Is Futurama the Best Argument Against Transhumanism? | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios 

I'm dead inside.

That was a bit enthusiastic, your neutralness. I neither approve nor disapprove.

Stay neutral my friends! ;)

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

Im a little biased toward neutrality myself...

I agree. I don't think the human condition will ever be "cured" but I think extreme trans-humanism might just eliminate it. By making is lose touch with the chemical effects our body has on our mind and if our minds are transferred to completely robotic shells it would only take a mishap during the transfer or a hacker to fuck over our independent thought processes, self control, and memories. I think if we went all out trans-human (I really hope I don't sound corny as HELL saying this but) we would run high risks of losing the most human parts of us.. maybe I'm just putting too much thought into it :P

PhyreI3ird The thing is... Ourminds will be probably prone to invasion from 'neuro-hackers' or something similiar. Sometimes in the future, maybe sooner than we think, who knows really...

Everything that has a beginning has an end. The universe will one day end and the 'human condition' will also come to an end, its just simple ignorance to suggest otherwise.

lololololol47 Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I thought humanity will live forever. Just that technology cannot quote-unquote "cure the human condition".

Well what exactly do you define as the human condition, because there is no reason to assume any sufficiently advanced technology couldn't alter human biology the way it could alter any complex system

The essential argument is that the human *mindset* will be the same. Transhumanist philosophy doesn't really address the issue of suffering on the level of conscious perception. There's not much discussion of what we'll do about fear, anger, grief, boredom, etc. or the fundamental truth of impermanence. Now, if transhumanism DID address those concerns more, this critique would be less valid.

The more things change the more things stay the same.

transhumanism is real m8 futurama is not ever going to happen mark of the beast also known as rfid chip do you really think ttanshuminism is fake? illuminati is real (this is not a joke comment -__-)

ice ruler king first off I never said anything about it being fake, only that a futurama future is more likely. whether we end up with the technology to do it is irrelevant, people simply won't be willing to go through with it, there might be some people who do, but I highly doubt we'll ever see a world where no humans have any flaws. as for your second comment, just... no, the concept that a small group of people can somehow have control over the whole world is rediculous

+deep username Not all leaders are like the top-hatted caricature in communist proganda. (Admittedly, those do exist.) A few years ago, I saw a documentary on the head of Britain's largest company: he travelled on foot or by horse and cart; basically, he loved like a gypsy. The Roman Emperor Diocletian retired early so he could spend time growing vegetables with his own hands. Some medieval lords worked in the fields beside the peasants. What's really damaging to, say, a mine-owner's conscience is when they choose to remain in such rarefied conditions that they lose touch with the coal-face. (I am now tempted to embark on a tirade against university administrators and other morbidly parasitic, lobotomized bozos.)

@@gaurdianAQ concept he just described is form of government called oligarchy where the few ruled over majority. throughout history oligarchies has been tyrannical. things I keep seeing is that people keep confusing democracy with oligarchy and oligopoly with free market.

@@alexhood3966 the world is, for the most part, an elected oligarchy. Otherwise known as a technocracy. We elect people to elect people into seats of power, because the comman man is a dumbass and doesnt know how politics actually work. I'm probably a great example of that in this comment section alone, as well as everyone else lmao

"Perfection is goal that changes. Never stops moving. Can chase, cannot catch." - Abathur (Starcraft 2 Heart of the Swarm)

What about bio tech contact lens

\

GustavoGarbaggio "I plan to live forever, of course, but barring that I'd settle for a couple thousand years. Even five hundred would be pretty nice." -Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri.

That's kind of my hope as well, I don't have a pressing desire for immortality, just to live long enough to see if we make it or not. If we don't, well...shit.

Spending an eternity searching for something you will never find describes a form of hell.

+Gordon Chin I don't think he meant that he wants to live forever never being happy, just that happiness would work like it does now, sometimes you'd be happy and sometimes not. Personally I would avail myself of technology to rewire my reward system if we had it (and without serious side effects like certain technologies we already have for this purpose), but I would want to rewire myself so I am motivated towards (and experiencing pleasure from) things which I consider to be more important and worthy of my attention and less motivated towards wasting my time. But for now I will have to rely on old fashioned mindfulness and self-discipline to slowly make those changes.

Why do you think that?

JE Future because it is illogical by human standards.

