The Instigator
Valar_Morghulis
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
donald.keller
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Transhumanism is a Fundamentally Good Idea

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
donald.keller
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/26/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,208 times Debate No: 37057
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

Valar_Morghulis

Pro

Definition of transhumanism;

"Transhumanism (abbreviated as H+ or h+) is an international cultural and intellectual movement with an eventual goal of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities."

- Wikipedia

It is the opinion of the Pro that transhumanism is a fundamentally good idea and that it should be embraced by humanity as a result.

Is it the goal of the Con to prove otherwise.

Rules:

1. By accepting the Con agrees that forfetiure of any round by either the Pro or Con will result in an immediate forfeit of the ENTIRE debate for the offending party.


2. The Con will simply state acceptance for the first round. No dense introduction necessary.
donald.keller

Con

As stated, I accept this debate. Good luck to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Valar_Morghulis

Pro

I thank the Con for accepting my debate challenge. I hope to have a healthy and fruitful discourse. Here I will outline my points as to why transhumanism should be embraced by humanity as a whole.

I. Biological Limitations

The human body is an astounding marvel of biology. The human body has a variety of tools to fight off infections, heal wounds and regenerate damaged elements of the body. However with all these biological advantages, the human body still has woeful limitations as to what it can handle in terms of biological incursions and damage.

The human race is plagued with a variety genetic and hereditary disorders. Some of these disorders such as Huntington's disease completely strip away a person's humanity as they degenerate into death from a slow and increasingly painful incapacitation.

Transhumanism provides an answer for this. Through proficient genetic engineering, neuro genetic disorders such as Huntington's disease can be wiped out entirely within a few generations technology permitting. Auto immune disorders (such as AIDS) can be wiped out through biological augmentation. With these examples in mind transhumanism can provide effective methods to overcome our biological limitations.

II. Standard of Life

Another problem of humanity that has crippled it's advance in many parts of the world is poverty. As mentioned in my previous point, biological augmentation and implantation can increase the standard of living dramatically without the need for costly, risky, and ineffective humanitarian efforts in many parts of the world.

With biological advancements human beings will be more capable at handling the difficulties of third world lifestyles. Disease and sickness can be overcome far more easily with the advances in augmentation to allow the body to resist far more hardships then it could normally.

III. A Cure for the Human Condition

Transhumanism provides a door way into a possible cure for the human condition. It is no secret that even in the most richest and opulent places in the world, greed, violence and destruction still follow. Mass shootings, terrorism and economic disaster are prevalent. Humans beings still today with all of our technology advances display a stunning lack of rationality when put in certain critical situations.

With neuro augmentation of the brain it is entirely possible that would could modify the very way we could perceive the world. By extending our consciousness through technology; humanity could effectively destroy the negative and destructive aspects of human nature. By doing this we would be able to permanently discard these destructive aspects of the human condition and bring forth a golden age for humanity.



donald.keller

Con

A sudden camping trip as come up. I will be unable to reply this round. I will have to reply next round.

I'll be gone for 4 days. so please wait three days to reply so I can have at least 2 days to make my argument.

Debate Round No. 2
Valar_Morghulis

Pro

The clock has almost run out for me. The Con has the floor.
donald.keller

Con

Thank you for waiting on me.

I: Biological Limitations

These many limitations aren't necessarily bad. If we were able to genetically and mechanically alter someone's limitations to remove them, the first group to put this power to use would be the Military and powerful crime lords, especially drug cartels. Every technology we invest in must be done so with the future in mind. What are the negative effects and how would the technology be wrongly used.

"If that guy has any way of making a mistake, he will." - Edward A. Murphy. Murphy's Law.

We do not require Trans-humanism to overcome diseases, which are being dealt with right now. Year by year, researchers are finding new treatments and cures to deadly diseases that don't require augmentation.(1) In time, they can even heal Huntington's Disease(2)

"Now, in a development that could transform how viral infections are treated, a team of researchers at MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory has designed a drug that can identify cells that have been infected by any type of virus, then kill those cells to terminate the infection." -MITnews

Even with current diseases, wiping them and human limitations out would have great negative effects to the world.

