What is Post-Human?

[Cognisant]

The word "humanity" implies many things but the definition is essentially one of type, to be human is to be what a human is and regardless of the specifics the thing called "human" is consistent, a human is a single type of thing.

What we are after human will be something that by its nature defies definition, the evolutionary ideal par excellence, a shapeshifter, both in body and mind, how else could such a thing be defined other than as simply "post-human"?

Intelligence has separated us from our animal kin and yet we still haven't quite left our heritage behind, by intelligence we have shaped the world around us but we are still animals and it is reflected in the way we have shaped the world, we have created a vast amusement park to appease our banal desires. This is not the true solution, though as animals we have been incredibly successful the fact remains that we are not just animals, our intelligence is our gift and our curse, it is the purest form of power and with power comes responsibility.

This responsibility is to ourselves and in regard to it we are failing utterly, billions are chocking to death on their own fat while millions of others starve because despite our intelligence we still think like animals, still thinking of ourselves against the world when really the battle has long since been won.

The true solution is not to change the world around us but rather to change ourselves, our animal instincts and desires are a security blanket we must let go, it is human to eat the things we currently consider food but if we were no longer bound by being human we could eat anything and it would be fine; why change the world around us when by understanding ourselves we gain the means the change ourselves and so be liberated from the constraints of being human?

A human sees luxury in a five star hotel room, stocked with flowers, drink and food, a large soft bed with clean warm sheets, the room itself well lit and meticulously climate controlled, all of it created for the exact purpose of appeasing the senses of the simian, whereas a post-human could experience equal luxury in the baking desert or the depths of a cold dark sewer, because it doesn't matter where it is, the post-human is perfectly comfortable.

Also because it is freed of banal impulses the psychological desires of a post-human would be different to our own, more nuanced, sentimental yet amoral, how much fun it would be to descend from the stars and mess with the minds of lesser creatures, enjoying the drama and frivolity of their lives vicariously.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EldritchAbomination

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LovecraftianSuperpower

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

Well, I'm only 19, but slowly I'm creating my desire: to develop transhumanism and become posthuman (or ubermensch). Every day I am observing people and myself and I see a lot of stiupidness, because people (and me) are controled by very old system: emotions, and rarely by newer: logic.

posthuman for me is someone, who can control his needs, emotions, feelings and has much more intelectual power

if everyone could be guide by logic, there wouldn't be things like starving and fat people

but for now... emotions and feelings are the most powerful things what control people

 

[The Void]

I am the real post human supersane void master.
This is post-human:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFhrMiEvwYA

 

[Pyropyro]

Hence why I prefer that humans evolve into an emphatic hivemind. How can you be selfish if there's no self to begin with?

 

[Anktark]

Hence why I prefer that humans evolve into an emphatic hivemind. How can you be selfish if there's no self to begin with?

I don't like hiveminds, too restricted in my opinion.


On topic:

I find it funny how many want to live on the Moon or on Mars, yet so few humans live here on Earth. All people are born Homo Sapiens, but I hope (as a worst case scenario) I will die as a human.

 

[Architect]

I find it funny how many want to live on the Moon or on Mars, yet so few humans live here on Earth. All people are born Homo Sapiens, but I hope (as a worst case scenario) I will die as a human.

I have no desire to go off planet, unless we invent Star Trek style travel, with holosuites, warp drive, ten forward and plenty of aliens to make it entertaining.

 

[Architect]

A human sees luxury in a five star hotel room, stocked with flowers, drink and food, a large soft bed with clean warm sheets, the room itself well lit and meticulously climate controlled, all of it created for the exact purpose of appeasing the senses of the simian, whereas a post-human could experience equal luxury in the baking desert or the depths of a cold dark sewer, because it doesn't matter where it is, the post-human is perfectly comfortable.

I think your interpolation is not correct. Use historical examples; a pre-human would see luxury as a bit of dirty food and lack of predators, and a modern human would see it as the hotel you describe above. A future human would be free of physical constrains that we suffer from, such as having to exercise and weight concern. We already know how to turn off the "fat gene" in mice, relatively soon we should have gene therapy for humans such that we can eat what we want without having to worry about gaining weight.

Eventually as trans humans we'll be free of physical constraints altogether - that will be ultimate luxury. No more issues with getting sick, having our teeth rot, feeling bad, having to exercise and excrete.

