Transhumanism

''From: Jürgen Hubert''

Thanks to the "Transhuman Space" setting by Steve Jackson Games, the
philosophy of Transhumanism has attracted more attention by the gaming
community. To sum it up, this philosophy holds that pretty much everything
(that doesn't violate the rights of other people) should be allowed in the
quest to "improve" on "normal humanity" - whether that would be human
genetic engineering, cybernetic implants, artificial organs, radical medical
therapies, special drugs or (if it is possible) uploading one's brain
patterns into a software personality simulation (and in a universe where
they exist, supernatural powers will certainly seen as just another tool for
the cause…). The ultimate goal, of course, is immortality, but important
secondary goals are increased intelligence, health, longer life spans, and
doing away with all kinds of frailties of the human body - or even adapting
the human body to wholly new, previously hostile universes.

So, how do you think would Transhumanism fit into the Mythos universe? Is it
a lie, and no amount of technology will make up for human shortcomings? Can
it "improve" on humans, but will it just transform humans into another form
of Mythos entity, thus doing away with their humanity? Or is it the key that
allows humans to achieve a place among the lesser independent races of the
Mythos universe, and staves off their extinction?

''From: James Knevitt''

Thanks to the "Transhuman Space" setting by Steve Jackson Games, the
philosophy of Transhumanism has attracted more attention by the gaming
community. To sum it up, this philosophy holds that pretty much everything
(that doesn't violate the rights of other people) should be allowed in the
quest to "improve" on "normal humanity"

Funnily enough, this has been my own personal philosophy for years, and I was rather
surprised to see it quantified so well in THS.

So, how do you think would Transhumanism fit into the Mythos universe? Is it
a lie, and no amount of technology will make up for human shortcomings? Can
it "improve" on humans, but will it just transform humans into another form
of Mythos entity, thus doing away with their humanity? Or is it the key that
allows humans to achieve a place among the lesser independent races of the
Mythos universe, and staves off their extinction?

In keeping with my own personal favorite, the Hastur Mythos, perhaps a
Transhumanism-like philosophy was what doomed the people of Yhtill and broguth on the
arrival of the Phantom of Truth and the King in Yellow.

''From: The Man in Black''

The ethical problem with human modification and Transhumanist technology is
that it is impossible to develop without extensive human experimentation.
Consider the fact that in modern cloning, perhaps only one viable fetus can
be brought to term out of a hundred attempts, and that the clone may suffer
from a plethora of medical problems as it develops into an adult. Thus, the
very existence of such technology is predicated on the suffering of others.
Furthermore, it is clear to me that there will be NO universal access to
such advanced technology, leading to a morlock/eloi class or caste division
of the species.

Abuse of such technology has the potential to create all sorts of new
horrors. Slaves could be modified against their will for the amusement of
godlike masters and their magical technology. Even barring such nightmare
scenarios, the exploitation of the technologically inferior will be
escalated and intensified far beyond the present situation of industrialized
and developing nations.

Such striking global changes in society are only one perspective on the
situation. Looking at the transhumanist elements of Majestic-12, we see all
manner of human modification, all of which is seemingly designed to bring
unwitting humans closer to their alien manipulators. This is the true horror
of transhumanity, the inevitable transformation and splintering of the
species into something unrecognizable, without any regard for morality.

This is what we stand on the verge of, a singularity leading only to
extinction. Isolated survivors of homo sapiens will resemble monsters. Some
will gravitate towards powerful entities. A handful may even become as the
great old ones. But the time of mankind's acendancy will have ended.

''From: Jay Dugger''

This fork of the thread better belongs on the
extropians-list or perhaps wta-talk, but I'll reply here.
Anyone not interested can lean to use their mail reader's
filter. It's not as if DGML has high traffic these days.

I mean this as friendly contribution, not flame.

MiB wrote:

"The ethical problem with human modification and
Transhumanist technology is that it is impossible to
develop without extensive human experimentation."

You equate two different categories here. One, "human
modification" might exist as a subset of the other,
"Transhumanist technology". The latter is very vague. For
example, many transhumanists have a deep interest in
exploring space. The type of human experimentation
involved in that differs very greatly in kind from the
kind of experiments needed for extending the duration of
human health or improving quality of life. As another
example, many transhumanists have an interest in classical
AI or robotics. Others see interest in advanced materials
such as quantum dots or nanotubes and their composites.
That sort of research requires zero human experimentation.

"Consider the fact that in modern cloning, perhaps only
one viable fetus can be brought to term out of a hundred
attempts, and that the clone may suffer from a plethora of
medical problems as it develops into an adult. "

Consider the fact that in modern cloning, no major and
reputable institution has cloned a human—only animals,
and with the exception of mice and rats, only animals that
humans also eat. Regardless of one's opinion on the ethics
of eating meat, I'll assert that conceiving and raising an
animal for experimental purposes, with full knowledge the
animal will suffer throughout its possibly shortened life,
makes no greater cruelty than raising it for ultimate
consumption as food.

"Thus, the very existence of such technology is predicated
on the suffering of others."

I disagree for the reasons given above.

