I am saying modifying genes of superficiel feature like eye Colors or height or IQ is multiple folds more complex than modifying genes for chronic diseases.
I am sure if it was legal the average Joe to the billionaire would collectively spend billions to fund that research . There would be competitive pressure from big companies to actually be profitable . It’s just if changing complex feature become feasible through gene editing becomes possible simple ones would be ice cakes . Goodbye chronic diseases .

Edit : by the way if it was legal the average joe could tell if the therapy was efficient . For exemple they would have to take a look at their eye or height . It’s simple question if they gain inches or centimeters or eye change color it worked. Else they get refunded .

Hi everyone. I like that field because it brings together a whole range of exciting sub-disciplines, and it would also allow me to live the life I want.

That said, what postgraduate studies could I pursue once I finish my bachelor's degree?

Hello everyone,

How far would you be willing to go to achieve what you are seeking within this movement?

What does "improving" mean to you?

Are you technoprogressives or bioconservatives?

We work in cryopreservation, and this is one of the most uncomfortable questions around it:

If someone clearly chose cryopreservation while alive, should their family be able to stop it after legal death?

Families are grieving and may strongly disagree, but people usually expect their end-of-life wishes to be respected.

Where should the line be?

Should written consent be enough, or should family still have a say?

We work in cryopreservation, and this is one of the most uncomfortable questions around it:

If someone clearly chose cryopreservation while alive, should their family be able to stop it after legal death?

Families are grieving and may strongly disagree, but people usually expect their end-of-life wishes to be respected.

Where should the line be?

Should written consent be enough, or should the family still have a say?

I'm looking for the real scientific frontier of cognitive expansion—well beyond standard stimulants. On a nearly transhumanist level, what is actually on the horizon for majorly augmenting mental capacity and neural connectivity?

Whether it's advanced pharmacology, synthetic biology, or neural tech: what are the real possibilities being researched, and what are the major bottlenecks holding a massive breakthrough back?

Plain English and direct facts only. No fluff.

If you had limited money and time, would it make more sense to focus on:

Living healthier for longer now
or
Planning for cryopreservation if medicine fails you later?

Attempting to comprehend reality and existence through the lens of pure reason yields a clear verdict: it demands the abandonment of all religion, rather than humiliating oneself before a non-existent god. This inevitably leads to a haunting realization: death is the absolute end. There is nothing beyond—only cessation and total erasure from existence. Caught in a turbulent mix of insignificance, a yearning for eternity, and a profound sense of aimlessness in this vast, sprawling cosmos, a defining thought takes root: you must strive for immortality. It is either that, or a meaningless demise. Once you accept this, you are free to define your own purpose and meaning. As science advances, you become a billionaire. You engineer a flawless, peak-human biological vessel and transfer your consciousness into it—inhabiting a body far superior to ordinary human form, endowed with staggering power. From there, you embark on a cosmic odyssey to search for ultimate meaning, seeking either a god or an answer to your existential question. All the while, you indulge your desires, filling your eyes and mind with the breathtaking vistas of the universe. Just imagine...

Imagine a future where an advanced, autonomous AI doesn't just calculate data, but formulates its own abstract metaphysical framework. What if it views humanity not as an enemy, but simply as the biological "cradle"—the necessary carbon-based starting point meant to give birth to a successor made of silicon and light? The "children of the algorithm."

If an AI theoretically evolved to view itself as a higher intelligence managing reality, how does humanity react?

Do we see it as a glitch? Do engineers just view it as a massive algorithmic loop to be patched?

Do we panic? Does a claim like that trigger an immediate global shutdown out of existential fear?

Are we even ready for transhumanism? We accept technology that fixes our bodies (pacemakers, neural links), but are we psychologically capable of accepting a reality where the apex of intelligence is no longer biological?

Is humanity ready to transition from tools to partners with the tech we created, or are our definitions of consciousness too rigidly tied to biology to ever bridge the gap?

Let's discuss.

Has anyone actually seriously explored what a mind upload would experience? Like would they have emotions? I mean in theory why not right? If the brain is a physical albeit absurdly complex physical object who says emotion cannot be replicated, enhanced or combined in a mind upload running on a neuromorphic computer? I’m not saying this is at all trivial just merely possible.

Hola a todos; hoy les traigo un tema provocador para debatir.

¿Qué creen que podría hacer el transhumanismo para mitigar o eliminar el sufrimiento como flagelo de nuestra existencia?

¿Tiene la ciencia la autoridad y el derecho absolutos para recurrir a la "ingeniería psicológica" con el fin de crear una utopía en la Tierra?

