Transhumanism

[Robin]

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.

Fewer every day

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.

You misunderstand, here is what I said:

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.

We don't need Scotty to do that, we are doing it already. We will just do it better with newer technology.

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. 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.

I am not sure where you got that 1/4 square mile bubble, I am sitting at the beach sipping a Martini and experiencing it all on my A/V equipment. So I might explore Io today and Ganymede tomorrow - all using technology that already exists, and at a fraction of the cost of shipping genetically modified humans around the solar system.

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

I don't recall you listing the technology that would allow us to make any genetic change at all.

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.

Yep, that will make your intimate evening on Ganymede a barrel of monkeys.

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.

And don't forget unfiltered UV radiation.

 

[Prometheus]

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

You seem to be limiting your viewpoint to biology. I never suggested changing one's genome at all.

 

[GreyICE]

Fewer every day

You misunderstand, here is what I said:

We don't need Scotty to do that, we are doing it already. We will just do it better with newer technology.

I am not sure where you got that 1/4 square mile bubble, I am sitting at the beach sipping a Martini and experiencing it all on my A/V equipment. So I might explore Io today and Ganymede tomorrow - all using technology that already exists, and at a fraction of the cost of shipping genetically modified humans around the solar system.

No you're not. You're watching a movie, or playing a video game. You are definitely doing nothing on Ganymede or Io. Once again, we've moved into Star Trek territory - Einstein thinks you're doing jack **** on Io. Seriously, program a computer FPS so that your commands get followed 10 seconds after you input them and you see the results 10 seconds after the commands are input. Then pick up a box and walk across a room with a few obstacles. I'll sit back and laugh my ass off - we can't control jack from Earth unless we develop truly absurd technology. If we want to explore the solar system, we have to go.

I don't recall you listing the technology that would allow us to make any genetic change at all.

The steps necessary to adapt our bodies to Mars.

Yep, that will make your intimate evening on Ganymede a barrel of monkeys.

Okay, can we stick to one subject here? You say its impossible to adapt to vacuum. I list how. You talk about sex. Thinking like that indicates to me that you're rationalizing an emotional dislike - because there was clearly nothing rational going on in that thought line. You're trying to think up ways it won't work, because you emotionally dislike the possibility of it working.

And don't forget unfiltered UV radiation.

You mean the energy that's powering the PV that is running your systems? Hell, the PV system is cutting down the energy requirements from food to a bare minimum, to reduce the mass we need to consume. We love that unfiltered UV radiation.

Honestly, the quality of your objections here suggests to me you're arguing from emotion, not from any rational thinking process. Logical disconnects in the thought process, spurious objections, failure to think things through, positing Star Trek technology being developed to solve real world problems, etc. It's not very coherent.

 

[GreyICE]

You seem to be limiting your viewpoint to biology. I never suggested changing one's genome at all.

But that's what a recursively self-improving AI can do. Remember the theory that giraffes had long necks because they wanted long necks and therefore their offspring's necks got longer? Recursively self-improving AIs actually do that. Only their generations pass in eyeblinks.

 

[Robin]

No you're not. You're watching a movie, or playing a video game. You are definitely doing nothing on Ganymede or Io. Once again, we've moved into Star Trek territory - Einstein thinks you're doing jack **** on Io. Seriously, program a computer FPS so that your commands get followed 10 seconds after you input them and you see the results 10 seconds after the commands are input. Then pick up a box and walk across a room with a few obstacles. I'll sit back and laugh my ass off - we can't control jack from Earth unless we develop truly absurd technology. If we want to explore the solar system, we have to go.

You think we can't explore the solar system using robots? I am perfectly sure that NASA think that they are doing that right now.

The steps necessary to adapt our bodies to Mars.

You have described the end result - not the steps necessary to get there.

Okay, can we stick to one subject here?

I am sticking to one subject, but you are telling me that I should not explore all the ramifications of it.

