Print

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

[WillowLuman]

What I'm saying is, Aspies and non-Aspies are not distinct species, people of different ethnicity are not distinct species, and we are not a distinct species from our ancestors a mere 50 generations ago. There simply hasn't been enough time for changes to compound significantly enough with the current iteration of the species, especially considering that we've adapted culturally and technologically to many situations that would have caused biological speciation in other creatures. We've shifted some of the burden of our genes onto our memes.

As for the other issue, if mankind were to transform themselves into something new using technology, I think speciation would be an outdated word to describe it. If our bodies became entirely technological, our very forms would become memetic, based on conscious input and design necessities, rather than genetic.

[wierd]

Indeed-- which is why I pointed out that the mental coping mechanism we employ to deal with such large societal constructs is to essentially make strawmen, instead of dealing with the actual realities if the societal construct.

"Asians are good at math", et al.

We can only do "so much" with that. We *are* improving, but I would bet money that Dunbar's Number is also slowly growing, if it were tested.


We don't go from having a dunbar's number of 200 to one of 20,000,000 overnight, unless we all get plugged into the borg collective or something. It happens a little at a time.  I'd bet that the mean ability of humans to cope has slowly improved on the biological level over the time you contend, and that these small improvements have enabled much bigger improvements socially.

[Dwarf4Explosives]

Also a valid point: with people able to communicate exponentially quicker (with more processing power for thinking and/or absence of typing/talking by sending the signals directly), culture will evolve much quicker as well. You may see a radically different culture (as different as modern society compared with pre-industrial revolution) within a year of the technology being available.

[Bauglir]

Evolution isn't about such things; distinction between species happens when the differences are extreme enough that the populations become distinct enough that they seperate, and stay seperate.

Okay, I agree. Evolution isn't about hard lines. That's my argument - that in order to say, "This isn't human anymore", you need to have that line, at least with transhumanism where at any given point, your basic human stock will always be modifiable to what you call "post-human". There will never be that divergence, no matter how many differences there are between human A and cyborg B. I wouldn't say a chimpanzee is human, but it never was. You're arguing that entities will lose their humanity at some point, and I want to know what that is.

What I'm saying is that you seem to be either saying something so obvious as to be pointless (transhumanism would involve radical changes to humanity at every level, from the physical to the mental), or something completely arbitrary, as far as I can tell (that this means "extinction"). If you're making that claim, I'd really like to know the definition of humanity that justifies it.

I have a metal plate in my leg. It provided me with a superior ability to heal a fracture in a bone, greater than what nature would allow. I claim that I am still human, and I hope you'd agree. But if you do, I want to know where the line you draw is, because it seems to me that there's only a difference of magnitude between that, and the various Superman powers you describe as being clearly inhuman.

@LB
Fair enough, I will watch the video when I have the time. That said, while perhaps I may not be arguing with your intended claims, I am arguing with what you're saying. If you think the problem is that I misunderstand what you're claiming, then you need to work on clarity - otherwise, watching the video will only result in confusion, as it will seem a nonsequitur.

[scrdest]

Evolution isn't about such things; distinction between species happens when the differences are extreme enough that the populations become distinct enough that they seperate, and stay seperate.

Okay, I agree. Evolution isn't about hard lines. That's my argument - that in order to say, "This isn't human anymore", you need to have that line, at least with transhumanism where at any given point, your basic human stock will always be modifiable to what you call "post-human". There will never be that divergence, no matter how many differences there are between human A and cyborg B. I wouldn't say a chimpanzee is human, but it never was. You're arguing that entities will lose their humanity at some point, and I want to know what that is.

What I'm saying is that you seem to be either saying something so obvious as to be pointless (transhumanism would involve radical changes to humanity at every level, from the physical to the mental), or something completely arbitrary, as far as I can tell (that this means "extinction"). If you're making that claim, I'd really like to know the definition of humanity that justifies it.

I have a metal plate in my leg. It provided me with a superior ability to heal a fracture in a bone, greater than what nature would allow. I claim that I am still human, and I hope you'd agree. But if you do, I want to know where the line you draw is, because it seems to me that there's only a difference of magnitude between that, and the various Superman powers you describe as being clearly inhuman.

@LB
Fair enough, I will watch the video when I have the time. That said, while perhaps I may not be arguing with your intended claims, I am arguing with what you're saying. If you think the problem is that I misunderstand what you're claiming, then you need to work on clarity - otherwise, watching the video will only result in confusion, as it will seem a nonsequitur.

Actually no, the metal plate did not give you the ability to heal a fracture above what you would have naturally. It only stabilizes the bone; if you would want the bone to heal like that without the plate, you would need to immobilize it in another way.

Better example is something like a pacemaker.

