/sci/ - Science & Math

It removes evolutionary pressures and causes the human species to further decay.

>>10859312
Define decay
If "decay" means move further from what has been evolutionarily defined as humanity, why is this inherently a bad thing?

>>10859306
nobody here want's to.chop their dick off

>>10859312
It's literally a forward step in evolution tho

Why cling to the flawed monkey brain?
This baffles me

>>10859322
It isn't. It benefits the weakest members, making up for their deficits, and allowing them to procreate and thus propagate their poor traits. Low IQ. Weakened immune system. Propensities toward instant gratification. Meanwhile, already intelligent and genetically fit people receive a marginally smaller benefit, making them be the losers, and the the actual losers be the victors. This is why transhumanism appeals to them in the first place. Face it, technology without eugenics is severely harmful. Your simpleton 'It's [fallacious and ignorant statement] tho'' belongs on reddit. Good bye.

>>10859357
What if it were restricted to people who pass aptitude and genetic tests?

>>10859374
and then you get a bunch of shitty chinese knockoffs of whatever they get flooding the market and your back at square one

>>10859306
Yeah! We are already products of our own design. Cooked food wasn't a thing when we were dummies. Selecting and perpetuating best agricultural products and animals. Fucking bitches with the biggest knockers. I want extra joints in my legs and exhaust pipes in my lungs. I want range finders in my eyes. I want to check email while sleeping. Well, maybe not that last one. Big brother and all.

>>10859312
Why Evolve when you can Engineer?

>>10859306
#1 reason:
sick of hearing about it
#2 reason:
idk, something about being circumcised maybe

>>10859306
nobody is against "transhumanism",
we aren't as advanced as you might think when you're looking through your 'rose tinted pop-sci glasses'.

People who say transhumanism is wrong have no idea what transhumanism is and how far we are at this point from any significant progress
People who say A.I is the biggest threat to humanity have no idea what A.G.I is and cite reddit shit like P=NP and think "AI" will ever happen

>>10859306
I distrust the people likely to be in control of the process. Those best positioned to benefit from the technology in the current society (i.e. those with money/power at present) are those least fit to rule in the society of the future.

>>10859408
>>10859357
But no one wants to hear that. Everyone wants technology to save us from everything.

>>10859447
>idk, something about being circumcised maybe
What does that have to do with anything?

The story goes like this: Earth is captured by a technocapital singularity as renaissance rationalitization and oceanic navigation lock into commoditization take-off. Logistically accelerating techno-economic interactivity crumbles social order in auto-sophisticating machine runaway. As markets learn to manufacture intelligence, politics modernizes, upgrades paranoia, and tries to get a grip.

>>10859357
Just because you receive a smaller benefit doesn't mean you lost. Its called diminishing returns.

>>10859312
"natural selection" ceased the moment we invented agriculture

>>10859306
You look at what human beings are doing with technology and tell me you trust anyone but yourself to make you """"""""more"""""""" than human.

>>10859482
It's always the Jews.

>>10859306
"the goal" was human, technology was intended as just a tool aiding this goal. seems like this is shifting the other way around, why would anyone with half a brain like it?

>>10859312
But humanity is in a dysgenic freefall and it accelerates with each medical advancement

>>10859312
we are already in decay, Flynn effect is reversing and global average IQ is falling

the only way out of this is through augmentation and genetic engineering

>>10859933
>world IQ doesn't start at 100

>>10859605
Or at least when we hit post-scarcity.
Transhumanism is the only way to advance humanity now.

>>10859357
>It benefits the weakest members,
Now they're the strongest
>Low IQ
Such high IQ that the smartest human cannot even compete
>Weakened immune system
Immune to all diseases
>Propensities toward instant gratification.
Basic human nature, this describes every human alive as I type this. Nothing would change.
>Face it, technology without eugenics is severely harmful.
Brainlet post. Evolution would just select for different traits than the ones selected now. If humans were bred to become as strong and smart as possible for thousands of years, it would still take only a few years for some dork to become their absolute superior. You completely misunderstand evolution.