 

[Spocksleftball]

We haven't evolved quite so far, and most never will. Idiocracy is far more likely than Star Trek in our future. With a decline in death through war, disease, and famine the lower rungs of society will eventually out bread the small subset of smarter and/or successful people until intellect is diluted to critical levels. Or maybe not...

 

[The Void]

I am sure things will get messed up after transhumanism.
There will be religious people fighting for purity.
There will super advanced transhuman criminals roaming around.
Some guys may limit stuff and make transhuman use special stuff every month or so, to maintain
their body and stuff....to make profit.
Then there will be ww3 and everyone will die.
Happy ending.

 

[Black Rose]

We will still be bound by the pain pleasure axis. The reason we choose to continue living will be aesthetics. The body may change but the nanotube crystallized brain structure morphs and retain consciousness. Money is irrelevant to being able to grow anything from carbon dioxide in minutes. Hyper dimensional thinking least leave the physical mute to enjoyment.

http://youtu.be/nQOyJUDTKdM

 

[Turniphead]

Well, I'm only 19, but slowly I'm creating my desire: to develop transhumanism and become posthuman (or ubermensch). Every day I am observing people and myself and I see a lot of stiupidness, because people (and me) are controled by very old system: emotions, and rarely by newer: logic.

posthuman for me is someone, who can control his needs, emotions, feelings and has much more intelectual power

if everyone could be guide by logic, there wouldn't be things like starving and fat people

but for now... emotions and feelings are the most powerful things what control people

Emotions are necessary to make decisions. Emotions are a motivating factor. Without them there is no reason to not starve or be fat. Logically is there a reason why it matters if someone is starving? Survival? Why does that matter? Because being alive feels better than being dead(arguable(off topic)).

Logic is great, but an intelligence without feelings has no reason to do anything at all.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

Emotions are necessary to make decisions. Emotions are a motivating factor. Without them there is no reason to not starve or be fat. Logically is there a reason why it matters if someone is starving? Survival? Why does that matter? Because being alive feels better than being dead(arguable(off topic)).

Logic is great, but an intelligence without feelings has no reason to do anything at all.

Yes, you're right. I have read a lot about emotions and their role, but what I want to say, is that posthuman won't need them.

 

[Cognisant]

I'm saying a posthuman will be able to choose its own emotional biases and this freedom of choice would necessitate a very rational mind so as not to be a danger to itself.

We will still be bound by the pain pleasure axis.

Not strictly bound, but then again a purely objective mind has no biases and thus no motivation, so a posthuman would have to posses the pain/pleasure biases in some form but it would still be self aware enough to override them, if it wants to.

 

[Auburn]

We will still be bound by the pain pleasure axis. The reason we choose to continue living will be aesthetics.

I'm inclined to agree with this. Or at least think it's thinking in the right direction. While we may be able to eliminate the impetus for the majority of our (then obsolete) motives, it leaves to question what sort of 'desires' a post-human will have. It makes as much sense to say we'll have the endless ability to satisfy our desire for 'comfort/etc', as it does to say we'll grow past the desire for that and it will become obsolete within our interests.

It'd be curious to experiment and find out what things can be fundamentally kept. For example, I can see various 'species' of post-human diverging (as the divergent process of evolution usually goes), some of which have a lack of the pleasure/pain axis, others which have even more mechanical (inorganic) qualities and a lack of needs such as validation/love - while still being incredibly cognizant. Others still may decide to fully assimilate the 'human nature' precisely as it stands today, complete with its primal cravings and aspirations, but just translated into a digital platform.

I think as we enter a new environment (interstellar space), we'll come to realize what traits can be kept and which ones ultimately lead to our destruction or halting of progress.

 

[Cognisant]

In japanese mythology (fuck I'm a weebo) there's the shapeshifting tanuki (raccoon dog) and kitsune (fox) and I think their antics demonstrate how a posthuman would behave. They're tricksters and petty thieves but rarely outright malicious (unless you cross them in some way) who are fond of partying and heavy drinking (after all if you can't really be poisoned why wouldn't you indulge) but they also sometimes act as guides, guardians, caretakers and even minor deities.

This is a lot like how people behave in games around lesser players and NPCs, having no impulses other than their psychological desires people tend to "grief" or act benevolently, but even a griefer isn't going to be overly malicious, certianly they'll kill you but in games death is cheap whereas if you invest a lot of time in something (such as a castle in minecraft) and clearly care about it they'll tend to leave it alone or just superficially damage it.

