Transhumanism

[Mister Earl]

After reading this post, I think I would consider myself a transhumanist as well. I think the next great step for humanity will be self-improvement writ large. I think the first "thing" I'd want to have done would be the addition of a math co-processor, if you will. The second being a datavault, like flash memory for the brain.

Sign me up!

 

[Matt the Poet]

The singularity seems to me reasonably inevitable.

Everything you have described suggests that we’re pretty far down the road of developing self-programming entities that behave, and evolve, like biological ones in certain limited respects. This is interesting, but not the same as ‘the Singularity’ which, in so far as it has been defined, is some nebulous concept about machines surpassing us in their ability to do whatever it is that the author describing it values about human consciousness, and therefore, for reasons that again are rather vaguely adumbrated, becoming our new robot overlords. None of which is even slightly inevitable.

As for nanotechnology, you may have noted it has already been designed by nature. There, it's called 'bacteria.' We have a model for nanoscale machinery right there. What, did you really think we'd make nanomachines out of METAL?!?

Of course not. But there is very little evidence that we will be able to make nanomachines out of anything at all. We’re still at the stage, as far as I understand it, of just about being able to poke atoms about and get them to sit in the right place for short amounts of time. Are you seriously suggesting that we’re anywhere near building anything that looks like a bacterium from scratch?

Retroviruses operate by changing the genome.

Well…they change whatever segments of it they happen to randomly recombine with when they insert themselves into the host genome, but you’re talking about them going for a particular, defined set of genes (a very, very large set, as I’ll discuss below) that are presumably being expressed only in certain organs

We now have a computer that ties into the impulses sent to your speech centers that can replicate speech. From speech centers, how long until other muscle centers? Obviously the voice box is a great deal simpler than the arm - but do you really think having done one, the other isn't simply a matter of refinement? From there, do you really think its so hard for us to make a machine that functions similarly to an arm?

What you’re presenting here, as far as I can see, is an uphill version of the slippery slope fallacy. The answer to your apparently rhetorical question is yes, yes I do think that such advances are more than a ‘matter of refinement’. Or, at the very least, I have no reason to think otherwise, and neither do you, because I’m guessing that neither of us are experts in the field of neuromuscular junctions or the even tricker world of proprioception.

Similarly with genetic engineering. We've done it on pigs, we've played around with plants for decades, the human animal isn't much different. We've mapped the genome. It's a matter of deciding where to poke. Obviously it'll take a lot of experimentation, but there's no reason to think it can't be done. We have all the technology. The 'millions of steps' are merely deciding how to apply it.

OK, I don’t know how much molecular genetics and biochemistry you know, but this sentence seems to suggest it’s not very much. We can, at the moment, by dint of great effort, get plants and animals to express a single foreign gene product under the control of a simple regulatory operon, or knock-out a gene or gene complex that the organism is already producing and view the effects

Having ‘mapped the genome’ means very little in terms of genetic engineering, particularly in terms of ‘where to poke’ (what does that even mean?). To illustrate the truly staggering gap between ‘mapping the genome’ and the sort of things you’re talking about, let’s take another of your early examples, the re-engineering of the human knee.

You want to reverse it? Fine, for starters you’ll have to get the developing embryo to grow its joint ‘backwards’ – that’s not a matter of turning the gene around, you’ll need to know how the carefully timed interactions of various concentration gradients at different stages of development affect joint symmetry. You’ll have to make sure that whatever you do to those apply only to the leg (is that even possible? Will the same mechanism that makes backwards knees force the poor tyke to develop backwards elbows? Maybe. I don’t know. Neither do you).

Half of what you’re trying to do might not even have anything to do with the sequence or map of the genome at all. It might not be a matter of taking out or putting in genes (which, let me re-iterate, is all we can do at the moment), but up- and down-regulating existing genes, using transcriptional and translational control factors such as sequence acetylation and micro-RNAs that we’re only just beginning to understand.

Say you’ve done that. OK, time to investigate the neurology. You can’t just ‘give me’ a backwards knee, any more than you can make me capable of flight by gluing wings on to my back. I’ll need to be wired up so that I instinctively understand how to maintain my balance, how to run and leap without breaking my ankles etc. etc. Which is a whole other problem.