You say that genetic modifications would allow you to explore the solar system and enjoy intimate evenings on Ganymede (your claim not mine), yet when I suggest that your recommended modifications for surviving 5-10 minutes on a damaged Lunar colony might not be practical for the other aspects of your exploration you tell me I should not mention them. Maybe your PV wings might be great on the moon but they might be a little impractical for your jaunts on Ganymede.

So your modifications would not really allow you to explore the solar system, it would merely allow you to survive some particular situation on some part of the solar system.

You say its impossible to adapt to vacuum. I list how.

You list what, not how. It may be that the changes you list might allow us to have limited survival capabilities in a vacuum if there were ever a way to achieve them, but at what cost.

You talk about sex. Thinking like that indicates to me that you're rationalizing an emotional dislike - because there was clearly nothing rational going on in that thought line. You're trying to think up ways it won't work, because you emotionally dislike the possibility of it working.

It seems an entirely practical consideration to me.

You mean the energy that's powering the PV that is running your systems? Hell, the PV system is cutting down the energy requirements from food to a bare minimum, to reduce the mass we need to consume. We love that unfiltered UV radiation.

Even a system that derives it's power from UV radiation needs to protect itself from UV radiation. This is another consideration for the modifications that would allow us to survive 5-10 minutes on the Moon while the repair crew (apparently sensibly wearing space suits) fixed the problem.

Honestly, the quality of your objections here suggests to me you're arguing from emotion, not from any rational thinking process. Logical disconnects in the thought process, spurious objections, failure to think things through, positing Star Trek technology being developed to solve real world problems, etc.

If you can name me one, even one piece of Star Trek technology I have posited then I will agree. If you can't then I am pretty much afraid that the charge fall squarely back on your face.

Well, can you?

 

[GreyICE]

You think we can't explore the solar system using robots? I am perfectly sure that NASA think that they are doing that right now.

I'm perfectly sure they aren't. They're sending out dumb drones with video cameras. That's nice for mapping, not so useful for things like metal extraction and construction of solar plants.

If you want to do any serious exploration or work, you're going to need to be doing it without the time lag. The time lag is impossible to get around if you're on earth, and will quickly render anything you do laughable. There's just no way to adapt to a time lag that bad.

I am sticking to one subject, but you are telling me that I should not explore all the ramifications of it.

You say that genetic modifications would allow you to explore the solar system and enjoy intimate evenings on Ganymede (your claim not mine), yet when I suggest that your recommended modifications for surviving 5-10 minutes on a damaged Lunar colony might not be practical for the other aspects of your exploration you tell me I should not mention them. Maybe your PV wings might be great on the moon but they might be a little impractical for your jaunts on Ganymede.

Which is why you customize it for your environment. Also, modifications not necessarily genetic - cyborgs seem much more likely than genetic creation of entire species.

As for what you should and shouldn't mention, I just want the lines of argument defined. If you said that the vacuum systems might stop you from surviving other aspects of the lunar environment, you'd have to consider ways to survive vacuum AND those other aspects. By arguing from aesthetics, you get to sit back and just throw stones without thinking. See why I find the argument suspect?

So your modifications would not really allow you to explore the solar system, it would merely allow you to survive some particular situation on some part of the solar system.

Correct. We're currently suited for a narrow band of climates that look more or less like southern California. The adaptations for Ganymede are probably going to suit us pretty much for Ganymede. The adaptations for Mars will suit us for Mars. The adaptations for space will suit us for space.

You list what, not how. It may be that the changes you list might allow us to have limited survival capabilities in a vacuum if there were ever a way to achieve them, but at what cost.

I dunno. What cost? Besides your ability to survive planetbound without a planet suit, there doesn't seem to be any real cost. Resources?

It seems an entirely practical consideration to me.

