Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Descan]

Who cares? As long as there's still a technological civilization running around, I don't. Though, I'd LIKE it to be a Terran civilization, and I'd like even more to be a member of it, all things considered...

[alway]

MSH:

Evolution implies the destruction of the old.

No it doesn't.

And furthermore, throwing around loaded terms and then bemoaning things based on their alternate meanings is absurd to the highest degree. It's nothing but wordplay with the intent to derail the conversation. It's like saying "I change all the time, so the me of today will be dead tomorrow, and replaced with someone different." and following up with "Therefore, I should be planning my funeral for my imminent demise." It's just more dancing angels.

[wierd]

Alway:  please discard the stawman.

Current modern humans are not capable of true world peace, because they lack the cognitative capacity for it. They have a dunbar's number of only around 200. In a reality of 6+bn people, it is impossible for them to have complete understanding of every other human, and their roles in society. As such, it is impossible for them to fully cooperate perfectly. Inefficient and incorrect abstractions such as group identities and stereotypes are currently required for the level of social complexity we currently enjoy.

For humans to surpass this limitation without resorting to a regime predicated upon the use of force, humans will have to fundamentally change in a radical fashion. After that, they wouldn't be human anymore, anymore than australopithicus is. They may call themselves humans, but they won't be us.

The process of that change over time necessitates the slow but steady death of the older and less fit (for the current local maximum) individuals. If we want world peace, it means the death of war. If we want post scarcity, it means the death of poverty, and obscene wealth.

If we want world peace, that is genuine and not dystopian in nature (applied through force, to forcibly silence dissenting voices to maintain the unity of vision and purpose) it means the death of stereotypes and small group identities.

[Bauglir]

They won't be us, but why won't they be human? Is dunbar's number your key defining factor of humanity? What, exactly, are you claiming will change that will make humans cease to be?

[wierd]

Bauglir:

Look at the fossil records we have concerning Neanderthals, and Early Modern Humans.

From what we can tell, Neanderthals had a dunbar's number in the double digits. Early modern humans had one in the triple digits.

The differences in culture and tools between them is stark. They were however able to interbreed freely.  For the same reasons neanderthals are not/were not "humans", our decendents won't be, just in the other direction.

[alway]

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the only difference.

However, they are sometimes considered a subspecies; but it really just goes to show that the entire 'species' moniker, when applied to closely related critters, is pretty much worthless, unscientific, and entirely arbitrary. Again, it's just word-games and dancing angels.

[Dwarf4Explosives]

What I don't understand is why we're taking the extinction of humanity so seriously. I mean, what's so bad about it?

[wierd]

I didn't say that it was; only that it would be necessary.

The people on the youtube video asserting that humans are perfect right now, and don't need to change, are the ones afraid of being extinct.

[Bauglir]

Are you saying the key difference between Neanderthals and modern humans is the size of their potential social circles? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying. That seems overly narrow. But perhaps I'm confused. Are we talking about humanity in the more-or-less scientific sense of a particular species, or the philosophical sense that people care about when they talk about the extinction of humanity? I mean, if we all woke up tomorrow with Wolverine-like healing powers, I'd accept that we wouldn't meet the definition of humanity in the former sense, but I don't think it'd be sensible to freak out over humanity going extinct.

[Sergarr]

What I don't understand is why we're taking the extinction of humanity so seriously. I mean, what's so bad about it?

death of stereotypes and small group identities.

Personally I think the permanent world peace would be extremely boring.

[wierd]

Bauglir:

Imagine if humans were incapable of speech, but were otherwise just as intelligent.

Culture and what it brings, is every bit as important to being "human", and not "a smart animal".

In this hypothetical situation, current humans would be the ones unable to speak.

[MaximumZero]

What I don't understand is why we're taking the extinction of humanity so seriously. I mean, what's so bad about it?

death of stereotypes and small group identities.

Personally I think the permanent world peace would be extremely boring.

Not really. If we'd stop wasting time, energy, and materials on killing each other, we could accomplish scientific and social breakthroughs a lot faster than we're doing so now. Imagine if we had food, shelter, clean water, and safety for everyone in the world.

[LordBucket]

They won't be us, but why won't they be human?

Quick question: how many people in the previous 1-2 pages have watched more than the first few minutes of he video we're talking about? A few of the interviewees are literally and plainly talking about no longer being human and what it will mean to those who don't adapt. A few examples:

22:55
"Historically humans don't do well living side by side with with other things that are humanlike. One or the other survives and the other goes away. We don't do well with cooperation. 500 years ago when humans entered the New World it was not a good outcome for the natives, and I don't expect in this newer world, this brave new world that it will be pleasant for the losers. And the winners may be some transhuman thing. The losers, like the typical inhabitants of the last 500 years won't be treated well, because that's not been the history of man going all the way back to what happened to the neanderthals when the human sapiens arrived."

49:38
"It's important to realize that the post-human epic is coming.

"The merest fact that you're no longer human doesn't mean you don't have the same personality problems."

They're clearly and specifically talking about "post" humans, as in after humans, and making reference to things like neanderthal extinction. Here are a few other specific scenarios discussed in the video:

 * Classic "grey goo scenario" all present life on the planet is destroyed.
 * Robots become self aware and replace us.
 * Human brain removed and put in a jar, or on a mechanical robot
 * Human mind uploaded to a computer, body and brain destroyed.
 * Human minds uploaded to a "nanobot swarm" that blows freely in the wind.

What I don't understand is why we're taking the extinction of humanity so seriously. I mean, what's so bad about it?

If you want to take that tack, I'm ok with it...but let's not pretend that we're not talking about the end of the human race as the average human today probably sees it.

[Bauglir]

I haven't actually seen the movie yet, unless I've seen it long ago and have forgotten. Haven't had time. This is something I've thought about a lot, however, and I still don't think it makes sense to draw parallels to Neanderthal extinction, because I don't believe there's any secondary lineage coming in to displace humans. Convince me that what you're calling post-human is not, in fact, just a human with a bunch of shinies glued on.

EDIT ADDITION: Why does a change in Dunbar's Number, for instance, make somebody not human, when the metal plate in my leg doesn't affect my humanity at all? If you're going to claim they're not human, you have to define humanity first in order to convince somebody who doesn't already agree with you, and I've yet to see you do that.

Once you do that, explain how it makes sense to base your assumptions about that non-human's behavior on human history and psychological quirks. It seems like you're trying to do that thing with the cake and having it too.

[LordBucket]

Did you read the post immediately above yours?