This is not an extension of existing technology. This is not ten years of hard work. This is orders of magnitude out of our grasp. As far as I can see, there is no logical reason why we, as a civilisation, would direct our resources towards solving this issue (which is one very, very minor aspect of your transhumanist revolution), nor any reason why we would be successful in doing so.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

This is a weird thread for me; I seem to agree and disagree in intervals about stuff presented here. I can’t make up my mind. I guess it’s inevitable that the distinction between man and machine (if we currently perceive it as a distinction) will become nonexistent. I also think the distinction between software and hardware will become much more blurred. But I’m not thinking decades away, more like many centuries ahead – and I will no be here witnessing all that, although I suppose those changes will subjectively be as unobservable as getting used to watching colour TV or surfing the Internet.

After reading this post, I think I would consider myself a transhumanist as well. I think the next great step for humanity will be self-improvement writ large. I think the first "thing" I'd want to have done would be the addition of a math co-processor, if you will. The second being a datavault, like flash memory for the brain.

This I agree with; I would really like, right now, to possess a technology bundled with my brain that would make reading and memorizing large quantities of information/knowledge as easy as downloading a document or a movie. On the other hand, I think the question is whether I could resist “downloading” everything I could get access to and just take some time to really digest and contemplate what I would be receiving – this would still be the critical issue I think. I would love to have a math processor, but on the other hand, it would still be difficult to really understand what the calculations actually mean (unless it’s about some mechanical and trivial quantification).

 

[Mister Earl]

I read a news article somewhere (been googling, cannot find it. Nuts!) about "Extra senses". For example, one gentleman had small neodymium magnets implanted into the back of his hand. He was eventually generally aware of magnetic fields around him. Moderately interesting. Then there was another where a student, I believe, wore a belt made from the pager vibrators, and wrote software that made it so that whenever one of the pieces was facing north, it would vibrate. He eventually got used to annoyance, and was amazed to learn that he was subconciously keeping a running map of where he was and where he'd been. He stated that if you blindfolded him, and drove him around for a half hour, he'd be able to point almost directly at whever it was you picked him up from. It seems the brain is hard-wired to accept external input and make use of it. I've been mulling over getting my own magnets installed... it'd be interesting, if nothing else.

 

[Beerina]

That's what we're currently doing. And it's killing us.

Please list actual measures of the quality of life that are decreasing with a granularity of not less than 10 years, and preferrably longer, and cross-correlate decreases with increases in government intervention in the economy.

Capitalism will have no problem coming up with substitutes when the economics make sense. Even with the high price of oil, it's only barely starting to make sense.

We're destroying our planet to make the environment one we like.

I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.

 

[AWPrime]

Well I am also a Transhumanist, but I have a different perspective then GrayICE. I got to that path through two realizations:
1. Our species isn't able to genetically adapt quickly enough to keep up with our rising technology.
2. Human bodies aren't really meant for space or other planets. With out current bodies space exploration/colonization will quickly hit diminishing returns or will never truly start.


I have been thinking about measures/rules to limit possible damage.
1. Nobody shall be forced to be modified. When a person becomes of age (21 yo or so) then he/she can make the decision.

 

[GreyICE]

Everything you have described suggests that we’re pretty far down the road of developing self-programming entities that behave, and evolve, like biological ones in certain limited respects. This is interesting, but not the same as ‘the Singularity’ which, in so far as it has been defined, is some nebulous concept about machines surpassing us in their ability to do whatever it is that the author describing it values about human consciousness, and therefore, for reasons that again are rather vaguely adumbrated, becoming our new robot overlords. None of which is even slightly inevitable.

Actually, the only important way they need to evolve is that they need to be able to evolve the programs that let them evolve. Hence, recursive evolution. Once they do that, then they can evolve every other system. So once they start evolving their other programs, they enter a state of near-constant upgrading, where every iteration of a program is an opportunity to improve it.

The singularity is very well defined, and that's the definition. Hook it into robotic systems, and it will constantly evolve its own robots - faster, better, cheaper, more efficient, etc. It would quickly surpass human capacity in every aspect.

Of course not. But there is very little evidence that we will be able to make nanomachines out of anything at all. We’re still at the stage, as far as I understand it, of just about being able to poke atoms about and get them to sit in the right place for short amounts of time. Are you seriously suggesting that we’re anywhere near building anything that looks like a bacterium from scratch?