Y'see it's all about getting a reaction and you don't get that reaction if they just log off, likewise being benevolent is about getting a reaction too, so I suppose in the absence of physical needs or desires the psychological desire to serve one's ego takes precedence, except a posthuman (unlike a player in a game) can indulge in physical pleasures (eating, drinking, sex, combat, etc).

Alucard from Hellsing would be a more griefer like posthuman, he's psychotic but doesn't really go out of his way to kill people, instead he wants to pick a fight with anyone he thinks can challenge him and that's also very griefer like, heck there could be entire worlds where posthumans battle each other for sport.

Which also reminds me of tengu and stories in which various swordsmen or martial artists have encountered them and impressed them enough to receive training or "magical items".

 

[Ribald]

We haven't evolved quite so far, and most never will. Idiocracy is far more likely than Star Trek in our future. With a decline in death through war, disease, and famine the lower rungs of society will eventually out bread the small subset of smarter and/or successful people until intellect is diluted to critical levels. Or maybe not...

Idiocracy? You really think that is what things will be like in a couple hundred years? Dude, that's some stupid movie.

People are actually getting smarter. Look up the Flynn effect. An average person in 1930 would be mildly retarded by today's standards. Honestly, is that really a surprise? We live in a world where people smash protons together at the speed of light and take pictures of the universe.

Of course, arrogant people always like to whine about how people seem to be getting dumber. Really it is just people failing to continue to give a shit about what the arrogant person considers intelligent, which tends to be quite self-serving.

Star Trek is an equally poor approximation of the future. In fact it is absolutely pathetic and laughable, especially that those things would take until the 2300s to occur.

I am sure things will get messed up after transhumanism.
There will be religious people fighting for purity.
There will super advanced transhuman criminals roaming around.
Some guys may limit stuff and make transhuman use special stuff every month or so, to maintain
their body and stuff....to make profit.
Then there will be ww3 and everyone will die.
Happy ending.

Religious people? I doubt it. Religion is rapidly getting abandoned even now. Religious people in the later 21st century will be about as common as alchemists are now.

Transhuman criminals is also highly questionable, but perhaps. That really seems more like projecting today's world onto the future. In the future there won't be much of a reason to be a criminal due to radical abundance, unless you just so happen to be a psychopath or sadist or something--but we will have quite easily cured those conditions. In fact, we will have certainly cured all negative emotion. It's not particularly difficult to do.

We will still be bound by the pain pleasure axis. The reason we choose to continue living will be aesthetics. The body may change but the nanotube crystallized brain structure morphs and retain consciousness. Money is irrelevant to being able to grow anything from carbon dioxide in minutes. Hyper dimensional thinking least leave the physical mute to enjoyment.

We will not continue to be bound by the pleasure pain axis, or what David Pearce calls the 'hedonic treadmill'.

Ray Kurzweil is a good read, but a full understanding of transhumanism as it stands is not complete until one reads Pearce. Start with his review of Brave New World, which can be found at www.huxley.net. In it, he lays the foundation for post-human super wellbeing, which does not nearly need to be accomplished by dumb drugs like soma.

 

[Cognisant]

I want to keep this one

 

[Variform]

What we are after human will be something that by its nature defies definition, the evolutionary ideal par excellence, a shapeshifter, both in body and mind, how else could such a thing be defined other than as simply "post-human"?

Intelligence has separated us from our animal kin and yet we still haven't quite left our heritage behind, by intelligence we have shaped the world around us but we are still animals and it is reflected in the way we have shaped the world, we have created a vast amusement park to appease our banal desires. This is not the true solution, though as animals we have been incredibly successful the fact remains that we are not just animals, our intelligence is our gift and our curse, it is the purest form of power and with power comes responsibility.

This responsibility is to ourselves and in regard to it we are failing utterly, billions are chocking to death on their own fat while millions of others starve because despite our intelligence we still think like animals, still thinking of ourselves against the world when really the battle has long since been won.

The true solution is not to change the world around us but rather to change ourselves, our animal instincts and desires are a security blanket we must let go, it is human to eat the things we currently consider food but if we were no longer bound by being human we could eat anything and it would be fine; why change the world around us when by understanding ourselves we gain the means the change ourselves and so be liberated from the constraints of being human?

A human sees luxury in a five star hotel room, stocked with flowers, drink and food, a large soft bed with clean warm sheets, the room itself well lit and meticulously climate controlled, all of it created for the exact purpose of appeasing the senses of the simian, whereas a post-human could experience equal luxury in the baking desert or the depths of a cold dark sewer, because it doesn't matter where it is, the post-human is perfectly comfortable.