+FunkyHonkyCDXX Vanilla Sky (Yes, Tom Cruise is a fine actor) is a good cultural reference here. The sweet is never as sweet without the sour.

It just has not offered a convincing argument as to how to change human nature. Rewiring the brain? Great! But in what way? What constitutes lasting happiness? I don't see nearly enough of these sorts of discussions in the transhumanist community.

Changing my reward function to be easier to satisfy rates very poorly on my current reward function. Ie: changing how our brains work is liable to lead to actions we would not want right now. So, unless you can avoid changing my goals and wants I'm not super interested in modifying my brain. Not to mention how open to abuse literally editing someone's thoughts is.

Well lets say this technology is invented. A rich company buys this invention and uses it run ads. Now every time you go to starbucks you always feel happy.

I'm not worried about "you must have sadness to enjoy happiness", I'm more concerned with the fact that if you're always happy and content, you won't care about things like impending doom, and you won't feel the need to strive to improve yourself or create new things. You would just... sit there and be happy.

GuacamoleKun Indeed, we would all become lazy and content. With no urge to improve or innovate. We would just sit aimlessly happy until something pulls the plug. After that we would all just be super depressed.

GuacamoleKun Exactly. It's necessary to express negative emotions when appropriate. It equally makes up our humanity as much as positive emotions.

TheSquid OR, that is an issue we are already aware could be damaging to our species. And logically, the people working on the advancement of society and technology are working on that as well. You are making assumptions on a very different setting than today offers us. What if we develop our technology to the point that our minds are happy, passionate, creative, visionary and exponentially more intelligent. That is a lot of stuff to reckon with, sure, but no necessarily impossible.

Haha I laughed out loud.

seahawk124 you can't have happy little clouds without big sad bushes.

Not really, no. There's no augmentation involved in NGE.

"So what does this whole story mean? The only way to be happy is to know you won't be happy every single day. Lalalalalala. It sounds better in the original Croatian."

is it really? what you say sounds very noble, but do you mean to tell me that if we could all get rid of jealousy, anger, hatred, depression, sadness, etc, within our minds. that we wouldn't be able to feel happiness? you're saying that happiness is only happiness when the negative exists. thats very yin and yang, and i dont believe its true.

Why do we read books and watch films that we know will make us sad. Because we like being sad? Maybe not, but we need whole spectrum of emotions to make our lives more colorful. Isn't it better to spend our resources on making a world where disasters don't happen, rather to make humans who are indifferent to those disasters.

***** can't we spend our resources on preventing disasters WHILE living in a world without negative emotions? why is it one or the other? ill tell you what the human condition really is, the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. thats really all that everything human boils down to. id say to accomplish this once and for all would be the ultimate victory. BUT without sacrificing our intellect. i guess what my opinion would be, is to discover how to be happy all the time would be the ultimate achievement, there would be unintended consequences, like not being as sad as you should be when someone dies, but in the end i think its worth it. here's a couple questions: -in this world of only positive emotions, would we still understand conceptually what negative emotions are? if so, books and movies would still do just fine. -have you ever been grateful to be depressed? or embarrassed? angry? because deep down you feel that without those things you couldn't feel happy? for me the answer would be no. -if we were happy all the time, would we feel any motivation to do anything? after all, we're already happy so why do anything? in my understanding, yes, because after all, positive emotions still exist. -would the absence of negative emotions ultimately be bad for us? after all, doesn't evolution teach there's a survivalist reason for every facet of our being? no comment.

When you read a book or watch a movie, you're not "conceptually" understanding the negative emotions - you're feeling them as you read/watch, and that's the point. You're angry at the villain for his bad deeds, sad for the people he hurts and happy when the hero beats him. You understand these emotions because you've experienced them yourself, and they're what gives the story meaning. If you've been nothing but happy all your life, a sad story will be utterly meaningless to you, because you won't have a clue what sadness is. And ironically, you won't understand happiness either.

But maybe we will cease to care, really. In 50 years, most of the human population will be unemployable, because nearly all jobs can (and will) be taken care of by technology - robots and computers. Capitalism, day jobs, paycheck to paycheck, loans... all of that will most likely disappear or be changed beyond recognition. That is way before transhumanism can really have a huge effect on humanity as a whole. So what do we know... maybe noone will be better than anyone else because noone will have any useful skills whatsoever, with or without transhumanism. In fact, maybe transhumanism will be useless to some extent, because we won't need to be better. All I'm saying is that your whole argument presupposes the continued existence of open-market capitalism, where people do jobs to make money to buy stuff. But unless you're like 50, I think we will both live to see that fall.