[1] http://web.mit.edu...
[2] http://www.eurekalert.org...

II: Standard of Life

Yes, Standard of Life might increase... For the wealthy. The Cost of even a small trans-human operation would cost too much for the average human to afford, with only 3.5% of the United States earning $100,000+ and much fewer earning $250,000+.(3) With the United States being one of the wealthiest nations in the world, it's easy to say even less than 2% of the world could afford such an operation. The odds of the 80% of humans living on only $10 or less a day ever affording even partial trans-humanization or close to zero.(4)

Standard of Life would drop, as healthcare costs rise. Making a human better is expansive. Making a semi-android better would be even more expansive. We see this same trend happening in vehicles. The cost of maintenance and fixing the vehicle goes up as the machine gets more high-tech. This trend is a principal followed by most examples, including:

Game Consoles.
Televisions.
Computers.
Houses.
Air Conditioners.

The more high-tech you make the Human Body, the more costly hospitalization becomes, especially in the case of replacing vital components.

Because of the cost, and unlikelihood of anyone earning less than $250,000 ever getting upgraded, a massive divide would occur. Those who could upgrade would be superior to others. Every Upgrade would leave behind more rows of inferior people, who are lesser in value than shinier models of human. This would void every philosophical and political ideal of human Equality, especially among poorer people who can not afford the original upgrade.

The idea of equality now is intact regardless of wealth and personal assets because we are all human. Such an idea would cease to have merit when humans are literally no longer equal. Human's would literally be inferior to Tran-humans.

Standard of Living would be plagued by the greatest viruses ever seen. You run a 1 in 429 chance of dying each year from cancer and diseases in the United State,(5) compared to the high odds of getting a damaging hardware/software virus. Computer Virus's would become a leading and highly effective form of mass genocide.

Another issue is battery life. A walking machine needs more power than the 10-100 millivolts the human body produces to run(6) since a simply computer requires 120,000 millivolts.

[3] http://factfinder2.census.gov...
[4] http://www.statisticbrain.com...
[5] http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk...
[6] http://science.howstuffworks.com...

III: A Cure for the Human Condition

Such an ideal is evil. The removal of free will and control of a human's mind to prevent crime. The implications are even more terrorizing than the current crime-rate. Governments and even smart terrorists like Anonymous could control every person on Earth. The effect of being a good human who doesn't do crimes like this would only apply to people who accepted Trans-Humanization. Terrorists and other groups could escape the process. If Al Qaeda can hide from the Military for 10+ years, so can other terrorist groups and Anonymous.

Altering a human's brain in such a way would leave all human's open to control, like avatars in a video game. A government could (and will) remove all free-will and independence from it's citizens. This issue is a major concern even in the United States after the issue with the NSA. We would become open programs for the government and other groups to spy on and command.

A terrorist group could begin re-argumentation of any number of humans, reversing their way of thinking from positive to negative. Pro has even acknowledged Terrorism as being a current problem.

"Mass shootings, terrorism and economic disaster are prevalent."

Free will: noun
1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.(7)
3. Voluntary choice or decision
2. Freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention (8)

According to the above definitions, any force that influences or decides a human's choices restraints their Free Will. Free will is also defined on a philosophical level as being free to choose a course of action to fulfilling a personal desire. If we were prevented from choosing that action because we were programmed not to choose it, than we would no longer hold free will.

"On a minimalist account, free will is the ability to select a course of action as a means of fulfilling some desire. David Hume, for example, defines liberty as “a power of acting or of not acting, according to the determination of the will.” (1748, sect.viii, part 1). And we find in Jonathan Edwards (1754) a similar account of free willings as those which proceed from one's own desires."(9)

Another perspective was brought up by Harry Frankfurt, where Free Will involved both First-order and Second-order desires. First Order would be to want a new car. Second Order is to not want a new car. Both are apart of having Free Will. To program the human to only want good things and not have the unconstrained choice to not want, while programming them to not want to make bad choices while removing their unconstrained ability to want to make a bad decision, would counter and eliminate Free Will from all human.

