[High Max]

*_*

[Topgun]

yes I know, but canonically, there are more human jedi than alien.

[karajorma]

Im not worried about an accident, Im worried that the one who got teleported is not me.
let me put it this way, I believe what you are saying, but I wouldn't take the chance.

No chance in it. 100% certainty the transporter kills you.

In that case, I would take the transporter. becuase the odds of the teleporter not killing me are better than the odds of me finding a shuttle in time. and even if the teleporter does kill me, at least my copy will get to go on and have a full life.

Yeah but we're arguing that it's agreed that the transporter 100% does kill you. It simply makes a copy of you at the other end which has no reason not to believe it's you apart from the fact that you were just transported. So the odds of finding a shuttle are higher. They are always going to be higher. Trillion to one chances are better than 100% certainty of death.

So would you still use the transporter? Cause from what he says, Trashman presumably wouldn't.

[The E]

I never said all sci-fi thought bad about humans and when I was talking about human adaptability, I was not comparing it to alien species. I was just saying that we are not the least adaptable life form on the block and it seemed like Battuta was not giving us enough credit for our bodies' ability to adapt.

For the love of kittens, High Max, read the bloody thread. This very argument was brought up in the beginning. Let me just say that Humans are NOT THAT ADAPTABLE. We cannot live on most of this Planet's surface, let alone the surface of others. We rely on a very narrow range of environmental conditions, beyond which we need technology to survive.
So, yes. We CAN survive on this planet almost indefinitely. BUT: The current climatological circumstances are bound to change over time (Talking about geological time scales here). When they do, we will be hard-pressed to continue surviving, if we haven't changed with our environment (Thanks to evolution, we probably will, but you never know).

[General Battuta]

Urm, what if it got the technology before it became so adapted? I.E. the organism redesigned itself?

You should have read the thread.

10 pages? No thanks.
You've obviously got some fascination with genetic manipulation as you think it's the solution to most everything.

Huh? I haven't suggested genetic manipulation as a solution to more than one problem here. Nor, in fact, did I even...recommend genetic manipulation.

You're contradicting yourself again. You say that the real adaptive ability of humans lies in their technology, and then you accuse me of being fascinated with technology.

You've got a double standard - you think technology is what keeps us moving and adapting, and then you say 'no, it's our nature that makes us human, not our technology.'

The real question is would a sentient species be willing to throw away their identity. I suspect that in any, thinking species there would be a lot of resistance to that.

Now that's just out and out silly. You have no reason to think any other species will behave like humans. Even if 99% of species think that way, the whole point of the thread is that the 1% who don't will have an advantage.

Furthermore, again, double standard: you're advocating technological adaptation, and then saying it 'destroys our nature'. I can only imagine you preaching to the tribe: "We no sharpen spear! We use fists! Is NATURE!"

Regardless of how smart or not we are there is no evidence of any lifeform more intelligent.

Um, right. But our ability to construct hypotheticals is part of the same cognitive toolset that you've praised earlier.

It's easy to construct a more intelligent human by eliminating or correcting a few common heuristics. We're not very rational organisms yet.

And, yep, if it weren't silly, I'd repost the stuff The_E said too. I'm not even sure what points you're making any more; you seem to just be arguing against anything thrown in front of you.

[Scotty]

And, if doomsayers about said climatological circumstances changing now are correct, we also have the ability to change our climate.  Not so great a stretch (for this thread, at least) to say that changing the climate of either this or another planet in our benefit is out of the question

[Colonol Dekker]

2012!



Nanageddon, and the Acrocalypse will all get us in the  end.

[swashmebuckle]

2112!

We are the priests!  Of the Temples! Of Syrinx!
Our great computers fill the hallowed halls!
We are the priests!  Of the Temples! Of Syrinx!
All the gifts of life are held within our walls!

Dunununun dun dadun DUN!
Dunununun dun dadun DUN! etc.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Urm, what if it got the technology before it became so adapted? I.E. the organism redesigned itself?

You should have read the thread.

Huh? I haven't suggested genetic manipulation as a solution to more than one problem here. Nor, in fact, did I even...recommend genetic manipulation.

