Transhumanism

[athanasios]

2- Your arguments don't make sense. 100 bones from the same species? What?

Then even worse.

4- Yes, the process isn't perfect. Sometimes mistakes are made. But on the whole, it works.

6- It is an estimate, yes, but a very close one. Given a skull, modern techniques can closely reproduce an entire skeleton, or even missing facial structures like cartilage in the nose. If it's good enough for a court of law, it's good enough for science.

Seems you finally got my point.

As for your other points, I'm quite sure that growing replacement body parts will be possible within the next few decades.

I hope gray matter will be available soon...

[Wolf]

I think Mr. Flibble has actually made the soundest point in this conversation thus far (which I have just read, in its entirety). Our ability to perceive the world is, of course, limited by our physical nature. It seems reasonable, therefore, to suppose that there are many phenomena in the universe, and indeed, all around us, that we are utterly unaware of--and I very much think that this is truly the case. However, our inability to see some "spectra" does not mean that the phenomena that we do see are false. This is precisely what the Confederacy* has been asserting throughout this conversation, and it is ludicrous. There may be an all-encompassing God out there that we are simply unable to perceive (the Deists thought this was the case as early as the 18th century), but that does not mean that things that are demonstrably true are suddenly and magically untrue. Gravity as we know it is not an illusion, trees grow when you water them, and evolution is at work in every cell, at every moment, everywhere there is life in the universe. It is simply true, because it has been demonstrated even to our pathetically limited selves to be true. This, of course, does not necessarily mean that it is the end-all and be-all of experience, but if there is more, it does not also mean that these demonstrably true phenomena are suddenly false.

*... of Dunces.

[Dante]

While true, I'm not sure I see the connection to the subject at hand, which can be more or less boiled down to technology, man, and the influences of each upon the other. Given that ath wasn't talking about that (what he was talking about is anyone's guess), I've elected to ignore him for now. Much more peaceful that way.

[ErasOmnius]

Yes, my friend Dante, explain the menstrual cycle, the reproductive cycle, and how they came into being in an evolutionary way.

I can start it as a new thread, if that will make you happy.

I will not try to get off topic too far, as I am banned from entire areas of this Forum. I don't want to upset Bumble.

[Wolf]

Dante: my apologies for leaving the implication unspoken. Suppose transhuman, and then eventually posthuman species developed on planet Earth along with humans as we know them. Further suppose that their physical abilities and sensitivity and mental capacity were either beyond, or different from our own. What would qualify as "belief taken on faith" for one might therefore qualify as something else for another.

[Dante]

You're saying they could detect, logically or otherwise, things that we couldn't, and thus answer questions, which we would have to take on trust?

*Deep breath*

The menstrual cycle is a series of hormonal ups and downs that came into being because the lining of the uterus and the fertility of egg cells can only be sustained at peak effectiveness for so long. Simply put, animals that released eggs on a regular basis (as opposed to trying to maintain constant peak fertility) held an advantage through conservation of resources. And in order to properly regulate the maturation of egg cells, their passage into the uterus and the environment in the uterus itself, different levels of different hormones are required. Not only would keeping them all at maximum levels all the time be a waste of resources, but some of them actively suppress each other. That is why they must be cycled.

The reproductive cycle arose even earlier because creatures that exchanged genetic material during reproduction held a distinct advantage over those that didn't in that they were able to produce a far greater variety of genetic combinations, thus affording them a degree of protection against, for example, lethal mutations, environmental shifts and parasitism. This advantage is so great that it has been conserved since before the division of animals from plants.

Recombining genetic material into new variations begat the entire reproductive cycle, in diploid organisms at least, including meiosis. It is this recombination that ensures the survival of a species is carried through generations rather than lifetimes.

Also, since I apparently didn't make this clear enough for your frankly galactic levels of idiocy, Eracist: do not ever refer to me as your friend. Or your neighbour. Or colleague, comrade, companion, peer, pal, associate, buddy, mate, chum, or any synonyms thereof. In fact, it would be best if you just stopped using descriptive terms and stuck to using my name, and that only because I'm feeling generous. We are not friends. That I even deign to talk to you at all is merely an indication of my boundless willingness to attempt to better my inferiors.