Also because it is freed of banal impulses the psychological desires of a post-human would be different to our own, more nuanced, sentimental yet amoral, how much fun it would be to descend from the stars and mess with the minds of lesser creatures, enjoying the drama and frivolity of their lives vicariously.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EldritchAbomination

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LovecraftianSuperpower

Some sharp perceptions here man.

The fantastic Terrence McKenna talked about some of this. He talked about the Eschaton and post 2012. Many people here will have heard about him and laugh. But I doubt these people understand him.

Anyway, he thought deeply on this subject. He said that out future would be among the stars, but also said that he didn't believe there was a difference between inner and outer space. He believed we would transcend into our own imagination.

The richness of his thoughts cannot be easily described here, but one of his ideas was that technology would miniaturize to the point man would wander around paradise and all his technology would be in a grain of sand somewhere on a beach in Madagascar. He also said one day maybe we can touch a tooth with your tongue and gain access to the complete library of congress.

So he talked about cybernetics and the human-computer interface.

He also suggested that our technological advance in genetics could play a role, that ultimately we could shape the way we look. Here he mentioned his thoughts on psychedelics, namely, the mushroom.

He toyed with the idea that what you encounter in the psychedelic experience could be the alien, a being, or intellect of some kind that has done this. He said that the mushroom could be regarded as a self-aware species, that shaped its own shape and dwelt inside its own mind. He never mentioned this, but that is what solipsism is about in my book.

He mentioned it is a very modest organism. It spreads underground but has this..appendix that sticks out above the surface, where it stores these chemicals that are connected to our brain chemistry. And related very closely to it.

Whether or not the mushroom is in some way self-aware, or an entity native to Earth that has undergone the transformation to a new state of being remains to be seen. The fact is, when you take it, and take enough of it, that is, at least 7 grams dried Psilocybe mushrooms, you enter into something that is not yourself.

So once a species gets the ability to change its shape, there are no longer limits. Even mushroom spores may survive the trip to other worlds through the void of space. Some of these spores are known to be so tough, that they seem to be among the hardest materials found in the natural world.

It is not a great stretch of the imagination that one day we can create a human that looks like a spore, spread them out towards the stars to find new worlds and begin life there. And maybe that is what the mushroom on our world is, or so he played with the idea.

You see, there is no reason for a mushroom to have this chemicals in them. In other plants we find DMT or dimethyltriptamine. There is no knowledge of why these plants have this in them and why so many plants have it in them. Besides that, it is also present in the human brain, in our bloodstream and some other organs. And it is an illegal drug!

Why is there a triptamine present in both plants and humans? We don't know. But when you take DMT, all hell breaks loose on your perception of reality.

And so, the idea that a transhuman would be shapeless and choose his own appearance is not such an eldritch idea.

Combine that with the notion that DNA seems to braodcast signals, you get awfully close to an almost eerie self-consciosuness present on this word. The Anima Mundi, the Logos of the ancient Greeks, or our global human subs conscience.

The problems in our society is one of people not asking the question of 'how to be in the world'. McKenna phrased it like that and I have adopted this phrasing because it is such a basal question. How to be in the world.

As humans, as naked apes of some kind we are clueless about what we are, what this self consciousness is. We even wage war on it through drug laws. Like I said, we have DMT in our bodies right now and are therefore illegal 'users'.
We do not know what to do with this self-awareness, what it comes out of, what it is or how to apply it to our lives. We basically are just screwing around thinking that the paradigms we have established are somehow the way to go. Capitalism, economic theory, consumption of matter in all forms and sizes, religions, the whole human experience is basically throwing a handful of leaves in the wind of an autumn storm. And then see where the ship runs ashore.

You will seem me ask this question a lot. How to be in the world. Why do you buy your cell phone knowing it is a privacy=human right violating device? Why do you act the way you do, morally, amorally, immorally?

Why are we here on this Earth? These questions are all related to the very concept of humananess in the future.

McKenna also offered the idea that if we leave this world for the stars one day, in whatever form, we do not go alone. We all go. That is, the whole collective genome of this world will leave this womb we call a planet and we will find other worlds and life will spread.

Personally we are in a neck of time and our own moral choices and conduct will set the future: how to be on the Earth means concretely, what will you buy or leave in the shop. How will you prevent climate changes, causing species extinction. Will your life reflect a more noble goal for mankind or are you part of the problem?

