Modern examples of functional transhumanism

Post Reply New Topic

Here is a lady who is a double amputee. Since she swims a company called WETA made her a mermaid tail.

Its a good example of alternate prosthetics and how they improve quality of life. Its also a thing of great beauty and functionality.

http://www.wetanz.com/a-mermaid-s-tale/

I read about this earlier. IMHO this is pretty awesome.

Great find. Thanks for posting the transhumanism content, something that always fascinates me.

ooh!
I loves it, Fuzzy Wuzzy!

What does this have to do with transhumanism? Humans have been making prosthetics since God invented dirt. The peg-leg goes back at least 3000 years. We have been getting better at it lately, but this is not an essential modification of the human body. Underneath our genome is still what it has been been for about a quarter of a million years.

ruveyn

Is Kevin Warwick closer to an example of transhumanism?

You have a pretty narrow idea of what transhumanism is. Though a portion of it is devoted to modification of the human phenome, messing with the genome is not strictly necessary. Even more so than shaping bodies, its about shaping our minds and society.



That lady has two prosthetic legs already. So would she want the tail? I guess mimicing a regular human wasn't enough for her? She envisioned herself as a mermaid and found a way to turn her disability into a new experience.

Thats transhumanism.

Look at this gentleman.




What if I had my leg bones stretched over a period of months or years to assist in running? My genome is unchanged, but my form(and abilities) sure have.

What if I had a solid state memory chip that I could record a copy of my vision to, giving me a form of eidetic memory? What if I had an artificial eye that could see into the infrared spectrum? At what point is my life experience "more than human"?

None of these things are a change to my genome, and because we have language and share our experiences, these changes that affect only me have a lasting effect on humanity.

This man has a camera for an eye. It is partially implanted in his skull. Just in case you didnt think it was possible. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... n18609498/

Also genetic alteration would probably be among the least practical means of modifying the human condition. We might be able to use it to fix genetic diseases, and to replicate already extant traits, but as for doing something new, that would probably be nigh impossible. For instance, how would one go about using genetic manipulation to create a new internal organ that does something that's never been done before, like store a couple of hours worth of oxygen by converting it into perchlorate? Even if we could figure it out, it would be far more practical for us to build such an organ ourselves and implant it. To be able to make improvements using genetic means, we would have to be able to first design our improvements, and find some way of translating them into genetic code. However, at present, we can't even look at a string of code and (purely by looking at it) determine what it does; the only way that we can determine what a genetic sequence does is by creating an organism in which that sequence is inactivated and seeing what traits the resulting organism lacks. Such methods are incapable of being used to generate new, novel traits - they only give us the power to shuffle around what already exists.

All of these modification are made with human produced artifacts. No essential change to the underlying organism has taken place. Beneath all those gadgets is a human being.

Physical conditioning can modify one's physical performance. Would you class the result of training and exercise as "transhumanism"?

If someone strapped on a rocket-pack and flew (for a brief period) would he be "transhuman"? I strap on devices that enable me to move under muscle power at nearly ten miles an hour. Roller-blades. I guess they make me "transhuman".


The term "transhuman" is so ill-defined that any modification or extension of ability could qualify as "transhuman". I suppose you could refer to athletes who take performance enhancing drugs as "transhuman".


ruveyn

ruveyn, again, you are associating the H+ movement with a need to tinker with inner cell chemistry.

To embrace transhumanism is not to be a transhuman. All people are humans. Transhumanism is about overcoming human limitations, about the betterment of humanity. It is not about warping your genetic code to the point where you are no longer fecund with regular people.

It is not about "I'm more advanced than you", any more than evolution is about creating a higher life form. Its about adaptation and specialization.

You've seen those two amputees. They are viable participating members of society. They have worth, merit. Whether they strap legs on, or they get them grafted, or new ones grown.. doesnt matter. Technology has improved their lives.

Here is an except from a song from 36 years ago. Its about a Korean war vet.

The titular character of the song is wasting away in bed. Hes going to die young. He knows it, and other people say it too. To be a cripple in those days was almost an assurance of a miserable shortened life.

Mermaid lady is 50. Shes fit and healthy looking. Slim and Athletic.

The diet of a pregnant woman has been proven to influence the expression of the babies DNA, shaping their development.

Exercise? Yes. That too will change your child.


Drugs? Hell yeah they have an effect on genetic expression. Look how alcohol causes FAS and other deleterious effects. Drugs are bad. Alcohol is a drug.

Both Sherpas and deep sea free divers have modified tissue in their organs(especially lungs) from their activities.

Transhumanism is about using technology to improve lives. Its not about making mutants, even though you think it is.

Its not the rocket pack, its what you do with it. Its why you are doing it. Its not the telescope you look through, its what it does to your mind.

Wouldnt you say the invention of the telescope changed humanity, changed the breadth of our experience, our understanding of our place in the universe?

Wouldnt you say its a good thing?

Oh, darlin' it is the wrong war, it is most definately a Vietnam war vet, dear.
everything else is spot on, though.
Merle

You are especially cute when you are wrong. I am too. But check your sources.

Kenny Rogers preformed it in 1972, but he wasnt the first to play the song.

Mel Tillis wrote it prior to 1967, So (after reading), I guess the war Vietnam war was well under way, but the lyrics suggests 'Ruby' had waited some time before effecting her infidelities.

"It wasn't me that started that old crazy Asian war" suggests the narrator had been out of combat for a while, and one doesnt normally refer to something in progress as 'old'.

"She's leaving now 'cause I just heard the slamming of the door
The way I know I've heard it slam a hundred times before"

We cannot take the 'hundred times' literally, of course, but we can take it to be a lot, or for a long time. It takes a long time for bed sores, chronic illness and depression to kill you.

And lastly, Mel Tillis -the writer of the song- was born in 1932. He would likely be writing about someone his own age. At the time he was 40 years old.. pretty old for a maimed Vietnam vet.

So, my dear, I love you to pieces, but until you find a quote from Mister Tillis refuting my postulate:

"ttthhbbpptttt!"

I am afraid you are indeed wrong, Fuzzy.

It is not about a Korean war veteran - it is about a WWII veteran.

Ruby, Don't Take Your Love to Town

(well... near enough....)

Even your quote agrees with me. "The song is about a disabled, dying veteran of "that old crazy Asian war" (the Korean War)", but you are correct it seems, in that it was inspired by a vet from WWII. But that real life story is a little different from the song.

Sure have been a lot of 'crazy Asian wars', eh?

I think Alexander the Great ran into trouble heading east too, didnt he?

Last edited by Fuzzy on 09 Aug 2009, 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.