Also, do stop whining about how you were booted out of Fanfiction. You did it in Duniverse, now the same thing here, newsflash: your ego isn't important to us. Grow up.

Now for my next trick, I'm going to find a way to make this post relevant!

I would be quite surprised if, in the future, there isn't a degree of alteration to the cycles of life, directly or otherwise. I mean periods can be really painful, not to mention inconvenient (or so I'm told), how much better would it be if a woman could choose to turn them off until she wanted to reproduce? Without side effects or surgery, that is. Genetic gates could be constructed (I love blurring the line between organic life and "technology") that start the menstrual cycle in response to a given stimulus, such as a somatic trigger or extended exposure to a particular group of proteins (meaning that a woman could prepare for pregnancy by eating a whole lot first).

Similarly, as lifespan grows longer we'll start to run into trouble with generations. Personally I'd like to see a greater focus on keeping people young for longer, rather than just stretching the twilight years into the future ad nauseum. And that should be possible with a bit of genetic tinkering (telomerase! Look it up). But as people live longer, their particular genetic combination will stick around for longer. They may reproduce several times over an extended period. This would slow down the genetic progression of the species, as old combinations would be far slower to die out. This would, for example, give a greater window of opportunity to pathogens.

Take for example two individuals, we'll call them A and B. A will live for 350 years and will have a reproductive life of 300 years. B will live for 80 years and have a reproductive life of 30 years.

B has three children over 30 years. Each child can be expected to live more or less as long as its parent, and each child dilutes B's genes by an average of 50%. 300 years after hitting reproductive age, B is long dead and their closest living relatives share only 0.09765625% of their genes. Any pathogen that was attuned to B's immune responses will have had to work extremely hard to keep up with continually shifting patterns, as infection becomes more difficult the further an individual gets from B.

A, on the other hand, will still be alive after 300 years, and their closest relatives will be their own children, who share about 50% of their genes. Not only has A been a target to pathogens for 300 years, but their children and grandchildren are all still alive as well, and none of them have diluted A's genes more than 4x (that is, they will share at least 25% of A's genes). Exacerbating the effect, A's children and grandchildren will be breeding with individuals from similar lineages.

My point is that if we use technology to extend our reproductive lifespans, we will slow the recombination of genes, as extremely old combinations will still be entering the gene pool alongside those of their great great great great great great grandchildren. Heck, we'd need some sort of record just to stop people from accidentally committing incest, not to mention the inevitable population explosion.

Though having said that, it would be much easier in that situation to adopt some sort of reproduction limit. "No more than two children in a 60 year period," say, though in the example I gave (an extreme one, to be sure) even that would be pushing it.

Of course, this does rather assume a relationship between quality of life, the topic at hand, and quantity of life, that is lifespans and population growth. While not synonymous, I think any alteration in one is sure to influence the other.

[athanasios]

Epic fail on both explanations. As first is off topic I refrain from commenting further. But on the latter you annul yourself when you state that we will have a population explosion which of course reverts the effect. Further the longer life span means that scientists will have more time available to work on their theories and projects thus making human race advance faster and combat diseases more effectively.

[athanasios]

Ops! Little George distracted me and I created a duplicate. A MOD please delete this post.

[Dante]

Population explosion does not nullify the effect of old gene combinations remaining in the gene pool alongside those nine generations younger, it merely promotes newer combinations interbreeding with old ones (not necessarily from the same family, I hasten to point out) and thus producing regressive offspring. You're an idiot.

[MrFlibble]

I think Mr. Flibble has actually made the soundest point in this conversation thus far (which I have just read, in its entirety). Our ability to perceive the world is, of course, limited by our physical nature. It seems reasonable, therefore, to suppose that there are many phenomena in the universe, and indeed, all around us, that we are utterly unaware of--and I very much think that this is truly the case. However, our inability to see some "spectra" does not mean that the phenomena that we do see are false. This is precisely what the Confederacy* has been asserting throughout this conversation, and it is ludicrous. There may be an all-encompassing God out there that we are simply unable to perceive (the Deists thought this was the case as early as the 18th century), but that does not mean that things that are demonstrably true are suddenly and magically untrue. Gravity as we know it is not an illusion, trees grow when you water them, and evolution is at work in every cell, at every moment, everywhere there is life in the universe. It is simply true, because it has been demonstrated even to our pathetically limited selves to be true. This, of course, does not necessarily mean that it is the end-all and be-all of experience, but if there is more, it does not also mean that these demonstrably true phenomena are suddenly false.