I don't see our current western culture continue for much longer. And I make no mistake in taking my lifespan as a measuring system to define what is short or long term. But our rampant hyper-consumption, our lack of understanding on what we are as a species, the models we embrace, such as science and religion, these are things that drive us nowhere. We are systemically caught up in a Matrix type illusion by our lack of understanding.

We accept models as replacements for reality easily, we are prone to symbolism of the wrong kind. And so we are getting closer to peak oil, peak everything rather, with our climate destabilizing, losing species, toxifying our environment and are clueless and divided about how to stop it while the energy industry actively pays for pseudo-science to debunk climate science.

Our culture cannot last another 100 years, let alone continue smoothly to the 24th century. I doubt we will even make it to 2100.

Because with all that going on, we repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Periods of relative freedom, prosperity and respect are turned away for periods of ideology, war, loss of freedoms, disrespect for human values. It is a cycle. And now western culture is creating a new societal format of totalitarian, dictatorial police surveillance/nanny state that transcends all former notions of democracy and freedom.

Combine that with dwindling resources and having no answer to what a human ape on Earth is supposed to be doing...and you will see the disintegration of the status quo. There will be no science in the future, no techno-optimism with people believing that 'they will find a technological fix for our problems' as science and technology are things based on the scraping of the cream of society in economical sense: all our societies are based on energy, cheap, abundant energy. We can do science in schools and universities only because we have a working economic system that can scrape resources together and when that economic system fails, you can kiss all that goodbye.

I am alive in a time that lives on dreams, lacks technorealism and is heading straight into cataclysm. I'll die before I see it all fall down hard. I guess it will last another 40 years or so. How I die remains to be seen, there might not be old folks homes anymore.

Maybe they will euthanasia me because of overpopulation. That will be fine. I will go on. I know this. I know this deeply. Reality is not what we experience on a day to day level. I will enter into a bandwidth of the imagination.

But it is my hope one day people ask themselves 'how to be in the world'.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I want to keep ^this one.

 

[Cognisant]

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only person who dosen't get high or trip balls every other weekend.

Then again there is that drinking problem. (Only had three thus far tonight)

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only person who dosen't get high or trip balls every other weekend.

Then again there is that drinking problem. (Only had three thus far tonight)

I'm not sure it's a frequency thing as opposed to an experience thing.

 

[The Void]

Idiocracy? You really think that is what things will be like in a couple hundred years? Dude, that's some stupid movie.

People are actually getting smarter. Look up the Flynn effect. An average person in 1930 would be mildly retarded by today's standards. Honestly, is that really a surprise? We live in a world where people smash protons together at the speed of light and take pictures of the universe.

Of course, arrogant people always like to whine about how people seem to be getting dumber. Really it is just people failing to continue to give a shit about what the arrogant person considers intelligent, which tends to be quite self-serving.

Star Trek is an equally poor approximation of the future. In fact it is absolutely pathetic and laughable, especially that those things would take until the 2300s to occur.



Religious people? I doubt it. Religion is rapidly getting abandoned even now. Religious people in the later 21st century will be about as common as alchemists are now.

Transhuman criminals is also highly questionable, but perhaps. That really seems more like projecting today's world onto the future. In the future there won't be much of a reason to be a criminal due to radical abundance, unless you just so happen to be a psychopath or sadist or something--but we will have quite easily cured those conditions. In fact, we will have certainly cured all negative emotion. It's not particularly difficult to do.




We will not continue to be bound by the pleasure pain axis, or what David Pearce calls the 'hedonic treadmill'.

Ray Kurzweil is a good read, but a full understanding of transhumanism as it stands is not complete until one reads Pearce. Start with his review of Brave New World, which can be found at www.huxley.net. In it, he lays the foundation for post-human super wellbeing, which does not nearly need to be accomplished by dumb drugs like soma.

If no one remains to mess up the world in future, I must be still there to inflict some poison in human mind to mess themselves up and then die peacefully by keeping the fire alive.

 

[The Void]

The world must burn forever.

 

[Spocksleftball]

Idiocracy? You really think that is what things will be like in a couple hundred years? Dude, that's some stupid movie.

People are actually getting smarter. Look up the Flynn effect. An average person in 1930 would be mildly retarded by today's standards. Honestly, is that really a surprise? We live in a world where people smash protons together at the speed of light and take pictures of the universe.

Of course, arrogant people always like to whine about how people seem to be getting dumber. Really it is just people failing to continue to give a shit about what the arrogant person considers intelligent, which tends to be quite self-serving.

