Limitations in epigenetic transhumanism

Author: Analgesic.Spectre ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 16
  • Analgesic.Spectre
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 474
    1
    1
    5
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Analgesic.Spectre
    In the sense of transforming humans to escape their evolutionary instinctual limitations (which lead/leads to things like a violence, material greed, hunger, sexual desire, desire to dominate and desire for fame), would merely epigenetics allow humans to free themselves from these restrictions, or would perhaps an infusion robotics (likely physically altering the brain, thus not epigenetic and gravitating towards a "post human" label) be preferable, or perhaps none of this is possible?

    If we were to free ourselves of such limitations, would our I.Qs increase (since they no longer have to account for non-cerebral instincts), or perhaps they would decrease (due to decreased complexity in the human psyche, therefore not requiring a brain capable of unravelling such complexity)?

    Perhaps there would be striking physical differences to human's outward appearance.

    Is it possible that the adolescent ideal of 'everyone just getting along' is a possibility, just one that requires, at the least, tweaking humans.

    Telically, are epigenetics capable of instigating a radical transformation of the human essence? 

    What do you think?

  • Varrack
    Varrack avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 44
    0
    0
    5
    Varrack avatar
    Varrack
    --> @Analgesic.Spectre
    I challenge the premise that the above desires are limitations.. We need those desires in order to keep surviving as a species; otherwise, we would die out quickly. To "escape" those needs, we'd have to eliminate why we have them to begin with -- which would require overcoming mortality. Until we can do that, there's no way we're getting rid of those carnal desires anytime soon.
  • Analgesic.Spectre
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 474
    1
    1
    5
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Analgesic.Spectre
    --> @Varrack
    I challenge the premise that the above desires are limitations.. We need those desires in order to keep surviving as a species; otherwise, we would die out quickly. To "escape" those needs, we'd have to eliminate why we have them to begin with -- which would require overcoming mortality. Until we can do that, there's no way we're getting rid of those carnal desires anytime soon.
    This is can is-ought fallacy. You're assuming that we need to engage in these things to survive purely because we currently do, whilst the OP talks about removing said needs in the future. Hence, your definition of "mortality" is fallaciously rigid.

    Specifically addressing the idea that these desires are limitations, would we not be more free if we were able to forgo hunger, in order to survive? Regardless of whether it is a necessary limitation, it is a limitation nonetheless.
  • Varrack
    Varrack avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 44
    0
    0
    5
    Varrack avatar
    Varrack
    --> @Analgesic.Spectre
    This is can is-ought fallacy. You're assuming that we need to engage in these things to survive purely because we currently do, whilst the OP talks about removing said needs in the future. Hence, your definition of "mortality" is fallaciously rigid.
    Right...explain to me how we carry on the species without sex? How we obtain energy throughout the day without food? You haven't demonstrated a reason to eliminate these needs whilst keep our species alive.

    Specifically addressing the idea that these desires are limitations, would we not be more free if we were able to forgo hunger, in order to survive? Regardless of whether it is a necessary limitation, it is a limitation nonetheless.
    No. We survive just fine with hunger -- I'm not sure why you view as so limiting that we need to eliminate it for the arbitrary goal of being "free". Why don't we take it a step further and eliminate the need to have clothes on? To live under a roof? To breathe oxygen? Why does limitation necessitate eradication of said limitation?

    I'm not sure how assuming limitations shouldn't exist because they do isn't an is-ought fallacy itself...
  • Analgesic.Spectre
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 474
    1
    1
    5
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Analgesic.Spectre
    --> @Varrack
    Right...explain to me how we carry on the species without sex? How we obtain energy throughout the day without food?
    Asexual reproduction is a possibility, although I'm doubtful this could be obtained through epigenetics (given the genetic distance between our sexually dimorphic species, and asexual reproduction). Perhaps drastic change in human biology, accelerated by robotics and medical marvels, could make this a distant possibility.

    Depending on your definition of food, perhaps humans could develop photosynthesis, wherein we do not require a traditional meal. Perhaps we could evolve the process and merely require sunlight as energy. Perhaps we could re-organise our bodies to produce energy without any food.

    You haven't demonstrated a reason to eliminate these needs whilst keep our species alive.
    They're inefficient, as opposed to not needing them. This is a profoundly basic concept -- I'm not sure you understand the ramifications of this thread. We're dealing with idealistic futuristic proposals.

