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

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by Clarke

Why would that be excluded?

Because it's mostly just an outer appearance that is dictated by societal necessities. The things that people do is usually highly dependable of their surroundings. Granted people can gravitate towards doing things in societal settings that they like or are familiar with, but that's just an indication of what the person might be like. As in you can't tell that someone is someway because they do certain things, because you have no way of knowing for certain what their reasoning or circumstances are behind those actions.

[Clarke]

If you're human. An entity with inhuman intelligence or information processing ability possibly could.

[Moco Loco]

I feel like it would likely be the same with any other sentient species

[auroraglacialis]

I do not know how this relates to the OP, but whatever...

Originally Posted by Clarke

Because they're better? Once transhumanism enters the picture, [...] We start having quantitive differences, and objective measures that say that one person is superior to another.

Originally Posted by Icu

Do not want.

I agree - do not want.

I would agree that there are already differences now, in many cases because of social reasons (rich/poor, education,...). I would however prefer if society would eliminate that inequality of possibilities (not to make people equal but to give them the same opportunities ans help using them.
Transhumanism in the sense that technological, physical, mental, biological "augmentation" would be applied seems to hold the possibility to increase these differences by orders of magnitude.
Presently, the difference in "value" of different human beings is in relation to the value of a human life overall not too bad - A person that is poor and has not much of an education still has many abilities - she might be able to care for children, tell stories, be a good singer, cook well, be a good person to talk to,...

Of course people here will probably have seen the movie "Gattaca" (if not, I'd say it is very worth watching this SciFi movie about a future that trends towards transhumanism)

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

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.

Well then maybe the solution would be to create a society that does have a set of requirments that are varied enough so that most people do fit in instead of limiting them so that only a few fit well and all others compete for the places that are left ... A positive society I would say would strive to a status in which there is a place for all beings, not to demand of the beings to adapt to the system but adapt the system to how the beings are.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

I agree - do not want.

If I were more cynical (and possibly psychopathic) than I actually am, my response to this would be: You've got your short, sad life left - that's what I'm counting on. Living "until further notice," as I heard someone put it, would be awseome, and it's only possible to do via transhumanism.

(In reality, it's 10 past midnight, so a well thought out answer will have to wait until tommorow. )

[stdout]

Originally Posted by Clarke

You've got your short, sad life left - that's what I'm counting on.

On the subject of transhumanism, maybe we could have a society in which there is something like a 'posthuman standard' that would represent a 'normal' posthuman. No one would be allowed to enhance themselves beyond this specification, and people who fell below the standard would be given the option of augmentations designed to bring them up to that standard.

That way, people would be more equal, and we'd all be superhuman

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

I do not know how this relates to the OP, but whatever...

OP and topic are usually meaningless, the conversation will take place where it pleases, much to Eltu's dismay.

Presently, the difference in "value" of different human beings is in relation to the value of a human life overall not too bad - A person that is poor and has not much of an education still has many abilities - she might be able to care for children, tell stories, be a good singer, cook well, be a good person to talk to,...

An idealistic approach, but doesn't really work in practice. While these are valuable things to do, they can still be performed by someone who is also already monetarily beneficial to society, because it's all about efficiency on the individual level on today's society. It's sad, but all too true.

Of course people here will probably have seen the movie "Gattaca" (if not, I'd say it is very worth watching this SciFi movie about a future that trends towards transhumanism)

That movie is made of awesome.

Well then maybe the solution would be to create a society that does have a set of requirments that are varied enough so that most people do fit in instead of limiting them so that only a few fit well and all others compete for the places that are left ... A positive society I would say would strive to a status in which there is a place for all beings, not to demand of the beings to adapt to the system but adapt the system to how the beings are.

Idealism is always fun because it's easy, and not to mention pleasant to think about, but to create such a flexible system in reality would require much effort, knowledge and technical capability to even begin to scratch the surface. The physical aspects themselves are difficult enough, but to also make it so that people would not be at each others throats all the time would prove at least equally challenging.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

I agree - do not want.

It's here today

Enforced equality is one of the most totaliatarian, Stalinist ideas conceived.

I would agree that there are already differences now, in many cases because of social reasons (rich/poor, education,...). I would however prefer if society would eliminate that inequality of possibilities (not to make people equal but to give them the same opportunities ans help using them.

Equality of opportunity is the foundation of free society.

Yes, some transhumanism will increase the pinnacle of human achievement, but also benefit people lower down. That's no different from anything else, ever.

Of course people here will probably have seen the movie "Gattaca" (if not, I'd say it is very worth watching this SciFi movie about a future that trends towards transhumanism)

I suggest you read Harrison Bergeron. Also, Gattaca was full of mistakes.

Well then maybe the solution would be to create a society that does have a set of requirments that are varied enough so that most people do fit in instead of limiting them so that only a few fit well and all others compete for the places that are left ... A positive society I would say would strive to a status in which there is a place for all beings, not to demand of the beings to adapt to the system but adapt the system to how the beings are.