Did I say "I think" idiocracy was the model? No, I said it was more likely than Star Trek. Arrogance is reading your own opinion or counter-opinion into posts in order to find opportunities to make off topic commentary.

As for people getting smarter, that is a debate that continues. I do not think one can make a definitive statement as a universal truth on the topic. More capacity to use technology, yes people are smarter; 30 days after all electricity is cut off, I seriously doubt it.


And, let us not forget that it was Douglas Adams that first suggested that forcibly removing a portion of the population from earth would cause the remainder of the population to die from phone receiver infections.

 

[Ribald]

As for people getting smarter, that is a debate that continues. I do not think one can make a definitive statement as a universal truth on the topic. More capacity to use technology, yes people are smarter; 30 days after all electricity is cut off, I seriously doubt it.

That has nothing to do with IQ though. You aren't allowed to use technology on IQ tests, and yet people are still showing a marked increased with every generation. In other words, if you took someone with no survival skills in 1930 and someone with no survival skills from today and put them in the woods, the one from today would be more likely to figure out how to survive. You're using your own definition of intelligence. In terms of IQ, there is no debate. Society is getting smarter.

The point is, though, that you pretty undeniably made the claim that you think smart people are getting weeded out of society, when really they are not (IQ is well correlated with life success, actually). There is no dumbing down. I will reiterate that I believe that certain arrogant people like to go around complaining that everyone is getting dumber, for transparent reasons. You've merely shifted your premise now, making it about survival skills. A lack of survival skills is by no means dumb, however. After all, a squirrel is pretty badass as a outdoor survivalist.

 

[Spocksleftball]

That has nothing to do with IQ though. You aren't allowed to use technology on IQ tests, and yet people are still showing a marked increased with every generation. In other words, if you took someone with no survival skills in 1930 and someone with no survival skills from today and put them in the woods, the one from today would be more likely to figure out how to survive. You're using your own definition of intelligence. In terms of IQ, there is no debate. Society is getting smarter.

The point is, though, that you pretty undeniably made the claim that you think smart people are getting weeded out of society, when really they are not (IQ is well correlated with life success, actually). There is no dumbing down. I will reiterate that I believe that certain arrogant people like to go around complaining that everyone is getting dumber, for transparent reasons. You've merely shifted your premise now, making it about survival skills. A lack of survival skills is by no means dumb, however. After all, a squirrel is pretty badass as a outdoor survivalist.

Excuse my French but what a load do merde. I.Q has nothing to say on the topic of average intellect unless your sample size from both periods are measured in the exact same way using a double blind study. The cross sections of society alone would be impossible because of race, education, and socioeconomic status. Unless of course you are making the speculative inference that a large portion change in ethnic demographics since the 1930s in the US have played a part in making people smarter. Seems like an inconsistent idea when one notes also the ample proof that most I.Q. tests are biased towards Western European culture--you know...the people that designed the tests...


As you are applying my word to me through your own lens, I cannot contend with your conclusions about me. However, my thoughts on devolution are as sound as any utopian model you want to discredit it with. No one here complained about people getting dumber, I observe without a definitive conclusion. You, on the other hand, are so quick to proclaim conclusions based solely on dismissal that I suspect now the you are perhaps very J.


As for arrogant people, this place is full of them. Sometimes I suspect those that are speaking to me are actually looking in the mirror. Arrogance would be someone showing up and concluding someone else is arrogant by reading a single post.

 

[The Introvert]

https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&t...tive_literature_studies/v041/41.3berkley.html


"For one, I would like to turn back to the pre-cybernetic era of the nineteenth century to examine a particular version of post-human subjectivity-and with it, an overturning of the subject of liberal humanism-that we can already see at work in the writings of Edgar Allan Poe..."

 

[Ribald]

Arrogance would be someone showing up and concluding someone else is arrogant by reading a single post.

I am just that good.

But to me it just sounds like "your thoughts" on the matter aren't your own. They are echoes that I have heard before. It's all about who you read.

 

[Cognisant]

An individual IQ test doesn't seem very accurate but trends in broader scale analysis cannot just be explained away, Spocksleftball I agree with you on principle but until more rigorous testing is done the existing evidence supports Ribald.

Then again the ancient Aztecs ritually murdered people because the "existing evidence" suggested the world would be plunged into darkness if they didn't, so on the off chance this discussion ever amounts to anything more than armchair Pness jousting I'm calling a hung jury.