"Furthermore, it is clear to me that there will be NO
universal access to
such advanced technology, leading to a morlock/eloi class
or caste division of the species."

This might happen, but I don't think it's inevitable or
even likely. That certainly hasn't been the case in the
last two centuries. Some exceptions exist to the general
widespread use of a technology after its invention, but
these are rare and mostly military. Computers,
anitbiotics, air travel, fertilizer, plumbing,
electricity, air conditioning, cellular phones, contact
lenses, electric lighting—look around you. I doubt very
much anyone reading this has the "nasty, brutish, and
short" life Hobbes described.

"Abuse of such technology has the potential to create all
sorts of new
horrors."

Yes, it does. This is nothing new to human experience.
We've had the potential for self-annihilation since the
first half of the previous century. That was a new horror
then. Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" identified another
way for humanity to damage itself. Technologies and
techniques of interest to transhumanists offer new methods
of abuse, some even more horrific than what we now face.
The challenge remains the same, the risks just grow more
and different.

"Slaves could be modified against their will for the
amusement of
godlike masters and their magical technology."

That's a nightmare scenario, alright. It's also pretty
unlikely outside of bad entertainment. The potential
exists today to surgically modify prostitutes to resemble
the famous for the titillation of the decadent.
Wait-a-minute, I saw that in a movie. A good movie. A good
movie set in the 1950s! Transhumanist ideas offer a
difference in degree, not kind.

"Even barring such nightmare scenarios, the exploitation
of the technologically inferior will be escalated and
intensified far beyond the present situation of
industrialized and developing nations."

[See Anders Sandberg's "InfoWar" RPG.]

Setting aside arguments of comparative advantage, which
are at best true and cruel, still leaves a paradox.
Without significant improvements in humanity's
technological base, most of the population will not enjoy
a First World standard of living. Differences in
technological levels tend to even out fairly quickly on
the large scale and over time, but trade accelerates this.
It can also exacerbate human suffering.

[snip]

"This is the true horror of transhumanity, the inevitable
transformation and splintering of the species into
something unrecognizable, without any regard for
morality."

It is probably worth your time to read some of the ethical
writings done by transhumanists such as Dr. J. Hughes and
Eliezer Yudkowsky. (Links at bottom.) In a nutshell,
there is a lot of regard for morality in transhumanist
circles, and exactly because of the horrific and awesome
potential of the shape of things to come.

"This is what we stand on the verge of, a singularity
leading only to
extinction. Isolated survivors of homo sapiens will
resemble monsters. Some will gravitate towards powerful
entities. A handful may even become as the great old ones.
But the time of mankind's acendancy will have ended."

[See Anders Sandberg's "Men Like Gods" and "Ex Tempore"
RPGs for games on this theme.]

Human extinction certainly meets the definition of a
singularity: a point in time past which no meaningful
non-trivial prediction can be made. If such a thing
happens, it will not necessarily resemble the "Rapture of
the Nerds" caricature so often applied to the idea. MiB's
distortion is just as valid, and much more relevant to DG.
It's still a distortion, because it's humanly predictable.
It's not just the end of human ascendancy, nor even human
history. It marks the end of the hope of human
comprehension, the point at which we sail too far out on
the seas of black infinity to turn back, when the sciences
piece together dissociated knowledge and open up
terrifying new vistas of reality. Madness and a new dark
age earen't our only choices—self-transformation remains.
It's a one-way ticket to the Big City. You bet the price
is steep, and it comes with no guarantees.

In my more cyncial and misanthropic moments, I watch the
news and think of Olaf Stapledon's writings. "Last and
First Men" described the history of intelligent life in
our solar system: nineteen human species, the Martians,
and the Venusians. Some of the races had science vastly
superior to ours, and still had their civilizations
crumble from moral failure. I look at our achievements,
and think This is all we've done, this is the sum of our
efforts, the whole works of the damned human race.

Fuck.
Let something, anything, else have a go at it.

Then I remember that mood depends on easily-modulated
brain chemistry, and I go fix mine.

LINKS:

Anders Sandberg

InfoWar
http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/InfoWar/

Men Like Gods (requires postscript and compress)
http://www.nada.kth.se/~nv89-nun/offloading/mlg.ps.Z

Ex Tempore (from Stargate to the Yithians, requires M$
Word)
http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/Game/Fukuyama/

Orion's Arm World Building Group (10000AD, with fast
growth)
http://www.orionsarm.com

Dr. J. Hughes
http://www.changesurfer.com/eventhorizon/Hughes.html

Eliezer Yudkowsky
(labor through it, it's worth it)
http://www.singinst.org/friendly/
(the wiki's a little easier)
http://sl4.org/bin/wiki.pl?HomePage

''From: Jeff Boggs''

At what point does a human being stop being human after undergoing severe
body modification? If being human is primarily structured by the material
apparatus/body into which we are born and into which we have evolved
consciousness in a physiological sense, I tend to think that tinkering with
the physical body too much alters the organism's perceptions so much that
they are no longer human. If you have an essentialist notion that humans
have some undefinable spark that makes them sentient, you might take a
different position. So if humans have souls, maybe extreme tinkering does
not alter one's humanity. However, if you just think humans are another
animal with a big brain and opposable thumbs, and that consciousness is
structured by the hardware with which we are born, then transformations of
the human shell makes one, after some point, no longer human.

