[Tyler]

Specifically, socio-scientific goals. Take for instance, the divide in our culture at concepts like Transhumanism. There's clear lines of thought that amaze me when it comes to these issues. On the one hand, I subscribe to the idea that we can better ourselves with artificial intelligence and just generally improve our lives with technological integration. That said, I can see the fear that arises at such vague concepts like this, especially when coupled with our intrinsic angst towards 'the future' and a constant barrage of negative connotations for technology.

It's a striking hypocrisy that we live in, though. We actively pursue enhancements in weaponry, ecology and intellectual stimulation with technology, but at the first sign of physical integration, everyone is suddenly a cynical, anti-technological humanist that wants back 'the old days'. The idea that self-inflicted evolution is somehow evil, or wrong, or to be that guy, an affront to God, just resonates with society at large.

Do we truly think it's a bad idea? Are we just cautious of what our actions could spawn? Have we been indirectly shoehorned by the cultural Zeitgeist of dystopian scopes of the future? I'd love to have some actual discussion on this stuff, as it seems for the most part that it's not an issue that's thought about. At least, not deeper than the superficial 'I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords' jokes and tropes.

[shiva s]

Though, I'm not so good in english, I can actually understand your point. Recent advancement in technologies has contribued a lot to human life . It reduces his physical work to a great extent but in the same way it makes him lazy. Unfortunately, no one wants the old days back right now. Almost half of the people have become lazy as they are depending upon the technologies, machines which will get get the work done for them etc.


This post has been edited by shiva s on Sunday, Jul 22 2012, 11:27

[KaRzY6]

Yeah, I see the point too. Humans had to work harder, even just 20 years ago. Technology is advancing so fast, and humans are quickly adapting.

-No one-line posts, please.-

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Tuesday, Jul 24 2012, 10:10

[El Zilcho]

I oppose the idea of transhumanism quite vehemently for a variety of reasons. Firstly, we are people. I feel that our potential is great without any addition - should this technological betterment or even genetic engineering be utilised to make us greater (at what exactly? physically, mentally? or both?) we wouldn't be people. We'd be machines, augmented artificially. As romantic as this sounds, we're astonishing as 'vanilla' people and shouldn't have to add to ourselves. I don't want to be competing with someone whose computer aided brain process at a million gigabytes a second. I'm me and I don't want to become a brain in a box. We have computers and that is enough - the most future fiddling we should do is medical, and that should help, not upgrade.

Secondly, this technology would no doubt fall to the richer and more advanced nations or classes, and therefore once more open up a huge shift between the unlucky and the privileged. Yet again the gulf would expand, this time rather irrevocably. Innovation is always for the greater good but this is something else; technological elitism which would, as I earlier stated, change our species into something else altogether.

Finally, do we need improvement? What would you have us become through this? Taller? Perhaps stronger, so we could replace bulldozers? Or maybe smarter? There isn't actually any need, because apart from medical problems such as old age or organ failure, what do we need to become? We're fine as we are. I'd advocate advancements in medicine, but how far? If it reaches a point where transhuman beings will live to 500 years old, the entire planet will probably become an over crowded, metallic hell hole. Exaggerated? Probably slightly, but I don't want to be sharing a world with bionic mastermen. It's absurd and implies our inadequacy. I want to see us advance, I want to see us cure the crippling issues that affect us. But I don't want to change our very nature to one that is so far removed, that I'd hard pressed to call us the same species.

My two cents on this.

[Tyler]

There's definitely a line to be drawn in where we plan on going with the technology. But how does need necessitate doing it or not? We don't need television, music, literature, cars, prosthetic limbs or shoes but once someone made them no one was complaining.

QUOTE

the most future fiddling we should do is medical, and that should help, not upgrade.

Why? Why should we stop at prosthetic limbs for war veterans, but not prosthetic limbs with integrated nervous systems? Is there some inherently bad thing about consensually 'upgrading' someone's body with available technology? It just seems odd that the line can be drawn at medical advancements, where that school is specifically connected to the idea of transhumanism. What if we could have molecular machines in our bodies that fight disease-causing viruses and bacteria? Would you say that's not worth implementing, simply because it's an 'upgrade'?

QUOTE

As romantic as this sounds, we're astonishing as 'vanilla' people and shouldn't have to add to ourselves.