Actually, I was mostly trying to steer the conversation onto a more scientific path, while clarifying certain ideas and their formulations. Dante has, indeed, thrown in more interesting stuff in his recent posts, although I would have liked if he answered my questions I posted above as well :)

Personally I'd like to return to the cognitive argument, namely, has the advancement of technology changed our cognitive capabilities so much that we are becoming completely different? or has it only expanded on the original potential of our species, improving quality but no quantity? Or maybe it did a bit of both? I'm especially interested in Dante's opinion on this as of a specialist in the field of (evolutionary) biology.

[athanasios]

You're an idiot.

...

[MrFlibble]

Although I in no way enjoy moralizing, some of the participants (nomina sunt odiosa) should really express more maturity in their behaviour - otherwise the discussion will become absolutely pointless because of constantly sliding into childish bickering.

Isn't there a rule that goes like "don't post unless you have to say something relevant to the discussion, and don't stray off-topic"? And even if there isn't, there are Gricean principles of communication, after all.

[athanasios]

... Isn't there a rule that goes like "don't post unless you have to say something relevant to the discussion, and don't stray off-topic"?

Can you name the culprit? Because so far the post that doesn't add anything new to the discussion is your post I am quoting from.

-

The beast is promoting transhumanism to achieve its goals. The fouls and morons are the ones who will byte the bait of upgrading their self and thus enslave themselves to the beast-the world dictatorship of the few powerful who are in coalition with Satan the Devil.

True Christians are warned not to receive the inscription of the beast and they will never get it. We are not the ones to be misled.

We have nothing against improving ourselves through the usage of science and technology. But we are against the motives of those manipulating those advancements. Their motives are to get more profit and ensure their power.

Make sure that YHWH will not allow to the world dictatorship to convert all humans to obedient servants willingly or by force. Armageddon will end their plans and usher a new era for mankind: People will have perfect bodies and eternal life. Science will be used for the advancement of mankind and not for profit.

[ErasOmnius]

But really, when push comes to shove. The easier way to ensure your survival is to have children, and ensure your genetic material survival through them. Trying to extend life, just really leads to more replacements and robotics for some really surly and vain people.

And it's not that people use these robotics when they become seniors to become better volunteers or such, it's usually so that they can engage in more and more leisure.

[athanasios]

Eras it is not vain to extend our life. The real problem is lack of moral values.

[ErasOmnius]

Eras it is not vain to extend our life. The real problem is lack of moral values.

What I am trying to say is that we can sit here and debate things like robotics and cybernetics to extend our lives -- but who is going to pay for it?

Already in The West, there are people who have zero (0) children. They raise no one to take of them in old age -- and it's championed like a good thing (save the planet, BS). Those of us few in The West that have more than 2 kids see what some of these discussions for what they really can come down to.

'You have 4 kids so that when they grow up, they can pay taxes to support me, who had no children.' So not only do the robot limb-friendly people want my kids to pay for their government pension (Social Security, the Grant, what ever your nation in The West calls it). The same people also want health care beyond the basic senior minimum (MediCare, RediCaire, Senior Care, whatever your nation in The West calls it) -- now they want robotics, as well.

There is no money for such things.

[MrFlibble]

Those of us few in The West that have more than 2 kids see what some of these discussions for what they really can come down to.

'You have 4 kids so that when they grow up, they can pay taxes to support me, who had no children.' So not only do the robot limb-friendly people want my kids to pay for their government pension (Social Security, the Grant, what ever your nation in The West calls it).

I thought you were propagating the willingness to help other people regardless of their relation to oneself, and regardless of any benefit, or absence thereof, that such help might wield.

Wouldn't a person who has four children have pity of another who has none, and encourage their children to help the lonely person in question by any means affordable?

On another note, this should be a separate morality discussion or something, shouldn't it?

