Discussion Title: Is transhumanism the next step in human evolution?

1. Transhumanism is the next step in human evolution.
1.1. Con: Transhumanism is the next step in evolution of wealthy humans.  Poor humans will not benefit from it.
1.1.1. Pro: Transhumanism will be \(initially\) available only to the rich, thus expanding the gap between rich and poor. Together with diminishing of the percieved "humanity" of transhumans it will probably lead to war.
1.1.1.1. Pro: Poor people may be neglected if societal enhancements jump exponentially for wealthy. The distance between the wealthy and poor might be so great that the wealthy do not need to associate with poor again and just form their own world \(like in the movie Elysium\).
1.1.1.2. Con: Wealthy people can just make copies of themselves to replace poor people. Then wealthy can isolate themselves from the poor to prevent transhuman war from occurring, because they are near nowhere to be at war with.
1.1.1.2.1. Con: People might find ways to accomplish starting war, no matter how isolated the wealthy become.
1.1.1.3. Con: Without the poor getting enhancements, they probably will not be able to fight with those who have stronger powers than them \(a.k.a. the wealthy\).
1.1.1.4. Con: If the wealthy extend their transhuman capabilities to the poor, the likelihood of war would diminish.
1.1.2. Con: Wealthy people may enhance the poor, because it will benefit them to do so.
1.1.2.1. Pro: The poor will probably be enhanced more than the wealthy, because the poor do difficult jobs that need the most enhancements. The wealthy will like the poor to be more productive and will seek enhancements for them. If the poor can do their jobs better, then companies are more profitable, which allows the wealthy to be richer.
1.1.2.2. Con: -> See 1.1.1.1.
1.1.2.3. Pro: Wealthy people may just want to help the poor for humanitarian value, because it looks good for them to do so or other reasons.
1.1.2.4. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.4.
1.1.3. Con: Everyone benefits from transhumanism. The poor just benefit indirectly instead of directly from it.
1.1.3.1. Pro: The poor may even find a workaround \(due to their drive and wants for transhumanism\), as humans are born with ingenuity, creativity, curiosity, and ambition.
1.1.3.1.1. Pro: Their drive might even lead them to better, as they need to do better than what exists to compete, stay relevant, and make up for what they are missing.
1.1.3.1.2. Pro: Just as the attraction of recreational drugs has made them pervasive at all socioeconomic levels, various types of human enhancement will find their way, perhaps in black market and knockoff forms, to anyone who can scrape together a little cash.
1.1.3.2. Pro: When the wealthy adopt transhuman capabilities, they will be able to accomplish more than before. The improvements made may spill over into the daily lives of the poor.
1.1.3.2.1. Pro: The poor will not get hard feelings \(like jealousy\) then due to benefiting \(from transhumanism\) too, which will prevent disparities \(through polarization \(of socio-economic classes that jealousy can lead to\)\) from forming.
1.1.3.3. Con: With the dematerialization and demonetization of advancing technology, the costs to achieve may be so minimal \(or free\) that everyone can get enhancements, no matter their financial status.
1.1.3.3.1. Con: Just because it's free, doesn't mean it will be accessible to or adopted by the poor.
1.1.4. Con: Yesterdays luxuries are commonplace among even the lowest echelons of society today. Cell phones are a good example, which is available to people even in otherwise absolute poverty.
1.1.4.1. Con: Although true, technology usually only gets widespread even the rich have obtained even better technology \(in this case, cell phones\). Therefore, poor will always be stuck with 2nd hand or cheap implants, at best, when we head towards transhumanism.
1.1.4.2. Con: Mass adoption of medical interventions is not as simple as distributing cell phones. Transhuman technologies are more complicated and rely on medical interventions. Requiring trained surgeons with high-level expertise, established medical facilities, and potentially rehabilitation time. Cell phones can be distributed in numerous different languages and only require electricity and telecommunication networks. The comparison is nonequivalent, so transhumanism is not as likely to be easily adopted.
1.1.4.3. Pro: Usually when there's a technological update, the wealthy early adopters are shied away from what is deemed outdated. As new technology pushes out by old technology, due to not being wanted by its core audience anymore, the old technology becomes widely-available or free, while the wealthy get the 'latest and greatest.'
1.1.4.3.1. Pro: If one looks at websites that have [free stuff](https://us.letgo.com/en/category/free-stuff) postings, people will find many technologies that used to be considered past luxuries, like refrigerators and treadmills, available for free.
1.1.4.3.2. Con: Yet consider that dental implants \(the current technique is about 100 years old\) are still out of reach of the poor, even in most countries with universal health care. There are other elective medical procedures too. Elective nootropics \(even ones older than cell phones\) are out of reach of the poor, because medicaid clinics don't prescribe what the patient asks for. Transhuman tech that affects the body is almost always for rich people only.
1.1.5. Con: So through a utilitarianistic standpoint, some people benefitting \(even if it's not the poor\) is better than none at all.
1.1.5.1. Pro: The poor's circumstances are independent of transhumanism moving forward, as they don't benefit either way \(whether the technology exists or not\). So it shouldn't be deciding point as to whether the wealthy elevate their lives from this or not, because it doesn't matter to the poor anyway.
1.1.5.1.1. Con: The wealthy getting technologies that the poor cannot get would matter if it negatively impacts them.
1.1.5.1.1.1. Pro: If the wealthy use transhuman technologies that negatively affect the poor, because they have the advantage and capabilities to do so, then the poor would have to look out for that and modify their tendencies instead of shunning trashumanistic technologies altogether.
1.1.6. Pro: Growing disparities between the uneducated poor and the educated rich are driving instability in societies today. Having a trans-human advantage will likely worsen this situation.
1.1.7. Pro: Money is the second major consiousness evolution accelerator \(invented around [7,000](https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-money-1992150) years ago\) after farming \([10,000](https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/development-of-agriculture/) years ago\) and possibly craft \(see [fire](https://www.reference.com/history/fire-invented-ccbeac75e48b9f31), [language](http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab13), and the [stone age](https://www.history.com/topics/pre-history/stone-age)\). Being recent and widespread in use, it demands a larger osmotic oblivion - that have to be learned, before entering a larger citizenship - equalizing whatever fundamental evolution tendency one has for trade.
1.1.7.1. Pro: Manifestation one has for energetic-relativity-trade. Stating that techno-magic \(magnetic-resonance electronic tuning\) and aura/blood-magic are two schools leading to all energetic relativity, that can be adapted by the higher-evolutionized along the path towards higher evolution.
1.1.8. Pro: The wealthy may treat transhumanism as a status symbol to display wealth \(i.e. [conspicuous consumption](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspicuous%20consumption)\) rather than a development that enhances the social good, which may prevent the poor from benefiting.
1.1.8.1. Pro: The wealthy may try to maintain transhumanism's image as a status symbol for the wealthy by preventing the poor from acquiring it \(as then its monetary connotation goes away\).
1.1.8.2. Pro: Conspicuous consumption will lead to wasteful \(unproductive and inefficient\) developments that no one benefits from in the long-term. Efforts going towards frivolous endeavors prevent real necessities from emerging that the poor need and can access.
1.1.8.2.1. Pro: The poor they rely on those with money to fund research and solutions that bring costs down to a point that is accessible to them. If people who are capable \(like the wealthy\) fulfill their selfish needs instead, then the [trickle-down effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_effect) of necessities to the poor will not occur.
1.1.8.3. Pro: Enhancing humans is not only for aesthetic, intelligence or other superficial uses, but for delivering long-lasting solutions to real social need. Using it as a status symbol can be defeated when everyone in a population is suffering, and providing transhuman capabilities to everyone is the best way to resolve it.
1.1.8.3.1. Pro: For instance, eradicating genetic diseases would prevent future generations from being in the gene pool.
1.1.8.3.1.1. Con: Genetic variation is what leads to creation. Getting rid of genetic differences can create negative consequences.
1.1.8.3.1.1.1. Con: With genetic editing, people can be made to have differences that would be lacking from removing genetic diseases from the population. So this would not be a worry.