A place for everyone still isn't enforced equality - the former is not only fine but desirable, the latter is not.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

An idealistic approach, but doesn't really work in practice. While these are valuable things to do, they can still be performed by someone who is also already monetarily beneficial to society, because it's all about efficiency on the individual level on today's society.

Pardon me, but yes, I am idealistic
But in this case there is little need. A person who is a good cook, singer, dancer, accountant, scientist, mother, pilot and inventor can never grapple to use all these talents. It is far more efficient to let him do the things that others cannot (e.g. inventing things) and let others do the things that they can (singing or dancing). It would be rather wasteful and inefficient of a society to let them all compete in dancing while no one has time to do the inventing or the cooking for example.

Idealism is always fun because it's easy, and not to mention pleasant to think about, but to create such a flexible system in reality would require much effort, knowledge and technical capability to even begin to scratch the surface. The physical aspects themselves are difficult enough, but to also make it so that people would not be at each others throats all the time would prove at least equally challenging.

Well but if you create a world that is made of fierce competition by just letting everyone with enough money, good friends or a gun get into positions that give him more power - that does not make it better either. If no social rules and controls of any sort exist - the neoliberal idea of what is freedom - then inequality and domination will run rampant. In context of transhumanism, you would arrive in a world that has masters and slaves, superheroes and dumb proletarians in no time. Those who are rich and powerful will get the tools to become superhuman in addition to that while the ones that are poor do not even have the means to get the most basic "advancments" that would allow them to do any decent job.

A transhumanist society would - if it is not to end in a hellish nightmare - require a quite complex and strong system of control to maintain a decent status. Probably even moreso than what I proposed. The thing I proposed is not really fantasy either. There are societies in the present and past that valued each person and gave each person the chance to do what she is good at.

Originally Posted by Clarke

Living "until further notice," as I heard someone put it, would be awseome, and it's only possible to do via transhumanism.

Ah, the old fantastic dream of eternal life...

Originally Posted by Human No More

Enforced equality is one of the most totaliatarian, Stalinist ideas conceived.
Equality of opportunity is the foundation of free society.

Enforced equality in the sense of that short story you linked is very different from what I envision. But also "equal opportunity" does not hit it on the nail really.

The idea is neither to make all people exactly the same - crippling the ones that are good in one area of life. Also the idea is not to just dump everyone into a competitive society and say "hey, you have all the chances, if you dont make it to the top, you were just not good enough". By that latter logic, of course a hispanic from the slums of Baltimore can become president or a billionaire if he does the perfectly right moves that this social game sets up (cheating, lying, exploiting at the right times).
What I would say is needed is that there is truely equal opportunity ensured by actively helping people to get there. So if someone is poor or lacks some skills, such a society would help him to get out of poverty and to achieve these skills. It is a supportive and actively helping, cooperative society. And with all bad things that can be said about the East German state during the USSR times, every young person was given free education in the areas she or he liked best - they had plenty of female scientists because there was special support for them, everyone had the same chances to get a house, a car or a job, because there was a system set up to not make one thing dependant on something completely different. It failed of course, due to corruption, due to buerocracy and due to the restriction of freedoms they implemented. They became control freaks which is as bad as having no control at all.

Yes, some transhumanism will increase the pinnacle of human achievement, but also benefit people lower down. That's no different from anything else, ever.

Its no different all right, but the scale would be ramped up compared to now. And not always do the lower humans benefit from the achievement of the higher humans - often they are the ones paying for these things actually, as indigenous and poor people around the world actually pay for the privileges of the industrialized countries. To increase that divide between poor and rich (with transhumanism then the unable and the superhumans) is a very dangerous path for anything that is left of ethical and humane concepts about how we treat others. So in a sense yes, I think humanism is actually a very good term because I think that transhumans would possibly stop being humans not only in the physical sense.

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Pardon me, but yes, I am idealistic
But in this case there is little need. A person who is a good cook, singer, dancer, accountant, scientist, mother, pilot and inventor can never grapple to use all these talents. It is far more efficient to let him do the things that others cannot (e.g. inventing things) and let others do the things that they can (singing or dancing). It would be rather wasteful and inefficient of a society to let them all compete in dancing while no one has time to do the inventing or the cooking for example.

I'm not quite sure what are you trying to say there, but I don't think the thing is not about letting people do things, but rather about what people like to do most.

The idea that society would work like a simple logic test where there are n amount of different blocks that go to n amount of corresponding slots is too idealistic even by your standards. Simply put, there are way too many blocks compared to the number of available slots, and not even all blocks will fit to any slot.

