Why are transhumanists such dicks?

2»

Comments

  • edited December 2014
    Well, the fact that we are having this conversation is already a big difference.

    Though I don't think there is a simple solution to this, as quite often humans interest (by that I include survival itself!) goes up against animal interest and you cannot have the cake and eat it too. Eg: should we allow the malaria parasite to kill us or should we kill it with drugs/immune system/etc? Or should we allow diseases to remain untreatable and people to keep dying from them so that we don't experiment our drugs on animals? Funny thing is that the only way to be able to figure out an answer is to have augmented intelligence!
  • Pff, the malaria parasite is not trying to kill us. That's anthropomorphization.

    Also, you're just picking the button issues on the negative side.
    We could say, should people just chill the fuck out, or should we be nailing coyotes onto fence posts?
    Funny thing is that to make that call, I don't actually need a pokedex in my head. Huge amount of data that says that removal of apex predators is one of the worst things that we do. Huge amounts of data say that removing mirobiota are also an issue. So, do we take responsibility for what we do, or do we say that we can only do it if we have help? I prefer responsibility. 

    There are ways to interact with the world without killing it. I would think that our recent understanding about the human microbiome and antibiotic resistance would be enough to nail that point home

    We can just ignore things and keep waiting for someone (or something) to fix them. Sure. Software it up. But don't think that is the answer. Let them eat code is not the answer.,

    So! Same question. How do you delineate functionality? What is it that we do that is good?
  • edited December 2014
    Now you're arguing semantics. The fact that the malaria parasite have no intention of killing us doesn't mean it doesn't leave people any less dead. Are all those "smoking kills" ads anthropormorphising smoking too? You know what I mean.

    And you're avoiding talking about the "no way out" situations which does not make them disappear or any less real. Yes, they are negative examples, but they exist. Can you look into the eyes of a parent whose child had died of a disease that would've been prevented had we allowed animal clinical trials because they should not be so selfish and need to think of other animals as well? You can't. Not to mention I don't see how you're going to find the line of functionality and where self-centered-ness begins without talking about controversial, borderline example. I mean, do you really want this thread to be a series of "Ok, we all agree with that. Next item that everyone will agree with"?

    There is no simple answer. Our well being and well being of others cannot always co exist. Should the human race suffer and risk extinction for the sake of other creatures? And of course, we have to take responsibility for our actions and their consequences, which is why the situations that I've been talking about are legit concerns because we have responsibility towards ourselves, other people as well as animals/ other living things. To ignore our responsibilities towards other people for the sake of other living creatures is as irresponsible as the other way around.

    As to your questions, they are not really answerable as long as you don't resolve (read: balance) the conflict between the different responsibilities first. Otherwise I can claim "for the sake of all other animals the only "funtionality" the humans deserve is cessation of existence. Screw responsibility for people." (An example that I don't ascribe to).

    Also, in regards to functionality you have the problem of "not everyone is the same". On average, a 65 year old is weaker and more frail than an 18-year-old. Should a 65-year-d amputee get a worse prosthetic than an 18-year-old? Should amputees keep replacing their prosthetics as they age? Is that even practical? Isn't that ageism?
  • First things first. You are rocking the small view. What's good for humans is not good for peoples per se. And yeah, I'm touching into that terrible territory that @Frank was referencing. Luckily, I never told people I'm not a dick. I'm just a different type of dick. By now no one here should be surprised.

    Now, I'm going to work backwards through this, by paragraph, but I may lose track a bit. Stick with me.

    No. Everyone should have access to the same levels of technology. Why would a 65 year old get a worse prosthetic? I'm confused about this line of questioning. One of the things that Grinders seem to get is the concept of "Peeled Back Technological Democratic Access". That is, basically, what's the use of technology if everyone can't use it? Fabbing up a prosthetic out of reclaimed plastics is cheap easy and in terms of resources and the grand scale of functional, so simple that it doesn't matter. I could do it in an afternoon.

    I dig your all or nothing outlook. Very human, very short term. If you believe that humans are only capable of destruction, then sure. You say you don't ascribe to it but you are bringing it to the table. I never said that's how it has to go down.