We have bacteria that eats oil. We have engineered bacteria to do many things. Why would we build bacteria from scratch, when we can upgrade the existing shell? It's like designing a new car starting by researching the properties of steel and the best shape for wheels, and moving from there.

Well…they change whatever segments of it they happen to randomly recombine with when they insert themselves into the host genome, but you’re talking about them going for a particular, defined set of genes (a very, very large set, as I’ll discuss below) that are presumably being expressed only in certain organs



What you’re presenting here, as far as I can see, is an uphill version of the slippery slope fallacy. The answer to your apparently rhetorical question is yes, yes I do think that such advances are more than a ‘matter of refinement’. Or, at the very least, I have no reason to think otherwise, and neither do you, because I’m guessing that neither of us are experts in the field of neuromuscular junctions or the even tricker world of proprioception.

Um, no. We have neuromuscular tie ins. We have machinery that can accept electric impulses. It's just a matter of learning exactly how they hook up. It's a matter of how and which way is correct, not 'what technology would you even use?'

OK, I don’t know how much molecular genetics and biochemistry you know, but this sentence seems to suggest it’s not very much. We can, at the moment, by dint of great effort, get plants and animals to express a single foreign gene product under the control of a simple regulatory operon, or knock-out a gene or gene complex that the organism is already producing and view the effects

Having ‘mapped the genome’ means very little in terms of genetic engineering, particularly in terms of ‘where to poke’ (what does that even mean?). To illustrate the truly staggering gap between ‘mapping the genome’ and the sort of things you’re talking about, let’s take another of your early examples, the re-engineering of the human knee.

You want to reverse it? Fine, for starters you’ll have to get the developing embryo to grow its joint ‘backwards’ – that’s not a matter of turning the gene around, you’ll need to know how the carefully timed interactions of various concentration gradients at different stages of development affect joint symmetry. You’ll have to make sure that whatever you do to those apply only to the leg (is that even possible? Will the same mechanism that makes backwards knees force the poor tyke to develop backwards elbows? Maybe. I don’t know. Neither do you).

Half of what you’re trying to do might not even have anything to do with the sequence or map of the genome at all. It might not be a matter of taking out or putting in genes (which, let me re-iterate, is all we can do at the moment), but up- and down-regulating existing genes, using transcriptional and translational control factors such as sequence acetylation and micro-RNAs that we’re only just beginning to understand.

Say you’ve done that. OK, time to investigate the neurology. You can’t just ‘give me’ a backwards knee, any more than you can make me capable of flight by gluing wings on to my back. I’ll need to be wired up so that I instinctively understand how to maintain my balance, how to run and leap without breaking my ankles etc. etc. Which is a whole other problem.

This is not an extension of existing technology. This is not ten years of hard work. This is orders of magnitude out of our grasp. As far as I can see, there is no logical reason why we, as a civilisation, would direct our resources towards solving this issue (which is one very, very minor aspect of your transhumanist revolution), nor any reason why we would be successful in doing so.

You're deliberately overcomplicating this. Machines can be designed exactly the way you described. Build a leg, attach it to your nervous system, call it a day.

You seem to be choosing the most difficult way possible. Instead of using our existing nanomachines, we have to build them from the ground up! Then when we get to legs, we have to alter the existing physiology, instead of building the legs from the ground up! It's not even consistently wrong.

 

[bokonon]

Once they do that, then they can evolve every other system. So once they start evolving their other programs, they enter a state of near-constant upgrading, where every iteration of a program is an opportunity to improve it.

The singularity is very well defined, and that's the definition. Hook it into robotic systems, and it will constantly evolve its own robots - faster, better, cheaper, more efficient, etc. It would quickly surpass human capacity in every aspect.

Sounds like empty word games to me. "Just write a program that writes a better program, and let it run!"

You're deliberately overcomplicating this. Machines can be designed exactly the way you described. Build a leg, attach it to your nervous system, call it a day.

Tell it where you can buy a better leg, and let it run!

People will work on solutions to real problems. When no one even abandons the QWERTY keyboard for the Dvorak keyboard because the old one works "well enough" and it's the one they're comfortable with, I can't see the line for backward-facing mechanical legs being very long. I suspect almost everyone who needs a leg replacement will choose the conventional model, no matter how hard you try to sell the improvement.

