Live data from Hacker News

What ever happened to the transhumanists?

gizmodo.com

141–150 of 448 posts

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean the future ? I hail my Ted as a hero on the right side of history now .

What's your threshold? How many innocent people does he have to kill and/or maim before you no longer are willing to consider him a hero? And yes, they were innocent. The one I met personally was a tech at the store where I bought my first computer. (And if you consider that enough to make him "not innocent", well, you're using a computer to read and comment here, so...) To me, he is condemned by his methods. If you'…

As indicated by your comment, you probably live/born in the US. So you probably have as a hero at least one of those 3 people : [George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt\Harry Truman].

Every one of those people killed far more than Ted ever ever dreamed of or imagined.

One of them fought personally in wars of colonization and was responsible for the death of countless original inhabitants of the land his country stole, before leading the fighting in a war that, besides killing a hundred thousand person (in an era before humanity hit its first billion, 0.01% of the all humans dead in a single war), set in motion the ignition system for one of the bloodiest and most brutal revolution the world had seen at the time.

The second one ignited the first industrial war in history, and brought a wave of destruction and death upon his own country so terrible its effects was felt, is felt, a century later and beyond.

The third pair, among their many achievements, had developed a weapon of indescribable power, and unleashed it on a bunch of civilians to own a geopolitical enemy. That weapon remains a permanent guillotine over the head of civilization, patiently waiting for an executioner who will release it.

If you hold any one of those people as a heros, no, if you hold any one of those people as anything less than the devil himself personified, then you already understand the fundamentals of what Ted had in mind when he did what he did, you merely disagree with his premises.

Ted killed a measly sum of 3 people (according to my rusty memory of the wiki article I'm too lazy to re-read), this is laughable by the standards of a hero. Look at your own superhero movies, look at the sheer amount of destruction and mayhem that the hero releases on his own city to rid it of bad guys. How can the culture that produces these movies, that idolizes Washington and Lincoln and Truman, that is responsible for Korea and Vietnam and Iraq, how can it not forgive a man for an honest-but-misguided effort to steer humanity away from the slavery it inflicted upon itself ?

I'm not saying those 3 people or the 20-or-so he injured are not important and significant moral costs, I'm just amazed by the standards you impose on Ted, standards that you reserve only for Ted.

You already accept far far more than what Ted did, you already accept hundreds of methods that put his methods to childish innocent shame, you just accept them in contexts that you are told\brainwashed are worthy.

>If you're willing to deliberately, actively, persistently attempt to blow up innocent people

The good\bad thing about civilization is that its a distributed system, a massive distributed system based on tyranny, slavery and suffering. You can't disable a distributed system without damaging at least some of the nodes. Your statement applies perfectly to every single war hero americans (and every people on the planet with their own war heros) idol, go ahead, see how many of your heros blew up to shreds innocent people and killed and maimed. Count the bodies honestly and fairly.

Humans kill 70 billion animal a year, every day a human spends not killing or blowing up humans is a sin, a day lived by an immoral coward who doesn't deserve to live. That includes me and you. There is no species on earth that kills its own number 7x+ times each year. Every single innocent soul of those animals slaughtered and cannibalized is blood all over your hands, your body, your mind, your conscience. You live in blood, you thrive on it, you build your life and that of your loved ones on suffering that makes Hitler a Saint and Stalin a harmless Grandpa.

Ted is the best and most moral of us. May he rest in peace and love.

