Transhumanism

tdonlan

Almost every day we hear news of medical improvements, technology to treat disability and cure disease, and gadgetry that increasingly integrates with daily life. It seems only a matter of time before the technical challenges are overcome and people are able to greatly alter not only their physical bodies (drugs, implants) but their minds as well.

What ethical issues could arise from supplementing the standard human phenotype? What about hardware implants or prosthetics? Are there any black and white lines between what is and isn't ethical? Is this the next step in human evolution, manually editing our genome for the better? Or will playing "god" wreak havoc on both individuals (mutants, hybrids) and societies?

Also - how will society/government regulate these changes? We've heard plenty of arguments from politicians attempting to legislate bioethical issues (stem-cells, cloning, sports supplements), but overall it appears that progress will not be stopped.

Thoughts?

Decent references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism
http://www.human-evolution.org/newstranshuman.php

Octoparrot

Welcome the Spike.

Vincent Grayson

I see no ethical issue with choosing to augment myself non-biologically. If I live long enough, I expect to replace every molecule in my body with a nanoscale constructor/computer.

edit: And yes, I very much believe the technological/non-biological advancement is the next stage of evolution, and that largely we have or will leave biological evolution behind. It's too slow.

darthmix

Well, I guess the key issue when it comes to artificial mental augmentations is that they'll unequally benefit those who can afford them, so you run into all sorts of class issues wherein children with rich parents actually have definite, reliable advantages in IQ and mental discipline in addition to all their other advantages.

Vincent Grayson

darthmix wrote: »

Well, I guess the key issue when it comes to artificial mental supplements is that they'll unequally benefit those who can afford them, so you run into all sorts of class issues wherein children with rich parents actually have developmental advantages in IQ and mental discipline, in addition to all their other advantages.

And yet these augmented people will also be at the forefront of problem solving for mankind as a whole, so I don't see the issue. Someone will always be on top, and someone else on the bottom. Holding those on top back from fixing the problem as best as possible seems foolish.

ElJeffe

One of the biggest problems with this sort of endeavor is that it creates a sharply pronounced division between the wealthy and the poor. Right now, the wealthy have distinct advantages and opportunities that are harder to come by for the poor. If something like this took off, then wealthy people would not only have more money, more power, and better educations, they'd also be engineered to be smarter, stronger, and better looking. Getting a good job can be hard enough without having to go up against the fucking Six Million Dollar Man.

The whole thing is just a clusterfuck waiting to happen.

flamebroiledchicken

Vincent Grayson wrote: »

edit: And yes, I very much believe the technological/non-biological advancement is the next stage of evolution, and that largely we have or will leave biological evolution behind. It's too slow.

Personally I can't wait for something like Ghost in the Shell.

Vincent Grayson

ElJeffe wrote: »

One of the biggest problems with this sort of endeavor is that it creates a sharply pronounced division between the wealthy and the poor. Right now, the wealthy have distinct advantages and opportunities that are harder to come by for the poor. If something like this took off, then wealthy people would not only have more money, more power, and better educations, they'd also be engineered to be smarter, stronger, and better looking. Getting a good job can be hard enough without having to go up against the fucking Six Million Dollar Man.

The whole thing is just a clusterfuck waiting to happen.

At one point, there were likely only a few people who tied sharpened rocks to sticks as well, but I think it's for the best that it happened, no?

Couscous

At one point, there were likely only a few people who tied sharpened rocks to sticks as well, but I think it's for the best that it happened, no?

Tying a sharpened rock to a stick is teachable with little expense. Creating enhanced people is much more expensive and less likely to decrease in price quickly.

Mai-Kero

Vincent Grayson wrote: »

ElJeffe wrote: »

One of the biggest problems with this sort of endeavor is that it creates a sharply pronounced division between the wealthy and the poor. Right now, the wealthy have distinct advantages and opportunities that are harder to come by for the poor. If something like this took off, then wealthy people would not only have more money, more power, and better educations, they'd also be engineered to be smarter, stronger, and better looking. Getting a good job can be hard enough without having to go up against the fucking Six Million Dollar Man.

The whole thing is just a clusterfuck waiting to happen.

At one point, there were likely only a few people who tied sharpened rocks to sticks as well, but I think it's for the best that it happened, no?

