The Moron's Guide To Transhumanism, Human Enhancement And Why It's Fucking Awesome.

[acds]

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;32129823]

[b]Augmentations should not be used to compensate for a lack of effort.[/b] If you go to the doctor and say "I want bionic legs so I can run faster," the doctor should tell you "Go work out." However, if you can't walk or have a gimp, then they should definitely help you.

As I've said a million times before, shit like running fast is not something you need to be successful at all. However, not being able to run at all is a defect. The bar should be set by the average human being, not the exceptional ones. If you can run fast enough to get out of dangerous situations fine, you don't need to run any faster. Calling yourself disabled because you can't run 100m in under 10 seconds is just beyond stupid.[/QUOTE]

Severely limiting the profits of huge corporations who are going to be pissed to say the least. If augmentations become reality and commercial, I doubt anyone will manage to keep them on a purely "when truly needed" basis.

[Mr. Scorpio]

[QUOTE=Chrille;32131116]It's not like I have gone out of my way to stop people from getting augmented (as if it was actually an issue), I have stated that I felt was the easy way out and I judge people based on it, just like I judge someone who is cheating in a sports match. Don't delude yourself into thinking you don't do the same, just on some different grounds. Get down from the fucking moral high ground.

If I actually wanted to be good at advanced mathematics I would have to. You could use the calculator but then you wouldn't really be good at the advanced mathematics, would you?

And do you need bionic arms to get through your day, like how you need a calculator to get through a math class? If not, then why would you want it? And why do you not want it bad enough that you work out to get stronger so you're a little closer to what you actually want?[/QUOTE]

Someone who cheats in a sports match uses subterfuge to give themselves an unknown advantage, defeating the purpose of a competition. Someone who gets augmented is simply better at whatever ability they were augmented in.
Of course I make subconscious moral judgements, everyone does. That is out of my control. What matters is what I say and what I act upon.

You would be far more able to calculate than someone without a calculator.

If you work a job which requires any sort of lifting or physical interaction, yes. Bionic arms would increase efficiency and productivity.

[editline]5th September 2011[/editline]

If you really want to talk about what's necessary, may I please ask you to remove your shoes?

After all, with enough walking you'll build up enough tissue on your feet to protect you in most environments. And while you'll never be as protected as you would be with shoes, wouldn't you feel so much better having put in the effort?

[Chrille]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;32131255]Someone who cheats in a sports match uses subterfuge to give themselves an unknown advantage, defeating the purpose of a competition. Someone who gets augmented is simply better at whatever ability they were augmented in.
Of course I make subconscious moral judgements, everyone does. That is out of my control. What matters is what I say and what I act upon.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't comparing the two, I was using it as an example on how I judge people.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;32131255]
You would be far more able to calculate than someone without a calculator.

If you work a job which requires any sort of lifting or physical interaction, yes. Bionic arms would increase efficiency and productivity.

[editline]5th September 2011[/editline]

If you really want to talk about what's necessary, may I please ask you to remove your shoes?

After all, with enough walking you'll build up enough tissue on your feet to protect you in most environments. And while you'll never be as protected as you would be with shoes, wouldn't you feel so much better having put in the effort?[/QUOTE]

And then you would also be in a situation where you would actually need your bionic arm.

If being able to walk barefoot in all weather was something I desired I would probably ditch the shoes, I wouldn't get surgically enhanced warm skin.

I run barefoot though.

[catbarf]

[QUOTE=Chrille;32131116]If I actually wanted to be good at advanced mathematics I would have to. You could use the calculator but then you wouldn't really be good at the advanced mathematics, would you?[/QUOTE]

Well then, considering there's more to physical skills than just having the right hardware, you just gave an excellent reason as to why augmenting your legs is just as valid as using calculators. You could use the augmented legs but then you wouldn't really be good at gymnastics or football, would you?

[QUOTE=Chrille;32131116]And do you need bionic arms to get through your day, like how you need a calculator to get through a math class? If not, then why would you want it? And why do you not want it bad enough that you work out to get stronger so you're a little closer to what you actually want?[/QUOTE]

You don't really need calculators to get through your day-to-day life either. If you are in some occupation that does necessitate complex math, you could either waste years of your life practicing math so that you can do it in your head, or you can just use a calculator. Likewise, if someone is in an occupation that necessitates physical skills, they could either waste years of their life practicing and training or they could just get augmented.