 

[GreyICE]

Sounds like empty word games to me. "Just write a program that writes a better program, and let it run!"

No. We've already written those (see evolutionary programming). Those are actually fairly easy to write. If you actually read what I wrote, instead of just summarizing for your strawman, you'd realize I said that it has to be recursively self improving - you have to write a program that writes a better program writing program. And it has to do it in a reasonably random manner - it has to be able to 'mutate.' Once you have that, you let it run. And run. And run. It gets better at making itself better.

Tell it where you can buy a better leg, and let it run!

People will work on solutions to real problems. When no one even abandons the QWERTY keyboard for the Dvorak keyboard because the old one works "well enough" and it's the one they're comfortable with, I can't see the line for backward-facing mechanical legs being very long. I suspect almost everyone who needs a leg replacement will choose the conventional model, no matter how hard you try to sell the improvement.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/14/business/track.php

I tend to doubt it.

 

[bokonon]

No. We've already written those (see evolutionary programming). Those are actually fairly easy to write. If you actually read what I wrote, instead of just summarizing for your strawman, you'd realize I said that it has to be recursively self improving - you have to write a program that writes a better program writing program. And it has to do it in a reasonably random manner - it has to be able to 'mutate.' Once you have that, you let it run. And run. And run. It gets better at making itself better.

Doing what? Writing more useless program-writing-program-writing programs?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/14/business/track.php

I tend to doubt it.

Looks like a babe magnet all right. Sign me up.

 

[Robin]

Well I am also a Transhumanist, but I have a different perspective then GrayICE. I got to that path through two realizations:
1. Our species isn't able to genetically adapt quickly enough to keep up with our rising technology.

Except that our rising technology is designed specifically for our existing bodies.

2. Human bodies aren't really meant for space or other planets. With out current bodies space exploration/colonization will quickly hit diminishing returns or will never truly start.

Can you name any modifications which would allow us to exist in space or on any planet that we could reasonable expect to reach?

If it ever happens that we colonize any area outside the Earth it will depend in any case upon creating artificial environments in which case adapting ourselves would not be necessary.

 

[GreyICE]

Doing what? Writing more useless program-writing-program-writing programs?

You look at two pieces of bread sitting in a toaster and ask "now what," don't you?

Looks like a babe magnet all right. Sign me up.

I imagine he probably has decent romantic success. Confident people who are very skilled and passionate about something often find themselves romantically interesting - it turns out confidence, passion, and a drive to succeed are more attractive to most moderately intelligent men and women than, say, absolutely conventional appearance and absolutely conventional thinking.

This fails if you're in middle school, but even in high school it's operating, and after high school there's basically very little correlation between strictly conventional attitude/appearance and dating potential.

 

[GreyICE]

Except that our rising technology is designed specifically for our existing bodies.

Not really. I mean, how is a computer designed for the human body? How about any sort of heavy machinery? AIs? Space Ships? None of that is designed for the human body. It just has control setups grafted onto it. In fact, many times the human body is a huge limitation - underwater exploration, G-forces, the necessity of a constant air and food supply, the necessity to regulate the environment to a very narrow band, the inability for us to breath water, etc. Most of our technology is at best adequately designed to incorporate us, through expensive and bulky environmental apparatus.

Can you name any modifications which would allow us to exist in space or on any planet that we could reasonable expect to reach?

Mars. 0.01 atm pressure, 95% CO2 atmosphere. If we could adapt our eyes, ears and mouth to be reasonably resistant to depressurization boiling, and install oxygen scrubbers in our lungs (replenish the air with CO2 draw in from the atmosphere in case of inevitable leaks) we could exist there reasonably comfortably. We'd probably have to graft radio receivers into our ears, but frankly that's like two steps away from a bluetooth earpiece.

Also, 70% of earth is currently unsettlable due to a minor problem called 'the ocean.' Adapting ourselves to live comfortably there wouldn't be difficult, and the ocean could be a very plentiful food source.

If it ever happens that we colonize any area outside the Earth it will depend in any case upon creating artificial environments in which case adapting ourselves would not be necessary.

Well we could make the settling easier. Lets say we settle the moon, for instance. If there's any sort of pressure loss, everyone in the area dies. Assuming we have some sort of emergency system implanted, we could theoretically survive a reasonable length of time in suspended animation in vacuum - say 5-10 minutes. Enough time for emergency response teams.