    Let's not make assumptions about how I would respond to looking into a person eyes. That's probably best all around. It might be awkward. I'm not taking the hippie bs line here btw. I'm not saying we should stop animal trials or not eat meat or whatever. There are, on the other hand, some huge extinction level activities that we participate in that we should be curbing. Yes it will make life more difficult. That is why we need to start exploring technologies that aren't so exploitative. Balance. So it doesn't suck for us with us having a complete environmental collapse and choke on our own fumes.

    Smoking kills isn't anthropomorphization. It's a human activity. It is literally anthropic. Malaria happens. People die. Less malaria, less people dying. Great. Wiping out most of the species on the planet, because Joe can't walk his fat ass down to the bodega... mmmm not so much. Again, balance. You want to pick malaria, fine, you can have the malaria argument, pick it off, wipe it out. I want honeybees. There has to be a way to do your thing, and keep my thing.

    I don't want this thread to be a series of casual agreements. I think I am doing a fairly good job expressing that. I'm still looking for an answer to what does the Grinding community bring to the table? This has been bugging me for a while actually... Is it just the peeled back technological democratic access? Do we do that well? Are we making developments and moving forward or are we just playing around and duplicating other peoples work? Maybe thats all we do, make high level work more accessible. Are we focused, do we have a purpose, or is it just a bunch of projects so that we can become better interfaces for our cellphones? I am not a peripheral for my phone.

    It's always coming down to the same disagreement. The complete and utter disassociation from biological and physical reality that floats around these circles. The way that we have been doing things is not in the best interests of humanity. I would think the worst drought in 1200 yrs here down in SoCal may have made everyone thing about that. Yet, somehow....

    Our well being as individuals and the well being of other individuals cannot always coexist. Granted. Our well being as a species should be able to figure it out.  It's not a matter of needing augmented intelligence. It more about not being quite so ... well, what we are now. I'm not sure "smarter" is the best answer here.

    If we both agree humans are the problem, then super humans sound like just a super problem... Posthumanism at it's core is not about being superhuman. It's about being not human. It's that anthropic principle again, coming into play, clouding things up. This is, I believe, the fallacy of current transhumanist thought. If a post human is to a person, what a person is to an ant.... People aren't like ants at all. They are radically and irrevocably not like ants, you get me?
  • "No. Everyone should have access to the same levels of technology. Why would a 65 year old get a worse prosthetic? I'm confused about this line of questioning. One of the things that Grinders seem to get is the concept of "Peeled Back Technological Democratic Access". That is, basically, what's the use of technology if everyone can't use it? Fabbing up a prosthetic out of reclaimed plastics is cheap easy and in terms of resources and the grand scale of functional, so simple that it doesn't matter. I could do it in an afternoon."

    Because when you start talking about "everyone should not be using technology to improve their functionality" you're talking about they should not be using implants to make themselves stronger/faster/etc. The problem is, a 65-year-old is on average naturally never going to be as fast or as strong as someone much younger. As you say, if they should have assess to the same prosthetic as am 18-year-old, wouldn't that mean that you're essentially improving 65-year-olds as they are going to get stronger/faster/etc than they naturally are. And that's not including training as well. Should an athlete amputee lose their hard trained capabilities by having a prosthetic that performs worse than their original or should normal people get a prosthetic that is equal to an athlete's normal which would be better than their original?

    "I dig your all or nothing outlook. Very human, very short term. If you believe that humans are only capable of destruction, then sure. You say you don't ascribe to it but you are bringing it to the table. I never said that's how it has to go down."

    No I don't. I'm putting those examples out there because they are extreme which is where you find your balance point. We can talk about whether we should destroy the planet without gain all day long, but that's so far in the "No because we need to be responsible for our planet" side of the scale that we cannot even see where balance point is and where "we need to be responsible for ourselves" side starts. I don't see the point of discussing scenarios where there isn't a serious conflict between responsibilities because as rational decent people I think we all know that we need to be responsible. It's when those responsibilities start to conflict where we found our balance points.



  • "Let's not make assumptions about how I would respond to looking into a person eyes. That's probably best all around. It might be awkward. I'm not taking the hippie bs line here btw. I'm not saying we should stop animal trials or not eat meat or whatever. There are, on the other hand, some huge extinction level activities that we participate in that we should be curbing. Yes it will make life more difficult. That is why we need to start exploring technologies that aren't so exploitative. Balance. So it doesn't suck for us with us having a complete environmental collapse and choke on our own fumes.

