Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.

Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?

131 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tue, 2010-03-23 17:49
#1
krank krank's picture
Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
How can there be something instead of nothing? This isn't really a question about the contents of the book, but it isn't really a question about an adventure/campaign either, and it's not a game world suggestion... I was unsure where to place it, so feel free to move it if it's in the wrong place. I've been thinking about reproduction. The creation of children, of offspring. Sex has been irrevocably changed by resleeving, in a myriad of ways. If your wife is currently inhabiting a dog, is it still beastiality? The idea of "gender" has also been kind of... antiquated. At least to some degree. (Note: "Gender" is used here in the feminist sense, as separate from the biological "Sex"). Having sex with someone in a male morph while being male isn't necessarily homosexual - it might be heterosex, or maybe even something akin to using a dildo, if the conciousness inhabiting the body you're having sex with is an AI... Even masturbation will likely never be the same - having sex with yourself is quite possible, using an alpha fork and whatever morph or morphs you feel like. Are teenagers experimenting with body switching, when they first discover sex? Trying out what the opposite feels like? (This is what I gather from the main rulebook, at least. Feel free to contradict me. And yes, I know bioconservatives aren't quite doing it that way...) Anyways, sex leads me to the subject of children. I imagine noone has to become pregnant against their will anymore. Even bioconservatives aren't likely to object to proper contraceptives and the like. Rejuvenation and "eternal life" should mean the idea of reproducing is less interesting. After all, what's the rush? I don't need to create a legacy; I'm likely to exist forever and ever. The "biological clock" can be largely avoided. Synthmorphs shouldn't have it at all. Hormones can be controlled. As for when you actually want to have a child... Do you climb into your most genetically perfect morphs and just have at it? Or do you just submit some cell samples or even just a default order to a genetic factory type thing? Are children grown in exowombs? At what age do they get out? Is it possible to create a new conciousness without birthing it? Where does conciousness come from? If it's just a pattern of impulses, shaped by imput (as I believe it to be), can you start from scratch with an "empty" cyberbrain, for instance? The need to discover, learn and build identity is largely biological - we need to make sense of the world - but what is the thing that wants to make sense of it? Does conciousness exist at all at younger ages, or is it a result of years of biologically motivated "curiosity"? Are children like animals, at their early stages - is the reason we are conscious because our patterns have room to become more complex? Can a child be created as an infomorph? Born and raised in the Mesh? Combining stripped-down forks from both parents... What's the difference between such a creation and an artificial intelligence? Wouldn't it be artificial, and an intelligence? We have psychosurgery, and we have Uplifts. Those two technologies implies an understanding of the "code" of the human consciousness. Is it possible to build one from scratch? At least a child-level consciousness, the rest comes with memory and experience... Or perhaps by Dark City-esque mixing and matching of other people's memories and patterns... So, um... Any of you given this any thought?
—
Warning: Anarchist, postmodernist, socialist, transhumanist, feminist
Top
Tue, 2010-03-23 18:48
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
I don't think that gender will necessarily change in a transhuman society, but it may be added to. While we currently have two commonly accepted gender roles today, a future world may include the neuter gender for those who do not identify with either, and the hermaphroditic gender for those who identify with both. There may even be the possibility of another, unique gender role cropping up in various groups... especially AGI, who have the potential to have completely different mindsets from humans. To that point, society will likely better embrace the idea of mental/physical gender segregation; the idea that someone could be physically one gender, but mentally another. Healing vats could be used to quickly remedy such a situation as well, allowing someone born a woman to be the man she always wanted, or vice versa. Sex will definitely have changed in concept by the time we reach the same level of technological development as those in Eclipse Phase. And I mean in virtually every way. VR and XP technology (and muses, for that matter) will allow single people to live sexually satisfying lives without the need for a partner. Even amongst couples or groups, the joys of sex will be amplified by such amazing technology. You could have sex with someone, while using XP technology to send every sensation you feel to them in real-time, while they do the same to you. This would essentially allow two or more people to feel the sexual gratification of every one of their partners at the same time, creating a whole new level of intimacy. To that end, what we deem socially acceptable today will likely become a much broader field as technology advances. The concept of "fetishes" will be less abhorrent to the common man. Things like masochism and sadism will become a normal part of society when people's bodies can be healed very easily, and even death is escapable. Foot fetishes and the like could be satisfied by XP vendors, who could sell recordings and such that would feel like the real thing. People who want to date catgirls can ask their girlfriends if they'd be up for a trip to the vats. Monogamous people can fulfill their partner's desires for groupsex without having to allow adultery through clever use of forking and extra bodies. And it doesn't end there! Imagine how many crimes we could cathartically remove from our society. Pedophiles could satisfy their sexual needs by dating/marrying mature people sleeved in neotenic morphs. Those we would call rapists today could purchase "rape AI" that is designed to act unwilling during sex, and companies could produce a number of them with different personalities to satisfy their needs; hell, they may even purchase scenario vidgames, where a specific location and person is created for the purpose of "raping". No one needs to be harmed for them to satisfy their id. This even could "cure" murderous desires. Imagine a sociopath opening a "murder dungeon", where people go in and pay a price to get sleeved into another morph and find out what it's like to be murdered! Those people get to have what would be a once-in-a-lifetime experience today, as many times as they may desire; and the sociopath doesn't have to be a burden on society. He can even make a profit in the process. As for reproduction, they already do give a good degree of info on how it is done. Some people create forks as a means of producing life. AGIs and programmers often code new AGIs for the sake of knowing what it is like to birth a new living being. This may have the double satisfaction of being a parent, and creating something amazing with your own two hands. Children can be grown to full term in exowombs, but I'd imagine that many (especially bioconservatives) would prefer the joys of raising a child from youth to adulthood physically. Many have grown up as infomorphs (such as the Lost Generation). Time acceleration even speeds up the process of maturation, allowing them to learn a lifetime of experience in a short while. Hell, the Lost are no older than 10 by the time the game's setting takes place, yet they have been full grown adults for nearly 7 years already! Reproduction would likely take on every form you've mentioned, and then some. Every other aspect is largely philosophical, and who are we to judge? Just imagine how bizarre, interesting this could become. Picture a husband and wife combo, where the husband is the pilot of the scum barge, and his wife is a cyberbrain attached to the barge itself! She could have a secondary biomorph body for their "matrimonial desires", and an exowomb attached to the ship so they could have children (which she would still be carrying "inside her"). Imagine just how unique every family could be, the idea of the nuclear family being shattered by the eccentric lives that most transhumans would live. Sounds awesome to me.
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Wed, 2010-03-24 03:09
krank krank's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
Decivre wrote:
I don't think that gender will necessarily change in a transhuman society, but it may be added to.
Well, since gender roles have changed many times through history (just look at the difference between the ideal female of 100 years ago compared to today)... Well, historically, gender seems to be shaped by culture and conditions, and in transhuman society the conditions are very much changed. pp.45: "Gender, Sexuality, and relationships". "To many transhumans, gender has become an outdated social construct with no basis in biology". While yes, "most transhumans adhere to the gender associated with their original biological sex", I'm guessing this is because they were born before the Fall. I expect most young people, as in below the age of, say, 15-20, to have more tendencies toward the "outdated social construct" part. After all, many of them are unlikely to spend their entire youth in the same morph, so why limit yourself to a gender? History is full of outdated social constructs, after all, thrown on the scrap heap as society changes. In the end, I guess it's more or less about how necessary we, as players and GM's, see the concept of gender. Personally, I have no trouble at all imagining a society where gender is more and more becoming completely irrelevant... (In fact, I welcome it =)
Decivre wrote:
the sociopath doesn't have to be a burden on society. He can even make a profit in the process.
To me, this is to a large degree why I find a large part of EP's world horrifying in many ways: The complete and total "freedom" - truly, a society where more or less everything goes. The sociopath isn't "corrected" - he is encouraged, within the economic system! (Of course, being a sociopath has never been much of a drawback in a capitalistic system... =)
Decivre wrote:
Many have grown up as infomorphs (such as the Lost Generation).
This has me curious: When creating the Lost generation, what was the original material? How do you begin manufacturing a mind? In a biomorph, especially a flat, there is biological curiosity, a "need" to construct a "self", to make something out of nothing. Infomorphs... Well, an infomorph without a mind needs to have the same kind of curiosity, and construct a mind out of ones and zeroes... Again, I'm kind of curious about the implications for the separation of AI from human mind.
Decivre wrote:
Sounds awesome to me.
Awesome and horrific at the same time. And since I like my Eclipse Phase being both utopian and dystopian at the same time, that's fine by me =) (even though I tend to favour the dystopian tones more...)
—
Warning: Anarchist, postmodernist, socialist, transhumanist, feminist
Top
Wed, 2010-03-24 03:22
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
krank wrote:
Well, since gender roles have changed many times through history (just look at the difference between the ideal female of 100 years ago compared to today)... Well, historically, gender seems to be shaped by culture and conditions, and in transhuman society the conditions are very much changed. pp.45: "Gender, Sexuality, and relationships". "To many transhumans, gender has become an outdated social construct with no basis in biology". While yes, "most transhumans adhere to the gender associated with their original biological sex", I'm guessing this is because they were born before the Fall. I expect most young people, as in below the age of, say, 15-20, to have more tendencies toward the "outdated social construct" part. After all, many of them are unlikely to spend their entire youth in the same morph, so why limit yourself to a gender? History is full of outdated social constructs, after all, thrown on the scrap heap as society changes. In the end, I guess it's more or less about how necessary we, as players and GM's, see the concept of gender. Personally, I have no trouble at all imagining a society where gender is more and more becoming completely irrelevant... (In fact, I welcome it =)
I wasn't talking gender roles so much as gender identity. Gender roles, like roles throughout history whether tied to gender, race, culture or class, are an ever-changing concept that shifts according to society. Gender identity has not, and even in this new transhuman society, I see the standard gender identities staying. I do see the definite possibility for new gender identities to form as we shift gradually further and further from normal humans.
krank wrote:
To me, this is to a large degree why I find a large part of EP's world horrifying in many ways: The complete and total "freedom" - truly, a society where more or less everything goes. The sociopath isn't "corrected" - he is encouraged, within the economic system! (Of course, being a sociopath has never been much of a drawback in a capitalistic system... =)
To be honest, the problems with sociopathy largely stem from our stance as a social species. There are plenty of animals in the world that would, if given greater intelligence, effectively be sociopaths (the first coming to mind being cats). It's merely the state of lacking standard social moral instincts. I don't see it as being frightening that our world can better embrace a greater multitude of personality types than it can currently. I see it as a wonderful opportunity.
krank wrote:
This has me curious: When creating the Lost generation, what was the original material? How do you begin manufacturing a mind? In a biomorph, especially a flat, there is biological curiosity, a "need" to construct a "self", to make something out of nothing. Infomorphs... Well, an infomorph without a mind needs to have the same kind of curiosity, and construct a mind out of ones and zeroes... Again, I'm kind of curious about the implications for the separation of AI from human mind.
Remember that the terms "infomorph" and "AI" are not interchangeable. AI or AGI are used referentially to minds that are artificially programmed (and are essentially very complex software), while infomorph references any mind that has been uploaded digitally to a brain emulation. Natural minds can be infomorphs if uploaded, and AGI can be put in biomorph bodies, rendering them [i]not[/i] infomorphs. Chances are that the Lost's egos are essentially extracted from the Futura morphs that were produced in the project. Remember that morphs are essentially bodies. When you are born in the modern day, your mother's womb is essentially manufacturing a flat, which then grows to term. Most bodies that are created in Eclipse Phase are created with blank minds, but that doesn't necessarily mean they [i]have[/i] to be created with blank minds.
krank wrote:
Awesome and horrific at the same time. And since I like my Eclipse Phase being both utopian and dystopian at the same time, that's fine by me =) (even though I tend to favour the dystopian tones more...)
I find that utopia/dystopia are relative concepts. What one person thinks as heaven could be another person's hell. I just think that it'll be business as usual for a far more developed (trans)human race.
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Wed, 2010-03-24 04:03
krank krank's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
Decivre wrote:
Gender identity has not, and even in this new transhuman society, I see the standard gender identities staying. I do see the definite possibility for new gender identities to form as we shift gradually further and further from normal humans.
That's where we'll have to agree to disagree, I guess. As "gender identity", to me, is just a part of "gender role", and largely tied to biology - I mean, the reason why "gender identity" hasn't changed is because the biological sex hasn't changed. In a world without set biological sexes, I strongly doubt that the idea of needing to "be a gender" will remain for very long. Give it a few generations, and it'll be about as antiquated as believing in Zeus.
Decivre wrote:
To be honest, the problems with sociopathy largely stem from our stance as a social species. There are plenty of animals in the world that would, if given greater intelligence, effectively be sociopaths (the first coming to mind being cats). It's merely the state of lacking standard social moral instincts. I don't see it as being frightening that our world can better embrace a greater multitude of personality types than it can currently. I see it as a wonderful opportunity.
Well, since "personality types" are merely software, I see it more as "which types of personalities create the best society" rather than "which society is best for different personalities"...
Decivre wrote:
Chances are that the Lost's egos are essentially extracted from the Futura morphs that were produced in the project. Remember that morphs are essentially bodies. When you are born in the modern day, your mother's womb is essentially manufacturing a flat, which then grows to term. Most bodies that are created in Eclipse Phase are created with blank minds, but that doesn't necessarily mean they [i]have[/i] to be created with blank minds.
The central question remains: How can there be something instead of nothing? If the body is hardware, and the mind is software, how come we need a "flat" body in order to produce a human mind? Why the need to extract a mind, why not simply construct it? The idea that only a human body can produce a human mind is, to me, not very transhuman. It requires some special, mystical element - a soul, or some such nonsense. I guess the central question, to me, is: How is a "mind" born?
Decivre wrote:
I find that utopia/dystopia are relative concepts. What one person thinks as heaven could be another person's hell. I just think that it'll be business as usual for a far more developed (trans)human race.
Of course utopia/dystopia are relative. So is everything else, after all, so why wouldn't they be? However, I personally definitely see EP's world as more of a dystopian future, though it might move towards more of a utopia with more extensive use of psychosurgery and the spread of post-scarcity economies...
—
Warning: Anarchist, postmodernist, socialist, transhumanist, feminist
Top
Wed, 2010-03-24 04:41
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
krank wrote:
