how to prevent suicide

[Oberyn]

What makes them funny?

First of all humanity is ALWAYS "evolving", like any other organism we are subject to pressures from the environment and other external factors. Of course "evolution" doesn't entail anything about moving "forward" and making "better" humans,  the only result is the genes of those who reproduce more often propagate more efficiently. That's literally it. Transhumanists have this faulty understanding of evolution where it's some sort of funnel purifying the species down to it's "best" traits, those traits of course always based on their ideological and moral interpretation of what is "good", which genes do not give one flying shit about.

Then there's the idea that cutting edge technological inovation is somehow going to lead to reduced inequality and some sort of utopia as opposed to accentuating divisions even more. i.e: stuff like robotics and genetics manipulation, that will obviously only be affordable to the extremely rich. The obvious result will be something like from the movie Gattacca, not the Star Trek utopia the transhumanists desperately wish for. The themes of robotics (including nanotech) and genetic manipulations and their possible effect on humanity as a whole have been explored in many science fiction settings since at least the '50's, and often before. They aren't treading any new ground, or exploring any new ideas. Just the same rehashed wishfull thinking bullshit that always happens whenever any new tech field surfaces. World peace and understanding between all humans, they said airplanes would achieve that, and radio, and telephones, and television, and applied medicine, and etc, etc.

Ridiculously unrealistic, idealistic and dogmatic ideologies that always fail because their expectations of what humans "should" be like (communism being the obvious one) have been around forever. Deciding that the only way to achieve their goals is to deliberately change people to fit their construct has been attempted many, many times. It always fails of course. But now there is on the horizon new tech that can LITERALLY transform human beings, on the most intimate level, and the dogmatic utopianists have latched unto it as the answer to all their woes. If the world and humanity can't fit their rigid ideological constructs, then by gawd they're going to MAKE them fit, and obviously it will be for the best, because their approach is the only "good" and "moral" one. 

[Xant]

That's not what transhumanism is at all. It's simply this:

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.

Nothing about evolution. Nothing about reduced inequality. Some transhumanists believe technology will help with that, yes; but it's not what transhumanism itself is about.

As for whether reduced inequality and an utopia is unrealistic or not, no one can say. If and when a self-improving smarter-than-human AI is created, all bets are off.

[Oberyn]

So what do you think is meant by "fundamentally transforming the human condition"?
edit: I just looked at the wiki page for transhumanism, just scroll down to the "debate" section, all the points I've made in the above post criticizing the concept are there already, in much more developped form. There's also links to articles and books on the subject.

[Xant]

It just means changing humans to be something else, something more. A being in charge of its own evolution.

edit: I just looked at the wiki page for transhumanism, just scroll down to the "debate" section, all the points I've made in the above post criticizing the concept are there already, in much more developped form. There's also links to articles and books on the subject.

No thanks, read a couple of points and they were super crappy. "omg u r playing god" and the whole nine yards.

[Grumpy_Nic]

Suicide.
Uicide.
Icide.
Cide.
Cider.
I like cider.

[Oberyn]

Not really anything to answer to that, except you obviously didn't read very much if your only takeaway of the critics was "omg ur playing god". You still haven't adressed any of the criticisms I brought up, beyond saying that they had nothing to do with transhumanism (when they obviously do, or there wouldn't be the exact same criticisms of the fucking wiki page of all things) and then dismissing it as worries of a religious nature. So basically just empty strawmen and no substance.

[Xant]

Not really anything to answer to that, except you obviously didn't read very much if your only takeaway of the critics was "omg ur playing god". You still haven't adressed any of the criticisms I brought up, beyond saying that they had nothing to do with transhumanism (when they obviously do, or there wouldn't be the exact same criticisms of the fucking wiki page of all things) and then dismissing it as worries of a religious nature. So basically just empty strawmen and no substance.

Funny you should say that, considering you're attacking straw transhumanism. There was nothing else to take away from the wiki criticisms of transhumanism - not surprisingly, as there's no rational reason to be critical of it. I haven't addressed any of your criticism because, like I said, it's attacking straw transhumanism. Nothing to address. But feel free to be more specific than "the wiki has the criticism too."

[Porthos]

If you really wanted to commit suicide and being crippled didn't suddenly make you love your life you could probably still manage to do so.

Unless you're paralyzed after that attempt.

how do you know?

