I'd never be transhuman, but I wouldn't have a problem with replacing a lost part of the body with an artificial one. Immortality just ain't right. Humans shouldn't attempt to escape the laws of nature even further - it would have devastating consequences for all other lifeforms.
In a heart beat. Provided the technology was tried and tested, and that essentially I retain the soul and essence that is me, I would have no problems giving this body a shunt. Also I would still like to retain my sensory system. I couldn't imagine life with out touch, smell etc.
I would be interested to know wether those who said no, have essentially healthily bodies and no threat of dying early. Turns out my body is defective, thus, I'm somewhat motivated by that. I don't want to live for ever. I don't think humans are built for that, but I do want my three score and ten. Funny, a year ago, I would have answered differently.
Currently submerged under an avalanche of books and paper work. I may come back up for air from time to time.
Real life awaits and she is a demanding mistress.
as for death, not only is it an option (deleting yourself - sucide), but you'd actually share the basic vulnerability of the entire human civilization. it won't be that nothing can kill you, its that in order for anything to kill you it would need smash out the infrastructure that maintains you. how about that as a drive? cooperative mortality?
Absolutely not. I am fine with myself the way I am with what God gave me, and changing that would make me feel as if I am not really who I am, or who I am meant to be. It would all be fake, and I value my authenticity.
Maybe not within this generation...but within the next couple it's going to be a real question. As it stands, it's looking more a question of "when" and not "if".
it doesn't matter if it's medical, industrial or virtual reality, we would still be dependent on our civilization's infrastructure to support those "immortal" lives - which mean we would be vulnerable as a whole. any existential risks to us as a civilization would be a risk to our "immortality" and lives in general, and since risks like that do exist, we wouldn't really be immortal, just sharing our mortality with each other.
To me transhumanism is a form of sentient life having started as a human that a human born in say.. the 1800s would no longer recognize as human. If you're wearing a Bluetooth or are on the pill I doubt any human born in the last thousand years would be like "WTF IS THAT?!?!"
Article about biohackers like a chick who cut her fingers open and put magnets under her skin so she could feel electromagnetic fields (hot!)
My friend and I were scouting for abandoned warehouses to work on our genetic virus to make humans more altruistic before he fucking went off on his commando mission :/
To the people saying immortality is not for them/wrong what do you say to the argument that because we have always had to die we come up with thoughts, feelings, arguments, etc that justify death out of fear that our loved ones died for naught, etc etc?
I actually considered these things when starting the thread, but disregarded them as too pedantic to address.
If you examine the ethics of the whole mess I'm sure you'll find them suitable as analogies to any futuristic advanced technology.
For example if you are hypothetically opposed to a futuristic device that enhances brain function beyond what is natural, what about cognitive drugs combined with the free information of the internet? Or even mundane audio amplification devices, or binoculars?
If you are hypothetically opposed to invasiveness, what about pacemakers, cochlear implants, or any other surgical procedure?
It's like the slippery slope argument, but in reverse. (omg nazis and slavery)