The people who tied sharpened rocks to sticks didn't do it because their parents were rich, they did it because they were smart. The analogy doesn't apply to rich people getting implants. Remember, people sometimes inherit money, they don't always earn it.

Octoparrot

Vincent Grayson wrote: »

At one point, there were likely only a few people who tied sharpened rocks to sticks as well, but I think it's for the best that it happened, no?

I think the angle here is there's no such thing as a rock-poor hominid. Rocks and sticks are abundant. Initially (figuring the first 20 years) there would be a huge division between haves and have-nots in the way of multiple thousand (at least) dollar implants.

darthmix

Vincent Grayson wrote: »

And yet these augmented people will also be at the forefront of problem solving for mankind as a whole, so I don't see the issue. Someone will always be on top, and someone else on the bottom. Holding those on top back from fixing the problem as best as possible seems foolish.

Avoiding the issue entirely for this reason seems foolish, but it does not seem foolish to consider social justice as we implement it. I think most people would have a very serious problem with the prospect of creating a master-class society in which those children whose parents cannot afford to buy them mental advantages are clearly not created equal, but are demonstrably inferior, to those whose parents can. When we get to that society, we've totally abandoned the idea that an individual person can rise through the ranks through ingenuity and hard work. A child who is born poor will have to accept that he'll never be able to compete with a child who is not, regardless of how hard he tries.

Vincent Grayson

Mai-Kero wrote: »

Vincent Grayson wrote: »

ElJeffe wrote: »

One of the biggest problems with this sort of endeavor is that it creates a sharply pronounced division between the wealthy and the poor. Right now, the wealthy have distinct advantages and opportunities that are harder to come by for the poor. If something like this took off, then wealthy people would not only have more money, more power, and better educations, they'd also be engineered to be smarter, stronger, and better looking. Getting a good job can be hard enough without having to go up against the fucking Six Million Dollar Man.

The whole thing is just a clusterfuck waiting to happen.

At one point, there were likely only a few people who tied sharpened rocks to sticks as well, but I think it's for the best that it happened, no?

The people who tied sharpened rocks to sticks didn't do it because their parents were rich, they did it because they were smart. The analogy doesn't apply to rich people getting implants. Remember, people sometimes inherit money, they don't always earn it.

Either way, there will always be people who are at the forefront of change, whether we like it or not. I see no reason to stifle the advancement of all mankind, and likely, the end of many of our global issues, because there will be a short time where the poor are relatively more poor than they are now. In the long run, we all win by vastly increasing the operating intelligence of mankind.

ryuprecht

ElJeffe wrote: »

One of the biggest problems with this sort of endeavor is that it creates a sharply pronounced division between the wealthy and the poor. Right now, the wealthy have distinct advantages and opportunities that are harder to come by for the poor. If something like this took off, then wealthy people would not only have more money, more power, and better educations, they'd also be engineered to be smarter, stronger, and better looking. Getting a good job can be hard enough without having to go up against the fucking Six Million Dollar Man.

The whole thing is just a clusterfuck waiting to happen.

There was a stupid animated movie with Robin Williams in it about this. The movie should be required watching for this topic.

EDIT: I should probably add some substance to this. I think we are already starting to see some of this with cochlear implants robotic appendages and to an extent, pace-makers. The divide existed when the technology came out, but I wonder how long the divide would exist. Could advances in technology mean that it would become commonplace within a dozen years of introduction? Would insurance cover it? If so, then by all means, it's a worthy endeavor.

tdonlan

Well ElJeffe, don't you think there will be niche jobs for the un-modified? Currently we have highly educated, beautiful folks who ride around their private jets and communicate via blackberries 24/7. They certainly aren't filling the niche of plumber, car mechanic, etc.

Also, take a look at a recent "upgrade" Lasik? It started out very expensive, then came down as technology improved. Now its, what 1k for both eyes? Everyone someone with minimum wage could save that up over the course of a year and permenently correct their vision.

Couscous

You assume that the rich won't be able to get better upgrades than the poor. What if it is more like computers, where new technology is coming out all the time with the rich only being able to afford the newest and best tech?

darthmix

tdonlan wrote: »

Well ElJeffe, don't you think there will be niche jobs for the un-modified? Currently we have highly educated, beautiful folks who ride around their private jets and communicate via blackberries 24/7. They certainly aren't filling the niche of plumber, car mechanic, etc.

