I'd recommend you check out Holy Fire by Bruce Sterling. It's not a great piece of work, but it really focuses on the growing pains of a transhumanist society. I think a major part of EP is the break from the limitations of our physical bodies. There is no difference between male and female olympics (or bathrooms or most anything else) because the equipment implanted in your morph will almost always be built around your priorities, mindset, desires, etc., rather than vice versa. Women won't be on average shorter unless they WANT to be shorter. There's no reason to respect age because the elderly are no longer so fragile, and no longer have a monopoly of critical experience and information. While this is very freeing for people who feel restricted by their size, age, gender, disabilities, race, etc., it's also a blow against tolerance. Now, if someone is different from you, it isn't just a case of 'well, he was born different, but he's still a human just like me'. He wasn't born different. He was born like you. The reason he's different now is because he has chosen to be different from you. Flats' tolerance of sylphs will be like democrats' tolerance of republicans. Even if you're in a place like Locus, you have the ability to censor everything you disagree with (and most likely, this will happen, whether you want it to or not. Already media providers are realizing we as consumers believe sources we agree are 1) more enjoyable, 2) more truthful, and 3) better avenues for self-betterment. They know it now, and they'll know it then. But with a muse in your head, they'll be a LOT more effective.) People you disagree with will seem to just disappear, and should you be forced to deal with them, they'll seem like raving lunatics compared to the relative peace you normally enjoy. I think Sterling had it right in his Mechanist/Shaper series. We'll become more insulated, until we're locked into clades. The differences between us will become starker. There's also the problem that, as Arementorous points out, many of our advances are a little risky. But when a new hipocampus upgrade means the difference between being a millionaire or not, people will take those risks on the off-chance of greatness. The rich will continue to get richer because they already have access to the best doctors and researchers. For the rest of us, it'll be a crapshoot, with a lot of people getting permanently marred by implants which just don't pan out like they should, and a lot of people going the route of extreme modification just to keep afloat.

LordNephets wrote:

Anywho, I began thinking of the changes within society that take place due to an ever-changing technological world. Certainly, our society is one that is changing to a large extent in the realms of morality, technology, politics, and economy. A surge for clean energy versus cheaper fossil fuels, proposed political rights for minority groups, and the ethical repercussions of such actions, the list goes on. It is undeniable that humanity and society is changing, has been changing for some time, and will change more in the future.

I'd even argue that many changes are coming at an increasingly faster rate, and often society changes much faster than nations and laws can keep up.

LordNephets wrote:

As is stated, the ultimate goal of Transhumanity is to better the Human experience of life, and as such, there are certain changes that must be addressed and made in order for Humanity to improve. The question is: In a Transhuman world (not necessarily that of Eclipse Phase, but the Eclipse Phase saga can be referenced of course), numerous social conventions will be changed or even removed (ideas such as language, religion, politics, and psychology are highly subject to these changes): which elements are necessary to be removed and changed, which elements of change should be embraced, which elements are unnecessary to be removed or changed but may become so, and which elements are necessary to be kept in their current state for the betterment of humanity overall?

Tough to say, and it heavily depends on which direction you wish the human race to head. Transhuman ethics and goals are going to be heavily affected by the moral and political leanings of the people that ascribe to transhuman philosophies.

LordNephets wrote:

Also, to what extent does "hanging on" to old world or even current world values impede the progress of humanity, and to what extent does it educate and better humanity, i.e. does holding onto an older notion such as Chivalry impede or better humanity, is a person who holds on to such ideals an impediment to human expansion and betterment, and are other older notions such as Classical music and art equally as impeding?

The answer to this depends on what we mean exactly when we say "hang on to old world values"? For instance, the exact rules of Chivalry and Bushido might not be a good idea for the future, but the concept behind it… the idea that a person in a position of authority should be held to stricter rules and a higher standard… is not a bad one. In that same vein, art and music are heavily inspired by the art and music that comes before it. Even when it comes from an older culture, or even from a place of unacceptable morality in the context of today, it can still be used as inspiration for something new and good.

Arenamontanus wrote:

There are some things that are tricky to drop. Sleep is a good example: we don't fully understand what it is good for, but we know it is highly conserved across evolution - it must be important, especially since sleeping creatures are very vulnerable. We would be much more productive without it, yet we place a high value on it (actually, sleep itself isn't enjoyable for the most part, it is the going to sleep and waking up rested parts that are truly good).

To be fair, much of the same can be said about mortality. I mean how many films and Aesop-filled shows have portrayed immortality as the saddest and most depressing thing you could ever wish for? Plus, mortality exists on a near-universal rate throughout the animal kingdom, with only a few creatures (sea turtles mainly) assumed to be [i]possibly[/i] immune. But we acknowledge mortality as a bad thing. Would it necessarily be so bad to do the same with sleep?