[ErasOmnius]

I thought you were propagating the willingness to help other people regardless of their relation to oneself, and regardless of any benefit, or absence thereof, that such help might wield.

Wouldn't a person who has four children have pity of another who has none, and encourage their children to help the lonely person in question by any means affordable?

On another note, this should be a separate morality discussion or something, shouldn't it?

Sure, when seniors come into a homeless shelter, I help them.

But what we have here is an article written by a completely non-religious individual who is talking about a day that might some that might involve a concept called 'transhumanism'. I have read about the individual who wrote the article, but why open up our 'Summer 2010' topic once again?

I like to bring these far-fetched ideas back into the real world. Most of the theories that were envisioned long ago (in the 60's and 70's) were done so with a far different world in which we live today. As someone who lives with Urban Planning every day, since I am married to one -- I can tell you one thing. A lot of these ideas are never going to happen.

The West is tottering due to bond debt. Greece in the Summer; Ireland now; Italy, Spain in early 2011. The USA in 2012.

I think it's far more important to be real during these discussions. Would I like to see seniors get artifical limbs so that they can volunteer and help out? Sure, but they won't. My own brothers are guilty. One has 1 child, the other has none. And they are in their sixties.

Why don't you help me start a new thread, so we can talk about propping up people financially in their old age, who don't have children? Maybe that would liven things up. I know most of the Gang has probably gone on to more interesting Forums. Maybe talking about seniors with no children would liven things up a bit.

[athanasios]

A bit of topic but since you mentioned it: Greece is even worse today. The third dose of the EU & IMF loan is going to delay because the local morons who rule us did not reach the targets set by the world dictators.

As I said a perverted mind in IKA (national) insurance decided that it is more economical to cut the legs of diabetic people than to buy special shoes for them (of a cost maybe 2 or 3 times that of a normal pair of shoes).

The beast is ruling under the influence of Satan and humanity is used as slaves and laboratory exeriment guinea pigs.

There is a LOT of MONEY for such things. But that money is simply withheld or wasted so people must suffer. Just think that they are asking us for sacrifices and even cut MONTHLY salaries of even less that 1000 Euro, when these MONSTER PIGS spend QUADRAPLE money DAILY when they travel abroad for limos and luxury hotels, or for a single meal with their fellow politicians and the rest of the mafia.

I guarantee you my brother and and all here reading this thread that Greece can print enough money (with their value in Gold and not just junk/toilet paper like Dollars) to feed all Europe, and cover the Energy needs of all Europe for the rest 600-700 years-time enough long to develop the technology to harvest (to use a Dune term) alternative resources of Energy. Instead they talk about 'green development' = 'green horses' as the laity say!

When our forefathers here in Greece worshipped YHWH (because it is not only the Hebrews to hold the copyright of being God's people-YHWH was worshipped all over the world) the country thrived and people were happy. That Golden Era is lost and its memories remain only in myths. But we are sure that soon Jesus will intervene and usher a new era for humans. Then these things we are discussing here about how to improve ourselves will be just a joke compared to the unhindered advancement and implementation of technology to our benefit. Because we are created in God's image and likeness.

[MrFlibble]

Would I like to see seniors get artifical limbs so that they can volunteer and help out? Sure, but they won't. My own brothers are guilty. One has 1 child, the other has none. And they are in their sixties.

Don't wanna sound like Captain Obvious, but there's that idea that elderly people have kinda earned their right to have more rest by working during their more active years, isn't there? It's not to say that elderly people should not participate in public activities anymore, but you seem to condemn the very fact that those people be given health aid they might need only because they aren't going to make themselves useful to the society. Even with the most advanced technology of today, a 60-year-old cannot magically turn into a 30-year-old again, you know (now I do act like Captain Obvious, don't I?). And besides, medical science had already made a lot to improve the health condition of people over the recent centuries, no reason to deny the humanistic ideas lying behind those efforts. Also, the kind of medical assistance we're talking about here is intended for all people regardless of their age, not only for the seniors.

I'd rather expect a rant about how humanity wastes resources, including technological ones, on things that aren't critical for anything, like all those iPods, fancy mobile phones with built-in cameras and whatnot, and other gadgets of this kind, while all the time and money spent on the development of such things alone could already have saved thousands of lives. The obvious answer for this is that selling fancy gadgets means huge profits, while the development of bionic implants does not, because if you sold them for the full price, most of the people who really need them would not be able to buy them anyway.