That's where we'll have to agree to disagree, I guess. As "gender identity", to me, is just a part of "gender role", and largely tied to biology - I mean, the reason why "gender identity" hasn't changed is because the biological sex hasn't changed. In a world without set biological sexes, I strongly doubt that the idea of needing to "be a gender" will remain for very long. Give it a few generations, and it'll be about as antiquated as believing in Zeus.
Bodies in Eclipse Phase continue to have a biological sex. More importantly, it also depends on how the ego develops in relation to its chosen body, or even as a personality. Gender identity, even in a world without set biological sexes, is likely to form... unless we actually remove biological sexes from all bodies. Even in our world, people can have a gender identity that contradicts their own physical gender... they usually go through transgender surgeries and procedures. The only thing that might change in Eclipse Phase is that people who desire a body more suited to their identity could finally get what they wish for.
krank wrote:
Well, since "personality types" are merely software, I see it more as "which types of personalities create the best society" rather than "which society is best for different personalities"...
However, if you think of the ego's uniqueness as being akin to biological DNA, then having as much diversity as possible could be what is best for the species. Just as a narrowing of genetic material hampers a species' efficiency in evolution, a narrowing of unique minds could very well hamper our species' ability in innovation, talent, and development. Producing a society which caters to the most possible minds may be more optimal, especially if it could be produced in a way in which all people could be feasibly satisfied.
krank wrote:
The central question remains: How can there be something instead of nothing? If the body is hardware, and the mind is software, how come we need a "flat" body in order to produce a human mind? Why the need to extract a mind, why not simply construct it? The idea that only a human body can produce a human mind is, to me, not very transhuman. It requires some special, mystical element - a soul, or some such nonsense. I guess the central question, to me, is: How is a "mind" born?
You don't need a flat body to produce a human mind. AGI have been produced in EP aplenty, and they are coded on a computer like any program. Sure they do not necessarily develop to be identical to humans, but we have proven that you do not need an organic body to produce a mind. To that end, the Lost weren't produced in flats... their bodies were transhuman Futuras. A mind can be produced within other transhuman and nonhuman bodies. Hell, the book even mentions surya mating. The only bodies incapable of reproduction are synthmorphs and pods (by design).
krank wrote:
Of course utopia/dystopia are relative. So is everything else, after all, so why wouldn't they be? However, I personally definitely see EP's world as more of a dystopian future, though it might move towards more of a utopia with more extensive use of psychosurgery and the spread of post-scarcity economies...
Yes, but when it moves to this supposed utopia, perhaps it will not be the utopia that certain people would enjoy. For instance, I highly doubt that I'd be able to enjoy any utopia produced by the hypercorps, the Junta, or even the Barsoomians... but I do like the way those Ultimates think.
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Wed, 2010-03-24 05:12
krank krank's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
Decivre wrote:
Bodies in Eclipse Phase continue to have a biological sex.
Some of them, at least =)
Decivre wrote:
More importantly, it also depends on how the ego develops in relation to its chosen body, or even as a personality. Gender identity, even in a world without set biological sexes, is likely to form... unless we actually remove biological sexes from all bodies. Even in our world, people can have a gender identity that contradicts their own physical gender... they usually go through transgender surgeries and procedures. The only thing that might change in Eclipse Phase is that people who desire a body more suited to their identity could finally get what they wish for.
Well, it all depends on whether you a) consider gender identity to be an inescapable part of "human nature", and b) see human nature as unchanging and unchangeable. Personally, I still see gender "identity" as having very much to do with, on one hand, biology (which can be modified) and on the other, culture /which can be modified). People with a gender identity contradicting their biological sex, for instance, I think are produced by a combination of a biological body with some sort of... I hesitate to say "defect" or "deviance", since they both have negative connotations, but perhaps "nonstandard" set of hormones etc, and cultural factors. There are, after all, only hardware and software; hardware is biology, software is that which is created and programmed by culture, limited and influenced by the hardware. "Individuals" don't just magically "appear", they are the product of their biology + their cultural programming...
Decivre wrote:
especially if it could be produced in a way in which all people could be feasibly satisfied.
Provided, of course, that one sees satisfaction and/or "happiness" as a goal for society. (hint: I don't =)
Decivre wrote:
You don't need a flat body to produce a human mind. AGI have been produced in EP aplenty, and they are coded on a computer like any program. Sure they do not necessarily develop to be identical to humans, but we have proven that you do not need an organic body to produce a mind. To that end, the Lost weren't produced in flats... their bodies were transhuman Futuras. A mind can be produced within other transhuman and nonhuman bodies. Hell, the book even mentions surya mating. The only bodies incapable of reproduction are synthmorphs and pods (by design).
Ok, but this still doesn't answer the question - where does the mind "come from"? Depends on the definition of a "mind", of course, but this is definitely one of the things that fascinate me the most about the transhuman future: Today, the mind develops in exactly one way: inside a flat. The child is preprogrammed, genetically, to try to construct and "ego", an understanding of the world. Without social interaction, the child stays at a animal-like level, with little or no self-awareness and certainly no language (the two might be linked)... Suggesting that all one would really need is a system which desires to create an ego, mimicking the human DNA's preprogrammed pattern-creating desires. This is where the line between AGI and "human" is blurred. What does it take to be counted as a "human" rather than an AGI? If the mind is not "programmed" with other parameters than those given by human biology, making the process the same in almost every way, then who's to say if the result is human or AGI? (This, of course, lead me to a bunch of neat adventure and campaign ideas; this may not be something transhumanity has decided for itself yet, and the question might be worth exploring...)
Decivre wrote:
Yes, but when it moves to this supposed utopia, perhaps it will not be the utopia that certain people would enjoy.
Therefore suggesting psychosurgery =) Providing, of course, that "enjoyment" is a stated goal of the society created.
Decivre wrote:
For instance, I highly doubt that I'd be able to enjoy any utopia produced by the hypercorps, the Junta, or even the Barsoomians...
You would after some creative tinkering with your software... =) Personally, as an anti-individualist, a transhumanist, and an anarchist (and a few more -ists as well, of course), I can't say I've found any of the "utopias" of the book to my liking. It seems the book was written from a definite individualist perspective, which of course explains things.
—
Warning: Anarchist, postmodernist, socialist, transhumanist, feminist
Top
Wed, 2010-03-24 06:07
King Shere King Shere's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
Reproduction in transhumanity does exists in all various forms, but I would like to point out that there is a distinct difference between "child" &"offspring". Since Children are a form of offspring, the distinction isn't usually needed. In EP However, other forms of offspring & reproduction would exist & be more common. Forks. I count Forks as a form of offspring & the obvious example of Asexual reproduction, A offspring that doesn't need to be parented & taught. For those seeking to create something new, that are not copies lacking variation. (but still not choose biological reproduction) Perhaps "Parents" could each donate a fork & "psycoweave" /fuze/merge the forks into a new individual. Or the parents ego fuze themselfs. Like the finale in a popular scifi movie . Though "psycoweaving" isn't in the EP book, I imagine its researched (or was), with potential "botched" & "experimental" results.
—
[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/tc_userbar.jpg[/img] [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/exh_userbar.jpg[/img] [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/argo_userbar.jpg[/img] [i]"To find fault is easy; to do better may be difficult."[/i] Plutarch
Top
Wed, 2010-03-24 06:09
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
krank wrote:
Some of them, at least =)
All of them. We do have a gender title for an organism with no sex. Asexual/neuter/hermaphroditic all carry various forms of gender without being male or female. Even if you were in a body with no sex, you would technically be in an asexual or neuter body. You may not be either male or female, but it's very likely that, if given the opportunity to decide which of the two sexes you would prefer, you would identify with one of them. So long as people can identify themselves with one of the genders, gender identity exists.
krank wrote:
Well, it all depends on whether you a) consider gender identity to be an inescapable part of "human nature", and b) see human nature as unchanging and unchangeable. Personally, I still see gender "identity" as having very much to do with, on one hand, biology (which can be modified) and on the other, culture /which can be modified). People with a gender identity contradicting their biological sex, for instance, I think are produced by a combination of a biological body with some sort of... I hesitate to say "defect" or "deviance", since they both have negative connotations, but perhaps "nonstandard" set of hormones etc, and cultural factors. There are, after all, only hardware and software; hardware is biology, software is that which is created and programmed by culture, limited and influenced by the hardware. "Individuals" don't just magically "appear", they are the product of their biology + their cultural programming...
It may also be, to a degree, based on preference. At some point you may be given a choice of which body you would want if you had to choose between sexed bodies. The very act of choosing denotes preference (even if you choose at random, there is a likely chance that you will eventually develop a preference at some point), and the potential for identifying with that gender. I doubt gender identity will completely disappear until biological gender completely disappears.
krank wrote:
Provided, of course, that one sees satisfaction and/or "happiness" as a goal for society. (hint: I don't =)
Which, again, only further proves that the concept of utopia/dystopia is likely impossible to quantify, and scholarly at best.
krank wrote:
Ok, but this still doesn't answer the question - where does the mind "come from"? Depends on the definition of a "mind", of course, but this is definitely one of the things that fascinate me the most about the transhuman future: Today, the mind develops in exactly one way: inside a flat. The child is preprogrammed, genetically, to try to construct and "ego", an understanding of the world. Without social interaction, the child stays at a animal-like level, with little or no self-awareness and certainly no language (the two might be linked)... Suggesting that all one would really need is a system which desires to create an ego, mimicking the human DNA's preprogrammed pattern-creating desires. This is where the line between AGI and "human" is blurred. What does it take to be counted as a "human" rather than an AGI? If the mind is not "programmed" with other parameters than those given by human biology, making the process the same in almost every way, then who's to say if the result is human or AGI? (This, of course, lead me to a bunch of neat adventure and campaign ideas; this may not be something transhumanity has decided for itself yet, and the question might be worth exploring...)
If the mind is software, then in simple terms... it comes from programming, natural or artificial. Functionally our minds are a mass collection of neurons which act fairly efficiently as complex logic gates. Our brain is essentially a processor. To that end, our "thoughts" are the end result of the processes that are generated by neurons of our brain. I don't really see a way that an AGI or natural ego is blurred. In definitive terms, an AGI is programmed while a natural ego is created by natural biological mental processes. Even if the ego you program is, for all effects, indistinguishable from a natural human, it is still an AGI. Think of it as akin to diamonds: today we actually have the technological means to produce diamonds synthetically. These diamonds can be more perfect than natural diamonds, but engineers have proven that impurities added to the system will create synthetic diamonds that are perfectly identical and indistinguishable from natural diamonds. At this point the label synthetic and natural is solely based on point of origin: it is a synthetic diamond if produced by synthetic processes, and a natural diamonds if produced by natural processes. I'd imagine that would be a similar labeling when dealing with AGI and natural egos.
krank wrote:
Therefore suggesting psychosurgery =) Providing, of course, that "enjoyment" is a stated goal of the society created.
Unless a stated goal of that society was that people had to willingly accept the society without the need for mental modification.
krank wrote:
You would after some creative tinkering with your software... =)
Debatable. Some might argue that by tinkering with my software, you have officially deleted me and created a new ego which is more amicable to your ideas. It's all really philosophical at that point, but so is utopia. :D However, I think it fair to note that Eclipse Phase seems to assume a sense of free will. Even with massive psychosurgical reprogramming, our capability as free will entities means that we can fight whatever programming is implanted into us (albeit likely with penalties). Then again, this may also be due to the fact that psychosurgery, in EP, is largely in its infancy. Obviously the mental modifications generated by the Exsurgent virus are far more effective, and practically assured of altering you permanently and irrevocably.
krank wrote:
Personally, as an anti-individualist, a transhumanist, and an anarchist (and a few more -ists as well, of course), I can't say I've found any of the "utopias" of the book to my liking. It seems the book was written from a definite individualist perspective, which of course explains things.
I'd say that if there was any locale that was closest to being a utopia, it would be Glitch. After all, the best form of heaven would be the personal heaven, and a habitat which is essentially a massive computer housing an indefinite number of simulspaces for an indefinite number of infomorphs would be the perfect place for people to create their own heavens.
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Wed, 2010-03-24 06:17
krank krank's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
Decivre wrote:
It may also be, to a degree, based on preference.
But "preference", like "free choice", is based in software. To me, the universe is definitely a deterministic place; "preference" is merely a result of programming. A person choosing a male body is no more "free choice" than my computer "chooses" to interpret these letters...
Decivre wrote:
At some point you may be given a choice of which body you would want if you had to choose between sexed bodies. The very act of choosing denotes preference (even if you choose at random, there is a likely chance that you will eventually develop a preference at some point), and the potential for identifying with that gender. I doubt gender identity will completely disappear until biological gender completely disappears.
Agreed. Have I said I believe it has completely disappeared in EP? No, I haven't. I'm saying gender is fast becoming an outdated, archaic concept. As generations pass, the idea that we are even supposed to "choose" and "develop a preference" will likely become less common. To me, gender is (like enforcable copyright laws) an anarchonism. At least in the setting of EP - some people find it hard to grasp the idea of a world where gender isn't important, and where "gender identity" is about as important as wether or not you choose to wear a red or a brown sweater, or what colour of socks you put on. Gender is very much ingrained into our society at the moment, which makes it hard to imagine a world where the distinction is unimportant, if not nonexistant.
Decivre wrote:
I don't really see a way that an AGI or natural ego is blurred. In definitive terms, an AGI is programmed while a natural ego is created by natural biological mental processes. Even if the ego you program is, for all effects, indistinguishable from a natural human, it is still an AGI. Think of it as akin to diamonds: today we actually have the technological means to produce diamonds synthetically. These diamonds can be more perfect than natural diamonds, but engineers have proven that impurities added to the system will create synthetic diamonds that are perfectly identical and indistinguishable from natural diamonds. At this point the label synthetic and natural is solely based on point of origin: it is a synthetic diamond if produced by synthetic processes, and a natural diamonds if produced by natural processes. I'd imagine that would be a similar labeling when dealing with AGI and natural egos.
So then no, there's no real rational difference. Diamonds are an excellent example of irrationality... A diamond is a diamond, after all. If they are indistinguishable, they are the same. Irrational labeling it is, then. (Which suits me fine: Transhumans are at least as irrational as our humans today, and this gives me plenty of material and ideas to play with, plenty of "hard philosophical questions" to address in-game)
—
Warning: Anarchist, postmodernist, socialist, transhumanist, feminist
Top
Wed, 2010-03-24 08:04
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
krank wrote:
But "preference", like "free choice", is based in software. To me, the universe is definitely a deterministic place; "preference" is merely a result of programming. A person choosing a male body is no more "free choice" than my computer "chooses" to interpret these letters...