 

[Spocksleftball]

...off chance this discussion ever amounts to anything more than armchair Pness jousting I'm calling a hung jury.

Pness joust...hung jury. double entendres that accurately describe the meat of the arguement.

 

[scorpiomover]

People are actually getting smarter. Look up the Flynn effect. An average person in 1930 would be mildly retarded by today's standards. Honestly, is that really a surprise? We live in a world where people smash protons together at the speed of light and take pictures of the universe.

The Flynn effect:

Some studies have found the gains of the Flynn effect to be particularly concentrated at the lower end of the distribution. Teasdale and Owen (1989), for example, found the effect primarily reduced the number of low-end scores, resulting in an increased number of moderately high scores, with no increase in very high scores.[10] In another study, two large samples of Spanish children were assessed with a 30-year gap. Comparison of the IQ distributions indicated that the mean IQ-scores on the test had increased by 9.7 points (the Flynn effect), the gains were concentrated in the lower half of the distribution and negligible in the top half, and the gains gradually decreased as the IQ of the individuals increased.[11] Some studies have found a reverse Flynn effect with declining scores for those with high IQ.[12]

Idiots have been getting smarter for decades. The highly-intelligent physicists who are smashing protons together at the speed of light and taking pictures of the universe, have not.

Flynn's own explanation for the phenomenon:

In 1987, Flynn took the position that the very large increase indicates that IQ tests do not measure intelligence but only a minor sort of "abstract problem-solving ability" with little practical significance. He argued that if IQ gains do reflect intelligence increases, there would have been consequent changes of our society that have not been observed (a presumed non-occurrence of a "cultural renaissance").[9] Flynn has since elaborated and refined his view of what rising IQ scores mean.

----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------​

Religious people? I doubt it. Religion is rapidly getting abandoned even now. Religious people in the later 21st century will be about as common as alchemists are now.

Growth of religion:

According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the World Christian Database as of 2007 has Islam as the fastest growing religion in the world.[94]

In terms of absolute numbers, irreligion appears to be increasing (along with secularization generally).[99] Even so, it is decreasing as a percentage of the world population, due primarily to population increases in more religious developing countries outpacing population growth (or decline) in less religious developed countries. (See the geographic distribution of atheism.)

----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------​

Religious people in the later 21st century will be about as common as alchemists are now.

We call them chemists now, or "materials scientists". They are involved in the production and improvement of modern chemicals, construction materials, packagings, artificial bags and containers, foods and drinks, just to name a few of the areas that they're involved in.

----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------​

Transhuman criminals is also highly questionable, but perhaps. That really seems more like projecting today's world onto the future. In the future there won't be much of a reason to be a criminal due to radical abundance, unless you just so happen to be a psychopath or sadist or something--but we will have quite easily cured those conditions. In fact, we will have certainly cured all negative emotion. It's not particularly difficult to do.

Several years ago, it was reported that some groups of highly-organised criminals had set up sites that exactly mirrored the sites for several UK high-street banks. They were extremely good quality. They got all the details down. Much better than your typical web designer. They obviously had some seriously high-quality web designers and programmers on board.

In 2011, a riot started in the UK. It originally was sparked off, due to the death of Marc Duggan, a black man who was shot dead by the police. This quickly sparked off riots in a few other areas. Then suddenly, lots of cities had riots. Thousands were involved in each city. There were so many in each city, that the police decided that it was too much for them, and didn't even bother to use riot gear. They just let the rioters do as they wanted. Then it was reported that the rioters were specifically targeting goods that were easy to sell for a big profit. Then it was reported that the reason that the lootings were done in such an organised and highly profitable way, was because criminal gangs had organised themselves to take advantage of the riots, to make themselves some serious money.

 

[Ribald]

The Flynn effect:Idiots have been getting smarter for decades. The highly-intelligent physicists who are smashing protons together at the speed of light and taking pictures of the universe, have not.

Flynn's own explanation for the phenomenon:

That doesn't surprise me. The point about Idiocracy still stands. As for Flynn's explanation, IQ does appear to have some practical significance if it is correlated with life success, and it is.

I would very much argue his point that that this sort of abstract thinking has no practical significance. It has no application in many situations; for instance, you don't need a 160 IQ to master the multiplication table. But you do need it to, say, build a nuclear power plant.

I also find it a bit hard to believe there isn't a renaissance going on right now. How big of a change do we expect to see, and how fast?

There is some speculation here from everyone, myself included.

