Artificial Evolution: A Dissenting Term?

Evolution - the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
Artificial - made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, typically as a copy of something natural.

Adding these two definitions together, it follows that "artificial evolution" should be the development of humans by a "recursive self-improvement" of sorts; however, it is generally used to downplay the benefits of augmenting the human abilities or perceptions by certain ideological groups. These groups hold firm in the belief that changing ourselves in these ways are straying from "nature's path" (or some variation) and that it is immoral.

For the purpose of simplified discussion, I intend to exclude religious rhetoric; those reasons are based under the assumption of something in itself (an omnipotent being) being true and that is an irrelevant topic.

Artificial evolution is a nature-sympathetic term that implies nature cares, or is even capable of conscious objection, to augmentation. To imply that nature (to put bluntly) gives a damn is obsurd. Evolution is the path through which a species develops; it makes sense that, once a species reaches a certain developmental point, it would comprehend its past, and possibly future, evolutionary growth spurs and attempt to influence them.

Okay, it's on the right board now. So basically, the debate is for-against human self-evolution.

why would I be against that?

edit: this wasn't in an angry tone by the way .-.

In modern society, humanity exists outside of Evolution by Natural Selection. We have to rely on eugenics and a few, brave, white men if we ever want to really push the limits of the human genome.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

why would I be against that?

To play devil's advocate, we haven't had a great track record with self-development through life extension/drug augmentation. For example, overuse of penicillin destroyed the public at large's immunity to bacterial infection. If such an event occurred again as a result of genetic or physical meddling, we could potentially cause greater harm to humanity.

it's hard to tell which board you're on at a glance on mobile, okay?

Rookie mistake. :^)

anyways

These groups hold firm in the belief that changing ourselves in these ways are straying from "nature's path" (or some variation) and that it is immoral.

Right, and they're dumb. Obviously, I'm all for destroying this notion that nature is god and that nature is the one true way. If that were true, we'd all have to start living out in the elements, because houses and clothing and medicine and laws are all cozy, man-made luxuries that "go against nature". But all of these things are nothing but good.

I mean, you can argue that some laws aren't good--I certainly don't think all laws are good. But for every vaccine, there's gonna be someone who's allergic to it. That doesn't mean we stop making vaccines.

So, the concept of "artificial evolution" doesn't disgust me in the sense that it's... straying from nature, or something stupid. The concept disgusts me because of how idealistic it is. Honestly, I'm sorry, but the more I read about transhumanism, the dumber I think it is, and the more I want absolutely nothing to do with it...

Artificial evolution is a nature-sympathetic term that implies nature cares, or is even capable of conscious objection, to augmentation. To imply that nature (to put bluntly) gives a damn is obsurd. Evolution is the path through which a species develops; it makes sense that, once a species reaches a certain developmental point, it would comprehend its past, and possibly future, evolutionary growth spurs and attempt to influence them.

...and I just think the whole concept is very myopic. It doesn't account for enough things. I mean, personally, I have no desire to be a machine strictly for ego reasons. I think it would be horrible to be part machine. I hate machines--they break down, they always need replacing, and they're high-maintenance. I don't see any compelling reason why I should want to be part machine at all, even if it "enhances" me in some way. And how exactly is it gonna enhance me? Why do I need to be enhanced?

As shitty as the human body is, I think it's good enough, frankly. As long as you take care of yourself, you'll be fine.

To play devil's advocate, we haven't had a great track record with self-development through life extension/drug augmentation.

Eeeexactly.

Transhumanism isn't necessarily "let's be cyborgs and robots", it could also be something along the lines of GATTACA, or chemical augmentation/surgeries.

why would I be against that?

To play devil's advocate, we haven't had a great track record with self-development through life extension/drug augmentation. For example, overuse of penicillin destroyed the public at large's immunity to bacterial infection. If such an event occurred again as a result of genetic or physical meddling, we could potentially cause greater harm to humanity.

Well yeah... It can cause harm. Screw it take the chance (don't)

To stay with the cycle of nature, how exactly would we just break a normal cycle then?