 

[Robin]

Not really. I mean, how is a computer designed for the human body? How about any sort of heavy machinery? AIs? Space Ships? None of that is designed for the human body. It just has control setups grafted onto it.

What on earth are they designed for if not the human body? If we developed ourselves new bodies, even cyborg bodies we would just have to graft different control setups for them. What is the point?

In fact, many times the human body is a huge limitation - underwater exploration, G-forces, the necessity of a constant air and food supply, the necessity to regulate the environment to a very narrow band, the inability for us to breath water, etc. Most of our technology is at best adequately designed to incorporate us, through expensive and bulky environmental apparatus.

If we adapted ourselves for undersea then most likely we would be unsuitable for living on the surface. In fact we could more easily explore undersea using robots and experience it from the comfort and safety of the surface. The actual requirement for us to go undersea is diminishing each year.

Mars. 0.01 atm pressure, 95% CO2 atmosphere. If we could adapt our eyes, ears and mouth to be reasonably resistant to depressurization boiling, and install oxygen scrubbers in our lungs (replenish the air with CO2 draw in from the atmosphere in case of inevitable leaks) we could exist there reasonably comfortably. We'd probably have to graft radio receivers into our ears, but frankly that's like two steps away from a bluetooth earpiece.

Do we have anything even close to that on even the remotest horizon? What would it cost and how much would it add to medical expenses for maintenance. And if we developed this for Mars we would no longer be suitable Earth inhabitants and we would still be unadapted to explore other planets.

However if we explore by robots then everybody could be an astronaut from the comfort, safety of planet Earth and without adapting our bodies at all.

Also, 70% of earth is currently unsettlable due to a minor problem called 'the ocean.' Adapting ourselves to live comfortably there wouldn't be difficult, and the ocean could be a very plentiful food source.

The ocean already is a plentiful food source. I am not sure that filling it with a new and voracious species would help its delicate ecological balance though.

Well we could make the settling easier. Lets say we settle the moon, for instance. If there's any sort of pressure loss, everyone in the area dies. Assuming we have some sort of emergency system implanted, we could theoretically survive a reasonable length of time in suspended animation in vacuum - say 5-10 minutes. Enough time for emergency response teams.

Seems a bit drastic for the sake of 5-10 minutes. If we could genetically adapt the body to exist 5-10 minutes in a vacuum then simpler technology could create better failsafe systems.

 

[Prometheus]

Actually, the only important way they need to evolve is that they need to be able to evolve the programs that let them evolve. Hence, recursive evolution. Once they do that, then they can evolve every other system. So once they start evolving their other programs, they enter a state of near-constant upgrading, where every iteration of a program is an opportunity to improve it.

The singularity is very well defined, and that's the definition. Hook it into robotic systems, and it will constantly evolve its own robots - faster, better, cheaper, more efficient, etc. It would quickly surpass human capacity in every aspect.

Kind of like the way those who've developed critical thinking and evidence based reasoning have recursively evolved and surpassed irrationality and ignorance all around the world.

 

[GreyICE]

What on earth are they designed for if not the human body? If we developed ourselves new bodies, even cyborg bodies we would just have to graft different control setups for them. What is the point?

So you agree that our technology was not developed exclusively for us?

If we adapted ourselves for undersea then most likely we would be unsuitable for living on the surface. In fact we could more easily explore undersea using robots and experience it from the comfort and safety of the surface. The actual requirement for us to go undersea is diminishing each year.

So your future human eventually just hangs out in his perfectly controlled apartment and goes everywhere via robot? I really don't want to be him.

Do we have anything even close to that on even the remotest horizon? What would it cost and how much would it add to medical expenses for maintenance. And if we developed this for Mars we would no longer be suitable Earth inhabitants and we would still be unadapted to explore other planets.

If we're colonizing Mars, who cares if we're adapted for earth? It's just completely irrelevant - if we need to, we can adapt back. Also, do we have anything like this on the horizon? No. You're the one who asked what planets we could settle. Do you really think impossible-to-maintain pressure domes are on the horizon?

However if we explore by robots then everybody could be an astronaut from the comfort, safety of planet Earth and without adapting our bodies at all.

World's most boring future, right here.