>>10859482
really ignorant statement.
try being less of a moral fag

>>10859933
Average IQ can't go below 100 because average iq means 100. You're stupid.

>>10860158
>not sure if serious or a troll

>>10859306
AdSense

>>10859312
>It removes evolutionary pressures and causes the human species to further decay.

you could make the same argument about wearing glasses.

>>10859306
>why are people against making the entire species pay to win
I get that it's already like that to an extent but no where near the same extent

>>10859319
I take it you've never heard of "trans people"

>>10859933
Flynn effect never existed in the first place.

>>10859454
That's the new meaning of AI, i.e. stochastics. People warning of the dangers of AI don't mean Skynet.

>>10859374
Then I am fine with it.

>>10860246
This. It would be bad because people in power positions don't care.

>>10859306
It is an index of the techies' self-deception that they habitually assume that anything they consider desirable will actually be done when it becomes technically feasible. Of course, there are lots of wonderful things that already are and for a long time have been technically feasible, but don't get done. Intelligent people have said again and again: "How easily men could make things much better than they are-if they only all tried together!" But people never do "all try together," because the principle of natural selection guarantees that self-prop systems will act mainly for their own survival and propagation in competition with other self-prop systems, and will not sacrifice competitive advantages for the achievement of philanthropic goals.

Because immortality, as the techies conceive it, will be technically feasible, the techies take it for granted that some system to which they belong can and will keep them alive indefinitely, or provide them with what they need to keep themselves alive. Today it would no doubt be technically feasible to provide everyone in the world with everything that he or she needs in the way of food, clothing, shelter, protection from violence, and what by present standards is considered adequate medical care-if only all of the world's more important self-propagating systems would devote themselves unreservedly to that task. But that never happens, because the self-prop systems are occupied primarily with the endless struggle for power and therefore act philanthropically only when it is to their advantage to do so. That's why billions of people in the world today suffer from malnutrition, or are exposed to violence, or lack what is considered adequate medical care.

>>10859306
In view of all this, it is patently absurd to suppose that the technological world-system is ever going to provide seven billion human beings with everything they need to stay alive indefinitely. If the projected immortality were possible at all, it could only be for some tiny subset of the seven billion-an elite minority. Some techies acknowledge this. One has to suspect that a great many more recognize it but refrain from acknowledging it openly, for it is obviously imprudent to tell the public that immortality will be for an elite minority only and that ordinary people will be left out.

The techies of course assume that they themselves will be included in the elite minority that supposedly will be kept alive indefinitely. What they find convenient to overlook is that self-prop systems, in the long run, will take care of human beings-even members of the elite-only to the extent that it is to the systems' advantage to take care of them. When they are no longer useful to the dominant self-prop systems, humans-elite or not-will be eliminated. In order to survive, humans not only will have to be useful; they will have to be more useful in relation to the cost of maintaining them-in other words, they will have to provide a better cost-versus-benefit balance than any non-human substitutes. This is a tall order, for humans are far more costly to maintain than machines are.

>>10859306
It will be answered that many self-prop systems-governments, corporations, labor unions, etc.-do take care of numerous individuals who are utterly useless to them: old people, people with severe mental or physical disabilities, even criminals serving life sentences. But this is only because the systems in question still need the services of the majority of people in order to function. Humans have been endowed by evolution with feelings of compassion, because hunting-and-gathering bands thrive best when their members show consideration for one another and help one another. As long as self-prop systems still need people, it would be to the systems' disadvantage to offend the compassionate feelings of the useful majority through ruthless treatment of the useless minority. More important than compassion, however, is the self-interest of human individuals: People would bitterly resent any system to which they belonged if they believed that when they grew old, or if they became disabled, they would be thrown on the trash-heap.

But when all people have become useless, self-prop systems will find no advantage in taking care of anyone. The techies themselves insist that machines will soon surpass humans in intelligence. When that happens, people will be superfluous and natural selection will favor systems that eliminate them-if not abruptly, then in a series of stages so that the risk of rebellion will be minimized.