Spoiler

i dont even know what im talking about im drunk, this is why im on my alt

Transhumanism isn't necessarily "let's be cyborgs and robots", it could also be something along the lines of GATTACA, or chemical augmentation/surgeries.

Well, I mean, there's nothing wrong with experimentation. If we can develop some crazy new augmentative shit for our bodies for the sake of experimenting, I'm all for that--but is it something a great deal of money should be going towards? I don't know about that.

Only if it's like, nanomachines, or some shit. Something with a practical, altruistic use.
Nothing like... "3D contact lenses" or something stupid. "Super bacon vision". Whatever the fuck we'd do.

Like, what are some ideas that you might have, or have heard of before, that are worth looking into? In your opinion.

Built in antibodies

Transhumanism isn't necessarily "let's be cyborgs and robots", it could also be something along the lines of GATTACA, or chemical augmentation/surgeries.

Well, I mean, there's nothing wrong with experimentation. If we can develop some crazy new augmentative shit for our bodies for the sake of experimenting, I'm all for that--but is it something a great deal of money should be going towards? I don't know about that.

Only if it's like, nanomachines, or some shit. Something with a practical, altruistic use.
Nothing like... "3D contact lenses" or something stupid. "Super bacon vision". Whatever the fuck we'd do.

Im with verb here. I've actually researched A LOT about the "transhumanist movement" and probably watched a days worth of TED talks of people with varying viewpoints on it

I like the people who want to be able to replicate a almost identicle and fully functional human arm or leg for the kid who got ran over by a car or the guy who lost his foot to frostbite. Hell if you want to give it attachments for modifications to help him lift more than normal or be able to mountain climb better, be my guest.

But if you want people to be able to like google search  and play games with their minds  go fuck your self.

And one quack wanted to "cure aging" and have everyone live hundreds of years

FUCK THAT. We NEED people to die off.

And one quack wanted to "cure aging" and have everyone live hundreds of years

why would you do that

And one quack wanted to "cure aging" and have everyone live hundreds of years

why would you do that

Because life is AWESOME!

More years = more LIFE!

Who WOULDN'T want to live forever!

And one quack wanted to "cure aging" and have everyone live hundreds of years

why would you do that

Because life is AWESOME!

More years = more LIFE!

Who WOULDN'T want to live forever!

Screw that shit, give me a few robot arms and maybe a leg.

Hell give me glowing eyes, but make me live longer?


No, get lost.

Spoiler

I know you were joking but holy damn 'Cure aging'? jesus christ

Like, what are some ideas that you might have, or have heard of before, that are worth looking into? In your opinion.

I've already discussed one with you. Sapor alteration. Strength, metabolic alteration, perfecting vision/hearing, etc.

Like, what are some ideas that you might have, or have heard of before, that are worth looking into? In your opinion.

I've already discussed one with you. Sapor alteration. Strength, metabolic alteration, perfecting vision/hearing, etc.

Right, right. Those are all fine and dandy with me. I think we basically already have the vision thing pat-down (contact lenses), unless you're looking for ways to perfect vision without needing them, which I don't think is a huge priority.

We also have hearing aids, which are kinda neat, because if you don't want to hear anything, you can just turn it off. That's awesome. Deaf people are lucky.

Once we start getting into drugs and shit, however, I will always strictly disapprove of them until all risks and side effects are completely extirpated. I don't want none of that shit. That's something I'd like to happen see in the near future--make it so the list of side-effects make up 5% of the infomercial, rather than 80% of it.

We harness evolution to our advantage all the time, and we've been doing it for a while now. I mean, take a look at all the animals we've domesticated and evolutionarily honed. The chihuahua looks nothing like the Gray wolf anymore, and the pig while similar, is a completely different species to its predecessor, the Eurasian Wild Boar.

So really, the unnatural argument (even when it comes to humans) really holds no truck in the scientific community when humanity has been inadvertently augmenting the evolutionary process for thousands of years, both for agricultural and survival purposes.

As shitty as the human body is, I think it's good enough, frankly. As long as you take care of yourself, you'll be fine.