David Fischer I hope we will. The fall of the monetary system and of hierarchies, now that's something I want to see! Do you know Bob Black's "The Abolition of Work"? It's pretty good, I recommend it.

i would counter and argue that you have to either totally regulate all human acts, basically totalitarian componatism (people cease to be free agents) or you allow people to largely do what they want without harming others, or you allow complete anarchy. So yeah you always gotta look out for the strong dominating the weak, which we've not really not done in our history. Transhumanism could be likened to agriculture, the people who created population majority through farming and then minor industries and other advances out performed the other societies and made them their lessers.

17091ira0072 I don't think there's anything wrong with the strong dominating the weak - as long as they don't do it in a directly coercive or violent way. There will always be leaders and followers, but I don't think that's morally wrong by any means.

David Fischer that is fair enough, but i meant it in a none socitoral way, i.e. right and wrong is a social affiar so when two entities of seperate societies such as two societies themselves, are not bound by inward social contracts.

the best sound quality, if that's qhat you want, is tapes. super expensive maximum quality - equal to recording - tapes.

michael benzur Well there's a point of deminishing return to account for. While yes, looking at the data, tapes are capable of high resolution, the human ear generally can't hear above 20k, which is what mastering engineers cut their mixes at. So from a listener standpoint, anything above that is pointless. Along with that, you get a warmer sound from the vinyl because of the way that the turntable reads the groove, and the mechanical noise that people tend to enjoy

michael benzur Now, there is a point to recording at an extremely high sample rate, because you can pitch the recording down in production without cutting off the highs

Aaron Niehaus well, the warm sound of a record is not what you always want. and even though the jumps higher in sound quality get less and less important, once you're right at the top you can hear the difference. at that level it can sound real.

michael benzur​ Well yes, it can sound real, assuming you have a properly treated room. But if your goal is realism, the warm distortion of any kind of analog amp is something you'd want to avoid, and thus you'd want to avoid using tapes as well. That's why most producers have stopped using analog. In that case, a digital input would probably be a better idea, while dropping a few grand on studio monitors and room treatment. But that's not within the budget of most people

If we are good at anything as a society. Its to be ignorant of the one before us.

Yeah, that's the problem. New people are born, so as a species we forget, and don't fully comprehend how the world used to be different. That's why the present seems normal no matter how crazy it gets. But transhumanists want to make it so we can live forever, which means we would be able to remember the past better. Would that change things do you think..?

GuacamoleKun Almost certainly. If we are more sustainable to our ideas, we become less adaptable to new ones. The amount of people yelling about "back in my day" and "this isn't how it used to be" would increase. Making any innovations slow down to a halt do to lack of acceptance.

GuacamoleKun Most definitely. It would also force us to think about the future a lot more. We're fine (as a society) with theoretically fucking over our great-grandkids if it means we get cocaine-flavored hookers today, but if we had the potential to live forever we would probably think twice about the consequences of our actions.

GuacamoleKun I'm not entirely sure it would make us able to remember the past better. The way I see it now, as we age our memories sort of get compressed so that the older we get the less and less we remember. To the point that by the time we're a century or so old we only remember the super awesome stuff, or the super crappy stuff. So I'd imagine by the time a human was a millennium old they'd only remember like World War V and the first time we orbited Alpha Centauri, you know what I mean? But I don't know, maybe transhuman technologies would also improve our ability to remember stuff as well.