They aren't, but the car mechanics and the plumbers, who could easily love their jobs, also love the idea that their children will have the opportunities to do what they want to do in life, up to and including riding around in private jets and running companies and working in government. The issue isn't that the less-enhanced won't be able to find jobs; the issue is that they'll always have those jobs, and only those jobs, and then their children will have them, and then their children, and so on.

Vincent Grayson

darthmix wrote: »

tdonlan wrote: »

Well ElJeffe, don't you think there will be niche jobs for the un-modified? Currently we have highly educated, beautiful folks who ride around their private jets and communicate via blackberries 24/7. They certainly aren't filling the niche of plumber, car mechanic, etc.

They aren't, but the car mechanics and the plumbers, who could easily love their jobs, also love the idea that their children will have the opportunities to do what they want to do in life, up to and including riding around in private jets and running companies and working in government. The issue isn't that the less-enhanced won't be able to find jobs; the issue is that they'll always have those jobs, and only those jobs, and then their children will have them, and then their children, and so on.

I'm willing to let that happen to a generation or so to solve all of the huge issues facing mankind. As intellects increase and new production techniques are perfected, augmentation to an absurd degree would likely become as commonplace as getting cavities removed or buying your kid glasses. Yes, there might always be a gap, but if the rich are processing 10^18 bits of information per second and the poor are only processing 10^16, I can't help but think that's still a lot better than the way things are now.

Regardless of the gap, raising the basic level at which all people live to a relatively healthy one is more important, and will be solved easier by humans with augmented intelligence.

darthmix

ryuprecht wrote: »

EDIT: I should probably add some substance to this. I think we are already starting to see some of this with cochlear implants robotic appendages and to an extent, pace-makers. The divide existed when the technology came out, but I wonder how long the divide would exist. Could advances in technology mean that it would become commonplace within a dozen years of introduction? Would insurance cover it? If so, then by all means, it's a worthy endeavor.

I'd say that if there's one thing we know about technology it's that it doesn't, or doesn't easily, level-off and stop advancing; we have to assume that the best technologies will continue to be the most expensive and therefore only available to the upper class. Also, many of the enhancements we're likely to see would have to be administered in-utero, so even if they're unequally available for a decade the effects of the inequality would be generational.

Couscous

I'm willing to let that happen to a generation or so to solve all of the huge issues facing mankind. As intellects increase and new production techniques are perfected, augmentation to an absurd degree would likely become as commonplace as getting cavities removed or buying your kid glasses.

Or the smart people decide that it would be best to have an underclass directed by a group of enhanced people ruling over them for the good of everyone. There is no reason that the smarter people will care about solving the problems of humanity.

tdonlan

But you have to remember that technology will still be improving (if not exponentially, at least linearly). The argument that a social structure will become increasingly stratified by a sudden jump in technology isn't really backed up by history. If anything, jumps in technology lead to a class of newly rich (see oil, railroad, steel, internet, etc)

I can see severe stratification occuring if the rich become godlike and then forcibly keep the lower castes repressed. However, as was done in the past, the government will have to step in and break up monopolies.

An intersting thought - as scarcity decreases via technology, will money stay the unit of value, or will it become something else (brain/computing power, electricity)? If that's the case, how do you break up a monopoly of brains?

Shoggoth

This topic ALWAYS misrepresents what evolution actually is. You guys realize evolution is not a linear progression towards some kind of illogical "super form" right?

When people say, "this is the next step in human evolution!" I want to strangle them.

sanstodo

tdonlan wrote: »

Well ElJeffe, don't you think there will be niche jobs for the un-modified? Currently we have highly educated, beautiful folks who ride around their private jets and communicate via blackberries 24/7. They certainly aren't filling the niche of plumber, car mechanic, etc.

Also, take a look at a recent "upgrade" Lasik? It started out very expensive, then came down as technology improved. Now its, what 1k for both eyes? Everyone someone with minimum wage could save that up over the course of a year and permenently correct their vision.

If we're talking that far in the future, it's likely that robots or some kind of machine will have filled most of those jobs.

