Where did spirituality/religion come from, and where is it going?

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Both other sentient species, and posthumans (people who have surpassed human physical/mental limitations to the point of being difficult or impossible to compare to unchanged humans).

Well animals are the only other sentient species within our sphere of influence at this time, although their scale of sentience varies on how one wishes to define it. While animals are unable to speak or think the way we do, they share many of the same basic instinctive psychological functions, so they should be treated relatively same to other human beings.

But how on earth does one surpass one's physical limitations? Mental limitations are usually the result of physical limitations, so I'll just focus on the latter. I mean how does one change their physical status that incomparable to vanilla humans? While mutations are the only way to really change oneself physically, even that occurs usually during early body development and is not feasible after the body has reached it's intended state. Physical surgery is another thing, but one can't really drastically improve when building on already limited foundation, unless mechanical augmentation is used. But as I said, I was looking for a tangible example of what is actually possible at this stage of development.

[Human No More]

Mechanical augmentation is a perfectly valid method, as is genetic augmentation and mind transfer.

[Aquaplant]

I asked for a real life example. Something that can be done now, not in 20XY or what have you.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

And by definition, "could be" is something that is not currently available in way or form, so it's equally denied from all possible parties, thus I don't need to concern myself with it.

You should be concerned with what it would be a good idea to do, even if it's not possible to do it at the moment.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

I asked for a real life example. Something that can be done now, not in 20XY or what have you.

In terms of what's currently available, we're still only near the point. In terms of what, simple ones would be replacement of organs with artificial ones with improved ability, or even augmenting with an additional redundant one (one commonly seen in fiction is a third lung or second heart).


On the other hand, things like this can now happen:
Man Chooses to Cut Off His Hand

While the replacement is still inferior to a fully functional biological one, it's good enough that someone with a semi-functional human one chooses to replace it.

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by Clarke

You should be concerned with what it would be a good idea to do, even if it's not possible to do it at the moment.

That doesn't even make sense, since it's not a good idea if it can't be done. Also, definition of the time scale is required here for this to make any sense.

Originally Posted by Human No More

In terms of what's currently available, we're still only near the point. In terms of what, simple ones would be replacement of organs with artificial ones with improved ability, or even augmenting with an additional redundant one (one commonly seen in fiction is a third lung or second heart).

So then, what does this have to do with the ethics of treating people with augmentations differently to normal humans? As in humanism would discriminate against people who do this? Besides, I'd hardly call such small modifications as somehow incomparable to vanilla humans. Besides, we are a diverse lot, some people are physically superior to others, some are mentally superior, but they are all humans non the less, and they should all be treated equally.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

That doesn't even make sense, since it's not a good idea if it can't be done.

"...at the moment."

And also, IMO, you have it the wrong way around; we generally decide on what we want to happen, and then set about investigating whether or not it's possible to arrive there.

[Moco Loco]

It doesn't have to be called humanism, right? The proposed system would hypothetically work with any sentient being There just don't happen to be any atm.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

So then, what does this have to do with the ethics of treating people with augmentations differently to normal humans? As in humanism would discriminate against people who do this?

Exactly. It's named for a very small subset of intelligent, sentient beings.

Besides, I'd hardly call such small modifications as somehow incomparable to vanilla humans. Besides, we are a diverse lot, some people are physically superior to others, some are mentally superior, but they are all humans non the less, and they should all be treated equally.

That is true, but whether the same could be said about someone who has transferred their mind to a computer or a superior artificial body, who has far better hardware to work with, is another question.

[Aquaplant]

As Moco Loco said, humanism just happens to be the current term, because we have no other same level sentient beings with us at this time. Modified humans are still human, and even if they were not (by some weird definition), what difference does it even make?

And why would there be a need treat people who are better or worse differently? I mean society already does that by setting an instrumental value for us all depending on our contributions and so on, but as far as personal interactions go, there's no reason to have this complex system of hierarchies and classifications of people and their respective abilities. Granted the societal implications will always affect the personal relations, even if we wouldn't want that to be so.

Originally Posted by Clarke

"...at the moment."

And also, IMO, you have it the wrong way around; we generally decide on what we want to happen, and then set about investigating whether or not it's possible to arrive there.

There's the difference of long term and short term thinking here what I'm on about.

Sure at some point in the future there might be something different or good thing to do then, but at the moment is the time I happen to be in my conscious and alive state, and that means now is what counts as far as I'm concerned.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

And why would there be a need treat people who are better or worse differently?

Because they're better? Once transhumanism enters the picture, it's not a case of "Oh, everyone's got something they're good at," anymore. We start having quantitive differences, and objective measures that say that one person is superior to another.

[Icu]

Originally Posted by Clarke

Because they're better? Once transhumanism enters the picture, it's not a case of "Oh, everyone's got something they're good at," anymore. We start having quantitive differences, and objective measures that say that one person is superior to another.

Do not want.

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by Clarke

Because they're better? Once transhumanism enters the picture, it's not a case of "Oh, everyone's got something they're good at," anymore. We start having quantitive differences, and objective measures that say that one person is superior to another.

Well I was talking more or less about personal interaction rather than societal whole, but that is already true to a point. The whole "everyone's got something they are good at" nonsense is not true, but it's just a slogan to keep up the illusion that we are all somehow equal. Some people are better, some people are worse, it's simply a matter of how we deal with that reality.

Originally Posted by Icu

Do not want.

Well you basically already have that in some way, it's just that education is the measure stick of how we divide humans into value groups. And maybe it's more sad because in a way it's all true, since we are not equal in full sense of the word, and since we have ample supply of population, we can always cherry pick the best individuals and leave the lesser ones to rot.

It's always funny to read how some high status politicians for example talk about equality and all that jazz, but the reality is that it's impossible to have equality in our society, because it sets instrumental requirements for people, and those who fit the bill better are simply more equal than others.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Icu

Do not want.

Then you must hate the present day

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

Well I was talking more or less about personal interaction rather than societal whole...

Why would that be excluded?