Transhumanism leading to a post-tribal world

We can strive for perfection within certain circumstances; I can for instance attempt to draw a perfect circle as I know what one is. As to human perfection you mention physical perfection and this may to an extent be identified and improved, say the elimination of physical ailments the alleviation of suffering, this could be considered an aim towards physical perfection. As to what is attractive, this is a more abstract concept, particularly with humans. Sexual attraction should be based on finding a partner who we consider the fittest to carry our genes and for that purpose there may be a few identifiable standards, but when it comes to sexual attraction we can be a very strange beast indeed.

Look I know I kinda started this part of the discussion (on physical, external transhumanism -- bigger muscles, faster, smarter etc.) but it's largely a waste of time. It's the neurology that's the biggest issue with humans. Even if objectively better standards are met with physical human development, humans are still going to want more. It would be better if humans were not afflicted with this insatiable desire.

Regarding your comment:

“Or how about a human psychology that doesn't adapt to drug usage, and thus you could live in a constant state of bliss, as if you'd taken heroin and cocaine for the first time AND that effect never subsides. Compare that to what we currently have, and there's no doubt in a reasonable mind that a constant state of bliss is superior to what is normal now.”

 

This made me think and from those guidelines I may have identified what could constitute a perfect human, and that would be “one who is completely satisfied with their social environment.” It would of course remove all desire for knowledge, as the need to know is driven by the dissatisfaction of not knowing, but would that really matter.

Does knowledge make people happy? Not necessarily.

Does bliss make people happy? Yes.

The "drive" is a means to an end. The "knowledge" is a means to an end. It's really the positive affect that matters at the end of the day.

Besides, you could have knowledge acquisition methods programmed into a transhuman/posthuman, so that they automatically do knowledge acquisition without the pain of desiring it. There might be other, better methods of acquiring information that haven't been thought of yet, too.

If you are going to implement transhumanism you need to have an identifiable objective and you mention obtaining a high IQ as a possible objective, the problem with IQ, is that doesn’t measure rationality.

I think ridding humans of universally negative experiences is a clear enough objective, and is probably the easier one to start with (it's more grounded in reality).

IQ is a measure of potential for rationality. It's a proxy for 'g' (intelligence) and it's a damn good one.

To try and get to what I think is the main point. To implement transhumanism I maintained the need for an identifiable objective and you responded with this. “I think ridding humans of universally negative experiences is a clear enough objective, and is probably the easier one to start with (it's more grounded in reality).”

 

I agree that it is more grounded in reality. So following this to a logical conclusion, by ridding humans of universally negative experiences, would a perfect human be one without emotions, simply programmed to perform whatever tasks are deemed necessary

or to take it further, if we want to remove all negative experiences, could perfection be found in non-existence.

I don't view tribalism objectively as positive or negative.

Though subjectively I don't deny I feel it, depending on what tribe one is talking about.

Maybe forum would have been better called Transhumanism leading to a post-racial world,

Though I think race is vague at times.

"The idea of color blindness as a metaphor plays upon a certain assumption on what race is and how it plays out in the blind community," Obasogie said. "So it's a metaphor that suggests that those who are blind or can't see race necessarily, kind of live in this racial utopia where they don't have to deal with this messy world of race because of their blindness."

This racial utopia, Obasogie argues, doesn't exist.

I think something is only good or bad, when ends are identified, goals I mean.

I think emotion could be dealt with in various ways so that it doesn't have to enter complete extinction:

 

(1) I think you could decouple it from life's interactivity, and so have people in a constant state of bliss regardless of what is happening to them (outlined in one of my previous responses). Deactivating parts of the brain (or individual synapses) could achieve this.

 

(2) More theoretically, I think it could be morphed into something else that produces far more positive affect more frequently yet retains interactivity. Perhaps tinkering with connectome exchanges, or even at the basal neuronal level, could help achieve this.

 

(3) An artificial emotion replacement, one that is superior (i.e. with less/no negative affect; with more positive affect), replaces emotions but not in spirit. I'm not sure what that would be, though.

I think having masses of positive affect, especially in absence of negative affect, is better than nothing.

 

Wouldn't you agree?