As for your condemnation of people who have only one child and no children at all, many people today can't afford to support more than one, maybe two children (at least, if the parents want their children to have good education and all that kind of stuff). Unfortunately, not everyone is able to work at a well-paid job and still have enough time to spend with their children. There may be other reasons for having no children as well, such as infertility (although I believe that child adoption is a solution for such cases).

[ErasOmnius]

It's all about the money. Not really to me.

The 5th largest group of people coming in the Shelter for help now are senior citizens.

After the continuous number 1 -- unemployed families, number 2 - battered women, number 3 - substance abusers, number 4 - free HIV/VD/Pregnancy Test.

So back to the 5th largest group of those seeking help. We cannot afford the number of seniors now that exist in The West -- compared to the number of heatlhy, younger working people.

So from an Urban Planning persepective -- there can only be 2 solutions.

Number one - Less benefits for seniors / They work far later in years, OR,

Number two - Far more children produced and raised into tax-payers.

The West has changed, the second option is no longer viable. With the advent of 'the selfish society' in The West, children are considered almost a parasite. ZPG rules the land across Western Europe and North America. Children no longer fit into the revolving life-style of divorce, parties, boozing it up, etc.

[athanasios]

No, no, no! It is not only this. you are talking about a lucky minority that has money.

You need to study, study, study, to get a descent job and suddenly when you can finally have children (unless you have already passed reproductive age-for women) you remain without job.

And also it costs a fortune to raise a child. See your whole salary disappear buying that powder replacement because mommy doesn't have milk to feed it or pampers. And later special food, furniture, clothes, toys...

[Dante]

Well, here we go again.

Already in The West, there are people who have zero (0) children. They raise no one to take of them in old age -- and it's championed like a good thing (save the planet, BS). Those of us few in The West that have more than 2 kids see what some of these discussions for what they really can come down to.

'You have 4 kids so that when they grow up, they can pay taxes to support me, who had no children.' So not only do the robot limb-friendly people want my kids to pay for their government pension (Social Security, the Grant, what ever your nation in The West calls it). The same people also want health care beyond the basic senior minimum (MediCare, RediCaire, Senior Care, whatever your nation in The West calls it) -- now they want robotics, as well.

1. We know what zero is, douchebag.

2. Having a child is possibly the most damaging thing you can do to the environment. At least according to some. Consider: by reproducing you are adding another mouth, another adult who will want to drive a car, own a house, have children of their own. You are, indirectly, responsible for all of their actions, the actions of the children, their grandchildren, ad infinitum. The energy they need to heat their home, the food they need to eat, the space they need to live in, these things are not infinite. This planet is struggling to support six billion people, and we have already passed peak on our oil reserves. Space is limited, food is limited, energy is limited, we use it all and then we make copies of ourselves and they use more. The worst thing you can do for the world is have a child (I mean that in both a general and specific sense, I truly pity your children for having a father like you). If you want kids, adopt them.

3. Way to not read my posts. I was taking about growing replacement organs, not adding mechanical ones. Which will be expensive, yes, but see below...

4. We're talking about improving humans you twit, not supporting the elderly. You know what a really great way to do that would be? Don't have elderly people! I know, you wish you'd thought of that. Don't feel bad, you couldn't have an independent thought if your life depended on it.

Having children to support one in old age will become a moot point if we just stop aging at 30. In fact, having children would then be a terrible idea because we'd have population growth without the limiting factor of death. No natural death anyway.

This is a discussion about the advancement of the species, moron, not a venue for your grotty bitchfest against government sponsorship.

5. As for the idea of having children to look after you... You realise this is the kind of primitive thinking that most of the west grew out of around the time we discovered steam power? It's the kind of egocentric, patronising bullshit that one expects to find in rural India, not the USA.