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior) You think that this describes post-modernism ? I thought post-modernism was all about, well, relativism. Upon looking it up, I'm amazed to discover that Kaczynski wrote "leftists", because the excerpted paragraph sure as hell describes the modern conservative. Raging against science and rationality…

I was going to say leftists of more federally liberals but settled on post modernism since it’s taken up by those groups. Post modernists say there is no truth and that everything comes down to power structures and control. That everything is made up anyways so feel free to throw away all grand narratives and indulge in whatever decadence you want. Because truth doesn’t exist and is a function of power structures. I…

[deleted]

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#143

I used to identify as a transhumanist and believed that technology could do no harm. I was an adolescent donning rose-colored glasses, with a burning passion for science, technology, and improvement of our species. Only after an electrical engineering degree, 10-15 years of more wisdom, and dabbling in biohacking have I realized that we really have no clue about the massive deleterious impacts that technology has on…

There's a reason why literally every fiction work on transhumanism is a dystopia, even those were transhumanism is just a generic stand-in for technological advancement.

Isn't that just because it wouldn't be interesting to write about a utapian transhuman society? I really wouldn't put much stock into what a few story writers came up with.

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I agree with the thrust of what you are saying, in that we do need to think about the negative externalities of different technologies before scaling them out as a species. I am getting a little tripped up on your usage of 'the natural world' and 'environmental destruction' though. Aren't humans 'natural'? And if we are natural, shouldn't anything that springs from us also be 'natural'? We are subject to the…

Are you serious? An ant hill or a beaver dam are mere reorganizations of known matter types, and could be analogized to humans building things like walls. Stone, and even some types of mortar, participate in the great cosmic dance of Gaia [0], just like the works of the animals cited above. They decay, they are broken down by various processes over time, they are fashioned of things found in the environment. PFAS, by…

> Creating novel waterproofing chemicals that don't have naturally-occurring ways to break down and then dumping them into the water supply isn't something beavers, or ants, or birds, can do.

Genes encode proteins, proteins are chemicals, so evolution creates new proteins, and organisms often dump them to environment. The difference is that other organisms produce new chemicals through genetic evolution and not memetic evolution, like humans. Some of these chemicals are initially non-breakable, for example after lignin was introduced, it took millions of years to evolve organisms able to break it.

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior) You think that this describes post-modernism ? I thought post-modernism was all about, well, relativism. Upon looking it up, I'm amazed to discover that Kaczynski wrote "leftists", because the excerpted paragraph sure as hell describes the modern conservative. Raging against science and rationality…

I was going to say leftists of more federally liberals but settled on post modernism since it’s taken up by those groups. Post modernists say there is no truth and that everything comes down to power structures and control. That everything is made up anyways so feel free to throw away all grand narratives and indulge in whatever decadence you want. Because truth doesn’t exist and is a function of power structures. I…

Exactly, just like when conservatives espouse "family values" and get busted for infidelity, or when they espouse anti-gay views and then solicit sex from police officers, or when they espouse free market values and then solicit money from the government to prop up some privatized service.

That's the least throw-away-all-grand-narratives-and-indulge-in-whatever-decadence-you-want behaviour I've ever seen, yessir. Reminds me of foot-soldier culture warriors posting pictures of depression-era breadlines and suggesting that that's where sOcIaLiSm is taking us. Wisdom indeed. At least liberals seem occasionally active in trying to keep the status quo from degenerating, rather than profit from its acceleration.

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#146

To become transhuman or posthuman, you'd first have to understand what it is to be human, and we're not anywhere near that. Some of the enthusiasm about the hopes for such a transition were raised by this: > "The Human Genome Project finally released a complete human genome sequence in 2003, in a project that took 13 years to complete." The most remarkable thing about that accomplishment was how little it resulted in…

> To become transhuman or posthuman, you'd first have to understand what it is to be human What? Why? I'm post-adolescent (at least biologically, please don't bring up all of my emotional immaturity), and I still don't (and definitely didn't then) understand what it is to be adolescent. I live in a post-feudal society, and while I think we understand a few things about what it means to be feudal, I wouldn't bet on us…

You didn’t have to create a new technology that enabled you to transition to post-adolescent.

I think your parent commenter meant “_we_ would have to understand”, as a species, rather than all or any of us individually.

In practice just the people creating the technology. But it’s a big leap.

