CDZ Should Transhumans Have Equal Rights?

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Sep 25, 2011
63,590
16,756
2,220
Some say we are already infringing on the fine limits of what Homo Sapien is with our mechanical devices attached to our bodies like pace makers and automated insulin injectors, etc. We have already achieved a certain level of day to day cyborg status among our populations, but Transhumanism would go far beyond that.

Transhumanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Transhumanist philosophers[who?] argue that there not only exists a perfectionist ethical imperative for humans to strive for progress and improvement of the human condition, but that it is possible and desirable for humanity to enter a transhuman phase of existence in which humans enhance themselves beyond what is naturally human. In such a phase, natural evolution would be replaced with deliberate participatory or directed evolution.

Some theorists such as Raymond Kurzweil think that the pace of technological innovation is accelerating and that the next 50 years may yield not only radical technological advances, but possibly a technological singularity, which may fundamentally change the nature of human beings.[62] Transhumanists who foresee this massive technological change generally maintain that it is desirable. However, some are also concerned with the possible dangers of extremely rapid technological change and propose options for ensuring that advanced technology is used responsibly. For example, Bostrom has written extensively on existential risks to humanity's future welfare, including ones that could be created by emerging technologies.

Humans 'will become God-like cyborgs within 200 years'

Wealthy humans are likely become cyborgs within 200 years as they gradually merge with technology like computers and smart phones, a historian has claimed.

Yuval Noah Harari, a professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said the amalgamation of man and machine will be the ‘biggest evolution in biology’ since the emergence of life four billion years ago.

Prof Harari, who has written a landmark book charting the history of humanity, said mankind would evolve to become like gods with the power over death, and be as different from humans of today as we are from chimpanzees.

Should these Transhumans have the same rights as normal natural Homo Sapiens, or is their an indemic threat with effectively two species living side-by-side in a democratic process where the Transhumans can manipulate the technology to their advantage over the rest of us?

 
If a transhuman tries to pee near next to my daughter, im going to rip him a new transarse with my 44 magnum.
 
Should these Transhumans have the same rights as normal natural Homo Sapiens, or is their an indemic threat with effectively two species living side-by-side in a democratic process where the Transhumans can manipulate the technology to their advantage over the rest of us?

Just on the face of what you've shared in your OP, I think that transhumans should have the same rights as everyone else, but more authority over how things get done. It'd seem to me to make sense for everyone to become a transhuman, but I'm not of a mind to force folks who don't want to do so to do so. So long as the folks who opt not to become transhuman don't also bitch and moan about having made that choice, I am fine with their making that choice.
 
Should these Transhumans have the same rights as normal natural Homo Sapiens, or is their an indemic threat with effectively two species living side-by-side in a democratic process where the Transhumans can manipulate the technology to their advantage over the rest of us?

Just on the face of what you've shared in your OP, I think that transhumans should have the same rights as everyone else, but more authority over how things get done. It'd seem to me to make sense for everyone to become a transhuman, but I'm not of a mind to force folks who don't want to do so to do so. So long as the folks who opt not to become transhuman don't also bitch and moan about having made that choice, I am fine with their making that choice.

But what about those who want to become transhuman but cannot afford to? Do they have a right to become transhuman?

A nd is this not a new species? What other non Homo Sapien shall we give rights to?
 
But what about those who want to become transhuman but cannot afford to? Do they have a right to become transhuman?

A nd is this not a new species? What other non Homo Sapien shall we give rights to?

Red:
What about them? What do people who want things they cannot afford do now? They save up until they can afford them or the borrow money to afford them. Why should I think, based on what you've shared in the OP that either of those same two approaches is implausible?

Blue:
Sure they do/should...as soon as they have whatever they need to have in order to do so.

Pink:
I don't know and I'm not convinced that they would or would not be a new species.

Green:
Any other one that demonstrates cognitive comparability to or superiority to homo sapiens.
 
Should these Transhumans have the same rights as normal natural Homo Sapiens, or is their an indemic threat with effectively two species living side-by-side in a democratic process where the Transhumans can manipulate the technology to their advantage over the rest of us?