When I hear this argument, I tend to agree. With a bit of an addition: we are astonishing, yes, and so is our capability to self-improve. In fact, enduring through use of tools is a defining factor of humanity. What was once a stone and stick can one day be advanced processing hardware wired to your brain to help you concentrate and work on critical thinking. Wouldn't you agree?

QUOTE

this technology would no doubt fall to the richer and more advanced nations or classes, and therefore once more open up a huge shift between the unlucky and the privileged

The thing about new technology, is you're only half-right on this. Yes, it goes to the rich first and foremost. But it's new technology, with no real consumer testing being done with it. By the time the kinks are worked out and the technology is running at optimum capability, the price of it has gone down considerably and most everyone can afford it. I'll give examples: VCRs, home phones, cell phones, DVD players, gaming consoles, LCD screens, 64-bit CPU, satellite interface, using the internet... Really, all you have to do is look around your house and you'll see that you don't have to be rich to have premium technology.

Anyway, that links back to my main point: technology is becoming integrated with society and the individual at the deepest levels. We are already halfway there in that we carry around a piece of machinery unheard of 30 years ago in our pockets. It's cliche, but the data is there, and our acceleration into the future seems to only be increasing.

[El Zilcho]

But we simply don't need it... another problem I see with it is it comes across as gratuitous. Growing new organs for transplants, sure. Replacing lost limbs, alright. Giving those who can pay superhuman strength or hugely prolonged life spans? I don't think we can justify that.

[Viperman]

This is the first time I've heard of this. Quickly read through the link, as I cant get caught 'playing with my phone' in working hours.....yawn.

I like the idea to be honest, but can't help feel that as a race, we cannot overlook our current problems before looking at new ones. what I mean is, its almost certain that with our exponentially increasing rate of technological advancements that to some extent, this will happen. Anything that can be sold for profit, that also enhances human lifes, will eventually happen. But is it something we should be actively researching? Not in my eyes. It will happen eventually, with time. As el zilcho stated, to actively push forward could cause huge gaps between the wealthy and poor.

I would much prefer to see funding, effort, research etc, put towards technologies that won't enhance our lifes, but maintain us, like new energy's.

Like I said, I only skimmed the wiki link. When I plank my arse on the sofa tonight ill read it properly, incase I've missed the general idea.

[Tchuck]

I used to think that the things we experience are unique to being human, to being biological, and not a machine or augmented by one. As I entered the depths of semiotics, I realized otherwise.

In my opinion, we can benefit much more from pursuing the trans-humanistic goals than not pursuing it. Sure there is potential for exploitation, for "elitization", but isn't that the case with any newly developed technology? Surely the computer was viewed by the instrument for the elite, as a way to widen the gap between the rich or smart and the poor or dumb. But it has turned out the wrong way. The same case can be said for every other major human invention. I believe that the good from it will far outweigh the bad.

If the technology can be ill-used to create an "evil" super human, it can also be used to create the "good" super human that will stop that guy.

And the question of "need" is irrelevant. We don't need anything. We could still have lived perfectly well as our ancestors did. Do we "need" hot water in our pipes? Do we "need" mass system of transportation? Heck, do we even "need" to live in large cities, aside hundreds of thousands of other humans? In the most basic level, we don't need anything. But they sure make living more comfortable and enjoyable.

And you must consider that not everyone will want to augment themselves, at least not everyone that is currently living. Eventually there will be a new generation born under an augmentable world, and for them augmentations will be nothing out of the ordinary. But others will still live their own normal lives unaugmented. If only rich people get augmented, then no one loses anything, as those rich people wouldn't be working jobs or anything of the sort, it wouldn't have a huge affect on others lives, as opposed to mass augmentation of people, putting others out of a job because they don't have the latest cyber arm.

In the end, that is how I see it, that technology would be used to allow us to live a more comfortable and enjoyable life. I for one would really love ridiculous extensions on our life-span, if only to allow me to travel a bit through space or see more of the world.

To me, however, this is just a small step towards what should be the ultimate goal: Getting rid of the necessity of having a body. Our brain, our mind, ourselves are jailed inside this prison we call bodies. If we could live unimpeded by the hindrances of having to carry this husk around, we would accomplish far more and finally be at harmony with the world.