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#147

All humans are actively engaged in various levels of transhumanism, especially from a medical standpoint. We all hope that medicine will help us achieve what is, to us presently, superhuman lifespans. Many of us are mentally altered through psychotropic medicine and prefer living this way. Transhumanism as a movement is just a vocal proponent of a process of technological adoption already happening on a regular basis…

I think there is clear philosophical division between 'humanist' medical position, which tries to fix what is broken, but considers healthy human body and mind as ideal, and 'transhumanist' medical position, which considers improvements important regardless whether they just fix what is broken, or improve beyond natural abilities.

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#148

I used to identify as a transhumanist and believed that technology could do no harm. I was an adolescent donning rose-colored glasses, with a burning passion for science, technology, and improvement of our species. Only after an electrical engineering degree, 10-15 years of more wisdom, and dabbling in biohacking have I realized that we really have no clue about the massive deleterious impacts that technology has on…

I think I agree with the thrust of what you are saying, in that we do need to think about the negative externalities of different technologies before scaling them out as a species. I am getting a little tripped up on your usage of 'the natural world' and 'environmental destruction' though. Aren't humans 'natural'? And if we are natural, shouldn't anything that springs from us also be 'natural'? We are subject to the…

I guess when I say “natural,” what I truly mean is “that which is not made by man.” Any substance which is found in the natural environment and mechanically altered does not count in my definition of man-made; this is essentially the same notion of natural that revolvingocelot points out.

I think the crusade against “natural bias” is unfounded. Of course there are plenty of natural things that are not good for us—such as viruses— but the painful and uncomfortable truth about natural maladies like viruses is that they represent nature working as intended (protecting us from the ills of overpopulation, for example).

The bottom line is that changing everything we dislike about nature can lead to our demise. She’s already thought a million steps ahead of whatever we hope to accomplish.

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your threshold? How many innocent people does he have to kill and/or maim before you no longer are willing to consider him a hero? And yes, they were innocent. The one I met personally was a tech at the store where I bought my first computer. (And if you consider that enough to make him "not innocent", well, you're using a computer to read and comment here, so...) To me, he is condemned by his methods. If you'…

As indicated by your comment, you probably live/born in the US. So you probably have as a hero at least one of those 3 people : [George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt\Harry Truman]. Every one of those people killed far more than Ted ever ever dreamed of or imagined. One of them fought personally in wars of colonization and was responsible for the death of countless original inhabitants of the land hi…

> every day a human spends not killing or blowing up humans is a sin, a day lived by an immoral coward who doesn't deserve to live.

First: By your own standard, you don't deserve to live. I'm not telling you to kill yourself; I'm telling you your standard is hopelessly twisted.

Second: You condemn Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Truman, because they killed people. And then you come out with the above sentence. You're a bit self-inconsistent here.

And even by the above so-called standard, Kaczynski didn't deserve to live, because he didn't kill nearly enough people.

> There is no species on earth that kills its own number 7x+ times each year.

Eagles. Cats. Whales. Seals. Snakes. They all do this.

I think most of the rest of your post is also badly flawed, but I don't have the time or the patience to write a rebuttal to the rest of it.

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To become transhuman or posthuman, you'd first have to understand what it is to be human What? Why? I'm post-adolescent (at least biologically, please don't bring up all of my emotional immaturity), and I still don't (and definitely didn't then) understand what it is to be adolescent. I live in a post-feudal society, and while I think we understand a few things about what it means to be feudal, I wouldn't bet on us…

You didn’t have to create a new technology that enabled you to transition to post-adolescent. I think your parent commenter meant “_we_ would have to understand”, as a species, rather than all or any of us individually. In practice just the people creating the technology. But it’s a big leap.

But we did have to invent the (social) technology that enabled us to transition to a post-feudal society. And we did so without fully understanding feudal society.

For another technological example, we didn't fully understand bronze when we transitioned to the iron age (in fact, at least in the west, the transition to the iron age happened in large part due to our understanding of bronze getting substantially worse).

Post reply on HN