1.1.8.3.2. Pro: Since everyone suffers \(indirectly or directly\) from [infectious disease](https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/infectious-diseases/symptoms-causes/syc-20351173) [spread](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contagion) \(with many being [transmittable](http://www.acphd.org/communicable-disease/communicable-diseases.aspx)\), giving everyone a better immune system can prevent transmission or possibly preventing getting them altogether.
1.1.9. Pro: The wealthy are likely the only people who will develop transhumanism and are not required to give up their hard work to the poor, so they may not.
1.1.9.1. Con: Without the wealthy developing transhumanism \(if they are the only ones to do so\), the poor would never even have a chance to become transhuman, as they would never develop it themselves.
1.1.9.1.1. Pro: The poor would be lucky to have a chance to be a part of something they are not capable of accomplishing themselves.
1.1.10. Pro: The technology that would go into the human body would most likely be developed from corporations or governments. Applying this technology en masse would allow for big data collection which can be used for malicious purpose and against ones own interests. Taking it to the extreme one could argue that it would create an orwellian surveillance state.
1.1.11. Con: This is a societal issue that can be solved through the redistribution of wealth. This applies to all new technology.
1.1.11.1. Pro: If everyone received a UBI, and it created a post-scarcity world, then there would be a chance that transhumanism would be at the grasp of the masses.
1.1.12. Pro: There has never been so many wealthy people on earth \(and more are created all the time\). So while the poor may not benefit from it, it's not a worry.
1.1.13. Pro: There's a risk that this will carve a class system into stone, where the rich enhance their children to so much more able than the children of those who can't afford it that those others can't compete.
1.1.13.1. Con: There is possibility for a [trickle-down effect](https://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/trickle-down-effect.png), where when the wealthy are [early adopters](http://www.jumpassociates.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/The-Technology-Adoption-Curve-600x462.png), it becomes cheaper and more available for everyone \(unless it's kept exclusive on purpose, which I doubt, because it benefits everyone so much\).
1.1.13.2. Con: The wealthy will get different enhancements than the poor \(maybe the wealthy will get brain enhancers while the poor will get physical ones\). Each side won't be able to compete with each other, because each side is specialized greatly in different areas than normal people cannot compete with.
1.1.13.2.1. Pro: For example, if a poor person \(without brain enhancements\) tried to compete for white collar jobs, they will not be able to, because the ones with brain enhancements will get the jobs. Same with the reverse. A wealthy person will not compete with physical enhancements of the poor when they could just provide them to so many people just through funding it instead.
1.1.13.3. Con: -> See 1.1.2.1.
1.1.13.4. Con: The same is true of many of the powerful technologies/services of the past, and none of them set the class system is stone.
1.2. Pro: Human evolution is already not natural, so transhumanism being a non-natural evolutionary advancement will not be anything new.
1.2.1. Con: It's not binary. There is a spectrum regarding how distant something is from our evolutionary heritage, and digital implants etc. are on the far-end of that spectrum whereas proto-language is found in many animals.
1.2.2. Pro: Transhumanism is already here, and has been since the stone age. Our neuromuscular system trades off strength for increased precision, our hands lack claws or talons. We are already evolved to augment our physical capabilities with technology.
1.2.2.1. Pro: Transhumanism just continues this innate process
1.2.2.2. Con: Natural evolution is random chance, synthetic evolution is undertaken to undertake a specific goal and transfer meaning onto a being. This means that the humans who undergo these effects are fundamentally different from other humans. This difference is objective too. Evolution "creates" beings meant to survive the environment they're in, nothing more or less. By changing the meaning evolution bestows, synthetic evolution is clearly different.
1.2.2.2.1. Pro: Synthetic, so man-crafted evolution, prepares humanity for already existing synthetic environments, like industry or cyber-reality. Natural evolution bestows the means to survive in these synthetic environments when we are already there. One is pro-action, the other is reaction.
1.2.3. Pro: In the past, major, unnatural \(i.e. non-existing and atypical then\), non-biological changes \(like [developing language](http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab13), [finding fire](https://www.thoughtco.com/the-discovery-of-fire-169517), etc.\) have occurred to allow a species to survive through time and shaped our evolution. Transhumanism may be another one of those non-biological steps that will allow us to evolve.
1.2.4. Con: The [evolution](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/human-evolution-dna-natural-selection-dna-genetic-mutation-why-a8641536.html) of humans is a natural process in which the DNA of humankind changes over time. This is usually due to mutations that are selected for in response to the environment. Transhumanism would be the first non-natural evolutionary advancement given that it is permanent and would affect everyone.
1.3. Con: Transhumanism would be the end of biological evolution, as it would rely on design as opposed to natural selection of mutated traits.
1.3.1. Con: From the beginning of humanity, humans always find ways to evade evolution and escape natural selection's effects: by inventing medics, prostheses, vaccines, etc. Transhumanism is just another method, nothing different than what we've already achieved in isolating ourselves from evolution to begin with.
1.3.2. Pro: Design is the construction of complexity. Increased complexity is simply change and not strictly evolution.
1.3.3. Pro: Many approaches to transhumanism aren't a step in evolution but a replacement for it.
1.3.3.1. Pro: Transhumanism is by definition beyond human, therefore it cannot belong to any human context. Instead of being another step in human evolution, transhumanism is a step in an artificial, non-human one.
1.3.3.1.1. Con: True, but it's still the next step in evolution. The difference is that the next step is non-human. Doesn't mean the next step didn't happen for human history, it's just the next step lead to non-human beings.
1.3.3.1.1.1. Pro: If something new's created, there needs to be other steps that came before it to bring it in reality. Not saying that transhumanism is the next step is like saying that all the steps in human evolution didn't lead up to the transhuman one, because they're disconnected/separate from each other, which wouldn't be truthful.
1.3.3.1.2. Pro: The next step creates a dead-end for humans and thus shouldn't be considered a 'next step' if humans aren't a part of it.
1.3.3.2. Con: No, technology is a trend, as everything it will pass in the long term of the planet earth.
1.3.3.3. Pro: Even if it's a replacement for evolution, because there are nuanced betterment of individuals and as a species along the way, evolution will still be there along the way. It just won't be the next step in it.
1.3.3.4. Con: The next step presents alternate evolutionary pathways, taken by alternative means, rather than having no future path altogether or one that's not a part of the previous one.
1.3.3.5. Pro: Evolution is necessarily beneficial, transhumanism is not and the consequences of our errors in this regard might be catastrophic.
1.3.3.5.1. Con: Evolution is not necessarily beneficial, see "selfish gene" concept. Having more control over development of our species will be beneficial.
1.3.3.5.2. Con: Evolution has led to the natural extinction of many species, so was clearly not beneficial to them.
1.3.3.6. Con: Transhumanism is a step in evolution, as it is still selection for survival of the fittest. The only difference is that it is artificial and not natural, because humans can now decide their evolutionary path instead of nature.
1.3.3.6.1. Con: This presumes that the selection of mates over generations was not "humans deciding"; or that there is anything artificial about human decision. On the contrary, humans deciding what's desirable has guided human evolution up to now.
1.3.3.7. Pro: Transhumanism could reverse evolution. Artificial enhancement \(that does not affect the DNA\) of people who are, according to their DNA, the least fit, could ensure their survival and procreation \(with bad DNA\), thus reversing evolution.
1.3.4. Pro: Rarely are evolutionary changes self-induced. Transhumanism shows more signs of an evolutionary stage's mental innovation, visible in how a species uses corrective medicine. In the case of transhumanism, that would be things like artificial body parts, extended longevity, etc.
1.3.5. Con: Not every type of transhuman change impacts evolution. The only form of transhumanism that will affect evolution is genetic manipulation. All other forms of enhancement are technological \(a.k.a. electrical and digital\) improvements that do not impact on the gene pool of the population.
1.3.6. Pro: The human body will no longer evolve if it's replaced by artificial parts or gone entirely \(like transferred to a computer\).
1.3.7. Con: Biological evolution would still continue, just not with humans \(but in the wild instead\).
1.4. Pro: Transhumanism allows people to create a world that they want to live in, not limited by or reactive to the pre-setup environment they are born/placed in. People would then not be limited by nature \(including predetermined capabilities\), but rather their own imagination and location.
1.4.1. Con: Creating a world one wants to live in may be true for transhumans, but not everyone else. Inequalities in abilities to become transhuman would still lead to a world where non-enhanced people could have the problems they still have or worse ones with transhumans in existence.