You're contradicting yourself again. You say that the real adaptive ability of humans lies in their technology, and then you accuse me of being fascinated with technology.

You've got a double standard - you think technology is what keeps us moving and adapting, and then you say 'no, it's our nature that makes us human, not our technology.'

"Organism redesigns itself" = genetic manipulation.
Despite human advances in technology the human body has not changed. It's better fed yes, but it is still just as vulnerable (if not more so) to all the woes of nature. And btw nice way to paraphrase something I didn't even say. Very inventive.

The real question is would a sentient species be willing to throw away their identity. I suspect that in any, thinking species there would be a lot of resistance to that.

Now that's just out and out silly. You have no reason to think any other species will behave like humans. Even if 99% of species think that way, the whole point of the thread is that the 1% who don't will have an advantage.

Furthermore, again, double standard: you're advocating technological adaptation, and then saying it 'destroys our nature'. I can only imagine you preaching to the tribe: "We no sharpen spear! We use fists! Is NATURE!"

Oh yes the grand cop out. "They're ALIEN, we don't know how they will think!!!". <cue spooky music>
Spare me.

Spear = a tool. I'm not talking about using tools or technology, you talk about a species re-designing itself to survive in environments to which it is not suited. That is genetic manipulation. Creating a new organism which is "superior" to the original.

10 pages? No thanks.

And right here, you lost most of your credibility. If you're not going to bother reading what has been said before, why should I bother reading anything you say?

Because I'm replying to a reply, I'm not going to read 10 pages so I can talk about Anakin Skywalker Pod Racing.

Define "Identity". Does being human necessitate having a 100% biological human body? I say No. What makes us human are our minds and spirits, our bodies matter comparatively little.
Also, genetic manipulation is only one tool in the box. There are other methods which are equally fun.

So if you transfer your consciousness to a robot are you still human? No, you're not.
Without the limitations of the human form we lose our humanity. Our humanity is conversely essential to what it means to be human. Fundamentally altering our bodies will alter our perceptions of ourselves and ultimately the way we perceive and act within the world. At the end we will no longer be human, but rather something which was once human and still fancies itself to be human but is at the end, no longer human. Our humanity is as much a product of our shortcomings as it is a product of our strengths.
 

Again, zero evidence.

You should learn a bit about evolution, it's really fun stuff. I will try to dig up a book or two. Basically, one thing you should be aware of is that selection pressure is not the only way to evolve.

Sure, and zero evidence to the contrary too.

Are you telling me there is zero evidence for these mechanisms?

My reply was in reference to his first sentence, not the second. His first sentence was in reply to this:
"And perhaps even in the development process a creature with diverse physiology simply has no need to develop a higher intelligence because it can instinctively do what it does and will therefore remain our definition of an animal or a lifeform lacking sentience."

[The E]

So if you transfer your consciousness to a robot are you still human? No, you're not.
Without the limitations of the human form we lose our humanity. Our humanity is conversely essential to what it means to be human. Fundamentally altering our bodies will alter our perceptions of ourselves and ultimately the way we perceive and act within the world. At the end we will no longer be human, but rather something which was once human and still fancies itself to be human but is at the end, no longer human. Our humanity is as much a product of our shortcomings as it is a product of our strengths.

We'll just have to disagree here.
But let me ask, how much alteration would you say is sufficient to turn someone into a nonhuman?

Another question: When do you want to stop developing technologies to overcome human shortcomings? By what you said, sooner or later you just have to stop, unless you wish to be nonhuman. Would that mean that a cure for the complex of degenerative conditions known as old age would be unacceptable, since becoming frail is part of the human condition? What about eye implants that enhance our visual spectrum? What about brain implants to enhance our cognitive facilities?
Where is the line drawn?

[Scotty]

Personally, I would draw the line when percentage of body by volume is > 50%.

But that wouldn't really change anything except the term I would use.

[General Battuta]

Spear = a tool. I'm not talking about using tools or technology, you talk about a species re-designing itself to survive in environments to which it is not suited. That is genetic manipulation. Creating a new organism which is "superior" to the original.

Um, no, there are lots of ways to do that, many of which we already practice. Do you have glasses? A pacemaker?

Genetic manipulation constitutes transgenic alteration of DNA, in case you're not familiar. It's one way to effect it, and one we already practice on various levels.