"Harry Frankfurt (1982) presents an insightful and original way of thinking about free will. He suggests that a central difference between human and merely animal activity is our capacity to reflect on our desires and beliefs and form desires and judgments concerning them. I may want to eat a candy bar (first-order desire), but I also may want not to want this (second-order desire) because of the connection between habitual candy eating and poor health. This difference, he argues, provides the key to understanding both free action and free will. (These are quite different, in Frankfurt's view, with free will being the more demanding notion. Moreover, moral responsibility for an action requires only that the agent acted freely, not that the action proceeded from a free will.)"(9)

Such an implication is evil on it's own, and only made worse by government and terrorist misuse of such a power.

[7] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[8] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[9] http://plato.stanford.edu...

IV: Durability

The human body lasts a long time. Most cancers begin or are diagnosed after the age of 55-60.(10) Most other physical issues like heart disease and Alzheimer follow the same trend. With great durability, the natural human body is among the most durable objects on this world. A broken bone heals over time and cuts fade away.



Not quite the case with hardware. Broken components must be manually replaced at ultra-high costs. Hard drives have a life expectancy of 5 years if uses constantly,(11) which means 5-10 hours a day, as opposed to the 24/7 use of the human body. The average life expectancy of a human is 67.88 years(12), compared to the 4 year life expectancy of a computer.(13)

[10] http://www.cancerresearchuk.org...
[11] http://www.quickanddirtytips.com...
[12] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[13] http://www.uniblue.com...


V: Overpopulation.

If we void the variable of affordability, the average human could theoretically live forever. Eliminating disease and most other forms of death, including crime, we would begin overpopulating the Earth in under a century, and we do not have alternative planets to occupy, and won't for well over a few centuries.

Death and diseases are necessary evils, and immortality and anything similar to it would have major negative effects.


Conclusion:

Trans-humanization opens negative doors bested left closed, and at most provides only short-term positives that degrade into negative effects. With this, and viewing the big, long-term picture, we find Transhumanism is not a fundamentally good idea. The Negatives immidately outway the good, and what good there is quickly turns sour.

Debate Round No. 3
Valar_Morghulis

Pro

No problem Donald Keller. Real life happens and I am very pleased you gave a valid reasoning for your absence. I will start off by addressing your arguments and then move onto my own.

Con's Points:

I: Biological Limitations

"These many limitations aren't necessarily bad. If we were able to genetically and mechanically alter someone's limitations to remove them, the first group to put this power to use would be the Military and powerful crime lords, especially drug cartels. Every technology we invest in must be done so with the future in mind. What are the negative effects and how would the technology be wrongly used."

This argument suffers from faulty induction. To be more specific the con is jumping to conclusions. While it is true that technology is used and most certainly abused the same very argument could be made with our current technological progress.

A great example of this is North Korea who presents an extremely hostile foreign presence by threatening other nation states with nuclear destruction. They abuse the technology of nuclear power in an effort to subjugate other neighboring states to their will even though the majority of western nations typically do not threaten nuclear armament because it is unnecessary and diplomatically damaging and risky.

There is simply no reason to conclude that just because technology can be used by malicious powers that humanity shouldn't embrace that technology regardless. Therefore there is no reason to exclude transhumanism simply because of the potential for technological abuse.

II: Standard of Life

"Yes, Standard of Life might increase... For the wealthy. The Cost of even a small trans-human operation would cost too much for the average human to afford, with only 3.5% of the United States earning $100,000+ and much fewer earning $250,000+.(3) With the United States being one of the wealthiest nations in the world, it's easy to say even less than 2% of the world could afford such an operation. The odds of the 80% of humans living on only $10 or less a day ever affording even partial trans-humanization or close to zero.(4)"

While it is indeed true that the standard of living is usually (if not always) higher for the wealthier aspects of a population there is no reason to assume that as technology advances at a rapid rate, the ability for the common man's access to this kind of technology would somehow be restricted by the wealthy elite.

A wonderful example of how technology becomes more accessible over time is through a systematic observation known commonly as Moore's law. [S1]

Computer technologies roughly double every 2 years. If technology doubles every two years, that means that technology will become obsolete quickly. As technologies become obsolete, demand decreases and prices must be cut in order to sell the remaining units produced.

