But does this imply that we shouldn’t use transhuman technology to make people more muscular? If we could use such technology, why wouldn’t we?
That’s besides the point on many levels.
There isn’t a clear line between existing technology and transhuman technology.
The technology that we have that produces the effect of a muscular body the fasted is steroid hormones. We outlaw their usages for purposes of appearance enchancement.
To me it sounds like you haven’t thought about the subject to have an informed opinion if you simply ask “why wouldn’t we?”.
There are a lot of practical issues that come with using technology like steroid hormones to make men look more attractive that you don’t think about if you think about magical transhuman technology the way your initial post framed the issue.
You argue that we are wrong to outlaw the usage of steroid homones to allow men to look more attractive but you don’t provide any arguments towards that conclusion.
If you say you want something that’s even more transhuman than artificial hormones we are likely talking about something like gene therapy. That means you get even more medical risks than you get with steroid hormones.
Are you saying that technology to enhance the appearance of the male body without having unwanted health effects is so implausible that it will never happen? Because over the long term (200-1000 years from now) I prefer to avoid saying “technology X will never happen” unless there’s an actual law of physics that says so. Remember that this is just speculation.
Are you saying that technology to enhance the appearance of the male body without having unwanted health effects is so implausible that it will never happen?
You didn’t say anything about technology not having “unwanted health effects” before.
Remember that this is just speculation.
That’s like saying: “Remember that I don’t know what I’m talking about”. There a variety of knowledge available about the effects of various technological options to increase muscle mass. The fact that your comments are not inspired by that empirical data but by baseless speculation is what I’m criticising.
Productive conversations about healthcare technology are those that are grounded in empiric reality.
You didn’t say anything about technology not having “unwanted health effects” before.
That was supposed to be implied. Allow me to quote Facing The Intelligence Explosion by Luke Muehlhauser:
One day, my friend Niel asked his virtual assistant in India to find him a bike he could buy that day. She sent him a list of bikes for sale from all over the world. Niel said, “No, I need one I can buy in Oxford today; it has to be local.” So she sent him a long list of bikes available in Oxford, most of them expensive. Niel clarified that he wanted an inexpensive bike. So she sent him a list of children’s bikes. He clarified that he needed a local, inexpensive bike that fit an adult male. So she sent him a list of adult bikes in Oxford needing repair. Usually humans understand each other’s desires better than this. Our evolved psychological unity causes us to share a common sense and common desires. Ask me to find you a bike, and I’ll assume you want one in working condition, that fits your size, is not made of gold, etc.—even though you didn’t actually say any of that.
You appear to be acting like that virtual assistant. People’s suggestions can only properly be understood in the context of common sense.
And generally it is considered okay for people to speculate by saying “hey, what if X happens, it might be a good idea” as long as X is possible and the speculator is not asserting X definitely can or will happen. It’s pretty crazy to enforce a rule against speculation and brainstorming. You appear to be reacting as if I’m saying: “hey we will definitely be doing X in the future! There is no reason not to and no reason it could go wrong.”
The difference between speculation and baseless assertion is the difference between making a tentative suggestion in what could happen and making an uninformed suggestion about what will happen.
Implying that new technology generally comes without risk or sideeffects is typical for transhumanist writting but it’s also badly wrong. Most new technology has risk or sideeffects at the time it get’s adopted.
The difference between speculation and baseless assertion
I didn’t say baseless assertion but baseless speculation given that you don’t seem to have covered the basic research of looking into the issues surrounded the existing technology, your speculation about future technology is per definition baseless.
Should we develop technology X? has a lot to do with: What do we expect the likely effects of the adoption of technology X happen to be?.
Thinking that the two questions have nothing to do with each other is highly problematic.
This is a forum where people regularly talk about terraforming mars and building dyson spheres even if they have little knowledge about the subject and I’m not allowed to speculate about cosmetic bodily upgrades?
I don’t think that the discussions about terraforming Mars on LW are done by people who haven’t thought about the existent technical options for terraforming Mars.
I’m not allowed to speculate about cosmetic bodily upgrades?