Oh yes the grand cop out. "They're ALIEN, we don't know how they will think!!!". <cue spooky music>
Spare me.

It's not that at all. You simply took a fairly narrow human cultural belief and attributed it to our entire species and then to entire other species. That's simply unfounded.

So if you transfer your consciousness to a robot are you still human? No, you're not.
Without the limitations of the human form we lose our humanity. Our humanity is conversely essential to what it means to be human.

Defining humanity as 'what it means to be human' is no definition at all.

But the nice thing is that you don't have to take advantage of any such abilities if you don't want to. We currently stand somewhere between animal and thinking being; at some point we'll decide to move the rest of the way.

When do you want to stop developing technologies to overcome human shortcomings? By what you said, sooner or later you just have to stop, unless you wish to be nonhuman. Would that mean that a cure for the complex of degenerative conditions known as old age would be unacceptable, since becoming frail is part of the human condition? What about eye implants that enhance our visual spectrum? What about brain implants to enhance our cognitive facilities?
Where is the line drawn?

The_E is completely correct. To see how silly your argument is, consider this?

Are you human if you wear glasses?

Are you human if you wear contact lenses?

Are you human if you get laser eye surgery?

Are you human if you're born with a gene variant that improves your vision?

Are you human if that variant was given to you artificially?

(I imagine you've said 'yes' so far.)

Now, are you human if you're born with a gene variant that gives you perfect memory?

There's nowhere to easily draw the line. And that's simply because we have no scientific definition of what a species is. You can't trace your finger back along the fossil record and say 'oh, this is where we became human'; you'll simply get a hunch at some point that you're not really in the human neighborhood any more.

[Flipside]

Here's a thought...

A friend of mine has a pacemaker, and an artificial hip, does that mean he's less human than someone without them?

Edit: Ah, GB had already mentioned pacemakers anyway

Prosthetic technology is advancing, If people genuinely think that being non-organic is not human then we might need to start looking at ensuring the rights of these people as the level of technology advances.

[General Battuta]

Right.

Plus Akalabeth Angel has spent all this time arguing that alterations would make us 'less human' and then failed to provide any reason why that would be a bad thing. Would he have complained that getting a bit more skull volume would make us 'less homo habilis?'

[Akalabeth Angel]

Spear = a tool. I'm not talking about using tools or technology, you talk about a species re-designing itself to survive in environments to which it is not suited. That is genetic manipulation. Creating a new organism which is "superior" to the original.

Um, no, there are lots of ways to do that, many of which we already practice. Do you have glasses? A pacemaker?

No and No.
But that's besides the point, you're not even on the same argument. Why you keep meandering I'll never know. The fundamental discussion is whether humans are ill-suited to galactic expansion because of their need to bring around their "niche" environment with them. You say that a species can re-design itself to live in more diverse environments rather than bringing around that bubble. The only way to redesign yourself and stay a species (as opposed to a machine) is to use genetic manipulation. Therefore you seem to believe genetic manipulation will trump a non-manipulated species simply using technology. While I suggest that any intelligent free thinking species would not willingly alter themselves to such a fundamental degree, to do so would they would lose the core of what it means to be what they are.

Oh yes the grand cop out. "They're ALIEN, we don't know how they will think!!!". <cue spooky music>
Spare me.

It's not that at all. You simply took a fairly narrow human cultural belief and attributed it to our entire species and then to entire other species. That's simply unfounded.

People are afraid of change. People also share many instinctual similarities with non-human beings. Animals in nature have motherly instincts for example to protect their young, they all have fight or flight. Many animals display curiousity, the ability to mimmick and learn. There is a lot of evidence that animals and humans on this world share many of the same ways of thinking. Is this thinking a product of our planet? If an animal grew up on another world would it suddenly think differently for no reason at all? The idea that an alien species will think in alien ways is a cop out because there is no evidence supporting it, and a lot of evidence to the contrary. Many animals act like humans, just on a less developed level.

So if you transfer your consciousness to a robot are you still human? No, you're not.
Without the limitations of the human form we lose our humanity. Our humanity is conversely essential to what it means to be human.

