126 réponses à ce sujet

[Gwydden]

Don't forget that nonsense called 'essence', which the trilogy is riddled with.

And 'the Cipher', lol.

Space magic all the way.

Asari btw aren't that weird. The way they are explained in ME makes them seem really weird, but if you put them in the proper biological terms (asexually reproducing species with DNA recombination on reproduction) they are probably the most likely alien species of the bunch.

In fact, asexual reproduction with DNA recombination is far superior to anything known on this planet. It outweighs sexual reproduction and asexual reproduction as we know it (i.e. cloning) by miles, for obvious reasons, I hope.

But the way they are explained in ME (which the Asari might do on purpose, come to think of it) makes them sound mystical and magical. But what they say translates to the terms in which I put them. Remember that the 'father' adds NOTHING at all, hence asexual reproduction. The reproduction only causes the genes to be juggled around slightly, which is a thing that happens in humans too. You don't just get straight copies of one of your mom and dad's DNA strains, the genes are shuffled around slightly too.

That they need some other individual to reproduce at all is the only really odd thing they do, but that seems more an emotional thing than anything else. (and I'm not even completely sure they need it)

Oh, that's not what I find weird about the asari at all. Bdelloid rotifers do something pretty similar. No, what I find implausible is that they look almost exactly like human and in spite of not reproducing sexually have sex and are sexually attractive to all other (sentient? Now I've got weird ideas in my head) species.

 

The fear is:

 

1)That the human body is not a machine. Or if it is, its crafted by something much greater (God/Evolution/Universe) and if we try to 'improve it' or especially significantly change it, we have screwed up the plan. This is basically a view of sacredness of the human body. The 'if it was made this way, and it works enough, then intentionally changing that is evil' route.

 

2)Even if its a machine and we can engineer it, 'fixing' it may be done in a way that neglects personal or universal truths. That in trying to engineer our bodies to such a level, we have disrupted the way the world works and perhaps ought to always work, and then it'll require a whole cascading set of actions and changes in order to adapt, etc etc, until there's no 'human' left. This is basically a conservative view.

 

IMO like anything conservative/sacred, its only true until it really really isn't. There is nothing actually wrong with, for example, changing our DNA to reduce or eliminate our worst diseases, no matter the fears about creating giant monstrosities or plagues.

 

But I'm a transhumanist. And I'm ready for many of my own 'young' generation to act like 'old angry men' if transhumanism becomes a point of contention later this century.

 

 

EDIT: Definition of 'machine' - a tool. People don't want to think of themselves as machines, or at least their bodies as that (because to most people body = brain = mind = self = soul, to some extent). Transhumanists may be more free to consider that the self/soul can be transferred or changed while still being itself (aka code rewrite doesn't mean everything has changed, but just that the machine/code can work better).

Ah, to be honest, I'm not a transhumanist myself. I'm quite opposed to the idea in fact. The reason is fairly simple: I have no interest whatsoever in "transcending" humanity, because I believe it is worth preserving. In fact, I find transhumanism to be too much like a secular version of certain religious dogmas for my liking.

 

I know, I'm a biologist, lol.

And fervent supporter of transhumanism, in every way. Genetic engineering, synthetic engineering (adding tech to organism).

I also kinda laugh at people who don't wanna mess with God's plan, but go see a doctor anyway. In that aspect, those nutters that refuse medicine altogether at least got that part right.

Oh, I'm all for using genetic engineering and cybernetics to make humanity "better". I just don't want to leave humanity behind altogether. I don't have a problem messing with God's plan, as that would require a) believing there is a god and believing he has a plan.

[SwobyJ]

"In fact, I find transhumanism to be too much like a secular version of certain religious dogmas for my liking."

 

I sometimes agree, though I think transhumanism is only more like this when it believes there's a specific endgame - aka a 'heaven'. The endeavor to progress in itself is something I can highly respect, especially since I think it'd be easier for us to explore the universe through some sort of changing of ourselves compared to only/always changing our environment/using external tools for it.

 

Transhuman beliefs can range anywhere from 'lets be more than only human but still stay human' to 'lets take the path to leaving humanity entirely', with the only agreed truth being that we're in a trans state where we could go either way, that we're at least opened up to not being human anymore (and that is a thing that many may oppose).

 

Technically, to the fullest stretch of a definition of transhuman, even wearing glasses can be considered an expression of it, but only as long as we wear the glasses. It just not considered a transhuman tech because it doesn't replace or augment anything in the more literal sense, only figurative/emotional/etc.

 

I think I'm with you when it comes to preserving humanity for centuries, but honestly, in the span of 1,000s to 10,000s of years, I don't care.

 

What a surprise that I've chosen both Synthesis and Destroy.