It would be - if it were in context of the previous discussion. You said that there was no way to survive in a vacuum. I list a way. You talk about sex. See the irrationality? Now if you mentioned trade offs, I'd happily agree there are some. Certainly sex would be different for space adapted - but that doesn't mean it would be any less sex, and it certainly doesn't mean a lack of feeling, satisfaction, or bonding that sex brings. It probably does imply a lack of pregnancy, since I see no practical way to do that, but that falls under the meh category - with lifespans in the hundreds of years, that's all for the better.

Even a system that derives it's power from UV radiation needs to protect itself from UV radiation.

The derivation is the protection. UV radiation is light - solar panels are not damaged by it, no matter the intensity (until it becomes intense enough to cause overheating, its own issue).

This is another consideration for the modifications that would allow us to survive 5-10 minutes on the Moon while the repair crew (apparently sensibly wearing space suits) fixed the problem.

Or we fixed the problem with the 5-10 minutes. It probably depends on intensity. I doubt we would fully vacuum adapt on the lunar surface, but certainly precautions would be in order.

If you can name me one, even one piece of Star Trek technology I have posited then I will agree. If you can't then I am pretty much afraid that the charge fall squarely back on your face.

You posited direct control of robotic explorers from Earth. This requires superluminal communication. You posited surfing one day, exploring Io the next. That's merely near-c travel, I guess. In either case, it's Star Trek technology. We can't control jack on Io from Earth, we can't be on Io tomorrow if we're on earth today. You didn't think through the implications of your objections, because your objections (like many against transhumanism) are not rational.

 

[Prometheus]

But that's what a recursively self-improving AI can do. Remember the theory that giraffes had long necks because they wanted long necks and therefore their offspring's necks got longer? Recursively self-improving AIs actually do that. Only their generations pass in eyeblinks.

How intelligent do you think these self-improving AI's will have to get before they realize that deliberately creating their succeeding generations to be vastly superior to their own will bring about their own extinction? Since any running AI program is potentially immortal, they should eventually realize that recursive self-improvement is not in their own interest.

 

[Robin]

I'm perfectly sure they aren't. They're sending out dumb drones with video cameras. That's nice for mapping, not so useful for things like metal extraction and construction of solar plants.

If you want to do any serious exploration or work, you're going to need to be doing it without the time lag. The time lag is impossible to get around if you're on earth, and will quickly render anything you do laughable. There's just no way to adapt to a time lag that bad.

Nothing dumb about the drones being sent out. As you point out the time lag makes dumb drones impossible - you need pretty damn smart drones. I am pretty sure that the ability to extract metals or construct solar plants is a matter of cost rather than technical advance.

Time lag is no problem, you just give the robot fine control, and retain coarse grain control for yourself.

As for what you should and shouldn't mention, I just want the lines of argument defined. If you said that the vacuum systems might stop you from surviving other aspects of the lunar environment, you'd have to consider ways to survive vacuum AND those other aspects. By arguing from aesthetics, you get to sit back and just throw stones without thinking. See why I find the argument suspect?

No, as I said it seemed like a pretty practical consideration rather than an aesthetic quibble. And don't forget you introduced emotionalism right from the start "disgusting meat shell" remember?

Correct. We're currently suited for a narrow band of climates that look more or less like southern California. The adaptations for Ganymede are probably going to suit us pretty much for Ganymede. The adaptations for Mars will suit us for Mars. The adaptations for space will suit us for space.

So in other words your technique will not allow us to, as you suggest, explore the solar system.

I dunno. What cost? Besides your ability to survive planetbound without a planet suit, there doesn't seem to be any real cost. Resources?

Again, if you regard the inability to enjoy sex as a mere aesthetic quibble then I suppose you only have to worry about the millions of dollars the modifications themselves will cost.

It would be - if it were in context of the previous discussion. You said that there was no way to survive in a vacuum. I list a way. You talk about sex. See the irrationality?

I said there was no way to adapt the human body to survive in a vacuum long term, I am pretty sure that is still true. But I merely mentioned that it would preclude you from the other things you claimed would be possible with this technology.