Therefore it is far more reasonable to assume that while the most upgraded and efficient technology may not be immediately available to the common man, it is very much likely that the older systems will increase in affordability and raise the average standard of living.

III: A Cure for the Human Condition

"Such an ideal is evil. The removal of free will and control of a human's mind to prevent crime. The implications are even more terrorizing than the current crime-rate. Governments and even smart terrorists like Anonymous could control every person on Earth. The effect of being a good human who doesn't do crimes like this would only apply to people who accepted Trans-Humanization. Terrorists and other groups could escape the process. If Al Qaeda can hide from the Military for 10+ years, so can other terrorist groups and Anonymous."

The first two sentences of this argument make gross and unfounded assumptions. This argument immediately implies that evil and free will exist. While you have indeed described what free will is and how it may be implemented in our reality you still have yet to prove that we are actually living in a universe that provides that measure.

For the sake of sanity and length of this debate I will not entrench my response in the trite free will versus determinism debate but to put it simply you are obligated by burden of proof to substantiate these claims which you have not.


Conclusion:

It seems that while the Con has provided some reasonable criticisms towards a transhumanist vision of society he has simply not substantiated his claims enough to the point where embracing transhumanism in correlation with the risks involved is enough to simply disregard transhumanism all together.

I look forward to the Con's response.
donald.keller

Con

Thank you for the reply.

I: Biological Limitations

The difference between Pro's proposed technology and current technology is potential. Current technology can be abused, but not to the same degree as Tran-humanization. Such a technology would have far greater negative impact on war than the Atomic Bomb and Nuclear Power North Korea abuses. Technology mustn't be explored when the potential for harm is too great.

North Korea may be misusing the Nuclear Power they have, but such power can be dealt with. It is near to impossible to stop other nations like North Korea from misusing civilian Trans-Humanization. It's not just having Trans-Human armies, but also attacking Trans-Human citizens. We already can't prevent China, North Korea, and even Iran from hacking Government property(1,2,3,4,5,6,) better yet stop them from hacking Citizens property.

It's places like North Korea who would really misuse this power. A nuclear bomb would become a Quarter next the the Dollar that would be a computer virus from China. Although our own military abusing the power would still be an issue. The potential for misuse must always be considered. Some are worth the potential, some aren't. Trans-Humanization simply is not worth the bad.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
[5] http://tinyurl.com...
[6] http://tinyurl.com...

II: Standard of Life

The idea that Trans-Humanization being affordable is, at most, wishful thinking. Trans-Humanization could, at most, become affordable in partial operations to the US/EU middle class. 80% of Earth will still not be able to afford this (prior source in R2). While this claim doesn't demote Trans-Humanization, as all technology ultimately works that way, it wasn't intended to. It was intended to refute your claim that is would solved poverty and other issues in places like Africa.

Moore's Law is nice, but has closed to no effect in Africa. After 100 years, we can get a 500 gigabyte Laptop with 6 gigs of memory for only $398.00 (7), when 1 gigabyte by itself used to cost $189,000 just 33 years ago(8), and still only 15.6% of Africa can afford to own a computer (based off internet usage).(8) While Internet Usage has increased a lot in Africa, this isn't because Africans are getting richer. The number has skyrocketed only because of more modern nations like Egypt, Libya, and South Africa buying Computers, while the majority of African nations still can not afford clean water.

Another issue with Trans-humanization would be glitches. Even after a hundred years, computers regularly experience glitching. Even the $1.5 billion(9) Curiosity Mars Rover experienced major glitching.(10)

Pro has Dropped the following of my Arguments:
-Raising Healthcare Costs
-Removal of the ideal of Human Equality
-Tran-Human Virus
-Battery life

[7] http://tinyurl.com...
[8] http://tinyurl.com...
[9] http://tinyurl.com...
[10] http://tinyurl.com...

III: A Cure for the Human Condition

Pro has made the gross claim that evil and free will does not exist. Such an accusation demands BOP. Pro should understand that he is changing the Status Quo with such an accusation, it is not me whom must prove that Free Will exists, but him who must back up his absurd claim that it doesn't.