The ocean already is a plentiful food source. I am not sure that filling it with a new and voracious species would help its delicate ecological balance though.

Hmm, seems to meet your 'somewhere we could settle by altering ourselves' requirement.

Seems a bit drastic for the sake of 5-10 minutes. If we could genetically adapt the body to exist 5-10 minutes in a vacuum then simpler technology could create better failsafe systems.

The thing about these failsafes is that they'd be wherever you are, at that exact moment that you need it. Vacuum is really, really, really obnoxious if you have to live with it long term.

Kind of like the way those who've developed critical thinking and evidence based reasoning have recursively evolved and surpassed irrationality and ignorance all around the world.

Sure. It's interesting to know you can change your genome by thinking about it hard.

 

[AWPrime]

Except that our rising technology is designed specifically for our existing bodies.

In an ideal world yes. But we don't live in an ideal world. I will give you a simple example:
Sociality requires relative more higher educated people the more advanced technology becomes, however this leads to permanent unemployment among the lower educated. Before the industrial revolution most people worked on farms as laborers

Can you name any modifications which would allow us to exist in space or on any planet

I can't say that I know how to adapt to any planet, however for space:
- High resistance to radiation.
- Bones/muscles that won't weaken in Zero G.
- The ability to handle vacuum for short periods. So that the crew can repair a breach before dying.

Aside to that I think that we should mainly look at improving the tissues.

that we could reasonable expect to reach?

That is one of the problems, our human bodies limit our exploration range.

If it ever happens that we colonize any area outside the Earth it will depend in any case upon creating artificial environments in which case adapting ourselves would not be necessary.

You assume too much. I remain highly skeptical on the possibility to permanently changing a new planet to completely fit our bodies.

If we adapted ourselves for undersea then most likely we would be unsuitable for living on the surface. In fact we could more easily explore undersea using robots and experience it from the comfort and safety of the surface. The actual requirement for us to go undersea is diminishing each year.

If we adapted ourselves for the surface then most likely we would be unsuitable for living undersea. In fact we could more easily explore the surface using robots and experience it from the comfort and safety of the sea. The actual requirement for us to go to the surface is diminishing each year. [see it cuts both ways]

If we could genetically adapt the body to exist 5-10 minutes in a vacuum then simpler technology could create better failsafe systems.

I think they would need an hour or two to make repairs. And over reliance on failsafe systems is expensive and arrogant.

 

[Robin]

So you agree that our technology was not developed exclusively for us?

Of course it was developed for us. Who else was it developed for? Wookies? I was just pointing out that if we started to alter human bodies it would have to be redeveloped for those new bodies.

So your future human eventually just hangs out in his perfectly controlled apartment and goes everywhere via robot? I really don't want to be him.

I don't know why you should think that access to new technology would limit our abilities to do other things, including the things we did before. You could go surfing (in the real sea with your real body), take in a movie, have a date followed by an intimate evening. Then the next day you could explore Io.

On the other hand if you are exploring a crevice on Io in your Io specific body you could hardly do the other stuff, unless of course you went cyber surfing, internet dating followed by phone sex all from your crevice on Io.

I would rather be the first person than the second.

If we're colonizing Mars, who cares if we're adapted for earth? It's just completely irrelevant - if we need to, we can adapt back.

So your adaptation would not be for exploration, it would be for permanent settlement. So if I am now stuck on Mars with my Mars specific body, have I gained anything?

Also, do we have anything like this on the horizon? No. You're the one who asked what planets we could settle. Do you really think impossible-to-maintain pressure domes are on the horizon?

We couldn't create habitats on Jupiter if that is what you mean. But using current technologies we could establish viable habitats on a number of planets and moons within our solar system. We cannot even imagine the technology that would allow us to adapt our bodies to live on Mars, let alone Jupiter.

The thing about these failsafes is that they'd be wherever you are, at that exact moment that you need it.

They would be whereever there is a habitat.

Vacuum is really, really, really obnoxious if you have to live with it long term.

As is radiation unfiltered by an atmosphere. But you are talking about 5-10 minutes, hardly long term. It would be impossible using any technology to adapt a human body to exist in a vacuum long term.

