I don't even care about the risks. It's about changing the rules so much that we don't know what game we're even playing. If you stop caring what's technically a human anymore, you have to reconsider the imperative to propagate the human race. Who are you propagating and why? What's the point of any of it anyway?

Granted I'm disinclined to propagate the human race anyway, so I guess I may actually be ahead of you.

I don't consider it being ahead to be disinclined to propagate the human race. I mean, if you're just advocating that for yourself that is one thing. But advocating that as a position in general is misanthropic and in my view not a tenable or healthy position.

In any case, if you don't care about the risks and are just concerned with the meaning about why we propagate and what the point of anything is, then I must point out that I'm not super interested in discussing this. I was more getting at why someone would oppose transhumanism, but this doesn't seem tone a meaningful critique of transhumanism as much as it is a sort of pessimism about why we do anything or we should propagate at all.

As with all the progress, along with the good things transhumanism will bring, it will bring a hefty bag of bad things. And if you entertain the thought for a while, those bad things can be really, really bad, on a number of different axis.

Right, but just because bad things have come from science and technology doesn't mean that we get rid of science and technology. It means we have to be more vigilant about doing good things with our tools.

You first.

More seriously, this is one of those situations where the short-term pluses are plain to see, but the long-term risks are vague. Why not employ the precautionary principle here?

Instead of simply alluding to long-term risks, can you be more specific about what exactly you're concerned about? What kind of precautions are you advocating? At some point medical technology will give us organs that are far superior to biological organs - should we not make these available to people?

It really depends what we're talking about here. Specific to your comments I can think of a couple things:

1) In terms of organ replacement, I agree it's a great opportunity -- but, we really won't or can't know the full spectrum of risks right away. Thalidomide, for example, was (for the most part) believed to be safe in the mid-50s, and it wasn't until the early 60s that awareness of the issues began to set in. So I am being a bit facetious when I say "you first" -- if it suits your risk tolerance or if you are in exigent circumstances, sure thing, who am I to judge? But it doesn't suit my personal risk tolerance at this point in my life. (Maybe ask me in a few years when I'm old and sick ...)

2) In terms of "transhumanism" more generally ... I see great dangers and I fear what a society of transhumans combined with humans would be capable of (if we haven't started down that road already). If transhumans really become vastly superior to humans, what will the relationship between them and the old-stock humans look like? Yuval Noah Hariri said something to the effect of, the only model for this version of the world we have is the current relationship between humans and animals -- the track record there is not exactly great ...

So, it's partially the risks from the tech itself, and partially the downstream consequences for society.