    Smoking kills isn't anthropomorphization. It's a human activity. It is literally anthropic. Malaria happens. People die. Less malaria, less people dying. Great. Wiping out most of the species on the planet, because Joe can't walk his fat ass down to the bodega... mmmm not so much. Again, balance. You want to pick malaria, fine, you can have the malaria argument, pick it off, wipe it out. I want honeybees. There has to be a way to do your thing, and keep my thing"

    Yes, of course we should stop extinction level activities provided that doing so won't be causing major harm to us. Of course we should keep the honeybees. Like you say, balance. But that's, again, so far away from the balance point that there's nothing to talk about, is there? And btw, saying "there is a way" isn't in anyway providing a solution, is it?

    "I don't want this thread to be a series of casual agreements. I think I am doing a fairly good job expressing that. I'm still looking for an answer to what does the Grinding community bring to the table? This has been bugging me for a while actually... Is it just the peeled back technological democratic access? Do we do that well? Are we making developments and moving forward or are we just playing around and duplicating other peoples work? Maybe thats all we do, make high level work more accessible. Are we focused, do we have a purpose, or is it just a bunch of projects so that we can become better interfaces for our cellphones? I am not a peripheral for my phone.

    It's always coming down to the same disagreement. The complete and utter disassociation from biological and physical reality that floats around these circles. The way that we have been doing things is not in the best interests of humanity. I would think the worst drought in 1200 yrs here down in SoCal may have made everyone thing about that. Yet, somehow...."

    Well, I do find that the grinders differ from the transhumanists in that they are more grounded because they are trying to get their hands dirty and get things to work. It's like the difference between experimentalists and theorists in the scientific research field. The disassociation I found is usually because most grinders are not scientifically/medically trained which means that they attempt unfeasible projects. However, because we are actually trying to get things to work that gets filtered out quickly because unfeasible projects by definition don't work!


  • edited December 2014
    "Our well being as individuals and the well being of other individuals cannot always coexist. Granted. Our well being as a species should be able to figure it out.  It's not a matter of needing augmented intelligence. It more about not being quite so ... well, what we are now. I'm not sure "smarter" is the best answer here."

    Well, if there's an answer that everyone can agree on and not ruled out by different scenarios I'd like to hear it. 

    "If we both agree humans are the problem, then super humans sound like just a super problem... Posthumanism at it's core is not about being superhuman. It's about being not human. It's that anthropic principle again, coming into play, clouding things up. This is, I believe, the fallacy of current transhumanist thought. If a post human is to a person, what a person is to an ant.... People aren't like ants at all. They are radically and irrevocably not like ants, you get me?"

    Sure, though I would ask where would you start drawing the line between "superhuman" and "not being human at all"? 

    And to be fair I'm not even sure if that's not even worse let alone better. It is far easier to "dehumanise" (for a lack of better word) people the more you differ from other people. The implication of the "post human to a human is and human to an ant" is not just the difference but the superiority and value: you value an ant far less than a human being. There is a hint of misanthropy there I think.
  • Ah, the point I was trying to make is that the philosophy itself lends to that sort of superioristic thinking. That was my pint all along. And I personally don't value ants less than people.

    Yes, of course we should stop extinction level activities provided that doing so won't be causing major harm to us

    Interesting. Harm to us the species? I think we are doing an excellent job harming the species and reducing our ability to survive. 

    Anyway, we're getting off topic again. This is fun and all, but I feel like I've made my main point re the topic of this thread. Transhumanists are dicks because their philosophy lends itself to a species centric, top down, position of power that is exercised through blatant disregard for their actions, a casual and community reinforced belief that they are special, and a generous helping of the same old justifications made by the elite that they deserve the place that they are in.

    so, again, how are grinders different? What is it that we are doing to make ourselves different from the armchair faction? Yes yes, we have managed to stick some rocks and a couple of circuit boards into our bits. And...? What? I mean how do we define ourselves as a useful contributor to the future?

    However, because we are actually trying to get things to work that gets filtered out quickly because unfeasible projects by definition don't work!