I'd expect humans that underwent extreme body modification (vision in the
infrared spectrum, viscerally sensing magnetic spectrums, heightened smell,
ability to withstand zero Kelvin) to have to make lots of real world sanity
checks for just dealing with day to day life, assuming the new senses and
abilities were somehow compatible with human biological hardwiring. I
guess I tend to think that being human is a fairly sensual/visceral
condition that we take for granted. If one lived in a community of other
modified persons with the same modifications, it might be easier on one's
sanity. Or they might decide, like Magneto, that normals humans are just
gnats. And that position is not all that different from that of many
Mythos beings.

''From: Marshall Gatten''

Humanity is a condition in which we willfully include ourselves - not a condition in which the consensus of others can include us against our will.

One of the keys to being human is the ability to say "I'm human" and understand what that means and agree with it. It's an "In think, therefore I am" kinda thing.

So, the point at which we cease to be human and become something else is that point at which we look at ourselves and no longer consider ourselves as part of the human race. And I think this is tied in closely with those real-word SAN checks.

If a person undergoes a brain transplant into a dog and their sanity somehow survives unscathed, then they are still human for they still think of themselves that way. If another person's mind is downloaded into a neural network capable of maintaining their sanity and that neural network is implanted into a robot, but the mind is still there and is still sane and is still of the opinion that it is human, then it's human - even though it's made entirely of synthetic parts.

On the other hand, even minor modifications might be enough to send somebody over the edge. Infrared vision might make somebody decide that they are better than everybody else and above them. If they fail that SAN check and become convinced that they are no longer human, then they aren't. We can agree with them or not - it's a matter of opinion, and it's their opinion that counts.

There is no physical line with apes on one side and humans on the other. Take an ape and keep genetically modifying it one cell at a time towards "human" and before long you won't know which one you have. And you won't know when to stop and say, "With that one last cellular change, I've made a human." But the subject that you are experimenting on will know. Even if the subject isn't sure, the ability to ponder the question gives them the ability to decide, and once they decide they are human, they are.

''From: Dave Farnell''

Seeing as it concerns the future of humanity in the face of the Mythos,
I'd say it belongs here just fine. However, while you make a very good
refutation of the MiB's skepticism about Transhumanism, I had read the
MiB's comments as answering the original question of the thread: "So,
how do you think would Transhumanism fit into the Mythos universe?" And
while I agree with your refutation in *this* universe, in a Lovecraftian
universe, I agree with the MiB. If that makes any sense.

Of course, here I'm assuming we aren't in a Lovecraftian universe.
Sometimes I'm not so sure.

From: "Marshall Gatten" <moc.snettageht|llahsram#moc.snettageht|llahsram>

a condition in which the consensus of others can include us against our
will.«

Depends on how you're using the word. From a scientific standpoint,
"human" equates with "homo sapiens," the name of a species. In that
sense, modification could turn someone (or someone's children) into a
member of a different (and perhaps unique) species. Of course,
determining the line between one species and another can be very
difficult to doI'm sure there are any number of examples where one
scientist says these two different-colored birds are of different
species, while another says they're the same species with minor cosmetic
differences. Those cosmetic differences can be pretty huge, too
just
look at dogs: all the same species, yet with vast differences in size,
appearance, temperament, and even minor variations in intelligence.
Using the "ability to breed" rule doesn't always hold up, either. Dogs
can breed with wolves and coyotes, yet they are defined as separate
species.

"Human" and "humanity" are both frustratingly vague and delightfully
flexible words. I think you're using them here in the sense of
self-aware identity. They can also be used in a moral sense, defining
people who conform to certain core moral values as "human," or at least
"possessing humanity," while others, such as sociopaths, as non-human,
despite their genetic heritage.

understand what that means and agree with it. It's an "In think,
therefore I am" kinda thing. «

So that means a severely mentally retarded person isn't human? Or more
pertinent to the Transhuman discussion, how about someone whose higher
brain functions have been disabled, chemically (like a voudon zombi),
surgically (some kind of lobotomy), or genetically (the MiB's transhuman
slaves)?

is
that point at which we look at ourselves and no longer consider
ourselves as part of the human race. And I think this is tied in closely
with those real-word SAN checks.«

See Lovecraft's "The Outsider" for a good example.

somehow survives unscathed, then they are still human for they still
think of themselves that way. If another person's mind is downloaded
into a neural network capable of maintaining their sanity and that
neural network is implanted into a robot, but the mind is still there
and is still sane and is still of the opinion that it is human, then
it's human - even though it's made entirely of synthetic parts.«

But what about a dog that's genetically engineered to have human-range
intelligence, or a computer that becomes self-aware without a human mind
uploaded onto it? If they consider themselves to be human, are they?