And if someone wants to buy a calculator, even if they don't work for NASA, I don't see any reason why they should be prevented from doing so just because they don't strictly 'need' it (even though they have the money and feel it would be useful).

I fail to see any significant difference.

[Mr. Scorpio]

[QUOTE=Chrille;32131474]I wasn't comparing the two, I was using it as an example on how I judge people.

And then you would also be in a situation where you would actually need your bionic arm.

If being able to walk barefoot in all weather was something I desired I would probably ditch the shoes, I wouldn't get surgically enhanced warm skin.

I run barefoot though.[/QUOTE]

Except you let reactionary judgements made by necessity and not by logic dictate your world philosophy.

No, it's entirely possible that you could simply train at a gym for eight months to become strong enough to do the same work. But that's eight months of unnecessary effort. That's my point.

You obviously do want to be able to walk in lots of different environments because you do wear shoes. If you didn't need to protect your feet you wouldn't wear them [I]ever.[/I] That's the point.

By wearing shoes, you are "augmenting" your feet. You're making them more versatile and more durable with no effort on your end. In that regard, "cyber arms" are no different.

[editline]5th September 2011[/editline]

[QUOTE=catbarf;32131757]Well then, considering there's more to physical skills than just having the right hardware, you just gave an excellent reason as to why augmenting your legs is just as valid as using calculators. You could use the augmented legs but then you wouldn't really be good at gymnastics, would you?

You don't really need calculators to get through your day-to-day life either. If you are in some occupation that does necessitate complex math, you could either waste years of your life practicing math so that you can do it in your head, or you can just use a calculator. Likewise, if someone is in an occupation that necessitates physical skills, they could either waste years of their life practicing and training or they could just get augmented.

I fail to see any significant difference.[/QUOTE]

The difference is that augmentation gives him a funny feeling in his hchrem so it's bad.

[MaverickIB]

I think people's minds will change once they realize this will cost money.

Spend thousands and thousands of dollars, multiple months recovering/learning how to use the new arm(s) just to be strong.
or
Buy a gym membership and lift weights 3 times a week, becoming stronger as well as healthier.

Fancy new arms won't make you more healthy. Your heart will still be a piece of shit despite being able to lift a lot of weight. Unless you're planning on replacing your organs too, which will only cost more money.

Recreational augmentation will do nothing but create more a gap between the rich and the poor. The only people who will be able to augment themselves for shits and giggles like that will be the filthy rich. Anyone working a 9-5 job wouldn't be able to do it, not just because of the money, but because doing so would force them to take a lot of time off. If you think augmentation will ever be cheap, you're ridiculously naive. A lot of drugs are cheap and easy to make, but still cost assloads of money.

The disabled and people who [b]need[/b] it for their jobs should have access to it. As in, if you're a career construction worker and need to lift more weight, then strong bionic arms should be a viable solution. Fireman? Heat resistance or bionic lungs, stuff like that. However, I don't think dipshits should be able to walk in and go "hurr i wanna breathe underwater and life heavy shit for no reason lol" and receive service.

I mean, strong as hell bionic arms would essentially be a weapon. You seriously think people should be allowed to outfit themselves with weapons for no reason at all other than shits and giggles? Real smart.

[catbarf]

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;32132446]I think people's minds will change once they realize this will cost money.

Spend thousands and thousands of dollars, multiple months recovering/learning how to use the new arm(s) just to be strong.
or
Buy a gym membership and lift weights 3 times a week, becoming stronger as well as healthier.

Fancy new arms won't make you more healthy. Your heart will still be a piece of shit despite being able to lift a lot of weight. Unless you're planning on replacing your organs too, which will only cost more money.

Recreational augmentation will do nothing but create more a gap between the rich and the poor. The only people who will be able to augment themselves for shits and giggles like that will be the filthy rich. Anyone working a 9-5 job wouldn't be able to do it, not just because of the money, but because doing so would force them to take a lot of time off. If you think augmentation will ever be cheap, you're ridiculously naive. A lot of drugs are cheap and easy to make, but still cost assloads of money.[/QUOTE]

Well, now, 'you shouldn't use augmentations because they're expensive' is a little different from 'you shouldn't use augmentations because it's morally wrong'.

