Luiseach

I believe you...

[edited to fix italics]

[edited again to note that italics don't show up anyway, never mind me]

SecularFuture

TRANSHUMANISM!!


The Transhumanist Declaration
(1) Humanity will be radically changed by technology in the future. We foresee the feasibility of redesigning the human condition, including such parameters as the inevitability of aging, limitations on human and artificial intellects, unchosen psychology, suffering, and our confinement to the planet earth.

(2) Systematic research should be put into understanding these coming developments and their long-term consequences.

(3) Transhumanists think that by being generally open and embracing of new technology we have a better chance of turning it to our advantage than if we try to ban or prohibit it.

(4) Transhumanists advocate the moral right for those who so wish to use technology to extend their mental and physical (including reproductive) capacities and to improve their control over their own lives. We seek personal growth beyond our current biological limitations.

(5) In planning for the future, it is mandatory to take into account the prospect of dramatic progress in technological capabilities. It would be tragic if the potential benefits failed to materialize because of technophobia and unnecessary prohibitions. On the other hand, it would also be tragic if intelligent life went extinct because of some disaster or war involving advanced technologies.

(6) We need to create forums where people can rationally debate what needs to be done, and a social order where responsible decisions can be implemented.

(7) Transhumanism advocates the well- being of all sentience (whether in artificial intellects, humans, posthumans, or non- human animals) and encompasses many principles of modern humanism. Transhumanism does not support any particular party, politician or political platform.

John Page

Happening, in America....(ref. Michael Jackson)
Moral right? Are you proposing that isn't allowed under the international Human Rights charter?
Like the UN?

Forgive me but I have looked through the web site you link to and I believe the mission you define will fail for the same reason other non-religious attempts have failed - insufficient attention to the fabric of society and the interplay between humans. While the transhumanist message is an interesting one I don't think it could "replace" christianity. Hopefully transhumanists will become superintelligent enough to realize this.

Cheers, john

SecularFuture

Transhumanism is ALL ABOUT bringing humanity together to help the progress of everything.

Something needs to replace it!

Straight atheism isn't good enough. Why would someone want to replace a belief in a god with a belief in nothing? Secular Humanism is better because it gives a kind of philosophical foundation. And Secular Transhumanism is the best (in my honest opinion) because it combines all that is good about Secular Humanism with an appreciation for science and technology, the two things we will need to insure our survival in the future.

We need more scientists! We don’t need anymore people blinded by comforting -- mythological -- concepts. Mythology and superstition isn't going to get us anywhere!

John Page

Progress of everything? What rational criteria to you propose to apply?
Why replace - can't it just be modified to recognize the foibles of the past? How about TransChristianity?
That's not what atheism is - for example, I can still believe in the Human Rights Charter as a valid instrument that helps people rally around a set of common values.
What is bad about Secular Humanism and how does Transhumanism avoid this?
The perfidy of scientists has also been recorded. Mythology helps us understand our imaginary selves and moral behavior/values through stories. Superstition is arguable the unconscious operation of the mind - some useful folklore some nonsense. Mythology and superstition have helped us get where we are.

Humans should try and understand themselves more in order to take actions that is in the long term interest of the species.

Yours, Jabba the Hut

SecularFuture

John Page
I don’t understand this question. Did you want me to elaborate on what I meant by “progress of everything”?

There is nothing good about Christianity. Christianity is all about worshiping. It’s not about thinking. It needs to be replaced and forgotten.

Straight atheism is not a philosophy; it’s an adjective. Christians need something, because if they didn’t, they would not insist on selling their rational minds for faith in concepts that are without reason or logic.

Transhumanism is a complete package. It’s combines humanism with a greater appreciation for the power of human ingenuity. Secular Humanism is very basic in comparison.

There’s nothing bad about Secular Humanism. My point is this: Transhumanism takes Secular Humanism to another level, a deeper level. It’s the step that you could take after you become a Secular Humanist.

But when those stories are taken literally… When people deny the evolution theory for concepts that involve magical deities… This is when mythology becomes dangerous. Imagine how many diseases we could’ve cured by now if there weren’t so many fundamentalists trying to hold back funding from “questionable” medical research. Stem Cell research is the perfect example.

John Page

Hi Secfu
In the context of Transhumanism, yes please.
Really nothing good? - then why has it been so successful? I could argue that Protestantism and its emphasis on the need for each individual to determine whether they believe, as opposed to the absolute requirement of catholicism was a step in the transhumanist direction.
Transhumanism is an incomplete expression of the hope that humans will reach beyond themselves. Furthermore, transhumanism embodies a contradiction that could be easily twisted by an unscrupulous leader that wished to subvert power by emphasizing the "trans" rather than the "humanism". I didn't see anything on the site you linked to about a political system execept that it was all going to be run by scientists - this could be far worse than the christian right.
ROFLMAO.
Well, I'm not a secular humanist.
Agreed, and stem cell research could become dangerous, too.

Cheers, John

SecularFuture

John Page
Secfu? That sounds like a Oriental dish.

I typed out a huge response for this question for you and Celsus HERE. My response can be found toward the end of the thread.

Please see the link above.

If you can't tell me about what kind of technology we will have 100 years from now, I don't think you're in the position to judge whether or not Transhumanist concepts can be fulfilled or not. And without complete knowledge of the naturalistic world, you are also not in the position to deem what is impossible, or what is supernatural.

Transhumanism doesn't have "leaders". Transhumanism only has scientists, doctors, philosophers, and people who adhere to the philosophy or Transhumanism.

Government is one thing. Philosophy and church is another. The three should always remain separate from each other. Transhumanism is about improving humanity. Its not about politics.

What’s wrong with Secular Humanism?

How?

John Page

Actually, its the philosophical equivalent of Kungfu.
Thanks, I will read it.
If you can't tell me what kind of technology Transhumanism will have produced 100 years from now, you are not in the position to make any concrete assertions about the benefits of transhuman. Like any start-up, you have to prove your model.
And they just ander round in an uncoordinated manner without so mch as a "by your leave"? Most forms of christianity have an accountable political structure.
And the criteria for judging an "improvement" are?
You posted "There's nothing bad about Secular Humanism". Seems like a pretty absolute statement as could be made by anybody about anything - I'm asking you to back up your claim. Most major religions seem to embrace the fallibility of man and sin - perhaps even the pope would admit there are bad things about the catholic church and that would be more humble than your outrageous claim of perfection.
(Your response to my statement that stem cell research could become dangerous). Stem cell science is in its infancy and we don;t know all the ramifications of our experiments. What if stem cell treatments became widespread but turned out to have a "time bomb" effect in interacting with "normal" genetic material such that cell reproduction mechanisms were disrupted (with no available remedy within the time available) leading to the demise of all Transhumanists?

Cheers, John

John Page

I looked at the thread you linked to and my reaction was pretty much the same as this one:
My approach is different than Transhumanism but there are some common elements. Take a look at the link here .

Cheers, John