how to prevent suicide

[Xant]

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.

Of course, but you have to decide which you are arguing against: the "what" or the "how." In the case of transhumanism, the "what" is a no-brainer, but the "how" is an open question. And also in the case of transhumanism, it varies greatly because there are a lot of different approaches, technologies and ideologies. Arguing against a particular approach or ideology does nothing to undermine transhumanism as a whole, just as finding some retarded atheists does nothing to undermine atheism.

[[ptx]]

Oh dear, Xant vs Oberyn
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Kafein]

Oh dear, Xant vs Oberyn
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Is it like, new to you ? I enjoyed it for weeks.

Of course, but you have to decide which you are arguing against: the "what" or the "how." In the case of transhumanism, the "what" is a no-brainer, but the "how" is an open question. And also in the case of transhumanism, it varies greatly because there are a lot of different approaches, technologies and ideologies. Arguing against a particular approach or ideology does nothing to undermine transhumanism as a whole, just as finding some retarded atheists does nothing to undermine atheism.

But then, the word "transhumanism" loses all substance and arguing for or against it is just arguing a set of techniques individually. And I'm also not completely convinced by your analogy. Atheism is much easier to define with respect to reality. You can easily say someone is atheist and have a consensus around that observation, yet you can't do that with transhumanism, because it is so easy to just dodge the labeling and say your are part of another branch.

[pingpong]

[Xant]

But then, the word "transhumanism" loses all substance and arguing for or against it is just arguing a set of techniques individually. And I'm also not completely convinced by your analogy. Atheism is much easier to define with respect to reality. You can easily say someone is atheist and have a consensus around that observation, yet you can't do that with transhumanism, because it is so easy to just dodge the labeling and say your are part of another branch.

No, it doesn't lose all substance, nor do I see why you couldn't say someone is a transhumanist.

Transhumanism is a cultural and intellectual movement that believes we can, and should, improve the human condition through the use of advanced technologies.

That is what it means to be a transhumanist, nothing more, nothing less.

Or, another definition: Transhumanism is the position that it's ethical to radically improve the human condition using technology.

So what is hard about this? It seems excruciatingly simple to me. This is the core of transhumanism. Anything more than this is a branch of it.

Just as the lack of belief in a god is the core of atheism and anything more is a branch of it.

[SixThumbs]

I'm not sure how we got onto the the topic of trans-humanism but...

Well, according to this dubious CPI calculator I used you have to be worth more then 31.5 million dollars to join the trans-humanist cyborgs.

[Utrakil]

No, it doesn't lose all substance, nor do I see why you couldn't say someone is a transhumanist.

Transhumanism is a cultural and intellectual movement that believes we can, and should, improve the human condition through the use of advanced technologies.

That is what it means to be a transhumanist, nothing more, nothing less.

Or, another definition: Transhumanism is the position that it's ethical to radically improve the human condition using technology.

So what is hard about this? It seems excruciatingly simple to me. This is the core of transhumanism. Anything more than this is a branch of it.

Just as the lack of belief in a god is the core of atheism and anything more is a branch of it.

On the base of this definition the whole discussion is a bit obsolete because humanity lives the idea of transhumanism since thousands of years. What ever technologie was invented it always was used to improve the human condition. from weaving clothes to increase your ability to withstand cold and a stick to improve your reach to teethprotheses, artificial joints and antibiotics. So the evolution of a specie's technologie is part of its evolution and will always be used to its better adaptation to the invironment.

[Xant]

Not everyone thinks that way. Some hardcore Christians, for example. And like I said, no rational reason to dislike transhumanism. Oberyn's the one who said transhumanists are "funny."

[Utrakil]

They are "funny" if they think they are a new movement.

[Xant]

They are "funny" if they think they are a new movement.

And you are "retarded" if you ate spaghetti today.

[Utrakil]

And you are "retarded" if you ate spaghetti today.

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

[Xant]

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Just thought I'd say something completely random that has nothing to do with anything, based on no facts and with no relevance to the topic at hand. Isn't that what we're doing?

[SixThumbs]

And you are "retarded" if you ate spaghetti today.

Maybe if you were one of those gluten intolerant bastards that seem to be all the rage now-a-days.

[Kafein]

No, it doesn't lose all substance, nor do I see why you couldn't say someone is a transhumanist.

Transhumanism is a cultural and intellectual movement that believes we can, and should, improve the human condition through the use of advanced technologies.

That is what it means to be a transhumanist, nothing more, nothing less.

Or, another definition: Transhumanism is the position that it's ethical to radically improve the human condition using technology.

So what is hard about this? It seems excruciatingly simple to me. This is the core of transhumanism. Anything more than this is a branch of it.

Just as the lack of belief in a god is the core of atheism and anything more is a branch of it.

Okay but I don't see how you could have an interesting debate of transhumanism without delving into those techniques/technology you are referring to in your definition. I believe that's what most people will criticize.

Also, isn't transhumanism more precisely about improving humans themselves by modifying them, rather than simply improving their living conditions, which we have been doing since forever as ultrakil said ?

[Xant]

Okay but I don't see how you could have an interesting debate of transhumanism without delving into those techniques/technology you are referring to in your definition. I believe that's what most people will criticize.

Also, isn't transhumanism more precisely about improving humans themselves by modifying them, rather than simply improving their living conditions, which we have been doing since forever as ultrakil said ?

Transhumanism wasn't created so people could have interesting debates. It is what it is. The topic is not called "debate transhumanism." It's something Oberyn brought up, criticizing transhumanism as a whole for some views that some transhumanists might have. The usual debates regarding it are "is life extension/immortality ethical", "should we play god" and "we'll lose our humanity!"