Well but if you create a world that is made of fierce competition by just letting everyone with enough money, good friends or a gun get into positions that give him more power - that does not make it better either. If no social rules and controls of any sort exist - the neoliberal idea of what is freedom - then inequality and domination will run rampant. In context of transhumanism, you would arrive in a world that has masters and slaves, superheroes and dumb proletarians in no time. Those who are rich and powerful will get the tools to become superhuman in addition to that while the ones that are poor do not even have the means to get the most basic "advancments" that would allow them to do any decent job.

And how is this any different from the society we already live in?

The thing I proposed is not really fantasy either. There are societies in the present and past that valued each person and gave each person the chance to do what she is good at.

Only on a very small scale such a society is possible, but as it happens, humanity is no longer small scale by any definition. Also, not everyone is even good at useful things, so they would just serve as excess weight or perform sub-optimally.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by stdout

We do what we must because we can, for the good of all of us.

On the subject of transhumanism, maybe we could have a society in which there is something like a 'posthuman standard' that would represent a 'normal' posthuman. No one would be allowed to enhance themselves beyond this specification, and people who fell below the standard would be given the option of augmentations designed to bring them up to that standard.

How do you deal with the perpetual complain of, "Why can't we have cool new technology X?"

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

But in this case there is little need. A person who is a good cook, singer, dancer, accountant, scientist, mother, pilot and inventor can never grapple to use all these talents. It is far more efficient to let him do the things that others cannot (e.g. inventing things) and let others do the things that they can (singing or dancing). It would be rather wasteful and inefficient of a society to let them all compete in dancing while no one has time to do the inventing or the cooking for example.

If society depended on efficiency, we'd be up to Economics 2.0 by now.

In context of transhumanism, you would arrive in a world that has masters and slaves, superheroes and dumb proletarians in no time. Those who are rich and powerful will get the tools to become superhuman in addition to that while the ones that are poor do not even have the means to get the most basic "advancments" that would allow them to do any decent job.

You're assuming that there isn't such a thing as charity. As well, jobs will most likely become redundant once the abilities of artificial intelligence reach a certain threshold. It could be the case that the only tasks humans are still effective at doing are purely intellectual.

A transhumanist society would - if it is not to end in a hellish nightmare - require a quite complex and strong system of control to maintain a decent status. Probably even moreso than what I proposed. The thing I proposed is not really fantasy either. There are societies in the present and past that valued each person and gave each person the chance to do what she is good at.

This works very well until, suddenly, oops, there's nothing that you're good at that someone else can't do more effectively.

Ah, the old fantastic dream of eternal life...

Interestingly, in the 1950s, it wasn't a dream to shrink a million room-sized computers into a volume smaller than a grain of sand; it was inconceivable. What's so hard about a little bit of biology modification?

Enforced equality in the sense of that short story you linked is very different from what I envision. But also "equal opportunity" does not hit it on the nail really.

What is it then?

What I would say is needed is that there is truely equal opportunity ensured by actively helping people to get there. So if someone is poor or lacks some skills, such a society would help him to get out of poverty and to achieve these skills.

What about the people who don't want to be helped?

It failed of course, due to corruption, due to buerocracy and due to the restriction of freedoms they implemented. They became control freaks which is as bad as having no control at all.

IOW, due to the inherent characteristics of human nature.

To increase that divide between poor and rich (with transhumanism then the unable and the superhumans) is a very dangerous path for anything that is left of ethical and humane concepts about how we treat others.

The divide between the rich and the poor might be going up or down, but even the poor now are fundamentally orders of magnitude wealthir than tha the wealthy of days gone by.

[Fkeu'itan]

Anyone else kind of creeped out by the idea that machines would do all of our basic survival work for us, spoonfeeding us like a mindless, retarded population whilst we could 'go out and play with the other kids'?

I don't know... Maybe a lot of people find this idea perfect... But what if the machines, say, stopped working?

[Empty Glass]

Originally Posted by Fkeu'itan

Anyone else kind of creeped out by the idea that machines would do all of our basic survival work for us, spoonfeeding us like a mindless, retarded population whilst we could 'go out and play with the other kids'?

I don't know... Maybe a lot of people find this idea perfect... But what if the machines, say, stopped working?

Yeah, just for that I'd want to have some degree of self-reliance and independence. Though maybe I can't say much.

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by Fkeu'itan

Anyone else kind of creeped out by the idea that machines would do all of our basic survival work for us, spoonfeeding us like a mindless, retarded population whilst we could 'go out and play with the other kids'?

I don't know... Maybe a lot of people find this idea perfect... But what if the machines, say, stopped working?

I'd say the basic survival work is the mindless repetitive work that is better suited for mindless machines than sentient beings.

Besides, being a kid is like the best thing in the world, aside from the fact that at that time one hasn't really developed sufficiently complex mental capacity to grasp and think of all kinds of things. Anyhow, like I've heard some smart people say, growing older is mandatory, but growing up is optional.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Fkeu'itan

I don't know... Maybe a lot of people find this idea perfect... But what if the machines, say, stopped working?

We command the slightly less complex machines to fix them. See also: the architecture of a computer.