As for differences: the hard border is:

a) Post-zygotic - when genetic modification causes the human to be unable to reproduce with humans, naturally or not, without the offspring being a genetically normal (this is, with abnormalities within the error margin present in the current human population), while being able to produce such offspring with other modified humans.

b) Pre-zygotic - when the differences between a human and a modified human are large enough that the two could not interact with each other on the same level, and thus separation of the population on the reproductive level occurs.

[Bauglir]

Can you explain to me what a way to stabilize the bone naturally would've been? The nature of the fracture made it impossible to set without surgery, evidently. I don't see how stabilizing the bone is anything but improving the natural healing ability.

As for objections -

Post-Zygotic: So as long as you keep your original germ cells available and a functional womb, you can do whatever you want? That hardly seems to be what is being argued, here. Certainly, Dunbar's Number is irrelevant to that.

Pre-Zygotic: How does this work when an individual can move from one category to the other? If a human joins the population of modified humans, and can then interbreed with them (and contribute genetic material), how can it be argued that the two have diverged reproductively?

[scrdest]

Can you explain to me what a way to stabilize the bone naturally would've been? The nature of the fracture made it impossible to set without surgery, evidently. I don't see how stabilizing the bone is anything but improving the natural healing ability.

As for objections -

Post-Zygotic: So as long as you keep your original germ cells available and a functional womb, you can do whatever you want? That hardly seems to be what is being argued, here. Certainly, Dunbar's Number is irrelevant to that.

Pre-Zygotic: How does this work when an individual can move from one category to the other? If a human joins the population of modified humans, and can then interbreed with them (and contribute genetic material), how can it be argued that the two have diverged reproductively?

You could stabilize it with two pieces of wood. Or simply lay down and be lucky. Also, it is technically not at all related to the healing ability, since it would re-attach on its own, except not necessarily re-attach where you want it to.

Post - no, I am assuming you use 'original germ cells' to mean pre-modification ones, and in this case they are genetically different from you. If the modified germ cells do work, it's the same species.

Pre - but it's only a one-way mobility. So an individual who becomes 'post-human' in the process eliminates himself from the pool of regular humans, and due to the modifications required would have to share several characteristics with others of his kind and differ from regular humans.

[WillowLuman]

So inserting the metal plate did improve his chances over leaving it to nature alone. And splinting it with wood is still a manmade method, even if wood is an organic material.

But aren't all cyborgs regular humans to begin with? It's not as if the children of cyborgs will be born with augments; that's not a genetic feature. You still need regular humans to make more cyborgs.

[Bauglir]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

As Hugo said, wood is still not leaving it to nature, and its efficacy would've been significantly less than the plate. Again, the nature of the fracture made setting it without surgery impossible - I chipped off a small piece of my tibia, and it was suspended between that and the knee. There was no way to mechanically affect it without getting in there, and the plate was absolutely necessary to keep it from just floating off again. Left to nature, it would never have healed properly, and going from "improper healing" to "proper healing" is an improvement on healing ability. It is probable that we're talking past each other, since you seem to have a much narrower definition of "healing".

What happens if your modifications are conversion to an uploaded consciousness and placement in a robot body? Certainly, it has the same genetic code, to whatever extent genetics can be said to apply. Similarly, getting a haircut doesn't disqualify you from being human, even though that doesn't create a change mirrored in your genetic code. While we're at it, what separates this from, say, a vasectomy?

Why is one-way mobility relevant? Don't get me wrong, this is a much stronger argument, but it still seems awfully short-sighted.

Perhaps I've gotten lost in a semantic tangent. If humanity is going to become extinct, and the way you argue to defend that claim is the strictest possible biological definition of a species, why should I care? Scientists don't have a strong definition of species that handles niche cases, so you can pretty much pick whatever you want to support the emotional impact you're going for. I'm not saying you should convince me why it's good or bad, but why it's significant at all. The only reason I should care has to do with a philosophical concept of humanity that seems to be ignored in favor of hair-splitting.

[scrdest]

So inserting the metal plate did improve his chances over leaving it to nature alone. And splinting it with wood is still a manmade method, even if wood is an organic material.

But aren't all cyborgs regular humans to begin with? It's not as if the children of cyborgs will be born with augments; that's not a genetic feature. You still need regular humans to make more cyborgs.

I specifically mentioned genetic modification. Cyborgs, full mind uploads aside, will always remain humans, no matter how many shinies are glued onto them, in the absence of genetic modification or something like brain uploading, or meeting the pre-zygotic requirement.

E:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

As Hugo said, wood is still not leaving it to nature, and its efficacy would've been significantly less than the plate. Again, the nature of the fracture made setting it without surgery impossible - I chipped off a small piece of my tibia, and it was suspended between that and the knee. There was no way to mechanically affect it without getting in there, and the plate was absolutely necessary to keep it from just floating off again. Left to nature, it would never have healed properly, and going from "improper healing" to "proper healing" is an improvement on healing ability. It is probable that we're talking past each other, since you seem to have a much narrower definition of "healing".