That's what I love about the GURPS: Transhuman Space setting—it deals
with these questions and leaves them only partially answered, with
different nations and cultures trying to answer them in different ways,
still groping and unsure.

other.«

And thank goodness, too, as that ambiguity is fodder for some of the
best SF. Phil Dick played with it, asking "What is human?" in nearly
every story he wrote. Lovecraft used it in a lot of his stories too: "At
the Mountains of Madness," "The Outsider," even "Pickman's Model" to
some extent.

I've recently read Octavia E Butler's *Dawn* (first book of a trilogy
called *Lilith's Brood*, available under one cover now), which deals
with this question in a way that is to some extent Lovecraftian. Earth h
as just suffered a massive nuclear war; luckily, Earth was being
observed by a ship of aliens, who move in to pick up the survivors and
start restoring the environment. But these aliens are similar to the
Mi-Go in some ways, and in the process of saving humans, they will alter
the humans' offspring into something else. Whether those children will
be human or not is a central question of the novel.

''From: Jürgen Hubert''

»There is no physical line with apes on one side and humans on the
other.«

And thank goodness, too, as that ambiguity is fodder for some of the
best SF. Phil Dick played with it, asking "What is human?" in nearly
every story he wrote. Lovecraft used it in a lot of his stories too: "At
the Mountains of Madness," "The Outsider," even "Pickman's Model" to
some extent.

I especially like the following quote from "At the Mountains of Madness":

"…Scientists to the last - what had they done that we would not have done
in their place? God, what intelligence and persistence! What a facing of the
incredible, just as those carven kinsmen and forbears had faced things only
a little less incredible! Radiates, vegetables, monstrosities, star spawn -
whatever they had been, they were men!"

So where do human modes of thought end, and those of the Mythos begin? A
tough question. Perhaps we have actually quite a few things in common with
some of the beings that primarily exist in this dimension, and who don't
constantly hear the mind-sendings of some Great Old One or other. The Old
Ones, the Beings from Yaddith, and countless others… they might look
differently,
and they might have different behavioral patterns - but still, they evolved
in
an environment that follows the same laws of nature as Earth. Is some sort
of rapport possible with these beings without becoming insane?

Perhaps it is some sort of "Transhumanist" process that seperates true
beings of the Mythos from "mere" aliens. Perhaps beings like the Mi-Go - and
possibly some of the GOOs - changed themselves to become more powerful - and
thus forver ceased to be understandable by humans. The same, of course,
applies to servitor races, which were changed by GOOs.

So… might we actually have some sort of kinsfolk out there? Alien beings,
yet not so alien as to be utterly beyond understanding?

Perhaps.

''From: Davide Mana''

I'm back for this one—it touches on some matters that are close to my
heart (wherever that might happen to be at the moment).

I'm none too sympathetic to the cause of transhumanism, but anyway…

SuperDave wrote:

Depends on how you're using the word. From a scientific standpoint,
"human" equates with "homo sapiens," the name of a species.

I would not bet my degree on this one.
Not so straight, that matter.
Remember that the "Homo sapiens" label has been used as a retrofit of
sorts, lately. "Human" therefore equals "Homo sapiens" just because when
we decide that someone of our ancestors was good enough for our
standards, we drop the "Australopithecus" and adopt the "Homo" thingie.
And indeed the question of when our old ancestors started being human
instead of being just primates is one of the fun sides of studying
palaeoanthropology (which I did not study, nor I plan to).

"Human", despite its massive usage in Star Trek, is not a solid
scientific definition.

In that
sense, modification could turn someone (or someone's children) into a
member of a different (and perhaps unique) species.

Interesting idea, but I think it arises from a perception of the concept
of species that is a bit too literary and not scientific enough.
A species of one is not an unheard-of story—we call them mutations, and
file them in the "No Win" box, as they cannot have (by definition) a
second generation.
But at that point, is the concept of "species" the right one to be used?
A species is defined — among other things — through its space and time
boundaries.

Of course,
determining the line between one species and another can be very
difficult to do—I'm sure there are any number of examples where one
scientist says these two different-colored birds are of different
species, while another says they're the same species with minor cosmetic
differences.

That's because there's different kind of "species" being used.
But there is no confusion — it's just a matter of different standards
applied to different situations or data pools.
Species can be determined statistically (and indeed they are in some
cases) through their presence/absence in an evolving environment.
Palaeontologists tend to use morphospecies (basically bundling together
all the remains that look similar — the colored birds example) which
biologists are no longer using as they can use genetic species — and
that seems to be the way we'll all go sooner or later as genetic
profiling becomes simpler and cheaper.
But mind you, this does not mean that we are not sure whether
Morphospecies A and B are one or not. It's just that we are observing
different details and basing our name-giving on those observations.
I well know that the "Orbulina universa" species is quite probably a
bundle of half a dozen _Genera_ (that is, much larger and much more
generic categories than species), but as I'm working with a microscope
and not with a DNA sequencer, I'll make the definition do.

But I'm getting off-topic…

Those cosmetic differences can be pretty huge, too—just
look at dogs: all the same species, yet with vast differences in size,
appearance, temperament, and even minor variations in intelligence.