[shiva s]

I'd suggest to put an end to the technology advancements. Only those who are rich are gonna be benefited if the advancement in technology is gonna increase. I was thinking that this 'Rich poor' thingy prevails only in my country but I could understand that it prevails in other countries too by seeing the above posts. Something technologically should be done to stop cancer deaths and other death related diseases.

[Typhus]

I for one am very weary of the constant mistrust leveled against scientific advancements. That is, of course, when such advancements are able to push professional sports out of the public consciousness and be given any reasonable consideration. If you can count on the common man for anything, it's an irrational distrust of modernity. They always look to the past, to a hazily defined era when things were 'better'.

Well, the truth is that the only thing to continuously improve our standard of living is technology and science. Consider the leaps we've made in such a short time, the internet alone is a stunning creation, a world within a world where a wealth of knowledge is at your disposal.
And now consider the enormity of that accomplishment pitted against the objections of the naysayers and Luddites. Technophobia relies on second-hand, psuedo-religious claims of purity and 'conscience' to scare us into mediocrity.

It stems from the belief that humanity should be restricted, that our intellect is a thing to be distrusted. It is a misanthropic, cynical view. If we can improve ourselves, we owe it to future generations to seize the chance to do so.

[shiva s]

QUOTE (Typhus @ Friday, Jul 27 2012, 22:42)

Well, the truth is that the only thing to continuously improve our standard of living is technology and science.

To be honest, I agree with that. But, my point is only the rich people gets benefited by that. Rich gets richer, poor gets poorer.

[Chunkyman]

QUOTE (shiva s @ Friday, Jul 27 2012, 22:50)

QUOTE (Typhus @ Friday, Jul 27 2012, 22:42) Well, the truth is that the only thing to continuously improve our standard of living is technology and science. To be honest, I agree with that. But, my point is only the rich people gets benefited by that. Rich gets richer, poor gets poorer.

The rich benefit first because they are the only ones who can afford cutting edge technology, but the poor people always get it eventually when prices drop. Look at cars, televisions, and computers, they used to be affordable to only the rich but now most people have them.

Even if the rich were the only people to ever benefit by a new technology, so what? It doesn't somehow hurt me to have a rich person become wealthier/acquire more advance technology, so I'm happy for them.

I'd like to note that rich people getting richer does not make the poor poorer. That's fixed-pie Marxist crap that has been thoroughly discredited by nearly every flavor of economists.

[lil weasel]

"Our Goals?"
You mean the workers, to live for one more day.
You mean the Rich to aquire more wealth.
You mean the Power hungry to gain more power.
You mean the down trodden to upset the apple cart.
You mean the Religious to triumph over the other religious.
You mean for Society to aquire more disempowering tech so that when the power goes off they will commit suicide because they don't know how to add without a calculator.
You mean for society to believe one more (biased) report from an unknown authority that will prevent them from taking advange of century old vaccines which might have saved their babies. So the plague returns.

[shiva s]

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Saturday, Jul 28 2012, 02:51)

The rich benefit first because they are the only ones who can afford cutting edge technology, but the poor people always get it eventually when prices drop. Even if the rich were the only people to ever benefit by a new technology, so what? It doesn't somehow hurt me to have a rich person become wealthier/acquire more advance technology, so I'm happy for them.

Well, according to me, if something good is being done, everyone should be benefited by it. That's my point actually. The poor people are humans too, right?

QUOTE

Look at cars, televisions, and computers, they used to be affordable to only the rich but now most people have them.

Yes, everyone can afford cars and televisions nowadays. But, when the TV first came to the market, the price of it was too high and the rich people were the one to buy it first. The price of the TV came down only after five years(correct me if I'm wrong) and the poor people managed to afford it. Similarly, if there's gonna be some advancement in technology, we can expect the price to fall only after 5 years.

[3niX]

Well...

QUOTE

Well, according to me, if something good is being done, everyone should be benefited by it. That's my point actually. The poor people are humans too, right?

QUOTE

Yes, everyone can afford cars and televisions nowadays. But, when the TV first came to the market, the price of it was too high and the rich people were the one to buy it first. The price of the TV came down only after five years(correct me if I'm wrong) and the poor people managed to afford it. Similarly, if there's gonna be some advancement in technology, we can expect the price to fall only after 5 years.