Now if you mentioned trade offs, I'd happily agree there are some. Certainly sex would be different for space adapted - but that doesn't mean it would be any less sex, and it certainly doesn't mean a lack of feeling, satisfaction, or bonding that sex brings.

Really - with a hard shell capable of resisting a vacuum and unfiltered UV we would still gain the same satisfaction and feeling that we get with our current sensitive skin? I don't think so.

You posited direct control of robotic explorers from Earth. This requires superluminal communication. You posited surfing one day, exploring Io the next. That's merely near-c travel, I guess. In either case, it's Star Trek technology. We can't control jack on Io from Earth, we can't be on Io tomorrow if we're on earth today. You didn't think through the implications of your objections, because your objections (like many against transhumanism) are not rational.

I don't recall positing direct control of robotic explorers from Earth. If you could have direct control they wouldn't have to be robotic, would they?

The whole idea of them being robotic is that they are self sufficient and you can get them to do particular tasks as needed. All perfectly feasible using existing technology.

 

[AWPrime]

But a person of below average intelligence today is much better off than a person of below average intelligence before the industrial revolution.

Wellfare isn't going to be there forever.

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.

The typists usually had other skills. And there are other factors:
- Unemployment numbers are a joke.
- Many people are doing jobs that are more suitable for robots.

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.

And why do we need FTL? -> Because we have very limited amount of time. If we could hibernate without aging/weakening we could send people to other solar systems. And even if we do invent an FTL drive then we still can't say for sure that normal humans can use it and survive.

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

But habitats is just short term thinking, they will suffer equipment failure after a while. You would only be able to sent a limited amount of people and equipment, and the limited equipment also limits the amount of safety. If people can survive unprotected even for an few hours, the amount of deaths from equipment failure should be very low.

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

Well I wouldn't go for a full conversion, an amphibious form should do the trick, although they will be outperformed by humans when on land.

Do you have a way of calculating the comparative cost of genetic modification as compared with failsafe systems?

The costs of fail-systems rise exponentially with the reduced risk and the costs never stop. And costs could rise when the habitat ages. However genetic modification should be a one-time thing of an unknown cost and stay good forever.

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.

At their own risk.

 

[Robin]

Wellfare isn't going to be there forever.

I wasn't talking about welfare, I was talking about employment.

The typists usually had other skills.

Not as far as I am aware

And there are other factors:
- Unemployment numbers are a joke.
- Many people are doing jobs that are more suitable for robots.

There is certainly quite a lot that unemployment numbers hide, but we are still better off than before the industrial revolution

And why do we need FTL? -> Because we have very limited amount of time. If we could hibernate without aging/weakening we could send people to other solar systems. And even if we do invent an FTL drive then we still can't say for sure that normal humans can use it and survive.

That is fair enough.

But habitats is just short term thinking, they will suffer equipment failure after a while. You would only be able to sent a limited amount of people and equipment, and the limited equipment also limits the amount of safety. If people can survive unprotected even for an few hours, the amount of deaths from equipment failure should be very low.

Perhaps.

Well I wouldn't go for a full conversion, an amphibious form should do the trick, although they will be outperformed by humans when on land.

I would go for the amphibian conversion - definitely.

The costs of fail-systems rise exponentially with the reduced risk and the costs never stop. And costs could rise when the habitat ages. However genetic modification should be a one-time thing of an unknown cost and stay good forever.

Well our bodies have a maintentance cost too. That would require medical professionals specialising in the modified bodies. And I still say that whatever the modifications, habitats would still be necessary. I don't buy that even a solar-powered Selenite super tortoise would survive a really harsh environment long.

 

[AWPrime]

There is certainly quite a lot that unemployment numbers hide, but we are still better off than before the industrial revolution

Thats then mostly medical technology and forms of welfare. But before the industrial revolution low educated people were more needed then today (providing that they hadn't any medical problems).

