Being Superhuman

[Jarhyn]

Ok, so, this thread is here to discuss laws, approaches, ethics, and politics surrounding being "more able" through technology before some thing in the media makes it become emotionally charged and before anyone gets a chance to push liberal/conservative battle lines.

The thing that brought this up was a discussion about able-ism and the deaf community.

Simply put, there is tangible visible evidence that SOME people take a negative view of those who express that what they are is "not good enough".

Now, personally, I cannot fly, and would love to be able to fly. I would give myself a robot hand, or bionic eyes... Hell, I would genetically engineer a new body and then do a brain transplant, depending on what I had available to engineer for myself.

But, I know, as a human who has and will continue to observe the common patterns of human behavior, that this is a position that is clearly not going to be shared universally.

So let's talk about it. How do we handle this up and coming reality of superhuman capability? Where do we draw the line?

 

[Elixir]

Where do we draw the line?

Death is the Great Equalizer.

 

[Jayjay]

Where do we draw the line?

Death is the Great Equalizer.

Not much longer. The first person to live to 1000 has already been born. Until now, the regular joes have had at least the consolation that everybody dies the same, but what happens when the rich people can cheat that rule too and live basically forever?

As far as superpowers go, improving one's body is secondary. The two important advances are longevity (which includes cures for cancer, dementia and cardiovascular diseases, among others) and improving one's cognitive abilities. The latter is probably going to be within reach for the masses, the same way access to computers and smartphones is now.

 

[RVonse]

Where do we draw the line?

Death is the Great Equalizer.

Not much longer. The first person to live to 1000 has already been born.

I find that very difficult to believe. And if true that brings up much more political issue and debate than who gets to fly. Everyone wants to live longer but not everyone necessarily cares if they can fly. How do you expect to save the planet from overpopulating? You think there is climate change now, what about when no one dies anymore? Which unfortunate people are you going to send away to mars?

 

[TomC]

Not much longer. The first person to live to 1000 has already been born.

You're more optimistic than I am.

I think the human race is more likely to bomb ourselves back to the Stone Age than see Methuselah.
Tom

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Not much longer. The first person to live to 1000 has already been born.

Maybe.

Until now, the regular joes have had at least the consolation that everybody dies the same, but what happens when the rich people can cheat that rule too and live basically forever?

Unfortunately, many do feel consolation because bad things happen to others just because those others are rich, and many will see that as cheating. But it's not cheating. There is no moral rule against living indefinitely. And there is no local rule against it, either - and probably following that rule would not be morally obligatory, given how unjust it would be.

As far as superpowers go, improving one's body is secondary. The two important advances are longevity (which includes cures for cancer, dementia and cardiovascular diseases, among others) and improving one's cognitive abilities.

I agree that those would be the two most important advances from the perspective of an average human mind.

The latter is probably going to be within reach for the masses, the same way access to computers and smartphones is now.

If so, then why not the former?

 

[Jayjay]

Not much longer. The first person to live to 1000 has already been born.

I find that very difficult to believe. And if true that brings up much more political issue and debate than who gets to fly. Everyone wants to live longer but not everyone necessarily cares if they can fly. How do you expect to save the planet from overpopulating? You think there is climate change now, what about when no one dies anymore? Which unfortunate people are you going to send away to mars?

Sending people to Mars is too expensive to be practical. Unless "Mars" becomes an euphemism like sending old dogs to the farm.

Obviously not everyone is going to live forever. If it's a small enough group of elites, it won't result in an immediate population explosion.

 

[Jarhyn]

Where do we draw the line?

Death is the Great Equalizer.

Not much longer. The first person to live to 1000 has already been born. Until now, the regular joes have had at least the consolation that everybody dies the same, but what happens when the rich people can cheat that rule too and live basically forever?

As far as superpowers go, improving one's body is secondary. The two important advances are longevity (which includes cures for cancer, dementia and cardiovascular diseases, among others) and improving one's cognitive abilities. The latter is probably going to be within reach for the masses, the same way access to computers and smartphones is now.

If we decide we wish, ethically, to allow people to be functionally immortal. Cells are called "cancer" when they are immortal.

The thread is about being capable of more than your peers through technology. If y'all wish to start a thread on the politics of immortality, go for it, but here is for improving the human condition, and what restrictions you would see, or the reasons why you think it should not be restricted.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

How do you expect to save the planet from overpopulating?