1.4.1.1. Pro: If people gain better health, higher IQ, and overall better quality of life \(such as with CRISPR\), then [Kevin Warwick](http://www.kevinwarwick.com/)'s concern of superior cyborgs deciding the fate of the unenhanced becomes a concern at the voting booth.
1.4.1.1.1. Con: Concerns at the voting booth do not necessarily align with reality, and voters may not vote in their own best interests.
1.4.1.1.1.1. Pro: Automation currently displaces more labor than immigrants, yet the political discussion revolves around immigration rather than automation.
1.4.1.1.2. Con: Cyborgs will still be human \(so there'd be minimal change as there is now\) and face similar issues. If anything, their greater capabilities and sense will help out unaltered humans if anything.
1.4.1.1.3. Con: People can just vote against cyborgs rising into power to prevent this issue from happening.
1.4.2. Con: Being able to create a world one wants to live in could be too good to be true, as that could come at the sake of other lives due to intentional designing to fit a creator's needs.
1.4.2.1. Pro: Since scientists found out and recreated how to [pass on memories through DNA](http://www.bbc.com/news/health-25156510), a sort of DNA memory encoding, it is now possible to implement that with humans \(as it applies to them\). This can create ethical ramifications, like mind control, if someone decides to create transhumans with pre-selected memories.
1.4.2.2. Pro: There could be legal ramifications from [cloning, resurrection](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyed8UDeLM8), etc. of rebuilding the same person that ends up where no one wins in the end.
1.4.2.3. Pro: Due to building and trying to create a perfect/suitable world to live in, it could possibly set off a chain reaction that ends up negatively impacting others in the future through the [butterfly effect](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8bgp0WKHOE).
1.4.3. Pro: To start this process, people should be taught deep learning and biology to be skilled workers for collaboratives such as the BRAIN Initiative, not the efforts seen now \(with people playing video games and more\).
1.4.3.1. Con: Deep Learning and Biology and complex fields. Teaching people both of these when there is so much yet to be learnt about both of them would be a daunting task. Not everyone would be able to understand the material.
1.4.3.2. Con: [Deep learning](https://machinelearningmastery.com/what-is-deep-learning/) is a method for complicated pattern recognition and biology is...well, biology. Even technology like CRISPR simply does not work to "fix" or change people.
1.4.3.2.1. Pro: Humans are optimized for deep learning. So people don't have to change to start learning it.
1.4.3.3. Pro: Transhumanism could allow humans to create an afterlife for themselves by uploading their minds to the computer and being there after they die.
1.4.3.3.1. Con: This may be difficult, as the architecture of the human brain is different from computers.
1.4.3.3.2. Con: One would have to transfer the information components \(like quantum information\) that make them who they are, which would be difficult to achieve \(like how do you move your soul onto a computer?\).
1.4.3.3.3. Con: Creating a virtual avatar \(with [logic states](https://www.encyclopedia.com/computing/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/logic-state)\) for the afterlife may not be connected to the person it emulates in reality. Because it's a different state, person, and possibly consciousness \(if a virtual avatar can have it\), people can't really have an afterlife through transhumanism in terms of digital afterlives.
1.4.4. Con: It's in the nature \(in the very structure of being\) of literally every living being to strive for progression in a limiting world by overcoming the limits that this surrounding world imposes. When all the limits that surround us disappear, there wouldn't be any reasons for our actions anymore and we would get struck with enormous and arguably fatal feelings of meaninglessness, because no living being is built for a limitless world.
1.4.4.1. Con: Poverty and discrimination have always limited people and inhibited their ability to reach their truest potential. Transhumanism overturns these limitations so that individuals can be the very best versions of themselves.
1.4.4.2. Con: Transhumanism will only uplift physical and material limitations. Limitations of the thought, feeling, experience, and connections are still going to exist in some form.
1.4.4.3. Con: There are many limits for human beings. We have to sleep, eat, drink and many other physical needs we have to fulfill. Improved human could wipeout these needs in the future. That is something we should support. I.e. it's better to be in a neutral, meaningless state than to suffer, as we do now.
1.4.4.4. Con: Transhumanism might counteract this by allowing people to create meaning in such as limitless world.
1.4.4.5. Con: People will still have limits, as there are other factors in life that are limiting, such as time.
1.4.4.5.1. Pro: People may even be given artificial limits, so that they don't feel meaninglessness in their lives.
1.4.4.6. Pro: This is in part the reason that developed countries suffer from depression epidemics: the basic needs and struggles are taken care of and higher-order questions such as “what is my purpose in life” take up centre stage. When not easily answered \(and may not in this futuristic scenario either\), they lead to depression.
1.4.4.6.1. Pro: Transhumanism elevates the quality-of-life, but doesn't give it meaning. We might not survive too long if we don't solve this issue before/when we take on transhuman qualities.
1.4.4.7. Con: As mentioned, these feelings will be the biological product of us having evolved in a world with problems, and now living in a world without them. But, if we have enough computation power and data about the world and our biology, we could potentially change our biology enough to reprogram ourselves to not experience these feelings.
1.4.4.7.1. Pro: This reprogramming could be genetic modification to allow us to be content with what we have, especially in post-scarcity.
1.4.4.7.2. Con: If our minds cannot handle such freedoms, then we could get transhuman mental enhancements that will enable us to be able to see through the limitlessness to still live our lives and achieve. We don't have to reprogram ourselves, but instead add a new level of thought to what we already have.
1.4.5. Pro: In VR \(if people are living digitally or digitized\), people will be able to provide limitless body expression.
1.4.5.1. Pro: People could create their own body with its own gender in VR.
1.4.5.2. Con: If people say there's only two genders, then people won't pick up the VR and try to create their own - out of stigma.
1.4.5.2.1. Pro: When people stop thinking about genders, then they could be more creative and expand their imagination beyond what's in reality and start thinking about how people can be whatever gender \(or no gender\) they want.
1.4.5.2.2. Pro: As people step into the future, the binary of genders would stifle the will to engage in new technologies freely, as they are limited by what reality is right now: having genders.
1.4.6. Pro: Almost every tool that we have created, from the spear to the computer, has given us a better quality of life, and allowed us to live healthier, longer and more enlightened lives that would not have been possible in nature. This new age of technology will further facilitate that arc and improve our lives.
1.4.7. Pro: Any change of state is considered evolution and it is neither objectively good or bad, it can only be regarding to an objective such as survival. Transhumanism is the most likely future for humanity. Therefore it is most likely the next step in human evolution, because humans constantly change their state and are heading in the direction with their changes towards it.
1.4.7.1. Pro: There is no doubt that one day we will be superseded buy something more intelligent than ourselves. It's just evolution continuing. Obviously , anyone observing the world can see that we are so limited as humans. We still kill each other for land, religion or material things. We focus subconsciously on the need to reproduce and how to get a mate One day we will create something that is beyond that. Humans can be the fathers of the next generation of intelligent beings. That is our place.
1.4.7.2. Con: One needs to uphold variables \(like evolution\) for consciouses \(by figuring out how it works\). Leading to that by [suppression](https://io9.gizmodo.com/could-humans-evolve-into-a-giant-hive-mind-5891143), transhumanism is a possibility for upholding the variables of [secondary needs](http://ecosystemic-psychology.org.za/home/ethical-psychology/first-and-second-order-cybernetics) for regrowth to further evolution \(related to [loT](https://internetofthingsagenda.techtarget.com/definition/Internet-of-Things-IoT), [loT-AI](https://www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics/special_issues/ai_lot_computing) [personalized communication](https://www.toshiba.co.jp/iot/en/spinex/ai.htm), [adaptive](https://tmsoz.com/blog/communication-cybernetic-process/) development of [W3C](https://www.w3.org/)/[HTML5](https://www.techradar.com/news/internet/web/html5-what-is-it-1047393), etc., and even 6th-[level programming](https://thebittheories.com/levels-of-programming-languages-b6a38a68c0f2?gi=21d8c454446b) of [structured mega-citizenship of consiouses](https://28oa9i1t08037ue3m1l0i861-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Neuralink-formula-5-1.png) \([TL;DR](https://waitbutwhy.com/2017/04/neuralink.html)\) about [reverse engineering](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reverse%20engineer) and [uphold](http://wikibon.org/w/images/c/ca/Technology_Adoption_Curve.jpg) of [osmosis](https://www.thefreedictionary.com/osmosis), possibly by 2022-2040\).