***** Both of these are interesting points - taken a step further one could more optimally chose a certain balance between what he knows will be difficult and chose to involve one's self in that particular difficulty, from either difficult work or other strenuous activity or otherwise harsh and harsher experience and then make time for relaxation (the hedonistic values) either reading, watching tv or running and hiking, writing, creating art... any other of the plethora of possible activities that we "rank" as rewarding, as long as we get enjoyment and a sense of fulfillment then there's a start, and depending on the rest of value system and judgments...acting accordingly. But that balance between the two is what gives it value. Because of the bad, or less desirable thing, the spoils are that much sweeter. Is the millionaire as fulfilled and happy and with a larger sense of satisfaction than a farmer who has spent long hours in perhaps a difficult day (all depending on how much the farmer enjoys his work or not) who then retires as the end of the day knowing his work is done until morning. No lingering thoughts or worries of if the business will fail or strikes with employees or any of multitude of additional hours in after thought business men and others who make a ton of money in the pursuit of scalability. Work is life. Not that the farmer doesn't have relevant issues as well as other stressors. The issue is whether he experiences more satisfaction and happiness in general. Some familiar clichés come to mind. Easy come, easy go. Pointing to if it is earned or not. If it is given, like money and those winning lotteries quick to be broke thereafter and depressed. A fool and his money are soon parted. Not earned. You haven't spent time enough in the trenches. Do the work. Where would we be as a nation if people didn't earn their living. And work as service. Those who give selflessly are very often happier and more fulfilled because of doing so. Full on Hedonistic pursuit is it's own ruin. I don't think people should stay away from what society has to offer as benefits, in advancements in every area, I love tech and computers and many things that are of today but I understand that it is of good reproach to watch what you lend yourself to and try to do things which are of service every day, something even if small, because what you do for others you do for yourself in turn. .. another cliché.. wait for it, but this is good, The thief steals from himself, someone pretty well known I like, but yeah the thief steals from himself.. that works in every sense

True, But that will decrease, as we will have the ability to cure depression, artificial means of increasing our hedonistic set points.

So what if we treat depression? People will still get sad they'll get angry and worried, and that's good it's

***** We will eventually be able to reprogram ourselves to experience less anger and sadness, or even reprogram them out entirely and live with gradients of well being. Some will choose this path.

Ekaterinya Vladinakova Some will choose to be computers?

kcorr94 If it's possible to transfer consciousness, we will have brains of an alternative sub strait.

What's the singularity?

You haven't seen any future worlds. Nobody has. Just because pessimism is "hip" doesn't make it justified.

KahrylBlack Have you seen future worlds? I tought so. It's important to relaise theat we all are just animals. One must be able to be happy with yourself, friends, famely ect. No matter hard life will be or easy, it's still life.

I presume you mean written, fictional, future worlds? In that case it is man made and therefor not accurate as we have pretty much always lived the same way and they would be writing from experience because that's all we can do. There hasn't really been a major political change for thousands of years, and by that I'm not talking about ethnic equality or voting rights, I mean ruling class, elitism, ownership of land, infinite growth, the buying and selling of goods and the need to kill an unbelievable amount of living things just to get 'stuff'. Maybe in a thousand years we wont need ANY of this.

It's easy to say today that technology will never solve the problems of suffering, jealousy, and boredom, but remember that 100 years ago it would have been crazy to say that technology could solve the problem of senescence, and almost everybody agrees with that today. A thousand years ago it would have been unthinkable that technology could solve the problem of solving complicated math problems, going to space, communicating at the speed of light from one end of the earth to the other, and all sorts of other things that, once so impossibly naive and utopian, are now commonplace. Our descendants may look back at us and consider us naive for believing that pain and disappointment were inevitable facts of life. Just because something has always been the case does not mean that it will always be the case. I'm skeptical that humanity's future will look very bright, but I have a lot of faith in the *potential* of technology to solve even the most difficult problems, even problems that we haven't even been made aware of yet. The true question is how will future humans apply that technology, for good or for ill.

SgtSupaman That's simply not true. We are in an age currently where the early stages of Transhumanism are already prevalent with the constant, impending development of science, medicine, machinery and technology.

It's strange(?) but your opinion is really similar to the ideas in the book "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley O.o

magwen9 Fiction isn't entirely fictitious.

"are we still truly human?" I'll just skip the argument about what humanity is defined as and address it in the spirit I believe you intended, which is being exactly what we are now, both in terms of physical form and general philosophy. The answer is no, and that's sort of the point of the whole philosophy. The only reason being "not-human" seems unnatural and scary is because being "human" is what we are now. Humans absolutely hate change. We loathe it, especially when our conditions are livable, regardless of room for improvement. You've seen this in action over all the pages of humanity's history. "this seems just morally wrong" Why? I mean, you said a bunch of things after that, but I fail to see how this specific scenario, which is, as you say, morally wrong, is linked so heavily with transhumanist philosophy, nor why the risk of this particular scenario outweighs the potential gains of research done in this area.

Yeah I wrote up an awesome counter to that but then I accidentally clicked out of youtube and I have no energy at the moment to rewrite it from memory. I will however respond to your post by 4 PM tomorrow.

dang i missed my deadline didnt i

You must start with the notion that being human means nothing, because it doesn't.