Maybe by tying infertility to the cure for aging, if it's a cure (as would be in the scenario under consideration) rather than something that can be done only for future individuals.

For example, once the cure for aging is invented and becomes available to the public (perhaps for free), it is publicly announced that only those who haven't had any children after it became so available have access to it, and the cure in question also comes with an infertility package. If population declines due to crime or whatever, then temporary adjustments are made.

Of course, there is the problem of people's lack of foresight: they can keep having children and then say their human rights are being violated if they do not get the cure, protest violently, etc., so it's difficult from an ethical perspective, though in practice it is doable and I would expect some countries to do something like that - if it's a cure -, maybe not at first, but eventually.

Perhaps, at first, the infertility package would be the only thing, and once population grows a lot, then something like the above.

 

[Jayjay]

Not much longer. The first person to live to 1000 has already been born. Until now, the regular joes have had at least the consolation that everybody dies the same, but what happens when the rich people can cheat that rule too and live basically forever?

As far as superpowers go, improving one's body is secondary. The two important advances are longevity (which includes cures for cancer, dementia and cardiovascular diseases, among others) and improving one's cognitive abilities. The latter is probably going to be within reach for the masses, the same way access to computers and smartphones is now.

If we decide we wish, ethically, to allow people to be functionally immortal. Cells are called "cancer" when they are immortal.

The thread is about being capable of more than your peers through technology. If y'all wish to start a thread on the politics of immortality, go for it, but here is for improving the human condition, and what restrictions you would see, or the reasons why you think it should not be restricted.

The point is, that increasing your life span and augmenting your brain are the only two "superpowers" that will matter. We are already living in a world where some people are stronger, prettier, or can do things others can't. A person who can fly is not that different from a person who can afford a private jet, or skydives for a hobby. It's just a matter of degree.

But if a person is hundred times smarter than you? That makes you obsolete. There is nothing you can contribute to the society that the super-smart people can't do better. And because you can't get a job, you can never afford to augment your own brains the same way to catch up. And neither can your children. That's a bleak outcome that will drive people to the barricades, even if we ignore life span extension.

That's also why I think that some level of brain augmentation, with AI or Neuralink-type of devices will be available to most people. There is really no reason not to restrict that, but even then, some people will be able to afford "better brains" than others. The range of people's intelligence and productivity will be much wider than it is now (although still held back by the biological components): the majority of the people would be to the top thinkers like animals are to us. Lovable pets, but not really necessary.

 

[Wiploc]

[Possibly off topic]

Now, personally, I cannot fly, and would love to be able to fly. I would give myself a robot hand, or bionic eyes... Hell, I would genetically engineer a new body and then do a brain transplant, depending on what I had available to engineer for myself.

You may enjoy this: https://www.philosophyexperiments.com/stayingalive/Default.aspx

It's a thought experiment at a philosophy magazine: What does it mean (to you) to stay alive?

Also, I saw an article in a National Enquirer about a head transplant. It referred to the guy whose head was transplanted -- that is, to the guy who lived -- as the "donor."

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Before we get to flying, we can start off with what is almost achievable right now - GATTACA.

My wife refuses to believe me when I say this, but I say that if GATTACA ever becomes a reality, male pattern baldness will disappear within two generations.

At first genetic engineering will be expensive, so the benefits will accrue to the most wealthy first before the price drops enough for regular people to afford it.

The part of the movie I found most disturbing was genetic testing for jobs, genetic testing for identification, etc.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But if a person is hundred times smarter than you? That makes you obsolete. There is nothing you can contribute to the society that the super-smart people can't do better. And because you can't get a job, you can never afford to augment your own brains the same way to catch up. And neither can your children. That's a bleak outcome that will drive people to the barricades, even if we ignore life span extension.

I don't think that's true. I mean humanity is a pretty diverse species as far as behaviors, likes, dislikes. What about athletes? Do they need to be as smart as MIT post docs? If they're not will they still be able to make a living? We're not talking a human utopia are we, because that will never happen.

Humans are competitive and selfish and violent. So if we're going to better our species with superpowers I think we ought to start with those three superflaws. Super powerful humans would seem to need to lack those three behaviors.