Just on the face of what you've shared in your OP, I think that transhumans should have the same rights as everyone else, but more authority over how things get done. It'd seem to me to make sense for everyone to become a transhuman, but I'm not of a mind to force folks who don't want to do so to do so. So long as the folks who opt not to become transhuman don't also bitch and moan about having made that choice, I am fine with their making that choice.
I mean this is probably a far off topic that we won't be around to debate, but I'd hazard to say that, in the far future...100% of the human population will be "transhuman", so such a debate is relatively meaningless. I mean think about how we have things in our modern society today...how many people in America do you know that aren't vaccinated? How many people don't get antibiotics when they are sick? I'd assume that anything so greatly beneficial as increasing intellectual capacity or helping our physical recovery factor (regrowing new limbs anyone?) will, in the long run, be common place and affordable to most people...like our basic education system and modern medicine is available to our entire American population.

Now, when we have that transition period where only a select few people can afford these things there may be a bit of a fuss. In that transition period I'd also advocate for equal rights. I mean do we really live in a society that wants to tear down people that can afford to better themselves simply because others may not be able to? Doesn't sound like America in my mind.
 
But what about those who want to become transhuman but cannot afford to? Do they have a right to become transhuman?

A nd is this not a new species? What other non Homo Sapien shall we give rights to?

Red:
What about them? What do people who want things they cannot afford do now? They save up until they can afford them or the borrow money to afford them. Why should I think, based on what you've shared in the OP that either of those same two approaches is implausible?

Blue:
Sure they do/should...as soon as they have whatever they need to have in order to do so.

Pink:
I don't know and I'm not convinced that they would or would not be a new species.

Green:
Any other one that demonstrates cognitive comparability to or superiority to homo sapiens.

So we would then have a further huge gap in the difference between the wealthy who could afford such treatments (doubt insurance will pay for it) and those who cannot.

So wealth will trump even lines between cognitive species; what then of our common humanity that would bind us all together?

Seems it would be irreparably damaged.

I think we need to either suppress trans-humanism and channel it into universal treatments regarding health or make all of it universal, paid for out of the national health care financial system.
 
I think we need to either suppress trans-humanism and channel it into universal treatments regarding health or make all of it universal, paid for out of the national health care financial system.


I'm fine with either of those approaches.


OK, can I give you my preference and then you can tell me why I'm wrong? :)

I think that extended life span and the treatment of the effects of aging should be universal IF the person wants that treatment. From that point, we are only talking about a time factor until other needful technologies can be implemented that a person wants as time and funding permit.

It seems to me we are on the cusp of a Technological Utopia and everyone should be allowed to fully engage in that future unless they disqualify themselves through criminal behavior.
 
selves
If a transhuman tries to pee near next to my daughter, im going to rip him a new transarse with my 44 magnum.

DogIdentifiesCat_zpsbfvr5vev.jpg
 
'Rights' are ours to attribute as we like. 'Rights' are ours to use when we can exercise them.
We can say trees have rights, but we may wait a long time to see them use those 'rights'.
Whatever a 'transhuman' may be, we have to wait to see what we want to allow 'them'. It may be necessary for 'them' to ask, first.
 
I think we need to either suppress trans-humanism and channel it into universal treatments regarding health or make all of it universal, paid for out of the national health care financial system.


I'm fine with either of those approaches.


OK, can I give you my preference and then you can tell me why I'm wrong? :)

I think that extended life span and the treatment of the effects of aging should be universal IF the person wants that treatment. From that point, we are only talking about a time factor until other needful technologies can be implemented that a person wants as time and funding permit.

It seems to me we are on the cusp of a Technological Utopia and everyone should be allowed to fully engage in that future unless they disqualify themselves through criminal behavior.

Red:
I guess you'll be disappointed with my reply here.

I don't see something wrong with that approach. I already told you I am fine with either of the two options you earlier offered. That you prefer one of them over the other isn't going to change the fact that I'm fine with both. You like and would advocate for the "universal" approach. Great. Let's go with that one.

I'm one who, being presented with two options, both of which I find acceptable, is quite content to flip a coin to choose one, or let others who do have a preference choose.
 

Forum List

Back
Top