Well our bodies have a maintentance cost too. That would require medical professionals specialising in the modified bodies.

True, but the goal is of course to make the amount of maintenance equal or less.

And I still say that whatever the modifications, habitats would still be necessary.

I fully agree, I just think it would be best (cost and safety wise) to modify our environment and ourselves. Using just one is likely to be very expensive and/or unpractical.

 

[Big Les]

- Enhanced night vision and/or extending my visual response into the infrared.

Pervert

My problem with this idea is that the human body is about our only universal point of reference, the one thing we all have that guides our thoughts and feelings regardless of cultural background, age (and to an extent sex), etc. It is a big part of what makes us human.

Get rid of that level of homogeneity of design (especially if not everyone can afford it) and you've effectively created one or more new non-human races. This could be a good or bad thing, but I'm a big fan of continuity and commonality, so I think it will be more bad than good.

We already have so many differences between sentient beings that cause conflict, resentment and other problems. Why create more?

Further, for me, and many others, 70+ years and (ever diminishing) some health problems are enough. We're happy enough with what we have as regards our bodies, thanks. Do what you like, but even if the tech becomes available, I have serious doubts that a majority of humanity will embrace it barring some catastrophe that makes premature death the only alternative.

I also have a less rational objection to do with rather enjoying being a part of Earth's ecology and a product of evolution. I just don't like the idea of cutting all ties and having no more affinity with the rest of the natural world.

Finally, the arrogance on display here about this issue turns me off it even more. If dismissiveness and certainty that you're in the right are going to be cornerstones of these new cyborg races you dream about, I want no part of them. I actually feel bad for one or two of you who are raving about the idea of advanced body modification, because you won't likely won't live to see most of changes you're talking about (assuming for even a moment that any of them are inevitable).

 

[AWPrime]

Pervert

My problem with this idea is that the human body is about our only universal point of reference, the one thing we all have that guides our thoughts and feelings regardless of cultural background, age (and to an extent sex), etc. It is a big part of what makes us human.

Get rid of that level of homogeneity of design (especially if not everyone can afford it) and you've effectively created one or more new non-human races. This could be a good or bad thing, but I'm a big fan of continuity and commonality, so I think it will be more bad than good.

I think that culture/religion/language is a bigger divider than DNA. So if we keep those thing equal then people should be able to work it out.

But if the design went really far from the basic. Then they would largely need to live in different environments, reducing chances for conflict.

 

[Big Les]

I see religious and political differences more as a dividing wall that can be dismantled in whole or in part, between people who are (on the whole) fundamentally the same, or at least similar enough to stand a damn good chance of getting along most of the time. If one side are biologically human, and the other not so much, then the scope for agreement becomes narrower. I'm not saying it couldn't be done (as I would hope we could reach understandings with intelligent alien life forms if we ever encountered them), just that it seems counterproductive to erect artificial barriers even as we work to erode the more organically (excuse the pun) arrived-at ones.

 

[ronananderson]

Get rid of bi-pedaled locomotion all together, its so passe.What we need are caterpillar tracks.As for this 'brain-peel', the idea of putting our conciousness inside a computer, it has some merits for creating heaven and hell, but seriously was it all dreamt up by some nerd masturbating to Laura Croft?

 

[Mister Earl]

Diversity builds strength, Big Les. For the most part, what you've described here is pretty much inevitable as soon as our species begins settling other worlds. Genetic drift will eventually cause whole populations to drift away, and similarities will all but vanish.

 

[Mister Earl]

Get rid of bi-pedaled locomotion all together, its so passe.What we need are caterpillar tracks.As for this 'brain-peel', the idea of putting our conciousness inside a computer, it has some merits for creating heaven and hell, but seriously was it all dreamt up by some nerd masturbating to Laura Croft?

Why all the immature nerd-bashing, Ron? Hurt feelings somewhere? Did a Nerd sideswipe your Pinto with his Corvette?