Growth of religion:

Several years ago, it was reported that some groups of highly-organised criminals had set up sites that exactly mirrored the sites for several UK high-street banks. They were extremely good quality. They got all the details down. Much better than your typical web designer. They obviously had some seriously high-quality web designers and programmers on board.

The thought occurred to me to address that, and I acknowledge it is true. It is one thing that scares me about the world. Didn't want to open the Islam can-of-worms, but my prediction is based a bit on my hope and belief that the way of the developed world will prevail by the end of the century. Hopefully (again) it is also possible that the many Muslims being born will not be particularly fanatical about it. The trend towards atheism is one thing, but the trend towards weakly held "in name only" religious beliefs seems to be even more prevalent.

In 2011, a riot started in the UK. It originally was sparked off, due to the death of Marc Duggan, a black man who was shot dead by the police. This quickly sparked off riots in a few other areas. Then suddenly, lots of cities had riots. Thousands were involved in each city. There were so many in each city, that the police decided that it was too much for them, and didn't even bother to use riot gear. They just let the rioters do as they wanted. Then it was reported that the rioters were specifically targeting goods that were easy to sell for a big profit. Then it was reported that the reason that the lootings were done in such an organised and highly profitable way, was because criminal gangs had organised themselves to take advantage of the riots, to make themselves some serious money.

I don't at all deny that criminals these days are as motivated and clever as ever. But my post was about the future, not 2011. The fact that this sort of crime exists today isn't surprising at all, and doesn't say much about the future.

It is, of course, a given that my comment on the absence of crime in the future was speculative, but I have my reasons for making it. Primarily, I suppose, I don't think anything we would call capitalism will make it through this century. If all goes well, the world will become post-scarcity and we will make leaps and bounds in discoveries about mental health and societal systems.

 

[scorpiomover]

That doesn't surprise me. The point about Idiocracy still stands.

What point? That you claimed that people are getting smarter, and that on that basis, the argument that Idiocracy cannot happen, cannot be correct? I think you'd have to prove that people are getting smarter, first. To do that, you cited Flynn's IQ scores, which Flynn himself called into question. So the basis of your argument is unsound. Thus, your claim hasn't even got off the ground yet.

As for Flynn's explanation, IQ does appear to have some practical significance if it is correlated with life success, and it is.

2-3 points higher in the same profession, and there's a correlation with increased success. 10-15 points higher in the same profession, and there's a strong correlation with increased failure. Like saying that drinking wine is correlated with increased health, because half a glass a day is correlated with increased health, which it is.

I would very much argue his point that that this sort of abstract thinking has no practical significance. It has no application in many situations; for instance, you don't need a 160 IQ to master the multiplication table. But you do need it to, say, build a nuclear power plant.

Do you want Sheldon Cooper running the machines that pour in the foundations for a nuclear power plant? Have you seen how he drives a car?

I also find it a bit hard to believe there isn't a renaissance going on right now. How big of a change do we expect to see, and how fast?

IIRC, Flynn's discovery was that IQ points had been rising 3 points a decade, since the 1930s. By now, over 8 decades of this effect. the average school-kid should be 3 times as smart as his teacher, and the average adult should be smarter than the average scientist.

The thought occurred to me to address that, and I acknowledge it is true. It is one thing that scares me about the world. Didn't want to open the Islam can-of-worms, but my prediction is based a bit on my hope and belief that the way of the developed world will prevail by the end of the century.

Fear and hope have no place in an impartial analysis.

Hopefully (again) it is also possible that the many Muslims being born will not be particularly fanatical about it. The trend towards atheism is one thing, but the trend towards weakly held "in name only" religious beliefs seems to be even more prevalent.

Scientists studying atheism across different countries, found that proportions of militant atheism and religious extremism is correlated with levels of economic inequality. The USA and the UK have both increased significantly in economic inequality in the last few decades.

I don't at all deny that criminals these days are as motivated and clever as ever. But my post was about the future, not 2011. The fact that this sort of crime exists today isn't surprising at all, and doesn't say much about the future.

It is, when you consider that IQs are supposed to have risen to the level of the average scientist, and for most criminals, a lower IQ means they commit less crimes and less dangerous crimes.

It is, of course, a given that my comment on the absence of crime in the future was speculative, but I have my reasons for making it. Primarily, I suppose, I don't think anything we would call capitalism will make it through this century. If all goes well, the world will become post-scarcity and we will make leaps and bounds in discoveries about mental health and societal systems.

It sounds very Star Trek Federation. But we've become MORE capitalist, not less.