What happens if your modifications are conversion to an uploaded consciousness and placement in a robot body? Certainly, it has the same genetic code, to whatever extent genetics can be said to apply. Similarly, getting a haircut doesn't disqualify you from being human, even though that doesn't create a change mirrored in your genetic code. While we're at it, what separates this from, say, a vasectomy?

Why is one-way mobility relevant? Don't get me wrong, this is a much stronger argument, but it still seems awfully short-sighted.

Perhaps I've gotten lost in a semantic tangent. If humanity is going to become extinct, and the way you argue to defend that claim is the strictest possible biological definition of a species, why should I care? Scientists don't have a strong definition of species that handles niche cases, so you can pretty much pick whatever you want to support the emotional impact you're going for. I'm not saying you should convince me why it's good or bad, but why it's significant at all. The only reason I should care has to do with a philosophical concept of humanity that seems to be ignored in favor of hair-splitting.

I know wood is still (primitive) technology, but in that case it would be applied outside the body.

Vasectomy does not leave you unable to produce children as long as you still have germ cells with the same genetic material as the rest of you, and the resulting child will be a normal human.

One-way mobility is relevant because you cannot cross over the species - a posthuman child will not be able to have a human child, although a human child would be able to have a posthuman one at a cost of not being able to have any further human children.

Even if you did have two-way mobility, at the point the qualification is met the two groups are too alien to each other to be able to interbreed willingly, so you'd only have posthuman-posthuman children and human-human children, and with the switches, especially downgrades, being unlikely, the separation would be slowed, but would eventually happen.

[Dwarf4Explosives]

Amusingly, the one thing which really messes up your argumentation with point a is that, for example, two women can not have children, therefore, your definition states they are different species.

And then there's the fact that, these days, they actually can, which shows another problem with your definition: modifications could make a former case of a non-definitive.

[Singularity125]

I specifically mentioned genetic modification. Cyborgs, full mind uploads aside, will always remain humans, no matter how many shinies are glued onto them, in the absence of genetic modification or something like brain uploading, or meeting the pre-zygotic requirement.

Forgive me for jumping in here, but to clarify, this seems to be the sort of thing we're discussing over: (Courtesy of Wikipedia)

Gene therapy may be classified into the two following types, only one of which has been used in humans:

Somatic gene therapy
As the name suggests, in somatic gene therapy, the therapeutic genes are transferred into the somatic cells (non sex-cells), or body, of a patient. Any modifications and effects will be restricted to the individual patient only, and will not be inherited by the patient's offspring or later generations. Somatic gene therapy represents the mainstream line of current basic and clinical research, where the therapeutic DNA transgene (either integrated in the genome or as an external episome or plasmid) is used to treat a disease in an individual.
Several somatic cell gene transfer experiments are currently in clinical trials with varied success. Over 600 clinical trials utilizing somatic cell therapy are underway in the United States. Most of these trials focus on treating severe genetic disorders, including immunodeficiencies, haemophilia, thalassaemia, and cystic fibrosis. These disorders are good candidates for somatic cell therapy because they are caused by single gene defects. While somatic cell therapy is promising for treatment, a complete correction of a genetic disorder or the replacement of multiple genes in somatic cells is not yet possible. Only a few of the many clinical tries are in the advanced stages.

Germ line gene therapy
In germ line gene therapy, germ cells (sperm or eggs) are modified by the introduction of functional genes, which are integrated into their genomes. Germ cells will combine to form a zygote which will divide to produce all the other cells in an organism and therefore if a germ cell is genetically modified then all the cells in the organism will contain the modified gene. This would allow the therapy to be heritable and passed on to later generations. Although this should, in theory, be highly effective in counteracting genetic disorders and hereditary diseases, some jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Switzerland, and the Netherlands prohibit this for application in human beings, at least for the present, for technical and ethical reasons, including insufficient knowledge about possible risks to future generations and higher risk than somatic gene therapy (e.g. using non-integrative vectors). The USA has no federal legislation specifically addressing human germ-line or somatic genetic modification (beyond the usual FDA testing regulations for therapies in general).

So in this case, the somatic gene therapy is irrelevant, as the child would still be a normal human. I admit that I was confused by this discussion at first, as I take "cyborg" to mean electronic-type modifications, not genetic ones.

That said, I feel like any therapy that would cause the offspring to be unable to breed with normal humans would either be frowned upon in terms of cultural standards, or would take a gradual change over several generations to happen. To be honest I can't think of a current therapy that would cause this, as most of the current attempts are based on isolated genetic defects that cause disease, which don't limit breeding at all. But I'm no expert. What extent would genetic modification require before we diverge into a different species? I have trouble imagining such drastic changes.