>>10859306
Even though the technological world-system still needs large numbers of people for the present, there are now more superfluous humans than there have been in the past because technology has replaced people in many jobs and is making inroads even into occupations formerly thought to require human intelligence. Consequently, under the pressure of economic competition, the world's dominant self-prop systems are already allowing a certain degree of callousness to creep into their treatment of superfluous individuals. In the United States and Europe, pensions and other benefits for retired, disabled, unemployed, and other unproductive persons are being substantially reduced; at least in the U. S., poverty is increasing; and these facts may well indicate the general trend of the future, though there will doubtless be ups and downs.

It's important to understand that in order to make people superfluous, machines will not have to surpass them in general intelligence but only in certain specialized kinds of intelligence. For example, the machines will not have to create or understand art, music, or literature, they will not need the ability to carry on an intelligent, non-technical conversation (the "Turing test"), they will not have to exercise tact or understand human nature, because these skills will have no application if humans are to be eliminated anyway. To make humans superfluous, the machines will only need to outperform them in making the technical decisions that have to be made for the purpose of promoting the short-term survival and propagation of the dominant self-prop systems. So, even without going as far as the techies themselves do in assuming intelligence on the part of future machines, we still have to conclude that humans will become obsolete. Immortality in the form (i)-the indefinite preservation of the human body as it exits today-is highly improbable.

>>10859306
The techies of course will argue that even if the human body and brain as we know them become obsolete, immortality in the form (ii) can still be achieved: Man-machine hybrids will permanently retain their usefulness, because by linking themselves with ever-more-powerful machines human beings (or what is left of them) will be able to remain competitive with pure machines.

But man-machine hybrids will retain a biological component derived from human beings only as long as the human-derived biological component remains useful. When purely artificial components become available that provide a better cost-versus-benefit balance than human-derived biological components do, the latter will be discarded and the man-machine hybrids will lose their human aspect to become wholly artificial. Even if the human-derived biological components are retained they will be purged, step by step, of the human qualities that detract from their usefulness. The self-prop systems to which the man-machine hybrids belong will have no need for such human weaknesses as love, compassion, ethical feelings, esthetic appreciation, or desire for freedom. Human emotions in general will get in the way of the self-prop systems' utilization of the man-machine hybrids, so if the latter are to remain competitive they will have to be altered to remove their human emotions and replace these with other motivating forces. In short, even in the unlikely event that some biological remnants of the human race are preserved in the form of man-machine hybrids, these will be transformed into something totally alien to human beings as we know them today.

>>10859306
The techies may answer that even if almost all biological species are eliminated eventually, many species survive for thousands or millions of years, so maybe techies too can survive for thousands or millions of years. But when large, rapid changes occur in the environment of biological species, both the rate of appearance of new species and the rate of extinction of existing species are greatly increased. Technological progress constantly accelerates, and techies like Ray Kurzweil insist that it will soon become virtually explosive; consequently, changes come more and more rapidly, everything happens faster and faster, competition among self-prop systems becomes more and more intense, and as the process gathers speed the losers in the struggle for survival will be eliminated ever more quickly. So, on the basis of the techies' own beliefs about the exponential acceleration of technological development, it's safe to say that the life-expectancies of human-derived entities, such as man-machine hybrids and human minds uploaded into machines, will actually be quite short. The seven-hundred year or thousand-year life-span to which some techies aspire is nothing but a pipe-dream.

>>10859306
P1: One has to hate himself plenty to become any kind of trany.
P2: A decision & motivation fueled by mental illness (read: madness) is a poor one.
C: Piss off, tranies.

>>10859933
DO NOT FEED THEM.
Problem solved.

>>10860303
Based and tedpilled.

>>10859306
Because artificial parts do not regenerate by themselves, and require special service on the part of end user, thus taking the time one could spend elsewhere.

Moreover, implants (effectively crutches) are not reproducible by the end user or, at the very least, require for their production instrument, not reproducible by the end user, thus making end user additionally dependent upon the benevolence of those in control of means of production of implants.

