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.

why would I be against that?

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

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.

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

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.

Built in antibodies

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

why would you do that

Quote from: T6 on August 20, 2015, 08:58:03 PM

Quote

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.

Quote from: Verbatim on August 20, 2015, 08:51:24 PM

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.

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.

Quote from: eggsalad on August 21, 2015, 08:21:51 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on August 20, 2015, 08:38:32 PM

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.

Quote from: eggsalad on August 21, 2015, 08:34:12 AM

Quote from: SoporificSlash on August 21, 2015, 08:25:57 AM

Quote from: eggsalad on August 21, 2015, 08:21:51 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on August 20, 2015, 08:38:32 PM

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.

Quote from: Prime Quinx on August 20, 2015, 09:02:34 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on August 20, 2015, 08:51:24 PM

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.

Quote from:  on August 21, 2015, 10:46:21 AM

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.