1.4.7.2.1. Pro: A humanoid could be created where it uses AI to talk to people \(as they can [speak languages](https://www.techly.com.au/2017/07/31/facebooks-ai-bots-are-communicating-in-a-language-we-dont-understand/), albeit not well with humans yet\), and it's body is like the IoT, so it connects with that to operate. AI helps with [emotional analysis, facial recognition](https://emerj.com/ai-sector-overviews/artificial-intelligence-plus-the-internet-of-things-iot-3-examples-worth-learning-from/), [voice recognition, and tracking](https://www.toshiba.co.jp/iot/en/ai/communication_ai/overview.htm) \(for remembering people\) to engage more personally with them.
1.4.7.2.2. Pro: Building up the internet's infrastructure \(especially the GUI part\) could help with people better equipped for interpersonal \(transhuman-human\), instead of just the [intra](https://writingexplained.org/inter-vs-intra-difference)personal \([bionics](http://www.ieeesmc.org/technical-activities/human-machine-systems/brain-machine-interface-systems)\) cybernetic interactions we're familiar with today.
1.4.7.2.3. Pro: If we can figure out how to be more cooperative, and less conflicting with each other \(which is in our biology\), then we can have a hold of our own evolution and manipulate its variables to become transhuman \(like having a hive mind - [1](https://io9.gizmodo.com/could-humans-evolve-into-a-giant-hive-mind-5891143), [2](https://io9.gizmodo.com/how-much-longer-until-humanity-becomes-a-hive-mind-453848055)\).
1.5. Pro: Transhumanism would make life easier.
1.5.1. Pro: People would have greater freedom than without it.
1.5.1.1. Pro: Transhumanism can represent a new life for the disabled. You be you, I be me. If someone is comfortable being a cyborg to live better, be autonomous and have a healthy lifestyle, the choice should be his.
1.5.1.1.1. Con: People cannot choose to use only stone tools in most modern societies, because they would be outcompeted by people with current technology and couldn't make any money. In the same way, people would not be free to choose whether to become transhumans or not in case it becomes widespread and economically advantageous. Therefore the choice of becoming transhumans would not be exactly free.
1.5.1.1.1.1. Con: This is true for virtually all technologies and innovations. Humanity will continue to evolve. People need to step out of their comfort zones and continue to evolve with the technology.
1.5.1.1.1.2. Con: In the status quo, the disabled have no choice but to be disadvantaged relative to everyone else in society. Their best case scenario is dependent on the majority making provisions for them. In this case, people will have an actual choice in determining their conditions. This is better than the alternative.
1.5.1.1.1.3. Con: The current structuring of the economy and the dependence on money is a result of the scarcity of resources. Transhumanism is likely to allow us to find ways to create outputs with greater ease and in greater amounts, or even potentially remove our dependence on these things \(should we be able to merge with cyborgs\). Making money is likely to not factor into the decision being made here. This would allow people a real choice in retaining their traditional values.
1.5.1.2. Con: People would cease to be people and their value of freedom and other humanitarian values could be destroyed or altered; beyond the realms of what we as traditional humans conventionally think of as freedom, will and consciousness.
1.5.1.2.1. Pro: Humans will no longer be just human anymore, so the freedoms associated with being human go away. In addition, people have a new body, which has limitations not seen in a human body. Thus, people get hit with 2 limitations simultaneously when they become transhuman.
1.5.1.2.1.1. Pro: One of these limitations may be robotic body parts breaking down. Human bodies continuously fix themselves, whereas robotic parts, once damaged, need to be replaced.
1.5.1.2.2. Pro: People may become objectified, because they are not seen as 'humans' but objects if they have a robot body. Thus, they may not get the same rights as when they were human.
1.5.1.3. Con: While some technologies might increase freedom \(like advanced prosthetics for disabled people\), other may decrease it, depending on implementation. Example: imagine neural chips connecting people into unavoidable social media raging 24/7, easier accessed than ever, which use is so widespread that getting rid of it might be culturally frowned upon or impractical.
1.5.1.4. Con: Greater freedom doesn't have to be the most important parameter for human progression.
1.5.1.5. Pro: Humans can take over the decisionmaking that previously fell onto nature. With this step, people will be less dependent on external factors and instead more independent.
1.5.2. Con: Transumanism may cause people to live unnaturally, and excessively long. This can have massively negative effects.
1.5.2.1. Pro: This can exacerbate the problems with overpopulation and overconsumption, leading to the destruction of the environment and by extension, possibly the downfall of the human race.
1.5.3. Pro: People would not have to learn for almost two decades if their minds are connected to the internet, memories are genetically enhanced to the point of hyperthymesia, or implants with entire courses on them that are absorbed instantly.
1.5.3.1. Con: Malware and hacking may pose a significant danger to the victims sanity and to their ability to be responsible for their actions.
1.5.3.2. Con: Malware may become a weapons of mass destruction, putting billions of lifes at stake.
1.6. Con: People and cultures may be against change, and transhumanism is a large one.
1.6.1. Pro: Cybernetic hate crimes may become worse in the future, as they're already showing up. In July 2012, an [assault](https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/19/3169889/steve-mann-cyborg-assault-mcdonalds-eyetap-paris) took place in France linked to transhuman discrimination.
1.6.2. Con: When it comes to evolution, not every member of a species survives. Opposing the advance could lead to extinction of that group if the environment favors those who embrace it.
1.6.2.1. Pro: It's means, rather than appeal, that creates survival. Thus, people may end up pushing past their disliking for change and instead embrace it if surviving means more to them than abiding by their aversion to it.
1.6.2.2. Pro: People's opinion to be against the external changes \(that diverge people onto separate paths\) will not matter in the long run, as they will get eliminated due to their thoughts \(on their 'dead-end' path\) and the ones who believe in transhumanism will survive and continue to bring it into existence \(on their surviving path\).
1.6.2.2.1. Con: What happens in the beginning of an event drastically alters the outcome. If there are too many people vehemently opposed to transhumanism, then transhumanism may not come into existence due to resistance alone. In this circumstance, their opinions will matter.
1.6.3. Pro: Transhumanism comes at a cost \(financial, societal, and other consequences\) that is too difficult to or not be worth investing in.
1.6.3.1. Con: From a cost-value basis, looking at evolution's progress, every change in evolution's a transaction with each last step being equally as valuable as the new step. The transfer has no net cost, as whatever's lost is equally replaced by what's new. So if transhuman comes into being and is embraced, we will decide what to lose in order to gain this \(be it agriculture, money, etc. for regeneration, superintelligence, etc.\).
1.6.3.2. Pro: When one weigh the pros and cons, the benefit received from becoming transhuman might not be worth the costs to get there. The 'end does not justify the means' in this case.
1.6.3.3. Pro: If transhumanism is impossible \(or near impossible\) to accomplish, then it would be a waste of everyone's time and efforts to try to make ti work.
1.6.4. Pro: People have a stigma against eugenics.
1.6.4.1. Con: Eugenics and modern transhumanism aren't the same thing, and are actually fundamentally incompatible with each other. The most extreme forms of eugenics utilize sterilization or genocide to change the course of human evolution, and both of these are antithetical to the core values of modern transhumanism: complete morphological freedom and bodily autonomy for everyone, and the rejection of death in all forms.
1.6.4.2. Pro: Eugenics has been used [unethically](https://www.history.com/topics/germany/eugenics) in the past. Transhumanism may resurface these negative practices. Without thinking through how to accomplish going forward with transhumanism without recreating the past, it can possibly lead us a step back instead of a step forward in evolution.
1.6.4.2.1. Pro: Transhumanism is the justification of eugenics because it is the creation of a superior breed of humans.
1.6.4.2.1.1. Con: Major [tranhuman organizations](https://web.archive.org/web/20060909005028/http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/66/), such as the World Transhumanist Organization, reject the prejudicial and discriminatory principles typically associated with eugenics in favour of egalitarian liberal eugenics, which focuses on enhancements that create an overall benefit for people as opposed t ones that would allow people to become social "superiors".