Defining humanity as 'what it means to be human' is no definition at all.

But the nice thing is that you don't have to take advantage of any such abilities if you don't want to. We currently stand somewhere between animal and thinking being; at some point we'll decide to move the rest of the way.

I wasn't defining humanity I was saying saying without our humanity we are not human. And without our bodies we do not have humanity. Therefore without our bodies we are not human.

And as to your point about becoming a thinking being, how? By losing irrationality? you say:

"It's easy to construct a more intelligent human by eliminating or correcting a few common heuristics. We're not very rational organisms yet."

Our irrationality is at the core of being human. The day the human race ceases to be irrational is the day the human race dies.

We'll just have to disagree here.
But let me ask, how much alteration would you say is sufficient to turn someone into a nonhuman?

Another question: When do you want to stop developing technologies to overcome human shortcomings? By what you said, sooner or later you just have to stop, unless you wish to be nonhuman. Would that mean that a cure for the complex of degenerative conditions known as old age would be unacceptable, since becoming frail is part of the human condition? What about eye implants that enhance our visual spectrum? What about brain implants to enhance our cognitive facilities?
Where is the line drawn?

Death is at the very core of existence of life. All things die. Even non-living entities, such as the sun and our planet will in a way "die" at some point in the passage of time. A better question is if you cannot die are you truly alive? Immortality would be the death of development in my opinion. Personally I never work as hard as I do before a deadline, and the greatest deadline in life is death. Without the need to "life each day to the fullest", people will create less, do less, advance less. Sure there'll be a few go-getters, but a person cannot remember everything. If you get 25 degrees from university will you remember much beyond the last 2?

What would be the purpose of brain implants for higher cognition anyway? Human achievement is the sum of experience not intelligence. That is what fundamentally separates us from animals. We are able through storytelling to pass on what we have learned to future generations. I would argue that the freedom and abundance of information in the modern world has already the potential to make humans more intelligent. Everything we create is based on experience, the more we experience, the more we can create.

Of course then you'll say "well if you can live longer, and have a better brain to experience more then isn't that a good thing?". But again without a finite existence there is no drive to create. And also creation is as much about the lack of information as it is about the existence thereof. If someone write a poem and subconsciously it bears a resememblance to something they once read then maybe it'll be good. But if they have higher memory capacity, and can remember that poem, will they still write the new one? Or will they think "this has been done, I'll just sit around instead".

Creating a better body does not create a better human.

[High Max]

*_*

[General Battuta]

Uh, okay, I think you're just spouting religion. I can't see any empirically valid points in there, and a few that are even philosophically absurd.

Basically:

But that's besides the point, you're not even on the same argument. Why you keep meandering I'll never know. The fundamental discussion is whether humans are ill-suited to galactic expansion because of their need to bring around their "niche" environment with them.

Absolutely no question of that. We are ill-suited compared to some hypothetical species that are better suited. We are, after all, engaged in an exercise of the imagination here.

You say that a species can re-design itself to live in more diverse environments rather than bringing around that bubble. The only way to redesign yourself and stay a species (as opposed to a machine) is to use genetic manipulation.

Why aren't machines species?

Why is it a good thing to stay the same species?

What's wrong with genetic manipulation? We do it all the time already. How are you going to decide who to marry? Your genes are looking for compatible partners to hybridize with - and you're making conscious designs about a good mate.

Therefore you seem to believe genetic manipulation will trump a non-manipulated species simply using technology.

Er, I do? It's not some kind of schoolyard brawl. I certainly think that better solutions can be found by conscious design than by blind evolution...which is why we as a species are doing okay today.

While I suggest that any intelligent free thinking species would not willingly alter themselves to such a fundamental degree, to do so would they would lose the core of what it means to be what they are.

Why?

Why's that a bad thing? Why would we want to keep the core of being something obsolete?

Why would any intelligent free thinking species reject technology and consciousness in favor of their animal roots?

People are afraid of change.

Yeah, I'm kinda seeing that...

Is this thinking a product of our planet? If an animal grew up on another world would it suddenly think differently for no reason at all? The idea that an alien species will think in alien ways is a cop out because there is no evidence supporting it, and a lot of evidence to the contrary. Many animals act like humans, just on a less developed level.