And you completely ignore that companies will want augmented individuals. Construction companies would pay to have stronger workers, governments would pay to have better soldiers, engineering firms would pay to have more accurate, more efficient designers, etc. If one augmented individual can do the work of two non-augmented people, and the cost of augmentation is less than the cost of hiring a second person, they'll augment employees at the company's expense. The company gets more cost-effective people, the employees get free augs, so average wealth increases, just as it has with any other technological development.

[MaverickIB]

A company augmenting employees is much different that someone augmenting themselves to be better at something for shits and giggles.

I have nothing against people using augments to be better at their field of work. However, I don't think people should be able to just augment themselves with whatever they want so they can [i]enter[/i] a field of work.

An astrophysicist should have to prove his abilities to perform the job, then he can be augmented to do math better. Some punkass who didn't pay attention in math class shouldn't be able to augment themselves and become an astrophysicist. A simple regulation like that, proving you can do the job before being augmented, would keep a massive gap from being produced between the rich and everyone else.

[SCopE5000]

I think Augmentation along the lines of cellular alteration would be sweet.

Perhaps one that changes your entire form into something else by rearranging your cellular structure, temporarily (possibly permanantly), so you could modify yourself cosmetically, cure malignant cancer, or turn yourself into a JCB digger.

Would skip the whole painful surgery and be reversible (if you could log the original cellar shape and devise a way of reversing it).

As for availability, should be distributed on a case-by-case basis or as maverick said, to people who have worked a job for like 10 years and proved themselves worthy.

[MaverickIB]

Also, if people think getting a job is just about being able to do it, they're incredibly mistaken.

Most businesses don't want their employees to have a college education because it means they're smarter or whatever. They want workers with diplomas because it shows the person was able to remain dedicated and work hard. I'm willing to bet that, in a lot of cases, companies would be [i]less[/i] willing to hire people who augmented themselves to be better at the job. Sure, they can perform it better on paper, but what does is say about their work ethic when they aren't willing to bust their ass, and always opt for the easy way out?

[Cl0cK]

I would simply want my eyes to be augmented, so I can tell everyone that my vision is augmented.

Also, because I have to wear glasses anyways, so it would also be useful.

[Lambda 217]

[QUOTE=Cl0cK;32132855]I would simply want my eyes to be augmented, so I can tell everyone that my vision is augmented.

Also, because I have to wear glasses anyways, so it would also be useful.[/QUOTE]

Plus they would look awesome if they had whirring lenses in them and stuff.

[Mr. Scorpio]

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;32132830]Also, if people think getting a job is just about being able to do it, they're incredibly mistaken.

Most businesses don't want their employees to have a college education because it means they're smarter or whatever. They want workers with diplomas because it shows the person was able to remain dedicated and work hard. I'm willing to bet that, in a lot of cases, companies would be [i]less[/i] willing to hire people who augmented themselves to be better at the job. Sure, they can perform it better on paper, but what does is say about their work ethic when they aren't willing to bust their ass, and always opt for the easy way out?[/QUOTE]

what does it say about their dedication when they are willing [I]to have their arms cut off and replaced with mechanical prosthesis[/I]

[editline]5th September 2011[/editline]

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;32132679]A company augmenting employees is much different that someone augmenting themselves to be better at something for shits and giggles.

I have nothing against people using augments to be better at their field of work. However, I don't think people should be able to just augment themselves with whatever they want so they can [i]enter[/i] a field of work.

An astrophysicist should have to prove his abilities to perform the job, then he can be augmented to do math better. Some punkass who didn't pay attention in math class shouldn't be able to augment themselves and become an astrophysicist. A simple regulation like that, proving you can do the job before being augmented, would keep a massive gap from being produced between the rich and everyone else.[/QUOTE]

I love the absolute hatred you have for lazy people that oozes from every word you type.

Nothing "should" happen. Companies will put whatever measures they wish to put in place in place. And perhaps your system might be adopted. Maybe. But that's not because it should happen for any sort of moral reason, but because it would work mechanically.

[editline]5th September 2011[/editline]

Perhaps this is presumptuous of me, but it seems like the anti augmentation people in this thread are less concerned with the actual effects of augmentation than they are that lazy people wouldn't get punished in some way.

[editline]5th September 2011[/editline]

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;32132446]I mean, strong as hell bionic arms would essentially be a weapon. You seriously think people should be allowed to outfit themselves with weapons for no reason at all other than shits and giggles? Real smart.[/QUOTE]

you do realize that weapons ARE legal things to own in just about every first world country on the planet, right

[Z3r0747]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;32117978]Don't fucking pussyfoot around the issue. The point is that "creativity" is just taking old things, combining them, and giving them a spin. It is not the process of creating new material, just slightly different views on the same material.

