![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I'm still working on the images for this community - please pardon the mess while I get this sorted out. For some reason, the transparency thing isn't working like it should. Dreamwidth is attentive, so it should be solved soon.
Post-humanism seems inevitable, right? The idea that technology can and will replace our need for our mortal bodies is gaining more acceptance, and the question is going from 'if' to 'when'. The IEET spends a lot of time dealing with the concepts formed, and the implications made by this process. They point out that the desire for trans-humanism is primarily in the interest of a certain demographic, namely white males in western countries. Not every person on the planet is going to want a robot body, obviously. As you biologists know, two populations, isolated from each other, will eventually drift far enough apart genetically to form two separate species.
What do you see happening? Our species splits in two? One side has the technological upper-hand and a moral obligation to continue to be nice to the other? Homo sapiens has all but absorbed or out-competed every last competitive species or hominid-derived ancestor or cousin to this date. Will the new "species" do the same to the one we all are part of now? What part of our benevolent convictions would persist if, say, the two had to compete for the same limited resources in an ever-decreasingly hospitable environment on Earth?
This is perhaps a lot of stuff to cover in just the first topic, so I'll stop there. I look forward to hearing what others feel about these things.
Post-humanism seems inevitable, right? The idea that technology can and will replace our need for our mortal bodies is gaining more acceptance, and the question is going from 'if' to 'when'. The IEET spends a lot of time dealing with the concepts formed, and the implications made by this process. They point out that the desire for trans-humanism is primarily in the interest of a certain demographic, namely white males in western countries. Not every person on the planet is going to want a robot body, obviously. As you biologists know, two populations, isolated from each other, will eventually drift far enough apart genetically to form two separate species.
What do you see happening? Our species splits in two? One side has the technological upper-hand and a moral obligation to continue to be nice to the other? Homo sapiens has all but absorbed or out-competed every last competitive species or hominid-derived ancestor or cousin to this date. Will the new "species" do the same to the one we all are part of now? What part of our benevolent convictions would persist if, say, the two had to compete for the same limited resources in an ever-decreasingly hospitable environment on Earth?
This is perhaps a lot of stuff to cover in just the first topic, so I'll stop there. I look forward to hearing what others feel about these things.
Tags:
From:
no subject
And I think that yes, post-humanism will be inevitable, and will be restricted to a part of the population, at least in the beginning.
Now, the implications of such division are, in my opinion, not only related to the concept of 'species', but more on the moral side of things. If we are improving some people, will they feel like they are better than the rest? My guess, probably yes (the human mind goes kinda crazy with power). And that could start a lot of awful things. Kind of like the movie Gattaca.
But maybe we would get along fine :D