecting you guys to be going in the other direction, considering how anthropocentric and anti-naturalist this forum usually is.
I pledge my support to enhancing human mental and physical abilities, as well as cloning, genetic modification of food, etc. However, if dramatic change did come about that allowed us to develop this as a real possibility, I'd always be disheartened by the fact that somewhere David Attenborough would be sighing at me. That is the sole reason I can think up for opposing it. That being said, I can imagine there being some religious buffoons arguing about it, in which case I'd suggest excluding them from the master race and they can sit around being apes while I have an iPod built in to my arm.
Well, I mean if you're in a room full of social democrats and you throw in revolutionary communists they're the odd ones out to be picked on until you bring in the populists and nationalists. I mean this is unnatural to the extreme.
Yeah we tried to get a science section like 5 months ago but it failed. I tried it again and apparently it only took 3 people to agree to it for it to be created lol. It should've been created awhile ago.
I have to agree with the Transhumanist line of thought. Why should we not strive to elimate disease and aging, while at the same time improving our own ablities and pushing our limits?
I'm more of a bioconservative. Using genetics to enhance ones self will only make a new class of people based on your DNA rather than your race and economic standing. I had a discussion about this in my Bio class after watching Gattaca.