 

[Robin]

In an ideal world yes. But we don't live in an ideal world. I will give you a simple example:
Sociality requires relative more higher educated people the more advanced technology becomes, however this leads to permanent unemployment among the lower educated. Before the industrial revolution most people worked on farms as laborers

But a person of below average intelligence today is much better off than a person of below average intelligence before the industrial revolution. In general the predictions of mass unemployment as technology grows have been proved false. In the 80's a whole class of employment - typing - was wiped out almost overnight with nearly nil economic impact.

That said, if we ever do find a way of genetically improving intelligence we should probably go for it.

I can't say that I know how to adapt to any planet, however for space:
- High resistance to radiation.
- Bones/muscles that won't weaken in Zero G.
- The ability to handle vacuum for short periods. So that the crew can repair a breach before dying.

That is fair enough.

That is one of the problems, our human bodies limit our exploration range.

It is the nature of physics rather than our human bodies that limits our exploration range. No amount of genetic tinkering is going to make anything go faster than the speed of light.

You assume too much. I remain highly skeptical on the possibility to permanently changing a new planet to completely fit our bodies.

Who said anything about permanently changing planets to completely fit out bodies. I said creating habitats.

If we adapted ourselves for the surface then most likely we would be unsuitable for living undersea. In fact we could more easily explore the surface using robots and experience it from the comfort and safety of the sea. The actual requirement for us to go to the surface is diminishing each year. [see it cuts both ways]

All the more reason that it is an absurd proposition - go to all the trouble of changing our bodies and nothing has essentially changed.

I think they would need an hour or two to make repairs. And over reliance on failsafe systems is expensive and arrogant.

Do you have a way of calculating the comparative cost of genetic modification as compared with failsafe systems? Habitats on the Moon would require extensive failsafe systems in any case, whatever genetic modifications we made to ourselves. Unless the habitat was absolutely off-limits to non-modified personnel and supplied entirely by robots, then the systems would have to be good enough in any case to cater for non-Lunatics.

 

[GreyICE]

Of course it was developed for us. Who else was it developed for? Wookies? I was just pointing out that if we started to alter human bodies it would have to be redeveloped for those new bodies.

And if those bodies could use a superior control setup that let us do 10 times what we can now? Our control setups are huge limitations - look at how many things we do that need multiple people to run.

I don't know why you should think that access to new technology would limit our abilities to do other things, including the things we did before. You could go surfing (in the real sea with your real body), take in a movie, have a date followed by an intimate evening. Then the next day you could explore Io.

On the other hand if you are exploring a crevice on Io in your Io specific body you could hardly do the other stuff, unless of course you went cyber surfing, internet dating followed by phone sex all from your crevice on Io.

Okay, now we're moving into Star Trek land. Today we're on Io, tomorrow the Starship Enterprise picks us up, and beams us down to Earth. If we adapt our bodies to Io (which seems a poor choice when Ganymede is so much more attractive, if we're doing Jupiter's moons) we can watch movies, have a date, followed by an intimate evening - on Ganymede (Io is so, so, so poor). You'd have us build a little dome, and hope like hell nothing goes wrong in that dome, because the environment woiuld kill us in seconds. That' not living on another planet. That's called squatting.

I would rather be the first person than the second.

Fine, you squat in your 1/4 square mile bubble that cost trillions. I'll go explore the entire planet. You tell me which is a better idea.

So your adaptation would not be for exploration, it would be for permanent settlement. So if I am now stuck on Mars with my Mars specific body, have I gained anything?

Yes. Mars.

We couldn't create habitats on Jupiter if that is what you mean. But using current technologies we could establish viable habitats on a number of planets and moons within our solar system. We cannot even imagine the technology that would allow us to adapt our bodies to live on Mars, let alone Jupiter.

I listed it above. That means we can imagine it.

They would be whereever there is a habitat.

As is radiation unfiltered by an atmosphere. But you are talking about 5-10 minutes, hardly long term. It would be impossible using any technology to adapt a human body to exist in a vacuum long term.

I also listed what we could do for that above. It would be a matter of hardening the skin into a carpace-like system, removing the mouth entirely, ingesting food through a special feeding tube-like device in the stomach, recycling air with a scrubber inside the lungs, replacing the eyes with artificial eyes, and getting rid of the eardrums. Do that, and you're pretty much immune to vacuum. Last step is the heat handling systems, but those shouldn't be a horrible trick. Radiative fins we could unfurl like wings, perhaps. The power for all of this would be PV, obviously.