As an INTP I'll refrain from voting, but I've always been of the opinion science can and will push us past our current limits. Nanomachines and deeper understanding of the brain/neuroscience will continue to be a focus point, and will be instrumental in both regards.
Didn't know what it was, skimmed the wiki for 30 seconds. Understanding it as being technological 'upgrades' for humans.
Yep, sign me up. The idea of physical and mental upgrades is very attractive to me. Artificial body that is faster/stronger/better than natural, without wear and tear? Want it. A brain with extra memory storage/retrieval, live superfast hookup to the internet or some cloud database? Want it. Nanobots running through my body getting rid of all diseases, checking and maintaining all bodily functions and superfast healing abilities? New or upgraded mental/sensory abilities? Possibility of living way longer or being almost immortal with the help of tech? This sounds like a dream come true.
Yes there probably will be downsides and abuse of these things, but that doesn't make the concept bad.
Perhaps its fine as a concept, with limitations. The main issue would be the cost. Essentially it runs the risk of creating class inequality in that the upper class would be the only ones capable of affording it, meanwhile the lower class becomes literally inferior to the upper class.
It depends on how it goes. If it resembles our current patterns in tech as far as the apple, windows (etc) and androids of the world where things remain in public hands (android) for the most part then im behind it. hackable is best as long as its not hackable for anyone you don't want it to be. im 100% behind the ideal scenario.
The idea is very intriguing, but I worry it would do more damage than good. That kind of technology wouldn't come free, and depending on who controls it, it would most likely benefit those who already are in power. Where does that leave the rest of the world's population and environment? People are selfish and greedy. Intelligence can offer ways to prevent and fix over-consumption etc. problems, but I suspect things would probably end up more fucked up in the end. On the other hand, things are already going into that direction, so maybe it'd be worth a chance.
Undecided. There are a lot of ethical factors to consider. For example, I totally oppose state-sponsored trans-humanism because we all know what the state would do with that technology. It would enslave us! As for individual choice, that I can dig. But maybe the "trans" aspect of trans-humanism doesn't have to be done through technology. What if the "trans" aspect is something more abstract? Something like an epiphany of enlightenment. For example, what if Nicola Tesla (one of my heroes) was trans-human due not only to his genius, but because of his enlightened sense of ethical morality?
Or am I redefining "trans-humanism" in INFJ terms?
I voted "depends" because I agree with some aspects of trans-humanism, yet disagree with others. I do agree that the human condition and the state of humanity should be improved via all available means. The one thing I disagree with trans-humanism on is that humans should overcome death, mainly because immortality will lead to boredom, which would inevitably lead to insanity. Plus, death is an effective natural process for preventing overpopulation.
I know I'm not an INTJ, but I did join in on the poll. A few days ago I started this similar (short lived) topic in the INFP forum, which might be interesting for you guys to see how INFPs think about these things.
As you can see we are generally at a consensus, that we are pro-genetic manipulation, pro-cybernetic implants, pro-nanobots, etc .
Sadly enough the topic was too short lived to talk about the structural problems of current society and the debate between Social Genetic Modification and Augmentation, and Capitalistic Genetic Modification and Augmentation.