Don't ask.

[Oberyn]

Transhumanists are as varied as any other ideology, there are socialist transhumanists, libertarian transhumanists, anarchic transhumanists, etc etc. They have nothing in common beyond "we need to change people". They differ in their methods and their goals. Do you think changing humanity into something different is a goal unto itself, or merely a tool for various political and societal ideologies? Your "Transhumanism is just ****" is as nonsensical as saying "Feminism is just the idea of treating women equally". When you actually get down to it it's much more nuanced and fragmented, usually along narrow, rigid, dogmatic ideological lines.

The idea that transhumanism is beyond all reasonable criticism already marks you as dogmatic, but sure I'll give you an example, one that I alraedy brought up and is listed on the wiki and you just chose to conveniently ignore. Just one consequence would be the creation of a two-tier caste system of haves and have-nots, of one group of literally genetically "superior" people and another of "average" ones, by itself that is already a huge fucking red flag. And obviously the ones who already are on the top of the social pyramid would overwhelmingly benefit. Anyone who is familiar with human nature and history would see why this could be a problem, "rationally".

[Xant]

Transhumanists are as varied as any other ideology, there are socialist transhumanists, libertarian transhumanists, anarchic transhumanists, etc etc. They have nothing in common beyond "we need to change people". They differ in their methods and their goals. Do you think changing humanity into something different is a goal unto itself, or merely a tool for various political and societal ideologies? Your "Transhumanism is just ****" is as nonsensical as saying "Feminism is just the idea of treating women equally". When you actually get down to it it's much more nuanced and fragmented, usually along narrow, rigid, dogmatic ideological lines.

So, you're basically arguing for me against yourself? That is exactly my point. Transhumanism is what I said it is, but there are different sub-branches and your criticism applies to some of them, yes, but not to transhumanism itself.

The idea that transhumanism is beyond all reasonable criticism already marks you as dogmatic, but sure I'll give you an example, one that I alraedy brought up and is listed on the wiki and you just chose to conveniently ignore. Just one consequence would be the creation of a two-tier caste system of haves and have-nots, of one group of literally genetically "superior" people and another of "average" ones, by itself that is already a huge fucking red flag. And obviously the ones who already are on the top of the social pyramid would overwhelmingly benefit. Anyone who is familiar with human nature and history would see why this could be a problem, "rationally".

Again, you are arguing against straw transhumanism. Creating a caste system is one of the things to be careful of, but it isn't a necessary, predestined outcome. The basis of transhumanism does not say a caste system is necessary. For example, if everyone could be augmented, it wouldn't happen.

[Oberyn]

Oh you mean if expensive cutting edge technology that is being researched and developped by private corporations entirely devoted to profit could somehow be extended for free to all people regardless of wealth or position in the social hierarchy, it wouldn't happen? Well I'm fucking relieved, nothing to worry about then.

[Xant]

Oh you mean if expensive cutting edge technology that is being researched and developped by private corporations entirely devoted to profit could somehow be extended for free to all people regardless of wealth or position in the social hierarchy, it wouldn't happen? Well I'm fucking relieved, nothing to worry about then.

You are confusing ideology with practicality, first of all. Two different problems to tackle. Second, not all of the technology that transhumanist hopes cling on are developed by private corporations entirely devoted to profit.

[Oberyn]

Really, so which technology's research and development are not linked to private corporations? There's this thing called "funding", you may have heard of it, it's usually done by people investing and expecting a return on that investment. It's not charity for the benefit of humankind.

[Xant]

Really, so which technology's research and development are not linked to private corporations? There's this thing called "funding", you may have heard of it, it's usually done by people investing and expecting a return on that investment. It's not charity for the benefit of humankind.

http://intelligence.org/

For one. Peter Thiel being one of the major donators.

[Kafein]

Well, few ideologies are vulnerable to criticism if you strip them from all practicalities. I mean, communism is a wonderful idea, it just doesn't seem to work. So is it a good ideology nonetheless? Most ideologies define themselves as a good thing, even when not explicitly. You can't really argue against good intentions, and you can only derive bad consequences from the application of said "good ideology" if you start invoking practicalities.

In this sense, Xant is arguing like people that say "the URSS was not communist". In some sense they are right, but a debate based entirely on the definition of ideas unsullied by the contingencies of reality doesn't seem to be very productive to me.