Except the computer isn't choosing at all. The significant difference being that our programming is nonlinear and self-adapting. Free will may very well be a manifestation of those attributes, which are not present in modern programs.
krank wrote:
Agreed. Have I said I believe it has completely disappeared in EP? No, I haven't. I'm saying gender is fast becoming an outdated, archaic concept. As generations pass, the idea that we are even supposed to "choose" and "develop a preference" will likely become less common. To me, gender is (like enforcable copyright laws) an anarchonism. At least in the setting of EP - some people find it hard to grasp the idea of a world where gender isn't important, and where "gender identity" is about as important as wether or not you choose to wear a red or a brown sweater, or what colour of socks you put on. Gender is very much ingrained into our society at the moment, which makes it hard to imagine a world where the distinction is unimportant, if not nonexistant.
That isn't the issue. Gender exists because sex exists. To claim that people will not have a gender identity in a future where gender can be swapped seems as ludicrous to me as claiming that people can't have a favorite color in a world where you can get things in many colors. It's insane. Gender identity is part and parcel to a persons preference for and identification with a specific gender. Until we actually remove that option by rendering all genders nonexistent, people will have a preference, and with it an identity. The only other way to remove gender identity is to remove a person's ability to create personal preferentiality.
krank wrote:
So then no, there's no real rational difference. Diamonds are an excellent example of irrationality... A diamond is a diamond, after all. If they are indistinguishable, they are the same. Irrational labeling it is, then. (Which suits me fine: Transhumans are at least as irrational as our humans today, and this gives me plenty of material and ideas to play with, plenty of "hard philosophical questions" to address in-game)
Of course there is a rational difference. One would choose the label based on the factual origin of the ego. If labeling based on that is irrational, then all labels are irrational. All things exist whether they are named or not, so any and all labeling is pointless, by this logic.
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Wed, 2010-03-24 08:51
krank krank's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
Decivre wrote:
Except the computer isn't choosing at all.
Exactly. It is acting exactly as its hardware and software are designed. Just like humans, who choose whatever their processor determines to be the "best" choice. On the other hand, I'm a grumpy determinist. One might even go so far as to call me fatalist, but "fate" is such an irrational term...
Decivre wrote:
The significant difference being that our programming is nonlinear and self-adapting. Free will may very well be a manifestation of those attributes, which are not present in modern programs.
Computers are, today, not as complex as the human computer. That doesn't necessarily mean "free will" exists, only that we, at the moment, are unable to comprahend exactly how the human machine comes to its decisions. "Free will", as in choice not determined by programming or hardware, is impossible without the existance of a soul. Otherwise, "free will" is just a fancy term for advanced computing...
Decivre wrote:
Gender exists because sex exists. To claim that people will not have a gender identity in a future where gender can be swapped seems as ludicrous to me as claiming that people can't have a favorite color in a world where you can get things in many colors. It's insane. Gender identity is part and parcel to a persons preference for and identification with a specific gender. Until we actually remove that option by rendering all genders nonexistent, people will have a preference, and with it an identity. The only other way to remove gender identity is to remove a person's ability to create personal preferentiality.
Do you usually speak of "colour identity", to describe a person's preference of a certain colour? Do you have a "sweater identity" and a "pants identity" and a "socks identity"? I'm not suggesting people won't have a preference. I just find it absurdly anachronistic that this preference would be significant to people's construction of identity. Just like I guess nationality has largely become a non-issue, since all the old nations are blown to smithereens. Sure, some people, particularly older people, will still define themselves as "chinese" or "black" or "female" - but as time moves on, such choices become less important to the creation of a self-image, an identity. (And yes, there are loads of people who use colour as part of their identity - just not a majority, not by a long shot)
Decivre wrote:
Of course there is a rational difference. One would choose the label based on the factual origin of the ego. If labeling based on that is irrational, then all labels are irrational. All things exist whether they are named or not, so any and all labeling is pointless, by this logic.
If two egos are exactly identical, react in the exact same way, think exactly the same thoughts - but one is an AGI, and the other is "human" based solely on origin, then such labels serve very little purpose. In some sense, they don't describe the object itself, but only a small part of its history. To me, the border between "natural" and "artificial"; between "human" and "AGI", becomes very much blurred when the child doesn't neccessarily needs to be born of human female (exowombs), for instance. Is it only "human" if carried to term from sperm+egg to infant? What if the egg is artificially constructed, but identical to a human egg? What if the sperm is designed and constructed? Still "natural", still "human"? Many examples have been given in this thread regarding different ways to create an offspring. Which, if any, of these result in a human? Is a fork human? If you mix two stripped-down forks into a new individual, is the result human? If you design a fork from the ground-up, using small pieces of many individuals? (Technically, possibly no longer a fork, but you know what I mean) I find it hard to draw clear borders here, between that which is "human" and that which is not. To a bioconservative, I guess nothing that isn't born by a woman after nine months of pregnancy, and a wholly "natural" origin of unprotected sex, is considered truly human. I guess the world of Eclipse Phase also struggles with these issues. The biocons I've mentiones; probably a lot of the more "progressive" groups are more lenient in their definition of "human". It's hard hating AI's when the borders seem blurred, so I guess a lot of people tend to draw more or less arbitrary lines: "if you're born from a womb from more than 90% human DNA, you're human", "you're human if your DNA is human"... Drawing lines is important to people. Makes the world easier to handle. For me, it's a bit like trying to define "art". The same piece can be considered art or trash - some make the distinction based on personal preference (whether or not they like how it looks), some make it on the basis of origin (if it was created by a baby, an elephant, or a highly trained artist), etc... And my own opinion ("Art is a subjective value, and I am willing to agree that anything at least one person in the world thinks is art, is art") mirrors my opinion on what it is to be "human" (the word "human" is a subjective definition, mostly used by people who want to distance themselves from some other group - 'not-humans'. I am willing to side with anyone who wants to call hirself human")... Definitions are a human hobby. We need to define the world in ordert to understand it. The question becomes, to me, a question of intent - [i]why[/i] are we interested in defining certain people as "humans", and others as "not-humans"? Is the distinction useful/helpful? If so - when, where and how?
—
Warning: Anarchist, postmodernist, socialist, transhumanist, feminist
Top
Wed, 2010-03-24 19:27
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
krank wrote:
Exactly. It is acting exactly as its hardware and software are designed. Just like humans, who choose whatever their processor determines to be the "best" choice. On the other hand, I'm a grumpy determinist. One might even go so far as to call me fatalist, but "fate" is such an irrational term...
Except we know that not all things are deterministic. Stochastic processes are any natural processes in the real world which are unpredictable by account of the near-indeterminable number of factors that may alter the outcome. Free will may be an extension of that... aspects of our mind that can be altered by factors external to our programming, in such a way that determinism is near-impossible... like brownian motion.
krank wrote:
Computers are, today, not as complex as the human computer. That doesn't necessarily mean "free will" exists, only that we, at the moment, are unable to comprahend exactly how the human machine comes to its decisions. "Free will", as in choice not determined by programming or hardware, is impossible without the existance of a soul. Otherwise, "free will" is just a fancy term for advanced computing...
I see free will as "self-changing thought-processes which allow an organic system to be capable of altering and going against its own programming". My favorite example of what I see as an application of free will is the act of addicts kicking a habit of their own volition. Their programming tells them to keep doing it, and they themselves decide to do otherwise, and not necessarily for any particular reason. Not all theories of free will must conclude with the "soul". I personally believe that one exists, but not the other.
krank wrote:
Do you usually speak of "colour identity", to describe a person's preference of a certain colour? Do you have a "sweater identity" and a "pants identity" and a "socks identity"? I'm not suggesting people won't have a preference. I just find it absurdly anachronistic that this preference would be significant to people's construction of identity. Just like I guess nationality has largely become a non-issue, since all the old nations are blown to smithereens. Sure, some people, particularly older people, will still define themselves as "chinese" or "black" or "female" - but as time moves on, such choices become less important to the creation of a self-image, an identity. (And yes, there are loads of people who use colour as part of their identity - just not a majority, not by a long shot)
We do have "racial identity", which is how someone defines themselves according to cultural and genetic background. We do have "social identity", which is often innately tied to the way a person dresses. To that end, someones style of dress can very well be a direct part of their identity (like someone who simply cannot be seen in public without a suit on). There are plenty of things that are innately tied to your sense of identity. The clothes you wear, the vehicle you drive, the people you hang out with, and even the people you are related to (favorite color also plays a part). All of these things are a part of who you are. You would literally have to banish clothes, vehicles, friendship and the concept of family (and perhaps make everyone blind) to be able to wipe any attachment of identity out of these things. And yes, this extends to gender. So long as people may choose a gender, their preference may very well become a part of who they are, and allow them to identify with it.
krank wrote:
If two egos are exactly identical, react in the exact same way, think exactly the same thoughts - but one is an AGI, and the other is "human" based solely on origin, then such labels serve very little purpose. In some sense, they don't describe the object itself, but only a small part of its history. To me, the border between "natural" and "artificial"; between "human" and "AGI", becomes very much blurred when the child doesn't neccessarily needs to be born of human female (exowombs), for instance. Is it only "human" if carried to term from sperm+egg to infant? What if the egg is artificially constructed, but identical to a human egg? What if the sperm is designed and constructed? Still "natural", still "human"?
One thing you'll note was that I never used the term "human" to segregate from AGI. I used the term "natural", and I did so for a reason. I was talking in the context of objective, not subjective, frames of reference. "Human" can be an objective term if tied to species (we are currently the species homo sapiens, which is human), but transhumanity can essentially change its species simply by jumping into another body. Are you objectively human if you resleeve into a dog body? No, you are objectively a dog, and subjectively consider yourself human. In this same vein, I used the terms AGI and natural to denote objective differences between mind discerned by point of origin. An ego that is objectively an AGI was programmed artificially by another person. An ego that is objectively a natural mind was created by biological processes. It's that simple. An AGI could in theory identify themselves as a human, and who are we to argue? Telling someone who identifies subjectively as a human that they aren't is about as trivial as telling someone that claims their favorite color is green that they don't like green. It simply doesn't work.
krank wrote:
Many examples have been given in this thread regarding different ways to create an offspring. Which, if any, of these result in a human? Is a fork human? If you mix two stripped-down forks into a new individual, is the result human? If you design a fork from the ground-up, using small pieces of many individuals? (Technically, possibly no longer a fork, but you know what I mean) I find it hard to draw clear borders here, between that which is "human" and that which is not. To a bioconservative, I guess nothing that isn't born by a woman after nine months of pregnancy, and a wholly "natural" origin of unprotected sex, is considered truly human. I guess the world of Eclipse Phase also struggles with these issues. The biocons I've mentiones; probably a lot of the more "progressive" groups are more lenient in their definition of "human". It's hard hating AI's when the borders seem blurred, so I guess a lot of people tend to draw more or less arbitrary lines: "if you're born from a womb from more than 90% human DNA, you're human", "you're human if your DNA is human"... Drawing lines is important to people. Makes the world easier to handle.
I would still vehemently disagree with using "human" as a label. It simply doesn't apply to the mind. Human is a species. If you resleeve a human male into a female giraffe, then he is objectively female and a giraffe, while subjectively human and male. Unfortunately, subjective concepts are not something that you can categorize all too well... we label them, but the labels we use are generally personally chosen, rather than objectively branded onto us by others. Human as a species is an objective term because no one would argue that someone on here isn't human... we know objectively that they are. Subjectively this might not be the case: someone here might be a furry, and someone else might identify themselves as a vampire. This is why your character sheet says "gender identity" instead of "gender", it acknowledges that the former is a personal subjective concept that is likely permanently a part of your character, while the latter is an objective concept that will change from body to body. In that context, if you were to use the term "human", you'd have to use it for both "species" and "species identity" (perhaps even "originating species"). To that end, there's a good reason that the term [b]trans[/b]humanity has become so common in the Eclipse Phase setting. It is a much broader term that the game seems to use to reference basic humans (flats, maybe splicers), modified humans (most biomorphs) and even posthuman or nonhuman beings (AGI, uplifts, synthmorphs, and many more).
krank wrote:
For me, it's a bit like trying to define "art". The same piece can be considered art or trash - some make the distinction based on personal preference (whether or not they like how it looks), some make it on the basis of origin (if it was created by a baby, an elephant, or a highly trained artist), etc... And my own opinion ("Art is a subjective value, and I am willing to agree that anything at least one person in the world thinks is art, is art") mirrors my opinion on what it is to be "human" (the word "human" is a subjective definition, mostly used by people who want to distance themselves from some other group - 'not-humans'. I am willing to side with anyone who wants to call hirself human")... Definitions are a human hobby. We need to define the world in ordert to understand it. The question becomes, to me, a question of intent - [i]why[/i] are we interested in defining certain people as "humans", and others as "not-humans"? Is the distinction useful/helpful? If so - when, where and how?
Whether something is trash or not is certainly subjective, but certain aspects of art are very much objective qualities. The original artist that created it, the art period in which it was created, and even perhaps the genre of art that it falls under* can be considered objective qualities. These objective aspects are inarguable. However, you are right that so much of it is very subjective, and the same is true about transhumanity. That does not change the fact that certain aspects will still remain objective, and those objective labels are still valid. *[sup]: Art genre is sometimes debated, so this is not a completely objective concept.[/sup]
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 00:42
TheWanderingJewels TheWanderingJewels's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
If one wants to get truly nitpicky, I would guess the phrase "Sophonts" would be used across the system as a neutral term for all intelligences, meat or otherwise. But since we are dealing with a predominantly Transhuman species a lot of the older designations will stick around for some time to come. While the sexuality issue might be a bit of a stickler, male and female will still be around simple because in spite of everything, natural evolution designed things that way. Transhumanity's poking around with gender swapping and infomorphing for something to do is all well and good. but the need to reproduce and create offspring is a impulse umm.....hardwired into all psyches. And will the population so heaviliy reduced, cultural expectations to have larger families must be there. The nature of the family has wider options, but in the end....still family.
—
A brave little theory, and actually quite coherent for a system of five or seven dimensions--if only we lived in one. Academician Prokhor Zakharov "Now We Are Alone"
Top
Wed, 2010-03-24 23:33
browwiw browwiw's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
It's threads like these why I love this forum so much. If it wasn't the middle of the night and I wasn't so tired I might have something useful to add.
—