So, what youre really complaining about is that everyone doesnt benefit fast enough...
Seems like a reasonable alternative to no benefit at all. This argument is just as inane as those kids who complain about not getting an iPhone for christmas. Id understand if you complained about access to pure water, food and shelter... but a f*cking TV?

QUOTE

"Our Goals?" You mean the workers, to live for one more day. You mean the Rich to aquire more wealth. You mean the Power hungry to gain more power. You mean the down trodden to upset the apple cart. You mean the Religious to triumph over the other religious. You mean for Society to aquire more disempowering tech so that when the power goes off they will commit suicide because they don't know how to add without a calculator. You mean for society to believe one more (biased) report from an unknown authority that will prevent them from taking advange of century old vaccines which might have saved their babies. So the plague returns.

You mean speculative crap which you only wrote down to seem somehow deep and intelligent? You wrote all that trying to imply some underlying sh*t that only you seem to "get" while actually contributing f*ck all to the debate.



In general, I have nothing against improving ourselves. You can argue that its not natural but what would you actually classify as natural? At which point can we concretely say:"Anything beyond this is not natural." It all seems arbitrary to me.

Is a person talking with a cellphone natural? What about a monkey using a stick as a tool? In my opinion, every technology we have developed (and continue to develop) has came about thanks to a natural process in which we apply our brain in solving a problem. If current or future technology can be considered unnatural than I think wed also have to consider the process of thinking as unnatural.

[lil weasel]

QUOTE (3niX @ Saturday, Jul 28 2012, 12:16)

[...]You mean speculative crap which you only wrote down to seem somehow deep and intelligent? You wrote all that trying to imply some underlying sh*t that only you seem to "get" while actually contributing f*ck all to the debate.[...]

Seems if it was really not worth the trouble, it wouldn't be worth the comment. If you don't like it let it die on its own. It's always a winning statement to include the ad hominem.

"Ische ga bibble?"

[3niX]

Well...

QUOTE

Seems if it was really not worth the trouble, it wouldn't be worth the comment. If you don't like it let it die on its own.  It's always a winning statement to include the ad hominem.

I wouldnt actually care that much if you didnt spew that sh*t in every debate you participate in. I never reply to you purely because I know you always try to maintain your high and mighty stance.

I do have respect for your opinions as long as you dont try to propagate your views in every debate. Nobody cares if you think the cops are crooked, the president a muppet etc. Just talk about the topic at hand and move on. Honestly, at times you seem like Slamman, who somehow ends up talking about laserdiscs in a topic about social values.

[shiva s]

QUOTE (3niX @ Saturday, Jul 28 2012, 12:16)

Well... QUOTE Well, according to me, if something good is being done, everyone should be benefited by it. That's my point actually. The poor people are humans too, right? QUOTE Yes, everyone can afford cars and televisions nowadays. But, when the TV first came to the market, the price of it was too high and the rich people were the one to buy it first. The price of the TV came down only after five years(correct me if I'm wrong) and the poor people managed to afford it. Similarly, if there's gonna be some advancement in technology, we can expect the price to fall only after 5 years. QUOTE So, what youre really complaining about is that everyone doesnt benefit fast enough... Seems like a reasonable alternative to no benefit at all. This argument is just as inane as those kids who complain about not getting an iPhone for christmas. Id understand if you complained about access to pure water, food and shelter... but a f*cking TV?

No, No. I'm not complaining. I was just using TV as an example.

[3niX]

Well...

Ok. But what exactly is wrong with getting technology five years later than someone else?

[El Zilcho]

I think I must be wrapped in my own romantic notion of the strength and beauty of undiluted or altered humanity... I disagree with the idea of designer babies for the same reason. I don't look into the past either - I understand the importance and natural imperative our species has for advancement. It is essential, for it has taken us this far and should take us further. But I disagree with meddling in the very core of what makes us us. Perhaps it's infantile, but I don't want to be part machine. And if others do so, I'll be left behind. Eventually, it'll be impossible to compete or be taken seriously if augmentation is pervasive.

Should that ever happen, I'd be disgusted and repulsed by the state of things. Not for romance or nostalgia, but for the corruption of it all. We're people, not smartphones with tacked on apps. It would detract from our advancement either; I'd much rather look at genetic advancement in the view of eradicating disease and hereditary conditions, rather than customization.

This post has been edited by El Zilcho on Saturday, Jul 28 2012, 15:27