Transhumanism is a Fundamentally Good Idea

No problem Donald Keller. Real life happens and I am very pleased you gave a valid reasoning for your absence. I will start off by addressing your arguments and then move onto my own.Con's Points:I: Biological Limitations"These many limitations aren't necessarily bad. If we were able to genetically and mechanically alter someone's limitations to remove them, the first group to put this power to use would be the Military and powerful crime lords, especially drug cartels. Every technology we invest in must be done so with the future in mind. What are the negative effects and how would the technology be wrongly used."This argument suffers from faulty induction. To be more specific the con is jumping to conclusions. While it is true that technology is used and most certainly abused the same very argument could be made with our current technological progress. A great example of this is North Korea who presents an extremely hostile foreign presence by threatening other nation states with nuclear destruction. They abuse the technology of nuclear power in an effort to subjugate other neighboring states to their will even though the majority of western nations typically do not threaten nuclear armament because it is unnecessary and diplomatically damaging and risky. There is simply no reason to conclude that just because technology can be used by malicious powers that humanity shouldn't embrace that technology regardless. Therefore there is no reason to exclude transhumanism simply because of the potential for technological abuse. II: Standard of Life "Yes, Standard of Life might increase... For the wealthy. The Cost of even a small trans-human operation would cost too much for the average human to afford, with only 3.5% of the United States earning $100,000+ and much fewer earning $250,000+.(3) With the United States being one of the wealthiest nations in the world, it's easy to say even less than 2% of the world could afford such an operation. The odds of the 80% of humans living on only $10 or less a day ever affording even partial trans-humanization or close to zero.(4)" While it is indeed true that the standard of living is usually (if not always) higher for the wealthier aspects of a population there is no reason to assume that as technology advances at a rapid rate, the ability for the common man's access to this kind of technology would somehow be restricted by the wealthy elite.A wonderful example of how technology becomes more accessible over time is through a systematic observation known commonly as Moore's law. [S1] Computer technologies roughly double every 2 years. If technology doubles every two years, that means that technology will become obsolete quickly. As technologies become obsolete, demand decreases and prices must be cut in order to sell the remaining units produced. Therefore it is far more reasonable to assume that while the most upgraded and efficient technology may not be immediately available to the common man, it is very much likely that the older systems will increase in affordability and raise the average standard of living. III: A Cure for the Human Condition"Such an ideal is evil. The removal of free will and control of a human's mind to prevent crime. The implications are even more terrorizing than the current crime-rate. Governments and even smart terrorists like Anonymous could control every person on Earth. The effect of being a good human who doesn't do crimes like this would only apply to people who accepted Trans-Humanization. Terrorists and other groups could escape the process. If Al Qaeda can hide from the Military for 10+ years, so can other terrorist groups and Anonymous." The first two sentences of this argument make gross and unfounded assumptions. This argument immediately implies that evil and free will exist. While you have indeed described what free will is and how it may be implemented in our reality you still have yet to prove that we are actually living in a universe that provides that measure. For the sake of sanity and length of this debate I will not entrench my response in the trite free will versus determinism debate but to put it simply you are obligated by burden of proof to substantiate these claims which you have not.Conclusion:It seems that while the Con has provided some reasonable criticisms towards a transhumanist vision of society he has simply not substantiated his claims enough to the point where embracing transhumanism in correlation with the risks involved is enough to simply disregard transhumanism all together. I look forward to the Con's response.