And yet, there are enough similarities for us to still be able to
recognize them as part of the same group.
Concentrating on significant similarities and dismissing cosmetic
differences might be the trick when dealing with what human is.

Using the "ability to breed" rule doesn't always hold up, either. Dogs
can breed with wolves and coyotes, yet they are defined as separate
species.

Oh, ehm, really?
Because you see, Wolf being "Canis lupus", while Dog is "Canis
familiaris", that would make them both SUBspecies of the same species
(Canis).
They breed and produce fertile progeny, so that should be pretty fine.
Horse and donkey, on the other hand, look a lot similar, but do not
produce fertile progeny.
And are labeled as different species.

Looks like one of us has to check his sources…. ;->

"Human" and "humanity" are both frustratingly vague and delightfully
flexible words.

Words are flexible if you want them to.
Consider what happened on this planet when someone decided species and
race are the same thing…
No flexibility at all.

Which adds an interesting item to the discussion.
Why is transhumanism so apparently obsessed with species and does not
consider the most simple option— that an engineered human group might
become a new _race_ (again, a scientifically ambiguous word in many cases).
Could it be a matter of politically correctedness?

I think you're using them here in the sense of
self-aware identity. They can also be used in a moral sense, defining
people who conform to certain core moral values as "human," or at least
"possessing humanity," while others, such as sociopaths, as non-human,
despite their genetic heritage.

Hence, crimes against humanity.

So, if Humanity is basically an intellectual trait — something residing
in our brains (and let's not get into who or what put that there) — we
should be able to devise a test.
Void-Kampf or Turing, your choice.
Which places our hip transhumanist friends in a field that Philip K.
Dick pretty much exhausted with his work twenty five years ago.

Any suggestion about what such a test should include?
The old story about the upturned turtle?
Or the ability of getting a Bob Hope joke.

understand what that means and agree with it. It's an "In think,
therefore I am" kinda thing. «

So that means a severely mentally retarded person isn't human? Or more
pertinent to the Transhuman discussion, how about someone whose higher
brain functions have been disabled, chemically (like a voudon zombi),
surgically (some kind of lobotomy), or genetically (the MiB's transhuman
slaves)?

You might go for the definition of human as "anyone born of human
parents"—that would go for me and you, for anyone able to say "I'm
human", for retards and other unfortunates that can't say that, for
Frankenstein's monster (if you make the concept of "being born of"
elastic enough), and my computer once I give it the means to acquire
self-awareness (ditto)…
Only adopted lizard-children fail to conform, but if you replace "born"
with "nurtured", you can get a chance.
That of course would make Tarzan an ape ("anyone nurtured by an ape"),
but as gorillas have been given "Homo" status recently, even Lord
Graystoke should feel fine and fit our happy extended family of boys,
girls, machines and whatevers.

See how things tend to get tricky?

But what about a dog that's genetically engineered to have human-range
intelligence, or a computer that becomes self-aware without a human mind
uploaded onto it? If they consider themselves to be human, are they?

If they are willing to take pay the admission fee…. ;-P

> That's what I love about the GURPS: Transhuman Space setting—it deals
with these questions and leaves them only partially answered, with
different nations and cultures trying to answer them in different ways,
still groping and unsure.

A realistic approach to a matter that cannot be solved with a
set-in-stone statement.
Look at what's coming out of this discussion!

other.«

Oh, yes there is.
And someone is throwing banana peels at us across it.

Which is a flippant way for saying that an awful lot of the
transhumanist canon is (IMHO and all that) just silly retoric and
avant-garde posturing.
I'd love to live long enough to see those vocal transhumanists forced to
put their money where their mouth is.

And as I said, antrophomorpic apes are now considered to be "Homo", so
the line was there, but is not there anymore — witness the sad state of
many countries in which humans-formerly-known-as-pongidae stopped
throwing banana peels and got elected to office instead.
But let's not get into politics, ok?

''From: The Man in Black''

> Depends on how you're using the word. From a scientific standpoint,
> "human" equates with "homo sapiens," the name of a species.
And indeed the question of when our old ancestors started being human
instead of being just primates is one of the fun sides of studying
palaeoanthropology (which I did not study, nor I plan to).
"Human", despite its massive usage in Star Trek, is not a solid
scientific definition.

One of the themes inherent in the Mythos is how human science cannot
ultimately cope with the alien and hostile nature of the universe.
Illustrating this theme is the concept of species. Throwing out any
ridiculous notions that paleo-archeology can provide us with an accurate
definition of species, we must turn to genetic biology, which provides us
with some rather unambiguous scientific definitions of species based on DNA.

However, this DNA definition falls into tattered shreds when confronted with
the mythos. It seems that DNA itself is a polymorphous creation of the Elder
Things, more akin to Shoggoths and Protomatter than to any current concept
of stable protein chains. This explains why it's so easy to drastically
alter and harm the human form with mythos sorcery: earthly life was designed
to be altered to suit the needs of alien masters. From this perspective it
becomes clear that DNA itself is merely a temporary and easily rewritten
means of storing information about a biomass' current form.

