Is Transhumanity Inevitable?

[Beavis]

So, I was listening to the always incredible soundtrack to Deus Ex: Human Revolution and I started wondering about the inevitability of the man-machine merger. I've always taken it as an article of faith. Since Homo Habilis, hominids have been technological species. Homo sapiens sapiens dominance of the globe is inextricable from our mastery of technology. But, is the final step towards becoming a true machine race a foregone conclusion?

[Deleted]

To a certain degree, I'd advocate saying yes. I don't think we'll see weapons-grade armaments but things to prolong human lives we most certainly will see.

[Airlick]

Was thinking about it myself. And well, it's already happening, though we are only making the first steps. As long as people consider themselves human, I see no problem about it.

[Elegiac]

I would say yes; the beginnings of it are already in place with things like cochlear implants, artificial hearts, replacement joints....mechanical parts are not only more resilient in theory, they are -much- easier to replace. I would hazard we develop artificial organs like kidneys, lungs, etc. as effective as the originals before we develop a way to grow replacement organs. In time, the replacement of broken parts might become preemptive.

More troublesome than the possibility of human cyborgs is the social implications of it; those with means will most likely purchase upgrades, while those without will remain mostly organic.

[Deleted]

This has already started to some degree with pacemakers and computer controlled artificial limbs, there has also been an artificial eye developed so help blind people see again. But i suppose what you're asking is will there be a "breast enhancement" version, a mechanical body mod done for cosmetic/physical advantage purposes and all i can say is, almost definitely.

I don't think there will ever be a time when the human race completely become cyborgs, as there will always be people, most likely in the majority, that are either against it and will bore everyone to tears talking about how jesus never intended us to live this way, or people that plain don't care and won't have any mods done.

[RüneRS]

Its already happening, plastic hips for older people, peacemakers, they can change the lens of your eye, metal plates around your bones after fracture, ...
Those are all just baby steps, but I'm sure they can already replace some organs

computer chips in your brain, there not so far from that either

edit: well I just got beaten by about everyone in this thread

[Beavis]

I would say yes; the beginnings of it are already in place with things like cochlear implants, artificial hearts, replacement joints....mechanical parts are not only more resilient in theory, they are -much- easier to replace. I would hazard we develop artificial organs like kidneys, lungs, etc. as effective as the originals before we develop a way to grow replacement organs. In time, the replacement of broken parts might become preemptive.

More troublesome than the possibility of human cyborgs is the social implications of it; those with means will most likely purchase upgrades, while those without will remain mostly organic.

Yeah, this is a really interesting wrinkle. Between cybernetics and genetic engineering, the groundwork for a genuinely superior upper class is definitely there. Scary stuff.

[Elegiac]

Yeah, this is a really interesting wrinkle. Between cybernetics and genetic engineering, the groundwork for a genuinely superior upper class is definitely there. Scary stuff.

Hence the need for government regulation. Such improvements need to be regarded as -social- benefits rather than personal ones.

[dwarven]

I don't think so. More than likely, we'll simply grow body parts from cells taken from our bodies. More efficient, more effective, and probably a lot cheaper.

[Beavis]

Hence the need for government regulation. Such improvements need to be regarded as -social- benefits rather than personal ones.

I wonder if that is a possibility in some societies. In the US, we can't even agree on the ethics of the social safety net. Can you imagine the fighting over giving poor people the necessary enhancements to keep everybody on a level playing field?

[AeneasBK]

Hence the need for government regulation. Such improvements need to be regarded as -social- benefits rather than personal ones.

Why? If its the next step in 'evolution' isn't it natural for the more advanced species to prevail over the lesser one?

[Elegiac]

I don't think so. More than likely, we'll simply grow body parts from cells taken from our bodies. More efficient, more effective, and probably a lot cheaper.

I disagree. The cost of building an artificial heart versus growing an organic one is probably exponentially lower. Also, as I said we will probably invent more effective artificial hearts before we discover cost effective ways of creating organic replacements.

[Beavis]

I don't think so. More than likely, we'll simply grow body parts from cells taken from our bodies. More efficient, more effective, and probably a lot cheaper.

Biology is weak and finite. Machine capacity is theoretically unlimited.

[Elegiac]

Why? If its the next step in 'evolution' isn't it natural for the more advanced species to prevail over the lesser one?

Because we live in a civilized society where things like ethics come into play. The line of thinking you are proposing is dangerous.

---------- Post added 2012-10-07 at 04:22 AM ----------

I wonder if that is a possibility in some societies. In the US, we can't even agree on the ethics of the social safety net. Can you imagine the fighting over giving poor people the necessary enhancements to keep everybody on a level playing field?

It may change eventually. But yes, the social mindset in Old World societies tend to be more suited for these sorts of regulations.

[dwarven]

Biology is weak and finite. Machine capacity is theoretically unlimited.

You definitely have that backwards.

---------- Post added 2012-10-07 at 04:28 AM ----------

I disagree. The cost of building an artificial heart versus growing an organic one is probably exponentially lower. Also, as I said we will probably invent more effective artificial hearts before we discover cost effective ways of creating organic replacements.

An organic heart will be better, no matter what. Once the costs become the same, people will always opt for the organic replacement.

[Elegiac]

You definitely have that backwards.

False. In fact, many parts of the human machine are very poorly constructed - our eyes, for instance, and our lower extremities. The only reason we can function is because our bodies evolved to cope with the dysfunctions at the same time.

An organic heart will be better, no matter what. Once the costs become the same, people will always opt for the organic replacement.

Artificial hearts don't succumb to things like arrythmia or arrest.

[Beavis]

You definitely have that backwards.

Really? The Google self-driving car has driven 300,000 miles without an accident. I doubt there is a human being on this planet that can boast that kind of performance.

Within our lifetimes, desktop computers will have the processing power of the entire human race. 1000 generations from now, our earliest space craft will still be plying the stars while our weak flesh rots in wormy earth.

The fusion of biology and technology represents the end of evolution.

[Elegiac]

Really? The Google self-driving car has driven 300,000 miles without an accident. I doubt there is a human being on this planet that can boast that kind of performance.

Within our lifetimes, desktop computers will have the processing power of the entire human race. 1000 generations from now, our earliest space craft will still be plying the stars while our weak flesh rots in wormy earth.

The fusion of biology and technology represents the end of evolution.

I would say the end of natural selection and the beginning of artifical selection, where organisms choose traits based on their environment rather than those that happen to develop x trait being selected.

[Beavis]

I would say the end of natural selection and the beginning of artifical selection, where organisms choose traits based on their environment rather than those that happen to develop x trait being selected.

Yeah, that's definitely true. The end of natural selection would've been a better choice of words. Evolution will still occur, but it will be directed by consciousness rather than happenstance.

[Elegiac]

Yeah, that's definitely true. The end of natural selection would've been a better choice of words. Evolution will still occur, but it will be directed by consciousness rather than happenstance.

But then we encounter the ship of theseus problem; if we replace all our parts, are we still fundamentally human?