[scrdest]

I specifically mentioned genetic modification. Cyborgs, full mind uploads aside, will always remain humans, no matter how many shinies are glued onto them, in the absence of genetic modification or something like brain uploading, or meeting the pre-zygotic requirement.

Forgive me for jumping in here, but to clarify, this seems to be the sort of thing we're discussing over: (Courtesy of Wikipedia)

Gene therapy may be classified into the two following types, only one of which has been used in humans:

Somatic gene therapy
As the name suggests, in somatic gene therapy, the therapeutic genes are transferred into the somatic cells (non sex-cells), or body, of a patient. Any modifications and effects will be restricted to the individual patient only, and will not be inherited by the patient's offspring or later generations. Somatic gene therapy represents the mainstream line of current basic and clinical research, where the therapeutic DNA transgene (either integrated in the genome or as an external episome or plasmid) is used to treat a disease in an individual.
Several somatic cell gene transfer experiments are currently in clinical trials with varied success. Over 600 clinical trials utilizing somatic cell therapy are underway in the United States. Most of these trials focus on treating severe genetic disorders, including immunodeficiencies, haemophilia, thalassaemia, and cystic fibrosis. These disorders are good candidates for somatic cell therapy because they are caused by single gene defects. While somatic cell therapy is promising for treatment, a complete correction of a genetic disorder or the replacement of multiple genes in somatic cells is not yet possible. Only a few of the many clinical tries are in the advanced stages.

Germ line gene therapy
In germ line gene therapy, germ cells (sperm or eggs) are modified by the introduction of functional genes, which are integrated into their genomes. Germ cells will combine to form a zygote which will divide to produce all the other cells in an organism and therefore if a germ cell is genetically modified then all the cells in the organism will contain the modified gene. This would allow the therapy to be heritable and passed on to later generations. Although this should, in theory, be highly effective in counteracting genetic disorders and hereditary diseases, some jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Switzerland, and the Netherlands prohibit this for application in human beings, at least for the present, for technical and ethical reasons, including insufficient knowledge about possible risks to future generations and higher risk than somatic gene therapy (e.g. using non-integrative vectors). The USA has no federal legislation specifically addressing human germ-line or somatic genetic modification (beyond the usual FDA testing regulations for therapies in general).

So in this case, the somatic gene therapy is irrelevant, as the child would still be a normal human. I admit that I was confused by this discussion at first, as I take "cyborg" to mean electronic-type modifications, not genetic ones.

That said, I feel like any therapy that would cause the offspring to be unable to breed with normal humans would either be frowned upon in terms of cultural standards, or would take a gradual change over several generations to happen. To be honest I can't think of a current therapy that would cause this, as most of the current attempts are based on isolated genetic defects that cause disease, which don't limit breeding at all. But I'm no expert. What extent would genetic modification require before we diverge into a different species? I have trouble imagining such drastic changes.

I'm kinda sorta a Biotechnology student, I know how gene therapy works >.<

The thing is, SGT is, as the article mentions, only useful for fixing defects, and not only that, only single gene defects. If you want something more dramatic and wide-reaching and more moddy than fixey, you need to modify the zygote, because that way all the cells which are descended from the modified stem cell will contain a copy of the transgene, and the higher differentiative potential the cell has, the more different tissues will have the gene in them.

Although getting the gene in the cell still doesn't mean you can do the victory dance, since epigenetics can screw over the transgene by methylating it, and thus giving you a non-functional gene.

[wierd]

I would like to once more point out that the ability to produce offspring with another species IS NOT grounds to erase the species line.

Examples:

Greater prairie chicken
Lesser prairie chicken

Under rare circumstances, these two species can mate, and produce theoretically fertile offspring.
The problem, is that the resulting hybrid offspring cannot make an appropriate mating call in the case of male chicks, and are selectively "Deselected" by males of both species in the case of female chicks. They are highly unlikely statistically to breed.

As such, while they *can* cross, when they do in the wild it is a dead-end. They have diverged, and will continue to diverge.  Thus, separate species.

[scrdest]

I would like to once more point out that the ability to produce offspring with another species IS NOT grounds to erase the species line.

Examples:

Greater prairie chicken
Lesser prairie chicken

Under rare circumstances, these two species can mate, and produce theoretically fertile offspring.
The problem, is that the resulting hybrid offspring cannot make an appropriate mating call in the case of male chicks, and are selectively "Deselected" by males of both species in the case of female chicks. They are highly unlikely statistically to breed.

As such, while they *can* cross, when they do in the wild it is a dead-end. They have diverged, and will continue to diverge.  Thus, separate species.

Qualifier 2 is met here, except less so for the first generation and more for the offspring.