The first sign of Free Will is to be-able to question if one has Free Will. If Free Will did not exist, than debating would be a waste of time. Although I agree on skipping such an extensive topic. If Free Will did, for the sake of argument, not exist, Pro's argument still violates the philosophical concept supported by the Declaration of Independence and UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Claiming that Free Will and Evil doesn't exist as a flash argument is the equivalent of a debate Deus ex machina.

Evil: Adjective

1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: (11)
1. morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked
2. arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct
3. causing harm (12)
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report (13)
1. profoundly immoral and malevolent: (Oxford Dictionary 14)

We know Evil exists because the idea of Conduct and Morality exists. Even if only subjective, Morality exists, and therefore Immorality exists, even if only subjectively. The Status Quo views the removal of one's Free Will, or ignoring of the philosophical concept of Free Will to be immoral, and therefore evil.

Another indicator of Evil is the ability to do harm and be harmed. As seen in the following definitions:
2. harmful; injurious:
3. causing harm
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful:

Because the definitions are real, the concept in which they define must also be real. If Evil is defined has causing harm, and causing harm is real, than Evil most also be real.

The Government would still use Argumantation to enslave the populace. Pro has ignored this point. Such power is, in and of itself, a prime example of my Argument 1 logic... "The potential for misuse must always be considered. Some are worth the potential, some aren't. Trans-Humanization simply is not worth the bad." You would basically hand the Government absolute control over it's people without question.

[11]
http://tinyurl.com...
[12] http://tinyurl.com...
[13] http://tinyurl.com...
[14] http://tinyurl.com...

IV: Costs

If we remove the rest of Trans-Humanization from the equation, and focus on simply the Hard drive needed to store the capacity of the Human Brain.

"Yet neurons combine so that each one helps with many memories at a time, exponentially increasing the brain’s memory storage capacity to something closer to around 2.5 petabytes (or a million gigabytes)." - Scientific American(15)

2.5 Petabytes = 2500 Terabytes
2500 Terabytes = 2,500,000 Gigabytes(16)

At a current cost of $0.07(17), the cost of a Hard Drive able to store our brain would be around $175,000.

Processing is another story. The K-Computer attempted to process 1 second of Brain Activity. It burned through an entire Petabyte of system memory... And took 40 minutes.(18) This is the equivalent of using 1024 terabytes... or 1,048,576 gigabytes... To process one second of Brain Processing, and it still requiring 40 minutes to do. This in an age when 4 gigabytes of memory can sill cost you $44(19). By that cost ($11 per gigabyte), it'd be $10,485,760 for a processor that still takes 40 minutes to process what your brain processes in a second.

[15] http://tinyurl.com...
[16] http://www.whatsabyte.com...
[17] http://tinyurl.com...
[18] http://tinyurl.com...
[19] http://tinyurl.com...

V: Glitches and Lost Data

Glitches are rampant in modern software, and only increase with hardware complexity. The human program would be plagued by man-made virus's and programming glitches that could cause numerous issues. The glitches could be considered similar to birth defects, but worse. Some could crash the person, cause a complete reset his whole data bank (imagine being a happy father in a good house one moment, then being a baby again, but with an adult body.)

Another issue is similar to the above issue, data loss. Get next to a magnet or electronic field, and you could lose great amounts of memory, or worse, BIOS.

VI: Aging

For up to 20 years of aging, we are growing. The average United States adult is around 5’ 9.4" after 20 years,(20) an increase of 4' 2.3" compared to the average height of 1' 7.1" for a new born.(21)

The greatest inconvenience most parents admit to when raising a growing child or teenager is buying new cloths. With Tran-Humanization, you'd be outgrowing and replacing entire body parts. Aging would present a large problem. Prior mentioned Durability from my Round 3 argument along with outgrowing and replacing parts that do not grow with you, presents a massive problem, albeit mostly financial, for anyone partaking in Trans-Humanization. The Financial aspect is important, most people will not be able to afford the replacements, especially for larger families or twins. Most wouldn't beable to afford it for one child, like buying a new super computer for your child every year (sometimes, twice a year) for nearly 15-20 years.