    Quick! Name 3 things that have successfully worked for the grinder community that aren't just sticking lumps of metal/glass into their body!  I can think of a few if I stretch the bounds of "working", one blew up, one caused people to go a bit crazy, one nobody cares about, one actually works but is an augment to offset biological failure as opposed to an upgrade.

    We have a passionate community of outspoken individuals who have little regard for safety and a desire to do cool stuff and we are still arguing about the best way to close a wound or how to turn our fingers into glowsticks.

    Also, please demarcate if you are going to copypasta huge chunks into your replies. Its hard to keep track when one spends half the time reading the previous post in bits.
  • edited December 2014
    Quick! Name 3 things that have successfully worked for the grinder community that aren't just sticking lumps of metal/glass into their body!  I can think of a few if I stretch the bounds of "working", one blew up, one caused people to go a bit crazy, one nobody cares about, one actually works but is an augment to offset biological failure as opposed to an upgrade.

    We have a passionate community of outspoken individuals who have little regard for safety and a desire to do cool stuff and we are still arguing about the best way to close a wound or how to turn our fingers into glowsticks.

    I think you're asking for way too much here. Considering that hardly anyone here, if at all, are trained medical professionals (let alone surgeons who are actually trained to put implants inside people's bodies) or researchers in the medical field (I think I've seen a couple of biologists here) I think that it is already extraordinary that no one here got themselves seriously mangled in the first place, let alone getting a few that almost worked and one that actually successfully offset a biological failure! 

    And personally, I actually think that already proves that this community of grinders at least are different from the transhumanists that you've been talking about. As far as I can see most people's response to other people's questions are "Ok, I've tried this and works. Dunno if it will solve your problem but it might." We throw ideas at each other. Everything is taken seriously. Forget about the "bioconservatives are trying to stop us from becoming supreme beings" crap that some transhumanists throw out now and again: there's not even "I'm a medical doctor and I think what you're doing is stupid and you should all stop" (at most it's "I don't think this will work because X") or even "lurk more and use the search button, noob" thing that is prevalent in other forums. What superiority? This place is the opposite of that.

    Hell, this thread is the proof of that. In a transhumanist forum/thread this kind of talk will attract transhumanists who would then accuse you of "dragging them down"!
  • Fair enough.

    I don't feel like I'm asking for too much tho, just more...
  • @glims Do you think it's sensible to talk about a code of ethics for grinding? Or is the practice of biohacking too piecemeal to make that worthwhile?

  • I think there is little need and it may be detrimental to attempt to put rules in to place in a group who gets a kick out of breaking or ignoring rules.

    Besides, no one is doing enough to necessitate having some sort of ethics code. And it's all self experimentation. Like I've said in other threads, there are things I wouldn't do on myself, but I'm happy to take notes while someone else does it. I have no desire to curtail other peoples personal freedoms like that.

    IF we somehow get to a point where people are actually coming up with things that are dangerous to others, then we might need to have that talk. But right now, its like... I dunno, we're in the kiddie pool. The code is basically don't drown in 6 inches of water when you trip over your own feet.

    I may be ready to push the boundaries, but I won't, for instance,  give anyone something that will burn their eyes. This isn't out of goodwill to my fellow man per se, it's cause I want things to work. I can't keep testing things on you guys if you're dead ;)

    Keeping people safe and alive means we have more people to work with and more ideas to build on. That's common sense, if you don't think you're some sort of ubermensch. I think that maybe transhumanists might get a little crazy when they talk about things like this cause they have no frame of reference. Lack of actual experience means they tend to gravitate towards the extremes of what experimentation might be.




  • Also, given the amount of self-experimentations that is going on at the moment (for new stuff as opposed to pretty established ones like magnet implantation) I doubt that a code of ethics is necessary or useful yet (if someone is determine to chop their own arm off without surgical training it's rather hard to stop them as opposed to them trying to do this to other people, and I don't think that people here are stupid enough to do that). And people here seem pretty aware that they are not professionals with lots of resources (as in, teams of researchers plus equipment plus...) at their disposal so I don't see people going to do something real dangerous anytime soon.
  • @IvoTheSquire I wouldn't be so sure... I mean, sure, we know we're not professionals, but I know of a few people here, myself included, who have done some stupid/risky self implantation experiments. so far we have been lucky there have not been any really bad outcomes.