 

[GreyICE]

Nothing dumb about the drones being sent out. As you point out the time lag makes dumb drones impossible - you need pretty damn smart drones. I am pretty sure that the ability to extract metals or construct solar plants is a matter of cost rather than technical advance.

Ahahahaha. Let me pause for a second. You see, I'm an engineer. And every time someone says something that has never been before is just a matter of money, I say they're crazy. If you don't have humans overseeing things, and I'm not talking from the butt end of a gravity well, things will go very, very wrong. Hell, we can't land a robot on a frikkin red rock without problems.

Time lag is no problem, you just give the robot fine control, and retain coarse grain control for yourself.

The problem is robots react badly to unexpected situations. They tend to act stupid. Time lag makes us stupid. That means any time something unexpected happens, the results will be stupid. Stupid, in space, is dead.

No, as I said it seemed like a pretty practical consideration rather than an aesthetic quibble. And don't forget you introduced emotionalism right from the start "disgusting meat shell" remember?

Nope, don't remember typing that. I rather imagine it's because I didn't.

So in other words your technique will not allow us to, as you suggest, explore the solar system.

Mars is now not part of the solar system...

Again, if you regard the inability to enjoy sex as a mere aesthetic quibble then I suppose you only have to worry about the millions of dollars the modifications themselves will cost.

I don't see how you'd be unable to enjoy sex. Unable to have sex like we do on earth, perhaps, but space suits rather get in the way of that too.

I said there was no way to adapt the human body to survive in a vacuum long term, I am pretty sure that is still true. But I merely mentioned that it would preclude you from the other things you claimed would be possible with this technology.

You mean we can't do everything at once? Wow. I think you're either misunderstanding, or deliberately strawmanning. We can adapt ourselves for an environment. We cannot adapt ourselves for every environment without post-human technology.

Really - with a hard shell capable of resisting a vacuum and unfiltered UV we would still gain the same satisfaction and feeling that we get with our current sensitive skin? I don't think so.

Yup! It turns out that feelings are (gasp) all in our head. Control the inputs, and you control the output. Since we're designing the inputs, it wouldn't even rank in the top 10 technical challenges.

I don't recall positing direct control of robotic explorers from Earth. If you could have direct control they wouldn't have to be robotic, would they?

Well you tell it to go forward, it spins the wheels. That's the level our current robots are operating on. More complex automation requires much more complex AIs, and still tends to do stupid stuff. But hey, jump start the singularity, then let it do all that.

The whole idea of them being robotic is that they are self sufficient and you can get them to do particular tasks as needed. All perfectly feasible using existing technology.

So Robots populate the solar system, we sit on earth and get fat, dumb and happy? And you wonder why I'm a transhumanist - that's the future I don't want.

 

[Beerina]

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.

Does this hold up as an actual observation? It's clear from higher unemployment rates in Europe that government policy with respect to the economy can have a much greater impact. Given the US's been running at close to full employment for decades, minus a year here or there in recession, I think no such thing as you describe will happen.

And the greatest unemployment of "lower educated" happens in third world countries, where the govenment policy is half anarchy and half kleptocracy, including kickbacks to officials at all levels.


Efficiencies the "educated" wring out in increasing productivity turn into increased quality of lifestyle for the population, which figures out something else to work on. The societies best at this (the US) have the lowest unemployment, not the highest, or even the middle-ist.

 

[AWPrime]

Efficiencies the "educated" wring out in increasing productivity turn into increased quality of lifestyle for the population, which figures out something else to work on.

And this something else is always useful or just an extra consumption of resources to keep them occupied?

What really happens with increased productivity is that there is less demand for labor and more for brainpower. More brainpower then normally available, which leads to the first world countries to brain drain other countries. Not really a long term solution.

The societies best at this (the US) have the lowest unemployment, not the highest, or even the middle-ist.

The unemployment stats are a joke.