The problem is not that you speculate but that you ignore what we know as a society about the various interventions for the problem while you speculate.
Because you seem really overconfident in your ability to interpret other people’s writing.
If I say: “You don’t say what you mean with they” then there nothing overconfident about that statement.
It simply shows that I know of multiple possible interpretations, while you might or might not be conscious of them. If you are you could specify your argument.
Scientific thinking is to seek for disconfirmation of claims. The fact that vague claims can be read in a way that’s not disconfirmation doesn’t mean that it’s good to read them that way.
Being to vague to be wrong is bad.
That’s besides the point on many levels.
There isn’t a clear line between existing technology and transhuman technology.
The technology that we have that produces the effect of a muscular body the fasted is steroid hormones. We outlaw their usages for purposes of appearance enchancement. To me it sounds like you haven’t thought about the subject to have an informed opinion if you simply ask “why wouldn’t we?”.
There are a lot of practical issues that come with using technology like steroid hormones to make men look more attractive that you don’t think about if you think about magical transhuman technology the way your initial post framed the issue.
You argue that we are wrong to outlaw the usage of steroid homones to allow men to look more attractive but you don’t provide any arguments towards that conclusion.
If you say you want something that’s even more transhuman than artificial hormones we are likely talking about something like gene therapy. That means you get even more medical risks than you get with steroid hormones.
Are you saying that technology to enhance the appearance of the male body without having unwanted health effects is so implausible that it will never happen? Because over the long term (200-1000 years from now) I prefer to avoid saying “technology X will never happen” unless there’s an actual law of physics that says so. Remember that this is just speculation.
You didn’t say anything about technology not having “unwanted health effects” before.
That’s like saying: “Remember that I don’t know what I’m talking about”. There a variety of knowledge available about the effects of various technological options to increase muscle mass. The fact that your comments are not inspired by that empirical data but by baseless speculation is what I’m criticising.
Productive conversations about healthcare technology are those that are grounded in empiric reality.
That was supposed to be implied. Allow me to quote Facing The Intelligence Explosion by Luke Muehlhauser:
You appear to be acting like that virtual assistant. People’s suggestions can only properly be understood in the context of common sense.
And generally it is considered okay for people to speculate by saying “hey, what if X happens, it might be a good idea” as long as X is possible and the speculator is not asserting X definitely can or will happen. It’s pretty crazy to enforce a rule against speculation and brainstorming. You appear to be reacting as if I’m saying: “hey we will definitely be doing X in the future! There is no reason not to and no reason it could go wrong.”
The difference between speculation and baseless assertion is the difference between making a tentative suggestion in what could happen and making an uninformed suggestion about what will happen.
Implying that new technology generally comes without risk or sideeffects is typical for transhumanist writting but it’s also badly wrong. Most new technology has risk or sideeffects at the time it get’s adopted.
I didn’t say
baseless assertionbutbaseless speculationgiven that you don’t seem to have covered the basic research of looking into the issues surrounded the existing technology, your speculation about future technology is per definitionbaseless.Should we develop technology X?has a lot to do with:What do we expect the likely effects of the adoption of technology X happen to be?. Thinking that the two questions have nothing to do with each other is highly problematic.I don’t think that the discussions about terraforming Mars on LW are done by people who haven’t thought about the existent technical options for terraforming Mars.
The problem is not that you speculate but that you ignore what we know as a society about the various interventions for the problem while you speculate.
You don’t say what you mean with
they.They fit the criteria you stated in the opening post. Engaging with reality would help formulatting better criteria.
Saying the gym isn’t good because you can’t teach everyone calculus is not engaging with the issues of the gym.
If I say: “You don’t say what you mean with
they” then there nothing overconfident about that statement. It simply shows that I know of multiple possible interpretations, while you might or might not be conscious of them. If you are you could specify your argument.Scientific thinking is to seek for disconfirmation of claims. The fact that vague claims can be read in a way that’s not disconfirmation doesn’t mean that it’s good to read them that way. Being to vague to be wrong is bad.