Print

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

[Knit tie]

Lagslayer, what if we alter genes that have been shown to not affect brain structure or function at all? Is a man genetically modified to be more muscular less human than a wild-type man?

[MaximumZero]

There's no reason for it to come to that.

There's also literally no actual justified reason for organized wars that couldn't of been resolved peacefully, yet human history is full of them. If we find another sapient species we wont even know they're sapient till we've been killing eachother for a while.

You're right, which is why I made it pretty clear that I have no faith in humanity. We, as a global culture, need to get our shit together.

[Knit tie]

There's no reason for it to come to that.

There's also literally no actual justified reason for organized wars that couldn't of been resolved peacefully, yet human history is full of them. If we find another sapient species we wont even know they're sapient till we've been killing eachother for a while.

You're right, which is why I made it pretty clear that I have no faith in humanity. We, as a global culture, need to get our shit together.

We are actually doing pretty fine with that, I believe. Look at all the progress in human rights we've made.

[alexandertnt]

What makes one human?

1. Biological integrity, I feel, is the most defining part of a human. The health of the body and mind affect each other, and their mechanisms and materials determine the function. Who you are, in large part, grows out of what you are. To consciously alter or manipulate it's basic functions is to degrade your very being. Genetic material, the blueprints from which your body is built, is the most basic biological component, and to consciously alter or manipulate that is to degrade the entire species.

To refer to altering humans as inherently "degrading" humanity sort of implies humans are perfect, since to degrade means "to make the quality of (something) worse". I think thats a pretty silly assumption.

You could also make the argument that evolution is "degrading", since this leads to the altering genetic material.

I believe that friendly cooperation with other sapient species could be great, and benefit all factions involved. But if it comes down to "them or us", I'm going to side with us. Because, often unfortunately, you have to choose a side. And I choose my side. Hopefully, it would not come to such a situation.

What is "my side"? It wasn't long ago that "my side" referred to specifically (for me) white people, or men, or stuff like that. It could also refer to my family, my local community, my country, people that speak my language, people that behave like me etc. Infact, what "my side" is seems to be defined by those who want to start/continue the conflicts in the first place.

[Lagslayer]

Lagslayer, what if we alter genes that have been shown to not affect brain structure or function at all? Is a man genetically modified to be more muscular less human than a wild-type man?

Yes.

But I propose an alternative. Just add the chemicals that would otherwise be coded for in DNA. It takes conscious effort to produce and apply the chemicals, but genetic integrity is preserved, and basic bodily functions are unchanged. Basically steroids, but not necessarily the steroids we have today.

There's no reason for it to come to that.

There's also literally no actual justified reason for organized wars that couldn't of been resolved peacefully, yet human history is full of them. If we find another sapient species we wont even know they're sapient till we've been killing eachother for a while.

You're right, which is why I made it pretty clear that I have no faith in humanity. We, as a global culture, need to get our shit together.

Who's to say the aliens would be any better? They may be as warlike as us, or perhaps even more so. Not that is necessarily makes our conduct any better or worse. Just playing devil's advocate.

What makes one human?

1. Biological integrity, I feel, is the most defining part of a human. The health of the body and mind affect each other, and their mechanisms and materials determine the function. Who you are, in large part, grows out of what you are. To consciously alter or manipulate it's basic functions is to degrade your very being. Genetic material, the blueprints from which your body is built, is the most basic biological component, and to consciously alter or manipulate that is to degrade the entire species.

To refer to altering humans as inherently "degrading" humanity sort of implies humans are perfect, since to degrade means "to make the quality of (something) worse". I think thats a pretty silly assumption.

You could also make the argument that evolution is "degrading", since this leads to the altering genetic material.

I believe that friendly cooperation with other sapient species could be great, and benefit all factions involved. But if it comes down to "them or us", I'm going to side with us. Because, often unfortunately, you have to choose a side. And I choose my side. Hopefully, it would not come to such a situation.

What is "my side"? It wasn't long ago that "my side" referred to specifically (for me) white people, or men, or stuff like that. It could also refer to my family, my local community, my country, people that speak my language, people that behave like me etc. Infact, what "my side" is seems to be defined by those who want to start/continue the conflicts in the first place.

I never meant to imply we are perfect, but that we are distinct in certain ways. I place high value on our distinctness, and feel that it is worth protecting.

As far as "my side" goes, that depends on how the factions have split during a conflict. I would choose whichever side I most identify with.

[Knit tie]

Speaking of sides, "my side" in a conflict is usually composed of whoever agrees with your opinion on the issue that caused said conflict in the first place. Thus my personal side in a conflict of marmite lovers vs. marmite haters would be composed of marmite lovers, while my side in a conflict of men vs. aliens would be composed of all men (or aliens if men really go off the handle), regardless of their love for marmite.

Anyway, Lag, how is administering steroids fundamentally different from wiring your cells to automatically administer them for you? Also, you believe that human "distinctiveness" should be protected, but why? What inherent value is there in being a genetically normal (even though there is no such thing) human as opposed to a genetically optimised one? You wouldn't argue that a naturally weak and thin man is more human than a strong and hearty one, why do you argue that a man who has genetic imperfections in his DNA that arose from mutation accumulation and prevent him from, for example, functioning at his full potential while running is more human that the very same man who has been modified in order to remove those imperfections while leaving his memory and personality intact? What is said man achieved the same result through conventional training instead?

I fail to see any value in being absolutely genetically unmodified aside from the sentimental one.

[alexandertnt]

I never meant to imply we are perfect, but that we are distinct in certain ways. I place high value on our distinctness, and feel that it is worth protecting.