Anyway, I don't think LASIK is the same as having an enhanced brain from birth.

darthmix

Vincent Grayson wrote: »

I'm willing to let that happen to a generation or so to solve all of the huge issues facing mankind. As intellects increase and new production techniques are perfected, augmentation to an absurd degree would likely become as commonplace as getting cavities removed or buying your kid glasses. Yes, there might always be a gap, but if the rich are processing 10^18 bits of information per second and the poor are only processing 10^16, I can't help but think that's still a lot better than the way things are now.

Regardless of the gap, raising the basic level at which all people live to a relatively healthy one is more important, and will be solved easier by humans with augmented intelligence.

I find the prospect that a class of rich superkids can solve all or even most of the huge issues facing mankind in a few generations to be incredibly optomistic, especially since most of those issues relate specifically to social justice and the ever-increasing gap between the rich and poor within and between societies.

Vincent Grayson

titmouse wrote: »

I'm willing to let that happen to a generation or so to solve all of the huge issues facing mankind. As intellects increase and new production techniques are perfected, augmentation to an absurd degree would likely become as commonplace as getting cavities removed or buying your kid glasses.

Or the smart people decide that it would be best to have an underclass directed by a group of enhanced people ruling over them for the good of everyone. There is no reason that the smarter people will care about solving the problems of humanity.

I suppose I'm assuming that expanded intelligence will lead to greater recognition of the benefit of a less stratified society, and thus people will put forth the effort to make it so.

ElJeffe

Some people here seem to be lumping the correction of physical disabilities using things like hearing aids and pacemakers with granting people increased intelligence or better-than-human abilities. Those aren't really the same thing. Like, at all.

That said, I think the negative impact of these augmentations would depend largely on how slowly they were implemented. Consider that at one point, having any sort of education was the domain of the super-rich and privileged. Even learning to read was a luxury. Nowadays, everyone goes to school, and a huge number of people elect to pursue higher education. The advantage of someone who has a masters over someone who's never even been to grammar school would be enormous, probably on par with the difference between someone normal and someone engineered to be exceptionally intelligent. We don't really consider educational experience to be an unfair advantage, though, because it's evolved in such a way that it's obtainable by almost everyone (yes, yes, with significant help from the government).

Lots of other things mimic this sort of progression, and all of them evolved very gradually such that they never presented a huge, unfair advantage to people. If biological enhancements evolved slowly enough, it probably wouldn't be much of a problem, because the difference between what the wealthy could obtain and what the poor could obtain would be small. If it was something along the lines of wealthy people engineering their children an extra 30 IQ points and poor people only engineering an extra 25, then I think we'd be good.

One interesting side-effect, though, would be in sports. If someone has been given the Jumps Really Fucking High gene, is it fair to let him compete against other people in basketball? Would we have to ban augmented people from participating in sports the way we ban steroid use? Or would sports just progress to a place where only those with biological (or maybe mechanical?) augmentations had a hope of competing? Again, if things moved slowly enough, it probably wouldn't be a huge issue.

The question, then, is how fast would we expect technology to improve in this arena?

tdonlan

Shoggoth wrote: »

This topic ALWAYS misrepresents what evolution actually is. You guys realize evolution is not a linear progression towards some kind of illogical "super form" right?

When people say, "this is the next step in human evolution!" I want to strangle them.

Fine. It's no longer Evolution by Natural Selection (undirected process). It's evolution by genetic manipulation (directed process).

Would you consider domestic breeding falling under the umbrella of evolution (artificial selection)?

darthmix

Vincent Grayson wrote: »

I suppose I'm assuming that expanded intelligence will lead to greater recognition of the benefit of a less stratified society, and thus people will put forth the effort to make it so.

Perhaps we, as intelligent people, can put forth the effort to make it less stratified now, and consider social justice as a key factor when determining how to make new technologies available, and to whom.

Shinto

Clearly we can never allow this technology to fall into the hands of furry lovers.

ryuprecht

ElJeffe wrote: »

Some people here seem to be lumping the correction of physical disabilities using things like hearing aids and pacemakers with granting people increased intelligence or better-than-human abilities. Those aren't really the same thing. Like, at all.

That would be me. I think they are related, in that mankinds ability to augement himself (as we are talking in this thread) began with those things. Eventually it will grow beyond the management of disabilities, but I think the genesis is found in things like the cochlear implants. The next step from where we are now could very well be the extension of the implant to enhance normal hearing range.