And, lastly, but most importantly. However cool looking, implants are effectively crutches the installation of which supposes surgery and either you already being crippled, or you crippling yourself specifically in order to get the desired part embedded in your body. Essentially, transhumanists are self-mutilators. Transhumanism is essentially a cult of self-mutilation. Those who oppose them exhibit common sense.

>>10859306
Change is scary

>>10859306
Im not.
Together with the invention of the internet will set humanity free form the chains of shadow committees that dictate everything around us.
I believe it will be a swift transition of few individuals that will break the barrier of man and machine.
After that I dont expect a change for at least a century because people need to accept the fact that its happening.

>>10860506
Hey, crutch fanatic, you can put yourself through the balcony to break the barrier of man and stone RIGHT NOW, for example.

>>10860536
who hurt you

>>10860280
trans people are into feelings, not science. he said "here"

>>10859357
>procreate
A primitive form of replication, it would be better if every human was simply synthetically created in a factory rather than rely on mother nature's russian roulette of genetics.

>>10860189
You're fucking stupid. The average iq is set to 100.

>>10859306
It's unnatural for one, and we're still kinda bad at "fixing" health/mental problems without creating a myriad of side effects (including death).

Also it'll be the rich getting richer first. After that, why open up the tech to the rest of us? You need to understand there will always be people who think "how do I advance" rather than "how do we advance". They'd gladly topple infrastructure if it meant they're still at the top of the totem pole. Now give that guy a billion dollars and an AI enhanced brain.

Also pick one: technologically improved or evolved. There's no more evolution. We change the environment instead of adapting. This will only further to stagnate our evolution. Babies will still be born tarded and need their arms amputated to install their go go gadget tentacles. Your chromosomes you pass on don't change this way.


Idk, this is off the top of my head over morning coffee. Would i take a pill to enhance my brains performance? Heck yeah, especially if everyone else is, but I won't be the guinea pig. Also I assume at my wage level I won't be getting the same one Jeff Bezos gets.

>>10860654
Other than sex there is no reason to not want inorganic mechanical arms that are easier to repair than your shitty biological stumps.

>>10860636
K, but imagine IQ is more than just a score. What it measures is what's dropping.
It's been confirmed. Those who design IQ tests were making them harder for each passing generation (to maintain that average score of 100) until a few years ago, they started making them easier.
We're getting dumber. These tests basically measure your capacity to figure things out, which is one of the 2 things that make someone smart (that and experience). It basically measures the number of healthy dendrites in your brain. That means overall, it seems new babies are born with less dendrites than before. Wtf.

>>10859306
It reduces total human suffering, and therefore I am against it

>>10860661
>implying one of my left arm gadgets isn't a 13" reciprocating dildo and my right arm isn't just a mechanical octopus tentacle that forms a vibrating sucking pocket pussy

>>10860701
The tactile sensation of human skin I mean.

why would anyone willingly give up control of their body?

>>10860690
Whatever is dropping is something else. Not IQ. Because average IQ cannot drop since its relative. Its set to 100

>>10859306
For the same reason the machines are all for it.

>>10860690
And I never took an IQ test. We have no way of measuring everyone's IQ without mass IQ testing of everyone. Then everyone would study for them and get a higher score than their true intelligence would be.

>>10860109
>Immune to all diseases
IDK, bra, my computer gets viruses all the time.

Because 99% of humanity is irredeemably stupid and should not have that kind of power

>>10860158
So if I contrive to kill everybody with a hiigher IQ than me, not only am I now the smartest man in the world, but my IQ actually goes up?

Hmmmmmmm...

I believe we haven't explored emotional capabilities of humans to sufficient degree to leave it all behind. I don't mind gradual changes with awareness but I do have issue with just leaving the body behind

>>10860295
>>10860297
>>10860298
>>10860303
>>10860305
>>10860309

tl:dr exemplified better than ever before.

>>10860389
Yeah. We all know that would cure the troll problem, but do we actually DO it?

>>10860389
Nazi.

>>10860816
Yes that's how iq works. Your intelligence stays the same but your relative iq goes up.