[20] http://tinyurl.com...
[21] http://tinyurl.com...

Pro has dropped the following of my Arguments:
- IV: Durability
- V: Overpopulation

Two major problems with Tran-Humanization. These matched with the major issues dropped during Argument II: Standard of Life, produce a critical hole in Pro's Resolution.

Conclusion:

The benefits of Trans-humanization are outweighed by the harm it would do, and the potential (and in many cases, obvious) threats it poses to humans and all of humanity.
Debate Round No. 4
Valar_Morghulis

Pro

Many of the Con's arguments are flawed and fallacious.

"Technology mustn't be explored when the potential for harm is too great."

This is an appeal to consequence and fear. By that logic none of science should be explored due to the potential for abuse. Abuse and misuse will always be present.

"The idea that Trans-Humanization being affordable is, at most, wishful thinking. Trans-Humanization could, at most, become affordable in partial operations to the US/EU middle class. 80% of Earth will still not be able to afford this (prior source in R2). While this claim doesn't demote Trans-Humanization, as all technology ultimately works that way, it wasn't intended to. It was intended to refute your claim that is would solved poverty and other issues in places like Africa."

I don't see how you can make such sweeping generalizations. Every piece of technology from televisions, to cell phones and personal computers have gone down in price dramatically since their inception.


"Moore's Law is nice, but has closed to no effect in Africa. After 100 years, we can get a 500 gigabyte Laptop with 6 gigs of memory for only $398.00 (7), when 1 gigabyte by itself used to cost $189,000 just 33 years ago(8), and still only 15.6% of Africa can afford to own a computer (based off internet usage).(8) While Internet Usage has increased a lot in Africa, this isn't because Africans are getting richer. The number has skyrocketed only because of more modern nations like Egypt, Libya, and South Africa buying Computers, while the majority of African nations still can not afford clean water."

I don't think the Con understands Moore's Law. Moore's law has nothing to do with affordability but rather the speed at which technology grows. The African example is completely out of context.

"Glitches are rampant in modern software, and only increase with hardware complexity."

Of course there will always be rough patches where technology fails and things go wrong but that is the case in any complex system that changes rapidly over time and certainly is not exclusive to transhumanism.

"The greatest inconvenience most parents admit to when raising a growing child or teenager is buying new cloths. With Tran-Humanization, you'd be outgrowing and replacing entire body parts."


Why does the Con assume such things will be an absolute necessity in such speculative topic?


"Pro has dropped the following of my Arguments:
- IV: Durability
- V: Overpopulation"

I didn't drop your arguments. There was simply nothing to address as the previous points leading up to them had be refuted in the previous round.

"Conclusion:

The benefits of Trans-humanization are outweighed by the harm it would do, and the potential (and in many cases, obvious) threats it poses to humans and all of humanity."

That isn't true at all because the vision of transhumanism and it's possible faults as I have listed are entirely fixable and adaptable.



donald.keller

Con

Thank you for this great debate. It was fun.

------------------------------------------------------------

Rebuttal I: This is an appeal to consequence and fear. By that logic none of science should be explored due to the potential for abuse. Abuse and misuse will always be present.

Pro has ignored my point. It's not that technology that could be harmful shouldn't be looked into, but that technology whose benefits are outweighed by it's cons to such a degree should be avoided. One shouldn't antagonize his destruction by opening bad doorways. Whether or not the Con's outweigh the Pros depend on the rest of the debate.

Another example of technology we should have avoided for it's cons would be Pesticides, whose long term cons outweigh it's short-term pros.

It's not appropriate for Pro to bring worth such a fallacy in this debate. The fallacy is questionable when the premise of the debate is to determine if we should research a new technology. He must prove his side by showing it's Pros, and I must argue by showing it's Cons. Bringing up that fallacy is the equivalent of saying "I may argue my case, but you can't argue yours." If Pro may argue that the Tech leads to good things, I may argue that it instead leads to bad things.