 

[Jayjay]

But if a person is hundred times smarter than you? That makes you obsolete. There is nothing you can contribute to the society that the super-smart people can't do better. And because you can't get a job, you can never afford to augment your own brains the same way to catch up. And neither can your children. That's a bleak outcome that will drive people to the barricades, even if we ignore life span extension.

I don't think that's true. I mean humanity is a pretty diverse species as far as behaviors, likes, dislikes. What about athletes? Do they need to be as smart as MIT post docs? If they're not will they still be able to make a living? We're not talking a human utopia are we, because that will never happen.

Humans are competitive and selfish and violent. So if we're going to better our species with superpowers I think we ought to start with those three superflaws. Super powerful humans would seem to need to lack those three behaviors.

I am skeptical whether those are flaws. If there is a group that will genetically modify to be less competitive, less selfish and less violent, that group would be out-competed, taken advantage of and pushed around by groups that don't modify themselves. There is now sort of an equilibrium where people are just aggressive enough to be able to secure resources for their in-group, but not too aggressive that the group falls apart. It applies not only to biological features, but also cultural ideas. Cultures that have wildly sub-optimal values tend not to do so well.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But if a person is hundred times smarter than you? That makes you obsolete. There is nothing you can contribute to the society that the super-smart people can't do better. And because you can't get a job, you can never afford to augment your own brains the same way to catch up. And neither can your children. That's a bleak outcome that will drive people to the barricades, even if we ignore life span extension.

I don't think that's true. I mean humanity is a pretty diverse species as far as behaviors, likes, dislikes. What about athletes? Do they need to be as smart as MIT post docs? If they're not will they still be able to make a living? We're not talking a human utopia are we, because that will never happen.

Humans are competitive and selfish and violent. So if we're going to better our species with superpowers I think we ought to start with those three superflaws. Super powerful humans would seem to need to lack those three behaviors.

I am skeptical whether those are flaws. If there is a group that will genetically modify to be less competitive, less selfish and less violent, that group would be out-competed, taken advantage of and pushed around by groups that don't modify themselves. There is now sort of an equilibrium where people are just aggressive enough to be able to secure resources for their in-group, but not too aggressive that the group falls apart. It applies not only to biological features, but also cultural ideas. Cultures that have wildly sub-optimal values tend not to do so well.

I guess it all depends on what a "group" is trying to do, or if it even has any idea that it is trying to do anything at all, other than outcompete another "group" at something. Maybe there are things that make these different "groups" the same "group" but that some "groups" are simply unaware of because they are too competitive when it comes to another "group."

All those human groups certainly aren't competing against anything but themselves seems to me, and it doesn't seem that collectively they have anything in mind with regards to why they are competing except to preserve their particular group, which of course has sub groups and sub sub groups, etc. It actually seems like a kind of madness to me, or at least juvenalia run amok.

A superpower would be the recognition that this inter and intra group competition is kinda old school and we ought to think of ourselves as a single group, then decide what exactly our group is trying to do. I once remarked to one of my parents how so many lives and resources were wasted on WW2, and could have been used peacefully. Of course she became indignant because it offended her "group" identity.

 

[Jayjay]

I am skeptical whether those are flaws. If there is a group that will genetically modify to be less competitive, less selfish and less violent, that group would be out-competed, taken advantage of and pushed around by groups that don't modify themselves. There is now sort of an equilibrium where people are just aggressive enough to be able to secure resources for their in-group, but not too aggressive that the group falls apart. It applies not only to biological features, but also cultural ideas. Cultures that have wildly sub-optimal values tend not to do so well.

I guess it all depends on what a "group" is trying to do, or if it even has any idea that it is trying to do anything at all, other than outcompete another "group" at something. Maybe there are things that make these different "groups" the same "group" but that some "groups" are simply unaware of because they are too competitive when it comes to another "group."

All those human groups certainly aren't competing against anything but themselves seems to me, and it doesn't seem that collectively they have anything in mind with regards to why they are competing except to preserve their particular group, which of course has sub groups and sub sub groups, etc. It actually seems like a kind of madness to me, or at least juvenalia run amok.

A superpower would be the recognition that this inter and intra group competition is kinda old school and we ought to think of ourselves as a single group, then decide what exactly our group is trying to do. I once remarked to one of my parents how so many lives and resources were wasted on WW2, and could have been used peacefully. Of course she became indignant because it offended her "group" identity.