However, to live in a state of personal bliss would probably kill the incentive to achieve anything

perhaps we should provide free opium and or heroin and or fentanyl to prison inmates

perhaps we should provide free opium and or heroin and or fentanyl to prison inmates

I think creating a prison full of addicts may just cause a few problems when they are released.

it may be cheaper to keep them basically sedated (especially on fentanyl which is ridiculously cheap)

80% of inmates return to prison on new charges

it may be cheaper to keep them basically sedated (especially on fentanyl which is ridiculously cheap)

80% of inmates return to prison on new charges

You would definitely have a crime wave when all those addicts are released and need money to feed their addiction and will do anything to get it.

You would definitely have a crime wave when all those addicts are released and need money to feed their addiction and will do anything to get it.

drugs don't cause crime

a lack of drugs causes crime

drugs don't cause crime

a lack of drugs causes crime

On a serious note, I have always thought that here in the UK we should make heroin available to addicts through prescription and that way you remove the drug related crime and destroy the market.

Implanting some sort of chip into people's brains comes with this problem.

I think something is only good or bad, when ends are identified, goals I mean.

And even then, something isn't 'good or 'bad, something simply achieves towards an end, or it does not.

'Survival for one,

Of one's brood, of one's culture,

How 'can everyone, everything be the same?

I'm aware there are religions that encourage such, and I think there's a logic in their ideas,

But I don't value logic as 'much as my impulses at times,

Shall we accept wolves, cats, goats, ants, as the same?

(Though likely I'm going off on a tangent, I continue)

Shall hostile action be met with nothing?

(Questions all rhetorical)

I'd expect you might say there would 'be 'no hostile action if we had no tribal instinct,

Perhaps you might say animals and insects cannot be considered people, and thus removed from the tribal instinct problem,

Perhaps you might say hostile action should be met with equal force, but not 'started by one.

 What kind of person or group is that?

If one has differences, then action is different, consideration is different,

Not necessarily 'overboard, but people have different opinions on what 'amount is 'right, I suppose.

Still, 'differences exist, and even if action is downplayed, moments come, where different action is necessitated.

Though it is hard, is it wrong during a famine for a person to feed their own child, rather than a strangers?

Though, after thinking about it for a minute after posting,

I don't think it'd be too hard for a society to implement removal of children from their parents, to be raised by society at large,

That was advocated in Plato's Republic, I'm pretty sure.

And argument of people's 'actions mattering more than genetics is often reasonable,

“He may have been your father, boy, but he wasn't your daddy." - Yondu

As such thoughts work towards removing 'genetic tribal behavior,

As humans are still more similar to each other in thought and action than other animals,

That their tribal focus would place there instead.

'Still tribal behavior I'd argue, even if people placed a greater importance on ideas/culture/action than genetics.

I think emotion could be dealt with in various ways so that it doesn't have to enter complete extinction:

 

(1) I think you could decouple it from life's interactivity, and so have people in a constant state of bliss regardless of what is happening to them (outlined in one of my previous responses). Deactivating parts of the brain (or individual synapses) could achieve this.

 

(2) More theoretically, I think it could be morphed into something else that produces far more positive affect more frequently yet retains interactivity. Perhaps tinkering with connectome exchanges, or even at the basal neuronal level, could help achieve this.

 

(3) An artificial emotion replacement, one that is superior (i.e. with less/no negative affect; with more positive affect), replaces emotions but not in spirit. I'm not sure what that would be, though.

How it is technically achieved and whether it is possible doesn’t really matter if there isn’t a definable objective. There is still too much subjectivity as to what would constitute a superior human, the only remotely objective concept would be to maximise pleasure. However, to live in a state of personal bliss would probably kill the incentive to achieve anything, as such incentive is driven by the need to obtain some personal feelings of satisfaction and by living in a state of bliss that satisfaction would already have been attained. I don’t think society could function under those conditions.

I think having masses of positive affect, especially in absence of negative affect, is better than nothing.

 

Wouldn't you agree?

As existence and non-existence are such profoundly different states, I don’t think one can be said to be better than the other, particularly as non-existence has nothing that can be improved upon.