1.6.4.2.1.2. Pro: Even without individual people being better than others we have difficulty with genocides and discrimination consuming the world. Transhumanism creates objective changes in humans, leading to objective differences in abilities. To think these objective changes wouldn't replace the perceived differences currently fueling the eugenics movement is contrary to human history.
1.6.4.3. Con: Even if humans do not choose transhumanism due to their aversion to eugenics, society and extremists will still happen anyway through genocide and discrimination. In the long term, these events create objective changes and differences between humans, possibly emerging many new human species. Since eugenics is and always was inevitable, we might as well choose transhumanism. At the very least, we can control its outcomes, collectively and positively, not hatefully and negatively.
1.6.5. Pro: When there is a change, the outcome will have winners and losers different than now. Some people may feel regrets towards transhumanism with good reason, as they know and actually would become 'losers' in the transhuman transition \(just like what happened with the transition away from [silent flims](https://norlinreelhistory.blogspot.com/2011/03/talkies-and-golden-age-of-film.html)\).
1.6.6. Con: People and cultures tend to have biases against change, but these have been overcome quite frequently throughout history to a better result.   Some changes that were opposed, but overcome include: Wide-spread printing and reading, views of the universe, understanding anatomy, ending slavery, women's suffrage, the industrial revolution, cars, planes, etc.
1.6.6.1. Con: As transhumanist technology enters the mainstream, the stigma goes away.  Probiotics, for instance, are not stigmatized at all.  SSRIs and braces are only a little stigmatized.  Nobody considers web search to be a stigma, yet it's augmented how we learn and memorize things. Now, people still engage in learning for depth, but never learning for breadth.
1.7. Con: Human interaction partially gets lost in transhumanism, where people are not interacting with "humans" anymore, but humans + something else.
1.7.1. Pro: Human elements \(that are necessary to keep\) could get lost just as easily as cultures during the changes through time.
1.7.2. Con: The transhuman \(or posthuman\) interactions could be better than now.
1.7.3. Pro: Transhumanism has the potential to rob man of some of the essential human experiences; such as growth through struggle and the sense of individuality by knowing ones personal strengths and weaknesses.
1.7.3.1. Con: Our personal strengths and weaknesses are relative to our abilities -- as we enhance and our capabilities change, we update our perception of personal strength and weakness, and our struggle to improve continues.
1.7.3.2. Con: It's in our nature to struggle: for better or for worse, we always try to exceed our current capabilities. We just shouldn't make struggling harder than it is, especially for the sake of 'essential human experiences'. Any struggle that we haven't fixed will allow us to grow, as transhumanism doesn't really take all of that away.
1.7.3.2.1. Con: With improvements in technology, what used to be struggle is no longer there. Currently, they create or lead to new struggles. However, we could theoretically get to a point where all problems get solutions through technology and no more struggling for existence exists.
1.7.4. Con: While that is possible, we \(humans\) have already accepted dramatic changes to how we interact with one another.   An example of this is watching a group of people sitting together but all of them interacting \(via cell phone\) at a cursory level with yet other people instead of interacting closely with the people around them.
1.7.4.1. Con: People evolved for social interaction; so we cannot adapt to drastic changes, even if we consciously accept them.
1.7.4.1.1. Pro: Technology, [simultaneously connecting and separating us](https://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2012/01/technology-is-destroying-the-quality-of-human-interaction), can lead to a breaking point \([increased suicide rates](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3477910/) is already a call for help\). Naturally, no matter how much humans transcend our roots \(through technological substitutions\), our basic needs for connection won't go away anytime soon. For now, they still need to be met.
1.7.4.1.2. Con: Eventually things will balance themselves between the ability to connect and not get separated, as technology ever increases. Humans [evolved](http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/climate-and-human-evolution/climate-effects-human-evolution) to adapt to rapidly/drastically changing and different environments. We should be able to handle this change too, as we have throughout history.
1.8. Con: Transhumans have limits in competing with complete automatons and may not be capable enough to survive in the technological singularity, as that's when the progression of automation surpasses humans \(so transhumans, being part human, would be below automation, but above humans, in keeping up\).
1.8.1. Pro: A machine directly improving itself will be faster than us using a machine to find ways to improve ourselves, as we are a middleman that slows technological down.
1.8.2. Pro: Human bodies have specific requirements: food, water, moderate temperature, clean air,... It would be easier to build a robot without those requirements, than freeing transhumans from those requirements.
1.8.2.1. Con: Machines are [not as efficient](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thinking-hard-calories/) as biological bodies. The amount of power our brain uses about 13 Watts. That is much less, than supercomputer. Maybe machines will never be as efficient.
1.8.2.1.1. Con: Energy efficiency of machines is constantly being improved, while we have yet to attempt such advancements on the brain.
1.8.2.1.2. Con: Brains use less power but are less reliable with memory, calculation and accuracy.
1.8.2.1.3. Pro: [Brain-computer interfaces](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMxJYhUg0pc) \(BCIs\) [may further increase efficiency of the brain](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2018.00949/full) of transhumans so that robots never catch up.
1.8.2.2. Con: Transhumans may one day be robots in the future. We might be able to upload our minds into a computer and download it into a robot. Thus, the human requirements are not an issue, because they might not be around when transhumanism accounts for it.
1.8.2.3. Con: That may be true at some point in the future.   However, taking the alternate \(transhumanism\) route helps keep humans relevant and competitive longer than is otherwise likely.
1.8.3. Pro: Computer and neuroscience technology advanced enough to create humans substantially more advanced than those of today would probably cause an [intelligence explosion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_explosion) before we have the time to alter humanity much. Thus, the next step is the Singularity, and Transhumanism would have to wait to follow that if at all.
1.8.3.1. Pro: The non-transhuman human-enhancing technology \(internet, big data, automation, etc.\) is easier to adapt to and thus progresses faster than transhuman developments do. This leads to a greater ability to handle mental and physical tasks over time through both or average bodies and automation, which doesn't leave much room in the middle for transhumanism.
1.8.3.2. Con: The effects of human creativity in leveraging incremental advances in human-machine interfaces is unpredictable, and could well lead to unexpectedly rapid progress in transhumanism before the singularity.
1.8.3.3. Pro: Transhuman technology might arrive too late, where [superintelligence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence) takes over before people can keep up.
1.8.3.3.1. Pro: [Artificial superintelligence \(ASI\)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence) could eliminate the human race before transhumanism can take hold.
1.9. Pro: This next step is inevitable, so we should proceed with a method to have control over the process.
1.9.1. Pro: There is little getting in the way of transhumanism proceeding, so once it becomes the next step, there will be little getting in the way of its progress, just like natural evolution.
1.9.1.1. Pro: Spiritual and social disruptions are unlikely, as some religions \(like [Mormonism](https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/what-is-mormon-transhumanism-and-is-it-mormon/)\) tolerate and account for transhumanism. These religions will not get in the way of transhumanism's advancements, and might even support them.
1.9.2. Pro: Transhumanism is already happening and progressing right now.
1.9.2.1. Pro: [Body hacking](https://themerkle.com/what-is-body-hacking/) \(not [biohacking](https://draxe.com/health/what-is-biohacking/)\) is quite a topic with people [already experimenting](https://www.popsci.com/9-body-hacks-superhuman-powers/) with physically enhancing the capabilities of human skill and range through technology.
1.9.2.1.1. Pro: The quite vast range of medical interventions already adopted -- drugs, prosthetics, cloned organs, cross-species transplants, device implants, gene therapy,... -- indicates that there is no great resistance to all types of enhancement.
1.9.2.1.1.1. Pro: [Radio-Frequency Identification \(RFID\) chips](http://Radio-Frequency Identification \(RFID\) chips can now be implanted sub-dermally and used for identification, electronic payments, opening security doors, or offloading information such as medical records.) can now be implanted subdermally and used for identification, electronic payments, opening security doors, or offloading information such as medical records.
1.9.2.1.1.2. Pro: We already make prosthetics that move by reading signals of one's mind. We also invented a new process of amputation that allows the body to retain its natural presence awareness with a prosthetic.