I think you hit the nail on the head in the first sentence: "groups" (or tribes or countries or societies or whatever) don't need to have collectively any idea what they are doing or why. It's just natural selection. When people invented agriculture, it lead to thousands of years of slavery and suffering compared to the much less stressful lives of hunter-gatherers, that we have only recently managed to get rid of in some parts of the globe. But agricultural slave-societies can feed more people than hunter-gatherer tribes, and because they had more people, they had stronger armies and hunter gatherers couldn't compete. Nobody had to ask themselves whether they want to live a life of servitude as a slave, or happier lives in smaller egalitarian communities, it's just that the former turned out to be the pattern that was more successful at perpetuating itself.

I don't think we can ever get to a point where we stop competing with one another. Because if we did, there would be a huge incentive for some individuals to form a faction that would take advantage of everyone else's altruism and opt out of the system.

 

[Jarhyn]

I am skeptical whether those are flaws. If there is a group that will genetically modify to be less competitive, less selfish and less violent, that group would be out-competed, taken advantage of and pushed around by groups that don't modify themselves. There is now sort of an equilibrium where people are just aggressive enough to be able to secure resources for their in-group, but not too aggressive that the group falls apart. It applies not only to biological features, but also cultural ideas. Cultures that have wildly sub-optimal values tend not to do so well.

I guess it all depends on what a "group" is trying to do, or if it even has any idea that it is trying to do anything at all, other than outcompete another "group" at something. Maybe there are things that make these different "groups" the same "group" but that some "groups" are simply unaware of because they are too competitive when it comes to another "group."

All those human groups certainly aren't competing against anything but themselves seems to me, and it doesn't seem that collectively they have anything in mind with regards to why they are competing except to preserve their particular group, which of course has sub groups and sub sub groups, etc. It actually seems like a kind of madness to me, or at least juvenalia run amok.

A superpower would be the recognition that this inter and intra group competition is kinda old school and we ought to think of ourselves as a single group, then decide what exactly our group is trying to do. I once remarked to one of my parents how so many lives and resources were wasted on WW2, and could have been used peacefully. Of course she became indignant because it offended her "group" identity.

I think you hit the nail on the head in the first sentence: "groups" (or tribes or countries or societies or whatever) don't need to have collectively any idea what they are doing or why. It's just natural selection. When people invented agriculture, it lead to thousands of years of slavery and suffering compared to the much less stressful lives of hunter-gatherers, that we have only recently managed to get rid of in some parts of the globe. But agricultural slave-societies can feed more people than hunter-gatherer tribes, and because they had more people, they had stronger armies and hunter gatherers couldn't compete. Nobody had to ask themselves whether they want to live a life of servitude as a slave, or happier lives in smaller egalitarian communities, it's just that the former turned out to be the pattern that was more successful at perpetuating itself.

I don't think we can ever get to a point where we stop competing with one another. Because if we did, there would be a huge incentive for some individuals to form a faction that would take advantage of everyone else's altruism and opt out of the system.

See, this is your problem. You don't seem to understand that there can be people who don't compete, but who also band together in competition against that which attempts to compete, that it is altruism not pure but tempered against the explicit acknowledgement that someone can come in and start ruining the party, along with an extensive understanding of all the ways such has ever happened.

You seem to fail at the understanding that even in a world with no theft, we may still carry the understanding of the necessity of locks on doors.

 

[Jayjay]

I think you hit the nail on the head in the first sentence: "groups" (or tribes or countries or societies or whatever) don't need to have collectively any idea what they are doing or why. It's just natural selection. When people invented agriculture, it lead to thousands of years of slavery and suffering compared to the much less stressful lives of hunter-gatherers, that we have only recently managed to get rid of in some parts of the globe. But agricultural slave-societies can feed more people than hunter-gatherer tribes, and because they had more people, they had stronger armies and hunter gatherers couldn't compete. Nobody had to ask themselves whether they want to live a life of servitude as a slave, or happier lives in smaller egalitarian communities, it's just that the former turned out to be the pattern that was more successful at perpetuating itself.

I don't think we can ever get to a point where we stop competing with one another. Because if we did, there would be a huge incentive for some individuals to form a faction that would take advantage of everyone else's altruism and opt out of the system.