And then there's breast implants...well, not really, but they are on my mind.

Vincent Grayson

darthmix wrote: »

Vincent Grayson wrote: »

I suppose I'm assuming that expanded intelligence will lead to greater recognition of the benefit of a less stratified society, and thus people will put forth the effort to make it so.

Perhaps we, as intelligent people, can put forth the effort to make it less stratified now, and consider social justice as a key factor when determining how to make new technologies available, and to whom.

I don't disagree. What I'm saying is that clearly people have been seeking to correct stratification to one degree or another since we abandoned hunter/gatherer societies, and we still haven't figured out how to do so. I think it's a given that it can be done, and there is most certainly more than enough resources, even with modern technology, to keep everyone alive and healthy and "successful" to a degree we can all appreciate...but we haven't figured out how.

I believe quite firmly that drastic improvements in computing, and in time, augmentation that allows the benefits of human brains (namely, our pattern recognition) to merge with the benefits of computers (much better storage of information, faster computing, etc) will allow us to solve these problems, and usher in a golden age of human (or posthuman, as it were) achievement.

moniker

Shinto wrote: »

Clearly we can never allow this technology to fall into the hands of furry lovers.

The horror. The horror.

darthmix

ElJeffe wrote: »

That said, I think the negative impact of these augmentations would depend largely on how slowly they were implemented. Consider that at one point, having any sort of education was the domain of the super-rich and privileged. Even learning to read was a luxury. Nowadays, everyone goes to school, and a huge number of people elect to pursue higher education. The advantage of someone who has a masters over someone who's never even been to grammar school would be enormous, probably on par with the difference between someone normal and someone engineered to be exceptionally intelligent. We don't really consider educational experience to be an unfair advantage, though, because it's evolved in such a way that it's obtainable by almost everyone (yes, yes, with significant help from the government).

Lots of other things mimic this sort of progression, and all of them evolved very gradually such that they never presented a huge, unfair advantage to people.

Just for my clarification - are you admitting or denying that unequal access to education did result in a huge, unfair advantage to people? It seems to me that historical inequality with regard to education, and the vast and continuing social problems that resulted from it, indicates we should be very concerned about unequal access to brain-enhancing technologies.

EmperorSeth

Shinto wrote: »

Clearly we can never allow this technology to fall into the hands of furry lovers.

You might be joking, but honestly I expect that we'll see this sort of thing way before the Gattica scenario El_Jeffe is understandably concerned about. And I would be perfectly happy with it. Frankly, I'd rather have a world where an anthropmorphic cat is working in the cubicle next to me than one where everybody alters themselves into Paris Hilton clones.

...Also I think elf babes are hot.

AngelHedgie

EmperorSeth wrote: »

Shinto wrote: »

Clearly we can never allow this technology to fall into the hands of furry lovers.

You might be joking, but honestly I expect that we'll see this sort of thing way before the Gattica scenario El_Jeffe is understandably concerned about. And I would be perfectly happy with it. Frankly, I'd rather have a world where an anthropmorphic cat is working in the cubicle next to me than one where everybody alters themselves into Paris Hilton clones.

...Also I think elf babes are hot.

I'd be more worried about heading in the direction my avatar pic references.

darthmix

Vincent Grayson wrote: »

What I'm saying is that clearly people have been seeking to correct stratification to one degree or another since we abandoned hunter/gatherer societies, and we still haven't figured out how to do so. I think it's a given that it can be done, and there is most certainly more than enough resources, even with modern technology, to keep everyone alive and healthy and "successful" to a degree we can all appreciate...but we haven't figured out how.

I don't think you're giving your species enough credit for the progress it's made in reducing inequality and stratification in society. For all the complaining I do - and I do a lot - the strides we've made in a historically brief period of time have been huge. A few hundred years ago most of western civilization chose its rulers by birthright, and the color of a person's skin dictated whether or not he could be owned by another person, and having a penis was a prerequisite to owning land or obtaining representation under the law, and so on. We have dramatically reduced those inequalities, and we've done so very self-consciously, by observing that they were both phenomenally unfair and socially unwise. There is no particular reason that, in developing and distributing new and ethically sensitive technologies, we should not continue to be mindful of those concerns; we should be encouraged by our past successes in the direction of social justice, and we should try to continue them.