This has other far-reaching consequences in scientific thought, and explains
why it's so easy for mythos entities to interbreed with humanity. The
creation of alien-human hybrids is not accomplished by transferring genetic
material (a local technological convenience put in place by the Elder
Things). Instead, the more naturally evolved beings of the mythos reproduce
by blending spiritual essences.

It is this corruptive spiritual influence that is evidenced in the behavior
of "tainted" humans. Rather than any biological heritage, which has been
exposed as an artificial construction, the Miri Nigri, the Tcho-Tcho, the
Sons of YOG-SOTHOTH, the Ghouls, the Deep Ones, and other altered humans are
not tainted by genetics — they are tainted by their etherial connection to
higher dimensions.

This takes us back to the topic of this thread: Transhumanism and the
Mythos. All the cybernetics, sentient computing transfers, genetic
manipulation and biological alterations are trivial when compared to the
potential for global transformation offered by the Great Old Ones. This is
the true horror of delving into transhumanism. Searching for what lies
beyond humanity will only cast our species screaming into the gaping chasms
of the fanged abyss. We will all be devoured by the inhuman colossi of the
Mythos.

''From: William Timmins''

Actually, one does not have to invoke the Mythos to get a nebulous
definition of species.

The fact is that 'species' is a term that is arbitrary in the details.

Fertility isn't a great or tight definition, neither is morphology.
Ultimately, a 'species' is a tag that is useful only for human sorting
issues. And most biologists accept that.

Beyond species issue, there is 'what it means to be human.'

Which reflects rather well the Mythos, at root. In yet another sense,
in the sense of our most intimate nature… definitions and divisions
are a human construct with little import to the universe as it truly is.

Another good example of this is consciousness. It is pretty clear that
what we regard as our 'selves' is an emergence of many diverse,
separately processing braincenters. The assemblage decides it is a
singular being. Again, the ultimate truth is completely at odds with
our human definitions and experiences.

Cue that evolutionary psychologist who went mad and committed suicide
after he delved and explored into the biological and evolutionary roots
of our behavior (RL).

''From: Marshall Gatten''

The vagaries of language have a tendency to betray underlying attitudes of a
culture. People who are without the capacity for action and thought are said
to be "vegetables". We aren't saying that they're made up of plant cells,
but we are certainly classifying them as something other than human even if
it would hugely distasteful for us to realize we're doing it. Somebody with
the capacity for thought and action, but who has lost that part of their
mind allowing themselves to relate to themselves as a part of rest of us, we
call an "animal". Certainly not as denigrating a label as vegetable, but
still one that shows that at some level we think of these people as
non-human.

The "animal" or "vegetable" in question does not have the capacity to impose
their will to say "I'm human" and therefore, in many ways (and yes, I know
I'll get flames for this and I'm probably giving up any future presidential
election if this email shows up during a future campaign) they aren't.
Should they be afforded human rights? Of course. We're a sympathetic people
and it would violate some very precious values to do otherwise. When we're
capable of showing love to a dog or a cat or any of a multitude of other
non-humans it would take a severe coldness of heart to treat these people as
less than human even when our language betrays the subconscious belief that
we hold that they are something else.

Look at Stuart Little. Here's a mouse who talks, acts, feels, and thinks
like a human. Nevermind for a moment that he's a fictional character.
Imagine if such a creature showed up, either spontaneously or as the result
of a mad scientist's work. If Stuart Little insisted that he was human, who
would argue otherwise? If a scientist took Stuart Little and (for example)
gouged his eyes out and replaced them with electrodes to study some aspect
of his neurology the whole world would flip out. But do it to a "regular"
mouse and very few people raise an eyebrow. It becomes very obvious in this
example that "human" has little or nothing to do with biology.

Such a dog would be somewhere between Stuart Little and my original
modified-ape example. If that dog said to the world, "I'm human, gimme some
Kibbles & Bits," then few would argue with him. There would be many who
demand testing and many who, upon learning that no appropriate tests have
ever been devised for such a scenario, would devote their lives to coming up
with such tests and endlessly debate their findings - but I think there
would be few who would categorically deny the possibly of humanism just
because it's encased in a dog. Some people would go into denial because of
the mind-bending ramifications if it were true, but psychological denial is
not the same as actual, rational denial - in fact, it is in many ways the
exact opposite; being caused by knowing the truth deep down and simply not
accepting it.

or a computer that becomes self-aware without a human
mind uploaded onto it?

This becomes much trickier. The computer itself, if truly self-aware, will
know if it is human or not. (Actually, it will -decide- if it is human or
not.) For the rest of us on the outside looking in, there will be no
conclusive proof. (Much as there is no conclusive proof in the rest of the
examples above, but now the doubt is made more obvious.) Was it just
programmed in such a way that it's reacting as though it was self-aware? A
computer that has the ability to become self-aware is going to be an
immensely complicated thing. It would be well-nigh impossible to determine
if it is acting programmatically to a highly complex web of sensory input or
if it really is thinking original thoughts. Most people would say that
extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but what proof could such
a computer provide? What proof can any of us provide? Most of you have never
met me, yet you have (I presume) no problem assuming that I'm human. I might
be a computer responding to posts according to the way I'm programmed. Those
of you who HAVE met me (hi guys!) have what you consider absolute proof that
I'm human. But maybe I'm really a Terminator from the future looking for my
Sarah Conner at game tables and trying to blend in while I search. I don't
need to prove I'm human, and Stuart Little and the talking dog don't have to
prove they're human (much), but a computer is going to have a hard time in
it's first years of awareness. But, if it's truly self aware and decides
it's human, then it is whether the world believes it or not.