"Let’s face it: Most of us are just here to shoot stormtroopers." - Gary M. Sarli

Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 01:53
krank krank's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
Decivre wrote:
Except we know that not all things are deterministic. Stochastic processes are any natural processes in the real world which are unpredictable by account of the near-indeterminable number of factors that may alter the outcome. Free will may be an extension of that... aspects of our mind that can be altered by factors external to our programming, in such a way that determinism is near-impossible... like brownian motion.
There's a difference between "things are not deterministic" and "we cannot determine them". Brownian motion is "seemingly" random - which isn't the same thing as baing random. The fact that we currently lack models and/or computing power to acurractely predict something does not mean there are things which happen outside causality.
Decivre wrote:
My favorite example of what I see as an application of free will is the act of addicts kicking a habit of their own volition. Their programming tells them to keep doing it, and they themselves decide to do otherwise, and not necessarily for any particular reason.
There's always a reason. Always. There are plenty of reasons for each addict to kick the habit, not all of them apparent, and not all of them are even known to the individual. Aside from the concious mind, there's also biology as well as the subconcious, so even if the concious mind doesn't understand the reason for something, that doesn't mean there are no reasons...
Decivre wrote:
We do have "racial identity", which is how someone defines themselves according to cultural and genetic background. We do have "social identity", which is often innately tied to the way a person dresses. To that end, someones style of dress can very well be a direct part of their identity (like someone who simply cannot be seen in public without a suit on). There are plenty of things that are innately tied to your sense of identity. The clothes you wear, the vehicle you drive, the people you hang out with, and even the people you are related to (favorite color also plays a part). All of these things are a part of who you are. You would literally have to banish clothes, vehicles, friendship and the concept of family (and perhaps make everyone blind) to be able to wipe any attachment of identity out of these things. And yes, this extends to gender. So long as people may choose a gender, their preference may very well become a part of who they are, and allow them to identify with it.
The thing is, we don't refer to every type of preference as being an "identity". Some things are simply not considered important enough to be labeled an identity. For instance, while we may have a "social identity" of which clothes are a part, very few of us talk of having a "socks identity" or a "colour identity". That's because in order to be considered a [something]-identity, it needs to be a substantial part of how we define ourselves. Language is fluid - what constitutes a [something]-identity today (like national/gender) might not be one tomorrow.
Decivre wrote:
One thing you'll note was that I never used the term "human" to segregate from AGI. I used the term "natural", and I did so for a reason. I was talking in the context of objective, not subjective, frames of reference.
There are no "objective" frames of reference. "Natural" is also subjective.
Decivre wrote:
Are you objectively human if you resleeve into a dog body? No, you are objectively a dog, and subjectively consider yourself human.
Definition requires a definer... There's no such thing as "objectively" human. Human [i]according to whom[/i] is the relevant question here...
Decivre wrote:
In this same vein, I used the terms AGI and natural to denote objective differences between mind discerned by point of origin. An ego that is objectively an AGI was programmed artificially by another person. An ego that is objectively a natural mind was created by biological processes. It's that simple. An AGI could in theory identify themselves as a human, and who are we to argue? Telling someone who identifies subjectively as a human that they aren't is about as trivial as telling someone that claims their favorite color is green that they don't like green. It simply doesn't work.
The AGI could also successfully argue that it's natural, since - after all - all things are. There can be no such thing as "unnatural", the very idea stems from the (false) premise that humans aren't part of nature, therefore their creations are un-natural.
Decivre wrote:
Human as a species is an objective term because no one would argue that someone on here isn't human... we know objectively that they are.
For the moment, we have agreed on a definition. That's not the same thing as it being "objective".
Decivre wrote:
Whether something is trash or not is certainly subjective, but certain aspects of art are very much objective qualities. The original artist that created it, the art period in which it was created, and even perhaps the genre of art that it falls under* can be considered objective qualities. These objective aspects are inarguable.
Who the original artist was can very much be subject to debate - and some people (like me) argue that each artist is simply an extension of society, so in a way all art is created by the culture itself, collectively (all artists get their inspiration from somewhere - they do not create something out of nothing, but rather create something out of pieces created by someone else)... But yes, some of the aspects of specific pieces of art don't warrant much discussion. We can subjectively agree on them (which neither means they are inarguable or "objective").
Decivre wrote:
However, you are right that so much of it is very subjective, and the same is true about transhumanity. That does not change the fact that certain aspects will still remain objective, and those objective labels are still valid.
Certain aspects of individual transhumans can be subjectively agreed on. The nature of transhumanity itself is another thing altogether, since all attempts to define large groups necessarily means labeling and simplifying, and that always means there's room for discussion.
—
Warning: Anarchist, postmodernist, socialist, transhumanist, feminist
Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 01:59
krank krank's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
TheWanderingJewels wrote:
While the sexuality issue might be a bit of a stickler, male and female will still be around simple because in spite of everything, natural evolution designed things that way.
Evolution designed a lot of things that we just don't care about anymore. That sounds like a bioconservative point of view to me =)
TheWanderingJewels wrote:
Transhumanity's poking around with gender swapping and infomorphing for something to do is all well and good. but the need to reproduce and create offspring is a impulse umm.....hardwired into all psyches.
Thing is, you can't prove that. Personally, I think the "biological clock" is more about biology than culture; and with advances in manipulation of biology as well as psychosurgery I very much doubt that impulse needs to remain. Not all feel the need to create offspring even today.
TheWanderingJewels wrote:
And will the population so heavily reduced, cultural expectations to have larger families must be there.
...or, you know, not. Since people are effectively immortal, there's just not much need to create more of us. Population is reduced, but there's still overpopulation.
TheWanderingJewels wrote:
The nature of the family has wider options, but in the end....still family.
Hopefully not. With any luck, there are a lot more options than "family". At the very least, the nuclear family is - hopefully - not around as much...
—
Warning: Anarchist, postmodernist, socialist, transhumanist, feminist
Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 02:16
TheWanderingJewels TheWanderingJewels's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
possibly, But most of transhumanity does recognize that they may be dwindling, and so I would expect a cultural shift towards having larger...erm...'families'. a fairly common reaction after population reductions, historically speaking
—
A brave little theory, and actually quite coherent for a system of five or seven dimensions--if only we lived in one. Academician Prokhor Zakharov "Now We Are Alone"
Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 02:22
krank krank's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
TheWanderingJewels wrote:
possibly, But most of transhumanity does recognize that they may be dwindling, and so I would expect a cultural shift towards having larger...erm...'families'. a fairly common reaction after population reductions, historically speaking
Absolutely. I do think, however, that some parts of the current situations are truly unique. Some Sci-Fi authors, like Peter F. Hamilton, have examined what might happen to the (trans)human need for reproduction when there's no real "death" in sight, when all are effectively immortal. There is no real need to create someone to keep the "bloodline" alive...
—
Warning: Anarchist, postmodernist, socialist, transhumanist, feminist
Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 02:40
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
krank wrote:
There's a difference between "things are not deterministic" and "we cannot determine them". Brownian motion is "seemingly" random - which isn't the same thing as baing random. The fact that we currently lack models and/or computing power to acurractely predict something does not mean there are things which happen outside causality.
But the bigger reason is also that brownian motion is affected by external parameters quite easily. This could be true with programming an ego: any programming may be altered or ignored simply due to outside factors that cause a change in the programming of that ego. Your psychosurgery to instill undying loyalty may become worthless when the ego is introduced to ideas that incense him to question his loyalty. Hell, the very knowledge that they were programmed may alter the effects of the programming. That's the nature of our minds.
krank wrote:
There's always a reason. Always. There are plenty of reasons for each addict to kick the habit, not all of them apparent, and not all of them are even known to the individual. Aside from the concious mind, there's also biology as well as the subconcious, so even if the concious mind doesn't understand the reason for something, that doesn't mean there are no reasons...
But it also doesn't mean that there are reasons. You are simply assuming that there is a reason because you are under the belief that there is always a reason. There may very well not be, or the reason may be indeterminate or effectively random.
krank]The thing is, we don't refer to every type of preference as being an "identity". Some things are simply not considered important enough to be labeled an identity. For instance, while we may have a "social identity" of which clothes are a part, very few of us talk of having a "socks identity" or a "colour identity". That's because in order to be considered a [something]-identity, it needs to be a substantial part of how we define ourselves. Language is fluid - what constitutes a [something]-identity today (like national/gender) might not be one tomorrow. Except some concepts of identity are more personal than most. Someone who really does care about their socks may actually consider themselves to have a "socks identity". Someone who is very infatuated with their favorite color may have a "color identity". Who are you to say that someone cannot define themselves however they wish to do so? What someone will identify with varies from person to person, and I simply think it ludicrous to assume that gender identity will simply go extinct, or even start to fade to a significant degree. Gender and sexuality is a huge part of who we are, and it plays a key role in intimacy and social structures. It's potency on us might reduce (and people may not put so much importance upon it), but its existence likely will not... unless we completely render gender nonexistent. [quote=krank wrote:
There are no "objective" frames of reference. "Natural" is also subjective.
There very much are objective frames of reference. 2 is a number, and number is its label. Are you honestly going to argue that 2 is not a number? Now many uses of the word natural are most definitely subjective (especially how businesses use it to mean "comes from nature", even though all things basically come from nature), but in this context, it's very objective. I used the word natural to mean "an ego which was born from biological processes, as opposed to software programming", and that is a wholly objective term in that usage.
krank wrote:
Definition requires a definer... There's no such thing as "objectively" human. Human [i]according to whom[/i] is the relevant question here...
According to the means by which we define our species. Humans are bipedal, four-limbed, internally-chiral bilaterally symmetric hairless primates. They are the only ones that exist. This isn't a debatable topic at all... we both know that [b]we[/b] are human. A machine is not human. Theoretically, however, a mind could be emulated within a sufficiently-advanced machine. While that mind may identify itself as a human, it is in the end a mind emulation on a machine. These are not debatable concepts. I'm talking about human as we scientifically define it, not as we philosophically define it.
krank wrote:
The AGI could also successfully argue that it's natural, since - after all - all things are. There can be no such thing as "unnatural", the very idea stems from the (false) premise that humans aren't part of nature, therefore their creations are un-natural.
"Natural" as I'm using it has a more specific definition, and is not the standard "of nature" defined term that many people use. In this case, I'm using it to refer to egos created solely out of biological function, as opposed to computer programming. They may subjectively consider themselves natural, but they are using a more philosophical use of the term.
krank wrote:
For the moment, we have agreed on a definition. That's not the same thing as it being "objective".
Yes, for the sake of labels it is. Otherwise the very term "objective" loses all value. We have an agreed upon definition of 2, and all mathematical equations utilizing 2 are objectively valued. Just because I randomly claim "2 is now a letter of the alphabet!" doesn't mean I have rendered every math equation to ever use the number useless.
krank wrote:
Who the original artist was can very much be subject to debate - and some people (like me) argue that each artist is simply an extension of society, so in a way all art is created by the culture itself, collectively (all artists get their inspiration from somewhere - they do not create something out of nothing, but rather create something out of pieces created by someone else)... But yes, some of the aspects of specific pieces of art don't warrant much discussion. We can subjectively agree on them (which neither means they are inarguable or "objective").
Oh, come on... now we are just treading on semantics. By this logic we could argue virtually anything. The fact is that [i]someone[/i] (or perhaps a group of "someones") put a brush against a canvas while it was covered in paint. That person is the original artist (or artists, if it was a group effort). This isn't a debatable topic, lest we render all logic valueless by merit of the fact that we could fabricate any claim and declare it true [i]in a sense[/i].
krank wrote:
Certain aspects of individual transhumans can be subjectively agreed on. The nature of transhumanity itself is another thing altogether, since all attempts to define large groups necessarily means labeling and simplifying, and that always means there's room for discussion.
Not necessarily. Some labels are meant to be simple, while others are more specific. I am an atheist, which means that I am a person who does not actively believe that there is a god. There are a multitude of different varieties of atheism, many of which can contradict others, but the catchall term atheist denotes them all. We use more specific labels for more specific groups. We create our own mental charts and trees that denote various labels for anything, which then descend down to more and more specific labels. This is how basic taxonomy functions.
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 04:46
krank krank's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
Decivre wrote:
Except some concepts of identity are more personal than most. Someone who really does care about their socks may actually consider themselves to have a "socks identity". Someone who is very infatuated with their favorite color may have a "color identity". Who are you to say that someone cannot define themselves however they wish to do so?
You stray close to using a straw man argument here; I've never said anyone "couldn't" have a socks-identity. I said most people don't consider themselves to have one. See the difference? We do not [i]generally[/i] speak of socks-identities, because [i]most[/i] of us don't consider ourselves to have one. This is statistics, not individuality. The individual usually deviates from the statistical norms in a multitude of ways. This does not invalidate the statistical norm as a concept.
Decivre wrote:
What someone will identify with varies from person to person, and I simply think it ludicrous to assume that gender identity will simply go extinct, or even start to fade to a significant degree. Gender and sexuality is a huge part of who we are, and it plays a key role in intimacy and social structures. It's potency on us might reduce (and people may not put so much importance upon it), but its existence likely will not... unless we completely render gender nonexistent.
I think that's very much trying to push the values of our time into the world of EP - the very thing you accused me of doing when I didn't want the Cantina effect. It's a large part of who some (most) of us are are [i]today[/i]. History is full of things which were central to people's identities, but which now are considered less important by a majority of people. As society changes, so does the building blocks of identity.
Decivre wrote:
There very much are objective frames of reference. 2 is a number, and number is its label. Are you honestly going to argue that 2 is not a number?
I'm going to argue that the word/concept "number" is a human invention, but that I am willing to [i]agree[/i] with you that there is such a thing as a number, and that 2 is such a thing. This does not mean it's "objectively true", it just means we are in agreement.
Decivre wrote:
I used the word natural to mean "an ego which was born from biological processes, as opposed to software programming", and that is a wholly objective term in that usage.
Nope, that's a subjective definition you're using, in the hope that the people you're discussing
Decivre wrote:
Yes, for the sake of labels it is. Otherwise the very term "objective" loses all value.
I agree, the term has very little, if any, value. It carries with it the notion of "universal truth", which I am very much against on philosophical principle. it causes people to be absolutely sure about things, which is seldom a good thing.
Decivre wrote:
We have an agreed upon definition of 2, and all mathematical equations utilizing 2 are objectively valued. Just because I randomly claim "2 is now a letter of the alphabet!" doesn't mean I have rendered every math equation to ever use the number useless.
Again, language is a matter of agreement, of collaboration. You as an individual can't change the agreement to any large degree.
Decivre wrote:
Oh, come on... now we are just treading on semantics. By this logic we could argue virtually anything.
Yes, we could. And this is a good thing.
Decivre wrote:
Not necessarily. Some labels are meant to be simple, while others are more specific. I am an atheist, which means that I am a person who does not actively believe that there is a god. There are a multitude of different varieties of atheism, many of which can contradict others, but the catchall term atheist denotes them all. We use more specific labels for more specific groups. We create our own mental charts and trees that denote various labels for anything, which then descend down to more and more specific labels. This is how basic taxonomy functions.
Yet, all definitions are functions of language and human observation, both of which are subjective and collaborative, as opposed to "objective" (i.e "outside ourselves").
—
Warning: Anarchist, postmodernist, socialist, transhumanist, feminist
Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 04:39
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
krank wrote:
You stray close to using a straw man argument here; I've never said anyone "couldn't" have a socks-identity. I said most people don't consider themselves to have one. See the difference? We do not [i]generally[/i] speak of socks-identities, because [i]most[/i] of us don't consider ourselves to have one. This is statistics, not individuality. The individual usually deviates from the statistical norms in a multitude of ways. This does not invalidate the statistical norm as a concept.
I find your stance to be constantly shifting. On one hand you talk of the nonexistence of objectivity, and then you speak of statistics. The latter means nothing without the former, to some degree.
krank wrote:
I think that's very much trying to push the values of our time into the world of EP - the very thing you accused me of doing when I didn't want the Cantina effect. It's a large part of who some (most) of us are are [i]today[/i]. History is full of things which were central to people's identities, but which now are considered less important by a majority of people. As society changes, so does the building blocks of identity.
Actually, I'm pushing historical values onto the world of EP. I find the idea absolutely ludicrous that the world, after a certain degree of technological advancement, will completely eliminate basic personal concepts like gender without actually eliminating the physical concept of sex, simply by merit of being more scientifically and technologically advanced. In our time, despite our achievements philosophically and scientifically, we have not eliminated basic aspects of our nature. Slavery still exists... poverty still exists... and the classical legal system of retribution that has been used effectively since the dawn of time has become more complex, but is still functionally used in the same way. However, you honestly seem to be claiming that in a futuristic world like EP, where slavery still exists, poverty still exists, and legal systems of retribution are still in full effect... despite us essentially being the same exact humans we've been for millennia, except with exchangeable bodies... we would somehow completely annihilate innate aspects of our personality? Identity hasn't changed at all throughout history. We are still tied to the same things we've always been tied to. The semantics can change, the labels have changed, but those things we identify with will always be the same.
krank wrote:
I'm going to argue that the word/concept "number" is a human invention, but that I am willing to [i]agree[/i] with you that there is such a thing as a number, and that 2 is such a thing. This does not mean it's "objectively true", it just means we are in agreement.
Except that is what "objective" means. Subjective truths are personal truths, things that we decide for ourselves, which are only true for ourselves. Opinions are subjective truths. Objective truths are all other aspects, facts as we often call them. You would have to be arguing that facts do not exist to be claiming that objectivity does not exist. They are synonymous words. If facts do not exist, then there is no reason to study the universe, no reason to acknowledge reality, and virtually no reason to discuss anything at all.
krank wrote:
Nope, that's a subjective definition you're using, in the hope that the people you're discussing
Wrong. The objective element of the word as I'm using it, is that I'm using it in reference to beings which are "biologically produced as opposed to computer programmed". That is a fact about how I am using it. Since it is a fact that is observable by all (just by looking at what I wrote, you should be able to tell the context in which I used it), it is an objective definition. Granted, it may not be the standard definition for the term, but objective.
krank wrote:
I agree, the term has very little, if any, value. It carries with it the notion of "universal truth", which I am very much against on philosophical principle. it causes people to be absolutely sure about things, which is seldom a good thing.
Just because you associate it with universal truth does not mean that it actually has anything to do with that. An objective statement is a fact, so the only way you could argue that objectivity doesn't exist is if you argue that facts do not exist.
krank wrote:
Again, language is a matter of agreement, of collaboration. You as an individual can't change the agreement to any large degree.
Your claims seem to imply that. From what I can tell, you seem to believe that there is no such thing as a fact... that would render this, and every other debate that has ever existed in the history of man, completely pointless.
krank wrote:
Yes, we could. And this is a good thing.
Not without the existence of fact and objectivity. You cannot argue subjective concepts.
krank wrote:
Yet, all definitions are functions of language and human observation, both of which are subjective and collaborative, as opposed to "objective" (i.e "outside ourselves").
No it isn't. Language very much exists "outside ourselves". You can find it in books, you can find it in media, and you can find it anywhere else. Proof of the existence of language is not something that only exists within our minds. It is a very tangible thing, and very objective.
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 04:39
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
krank wrote:
Hopefully not. With any luck, there are a lot more options than "family". At the very least, the nuclear family is - hopefully - not around as much...
Family means more than just those you are related to, even today. We have since forever considered marriage a natural extension of family. Sometimes these families stay in intimate contact, essentially forming a bond and becoming one family. Some people consider their best friends to be a part of their family. Whatever grouped bonds might form, family may stick around as a term to refer to them.
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 07:00
krank krank's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
Decivre wrote:
I find your stance to be constantly shifting. On one hand you talk of the nonexistence of objectivity, and then you speak of statistics. The latter means nothing without the former, to some degree.
I disagree. It's very possible to have statistics without somehow claiming neither statistics nor what they measure have any "objective" meaning or value.
Decivre wrote:
we would somehow completely annihilate innate aspects of our personality?
Again with the annihilation... Never said anything about annihilation. I'm saying some parts are very likely to become a lot less important.
Decivre wrote:
Identity hasn't changed at all throughout history. We are still tied to the same things we've always been tied to. The semantics can change, the labels have changed, but those things we identify with will always be the same.
I take it you haven't studied much history, then? 'Cause I'm sorry, but that's not true. Human culture etc have changed in a myriad different ways, and identity in the 21st century differes vastly from, say, how identity was defined in the middle aged. Different things are considered important, "central" to the definition of ones "self", ego or "identity". So, I'm sorry, but no.
Decivre wrote:
Except that is what "objective" means. Subjective truths are personal truths, things that we decide for ourselves, which are only true for ourselves. Opinions are subjective truths. Objective truths are all other aspects, facts as we often call them. You would have to be arguing that facts do not exist to be claiming that objectivity does not exist. They are synonymous words.
... Wait... This discussion has become pointless. I understand your point of view, though I don't share it. I have no use for "objective facts". I'm guessing you, more or less, understand my point of view, as well. And if there is mutual understanding, further discussion is meaningless. (The likelihood of either of us to change our opinion on this very philosophical matter is more or less zero, and I don't even consider that a positive outcome - I have no desire to "convert" you to the subjectivist way of thinking). I don't believe in objective facts, and I am unlikely to change my mind, just as you are unlikely to stop believing in them regardless of what I say. Again, a discussion has become so off-topic that continuing is pointless. If you feel the need to discuss these things further or just get in a last word in the matter of objective, subjective, feel free. I won't respond, since I don't feel that part of the discussion serves any constructive purpose whatsoever.
—
Warning: Anarchist, postmodernist, socialist, transhumanist, feminist
Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 07:06
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
krank wrote:
I disagree. It's very possible to have statistics without somehow claiming neither statistics nor what they measure have any "objective" meaning or value.
What? Do you understand what the concepts of objectivity and subjectivity even mean?! Objective statement: "Our sun is yellow." Subjective statement: "Yellow is my favorite color." You do understand this, right? You do understand that the term "objective" actually has a valid lingual meaning, right?!
krank wrote:
Again with the annihilation... Never said anything about annihilation. I'm saying some parts are very likely to become a lot less important.
That will differ from person to person. I can't imagine anything making the majority of transhumanity lose its sense of gender identity without at least largely eliminating the concept of gender. In EP, virtually every biomorph still does have a gender. Why would it be any less likely to have a gender identity in such a setting?
krank wrote:
I take it you haven't studied much history, then? 'Cause I'm sorry, but that's not true. Human culture etc have changed in a myriad different ways, and identity in the 21st century differes vastly from, say, how identity was defined in the middle aged. Different things are considered important, "central" to the definition of ones "self", ego or "identity". So, I'm sorry, but no.
Name one. Name one thing that was an identifiable concept that is no longer the case. Just one thing.
krank wrote:
Oh, wait... This discussion has become pointless. I understand your point of view, though I don't share it. I have no use for "objective facts". I'm guessing you, more or less, understand my point of view, as well. And if there is mutual understanding, further discussion is meaningless. (The likelihood of either of us to change our opinion on this very philosophical matter is more or less zero, and I don't even consider that a positive outcome - I have no desire to "convert" you to the subjectivist way of thinking). I don't believe in objective facts, and I am unlikely to change my mind, just as you are unlikely to stop believing in them regardless of what I say. Again, a discussion has become so off-topic that continuing is pointless. If you feel the need to discuss these things further or just get in a last word in the matter of objective, subjective, feel free. I won't respond, since I don't feel that part of the discussion serves any constructive purpose whatsoever.
I think the problem here is that you are trying to claim a different meaning for the term "objectivity". I do know that English is your second language, so I'll assume it is the language barrier, but an objective statement is a core concept in discussion, and one without which discussion cannot exist. You cannot have any real debate without some sense of objectivity, lest there be nothing to debate about. It's as simple as that. How can you prove to someone that their subjective facts are wrong? "Yellow is my favorite color." "No it isn't." It does not make the best of discussions.
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 08:10
krank krank's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
I wasn't going to do this, but since I've apparently ben unsuccessful in my attempts to communicate what I actually mean, I'll make one final attempt.
Decivre wrote:
What? Do you understand what the concepts of objectivity and subjectivity even mean?! Objective statement: "Our sun is yellow." Subjective statement: "Yellow is my favorite color." You do understand this, right? You do understand that the term "objective" actually has a valid lingual meaning, right?!
"Our sun is yellow" actually means "the thing I have observed and have learned to call 'sun' appears to me to have the color I associate with the word 'yellow'". The statement is a [i]claim[/i] about an objective reality, and for the sake of communication, I may [i]choose[/i] to treat that claim as if it was objective - but really, it's just collaborative subjectivity.
Decivre wrote:
Name one. Name one thing that was an identifiable concept that is no longer the case. Just one thing.
Once again you decide that I'm talking about "elimination". I'm not. An example: In the modern world, it is no longer very important, for most people, to have a "good lineage". Blood lines have become a lot less important than they used to be. Another: Through most of the western world, the idea of the "individual" has largely replaced what used to be the "family role". Family used to be a lot more important, and the "individual" a lot less. The building blocks of our identities shift. personally, I couldn't give a crap about my bloodline. Of course, neither are globally true... but I never, ever claimed such concepts and identity "building blocks" just "disappeared". Some building blocks are new. Some are old. Some old ones fade away. Some do not. Some new disappear as quickly as they came. Before there were nations or the concept of races, nationality and race didn't exist as building blocks. Unless you define your "concepts" or building blocks so broadly that they become irrelevant in any discussion ("the need to belong to some perceieved group or category", for instance... Yeah, I can agree that one probably always existed, and probably won't go away soon).
Decivre wrote:
I think the problem here is that you are trying to claim a different meaning for the term "objectivity". I do know that English is your second language, so I'll assume it is the language barrier, but an objective statement is a core concept in discussion, and one without which discussion cannot exist. You cannot have any real debate without some sense of objectivity, lest there be nothing to debate about. It's as simple as that. How can you prove to someone that their subjective facts are wrong? "Yellow is my favorite color." "No it isn't." It does not make the best of discussions.
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28philosophy%29 "a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are 'mind-independent'" This seems pretty much like the meaning of the Swedish word "objektivitet"; they share linguistic roots and meaning. So no, I don't think the language barrier is the problem here. You see objectivity as a given, and something which must exist for there to be meaningful discussion. I disagree. Of course there can be discussions without objectivity: "Yellow is my favorite color" "Why?" So yes, of course there can be debate without the existance of "mind-independent" truth conditions... There might not even be a reality, we might just be imagining the whole thing - and still, discussion is possible. In fact, I claim objectivity effectively destroys meaningful discussion. If there are objective truths, then the goal of each discussion is to arrive at some absolute, objective Truth - and this, to me, is not only completely uninteresting, but also pointless. Discussion is a process of growth and individual development. Not a way to prove that someone is "wrong". I have no interest whatsoever to prove anyone "wrong", and if that's your goal... Well, let's just say we should go our separate ways. I prefer constructive, creative discussions over "right-or-wrong"-binary choice discussions any day.
—
Warning: Anarchist, postmodernist, socialist, transhumanist, feminist
Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 08:35
nick012000 nick012000's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
I think I know why I don't like you much now, Krunk. You've been rubbing me the wrong way for a while now. Thank you.
—