1.9.2.1.1.3. Pro: We put pacemakers in our hearts, artificial hips in our legs, and eventually turn to robotic implants or replacements.
1.9.2.1.1.4. Pro: The exoskeletons made for the disabled and the military may one day lead to [complete exoskeletons](http://archive.businessjournaldaily.com/education/few-limits-what-mind-can-imagine-accomplish-2014-3-21) for everyone.
1.9.2.1.2. Pro: Kevin Warwick, also known as “Captain Cyborg”, has had a [microchip implanted](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/professor-has-worlds-first-silicon-chip-implant-1174101.html) that enables him to control the lights and doors in his lab.
1.9.2.2. Pro: Many technologies that aren't connected to us physically \(like internally, like an implant\), act as an extension of the body.
1.9.2.2.1. Pro: [Google pixel buds \(for Google Pixel 2\) translate up to 40 languages](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/04/google-translation-earbuds-google-pixel-buds-launched.html). This heightens our linguistic capabilities without implantation, but rather by extension.
1.9.2.2.2. Pro: In the last decade or so, the smartphone has put vast amounts of multimedia information and global communication capabilities literally in the hands and at the fingertips of over two billion people and counting, effectively extending our brains.
1.9.2.2.3. Pro: Billions of people drive their own cars, extending our legs and our load carrying ability in a way similar to a powered exoskeleton.
1.9.3. Pro: As we develop new technology, we eventually find a way to incorporate it into our bodies or minds to make them transhuman. This trend already started long ago and will not stop until we achieve the capability altogether in reality.
1.9.3.1. Pro: Humanity is already heading in this direction and it will come to being no matter what. In theory, one could claim we are cyborgs as glued to our phones as we are. It is better to try to shape it and discuss it, instead of letting someone or something do that for us.
1.9.3.2. Pro: -> See discussion #14253: Humans will eventually evolve into machines.
1.9.3.3. Pro: The trend started non-transhuman technologies like: telephones, clocks/watches, internet, instant messaging, cloud drives, pacemakers, hip replacements, probiotics, insulin pumps, dentures, SSRIs, and more. Bionics and enhancements for lesser-abled could lead to exoskeletons \(with all of these technologies\) for the rest of humanity to acquire transhuman capabilities.
1.9.3.4. Pro: We've been adding extra-genetic/transhuman advantages to our evolution since the invention of writing.  The end of [The Selfish Gene](https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Richard-Dawkins/dp/1491514507) describes this in detail.
1.9.4. Con: Very little about modern machine learning would suggest that machines are in any way getting close to overtaking humans as fully independent agents in the world.
1.9.5. Con: Just because the next step is inevitable, does not mean we have to encourage or hasten its progress.
1.9.5.1. Pro: If transhumanism goes against personal beliefs, those individuals would not want to contribute to its progress. They should not be pressured into doing so, just because the next step is inevitable.
1.9.5.2. Pro: Transhumanism can take a very long time to emerge, so people can avoid living through it just by avoiding its development.
1.9.5.3. Con: It also doesn't mean slowing or stalling it out, especially due to its risks \(like interference in natural processes\).
1.9.6. Con: If humans control the process, they may prevent the seemingly inevitable progress towards transhumanism from even happening. Thus, humans should not proceed with a method to shape the future consciously.
1.9.7. Pro: Our curiosity and obsession in the search for human consciousness will lead us to figuring out how to be transhuman.
1.9.7.1. Pro: Although never attempted before, by connecting computers to our brain, we could possibly directly test consciousness with ourselves by switching over to the computer, and back again. This might test consciousness properly, possibly leading to the secrets on how to create transhumanism - in terms of digitizing people through mind uploading/downloading.
1.9.7.1.1. Con: This might not work if what we upload is not exactly the same as when we download it. Then it can't be repeated. Only 100% exactness should work, but that may be unlikely to achieve.
1.9.7.1.2. Pro: This is possibly to achieve in reality with modern-day technology, like [3D brain visualizers](https://www.emotiv.com/our-technology/) that take readings from a human mind and places it on the computer.
1.9.7.1.3. Pro: Programming that is [visual](https://medium.com/\@FriendshipCube/the-friendship-cube-group-is-simplifying-the-back-end-of-machine-learning-via-22bit-fiber-optic-7f8357715552), instead of 'behind-the-scenes' in computers, can lead to a human-machine interface for between the digital and real world.
1.9.7.2. Con: We don't need to test for consciousness in order to put it into a computer to be transhuman. [Digitizing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYS7UIUM_SQ) is enough to download consciousness into a robot without figuring out the details \(like where it came from, where it is located, etc.\).
1.9.8. Pro: Manipulating our rate and direction of change is more efficient than being subject to a process which incorporates random chance to effect change \(like evolution\). Humans constantly look for ways to be more efficient, therefore manipulating how we evolve, in this case using technology, is a logically sound decision.
1.9.9. Pro: Humans should merge with AI/robots to keep up with them for the upcoming technological/cybernetic singularities.
1.9.9.1. Pro: Transhuman adaptions, like becoming a cyborg, would help people do better at their jobs.
1.9.9.1.1. Pro: A spy profession is a good example, as they need a sharp eye out and keen ear open to their surroundings. Placing a [camera in a spy's head](http://skewsme.com/tinfoilhat/chapter/brain-implants/2/) would assist with that.
1.9.9.1.2. Pro: This will help people stay relevant in the job market and keep automation at bay.
1.9.9.1.3. Con: Transhumanism's not needed as long as people know how to work with automation to accomplish tasks.
1.9.9.1.3.1. Con: This will only work as long as people are capable of understanding how robots work. Once robots reach a certain point of complexity, humans will need enhancements to work with them.
1.9.9.1.3.1.1. Con: There is no sign at this time that strong AI is feasible, so machines might be able to do self-maintenance, but it is questionable whether they would still rely on human creativity for creating better versions.
1.10. Pro: Transhumanism provides existential risk reduction.
1.10.1. Pro: Transhumanism will increase the likelihood of people taking actions to combat existential threats.
1.10.1.1. Pro: The virtual reality and digitization aspects of transhumanism will allow individuals to step into the shoes of those that are suffering first-hand from the consequences of disasters such as climate change. Such empathy will inculcate the will to create change.
1.10.1.2. Pro: Transhumanism makes material gain \(such as land and national sovereignty\) less importance by allowing individuals to transcend such things. In doing so, it will make people transcend the petty issues that divide them and align their interests.
1.10.2. Pro: Transhumanism helps to prevent [existential risk](http://www.x-risk.net/) of [AI takeover](https://www.cser.ac.uk/research/risks-from-artificial-intelligence/) through [existential risk reduction](http://www.existential-risk.org/).
1.10.2.1. Pro: [Elon Musk's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk) [Neuralink](https://www.neuralink.com/) is a prime example of preventing existential risk. The Neuralink enables people to compete with AI by thinking at the same speed as their computation.
1.10.2.2. Con: If the AI part of the AI-Human system becomes sufficiently effective, the human will just be adding noise. The effective path would be to remove the human. Thus, transhumanism creates existential risk, because it heightens the possibility of takeover, only worse: it happens inside of the human body.
1.10.2.2.1. Con: When humans are closely integrated with task-specific [narrow AI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_AI), the powers of mind would be practically unlimited, and developing [artificial general intelligence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence) \(AGI\) -- AI that's intellectually equivalent to humans -- would not be necessary for species advancement. AGI could be outlawed.
1.10.2.2.2. Con: Humans may become intelligent enough by then, with their transhuman capabilities, that they may recognize and resolve what is happening \(especially if it's in their own body\), to prevent this from happening.
1.10.2.2.3. Con: People may develop sensors to let them know what is going on to let humans acknowledge what's happening, so they can take action on it to resolve it.
1.10.2.2.3.1. Con: Just because people are aware of something, doesn't mean they know how to resolve it.
1.10.2.2.3.2. Con: Sensors may have issues, being faulty or specific to where they don't pick up everything important. So a sensor may not notify a person when something goes wrong, due to their shortcomings.
1.10.3. Pro: Transhumanism could speed up human evolution, which provides multiple benefits.
1.10.3.1. Con: We don't need transhumanism for that, as it's [already happening](https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1166946134461431808) quickly and naturally through human evolution.