You just argued that animals would be against genetic engineering. There are plenty of humans around you who are pro-genetic-engineering. Just by that alone we can see that there's no reason to believe everyone would be as scared of change as you are.

I wasn't defining humanity I was saying saying without our humanity we are not human. And without our bodies we do not have humanity. Therefore without our bodies we are not human.

Um, what's the problem there...? We aren't homo erectus any more, I doubt you'd want to go back...

"It's easy to construct a more intelligent human by eliminating or correcting a few common heuristics. We're not very rational organisms yet."

Our irrationality is at the core of being human. The day the human race ceases to be irrational is the day the human race dies.

Why is our irrationality at the core of being human?

Again, what's the problem if the human race dies or speciates? Would you have rather stayed as homo habilis?

Death is at the very core of existence of life.

Why?

Without the need to "life each day to the fullest", people will create less, do less, advance less. Sure there'll be a few go-getters, but a person cannot remember everything. If you get 25 degrees from university will you remember much beyond the last 2?

Any evidence?

Are people more creative if they only have a lifespan of 25 years? 50 years? 100 years? Where does it start dropping off?

It's just a silly superstition.

What would be the purpose of brain implants for higher cognition anyway? Human achievement is the sum of experience not intelligence. That is what fundamentally separates us from animals. We are able through storytelling to pass on what we have learned to future generations. I would argue that the freedom and abundance of information in the modern world has already the potential to make humans more intelligent. Everything we create is based on experience, the more we experience, the more we can create.

Er, so, how do brain implants hurt...? We're better at thinking than homo habilis was.

Of course then you'll say "well if you can live longer, and have a better brain to experience more then isn't that a good thing?". But again without a finite existence there is no drive to create. And also creation is as much about the lack of information as it is about the existence thereof.

Evidence for any of that? Do uneducated third world sweatshop workers make better poets?

You mostly sound very afraid. Which is fine. Nobody's forcing anything on you.

[Liberator]

yes I know, but canonically, there are more human jedi than alien.

Probably because there are simply more humans around than there are non-humans, so it's simply a matter of the ratio of humans to non-humans.  Or, it could be like Starfleet, that organization is mostly human because the other races involved are fairly content to let the humans do the dangerous stuff.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Here's a thought...

A friend of mine has a pacemaker, and an artificial hip, does that mean he's less human than someone without them?

No it means he's using technology in an effort to combat his human shortcomings.
Again, this is a simple diversion from the core argument about whether humans are suited for mass galactic expansion. It's only come up because with every post GB makes he gets farther and farther from the core issue to the point of using silly non-issues in an attempt to refute my previous statements.


The real question is, is there any real NEED to improve the basic healthy human body?
For example if a human wants to become a better explorer so they give themselves night vision like a cat is that an improvement? Being afraid of the dark is a fundamental part of human existence, especially childhood. How will we be without fear of the dark, fear of the unknown? For example, if "the dark" is a simply a physical manifestation of "the unknown" in general how will humans interact and think about the unknown? Will there be less incentive within the human psyche to explore and pursue the unknown?

We don't know.

All we know is that the human race has achieved an incredible amount of knowledge, creativity and technology with our current limitations. If those limitations are taken away will we be better for it? If all humans are born with the same superior eyesight we lose individiuality. If we're born with the same photographic memory and same higher intelligence we lose identity. Will the human race have the same potential without the individuality? If we're all factory made carbon copies where is ambition? the drive to do better?

You people should all turn off your computers, go to Rogers and rent Gattaca.

[General Battuta]

Again, this is a simple diversion from the core argument about whether humans are suited for mass galactic expansion. It's only come up because with every post GB makes he gets farther and farther from the core issue to the point of using silly non-issues in an attempt to refute my previous statements.

Okay, here, I'll give you the simple point I've made again and again.

Which is more efficient:

A ship that must carry a full life support biosphere for a living crew?

Or a ship that must carry minor life support for a crew capable of biological hibernation?

This is what happens when you don't read the thread.

No it means he's using technology in an effort to combat his human shortcomings.

And that's all I'm arguing for.

Ferociously humping a straw man will not get you anything except sticky pants and odd looks.