    No. We survive just fine with hunger -- I'm not sure why you view as so limiting that we need to eliminate it for the arbitrary goal of being "free". 
    You continuously misunderstand the incredibly basic concept: not needing to do something is better than having to do something.

    Why don't we take it a step further and eliminate the need to have clothes on? To live under a roof? To breathe oxygen?
    These are great ideas.

    I'm not sure how I'm committing the is-ought fallacy
    Clearly.
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,178
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    You continuously misunderstand the incredibly basic concept: not needing to do something is better than having to do something.

    This is just untrue as an axiom. Humans are in a sense, beasts of burden. Meaning and purpose is found most often in the undertaking of responsibility. Needing to do that isn't worse than not needing to. Especially when such a need provides huge benefits, and not doing so tends to reap many harms 🤔. 

    And I would say this need is more a result of higher intelligence and conscious individuation. To remove these benefits, you would have to revert humanities intelligence. Really, the same goes for morality, a sense of right and wrong comes with consciousness and individuation. In essence, seperation of our actions from nature. Again, reversion to pre-individuation total ignorance of the self would be required fmpov 🤔
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,178
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    This just strikes me as having a bit of a "god" complex 🤔, wanting to tool around with things we arent even anywhere close to understanding fully
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,178
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    We arent detached from nature ultimately, although morality requires us to seperate ourselves from it for purposes of moral judgement. For example, the "nuclear family" developed over time as the best way to raise kids to optimize potential success in adulthood. Recent cultural pushes to glorify single parenting and change that order has resulted in kids suffering very detrimental affects. The same goes for this "gender theory" stuff that's based off a study that amounts to child abuse by John Money, or "toxic masculinity". Well, now testerone levels are dropping across the board, males are getting less intelligent, and checking out on a mass scale(suicide rates, employment etc). 

    All from an opinion that aggressive and dominant male tendencies are "toxic" and "unnecessary" as opposed to something to be embraced and constructively channeled for noble purposes. No instead lets just put em on meds and watch as they're fucked up later on in life. Certainly none of the aforementioned could have anything to do with that 🤔


  • Analgesic.Spectre
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 474
    1
    1
    5
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Analgesic.Spectre
    --> @Buddamoose
    This is just untrue as an axiom. Humans are in a sense, beasts of burden. Meaning and purpose is found most often in the undertaking of responsibility. Needing to do that isn't worse than not needing to. Especially when such a need provides huge benefits, and not doing so tends to reap many harms
    This is circular reasoning.

    And I would say this need is more a result of higher intelligence and conscious individuation. To remove these benefits, you would have to revert humanities intelligence. Really, the same goes for morality, a sense of right and wrong comes with consciousness and individuation. In essence, seperation of our actions from nature. Again, reversion to pre-individuation total ignorance of the self would be required fmpov
    I don't see why this has to be the case. Consider the fact that 100 years ago, the conception of the internet was unfathomable. Education required memorisation of facts. Nowadays, we have all the facts at our fingertips, and this has radically transformed education. Imagine where technology will be in 100 years, let alone 1000 -- it's incredibly hard to predict.

    This just strikes me as having a bit of a "god" complex, wanting to tool around with things we arent even anywhere close to understanding fully
    You may pathologise me if you wish, but re-engineering humanity would likely accelerate human progress. Sure, we *currently* haven't the sufficient understanding to implement radical changes, but it remains an expedient cause.

    For example, the "nuclear family" developed over time as the best way to raise kids to optimize potential success in adulthood.
    This is woefully incorrect, but I won't derail the thread with digression.

    Recent cultural pushes to glorify single parenting and change that order has resulted in kids suffering very detrimental affects. The same goes for this "gender theory" stuff that's based off a study that amounts to child abuse by John Money, or "toxic masculinity". Well, now testerone levels are dropping across the board, males are getting less intelligent, and checking out on a mass scale(suicide rates, employment etc). 
    Currently, sure, we are not detached from nature. However, this thread is about future predictions.

    All from an opinion that aggressive and dominant male tendencies are "toxic" and "unnecessary" as opposed to something to be embraced and constructively channeled for noble purposes. No instead lets just put em on meds and watch as they're fucked up later on in life. Certainly none of the aforementioned could have anything to do with that
    Here's an interesting thought: if you could remove these male tendencies, like re-engineer males, would it not make society a better place? Is it desirable to have creatures hell-bent on competing with each other? Would not collaboration be preferable?

  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,178
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    --> @Analgesic.Spectre
     Is it desirable to have creatures hell-bent on competing with each other? Would not collaboration be preferable?
    Both have their benefits, and both have their negatives. Competition breeds excellence, cooperation breeds togetherness. You see this encapsulated perfectly in team sports, where cooperation and competition are intertwined. 

