The Politics of Transhumanism

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by gjc8

Unlike cancer, the refusal of life-extension treatments is a choice. Depending on the economics, it could be a costly one, given the increased medical needs of the elderly. I'd argue that if the government is paying for healthcare, it has a certain amount of discretion in treatment options, in order to control costs.

Yes, but if it is willing to throw up to, say €10k at a 125-y.o., then it is only fair to throw as much at a 80-yo. No fair changing the amount of money alloted to a modified vs. 'natural' person.

Originally Posted by gjc8

Not if children aren't sophonts. You can't coerce a sub-sophont because it lacks the ability to make rational decisions in the first place. Even if you go for the "children are sophonts" model, surely there's some point along the line where they aren't. Clearly, a fertilized egg isn't a sophont.

Or do you mean that it's coercive to the parents?

Coercive to either the child or the parents. Either is an infringement of rights.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

And yet nobody saved Pearl Harbor from her fate.

That's no worse than being named Vladlen (and people still sometimes name their boys that), or being raised into a religion without being given the choice.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

The differences between male and female would be miniscule by comparison with those between humans and anything we could justifiably call transhuman. Despite anti-discrimination laws, nobody is hiring women to be professional football players, or men to be Sports Illustrated swimsuit models.

But the point is that entry requirements should only be based on the differences relevant to the job, and not on genemod model name or whatever.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Case in point, or would be if such a job existed.

I meant a case where a human wanted to replace the position normally occupied by a team of a human and a trained dog.

[malek77]

I have the sense that the social, economic and power separation between Transhumans and Baselines would have the same effect on Baseline humanity as European colonization on technologically weaker indigenous societies.

To stage the analogy :
It's not that the Inca did not have projectile weapons - they had at least blow darts and bows...but versus gunpowder & smallpox...

First Australians had an ability to organize and resist - but against a concerted Colonization effort...

The Apaches fought well and hard and there were even treaties - but against the oncoming economic juggernaut...


My thought is that Baseline humanity will fall to the ills seen in indigenous populations globally, as their existing way of life is rendered irrelevant by an organizationally and technologically (doubtless, not morally) superior force.

Baselines won't instantly evaporate, nor even be economically ineffectual - but it will be as if Earth is being colonized by new beings who will have greater freedom, deeper perception, and more amazing organisation than that previously existing.

And thus, trapped as Baselines, forever shut out of that higher plane simply by being average, and not all-round optimized, they would likely retreat to the escapism of substance abuse and extremes of identification or isolation from their societies.

When the only way out is to totally transform into "One of Them", and that choosing not to do so permanently debilitates your potential for significance, the psychological gap is created that would do the damage.


...at least, that's what I reckon. :S



On the Moral-political aspects : freedom of children, permissiveness VS hazard etc...I'd throw in that whichever path reaps the most economic and power rewards is the one most likely to dominate.

A very prurient "All children must be born baseline and allowed to choose for themselves" may suit 'Baseline Morality', but they'll soon be out-competed by savant-at-birth Duncanites.

At the opposite extreme - a 'Child is property of the parents to dispose of as they wish' isn't going to produce a psychologically healthy society, and were abuse rampant I doubt it could sustain the social concept of equality at all, and thus it would suffer from massive organisational impediments.

I'd assume a half-way point, of heavily optimized children with legal protections, and even that would appear wildly invasive and deterministic from a baseline perspective, while simultaneously giving these new people massive advantages.


I don't believe the question of the Future will be "Are they really Human?", instead it will be "How can we turn Humans into something that effective?"...and with that, everything will change...

[Astromancer]

Malek77-> Interesting analysis. But "Baseline at birth," would the meaning of "Baseline" be forced to drift?

Another point. Indigenous peoples were seperate cultures, the Baseline/ Transhuman interaction will have the cultural elites and ambitious Baselines defecting, in greater numbers each generation. More and more of those who define Baseline culture will opt-out. Their probably would never be a co-ordinated Baseline comunity, at least beyond luddites acting like fools.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

Malek77-> Interesting analysis. But "Baseline at birth," would the meaning of "Baseline" be forced to drift?

Another point. Indigenous peoples were seperate cultures, the Baseline/ Transhuman interaction will have the cultural elites and ambitious Baselines defecting, in greater numbers each generation. More and more of those who define Baseline culture will opt-out. Their probably would never be a co-ordinated Baseline comunity, at least beyond luddites acting like fools.

'No mods before age of consent [whatever that is]' is actually a position that may exist within an otherwise transhumanist society. Just as 'no driving before 16'. It certainly is a form of discrimination against low-age sophonts, but it's not like discrimination cannot exist.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

'No mods before age of consent [whatever that is]' is actually a position that may exist within an otherwise transhumanist society. Just as 'no driving before 16'. It certainly is a form of discrimination against low-age sophonts, but it's not like discrimination cannot exist.

Discrimination can exist with out the victems being able to form a comunity to resist the discrimination. Other than religious conservatives and luddites who, once transhumanism starts delivering the goods, will be willing or focused enough to organise against it?

Varrious aspects of Transhumanism might be fought, and for a long time. But we still live in a world were we don't know what we mean by "Modernity." If we can't define the most basic trait of Modern societies, how do we know what parts of Transhumanism aide society, and which pull it apart?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

Discrimination can exist with out the victems being able to from a comunity to resist the discrimination. Other than religious conservatives and luddites who, once transhumanism starts delivering the goods, will be willing or focused enough to organise against it?

Varrious aspects of Transhumanism might be fought, and for a long time. But we still live in a world were we don't know what we mean by "Modernity." If we can't define the most basic trait of Modern societies, how do we know what parts of Transhumanism aide society, and which pull it apart?

Now I just barely understand how the various sentences are connected.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

'No mods before age of consent [whatever that is]' is actually a position that may exist within an otherwise transhumanist society. Just as 'no driving before 16'. It certainly is a form of discrimination against low-age sophonts, but it's not like discrimination cannot exist.

It's highly improbable that genetic modifications which would be difficult to impossible to execute on an already born person would be entirely denied. Life expectancy extensions in particular would be something that would seem so unequivocally beneficial after the bugs have been worked out, that it would seem cruel to deny them, if the financial issue isn't a barrier.

And what's most likely that is that there would be a whole range of engineering modifications that would be allowed, but there would be some kind of bureaucracy or committee that keeps parents and engineers from turning their children into total freaks.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

It's highly improbable that genetic modifications which would be difficult to impossible to execute on an already born person would be entirely denied. Life expectancy extensions in particular would be something that would seem so unequivocally beneficial after the bugs have been worked out, that it would seem cruel to deny them, if the financial issue isn't a barrier.

And what's most likely that is that there would be a whole range of engineering modifications that would be allowed, but there would be some kind of bureaucracy or committee that keeps parents and engineers from turning their children into total freaks.

The problem is how one defines 'no bugs' or 'not a freak'.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

The problem is how one defines 'no bugs' or 'not a freak'.

To a great extent, you can't. However, there are many thing parents do/have done (Footbinding/Corsetts/Castration to preserve a boy sophano voice/total emasculation in order to get a Civil Service job) which are brutal on the kids. Just make a list of all the crazy belief systems we force on children.