Could you perhaps elaborate? I am not sure that I fully understand.

Getting bored? Wipe out your memories and start again.

FrostbitexP wow, that sounds familiar... have we been here before??? lol. great idea though, didn't think of that.

I can see the anti drug campaign already "Happiness is depression!"

Eh, you see, the problem with that is... If you have this drug and are constantly happy while on it, what happens when you cant get hold of it? The supplier of said drug would effectively control the world, or what ever percentage of it that was addicted to said "euphoria" drug...

Trent Hall That is of course, unless everyone (or at least almost everyone) has the ability and knowledge to make said drug.

***** A lot. Just because a sex addict has sex a lot, doesn't mean they don't enjoy it.

DrDeathslayer May I remain you theat often sex addicts get problems With their life and surroindings. Also it's important to be sad to have dispair. It is like Death, It is neccesary to move on with your life. I don't belive in a god, but i belive theat dispair and death is important. Ps. Sorry for bad grammar

Light is fine, but anything beyond that is just uncomfortable to me.

Lets say you get a chip implanted in your brain (assuming you can afford it) That takes away emotional thinking and puts in only the most logical course of action for any situation. (Sort of like contractors at the beginning of the darker than black anime.) It is logical to clean your robot arm that you have now. So, you do it...

if your going the chip in your brain route they already have placed a chip in the brain of mice that when a button was pushed would release dopamine the mice starved choosing to push the button over anything else if a similar technology was placed in the human brain you could arguably be happy all the time but you'd be like a drug addict and arguably lose your free will

eric burton As if they'd ever let the government put fucking heroin in our brains -_-

celestus87 Problems like dying from stepping on a rusty nail, or someone who is better with a sword killing you and taking your stuff? Idiot.

ExBruinsFan Hey, look at it this way, if you die, that basically solves all your problems.

ExBruinsFan that's the point. We aren't happier because the improvements on society don't actively make us happy, we always return to emotional equilibrium

She has been biologically andquasi mystically enhanced hasnt she?

I don't know, I've only ever played the NES ones, and we all know how much story those have :P

Exo-skeleton vs Endo-skeleton still technology

Dextermaster7 There was only one NES entry. The sequal was on Gameboy and Metroid 3 was on the Super NES. Her information regarding biological enhancements by the Chozo can be found in the comics.

This is an argument from people who do not develop themselves and have a boring life. Others do not want to die because they enjoy every second of their lives.

Anton Kluev Every second following the last _feels_ shorter. When you turn 100 and reflect back on your life, it would feel like your 20's-30's was about half way to 100, not your 40's and 50's. Its a pointless argument as nobody ever will become immortal because everything eventually gets destroyed. I'm all for living millenniums, im just slightly aware of the implications it would have on my perception of time, we would need to hack our minds to alter that. But to live with unlimited bliss, that would be horrible. Good things are only good because there are bad things to compare the experience to. If nobody ever felt any pain or sadness, then happiness would become the new sadness and extreme euphoria would become the new happiness... if that makes any sense...

maybe :) in my opinion we will know if we gonna try to live endless. Just imagine, the transhuman of the future will not be able to understand how can we like to live a short amount of time and then just die :)) If you would be born in the future where everybody live for ever, you would say now in comments something different maybe...

Mike Cammiso More power and control will not make us happier. No sane person wants power. A situation in which we have ultimate control, in which the future is almost completely certain, is already the past, you've already had it. The joy of life is the surprise. Everyone wants a good surprise, but we also know that if there are good surprises, there have to be bad surprised as well.

+Mike Cammiso I'd love to live forever if it were possible. However, I agree that unlimited bliss would be boring and lame. Pain and pleasure are ultimately just chemical signals that evolved to serve motivational purposes. I would rather we rewire them to work appropriately (ultimately subjective but there are things I would change about my reward system if I could) rather than to just make me high as a kite 24-7 and completely unmotivated to do anything because I'm perfectly happy all the time. There are more important things than happiness. If the technology were there I would pick immortality but keep the hedonic treadmill. Life is about the challenge of striving for better what ever "better" may mean to you, not being a mindlessly happy vegetable. Personally if I could live forever and upgrade my mind and my body I'd be off to the stars to see what's out there. Maybe meet some cool aliens who have gone through their own "transhumanist" (transxenist?) transformation.