+1 r-Rep , +1 @-rep

Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 09:01
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
krank wrote:
"Our sun is yellow" actually means "the thing I have observed and have learned to call 'sun' appears to me to have the color I associate with the word 'yellow'". The statement is a [i]claim[/i] about an objective reality, and for the sake of communication, I may [i]choose[/i] to treat that claim as if it was objective - but really, it's just collaborative subjectivity.
No, it's not. Yellow is a defined term. So long as we are speaking the same language, and both accept the definition as written, it is an objective statement. If we didn't, then the problem isn't with the statement, it's with the language barrier. But again, a subjective statement is an opinion, not a fact. There is no such thing as "subjective facts", only opinions.
krank wrote:
Once again you decide that I'm talking about "elimination". I'm not. An example: In the modern world, it is no longer very important, for most people, to have a "good lineage". Blood lines have become a lot less important than they used to be. Another: Through most of the western world, the idea of the "individual" has largely replaced what used to be the "family role". Family used to be a lot more important, and the "individual" a lot less. The building blocks of our identities shift. personally, I couldn't give a crap about my bloodline. Of course, neither are globally true... but I never, ever claimed such concepts and identity "building blocks" just "disappeared". Some building blocks are new. Some are old. Some old ones fade away. Some do not. Some new disappear as quickly as they came. Before there were nations or the concept of races, nationality and race didn't exist as building blocks. Unless you define your "concepts" or building blocks so broadly that they become irrelevant in any discussion ("the need to belong to some perceieved group or category", for instance... Yeah, I can agree that one probably always existed, and probably won't go away soon).
Nation is just a modified form of our original ties to clan or group. Race has always existed, for as long as we could look at another creature and openly say "it looks different from me". Nation has always existed, whether it is in the larger forms we have today or the smaller forms (tribes clans) that our primitive ancestors had. These things haven't gone away, and they weren't much changed. What we call racism is just a modern form of classic xenophobic tendencies that our species has. Nationality is just a modern form of clan or family loyalty, spread to a broader category of people or political group. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Human nature is a persistent bitch like that.
krank wrote:
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28philosophy%29 "a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are 'mind-independent'" This seems pretty much like the meaning of the Swedish word "objektivitet"; they share linguistic roots and meaning. So no, I don't think the language barrier is the problem here. You see objectivity as a given, and something which must exist for there to be meaningful discussion. I disagree. Of course there can be discussions without objectivity: "Yellow is my favorite color" "Why?" So yes, of course there can be debate without the existance of "mind-independent" truth conditions... There might not even be a reality, we might just be imagining the whole thing - and still, discussion is possible. In fact, I claim objectivity effectively destroys meaningful discussion. If there are objective truths, then the goal of each discussion is to arrive at some absolute, objective Truth - and this, to me, is not only completely uninteresting, but also pointless. Discussion is a process of growth and individual development. Not a way to prove that someone is "wrong". I have no interest whatsoever to prove anyone "wrong", and if that's your goal... Well, let's just say we should go our separate ways. I prefer constructive, creative discussions over "right-or-wrong"-binary choice discussions any day.
Simply expanding a subjective topic does not necessarily render a subjective discussion useful. Asking "why" is only an effective gauge if the person actually has a reason they can quantify, or if they are even willing to discuss it. To that end, whether reality exists or not is irrelevant to the concept of objectivity: if it is externally observable by others, than it is objectively quantifiable. Even if we are just some aspect of a greater mind's imagination, then the interrim of his mind external to our own is the limits of our objective world, and only subjective relative to him. However, such arguments are moot. Besides, trying to use philosophical ideologies to declare reality unreal seems an odd choice to me. You are declaring all truths we see a lie, using evidence that was imagined... and that seems ludicrous to me. I agree that this was never about proving anyone right or wrong, but I also feel that any discussion is rendered pointless if we don't agree to some truths that go beyond our own minds. For instance, if we are discussing the setting of Eclipse Phase, we have to at least acknowledge that we are discussing, to some degree, what is within the books. In that case, the information within the books would be the objective aspects of the topic, while our own personal interpretations of what is in the books would be the subjective aspects of the topic. Without objective elements, we have nothing upon which to build subjective elements. I cannot declare my favorite color unless we both acknowledge that the color exists objectively... or else there is nothing for me to claim favor over.
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 10:03
nick012000 nick012000's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
Arguing with him is pointless, Decivre. He's a post-modernist. He doesn't believe objective reality exists at all and science is just a giant circle jerk, if he's anything like the rest of those pretentious tossers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_postmodernism
—

+1 r-Rep , +1 @-rep

Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 10:03
nick012000 nick012000's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
EDIT: Double post, mods please delete.
—
+1 r-Rep , +1 @-rep
Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 10:09
krank krank's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
nick012000 wrote:
I think I know why I don't like you much now, Krunk. You've been rubbing me the wrong way for a while now. Thank you.
You're welcome. That was a very constructive post, by the way...
—
Warning: Anarchist, postmodernist, socialist, transhumanist, feminist
Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 10:14
nick012000 nick012000's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
krank wrote:
nick012000 wrote:
I think I know why I don't like you much now, Krunk. You've been rubbing me the wrong way for a while now. Thank you.
You're welcome. That was a very constructive post, by the way...
Wow! Your powers of deconstruction are amazing! It's as if I can see the author's grave from here!
—