1.10.3.2. Con: Evolution is kind of perspective since humans aren't anymore under Darwin laws of evolution. So people are able to speed up their own evolution artificially without resorting to transhumanism, long as we don't, under market exponential resources consumption growth over the years destroy our resources to [lead us to a collapse](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914000615) first.
1.10.3.3. Pro: Transhumanism will help humans will win in the game of evolution, as it allows us to exist across the universe, which is better to survival than species that can only survive in a micro ecological niche \(e.g. flightless dung beetle\).
1.10.3.3.1. Pro: Transhumanism allows for unexpected activity and performance or ability. Yes, a bit like ordinary superheroes.
1.10.3.3.1.1. Pro: So law and order should already be thinking about the framework to integrate humans with different degrees of robotisation.
1.10.3.4. Con: Human evolution is taking a "u-turn". Let people live and die naturally. We have created a population havoc by strengthening our health care systems. When every intelligent being is surrounded by an intelligent being the outcome is unknown.
1.10.3.5. Con: One way to speed up evolution is to speed up the human reproduction cycle. Transhumanism may be part of this, but the impact could create overpopulation, which could lead to war and disease.
1.10.3.5.1. Con: In the society which we live in, the average age of death is way past the age of reproduction. Even the weakest have good chance to survive. Then reproduction is no longer a way to evolve for humans.
1.10.3.6. Pro: Speeding up evolution could fill in the gaps of evolution \(that only got us so far\), such as eliminating genetic diseases.
1.10.3.6.1. Con: Humans early on met great environmental changes to where we had to [evolve rapidly](http://discovermagazine.com/2015/march/19-life-in-the-fast-lane), yet not qualitatively \(as evidenced by [human-specific diseases not found in other animals](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kaj41Qeeu0)\). Transhumanism could allow us backtrack to reverse the poorly made changes to our evolution to allow our evolution to continue properly and completely.
1.10.3.7. Pro: Speeding up evolution could help humans keep up with the rapid change in technology. Evolution is not fast enough for the new artificial world.
1.10.3.7.1. Pro: Humans are well-adapted to their environment, and since the environment's is ample and not going to change soon, humans won't evolve. Thus, the alternative \(if we want to keep evolving\) is through artificial means, as it lets us 'do the impossible'.
1.10.3.7.2. Pro: With the advancement of AI, we will become less capable than a machine. Thus, the only way to keep up is to enhance our own brains.
1.10.3.7.2.1. Pro: Brain visualizing can encoded through a [22-bit visual binary](https://medium.com/\@FriendshipCube/the-friendship-cube-group-is-simplifying-the-back-end-of-machine-learning-via-22bit-fiber-optic-7f8357715552) system. Once encoded, then programming can enhance human intelligence to the level of machines.
1.10.3.7.3. Pro: Precise synthetic human adaptations make sense when we live in mostly synthetic environments, like cities. If we absorb data from screens all day, it is more efficient to adapt to the process by devising a direct neural interface, than to wait for our bodies to biologically evolve to the task, and so forth.
1.10.3.7.3.1. Pro: Over half of the human population lives in an urban environment \(two-thirds forecast by 2050\) -- transhumanism is simply natural evolution in kind.
1.10.3.7.4. Con: To do this without risking overpopulation the variance in our race from one generation to the next would have to be increased. This risks increasing the incidence of miscarriages and counterproductive results \(within the scope of this discussion, i.e. without making any judgement of those with special needs\).
1.10.3.8. Con: If evolution is sped up quicker than we can consciously manage, risks in not knowing to solve unknown problems would increase.
1.10.3.8.1. Pro: Since we don't know enough about the human body to recreate it entirely, body parts may be missing parts to a transhuman body and we would have to those evolve again just to get back to where it is now, starting the evolutionary process from scratch for that part.
1.10.3.8.1.1. Con: We would make sure that didn't happen \(like have backup copies\) before proceeding.
1.10.3.9. Pro: Transhumanism could speed up evolution through new technologies like [gene editing](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/science/gene-editing-human-embryos.html), [lab-grown babies](http://iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/frozen-ovaries-lab-grown-babies-future-childbirth/), or [in-vitro gametogenesis \(IVG\)](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/science/gene-editing-human-embryos.html).
1.10.3.9.1. Pro: They could allow those with beneficial genes to contribute to the gene pool when they couldn't before, edit out bad parts of genes, or rear children without medical complications.
1.10.3.9.2. Pro: We already know which [genes to manipulate and for what purpose](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2019/10/29/what-would-a-truly-modern-human-look-like/). It's now just a matter of implementation.
1.10.4. Con: Transhumanism might have unforeseen dangers, because it has never been accomplished on a mass scale.
1.10.4.1. Con: As all new technologies, its onset will be gradual and it will be initially used on smaller scale, giving as a chance to foresee potential dangers.
1.10.4.1.1. Con: 5G is an example of a new technology where this is not the case. It will be ruled out on almost global scale \(in the western world\) within a few years, before potential dangers have been studied.
1.10.4.2. Pro: We still have so many unknowns in answering many diseases. Adding a new layer of possible malfunction could make this even worse.
1.10.4.2.1. Con: Since we might not have to worry about diseases in the future, we could focus our time on solving malfunction issues.
1.10.4.2.2. Pro: With transhumanism, not only do we have to understand diseases, but we need to find a solution to them through transhumanism. If that's not hard enough, once we solve it, then we face an additional challenge of solving malfunction issues. With all this, it might not be worth getting into a mess unless we really know what we're doing.
1.10.4.3. Pro: We think of the future with the information we have on the present, a posteriori we see that many unforeseen circumstances shaped the world in a different way. Because we can foresee these technologies, the future will probably be shaped by something else, something unknown that we will not know how to handle.
1.10.4.4. Pro: If humans are computerized, they may be subject to hacking \(like computer viruses on computers or takeover\).
1.10.4.4.1. Pro: This is probably where tranhumanism gets scariest, because people's entire body may be hacked and they won't even know about it.
1.10.4.4.2. Pro: This type of hacking's practically impossible to get rid of, as one wouldn't know they are being hacked and would thus be unable to get rid of it.
1.10.4.4.2.1. Con: Once we figure out a solution to the [Cartesian skepticism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLKrmw906TM) \(by finding out who is hacking\), then we may be able to counteract this version of hacking.
1.10.4.4.2.1.1. Pro: There may parameters set up as checkpoints to notify of this happening.
1.10.4.4.3. Con: Society may become aware of this issue and counteract it \(like create laws\) to prevent it from becoming an issue.
1.10.4.4.3.1. Con: You can't make laws to prevent hacking. It is already illegal. You need better security systems and less data collected. The more data, the more can be abused.
1.10.4.4.3.1.1. Con: The [primary reason](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/opinion/internet-hacking-cybersecurity-iot.html) computers are insecure is that most buyers aren’t willing to pay — in money, features, or time to market — for security to be built into the products and services they purchase. Once more than data \(ie people themselves\) are on the line, this is likely to change. With it, laws and security provisions will improve.
1.10.4.4.4. Pro: There's a psychology Hacking in progress made by Ads, Politics and social media: we're not free from being hacked
1.10.4.4.5. Pro: And not only hacking, but also government abuse, like surveillance, mind-control/manipulation and attack on other liberties.
1.10.4.4.6. Pro: Virtual crimes such as getting one's e-life deleted, rewritten, rebooted or stolen could result in a transhuman being wiped from existence.
1.10.4.4.6.1. Pro: This would be unsafe for humanity, as all of humanity could be erased through this route.
1.10.4.4.7. Pro: Even the most secure internet domains have been hacked. A group of cyperspies known as the [Sea Turtles](https://www.wired.com/story/sea-turtle-dns-hijacking/) have successfully hijacked the internet domains of entire countries. Individuals expose themselves to this very real risk with little guarantee of safety if they turn to transhumanism.
1.10.4.5. Pro: It can negatively affect our evolution on a long term, especially if it applies to newborns. Transhumanism can cause irreversible changes if we do not take extra care each step of the way.
1.10.4.6. Con: As we become more transhuman, we will have better capabilities to handle unforseen dangers than before. For example, with the internet, if a car breaks down, we can search for how-to's on solving it. That could not take place before the internet.