Carrington events? Welp, I just defeated over seventy percent of your argument with a mere title. How are we going to survive totally reliant of everything in technology you dream of? That's my question. How can one modify biology when we only have "gnosis" aka Knowledge regarding only 0.1 percent of what biology of this earth is? Everything is conquest and Imperialism I guess. All this is pointless to me.

The soul is a social and cultural constructed concept and the mind is meta-physical soooo.....

james bond while i agree that the information in a brain is metaphysical, if it were transferred from one form to another (paraphrasing Data of Star Trek) 'the flavor of the experience would not be the same'. If the memory of the first time you rode a roller coaster was transferred, would we remember how fast our heart pounded factually, or as an actual feeling that would cause our heart to race again? That's the part of being human that is the soul, not the social or cultural factors, but the part of us that lets emotion make sense. That's why I think, or rather hope, that the Futurama future comes, because I don't want the human race to lose that.

You can't keep going off your antidepressants like this.

blackkakari Anyone with an honest, long hard look at our world knows it to be true. It's dark... but the reality is the world is miserable place to live in for a lot of people.

ShinEmperor Maybe for you. But happiness is chemical. Environment affects the level of said chemicals, but it is still chemicals. Some people's brains are more prone to happines, so they could be happier than someone else living in a better environment.

blackkakari A medical disposition to unhappiness and human suffering are two different ideas. Of course chemicals affect peoples happiness. But it is also true, that a good portion of humanity lives in misery. Misery, I wish to add, that is created by our demand for more comfortable surroundings. My happiness doesn't exist in a vacuum. For me to be happy, resources need to be applied to allow that endeavor. Which means, somewhere those resources need to be extracted. Which is true of almost all of human civilization. But that extraction, that acquisition, is where the unhappiness of others begins. It's the fundamental truth of the human experiment that we call civilization. Progress requires exploration, exploitation, extraction... and sadly extermination... So yes. There is no happiness, just varying degrees of misery. In some instances, it's more than just a case of chemicals. The human mind is a fragile thing and the more we are removed the from the suffering from our fellow men for our own benefit the more of an illusion we live in.

ShinEmperor I reccomend you watch a documentary on the Buddha. It gives you a clear idea as to what causes suffering. Namely craving and aversion. All suffering is some form of one of those two things. The Buddha deprived himself and yet knew no suffering because he understood it via enlightenment.

ghost in the shell would be heaven

True. Btw hardwirecars wasn't the point of ghost in the shell that the girl was no longer human but just a shadow inside of a machine.

whiteknightsucho grump Thats not what I got from it...

Look at Data from Star Trek: he only wanted to be human.

+Serah Wint How do you stop people form adjusting to whatever awesome future you have in mind? People have kind of a "normal mode" we like to operate at. A comfortable "meh" that lets us carry on at the worst of times, and keep level headed at the most exciting of times.

***** ... You are still stuck in our current reality. We are talking about taking control over the entire brain.

Serah Wint That is why the imortatn question is "HOW"? Unles there is a plan, you can't just say "because it's 2016" and expect all misery to be over. Canada tried doing that a couple months ago and it didn't work. The important part of VISION is building a roadmap to sucess. That isn't just business jargon either. you need a real actionable plan. If your plan is to fundamentally transform human nature for the better then you need a damn good one at that.

***** What the heck are you talking about? This isn't some political party or roadmap we are talking about but a philosophy for meeting the future

Serah Wint Philosophy isn't some vague note book of wishes. It's a tool set people use to work on solving problems. So far you haven't said why your premise might be true. Infact is seem like you think your premise doesn't have to be. Saying " the path to enlightenment may be achieved though X because X follows form Y" Is philosophy. Any philosophy that can't prescribe a solution, or mode of thinking is overly romantic bulshit. Beware when you gaze long into your navel it also gazes into you. Saying "enlightenment will happen because it's awesome" isn't philosophy.

I believe that humanity will never be to the level of equality and happiness transhumanists want,in fact,I think that the more they want it,the more suffering they will invoke on themselves.

not to disagree with the theory. but "people don't seem happier". uh, were you there 2 centuries ago? how do you know if people were happier or sadder back then?

umidontno040394 They wrote things. They sent us messages that echo in time.

JoshBobst maybe the elite aren't happier but, I think the average are happier than even a hundred years ago. with the less amount of horrible diseases.