+1 r-Rep , +1 @-rep

Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 10:31
krank krank's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
Decivre wrote:
No, it's not. Yellow is a defined term. So long as we are speaking the same language, and both accept the definition as written, it is an objective statement. If we didn't, then the problem isn't with the statement, it's with the language barrier.
Language only works because we all agree on the meaning of certain words. Language is what we use to write these words, and what we use to readf them. Without a concious mind to read something, that something isn't "language". "Yellow" is what we have agreed to call something which we believe we are seing in the same way. A lot of the time, we don't - for instance, I'm color-blind, so while I can basically understand what you're saying when you use the word "red", I definitely don't see the same colour you see.
Decivre wrote:
Nation is just a modified form of our original ties to clan or group. Race has always existed, for as long as we could look at another creature and openly say "it looks different from me". Nation has always existed, whether it is in the larger forms we have today or the smaller forms (tribes clans) that our primitive ancestors had. These things haven't gone away, and they weren't much changed. What we call racism is just a modern form of classic xenophobic tendencies that our species has. Nationality is just a modern form of clan or family loyalty, spread to a broader category of people or political group.
So basically you're saying "I can claim anything is just a new version of something else, and by that logic 'prove' that everything has always existed"... Yeah, well, sure. I don't agree with your views on nationality, individuality, etc. Things change. A lot.
Decivre wrote:
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Human nature is a persistent bitch like that.
"Human nature" is just a security blanket for people who don't want to see how much we have changed.
Decivre wrote:
Simply expanding a subjective topic does not necessarily render a subjective discussion useful. Asking "why" is only an effective gauge if the person actually has a reason they can quantify, or if they are even willing to discuss it.
Agreed. But the only kind of discussion I'm interested in is one where people can, in some way, quantify their reasons for believing as they do. "The sun is yellow" is extremely uninteresting. "I like yellow" is more interesting. On the other hand, that is very much a personal statement - I THINK these things are more interesting, while you think what you call "objective" things are more interesting... And both are subjective opinions, of course =)
Decivre wrote:
To that end, whether reality exists or not is irrelevant to the concept of objectivity: if it is externally observable by others, than it is objectively quantifiable. Even if we are just some aspect of a greater mind's imagination, then the interrim of his mind external to our own is the limits of our objective world, and only subjective relative to him. However, such arguments are moot. Besides, trying to use philosophical ideologies to declare reality unreal seems an odd choice to me. You are declaring all truths we see a lie, using evidence that was imagined... and that seems ludicrous to me.
Once again you claim I'm saying things I'm not. You are an atheist, right? Do you understand the difference between an agnostic and an atheist? I'm not saying "reality doesn't exist", I'm saying "we can't know whether or not reality exists". There's a difference. I'm not trying to "declare" anything. it's getting a bit tiresome to constantly fight against your straw man arguments. Would you please at least respect me enough to respond to the things I'm actually saying, in stead of deciding for yourself that my arguments are just so much easier to put down if you make them up yourself? If two people experience something, and come to an agreement as to how to interpret that experience, then great - they have achieved intersubjectivity. Objectivity, on the other hand, depends on the existence of something outside the mind, outside man's interpretations. And since we can only really experience things from within our minds, we can't make definite statements about anything outside of our conciousnesses. Like Robert Anton Wilson said, the word "is" should be abolished from the english language. Noone is capable of saying what something "is". The best we can do is describe how something seems to us at any given moment.
Decivre wrote:
For instance, if we are discussing the setting of Eclipse Phase, we have to at least acknowledge that we are discussing, to some degree, what is within the books. In that case, the information within the books would be the objective aspects of the topic, while our own personal interpretations of what is in the books would be the subjective aspects of the topic. Without objective elements, we have nothing upon which to build subjective elements. I cannot declare my favorite color unless we both acknowledge that the color exists objectively... or else there is nothing for me to claim favor over.
No, we only need to come into agreement to treat colour [i]as if[/i] it existed objectively. We can come to an agreement that colour "exists", or that EP "exists". This is called intersubjectivity, and doesn't require any kind of objectivity. We can both agree that it seems, to us, like we have both read a book, whose title we, based on previous experience of language, interpreted as "Eclipse Phase". Unless there appears some reason to believe differently, we can take for granted that our experiences in "reading" (actively constructing meaning from the variation of color we believe ourselves to have percieved) said book are similar. We are likely to have created different meanings at many points, especially since we, due to our different backgrounds, have percieved the text's focus differently. And since this is the agreement: In short, that it's probable that our experiences are, if not equal, then at least similar enough for meaningful, constructive and creative discussion. Of course, it becomes a problem as soon as one of us decided the discussion should, in fact, be about deciding whose intepretation is more "correct". But that kind of discussion is seldom interesting.
—
Warning: Anarchist, postmodernist, socialist, transhumanist, feminist
Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 11:10
krank krank's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
nick012000 wrote:
Arguing with him is pointless, Decivre.
It most certainly isn't. Depending on the topic, oof course, and one's goals with the discussion. Discussing creatively and constructively, "how can this problem be solved" or "I'm out of ideas for adventures" works very well, if I may say so myself. However, if you desire to "be right" and for me to "be wrong", then yes, it's kind of pointless. That kind of discussion is, after all, mostly pointless. And not very useful. (Even if I could, logically, prove the nonexistence of God to a die-hard christian, it would be kind of improbable that he would suddenly become an atheist. I try to be more goal-oriented than that.)
nick012000 wrote:
He's a post-modernist.
I most certainly am. It's the philosophical position that, given my subjective experience of the world, makes the most sense.
nick012000 wrote:
He doesn't believe objective reality exists at all
Not true. Reality and objective reality may or may not exist. I'm saying it's irrelevant, since we lack the capacity to observe it directly; we can never describa any property of reality, we can only describe how we experience something which might, or might not, be reality. (Just like some Christian scholars have argued that we can't really percieve God, since He is so very much outside our frame of reference and our limited senses. Also like Cthulhu.)
nick012000 wrote:
and science is just a giant circle jerk, if he's anything like the rest of those pretentious tossers.
Thanks, because name-calling is really a creative way of having a discussion, and really creates a good climate for creative and constructive exchanges. Anyways, science has proven to be a rather useful set of agreements, since its rules and methods seem to be able to predict things in the things I percieve. And apparently this is true for others as well; and since its predictions and descriptions are so ndarn useful, a lot of good communicative agreements can be formed around it. As for being "pretentious", isn't that just something people toss around whenever they don't understand what someone is saying? Plus, you know:
nick012000 wrote:
Angels, similarly, are just robots, that were misinterpreted by primitive humans as being supernatural in nature. Similarly, UFOs are actually angels, that were misinterpreted by modern humans as being aliens. Ophanim are your flying saucers, and Cherubim are a variety of fighter jets.
I'm not sure [b]I'm[/b] the one who's kind of hard to discuss stuff with due to my warped worldview =)
—
Warning: Anarchist, postmodernist, socialist, transhumanist, feminist
Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 11:15
nick012000 nick012000's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
There's a reason "reality" has the same word root as "real", bud. That's because [i]reality is real![/i] The refusal to see that is a very large portion of why I have no respect for you lot.
—