Starting such a debate and then bringing up that fallacy is inappropiate.

Rebuttal II: I don't see how you can make such sweeping generalizations.

Pro doesn't account for my math and statistics later on in my R4 argument. This must be mixed with his next argument to finish my rebuttal...

I don't think the Con understands Moore's Law. Moore's law has nothing to do with affordability but rather the speed at which technology grows. The African example is completely out of context.

Pro is the one whom used Moore's law to describe costs becoming more affordable.
"A wonderful example of how technology becomes more accessible over time is through a systematic observation known commonly as Moore's law."
The premise behind his argument is that Moore's Law makes technology more accessible (affordable) over time. I simply explain that this doesn't account for Africa, where even after 100 years, most African's (well around 90-95% in the undeveloped nations in question) can't afford a computer. This, again, was simply a rebuttal to his R2 Argument II: Standard of Life. The rebuttal stands, African's would feel no benefit and Standard of Life would not increase.

Rebuttal III: Of course there will always be rough patches where technology fails and things go wrong but that is the case in any complex system that changes rapidly over time and certainly is not exclusive to transhumanism.

Pro only explains that glitches are found in all technology, but fails to realize what technology we are discussing here. This isn't a microwave, a computer, or even a car... It's a human. What Pro's argument doesn't account for is the severity of damage. This principle is why a Military Firewall costs more than my firewall. Even a slight glitch can mess up the remainder of a human's life.

Pro underestimates the severity of a Trans-Human glitch, and mixes it's severity in with that of Non-human objects.

Rebuttal IV: Why does the Con assume such things will be an absolute necessity in such speculative topic?

Because Cost is important. A parent can not afford replacing and upgrading a child's body part for 15-20 years straight. This would be the equivalent of a full body sugary and a new high dollar super computer ever year. Pro misinterprets the point of my argument. The parent can't ignore the Child's needs as he grows, letting a 12 year old live with the mechinical foot, hard drive, or even the mechinical eye of a 5 year old is not okay.

Con leaves out the following from his observation:
...Aging would present a large problem. Prior mentioned Durability from my Round 3 argument along with outgrowing and replacing parts that do not grow with you, presents a massive problem, albeit mostly financial, for anyone partaking in Trans-Humanization. The Financial aspect is important, most people will not be able to afford the replacements, especially for larger families or twins. Most wouldn't beable to afford it for one child, like buying a new super computer for your child every year (sometimes, twice a year) for nearly 15-20 years.

Rebuttal V: I didn't drop your arguments. There was simply nothing to address as the previous points leading up to them had be refuted in the previous round.

No rebuttals were found to address the following:
:Not quite the case with hardware. Broken components must be manually replaced at ultra-high costs. Hard drives have a life expectancy of 5 years if used constantly, which means 5-10 hours a day, as opposed to the 24/7 use of the human body. The average life expectancy of a human is 67.88 years, compared to the 4 year life expectancy of a computer.

:Eliminating disease and most other forms of death, including crime, we would begin overpopulating the Earth in under a century, and we do not have alternative planets to occupy, and won't for well over a few centuries.

Pro has not accounted for if Trans-Humanization does work, and we overpopulate as seen in my R3 Argument V: Overpopulation. Or the issue of Durability.

Rebuttal VI: That isn't true at all because the vision of transhumanism and it's possible faults as I have listed are entirely fixable and adaptable.

As my case shows, there are issues, and even if you fix them, there are issues behind them, as seen in this case:
- Human's can't afford Trans-Humanization
- If fixed, Human's can't continue to fix and replace body parts every 4-5 years... Annually for children. Durability will run thin.
- Human's endure countless glitches and virus's that spread quicker then and outmatch the organic variant.
- If all is fixed, we will Overpopulate from lacking of dying.

Many issues listed are not fixable. Pro never shown the ability to overcome and fix Battery Life or Hacking, and countless others, as seen in a list of dropped arguments below.

As I'm the last to reply, I will not put forth new arguments.