If you want to argue that all art is perfectly unique because all art is slightly different from every other piece of art, then fine. But understand that if you do that the word "unique" loses all meaning.[/QUOTE]

In the process of creating "slightly different views of the same material", you are, in effect, [B]creating new material.[/B]

The word unique wouldn't lose all meaning because that is precisely what unique means. Perhaps with the connotations and in the context that artists and musicians use it, then yes.

Additionally, I'm not even sure what "neutral vacuums" have to do with any of this. Nobody is born into a neutral vacuum, but computers that create "music" (based on math formulas and user input) do exist.

My point was that a computer cannot consciously create music or art because it is inherently unconscious.

The process in which humans create is certainly not as linear as a computer system.

[QUOTE=acds;32131055]Well that is all very poetic, but yes math is possibly the most important subject. Sure you can try and be an artist trying to get by day by day, meanwhile everyone else gets a Ph.D. in applied physics, maths and/or whatever and rakes in huge paychecks, makes huge new discoveries and so on.
Sorry but the ideas that music and art are as important as math, physics and chemistry is just wishful thinking.[/QUOTE]

Except that without art and music and creativity and innovation, there would be little point in existence at all.

We could be the most technologically advanced society ever in the history of the universe but I sure wouldn't care about living very much if there's [B]nothing to fucking do.[/B]

Every form of entertainment today is the result of someone being creative and innovative.

Additionally, your statement about everyone getting a Ph.D. in some science or mathematical field is a ridiculous overestimation of how many people are actually contributing to a new discovery that benefits humanity as a whole. There are so many things that are being researched that are of no practical use to any of us, or are only beneficial on the extremely long-term.

Tons of money is being spent on random biological studies about the mating cycle of (insert creature here) that is of absolutely [I]no practical benefit[/I] to anyone on Earth besides biologists. That's a stupid example, but if you just browse any science website you can find tons of stuff that won't effect any of us in the slightest.

It adds to our collective database of knowledge, most assuredly, but studies like that, in my view, are just as "pointless" as any artistic or musical creation. Knowledge doesn't mean shit if it just [i]exists[/i] without any purpose.

Maybe we should shift all priority to solving the actual problems with humanity, like starvation and disease and suffering, you know? There's also the fact that technology is still only available to the privileged few, and that a lot of humanity still lives in the fucking dirt.

Just my two cents on the issue. I'm not undermining the importance of science at all, but people tend to blow it way out of proportion and make it seem like [B]every scientific discovery[/B] is somehow useful to everyone.

[MaverickIB]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;32133431]what does it say about their dedication when they are willing [I]to have their arms cut off and replaced with mechanical prosthesis[/I]
[/QUOTE]

Doesn't compare to the dedication required to pour money into years of schooling when you're not even guaranteed to get a job after doing so. Also, miss the whole "work ethic" part?

Weapons are legal to own, but they are also regulated. And you can't carry them in certain areas. It's not like we can just walk around waiving assault rifles and whatnot everywhere we want. Unless you're totally cool with taking your arms off when you walk onto a school campus.

[carcarcargo]

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;32133802]Doesn't compare to the dedication required to pour money into years of schooling when you're not even guaranteed to get a job after doing so. Also, miss the whole "work ethic" part?

Weapons are legal to own, but they are also regulated. And you can't carry them in certain areas. It's not like we can just walk around waiving assault rifles and whatnot everywhere we want. Unless you're totally cool with taking your arms off when you walk onto a school campus.[/QUOTE]

Why would mechanical arms be treated any differently to normal arms?

[Mr. Scorpio]

[QUOTE=Z3r0747;32133666]In the process of creating "slightly different views of the same material", you are, in effect, [B]creating new material.[/B]

The word unique wouldn't lose all meaning because that is precisely what unique means. Perhaps with the connotations and in the context that artists and musicians use it, then yes.

Additionally, I'm not even sure what "neutral vacuums" have to do with any of this. Nobody is born into a neutral vacuum, but computers that create "music" (based on math formulas and user input) do exist.

My point was that a computer cannot consciously create music or art because it is inherently unconscious.

The process in which humans create is certainly not as linear as a computer system.

Except that without art and music and creativity and innovation, there would be little point in existence at all.