I feel like this is a perspective that changes with age for very obvious reasons.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

As shitty as the human body is, I think it's good enough, frankly. As long as you take care of yourself, you'll be fine.

I feel like this is a perspective that changes with age for very obvious reasons.

But it really shouldn't be any better. Why the fuck would you want to live beyond 80? That's like the perfect life span, honeslty I wouldn't mind it being shorter.

I feel like the reason you see it that way is because the body goes to shit at that point. It's just hard to imagine eternal youth because our perspective of a long time is shaped by current standards.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

As shitty as the human body is, I think it's good enough, frankly. As long as you take care of yourself, you'll be fine.

I feel like this is a perspective that changes with age for very obvious reasons.

But it really shouldn't be any better. Why the fuck would you want to live beyond 80? That's like the perfect life span, honeslty I wouldn't mind it being shorter.

I feel like the reason you see it that way is because the body goes to shit at that point. It's just hard to imagine eternal youth because our perspective of a long time is shaped by current standards.

No. Eternal existence is the worst possible outcome I can imagine. It's not a matter of your body going to shit. It's a matter of there only being a limited amount of things to experience and enjoy in life and we'll never truly be comfortable. It all goes back to the hedonistic treadmill.

The hedonistic treadmill keeps you out of eternal misery too. You'll probably just get bored. And it's not like humans haven't created new entertainment outlets and experiences in the past 2,000 years.

I actually don't think "artificial" evolution is as phony as some nay sayers think it is. Look at the logic behind it.

Take a supposedly "intelligent" species, and shoot them up to the point where we are now. No doubt, don't you think said intelligent species would develop technology as well? What I'm basically saying here is what if "artificial evolution" is actually just the natural step as a species grows and reaches certain points?

Like, what are some ideas that you might have, or have heard of before, that are worth looking into? In your opinion.

I've already discussed one with you. Sapor alteration. Strength, metabolic alteration, perfecting vision/hearing, etc.

Right, right. Those are all fine and dandy with me. I think we basically already have the vision thing pat-down (contact lenses), unless you're looking for ways to perfect vision without needing them, which I don't think is a huge priority.

We also have hearing aids, which are kinda neat, because if you don't want to hear anything, you can just turn it off. That's awesome. Deaf people are lucky.

Once we start getting into drugs and shit, however, I will always strictly disapprove of them until all risks and side effects are completely extirpated. I don't want none of that shit. That's something I'd like to happen see in the near future--make it so the list of side-effects make up 5% of the infomercial, rather than 80% of it.

I always love it when they list death as a side effect like it doesn't particularily matter.

I actually don't think "artificial" evolution is as phony as some nay sayers think it is. Look at the logic behind it.

Take a supposedly "intelligent" species, and shoot them up to the point where we are now. No doubt, don't you think said intelligent species would develop technology as well? What I'm basically saying here is what if "artificial evolution" is actually just the natural step as a species grows and reaches certain points?

That's why I proposed that the term has been radicalized by interest groups.

I actually don't think "artificial" evolution is as phony as some nay sayers think it is. Look at the logic behind it.

Take a supposedly "intelligent" species, and shoot them up to the point where we are now. No doubt, don't you think said intelligent species would develop technology as well? What I'm basically saying here is what if "artificial evolution" is actually just the natural step as a species grows and reaches certain points?

That's why I proposed that the term has been radicalized by interest groups.

Which is why I may have hinted that such interest groups are being silly by radicalizing the term. I guess I went in a circle on that one. Apologies.

I actually don't think "artificial" evolution is as phony as some nay sayers think it is. Look at the logic behind it.

Take a supposedly "intelligent" species, and shoot them up to the point where we are now. No doubt, don't you think said intelligent species would develop technology as well? What I'm basically saying here is what if "artificial evolution" is actually just the natural step as a species grows and reaches certain points?

That's why I proposed that the term has been radicalized by interest groups.

Which is why I may have hinted that such interest groups are being silly by radicalizing the term. I guess we went in a circle on that one.

I guess so. There's no sense in denying that the next step in human evolution will be man-made. But just like other things that have even the potential to improve our daily lives, minority interest groups continue to stand in the way.