Pro Has Dropped The Following Arguments:
-Raising Healthcare Costs
-Removal of the ideal of Human Equality
-Battery life
-Wartime Genocide
-Negative Re-argumentation
-Hacking/spying
-Existence of Evil and Free Will, and the removal of Free Will.
-The data provided in R4 Argument IV: Costs

Pro's dropped arguments and conceded points have left a massive hole in his proposal.

Conclusion:
The holes in Con's proposal and all conceded and dropped arguments leave his proposal crumbling. With this debate, I've proven that there are too many negatives to Trans-humanization that greatly outweigh any good that the concept may provide.

Trans-humanization would leave humans more vulnerable to glitches, viruses, and inequality, as well as the oppression of the people, spying, and other forms of hacking and genocide. The concept would be a large step back in fighting illness and gaining personal security. It also leads to the option of Mass Genocide. In a world where everyone is trying to disarm nuclear weapons because of the threat they propose, Trans-humanization would give them the greatest weapon of all.

Costs and the realization of literal Human Inequality, met with all other cons, simply leaves the idea a tragic mistake. Trans-Humanization is not a fundamentally good idea.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Valar_Morghulis 3 years ago
Valar_Morghulis
Thank you Classic.

I appreciate you taking the time to flesh it all out.
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
Besides, he might not get notifications from this debates. Comments usually only show up in the notify area when it's your debate.
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
You guys know that if he doesn't provide an RFD after the weekend (when he said he would,) you can report and remove his vote.

You can report and have his vote removed after the voting period. He can't put in his vote afterwards though.
Posted by Valar_Morghulis 3 years ago
Valar_Morghulis
Hey Classic I appreciate the vote but you need to provide an RFD before you vote. If you cannot provide one please wait until you can do so. Especially with so little time left in the voting period.
Posted by neilalwayswins 3 years ago
neilalwayswins
@Classic

Please provide an adequate RFD. Thanks.
Posted by neilalwayswins 3 years ago
neilalwayswins
Amazing debate!

It really felt like two great minds were at work!
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
He deserves conduct. That's a given.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Unparalleled conduct from pro (waiting the days to post a case, etc). However I'm not sure I'll have enough time to give these cases the deep consideration they deserve.
Posted by Valar_Morghulis 3 years ago
Valar_Morghulis
I forgot to include my source for Moore's Law.

If anyone is interested in researching it can be found here...

http://www.webopedia.com...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by neilalwayswins 3 years ago
neilalwayswins
Valar_Morghulisdonald.kellerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Recasting my vote since Classic provided his RFD (thanks man!) Reading through this debate was tough for me to judge since I felt both the Pro and the Con gave good arguments. The Pro's conduct was superb and the point should be automatically a given. After the debate I felt tied between the two. While the Con did provide my sources they were not necessarily better especially with sourcing wikipedia. Ultimately I have to give the vote to the pro because I felt there were alot of holes in the Con's argument.
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
Valar_Morghulisdonald.kellerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate, I'm reserving this vote. A lengthy RFD will be posted in the comments this weekend, I just don't have time to write it up at the moment. For now, I will shorten it down to Pro dropped many of Con's essential arguments. Even though many of Con's arguments would have been easy to refute, they were left completely unaddressed, which leaves them valid and in Con's favor. I gave sources to Con because he was able to use them for empirics, which greatly aided his side, and Pro did not use any sources, and his side could have largely benefited from the use of source backed empirics. This is just the shortened version of the RFD (as the full RFD takes a significant amount of time to prepare, and I have school), but over the weekend, I will be providing a round by round point-counterpoint analysis of the debate.
Vote Placed by rajun 3 years ago
rajun
Valar_Morghulisdonald.kellerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD - this was a great debate. Pro gets the conduct for waiting for Con to post his arguments. Con had sources and pics
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Valar_Morghulisdonald.kellerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: I think both sides argued this reasonbly well. Conduct to Pro due to FF of Con during a round. Con had way more viable sources during this debate. That was the main thing that stuck out to me. Pro offered some thoughts, but did not cite anything to support his assertions. Con hands down had reliability within sources. Outside of that arguments are a tie. Both reasonably defended their side well, and offered strong refutations to the other. I was not swayed one way or the other, so I feel as if arguments are a tie.