Crossfire

ElJeffe wrote: »

One of the biggest problems with this sort of endeavor is that it creates a sharply pronounced division between the wealthy and the poor. Right now, the wealthy have distinct advantages and opportunities that are harder to come by for the poor. If something like this took off, then wealthy people would not only have more money, more power, and better educations, they'd also be engineered to be smarter, stronger, and better looking. Getting a good job can be hard enough without having to go up against the fucking Six Million Dollar Man.

The whole thing is just a clusterfuck waiting to happen.

Why should the poor be entitled to everything?

ElJeffe

darthmix wrote: »

Just for my clarification - are you admitting or denying that unequal access to education did result in a huge, unfair advantage to people? It seems to me that historical inequality with regard to education, and the vast and continuing social problems that resulted from it, indicates we should be very concerned about unequal access to brain-enhancing technologies.

I'm admitting it, but also asserting that it's manageable. The advantage that the wealthy have over the poor with regards to education is by no means insurmountable, and a lot of the perks that an obscene amount of money can buy are pretty marginal. Dropping $200k on an education at Harvard isn't a huge advantage, in the long term, over going to a decent state school. It is very, very possible for a kid born to a poor family to become successful and prosperous, even if it's easier for Paris Hilton.

What I was saying is that if that's the kind of disparity we'd see from biological enhancements, I could deal with it, given the many benefits that would be granted to pretty much everyone, rich or poor.

nexuscrawler

ElJeffe wrote: »

Some people here seem to be lumping the correction of physical disabilities using things like hearing aids and pacemakers with granting people increased intelligence or better-than-human abilities. Those aren't really the same thing. Like, at all.

Theotically, it could be possible to correct for many illnesses and ailments that afflict common people. Think fo what would happen if we could isolate the genes that put us at risk for heart diasese, diabetes, parkinsons and various other conditions that shortens many people's lives. You could probably add a good decade to average life expectancy with genetic treatments like these.

Of course genetic variation is generally considered a good thng. By tinkering en masse with people's genes we would permentaly alter the human gene pool. It would probably be tough to predict what recessive traits or other changes could result down the line. messing with immune systems could be extremely dangerous because one virus that exploits a change made to lots of people could trigger a pandemic.

Shoggoth

tdonlan wrote: »

Shoggoth wrote: »

This topic ALWAYS misrepresents what evolution actually is. You guys realize evolution is not a linear progression towards some kind of illogical "super form" right?

When people say, "this is the next step in human evolution!" I want to strangle them.

Fine. It's no longer Evolution by Natural Selection (undirected process). It's evolution by genetic manipulation (directed process).

Would you consider domestic breeding falling under the umbrella of evolution (artificial selection)?

I can't stand homonym's is basically what I'm saying.

I just think it should be noted that evolution (natural selection) is not "working towards" anything, it doesn't move linearly towards an end. I think too many people have this idea that positive traits are absolute, that somehow evolution is an additive process designed to cram as much "good" shit into one organism as possible.

I mean, technically there is no difference genetically between artificial and natural selection. But you do run into a huge difference when intent is applied.

Domestic breeding might fall under the topic of evolution, but it isn't evolution. Evolution is literally the passing on of inherited traits within a population.

The language is just too transparent for me sometimes.

Crossfire

Shoggoth wrote: »

tdonlan wrote: »

Shoggoth wrote: »

This topic ALWAYS misrepresents what evolution actually is. You guys realize evolution is not a linear progression towards some kind of illogical "super form" right?

When people say, "this is the next step in human evolution!" I want to strangle them.

Fine. It's no longer Evolution by Natural Selection (undirected process). It's evolution by genetic manipulation (directed process).

Would you consider domestic breeding falling under the umbrella of evolution (artificial selection)?

I can't stand Homonym's is basically what I'm saying.

I just think it should be noted that evolution (natural selection) is not "working towards" anything, it doesn't move linearly towards an end. I think too many people have this idea that positive traits are absolute, that somehow evolution is an additive process designed to cram as much "good" shit into one organism as possible.

Quite the opposite. The final stage of evolution is suicide.