    And no, it wouldn't. Society wouldn't be some place where violence ever occurs either. Females are aggressive in their own way, generally it tends to be passive aggressiveness. But interestingly enough, the coupling with the highest rates of domestic abuse? Lesbian relationships 

    Females are just as savage as men, they're savage in a different manner generally, but nonetheless, one that can hardly be argued as any better than direct aggression. Especially when the swing side of aggression when channeled constructively is, in part but not exclusively, protection. 👏



  • Analgesic.Spectre
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 474
    1
    1
    5
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Analgesic.Spectre
    --> @Buddamoose
    Both have their benefits, and both have their negatives. Competition breeds excellence, cooperation breeds togetherness. You see this encapsulated perfectly in team sports, where cooperation and competition are intertwined. 
    Currently, sure. However, perhaps we could re-engineer males to not engage in such a wasteful exercise (competition), and harvest excellence in an alternative fashion. 

    And no, it wouldn't. Society wouldn't be some place where violence ever occurs either. Females are aggressive in their own way, generally it tends to be passive aggressiveness. But interestingly enough, the coupling with the highest rates of domestic abuse? Lesbian relationships 
    Females are readily engaged in collaboration that isn't cut-throat competition. I've never seen a guy consoled by his male friends, whereas I've seen it happen countless times with girls. Sure, sometimes girls become hot headed and engage in covert competition, but that only further condemns competition.

    Females are just as savage as men, they're savage in a different manner generally, but nonetheless, one that can hardly be argued as any better than direct aggression.
    At least females have the capacity for better collaboration.

    Especially when the swing side of aggression when channeled constructively is, in part but not exclusively, protection.
    We no longer require protection.

  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,178
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    Not to mention, this sounds like some equity doctrine stuff. Tell me, to achieve equality, what do you intend to do about the people whose existence is necessarily unequal? My guess would be eliminate them 😏
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,178
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    We no longer require protection

    Lmao, you go right ahead and tell me how peak strength differentials between men and women aren't worlds apart, and how that doesn't at all matter in combat. War still exists, you ready to jump on the frontlines and fight against people who can bench 300-400 and squat 500-600+? I know for a fact, because its basic biology, that you arent anywhere near that kinda strength. How well do you think you could handle carrying 150 pounds+ of equipment while on foot for miles? What about when shit hits the fan and bullets start to fly and bombs start to drop? 

    Come back and talk to me about how "protection isnt needed" when you can not shit your pants and carry 150+ pounds for 10+ miles on foot without getting winded or tired so as to still be in peak combat condition 
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,178
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    Turns out, you actually need men for protecting the gates from those who would sweep in and destroy this false sense of "protection" you feel because of your privileged position in western modernity. War, its not going anywhere, and though you might not need protection for the most part in every day life, you do need it for when the bombs start dropping. Cause hey, what if you need to carry a wounded squad mate in combat? Are you capable of carrying 300+ pounds while staying low to avoid bullet fire? I would hazard, that answer is no. Oh shit, looks like you have to abandon "no man left behind" and just leave the wounded to die cause you cant get them to safety 🤔
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,178
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    Tell me how well that works out for troop numbers when ur leaving those wounded behind, you actually need those people to come back with you so they can recover and start fighting again. Guns, they are an equalizer in every day life, they are far from an equalizer in war 

  • Analgesic.Spectre
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 474
    1
    1
    5
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Analgesic.Spectre
    --> @Buddamoose
    Lmao, you go right ahead and tell me how peak strength differentials between men and women aren't worlds apart, and how that doesn't at all matter in combat. War still exists, you ready to jump on the frontlines and fight against people who can bench 300-400 and squat 500-600+? I know for a fact, because its basic biology, that you arent anywhere near that kinda strength. How well do you think you could handle carrying 150 pounds+ of equipment while on foot for miles? 
    Physical strength is of little importance when bullets exist. If you're needing to carry such heavy equipment, then you should be driving your car, instead of falling victim to male bravado.

    Come back and talk to me about how "protection isnt needed" when you can not shit your pants and carry 150+ pounds for 10+ miles on foot without getting winded or tired so as to still be in peak combat condition 
    Don't swear at me, thank you.

    I don't see why doing such a thing is necessary. If people have invaded your country, you should be able to fight from your home. Otherwise, it appears you're being unjustly aggressive.