As far as "my side" goes, that depends on how the factions have split during a conflict. I would choose whichever side I most identify with.

Distinct means "recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type". So distinct from what? How does being able to alter humans make us less distinct? I would think it would make us more distinct.

Wouldn't it be best to analyse a conflict to decide what the best course of action is? Just going along with whatever "your side" is seems like a pretty arbitary and silly thing to do.

[Putnam]

Lagslayer, what if we alter genes that have been shown to not affect brain structure or function at all? Is a man genetically modified to be more muscular less human than a wild-type man?

Yes.

Then who's the most human of them all, since not all DNA is shared between all humans? How do you define a human by biology when the biology of two humans can be so different? Is someone with only one kidney less human? One with Alzheimer's? One who is missing a leg?

[Descan]

What I REALLY want is for there to be ten thousand and one different methods of immortality, ten thousand and one different ways of living, of being, with new ones arriving all the time as someone has a brilliant idea.

If we're all different, insanely, wonderfully different, if there is no "human versus non-human", if there's no place to draw the line, then one of two things will happen. Either everyone will kill everyone else out of some sort of bloodlust over differences, or there will be no way to have a homogeneous "side" and "humanity" (sapientity?) will be a huge, interlocking mess of relationships, sides, types, origins, and... people. Just people, no matter what they look like, how they think, or where they originated.

Either way, we'd get past it all, finally. And can just... get on with life.

[alexandertnt]

Here is another point, why is it not-degrading and OK for nature to mutate humans, but degrading and bad for humans to do it to themselves?

Were being genetically altered all the time.

[Lagslayer]

I never meant to imply we are perfect, but that we are distinct in certain ways. I place high value on our distinctness, and feel that it is worth protecting.

As far as "my side" goes, that depends on how the factions have split during a conflict. I would choose whichever side I most identify with.

Distinct means "recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type". So distinct from what? How does being able to alter humans make us less distinct? I would think it would make us more distinct.

Wouldn't it be best to analyse a conflict to decide what the best course of action is? Just going along with whatever "your side" is seems like a pretty arbitary and silly thing to do.

The "best" course of action depends on the desired results. Is the person that wants a bacon sandwich stupid for not wanting a turkey sandwich instead? Turkey is, by most standards, considered healthier than bacon, so would that make turkey the only logical choice? What if he is unconcerned with the health effects of a single bacon sandwich, and prefers to have a much better tasting sandwich? Is this person stupid for wanting a tasty sandwich to a mediocre, but healthy sandwich?

Logic is a process, not a decision.

Lagslayer, what if we alter genes that have been shown to not affect brain structure or function at all? Is a man genetically modified to be more muscular less human than a wild-type man?

Yes.

Then who's the most human of them all, since not all DNA is shared between all humans? How do you define a human by biology when the biology of two humans can be so different? Is someone with only one kidney less human? One with Alzheimer's? One who is missing a leg?

Here is another point, why is it not-degrading and OK for nature to mutate humans, but degrading and bad for humans to do it to themselves?

Were being genetically altered all the time.

The specific DNA sequence is only half of the equation. The method of change is also important. What's the point of playing the game if you can guarantee being dealt a perfect hand every time? People need a reason to live, and these involuntary little imperfections and variances can spice up an otherwise very bland existence.


I'm logging for the night.

[Descan]

Because DNA isn't a game, it's life. And life isn't a game, despite what armchair cynics might say. I'm sure the millions of people suffering from genetic diseases cancers are great fans of such a "spicy life".

The only time we notice DNA is when it fucks up. Otherwise, it has no bearing on the spiciness of day-to-day life. If we are able to replace it with something that won't lead to a random roll of the die to see which section of humanity will get which agonizing or humiliating torment, then I think we should and I would go even further and say we would be ethically and morally wrong to NOT do it.

As I said in the ignored post above, I'm all for variation, I just prefer it to be a personal choice of variation. "Involuntary" is a dirty word. A humanity without DNA but with deep technology (which we would need, to get rid of DNA) won't lack for variation, it'll be full of many wildly different forms and functions according to the bodies owners desires.

I'm not even going to touch the bland existence thing, that's a personal outlook I don't hold but it's not really relevant. And I don't think the tiny cellular instructions in my body are a "reason to live", it may be that way for cows and insects who're really just support structures for gene propagation, but I've got a brain that can provide quite a few more reasons than "hey, I'm slightly taller than average, hurrah!"

Note: I apologize for my acerbic tone. And I'm all for keeping a record of DNA, for historical purposes (Hell, keep a record of EVERYONES DNA, before they're modified (if they started with DNA, like an AI wouldn't) we'll probably have the storage room) but I see no reason to let it have a stranglehold on humanity like it does now, a roll of the dice of whether your kid will have some strange malady or whether you'll get cancer tomorrow.

[Knit tie]

I think that the absolute majority of people would consider having a "bland" life an acceptable price for being fit, beautiful and healthy.

[Bauglir]

I would very much like to one day walk barefoot on the Moon. I don't see this happening without some degree of transhumanistic change. I'm not exactly "up" on the details of the thread so far, even if it is only two pages, but for me it boils down to the fact that there are simply experiences I cannot have with the flesh I have now, that I nevertheless want to have.

[Xantalos]

I would very much like to one day walk barefoot on the Moon. I don't see this happening without some degree of transhumanistic change. I'm not exactly "up" on the details of the thread so far, even if it is only two pages, but for me it boils down to the fact that there are simply experiences I cannot have with the flesh I have now, that I nevertheless want to have.

This guy has it right. Djinn aren't around to give immortality, so I gotta pine for transhumanism.

How else am I supposed to literally sunbathe?