1.10.4.7. Con: If we think about the what-if's beforehand and address them, then there would be no worries on proceeding forward. There is nothing that would be surprising if every potential problem is given a solution through deliberation.
1.10.4.8. Pro: Transhumanism could be used by governments to control you and/or your mind. Even just by reading your thoughts this could threat everyone who is against a certain system or leader.
1.10.4.8.1. Pro: Surveillance [changes your behaviour](https://harvardmagazine.com/2017/01/the-watchers). Transhumanism would just make all kinds of privacy abuses more serious/dangerous.
1.10.4.8.2. Pro: A person's freedom and autonomy may be hijacked remotely, because they are at the mercy of [smart grids](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid).
1.10.4.9. Con: Danger won't stop science/progress from making it happen. Atomic bomb carried much danger and unforeseen danger, and we developed it anyway.
1.10.4.10. Pro: Artificial Intelligence may spawn a new form of species from the connectivity of humans \(a.k.a. transhumanism\), instead of humans naturally evolving into anything much more complex than they are today
1.10.4.10.1. Pro: Those who don't conform would be drastically inferior, both intellectually and physically to those that did. This would likely cause a rift in society. The transhumans would look down upon the humans as the humans do primates. They would be obsolete, and useless to society.
1.10.4.10.2. Pro: While humans will surely change through this process, they are not a necessary component for the creation of new AI species.
1.10.4.11. Pro: -> See 1.1.10.
1.10.4.12. Pro: These dangers may be harder to correct, as it is difficult to back to something that is lost \(in this case, humanity\).
1.10.4.12.1. Con: That may be true on an individual basis \(what's done to an individual may be hard to undo\), but can be done on a broad scale -- taking an alternate path in evolution.
1.10.4.13. Pro: Transhumanism disrupts nature \(i.e. Earth's environment\) that if people leave it \(as humans disrupted nature so much that when humans are removed\), there would be a void that needs to be filled to prevent disruptions in equilibria. Thus, we need to fill in the void we create - when humans become transhuman - to keep ecosystems intact.
1.10.4.13.1. Pro: Transhumanism implies loss in the natural equilibrium due to artificial changes in humanity \(which is an important actor in the system ~ as effects in nature show, i.e. climate change\). An option is to include nature in changes made to a whole system \(as a sort of transnature\), to allow for the collective evolution and minimization of potential risks of the imbalance.
1.10.4.13.1.1. Pro: We've already seen what happens to the world when humans take an artificial route - as the claim mentions about climate change - which comes from artificial activities like growing food and using vehicles instead of eating what grows naturally and using our bodies to get around \(like walking or running\). Because the mass-scale led to mass destruction, this potential risk could happen again.
1.10.4.14. Pro: Authoritarian governments could rule it out nationwide to control their populations.
1.10.4.15. Pro: Physiologically, the human body may reject surgically placed biomechatronic body parts.
1.10.4.15.1. Con: Implants are already being used for medical purposes without major issues.
1.10.4.15.2. Con: This is really rare, happening less than [0.1%](https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1230696-overview) of the time.
1.10.4.15.2.1. Pro: A [test patch](https://www.depuysynthes.com/patients/aabp/resources/faq/treatment/metal-plate-rejection) may be performed beforehand to look for metal sensitivities to look for other alloys instead for prevention.
1.10.4.15.2.1.1. Con: If transhumanism becomes commonplace, people might disregard safeguards if people start the process from birth or out of remaining competitive in body parts with others due to the worries of falling behind.
1.10.4.15.2.1.2. Pro: By the time transhumanism comes out, most likely genetic testing will be advanced enough to discover metal sensitivities before they cause real issues.
1.10.4.15.2.2. Pro: Even if it occurs, people can get treatment to desensitize their body
1.10.4.15.3. Con: Enhancements could be placed outside of the body instead of inside \(like an exoskeleton instead of bone replacements\).
1.10.4.15.4. Con: Transhumanism would one day get advanced enough that surgical rejection is only a problem of the past.
1.10.4.15.4.1. Pro: People's bodies may be genetically engineered to not have metal sensitivities.
1.10.4.15.4.2. Pro: People may be genetically engineered to have features that we would need currently surgical implants for.
1.10.4.15.4.3. Pro: People might end up using materials that no one is sensitive to \(like biomaterials from people's bodies grown/3D printed as enhancements instead of implanting metal\).
1.10.4.15.4.3.1. Pro: One could imagine that if people need extra arms, that those arms could be grown instead of metal added to the body.
1.10.4.15.4.3.2. Pro: If 3D printed, people's bodies could be scanned to determine their chemical composition and a printer would only use those materials to build better body parts.
1.10.4.15.4.3.2.1. Pro: If people want stronger or replacement bones, for example, a 3D printer could print stronger bones from the materials found in bone instead of replacing the bones in the body with metal.
1.10.4.15.4.4. Pro: Transhumanism could modify body parts to be more accepting of surgical replacements.
1.10.4.15.4.5. Pro: Cybernetics could get so advanced that people's minds would be uploaded and placed into a mechanical body. There would be no biological material to worry about rejection with.
1.10.4.16. Pro: This technology could be weaponized by governments throughout the world.
1.10.4.16.1. Pro: The rush to develop the technology relevant to transhumanism by globally competitive and mutually distrustful nation states could evolve into an arms race.
1.10.4.16.2. Pro: [Super-intelligence](https://www.newsweek.com/ai-transhumanism-super-intelligence-dystopian-nightmare-644128) and physical modifications can all help create "super-soldiers" that governments can use in wars and as spies.
1.10.5. Pro: Humans are facing climate change, so transhumanism may help humans survive that.
1.10.5.1. Pro: Transhumanism will make us more likely to understand the reality and dangers of climate change and other such issues that plague humanity. Climate change is still denied and undermined by a significant portion of the world. Digitization, which is an integral component of transhumanism, will allow people to access the facts of the situation.
1.10.5.1.1. Pro: Many people who accept the reality of climate change still have trouble believing the priority the issue should take. Transhumanism will bolster their ability to assess and sort through mounds of information to determine the degree of importance that should be assigned by them to this issue.
1.10.5.2. Pro: Transhumanism may reduce our demands on the environment.
1.10.5.2.1. Pro: Transhumanism can lower our overconsumption levels.
1.10.5.2.1.1. Pro: If we transfer to cybernetic bodies, then we won't require food, housing, or other daily survival resources that we usually need anymore.
1.10.5.2.1.2. Pro: For example, transhumanism \(like transitioning human bodies to android ones\) reduces the need for using resources \(like [energy](https://io9.gizmodo.com/12-reasons-robots-will-always-have-an-advantage-over-hu-1671721194), land, food, [mined materials](https://whatistranshumanism.org/#are-transhumanist-technologies-environmentally-sound)...\), thus enabling environmental preservation.
1.10.5.2.1.2.1. Pro: With genetic editing, the genes that code for synthesizing vitamins that are only possible in other animals, such as [Vitamin C](https://blog.livonlabs.com/goat-vitamin-c-production/), could be placed in humans to make them closer to autotrophic than before \(and thus consume less food\).
1.10.5.2.2. Con: Most modern electronics rely on [rare earth metals](http://www.rareearthtechalliance.com/Applications/Electronics.html), the mining of which has a very high [environmental](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/rare-earth-mining-china-social-environmental-costs) cost when used to create transhumanism,
1.10.5.2.3. Con: An amount of agents capable of consuming a great amount of resources each one through market without limitations will collapse earth resources production. [sciencedirect.com](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914000615) Will really tanshumanism change market internal laws? No, then transhumanism has nothing to do with environment demands reduction.
1.10.5.2.4. Con: That may be true once we make transumanism a success, but the experimentation required to get to that point will be demanding on the environment.
1.10.5.2.5. Pro: Transhumanism can give humans an increase in capabilities and more options to reduce our overall environmental impact.
1.10.5.3. Pro: Transhumanism provides more options and tools to use to live through climate change, thus increasing our chances of surviving.
1.10.5.3.1. Pro: Reducing our dependence on the material world via transhumanism will also go a long way in reducing many of the actions that contribute to climate change.