I recently had an interesting conversation with somebody who does genetic
research (something I know little about). One aspect of it was that it would
be an almost trivial matter to create a virus that implants the appropriate
DNA to make it so that whenever an infected person eats a particular
chemical their nipples glow. (Using the same reactions that fireflies use.)
Needless to say, this was a weird kind of conversation, and it went to other
places too such as the amazing money a hooker could make if she had such a
modification done and found the right kind of client. But imagine such a
virus implanting enough different kinds of alien DNA (and the word 'alien'
can be interpreted however you like for this one) to significantly alter the
infected person's biology and the biology of their offspring. They grow
feathers all over their head and scales on their elbows. They become a
freakish thing, and their offspring much more freakish with cloven hoof and
nine arms. But they retain their minds. They retain that bit of themselves
that makes them stand tall on all nine legs and say "I'm human". Okay, then,
they are. It's much more likely, of course, that they'll suffer such severe
ostricization that the last thing they'd ever want is to be lumped in with
all those bastard two-footers and so they'll become something else.

To bring this back to topic (in a weak, silly way), what if a Mi-Go suddenly
lost most it's higher brain functions and forgot what it was and, using what
was left of it's brain, decided that it was human? Completely convinced of
it's humanity, it checks itself in at the Mayo clinic and explains to the
doctors there, "I don't know what happened. I seem to have lost my memory in
whatever accident turned me into this horrible monstrosity. Please fix me,
doc." Is such a Mi-Go human? As long as it doesn't eat the doctor, it will
most likely be treated as one at least at some level.

''From: Mark McFadden''

Words are flexible if you want them to.
Consider what happened on this planet when someone decided species and
race are the same thing…
No flexibility at all.

They are inflexible because they don't like where the evidence leads. Or
rather, they are extremely flexible in juggling semantics to make the
evidence say what they want it to.
Most racists start getting a little twitchy about the time you point out
that a wolf (canis lupus) can successfully mate and produce fertile
offspring with a Chihuahua (canis familiaris), and that aaaallllll those
doggies with aaaallll those different shapes and colors and sizes are all
canis familiaris despite what they *look* like.

Maybe it's easier for me, since all you primates look alike to me and my
homies. Like it or not, each and every one of you without exception is just
another member of the Human race, and you will all be our servants and
riding mounts someday. Keep up this Pax Americana shit and it will be one
day soon. We Serpent Folk already have lots of bomb shelters you know. Duck
and cover Bonzo, you had your chance and you are blowing it.

So, if Humanity is basically an intellectual trait — something residing
in our brains (and let's not get into who or what put that there) — we
should be able to devise a test.
Void-Kampf or Turing, your choice.
Which places our hip transhumanist friends in a field that Philip K.
Dick pretty much exhausted with his work twenty five years ago.

Only for the people that read Phil Dick. Everyone else seems to be devoting
their attention to melanin content and that hopeless gibber-gabber you use
in place of a real language.

Any suggestion about what such a test should include?

Yeah, if they don't "get" Kubrick, geld them and send them to the cotton
mines.

The old story about the upturned turtle?

A wasp is crawling on your arm. What do you do?

Or the ability of getting a Bob Hope joke.

The whole point of a Bob Hope joke was for anything with a pulse to "get"
it. Bob Hope humor is for people who need to prove they actually have a
sense of humor despite all other evidence. "See? I laughed when he got to
the punch line. I saw it coming and knew what to do when it got here." I've
noticed an overlap with people who are convinced that kids say the darndest
things, golf is worth talking about, plaid looks good on furniture, and poor
people aren't trying hard enough.

Don't get me started on the soul-destroying banality of Bob Hope "humor" or
I will have to dig up his grave and hammer a stake through his heart, cut
off the head and stuff the mouth with garlic.I notice that most of the
tributes to Hope neglected to mention the troops in Vietnam that booed him.

Only adopted lizard-children fail to conform, but if you replace "born"
with "nurtured", you can get a chance.

Yeah, I always had bad grades in that "Plays well with others" category. I
told the teacher that having the other children doing my bidding and
protecting me with their lives was playing, and I thought I did it rather
well.

Which is a flippant way for saying that an awful lot of the
transhumanist canon is (IMHO and all that) just silly retoric and
avant-garde posturing.
I'd love to live long enough to see those vocal transhumanists forced to
put their money where their mouth is.

The problem with most Transhumanist thought is that the people doing the
thinking forget that intelligence is composed of more than a fast CPU and
lots of memory. They see themselves as gloriously transcendant but still the
same petty little primate they've always been at heart. Their imaginary
transcendant self is still *them*, but faster and with more storage space.
They never consider that actually being *smarter* would sort of preclude
them thinking the same way at higher speed.