+1 r-Rep , +1 @-rep

Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 11:29
TheWanderingJewels TheWanderingJewels's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
Perhaps....but TransHumanity is painfully aware that they have been severely reduced in number and immortality or not, there is going to bea significant section of them who are going to go "What if the bastards come back to finish the job? We'd better get to work on making as many as resources can reasonably allow." What form that takes is open to question, but at the end of the day, a population explosion of some form is going to be the inevitable result. All the fun little subplots from this one could get....
—
A brave little theory, and actually quite coherent for a system of five or seven dimensions--if only we lived in one. Academician Prokhor Zakharov "Now We Are Alone"
Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 11:48
krank krank's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
nick012000 wrote:
The refusal to see that is a very large portion of why I have no respect for you lot.
Your respect matters very little to me. Especially when you base whether or not you respect someone not on the way they treat their fellow men or how they argue their position, but on the position itself. For my part, I have a lot of respect for your belief in angels, and that those angels are actually robots. That belief, while completely ridiculous, does not lessen my respect for you as a human being at all. You're an individual, and it's completely OK with me that you believe... whatever you believe. However, the fact that your only contributions to this thread have been purely destructive, little more than name-calling against me, [i]that[/i] lessens my respect for you. I hope you feel better after your little outburst. Did calling me bad names make your day a little brighter? If so, I'm happy for you.
—
Warning: Anarchist, postmodernist, socialist, transhumanist, feminist
Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 11:50
krank krank's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
TheWanderingJewels wrote:
Perhaps....but TransHumanity is painfully aware that they have been severely reduced in number and immortality or not, there is going to bea significant section of them who are going to go "What if the bastards come back to finish the job? We'd better get to work on making as many as resources can reasonably allow." What form that takes is open to question, but at the end of the day, a population explosion of some form is going to be the inevitable result. All the fun little subplots from this one could get....
Absolutely! And I do think a lot of (trams)humans are still... well, "prisons of tradition" seems a bit negative, as does "set in their ways"... Let's just say they have a lot of habits. i do believe lots of people try to find different ways to create "future-proof" children (or just, you know, alpha forks. Works just as well...)
—
Warning: Anarchist, postmodernist, socialist, transhumanist, feminist
Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 13:46
TheWanderingJewels TheWanderingJewels's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
I would hardly call a instinctual impulse to make sure the species propagates a "Prison of Tradition". Even info-morphs and the TITANS virii understand the concept of species survival by numbers. TransHumanity has many traditions on propagation of the geneline. Some less savory than others. Monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, etc, etc. The point is at the end of the day, the impulse to survive and make sure the species survives is going to a be a Very Big factor in the background in EP. As to what form it takes will depend on where you are and what morphology is involved. Given the various political factions, memetic traditions that have come from Earth, and the new ones being created, it will be interesting to see which method assures the most healthy offspring. My guess is there will be some black-ops level stuff against the Biocorps to get some of the template data so that upgrades can be passed on to the next generation. That's going to be a major bottleneck in the foresable future
—
A brave little theory, and actually quite coherent for a system of five or seven dimensions--if only we lived in one. Academician Prokhor Zakharov "Now We Are Alone"
Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 14:33
krank krank's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
TheWanderingJewels wrote:
I would hardly call a instinctual impulse to make sure the species propagates a "Prison of Tradition".
That's why I tried finding other ways to say it =) Anyways, "instincts" are interesting. Particularly in a society where the biology of instincts can be removed. How much of the instinct is "purely" mental? Is there such a thing as a "purely mental" anything? I guess some instincts become mental because the body "trains" the mind to follow them, but... what of people who are born or at least grow up without such a biology? Like I said, instincts are interesting. particularly in a world where the mind and body have become more separate...
TheWanderingJewels wrote:
TransHumanity has many traditions on propagation of the geneline.
Or at least the memeline... After all, if your body is just a suit you happen to put on (which is the way most people's relationship with their body/morph is portrayed in the book), "genes" kind of feel... Well, not "redundant", but a bit quaint. Like the "bloodline" concept in the modern world... Of course, [i]some[/i] people, especially those who are bioconservative or have bioconservative leanings, will tend to use their own, "original" DNA, if it's available.
TheWanderingJewels wrote:
Given the various political factions, memetic traditions that have come from Earth, and the new ones being created, it will be interesting to see which method assures the most healthy offspring. My guess is there will be some black-ops level stuff against the Biocorps to get some of the template data so that upgrades can be passed on to the next generation. That's going to be a major bottleneck in the foresable future
I'm guessing "children" will become less and less important as time passes, with different kinds of forking and fork-splicing becoming more common. As psychosurgery becomes more advanced, I'm guessing it'll even be more like blending two alpha forks in some way, getting a "combined" grown-up ego, which you then put into its first morph... This could even be done industrially. Just make more copies. And since morphs can be customized, the traditional problems with "breeding inside the bloodline" disappear... So we have a broad spectrum of different personalities and bodies, without all that ineffective breeding stuff =) "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" versus "nine months of pregnancy, plus about 18 years until they can be of any serious use to society, and another 5-6 before they actually start to manifest the ability to understand "time" and such..."
—
Warning: Anarchist, postmodernist, socialist, transhumanist, feminist
Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 16:08
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
krank wrote:
Language only works because we all agree on the meaning of certain words. Language is what we use to write these words, and what we use to readf them. Without a concious mind to read something, that something isn't "language". "Yellow" is what we have agreed to call something which we believe we are seing in the same way. A lot of the time, we don't - for instance, I'm color-blind, so while I can basically understand what you're saying when you use the word "red", I definitely don't see the same colour you see.
Okay, here's my problem here... what the hell does any of this have to do with anything at all that we were speaking about originally? I told you how I was using the term "natural"... in context to an ego's point of origin... and how I was using the term "human"... in context to our existence as a biological organism. What is the problem? Why did we have to go through a two-day rant about concepts of language when the topic at hand is reproduction?
krank wrote:
So basically you're saying "I can claim anything is just a new version of something else, and by that logic 'prove' that everything has always existed"... Yeah, well, sure. I don't agree with your views on nationality, individuality, etc. Things change. A lot.
Really? So concepts of nation are completely alien to what a clan or tribe were in the past? The Roman Empire was just a brand of breakfast cereal? The Untumbe tribe a collection of Elton John CDs? It functionally comes down to this; humans, as social animals, tie themselves to their own culture, and the people of that culture. Tribal loyalty was a function of this, and could expand to region unity. Today, people show loyalty to their city, their section of their city, their state, and their country. New labels, same function.
krank wrote:
"Human nature" is just a security blanket for people who don't want to see how much we have changed.
Or perhaps human progress is a security blanket for those who don't want to admit that history tends to repeat itself.
krank wrote:
Agreed. But the only kind of discussion I'm interested in is one where people can, in some way, quantify their reasons for believing as they do. "The sun is yellow" is extremely uninteresting. "I like yellow" is more interesting. On the other hand, that is very much a personal statement - I THINK these things are more interesting, while you think what you call "objective" things are more interesting... And both are subjective opinions, of course =)
I never said that objective things are more interesting, but that they were vital to discourse. Without a degree of objectivity... whether in language or data or some other factor... dialog cannot occur. At the very least we have to agree on a language, and if that language is documented, it ceases to exist internally within our minds... it becomes an objective, existing thing. Even if every human on Earth died, our books would remain, and a talented linguist from another world could decode them and discover our language. It isn't just a subjective, internal aspect of our minds.
krank wrote:
Once again you claim I'm saying things I'm not. You are an atheist, right? Do you understand the difference between an agnostic and an atheist? I'm not saying "reality doesn't exist", I'm saying "we can't know whether or not reality exists". There's a difference. I'm not trying to "declare" anything. it's getting a bit tiresome to constantly fight against your straw man arguments. Would you please at least respect me enough to respond to the things I'm actually saying, in stead of deciding for yourself that my arguments are just so much easier to put down if you make them up yourself? If two people experience something, and come to an agreement as to how to interpret that experience, then great - they have achieved intersubjectivity. Objectivity, on the other hand, depends on the existence of something outside the mind, outside man's interpretations. And since we can only really experience things from within our minds, we can't make definite statements about anything outside of our conciousnesses. Like Robert Anton Wilson said, the word "is" should be abolished from the english language. Noone is capable of saying what something "is". The best we can do is describe how something seems to us at any given moment.
Whether reality exists or not, we have to, at least to some degree, acknowledge that it exists to the best of our possible understanding. Unless we are disagreeing on this fundamental aspect, I don't see how any of this matters.
krank wrote:
No, we only need to come into agreement to treat colour [i]as if[/i] it existed objectively. We can come to an agreement that colour "exists", or that EP "exists". This is called intersubjectivity, and doesn't require any kind of objectivity.
Look, I gotta be honest with you... I simply don't believe in the postmodern idea that reality is an agreed concept. I'm a materialist, so arguing things without evidence I can test myself is completely pointless. But if I were a religious man, I would think you wouldn't appreciate me shoveling my propaganda down your throat, and I'm not appreciating it myself with your philosophical beliefs. I came here to talk about reproduction, and if you want to talk about postmodern philosophy we can bring it to another thread. Also, I could care less if you want to call it intersubjectivity... because the way you use the term "intersubjectivity" is essentially the meaning of the term "objectivity" as people normally define it. So just assume that whenever I use the term "objective", I mean "intersubjective", and drop the subject. It's really a trivial argument. And you know what? If someone comes on here and starts telling you that all your sadness is a symptom of all the body thetans that are invading your soul, I'll probably tell them to knock it off too... because I care.
krank wrote:
We can both agree that it seems, to us, like we have both read a book, whose title we, based on previous experience of language, interpreted as "Eclipse Phase". Unless there appears some reason to believe differently, we can take for granted that our experiences in "reading" (actively constructing meaning from the variation of color we believe ourselves to have percieved) said book are similar. We are likely to have created different meanings at many points, especially since we, due to our different backgrounds, have percieved the text's focus differently. And since this is the agreement: In short, that it's probable that our experiences are, if not equal, then at least similar enough for meaningful, constructive and creative discussion. Of course, it becomes a problem as soon as one of us decided the discussion should, in fact, be about deciding whose intepretation is more "correct". But that kind of discussion is seldom interesting.
Again, what was the point of all this?
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 18:11
krank krank's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
Back to business: I've spent the last day or so thinking about the idea of "natural" humans, [i]the way you use it[/i]. Or at least, how I interpret the way you've stated your definition of "natural". I might've misinterpreted. I'm kind of interesting where the line may be drawn, you see. To me, Eclipse Phase is very much a game about lines becoming blurred (human/AGI etc). The definition of "human" and "natural" are likely to be discussed even in EP's time... Anyways, this is what I've been thinking about: First, let's consider the nazis. Goodwin be damned, they're relevant here. More specifically, let's consider their breeding experiments. They selected certain people with certain qualities and effectively bred them, to produce "supermen". They didn't do it for very long, but still. Are the children resulting from these experiments "natural" humans? One step further: Let's consider active selection. Let's say we're able to determine a child's likelihood of suffering from alzheimers or any other mental or physical problem, before birth. We select only the most perfect individuals to be allowed to be born; cancer-free, disease-free. No chronic depression, no manic depression, etc etc. Are these children natural humans? Another, small one: Let's say we get the tools to manipulate either egg or sperm or both, beforehand, to achieve the above. The difference is small, but might be significant: Now we're not just selecting/filtering, we're creating/engineering/repairing. The resulting DNA is human. Are the resulting children natural humans? Let's see, what might be the next step... Let's say we splice a little bit of... Koala DNA into the human zygote. It's still carried to term, and most of its DNA is still human. Is it still a "natural" human? At what percentage does it stop being a human? Another step, perhaps parallel to the last rather than a progression: Let's say the child is gestated inside an exowomb, which mimics the human womb perfectly. Arte the children born from that womb "natural" humans? There are tons of other small steps - artificial creation of DNA from the ground up rather than using any sort of human raw material in order to create artificial sperm or eggs, for instance. Where is the exact breaking point where it stops being a "natural" human? In all of the examples above, it's technically a [i]homo sapiens sapiens[/i], except perhaps the Koala baby... Or is it? Where's the point where homo sapiens sapiens becomes... whatever we decide to call what comes after? Homo sapiens novus? To clarify: I don't believe there's a simple or clear-cut answer to this. Just like the difference between Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis and Shomo Sapiens Sapiens was likely a gradual process, with a fair number of hard-to-place individuals in the middle, my guess is that evolution ("natural" or not) to the next level isn't going to be clear-cut. And like I said, this discussion is - I'm guessing - still taking place in EP. The biocons are probably quicker to label someone "unnatural" or "non-human" or "non-homo-sapiens-sapiens" than scum are, for instance... Whose definition is "correct"? Not really intertesting. I'm just interesting in finding different viewpoints to apply to NPC's and to build adventures on... EDIT: Removed some more unnecessary off-topic crap.
—
Warning: Anarchist, postmodernist, socialist, transhumanist, feminist
Top
Thu, 2010-03-25 19:13
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
krank wrote:
Back to business: I've spent the last day or so thinking about the idea of "natural" humans, [i]the way you use it[/i]. Or at least, how I interpret the way you've stated your definition of "natural". I might've misinterpreted. I'm kind of interesting where the line may be drawn, you see. To me, Eclipse Phase is very much a game about lines becoming blurred (human/AGI etc). The definition of "human" and "natural" are likely to be discussed even in EP's time...
To an extent, the lines have been blurred, just not in the way I think you were talking about. For instance, today we use terms like "humane" to mean compassionate and caring, and "human" to refer to a person. This will likely change in the future... we can't use "human" as a reference to a group of people that include nonhumans. "Humane" in a world where you can be compassionate without being human, comes off a bit xenophobic. In some ways the lines will be blurred, even as we were talking about in gender identity. We'll probably stop using the term "sex" as a defining trait on a census form when a person's sex can change from day to day. Terms like gay and straight will also have to change; is a person gay if they have sex with someone of the opposite sex, but the same gender identity? What if you are a heterosexual man who marries a woman, but she get resleeved in a man's body... are you gay because you still love her? It is here that the lines will definitely blur.
krank wrote:
Anyways, this is what I've been thinking about: First, let's consider the nazis. Goodwin be damned, they're relevant here. More specifically, let's consider their breeding experiments. They selected certain people with certain qualities and effectively bred them, to produce "supermen". They didn't do it for very long, but still. Are the children resulting from these experiments "natural" humans?
Actually, I think they are a very valid part of this topic, so I'm glad you brought them up. Breeding experiments have existed since the dawn of our species. We selectively bred dogs to get purebreeds, and we've selectively bred humans for noble lines. We've even neutered our own to prevent them from creating offspring, especially when violent groups deal with enemies. Eugenics existed for a far longer time than many people give credit, and the only real difference between ancient eugenics and "nazi eugenics" was that they finally gave it a name and tried to tie to it a famous person ("Darwinism", as people have called it). Anyways, to the point, selective breeding and genetic elimination has always existed. It's part and parcel to the way we've always done things. Nazi's only got the limelight because they tried to use scientific technobabble as a means of promoting their own kind and trodding on those people they were racist against (and thus deemed "inferior"). So for all intents and purposes, I would consider those children "natural". Perhaps the problem here isn't in the labels per se, but in the words chosen as labels. Instead of "natural" when talking about egos, let's use the term "biological". AGI are not biological egos, in that they were not produced by biological processes. Normal humans, transhumans, and any other biomorphs that are born with an active mind have biological egos. Does that label work better for you?
krank wrote:
One step further: Let's consider active selection. Let's say we're able to determine a child's likelihood of suffering from alzheimers or any other mental or physical problem, before birth. We select only the most perfect individuals to be allowed to be born; cancer-free, disease-free. No chronic depression, no manic depression, etc etc. Are these children natural humans?
Sure they are. I see it akin to when you go to the grocery store to purchase eggs. Farmers select only the best eggs, while disposing off any that do not pass muster for standards. These eggs are natural, aren't they?
krank wrote:
Another, small one: Let's say we get the tools to manipulate either egg or sperm or both, beforehand, to achieve the above. The difference is small, but might be significant: Now we're not just selecting/filtering, we're creating/engineering/repairing. The resulting DNA is human. Are the resulting children natural humans?
Probably. We do this today, to some extent, with the process of in vitro fertilization. However, the process that these children are created by (the combination of sperm and egg) is probably what would define them as "natural".
krank wrote:
Let's see, what might be the next step... Let's say we splice a little bit of... Koala DNA into the human zygote. It's still carried to term, and most of its DNA is still human. Is it still a "natural" human? At what percentage does it stop being a human?
At this point, we do have a label that would fit. When you begin to splice the genetics of one species with another, you now have a transgenic organism. In this case, you would now have "transgenic humans", which would likely be the dividing point where you stop talking about humans, and start talking about transhumans, depending on how dramatically it affects our genetic code (especially chromosomal count and genetic compatibility).
krank wrote:
Another step, perhaps parallel to the last rather than a progression: Let's say the child is gestated inside an exowomb, which mimics the human womb perfectly. Arte the children born from that womb "natural" humans?
It is not the means of creation, but the product which decides whether something is human or not. On the other hand, when we talk about something whether it is "synthetic" or "natural", we tend to label it based on it's means of creation, and not the final product. In this case, I believe it would depend on the way the human was created. If it was created by means of combining a living human sperm and egg, but then raised within the exowomb, then it would be "natural". If, however, the human was grown by injecting DNA strands into a blank stem cell, then it would probably be best considered "synthetic". Both are still human.
krank wrote:
There are tons of other small steps - artificial creation of DNA from the ground up rather than using any sort of human raw material in order to create artificial sperm or eggs, for instance.
That would probably be the best point to place the barrier between a "natural" and "synthetic" human.
krank wrote:
Where is the exact breaking point where it stops being a "natural" human? In all of the examples above, it's technically a [i]homo sapiens sapiens[/i], except perhaps the Koala baby... Or is it? Where's the point where homo sapiens sapiens becomes... whatever we decide to call what comes after? Homo sapiens novus?
Hard to call. Genetics is a very tough science. That said, the standard definition that we use today for a species is "a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring of both genders". Until the point is reached that a transhuman is sexually incompatible with normal humans (whether because they produce sterile hybrids or simply cannot create a zygote), they will still be human.
krank wrote:
To clarify: I don't believe there's a simple or clear-cut answer to this. Just like the difference between Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis and Shomo Sapiens Sapiens was likely a gradual process, with a fair number of hard-to-place individuals in the middle, my guess is that evolution ("natural" or not) to the next level isn't going to be clear-cut. And like I said, this discussion is - I'm guessing - still taking place in EP. The biocons are probably quicker to label someone "unnatural" or "non-human" or "non-homo-sapiens-sapiens" than scum are, for instance... Whose definition is "correct"? Not really intertesting. I'm just interesting in finding different viewpoints to apply to NPC's and to build adventures on...
It is very likely that you might be right, and that future genetic engineering may completely invalidate much of what we understand of genetics today. For instance, if we were to genetically code pigs to have the same number of chromosomal pairs utilizing junk DNA as humans did, and successfully made it feasible to breed with them without the production of sterile hybrids, would that mean those pigs are now human? If we were to increase our chromosomal count to make us genetically compatible with dogs, would that make us dogs despite the fact that we still looked and acted human? It may very well be a tough call.