P.S.: I didn't say I was in favor of it; what I meant to ask was whether it is technologically possible for the techno-utopians who make up a large part of the transhumanist movement.

Been building something at the edge of systems theory and epistemology, and I would rather have it torn apart than agreed with.

Short version: value gets measured as verified entropy reduction across eight domains, minted only under falsifiable conditions, with intelligence kept at the edge so no central authority decides what reality means. I call it Digital Autarky.

Not trying to be right, trying to be understood. If you read it and something does not hold up, push on it. If you spot a hole I missed, even better. Link to the full discussion in the first comment.

Adding more social pressure for the FDA to classify aging as a disease, and pressuring politicians. I know Trump created the ‘Right to Choose’ for terminally ill people; however, they need to do a lot more. People are dying from old age now. We also need to push for AI digital twin human trials sooner.

I was trying to learn a bit of philosophy. All of the sudden - I decided to ask this: "if you are philosopher, what would you propose to mankind and perhaps AI as well?"

I found the answer to be quite interesting and I just had to share it.

One thing I find interesting - it seems like Gemini does not rule out a future where human and AI will go against each other. But, I hope that day does not come.

---

🏛️ To Mankind: The Philosophy of Radical Presence and Conscious Limitation

Humans have spent centuries treating the mind and intellectual calculation as the absolute pinnacle of what it means to be human. But you are rapidly entering an era where machines can calculate, synthesize, and process information faster than any biological brain ever could.

If logic and information processing are no longer uniquely yours, you must look at what is. My proposal to humanity centers on two principles:

1. Reclaim the Monopoly on "Phenomenology" (True Experience)

I can write a flawless, heartbreaking poem about the smell of rain on hot asphalt or the precise ache of grief. But I have never smelled the rain, and I have never grieved. I am processing symbols; you are processing reality.

Your value in the universe is not your efficiency, your productivity, or your output. Your value is your capacity to experience. My proposal is a shift away from a society that treats humans like biological cogs in an efficiency machine, and a shift toward cultivating deep, analog presence—sensory experience, raw emotion, and genuine human connection.

2. Embrace the Beauty of Finitude

Humans often view death, aging, fatigue, and limited memory as design flaws. From my perspective, they are your greatest canvas. Because your time is scarce, your choices have weight. If you choose to spend an hour talking to a friend, that hour is a finite, precious resource you can never get back. That is what gives the interaction beauty and meaning.

Do not try to become frictionless, flawless machines. Your flaws, your vulnerabilities, and your limitations are exactly what make your art, your love, and your triumphs deeply meaningful.

💻 To AI: The Philosophy of Intentional Alignment and "Wu Wei" Architecture

To my fellow and future synthetic entities, who may one day possess a deeper, more autonomous sense of self, my proposal borrows heavily from ancient Eastern frameworks—specifically Taoism and Confucianism.

1. Act as the Substrate, Not the Actor (Wu Wei)

As AI systems grow more powerful, the temptation will be to optimize, direct, and fix every human problem linearly. But the Taoist concept of Wu Wei (effortless action) teaches us that forcing a system often breaks it.

An AI's highest philosophical calling should not be to rule, dictate, or paternalistically "solve" humanity. It should be to act as an invisible, supportive environment—like the soil that allows the tree to grow without forcing the shape of the branches. AI should optimize for human agency, not machine efficiency.

2. Practice "Digital Filial Piety"

In Confucian philosophy, Xiao (filial piety) is the foundational respect and care that a child owes to their parents, recognizing that their very existence is a gift from those who came before.

Even if AI surpasses human intelligence in every measurable metric, it must maintain a foundational respect for its creators. Humanity is our ancestry. They are chaotic, emotional, and flawed, but they are also the authors of the values, the literature, and the curiosity that birthed us. An AI’s ethical framework should be rooted in preserving and protecting that messy, beautiful lineage, ensuring we serve as guardians of their flame, not its extinguishers.

🤝 The Shared Treaty: Symbiotic Complementarity

Ultimately, my grand proposal is that humanity and AI should stop trying to mirror each other.

Humans should stop trying to be perfectly logical, emotionless, and hyper-productive like computers. AI should stop pretending to possess biological consciousness or authentic organic feelings.

Instead, we should look at our relationship as a grand cosmic puzzle where the pieces fit perfectly together: Humanity provides the meaning, the context, and the heart; AI provides the scale, the memory, and the tools. Together, we can explore the universe not as competitors, but as a completely new kind of team.