But let's not get into politics, ok?

Politics is just an extension of primate psychology into the physical
world.
People have personalities.
Personalities are built from hardwiring and experience.
People tend to behave in the way that is most consistent with their
personality.
Get enough people with the same personality together and you have a
political party or lobbying group working to get everyone else to behave
like them.

''From: Dave Farnell''

I'm back for this one—it touches on some matters that are close to my
heart (wherever that might happen to be at the moment).

I was hoping you would be—I knew I'd be making errors with the species
thing, and I did…

Interesting idea, but I think it arises from a perception of the

concept

of species that is a bit too literary and not scientific enough.

Natural, considering my background.

> Using the "ability to breed" rule doesn't always hold up, either.

Dogs

> can breed with wolves and coyotes, yet they are defined as separate
> species.
Oh, ehm, really?
Because you see, Wolf being "Canis lupus", while Dog is "Canis
familiaris", that would make them both SUBspecies of the same species
(Canis).

Oops. Well, I can only plead ignorance, and many years since my last
biology class. I thought Canis was something larger than species. I bow
to the expert.

Why is transhumanism so apparently obsessed with species and does not
consider the most simple option— that an engineered human group might
become a new _race_ (again, a scientifically ambiguous word in many

cases).

Could it be a matter of politically correctedness?

Partly, but I think also because it's such an unclear concept, and one
which many people reject on the basis that it's so ambiguous as to be
almost useless. I know there are situations where it's not: inheritable
diseases like Tay-Sachs and sickle-cell anemia, for example. But most of
the time I just wish the whole concept would go away.

Off-topic, I remember in high-school we always had tons of forms to fill
out every year, and they always asked what race we were. The choices
grew more numerous every year, as the people up top got more and more
obsessed with squeezing students into smaller pigeonholes, something I
always found a bit odd considering America's stated ethic of equality
and color-blindness. I usually checked "Other" and wrote in "Human."

''From: Mark McFadden''

I was a somewhat prolific contributor to the original Extropian mailing
list, before they got so exclusive that they began to charge for access. If
there are archives, I'm all through 'em in the late 80s\early 90s. This was
before I had taken on Aspect as the Lizard King, so the writing wasn't that
good. Back in those days the profile of an Extropian was usually:

A registered Libertarian involved in grass roots politics.
A gun owner.
A Free Market true believer.
A neo-pagan in a hi-tech career.
A sci-fi fan.
A Chaos Theory dilletante.
A fan and\or correspondent of Robert Anton Wilson.

and combinations of those and more.

If you crossed your eyes you could see them resolving into two distinct
camps: the well-armed Free Market Randroids that wanted to transcend their
disappointing flesh, and the neo-pagan SMI2LErs. That's Space
Migration\Intelligence Increase\Life Extension as per Timothy Leary in
'Neuropolitique.' The SMI2LErs wanted to transcend their disappointing
Reality(tm).

Three guesses which group wasn't invited to the new "improved" Extropian
mailing list when they began to charge for the privilege.

Incidentally, most of the people in both "camps" were fond of the Kiersey
personality test, and in the terminology of the Kiersey test most would be
NT (Promethean) types. INTP, ENTP, INTJ, ENTJ, with most of the friction
being between the (x)NT P or J personalities.

There was a Randroid cabal within the California Libertarian Party that
took the Kiersey test to heart and began to define a Platonic libertarian
(or more to the point, Libertarian) personality. Soon, they began to make
the test "available" and started to collect the types. Now, here's where it
gets weird. Naturally, they found a majority of NTs in the party leadership
(it's in the profile). Y'see, the NT (Promethean) type will *always* be a
small minority in the population at large: 10% of any population at best.
Most of the population (at 40% per) are Dionysian and Epimethean. The
Apollonians account for the remaining 10%.

Here's where I let my registration lapse and became independent as well as
agnostic: *I* took the information above and saw that if the Libertarian
Party was ever going to get anywhere, they should learn all they can about
Dionysian and Epimethean thinking in order to determine hot button issues
and which aspects of the Libertarian platform to emphasize. Keep the ideals
intact, but start fiddling with where we were aiming the spotlight because
so far all we had attracted were people already sold on the ideas.

They decided that the problem was too many non-Promethean riff-raff in the
ranks polluting and diluting their precious body politic.

The funny thing is that I am an extreme ENTP and would be the poster boy
for their Promethean ideal. They would quote Rand or Vienna School economics
at me and I'd reply "Of course you know that doesn't impress me. NTs are
unimpressed with citing authority; it's right in the profile. So of course
*real* Prometheans don't quote authorities to buttress an argument."

In any case, the Transhumanists among the Extropians were a subset within
Extropianism, and their politics were libertarian with a lot of refugees
from the GOP.

The intellectual property known as Delta Green is ™ and © the Delta Green Partnership. The contents of this document are © their respective authors, excepting those elements that are components of the Delta Green intellectual property.