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Fri, 2010-03-26 08:39
krank krank's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
Decivre wrote:
Actually, I think they are a very valid part of this topic, so I'm glad you brought them up. Breeding experiments have existed since the dawn of our species. We selectively bred dogs to get purebreeds, and we've selectively bred humans for noble lines. We've even neutered our own to prevent them from creating offspring, especially when violent groups deal with enemies. Eugenics existed for a far longer time than many people give credit, and the only real difference between ancient eugenics and "nazi eugenics" was that they finally gave it a name and tried to tie to it a famous person ("Darwinism", as people have called it).
Absolutely. It's been a bit more "open" and pronounced when it comes to our handling of dogs, but the principle is old. Especially when the belief in "bloodlines" was prevalent, and "family" was a much broader word than it generally is today (in Sweden, for instance, the word closest to "family" ("familj") only refers to parents and their children, when it used to include grandmothers, grandfathers, cousing - the whole shebang.
Decivre wrote:
So for all intents and purposes, I would consider those children "natural".
I'm still kind of uncomfortable with the term "natural". Not that there's anything wrong wit the word itself, properly defined, but it's used quite a lot today by people who simply don't know what they're talking about. You know, the ones babbling about "natural food" and "homosexuality isn't natural" and such. The word itself isn't to blame, of course, but in the modern world it's taken on additional meanings and associations... which I'm not entirely comfortable with. Especially since "natural", to a lot of people, equals "tradition". "This is natural, because we've been doing it for a long time. That thing over there isn't natural, because we've only recently began doing it..."
Decivre wrote:
Perhaps the problem here isn't in the labels per se, but in the words chosen as labels. Instead of "natural" when talking about egos, let's use the term "biological". AGI are not biological egos, in that they were not produced by biological processes. Normal humans, transhumans, and any other biomorphs that are born with an active mind have biological egos. Does that label work better for you?
I think so. Depends on the definition on "biological processes" of course, but I'm willing to run with it. (Are exowombs biological? If you construct a sperm and an egg and put them together, are they considered biological? They should; just because it's engineered biology doesn't mean it's not biological...)
Decivre wrote:
Probably. We do this today, to some extent, with the process of in vitro fertilization. However, the process that these children are created by (the combination of sperm and egg) is probably what would define them as "natural".
This is where the line begins to blur, yes =)
Decivre wrote:
At this point, we do have a label that would fit. When you begin to splice the genetics of one species with another, you now have a transgenic organism. In this case, you would now have "transgenic humans", which would likely be the dividing point where you stop talking about humans, and start talking about transhumans, depending on how dramatically it affects our genetic code (especially chromosomal count and genetic compatibility).
Again, the line blurs - "depending on how dramatically it affects our genetic code"; where do we draw the line? Who decides what's dramatic enough?
Decivre wrote:
It is not the means of creation, but the product which decides whether something is human or not. On the other hand, when we talk about something whether it is "synthetic" or "natural", we tend to label it based on it's means of creation, and not the final product. In this case, I believe it would depend on the way the human was created. If it was created by means of combining a living human sperm and egg, but then raised within the exowomb, then it would be "natural". If, however, the human was grown by injecting DNA strands into a blank stem cell, then it would probably be best considered "synthetic". Both are still human.
And both are "biological", showing that the two labels are not truly interchangeable =)
Decivre wrote:
That would probably be the best point to place the barrier between a "natural" and "synthetic" human.
It might be. According to some. I find the idea of having such discussions in EP fascinating. That's one of the things I really, really like - there's a lot of things in the EP universe that a character needs to form some sort of opinion about. And there are lots of different options. That means most newly created characters have pretty fleshed-out personalities and general outlooks from the start - which is a good thing.
Decivre wrote:
Hard to call. Genetics is a very tough science. That said, the standard definition that we use today for a species is "a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring of both genders". Until the point is reached that a transhuman is sexually incompatible with normal humans (whether because they produce sterile hybrids or simply cannot create a zygote), they will still be human.
This means, then, that any morph which is rendered sterile by means of genetic modification, regardless of its other more/less human qualities, doesn't qualify as human?
Decivre wrote:
It is very likely that you might be right, and that future genetic engineering may completely invalidate much of what we understand of genetics today. For instance, if we were to genetically code pigs to have the same number of chromosomal pairs utilizing junk DNA as humans did, and successfully made it feasible to breed with them without the production of sterile hybrids, would that mean those pigs are now human? If we were to increase our chromosomal count to make us genetically compatible with dogs, would that make us dogs despite the fact that we still looked and acted human?
Hadn't thought about it, but now that you mention it... That's a [b]really[/] interesting way to look at it.
—
Warning: Anarchist, postmodernist, socialist, transhumanist, feminist
Top
Fri, 2010-03-26 19:39
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
krank wrote:
Absolutely. It's been a bit more "open" and pronounced when it comes to our handling of dogs, but the principle is old. Especially when the belief in "bloodlines" was prevalent, and "family" was a much broader word than it generally is today (in Sweden, for instance, the word closest to "family" ("familj") only refers to parents and their children, when it used to include grandmothers, grandfathers, cousing - the whole shebang.
Very much so. It's especially ironic that today, Eugenics plays a key part in our agricultural practices, since we often force-breed certain genetic strains of crop together in order to produce desired strains. So-called seedless fruits are the culmination of forced speciation, followed by the breeding of two species in order to produce a sterile hybrid. And yet we've completely demonized the term "eugenics".
krank wrote:
I'm still kind of uncomfortable with the term "natural". Not that there's anything wrong wit the word itself, properly defined, but it's used quite a lot today by people who simply don't know what they're talking about. You know, the ones babbling about "natural food" and "homosexuality isn't natural" and such. The word itself isn't to blame, of course, but in the modern world it's taken on additional meanings and associations... which I'm not entirely comfortable with. Especially since "natural", to a lot of people, equals "tradition". "This is natural, because we've been doing it for a long time. That thing over there isn't natural, because we've only recently began doing it..."
That is true. In my case, however, I generally use it as a term in contrast to "synthetic", which means it was designed by humans. To whit, I would consider a lot of things synthetic despite being traditional (such as the primitive pesticides that "natural" farmers tend to use). I agree that many of the connotations of natural can be bad, but connotations get added to almost every word over time. I find it best to simply ignore it.
krank wrote:
I think so. Depends on the definition on "biological processes" of course, but I'm willing to run with it. (Are exowombs biological? If you construct a sperm and an egg and put them together, are they considered biological? They should; just because it's engineered biology doesn't mean it's not biological...)
A biological process would be a production of a biological entity... an organism. An exowomb, from what little we know, is a nano-machine designed to house a morph to term... so it is not biological. That isn't to say that you can't have a biological "machine"; fury morphs are essentially biological weapons, as are tailored viruses.
krank wrote:
This is where the line begins to blur, yes =)
As I said, I find that a better meaning for natural is if we start talking about things crafted by human design, rather than human processes. Even if people are guiding the in vitro fertilization process, the combination of a sperm and egg is what creates the child. When we get to the point that we can actually produce humans without the need for sperm and egg, then I would claim that such a human is "synthetic"
krank wrote:
Again, the line blurs - "depending on how dramatically it affects our genetic code"; where do we draw the line? Who decides what's dramatic enough?
As I said before, we generally define the line of speciation as the point in which we are no longer genetically compatible. I think that would be the best place to put the line at which we are no longer human.
krank wrote:
And both are "biological", showing that the two labels are not truly interchangeable =)
This isn't where I was planning to use the term "biological". In this case, natural still fits, but where I felt perhaps we should replace the term "natural" with "biological" was when we were dealing with egos. A biological ego is one crafted by a biological mind, while an AGI is one crafted as programming. We might even need a third label if we should ever find a way to use digital processes to produce a blank digital brain, and essentially create "digital newborns". They would obviously not be biological, but they would also not be programmed (as they essentially filled out their own code from nothing).
krank wrote:
It might be. According to some. I find the idea of having such discussions in EP fascinating. That's one of the things I really, really like - there's a lot of things in the EP universe that a character needs to form some sort of opinion about. And there are lots of different options. That means most newly created characters have pretty fleshed-out personalities and general outlooks from the start - which is a good thing.
Of course. This is especially true because the EP universe is a very politically heated environment. You have various locations with contrasting, even violently so, opinions on virtually every matter. In fact, the one thing I enjoy about EP is what I like to call the "Battletech Effect"... in that the setting has no concrete good or bad guys, and the players may often identify closest (on a personal level, not on a character level) with any one of their political beliefs. *[sup]: Only really applies to 3025. Battletech unfortunately started to gain good and bad guys as the setting progressed, which made me a sad panda.[/sup]
krank wrote:
This means, then, that any morph which is rendered sterile by means of genetic modification, regardless of its other more/less human qualities, doesn't qualify as human?
Genetic compatibility is testable even if a person is incapable of reproduction. There would be no need for fertility to prove you were a given species.
krank wrote:
Hadn't thought about it, but now that you mention it... That's a [b]really[/] interesting way to look at it.
It actually gets more confusing contextually. For instance, there has been shifts in how we define a species lately. Nowadays we not just define it by genetic compatibility, but biological compatibility. If there are two groups of tree frogs, and one can only breed at night while the other can only breed during the day, we consider them to be different species. This system can put a damper on how we define species, since as you mentioned before, a sterile person cannot breed at all, and this almost has implications that they are a different species. Also, we have recently added the contextual taxonomic label of subspecies (within the past 20 or so years). This is denoted as a group of creatures of the same species, but with such varied characteristics, and often a regional separation that prevents breeding. In a sort of irony, subspecies were originally intended to not only segregate other animals into neater groups that we could better study, but humans. Thanks to political correctness, however, and the often-avoided implication of "studying the various races of humanity and finding any differences between them is a racist scientific endeavor", people have avoided this field, and they have chosen to instead classify all of humanity as "homo sapiens sapiens".
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Sat, 2010-03-27 04:40
krank krank's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
Decivre wrote:
Very much so. It's especially ironic that today, Eugenics plays a key part in our agricultural practices, since we often force-breed certain genetic strains of crop together in order to produce desired strains. So-called seedless fruits are the culmination of forced speciation, followed by the breeding of two species in order to produce a sterile hybrid. And yet we've completely demonized the term "eugenics".
Well, since the "new" meaning of eugenics (the meanings of words are equal to how the majority of people use them) is mostly focused on breeding people like cattle, sure - the term has changed meaning, and some ability to express oneself is lost.
Decivre wrote:
I find it best to simply ignore it.
And I find it impossible to ignore, since ignoring the actual meaning pf a word causes communication to break down (and yes, for all communicative intents and purposes, what most people think a word means, is what that word means. At least, according to me).
Decivre wrote:
As I said, I find that a better meaning for natural is if we start talking about things crafted by human design, rather than human processes.
And I'd argue that human design [i]is[/i] a human process... =)
Decivre wrote:
Even if people are guiding the in vitro fertilization process, the combination of a sperm and egg is what creates the child. When we get to the point that we can actually produce humans without the need for sperm and egg, then I would claim that such a human is "synthetic"
Decivre wrote:
As I said before, we generally define the line of speciation as the point in which we are no longer genetically compatible. I think that would be the best place to put the line at which we are no longer human.
Not sure I agree, but then again, I personally am not very interested in defining "human" (just like I'm not very interesed in defining "art"). But hey, whatever floats your boat =)
Decivre wrote:
A biological ego is one crafted by a biological mind, while an AGI is one crafted as programming. We might even need a third label if we should ever find a way to use digital processes to produce a blank digital brain, and essentially create "digital newborns". They would obviously not be biological, but they would also not be programmed (as they essentially filled out their own code from nothing).
Exactly. There are places where the labels, as we know them today, break down. Especially in a transhuman society.
Decivre wrote:
in that the setting has no concrete good or bad guys, and the players may often identify closest (on a personal level, not on a character level) with any one of their political beliefs.
I agree that the setting definitely has a lot of potential for not having goodies/baddies, though I'm sad to say much of what I'm reading regarding Firewall and the Jovians certainly, at least to my mind and certainly to several of my players, definitely create a kind of good/bad side thing. On the other hand, this is probably, as we've discussed before, author bias and can safely be "modified" so Firewall are less altruistic etc, and the Jovians are less... Well, less extreme conservatives. And I do hope my players see it that way, too. And I hope they identify with things primarily on a character level rather than a personal level...
Decivre wrote:
It actually gets more confusing contextually. For instance, there has been shifts in how we define a species lately. Nowadays we not just define it by genetic compatibility, but biological compatibility. If there are two groups of tree frogs, and one can only breed at night while the other can only breed during the day, we consider them to be different species. This system can put a damper on how we define species, since as you mentioned before, a sterile person cannot breed at all, and this almost has implications that they are a different species. Also, we have recently added the contextual taxonomic label of subspecies (within the past 20 or so years). This is denoted as a group of creatures of the same species, but with such varied characteristics, and often a regional separation that prevents breeding.
Well, this is where things get interesting, from my point of vierw, since the fluidity of "species" labels, as well as their dependence on language and culture, becomes apparent =)
Decivre wrote:
In a sort of irony, subspecies were originally intended to not only segregate other animals into neater groups that we could better study, but humans. Thanks to political correctness, however, and the often-avoided implication of "studying the various races of humanity and finding any differences between them is a racist scientific endeavor", people have avoided this field, and they have chosen to instead classify all of humanity as "homo sapiens sapiens".
I'm sorry, but I'm unable to respond to the "political correctness" argument in any civil manner, so I'm just joing to ignore this whole paragraph. Sorry.
—
Warning: Anarchist, postmodernist, socialist, transhumanist, feminist
Top
Sat, 2010-03-27 05:33
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
krank wrote:
Well, since the "new" meaning of eugenics (the meanings of words are equal to how the majority of people use them) is mostly focused on breeding people like cattle, sure - the term has changed meaning, and some ability to express oneself is lost.
Do note that in Eclipse Phase, the term of "eugenics" has largely returned to its old roots, as the few groups who profess support for it actually refer to their desire to improve human genetics through engineering, and not through racist mass-extinction.
krank wrote:
And I find it impossible to ignore, since ignoring the actual meaning pf a word causes communication to break down (and yes, for all communicative intents and purposes, what most people think a word means, is what that word means. At least, according to me).
Except by doing so, English becomes a very difficult language to work with. Remember that this is a language with a multitude of homonyms and contextual uses for every single word. Cutting out any given word because of a common connotation risks taking one's ability to properly express one's statement.
krank wrote:
And I'd argue that human design [i]is[/i] a human process... =)
I wouldn't. I'd prefer that we separated sculpture from using the toilet, or poetry from menstruation. To some degree, sculpture and poetry are similar, as are the latter in both cases as well. I was trying to denote that.
krank wrote:
Not sure I agree, but then again, I personally am not very interested in defining "human" (just like I'm not very interesed in defining "art"). But hey, whatever floats your boat =)
Defining human is probably going to be a key concept in a setting like Eclipse Phase. Racism permeates [i]all cultures[/i], and this will be true even in the far-flung future. AGIs face much prejudice from people who are very wary of anything that they associate with the TITANs. It's not just the bioconservatives that feel this way.
krank wrote:
Exactly. There are places where the labels, as we know them today, break down. Especially in a transhuman society.
They didn't break down, we simply needed another label. It's like if we find another planet; that doesn't mean that all the other names we've given to all the other planets have ceased to function, or that the system has "broken down"... it means we found something new, and we should label it as such.
krank wrote:
I agree that the setting definitely has a lot of potential for not having goodies/baddies, though I'm sad to say much of what I'm reading regarding Firewall and the Jovians certainly, at least to my mind and certainly to several of my players, definitely create a kind of good/bad side thing. On the other hand, this is probably, as we've discussed before, author bias and can safely be "modified" so Firewall are less altruistic etc, and the Jovians are less... Well, less extreme conservatives. And I do hope my players see it that way, too. And I hope they identify with things primarily on a character level rather than a personal level...
Problem here isn't that bioconservatives are bad guys, but that you personally do not identify with them. That's fine, but it doesn't necessarily mean that someone out there won't identify with them. I personally don't identify with a number of groups in the setting, and I do identify with a group that many people probably dislike. That's the beauty of such a setting: you only perceive bioconservatives as evil because their beliefs are evil in your eyes.
krank wrote:
Well, this is where things get interesting, from my point of vierw, since the fluidity of "species" labels, as well as their dependence on language and culture, becomes apparent =)
To an extent. Taxonomy doesn't necessarily have to be tied to language, as can be seen in Eclipse Phase with the moons of Jupiter (which have been renamed by the Junta in accordance with people they consider to be ancient heroes of the bioconservative movement).
krank wrote:
I'm sorry, but I'm unable to respond to the "political correctness" argument in any civil manner, so I'm just joing to ignore this whole paragraph. Sorry.
I can imagine that most cannot. I personally loathe the PC movement as well, but it probably has to do with the fact that I tend to be a blunt bastard. :D
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Sat, 2010-03-27 06:19
krank krank's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
Decivre wrote:
I can imagine that most cannot. I personally loathe the PC movement as well, but it probably has to do with the fact that I tend to be a blunt bastard. :D
Well, I was mostly referring to the fact that "the PC movement" doesn't exist, and that I'm irritated that people actually use "political correctness" as an argument. Without even being ironic. In short, I find the notion of "political correctness" to be bovine excrement... Anyways, it seems we've reached the point where we're basically only repeating our arguments; you know where I stand and I know where you stand. Therefore, I take my leave of the discussion; I'll rejoin it if and when any new ideas and/or arguments pop up =)
—
Warning: Anarchist, postmodernist, socialist, transhumanist, feminist
Top
Sat, 2010-04-03 16:53
Extrasolar Angel Extrasolar Angel's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
Before learning of Eclipse Phase, I had this idea for those folks turning away from conventional religion, adopting a reformed christian belief based on Omega Point Theory and colonising Ceres: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull Now if you manage to reform part of the above movement to a reformed transhumanist christians(there are such ideas even today) the consequences are...interesting. For instance they would be heavily interested in terraforming, colonisation, but at the same time religious and reproducing in great numbers.
—
[I]Raise your hands to the sky and break the chains. With transhumanism we can smash the matriarchy together.[/i]
Top
Sat, 2010-04-03 17:47
browwiw browwiw's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
Oh, man, I shudder every time I think about the 'Quiverfull' movement. Besides the insidious subcontext of subverting democracy by breeding and conditioning a super-generation of voters, it pretty much much thumbs its nose at the concept of a sustainable population. Not to mention, of course, the fact that it relegates women to the status of brood mares. Hmmm...sounds like something the Jovian Junta would do.
—

"Let’s face it: Most of us are just here to shoot stormtroopers." - Gary M. Sarli

Top
Sun, 2010-04-04 10:31
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Reproduction in the age of transhumanity?
browwiw wrote:
Oh, man, I shudder every time I think about the 'Quiverfull' movement. Besides the insidious subcontext of subverting democracy by breeding and conditioning a super-generation of voters, it pretty much much thumbs its nose at the concept of a sustainable population. Not to mention, of course, the fact that it relegates women to the status of brood mares. Hmmm...sounds like something the Jovian Junta would do.
Some might. Quiverfull actually starts to have some validation in the world of EP, considering that 95% of the human race has been wiped from existence. As Project Futura shows, people are looking towards a means of refilling our ranks, especially if we should find a means to repopulate the Earth.
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top

Pages