    Not that I want a code of ethics, I'm going to keep experimenting on myself no matter what anyone else thinks.
  • edited December 2014
    Hence why I said it's rather hard to stop self-experimentation. On top of that on the agency/ autonomy side of things (you know better than anyone when the risks to your own body are too much etc).

    As opposed to opening a shop and providing such services to other people where now customers or anyone can just call the cops and arrest people. :P
  • All great points - I agree it's not useful to try and pass "rules" on biohacking. But what I'm wondering is whether it's possible to semi-formally state some set of values that define grinding. 

    So, rather than a code of ethics being something that restricts, it could be something to aspire to. For example, you can already see this on the Grindhouse Wetware homepage: "augmenting humanity using safe, affordable, open source technology"

    I think right there - safe, affordable, open source - immediately sets GW apart from the Randian fantasies of transhumanist theorists.
  • @Frank part of the inspiration for Grindhouse came when I saw a clip of Max Moore talking about life extension technology, and when he was asked about the obvious disparity this could cause between have's and have-not's he simply replied "Aww capitalism should take care of it". I was like "Oh Fuck! This shit cannot be delivered by Apple or Haliburton, This needs to come from a place of lifting up the everyone not causing MORE disparity"

    I advocate investigating the risk, mitigating them as much as possible,having a reasoned ethical discussion on the ramifications, and then trusting in the community to do moral policing in real time, rather than a "code of ethics" or "rules". That said I am grinder and not "risk averse" 

    One of my largest goals is to use this technology to more effectively aid the 3rd world.
  • The fact that we're already talking about the possibility of inequality before we have human enhancement tech means to me that such tech is going to do to the current capitalist system what nuclear weapons did to world peace wars, ie it's going to either radically alter it for the better (eg it becoming something like universal healthcare) or completely replace it with something else.

    And the thing is that you cannot really stop it. Eg say for example life extension technologies: any opposition have to answer the morally thorny questions "When does the human being cease to have the right to live and the right to well being and who gets to decide that?"
  • I think the main reason transhumanism has such a individualistic philosophy, is simple all talks that spoke about enhancing a group of people or a society has ended in fascism. I think every one know the Uberman by Friedrich Nietzsche's , that was the philosophical standing for both Hitler and Mussolini, and helped to shape the fascist mentality. By speaking only for them self detach of society they avoit getting to close to Nietzsche. ( I find it a smart move)
    And for why the look all coming from the liberal or randian, is that both philosophy are descendent of Rationalists and empiricits. That both expect to have a clear and objective view of reality, it is obvious to that a clash with other mentalities will happen and that they make it clear they are not going to back down. There is always the cache hat some idiot goes to government and decide to slow down progress out of the "ethical " concern. biohacking is at it infancy and has in small part  become main stream in just few nation and you have media discussing it far consequence  in inequality and social life.
    We are dealing with something new standing around and asking ourselves to predict the far future is pointless we have a really bad track record of it.
  • Oh look! We're Boing Boing famous. Which tbh, is one of the better types of internet famous...

  • edited April 2015
    Thought I'd jump in just for fun, as up until recently I wasn't aware there was a divide between grinders and transhumanists. 

    I'm a self-identifying transhumanist, I fell in love with the philosophy shortly after reading about it a few years ago. However, I'm growing more and more tired of the "armchair transhumanist" mentality that I'm becoming aware many self-identifying transhumanists hold. I've tried in my life to make transhumanism a philosophy of action, one that actually produces some type of result, whether it be sensory augmentation (my m31 loves microwaves), basic research (I'm in a Brain-Computer Interface research lab and majoring in Neurobiology), or just improving the quality of one's life more generally. I think the post-human mentality transhumanists already hold due only to the fact that they discovered a philosophy that tells them they have the ability to become post-human is as fallacious as an avid baseball fan declaring themselves a professional player. If you want to become transhuman, then do something about it. That's why I feel a much stronger connection with the grinder community than any other.
  • @bciuser I think the difference is most notable between the thinkers and doers - it's very hard to brush aside issues like safety, distribution and cost (as the former do) when you're experiencing these things directly (as the latter do).
Sign In or Register to comment.