See, this is your problem. You don't seem to understand that there can be people who don't compete, but who also band together in competition against that which attempts to compete, that it is altruism not pure but tempered against the explicit acknowledgement that someone can come in and start ruining the party, along with an extensive understanding of all the ways such has ever happened.

You seem to fail at the understanding that even in a world with no theft, we may still carry the understanding of the necessity of locks on doors.

Sure, but what does that have to do with the possibility of genetically or technologically engineering a new kind of human being? To me it seems that all that is necessary for understanding is to increase one's intellect, not to reduce the drive to be more intelligent (i.e. competitive).

 

[Jarhyn]

I think you hit the nail on the head in the first sentence: "groups" (or tribes or countries or societies or whatever) don't need to have collectively any idea what they are doing or why. It's just natural selection. When people invented agriculture, it lead to thousands of years of slavery and suffering compared to the much less stressful lives of hunter-gatherers, that we have only recently managed to get rid of in some parts of the globe. But agricultural slave-societies can feed more people than hunter-gatherer tribes, and because they had more people, they had stronger armies and hunter gatherers couldn't compete. Nobody had to ask themselves whether they want to live a life of servitude as a slave, or happier lives in smaller egalitarian communities, it's just that the former turned out to be the pattern that was more successful at perpetuating itself.

I don't think we can ever get to a point where we stop competing with one another. Because if we did, there would be a huge incentive for some individuals to form a faction that would take advantage of everyone else's altruism and opt out of the system.

See, this is your problem. You don't seem to understand that there can be people who don't compete, but who also band together in competition against that which attempts to compete, that it is altruism not pure but tempered against the explicit acknowledgement that someone can come in and start ruining the party, along with an extensive understanding of all the ways such has ever happened.

You seem to fail at the understanding that even in a world with no theft, we may still carry the understanding of the necessity of locks on doors.

Sure, but what does that have to do with the possibility of genetically or technologically engineering a new kind of human being? To me it seems that all that is necessary for understanding is to increase one's intellect, not to reduce the drive to be more intelligent (i.e. competitive).

Herein lies the logical issue with your position: the drive to be more intelligent than you are is not equivalent to a drive to be more intelligent than some second party.

One is edification, the other is competition. It is possible to have a whole society focused on edification of self and others without a focus on competition. I don't know, though, if it's possible for such a society to be composed of 'humans".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not much longer. The first person to live to 1000 has already been born. Until now, the regular joes have had at least the consolation that everybody dies the same, but what happens when the rich people can cheat that rule too and live basically forever?

As far as superpowers go, improving one's body is secondary. The two important advances are longevity (which includes cures for cancer, dementia and cardiovascular diseases, among others) and improving one's cognitive abilities. The latter is probably going to be within reach for the masses, the same way access to computers and smartphones is now.

If we decide we wish, ethically, to allow people to be functionally immortal. Cells are called "cancer" when they are immortal.

The thread is about being capable of more than your peers through technology. If y'all wish to start a thread on the politics of immortality, go for it, but here is for improving the human condition, and what restrictions you would see, or the reasons why you think it should not be restricted.

The point is, that increasing your life span and augmenting your brain are the only two "superpowers" that will matter. We are already living in a world where some people are stronger, prettier, or can do things others can't. A person who can fly is not that different from a person who can afford a private jet, or skydives for a hobby. It's just a matter of degree.

But if a person is hundred times smarter than you? That makes you obsolete. There is nothing you can contribute to the society that the super-smart people can't do better. And because you can't get a job, you can never afford to augment your own brains the same way to catch up. And neither can your children. That's a bleak outcome that will drive people to the barricades, even if we ignore life span extension.

That's also why I think that some level of brain augmentation, with AI or Neuralink-type of devices will be available to most people. There is really no reason not to restrict that, but even then, some people will be able to afford "better brains" than others. The range of people's intelligence and productivity will be much wider than it is now (although still held back by the biological components): the majority of the people would be to the top thinkers like animals are to us. Lovable pets, but not really necessary.

There's a fundamental flaw here--you are assuming intelligence is a monolithic entity that computer amplification will increase your ability in all areas. I do much better than my wife at tasks that involve a detailed set of steps (she has a hard time with recipes), but she does much better than me at tasks which are perceived as a whole (she will make experimental dishes for company--and has never failed to pull it off.) Who is more intelligent? On an IQ test I certainly am--because no IQ test could measure her strengths.