Is transhumanism (combining man and machine) a good idea we should start practicing?

Asked by: QD
  • It's a great idea.

    We need to start doing this, mainly because it is almost always a great thing for the human that's becoming the cyborg. Before someone starts arguing with this, let me point out that it's already being done. I am willing to bet that at least half of you know somebody with a pacemaker. A pacemaker is a machine that is added to a person's body to pump blood through their veins. Without pacemakers, many healthy, alive people would be dead. In conclusion, transhumanism is a good thing, it's already being done, and it saves lives.

  • Not the best idea

    Not that it is a good idea but it is definitely destined to happen ... Weather we like it or not competition among humans will force this idea to come to life... There are only 2 things we can do...Try to stop it or just relax and enjoy the ride...

  • Yes, it's just the next step after glasses

    As my headline addressed, it's the same concept as glasses, for all of human history we have been changing nature to better suit us and our inadequacies. It is demonstrable to suggest that amputees shouldn't get a mechanical replacement. I understand not wanting to go under the knife and that some may feel it takes a part of their humanity away, but to impose your will upon disagreeing individuals. The claim that it could be hacked would be null and void if the proper measures are taken. This also includes mechanical hearts, lungs and other such organs that people could otherwise not live without. There is literally no reason to not allow a willing individual to undergo such treatment. However I can see problems arising if it goes unchecked, with people being able to turn themselves into deadly weapons.

  • Absolutely yes. We need to move forward instead of limiting ourselves

    I absolutely agree with what transhumanism. It provides solution for countless limitations that we all have as humans. Granted our knowledge of technological advancement is iffy at this point but embracing this ideology would no doubt help humanity thrive and prosper. This probably won't happen any time soon due to the massive amount of technophobes that refuse any sort of change that really allows us to shape our own future and evolution. Why would you not want to enhance yourself to be the best you can possibly be?

  • It's nothing new.

    Humans have been supplementing their physical abilities with technology since the dawn of their intelligence. We currently utilize forms of so-called "transhumanism" to restore function to those with disabilities or to keep alive those who would otherwise die. There's no legitimate reason this should change as our technology continues to advance.

    Just as we have technophobes today, there were probably cavemen grunting about the dangers of becoming dependent on spears for hunting and "wheels" (logs) for transportation.

    Posted by: Quan
  • Better to be 100% Organic

    Whats wrong with just being human? For one if we are combined with machinery and electronics, that would mean a hacker can hack an actually human being and control them, I'm sorry but being 100% organic human is our best bet for humanity or we will be turned into slave drones.

  • It's a bad idea

    A political scientist named Francis Fukuyama characterized transhumanism as one of the world's most dangerous ideas, and he's right. It is not necessary to improve the human condition in that sense. If humanity intends to pursue the transhumanism we see in popular culture, that would be a mistake of epic proportions.

  • I'm not sure.

    It could be successful, however we have many people now going ape over animal test subjectings and people definitely wouldn't be too fond of using humans as test subjects either. So I don't really see this happening for a good decade or two lol. But it would be cool to see cyborgs and androids.

  • Trans humanism can lead to Dehumanization.

    Biopolitical activist Jeremy Rifkin and biologist Stuart Newman accept that biotechnology has the power to make profound changes in organismal identity. They argue against the genetic engineering of human beings because they fear the blurring of the boundary between human and artifact. Philosopher Keekok Lee sees such developments as part of an accelerating trend in modernization in which technology has been used to transform the "natural" into the "artifactual". In the extreme, this could lead to the manufacturing and enslavement of "monsters" such as human clones, human-animal chimeras, or bioroids, but even lesser dislocations of humans and non-humans from social and ecological systems are seen as problematic. The film Blade Runner (1982) and the novels The Boys From Brazil (1976) and The Island of Doctor Moreau (1896) depict elements of such scenarios, but Mary Shelley's 1818 novel Frankenstein is most often alluded to by critics who suggest that biotechnologies could create objectified and socially unmoored people as well as subhumans. Such critics propose that strict measures be implemented to prevent what they portray as dehumanizing possibilities from ever happening, usually in the form of an international ban on human genetic engineering.

    Transhumanists believe that "we are morally obligated to help the human race transcend its biological limits". In fact, they go so far as to call "bioluddites" those who are opposed to them. Though the gamut of transhumanist opinions ranges from those who believe that we will eventually be cyborgs to those who simply want their brains frozen in the hopes of being resuscitated in the future, all have considered the question of the human identity and whether or not it will be compromised. While the concept of being able to do away with negative emotions is appealing in theory, there are possible negative implications. For example, Fukuyama points out that, if we did not have the emotion of aggression, "we wouldn’t be able to defend ourselves". These would not only affect our humanity, but also our interactions with others.

    Writing in Reason magazine, Ronald Bailey has accused opponents of research involving the modification of animals as indulging in alarmism when they speculate about the creation of subhuman creatures with human-like intelligence and brains resembling those of Homo sapiens. Bailey insists that the aim of conducting research on animals is simply to produce human health care benefits.

    A different response comes from transhumanist personhood theorists who object to what they characterize as the anthropomorphobia fueling some criticisms of this research, which science fiction writer Isaac Asimov termed the "Frankenstein complex". They argue that, provided they are self-aware, human clones, human-animal chimeras and uplifted animals would all be unique persons deserving of respect, dignity, rights and citizenship. They conclude that the coming ethical issue is not the creation of so-called monsters, but what they characterize as the "yuck factor" and "human-racism", that would judge and treat these creations as monstrous.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.