Here's an idea: maybe children don't like the idea of being shackled to their parents for however long it takes between infirmity and death. Yes, they'll want to help (probably), but responsibility cuts both ways. A parent has a right to ask for help, but no right to expect it. They have a responsibility to ensure that their child has a life of their own rather than treating them like some sort of investment for old age. Honestly, it's a bit disgusting that people think like that. "Hey, I'll be ok in my old age, I have five kids! They'll cook, clean and generally do everything for me."

And you might think 'Well hey, I looked after them for years, it's only right that they do the same for me," and you might have a point, but you had a choice in the matter. It's only fair to give them one as well.

Did it ever occur to you that "Hey, the government will look after me" and "Hey, my kids will look after me" are just a bit too close together for comfort? No? Of course not, how silly of me, but now that I've pointed it out perhaps that lonely little brain cell of yours will finally have its first thought.

But what we have here is an article written by a completely non-religious individual who is talking about a day that might some that might involve a concept called 'transhumanism'. I have read about the individual who wrote the article, but why open up our 'Summer 2010' topic once again?

6. Call things by their names, troll. You don't get points by referencing discussions by their time period. Or are you still frightened of words? Poor baby. You might be trying for sophisticated detachment here, I'm not sure because it's coming across as being a conceited little shit. :)

I like to bring these far-fetched ideas back into the real world. Most of the theories that were envisioned long ago (in the 60's and 70's) were done so with a far different world in which we live today. As someone who lives with Urban Planning every day, since I am married to one -- I can tell you one thing. A lot of these ideas are never going to happen.

...

I think it's far more important to be real during these discussions. Would I like to see seniors get artifical limbs so that they can volunteer and help out? Sure, but they won't. My own brothers are guilty. One has 1 child, the other has none. And they are in their sixties.

7. Conceited. Read that again, because I wish I'd used it earlier, it's a perfect descriptor of you. You just don't miss any opportunity, however much it stretches the conversation, to remind the rest of us of your supposed volunteer work, the implication being that you're somehow speaking from a position of moral authority just by dropping the concept of volunteering into the pot.

Newsflash again: we've already dealt with your desperate need to prove yourself. The conclusions reached were, and pay attention to this, that you are a bad person with a grossly inflated sense of self worth derived from work that is either blown out of all proportion, evil, or both.

8. And ringing the "my children, my right to control them forever" bell again. That's lovely, really, they'll appreciate that when you're old, feeble, and standing at the top of some very steep stairs.

Why don't you help me start a new thread, so we can talk about propping up people financially in their old age, who don't have children? Maybe that would liven things up. I know most of the Gang has probably gone on to more interesting Forums. Maybe talking about seniors with no children would liven things up a bit.

9. Yeesh, from anyone else that would have been a joke. It's sad how you take yourself seriously. Like watching a clown cry.

And for the record, you are not part of this gang. You're not a replacement for the people who are quieter these days. You are not welcome here.

Even with the most advanced technology of today, a 60-year-old cannot magically turn into a 30-year-old again, you know.

10. Not yet...

That is certainly an interesting point, but I've always assumed that in the concept of "what we are" there is a more or less stable "centre" and a more flexible "periphery". E.g. bipedal locomotion, breast-feeding, using language for communication are definitely in the "centre" of human nature, while the levels of health care, as in your example, obviously are constantly changing. And, even more importantly, the peripheral phenomena can revert back to less "advanced" conditions if the necessary resources, technologies or social conditions are no longer available. Thus, the level of health care depends on the social and political structure of a society, and not on any traits of a human organism itself. The example with infant mortality rates you brought up is a good illustration to exactly this point IMO.

11. Let me use another example then. Breastfeeding, formerly the only way to raise children who weren't on solids yet (so basically a vital part of raising children). Early peoples had wet nurses. Then one bright spark found a way to feed children on the milk of other animals, from a bottle, not a living person. Now a mother has no need to think even about cows, she can just buy a bottle and mix it up. Some prefer not to, but the point remains that technological advancement has freed mothers from the necessity of breastfeeding. No longer considered a vital, it's become a choice. Just like it's also a choice whether to have children, to use protection or not. Technology has enabled us to take what was originally taken for granted and made it optional. Breastfeeding, childbirth, pregnancy (surrogate mothers), none of these things are necessary for reproduction anymore. And people realise that. While in the 60's and 70's they might have gasped at the idea, children have already been born that were carried in the womb of their genetic grandmother. Reproduction is a commodity.