 

From a position of debate I try to remain detached, but to answer that question from a purely personal perspective. As an animal with a survival instinct and a reasonable quality of life I would say existence is better.

Maximizing pleasure is way more than "remotely" objective. It's abundantly obvious when you're suffering or in a pleasurably state most of the time. Maybe there are fringe cases where you have trauma that you don't consciously realize, but people can tell the difference between getting shot and eating ice-cream.

Another superior trait (one which you touch on next) is the ability to stay in a blissful state, thus further eradicating suffering and even baseline neutrality (where mood is somewhere in the middle). Yes, that would kill incentive -- I 100% agree. However, incentive originates from suffering, of which is a negative experience (i.e. you have to lack something in order to have incentive to want something). Plus, if it's possible to program humans to simply do the right thing (and yes, there will be difficulty in establishing 'the right thing'), then incentives will be rendered obsolete. 

As for a 'personal feeling of satisfaction', these could be the solutions:

(a) You manually trigger the neurons to simulate a 'personal feeling of satisfaction' experience (ideally permanently)

(b) You remove this brain complex altogether

Of course, this is super theoretical, but society could theoretically function without incentive. 

If you truly think that, that we can't say one is better than the other, perhaps it's better to have never been if there is no guarantee that your life will be a positive experience? Especially since that if we were guaranteed a positive life, that still wouldn't be better than no life? Maybe it's not worth having life at all? 

In other words, it is better we orchestrate a graceful exit for life on Earth.

Wouldn't you agree?

I've been having a hard time with the concept of morality, for about the last 10 years,

Not that conventionally I've 'done anything particularly bad,

But it leaves 'me a bit groundless, in saying one tribes values are better or worse than another's,

Though practically speaking, I still have preferences, strong feelings of oughts.

I 'do think it a human/person positive idea, to want to reduce tribalism, and knee jerk fight instinct against the other.

I don't currently find myself able to agree it's objectively 'better though,

If a person values their tribe over other tribes, well, that's their value, above humanity.

As you say it is theoretical but to try and envisage an environment that includes only pleasure.

There would be no need for external factors that give pleasure like social interaction, acquiring knowledge, any sort of entertainment, physical activities, reading and watching films etc.

Unless they could be eliminated basic physical needs would have to be catered for. I’m imagining something akin to that scene in the Matrix where everyone is kept in these pods that supply their physical needs. To take it further just eliminate the body and keep a brain that is permanently stimulated to receive pleasure.

I am making no value judgments regarding this; I am simply trying to look at it objectively.

If you truly think that, that we can't say one is better than the other, perhaps it's better to have never been if there is no guarantee that your life will be a positive experience? Especially since that if we were guaranteed a positive life, that still wouldn't be better than no life? Maybe it's not worth having life at all? 

In other words, it is better we orchestrate a graceful exit for life on Earth.

Wouldn't you agree?

The reason that we can't say one is better than the other, is that non-existence by its very nature doesn’t exist and as such you can’t improve on something that doesn’t exist, therefore you can’t say existence is better, and there is nothing to agree to.

If you've never existed, you cannot suffer or experience pleasure.
 
If you exist, your suffering is guaranteed but pleasure is not.
 
That's how we can say one is better than the other.

It's theoretically possible and desirable that the human brain could be redesigned to remove its tribal elements. Perhaps something as simple as removing the more ancient part of the human brain would suffice, maybe by manually recoding human DNA to make the RNA not produce it (or to have it non-functional). Although, it's likely (if possible) going to be rewiring many parts of the brain to ignore or circumvent the tribalistic parts (I'm not sure how integrated tribalism is in the human brain).

This should have drastic implications for politics, given that tribalism basically drives the voting decisions for most people. Ideas should become the leading way that politics is conducted, instead of group self-interest. This would allow for rapid, unified development in technology and critical thought as no time would be lost on race-based politics (and other tribal battles).

I do worry about the free-loader problem (i.e. people not contributing their part to group activity). Tribalism does seem to protect against it. I doubt making humans non-tribal would also make them selfless.

I'm interested to hear other people's thoughts on this. I'm not a neuro-scientist so I'm not sure how grounded in reality all of this is.