And because we can do these things, we are no longer surprised at them. We take it as normal. The process of birth, once so fraught with danger, can now be tinkered with to such an extent that we don't even think it strange that a child can be conceived outside the womb. That's change.

My point is that we have reached a point where your "centre" has become as flexible as the periphery. Things like age, skin colour, gender, these things are changing. Have been changing for a long time. In some cases they aren't even discrete categories anymore, simply points on a scale.

Personally, I love it.

As for your other point, that there are things unthinkable to us because of what we are, I have two responses. The first is that it's a moot point, trying to detect the undetectable is by definition an exercise in futility. The second is that if we are limited by what we are, then the logical course of action is to change what we are. We're already doing it. We're living in hives instead of communities, separating eating from the process of preparing food, living long enough that the very rules we laid down to govern provision in old age are breaking. Genetic modification offers the potential to change everything. Exciting, no?

[MrFlibble]

11. Let me use another example then. Breastfeeding, formerly the only way to raise children who weren't on solids yet (so basically a vital part of raising children). Early peoples had wet nurses. Then one bright spark found a way to feed children on the milk of other animals, from a bottle, not a living person. Now a mother has no need to think even about cows, she can just buy a bottle and mix it up. Some prefer not to, but the point remains that technological advancement has freed mothers from the necessity of breastfeeding. No longer considered a vital, it's become a choice. Just like it's also a choice whether to have children, to use protection or not. Technology has enabled us to take what was originally taken for granted and made it optional. Breastfeeding, childbirth, pregnancy (surrogate mothers), none of these things are necessary for reproduction anymore. And people realise that. While in the 60's and 70's they might have gasped at the idea, children have already been born that were carried in the womb of their genetic grandmother. Reproduction is a commodity.

And because we can do these things, we are no longer surprised at them. We take it as normal. The process of birth, once so fraught with danger, can now be tinkered with to such an extent that we don't even think it strange that a child can be conceived outside the womb. That's change.

My point is that we have reached a point where your "centre" has become as flexible as the periphery. Things like age, skin colour, gender, these things are changing. Have been changing for a long time. In some cases they aren't even discrete categories anymore, simply points on a scale.

Personally, I love it.

As for your other point, that there are things unthinkable to us because of what we are, I have two responses. The first is that it's a moot point, trying to detect the undetectable is by definition an exercise in futility. The second is that if we are limited by what we are, then the logical course of action is to change what we are. We're already doing it. We're living in hives instead of communities, separating eating from the process of preparing food, living long enough that the very rules we laid down to govern provision in old age are breaking. Genetic modification offers the potential to change everything. Exciting, no?

First, thank you for taking your time and writing a detailed reply like this. Now, I do agree with what you've said (although I do not share your excitement about being able to change everything), and the breastfeeding counter-example you've provided has helped clarify many things about your position to me. Still, my general question remains (even though one might argue it's too theoretical and far-fetched, not to mention any answer to it does not entail any practical consequences), do all the changes you've described actually alter our human nature (as you've argued earlier, if I got your point)? Or do they naturally develop thanks to the peculiarities of human nature? And give all that, what is the definition of "human nature" in the first place (at least, in your opinion)?

Without any attempt to give a clear answer, I have a feeling that the "core" of humanity lies in our cognitive abilities, from which our active changing of the external world, and our bodies as well, arises. I'd gladly hear your informed opinion on how the evolution of human cognition went on, and why there's such an apparent gap between the cognitive abilities, and consequently, adaptation patterns of humans and that of other animals.

[athanasios]

Some prefer not to, but the point remains that technological advancement has freed mothers from the necessity of breastfeeding. No longer considered a vital, it's become a choice.

Now who is trolling?

Are you serious dude? A choice?

Have you ever handled a can or bottle of that s*** and read what is printed on it?

Because you never did I will summarize for you what those s*** usually write (or at least imply):

IT DOES NOT SUBSTITUTE BREASTFEEDING.

-

Not expected to care for my aged parents?

Are you serious dude?

My mother gave me a house to live and I am not going to care for her? Without that and the expenses for my education my parents covered I would be a beggar.