We could be the most technologically advanced society ever in the history of the universe but I sure wouldn't care about living very much if there's [B]nothing to fucking do.[/B]

Every form of entertainment today is the result of someone being creative and innovative.

Additionally, your statement about everyone getting a Ph.D. in some science or mathematical field is a ridiculous overestimation of how many people are actually contributing to a new discovery that benefits humanity as a whole. There are so many things that are being researched that are of no practical use to any of us, or are only beneficial on the extremely long-term.

Tons of money is being spent on random biological studies about the mating cycle of (insert creature here) that is of absolutely [I]no practical benefit[/I] to anyone on Earth besides biologists. That's a stupid example, but if you just browse any science website you can find tons of stuff that won't effect any of us in the slightest.

It adds to our collective database of knowledge, most assuredly, but studies like that, in my view, are just as "pointless" as any artistic or musical creation. Knowledge doesn't mean shit if it just [i]exists[/i] without any purpose.

Maybe we should shift all priority to solving the actual problems with humanity, like starvation and disease and suffering, you know? There's also the fact that technology is still only available to the privileged few, and that a lot of humanity still lives in the fucking dirt.

Just my two cents on the issue. I'm not undermining the importance of science at all, but people tend to blow it way out of proportion and make it seem like every scientific discovery is somehow useful to everyone.[/QUOTE]

do you not understand what im fucking saying

If every single thing that is created is unique, [I]everything[/I] is unique. If everything is unique, of what use is the fucking word as a description?

You live in a fucking fantasy world where humans are creative little flowers that bring peace and meaning to the universe, and that simply isn't the fucking case. If we didn't have art, we wouldn't have evolved with the need to create or observe it. If we didn't have reasons to exist, we would either make one up, or have not needed them in the first place.

Humans are an adaptive organic ooze conforming to a hostile environment, nothing more. Your brain is a result of billions of years of compulsions and reactions, strained through natural selection to produce a self replicating biological machine that will only occasionally kill itself and everything around it. Don't even fucking bother trying to make some emotional appeal that art brings some sort of special meaning to the universe.

Art is made because artists desire to make art. Art is bought because people desire distractions. Distractions in the form of moral quandaries, distractions in the form of explosions, distractions in the form of happy ending fairy tales and bloodbath gore pornography. Art in and of itself contributes nothing. It is a tool for people to keep themselves placated, nothing more.

Science is a method, but it does something far more. Science expands our ability, it removes our flaws, it brings reasonable hope to hopeless situations. You have no idea what the study of the biological world has contributed to mankind, and you have the gall to denounce it as useless?

How about this one, my ignorant little friend. You want to solve disease and starvation? How about we take a look at this man.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug[/url]

You take every masterpiece, every sculptural marvel, every musical composition and every written word, and you [I]dare[/I] to tell me that they outweigh the accomplishments of this one man using only the knowledge gained by agricultural science.

You just fucking dare.

[Froztshock]

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32133971]Why would mechanical arms be treated any differently to normal arms?[/QUOTE]

Because they would be significantly stronger, likely on the level of weapons.

[carcarcargo]

[QUOTE=froztshock;32134177]Because they would be significantly stronger, likely on the level of weapons.[/QUOTE]

And a normal man couldn't be strong enough to kill someone?

[Mr. Scorpio]

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;32133802]Doesn't compare to the dedication required to pour money into years of schooling when you're not even guaranteed to get a job after doing so. Also, miss the whole "work ethic" part?

Weapons are legal to own, but they are also regulated. And you can't carry them in certain areas. It's not like we can just walk around waiving assault rifles and whatnot everywhere we want. Unless you're totally cool with taking your arms off when you walk onto a school campus.[/QUOTE]

You know, I'm not sure about your experience, but mine with College students is no where near as noble dignified.

If we're going to take the argument that having great strength counts as having a weapon, would you agree to having people with a certain physical ability handcuffed in the same areas you can't bring guns?

[editline]5th September 2011[/editline]

[QUOTE=froztshock;32134177]Because they would be significantly stronger, likely on the level of weapons.[/QUOTE]

Could you, kindly, tell me just how strong someone's arms would have to be to deliver the same impact of, say, a relatively strong man with a baseball bat?

[SCopE5000]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio]what does it say about their dedication when they are willing to have their arms cut off and replaced with mechanical prosthesis[/QUOTE]

Nothing at all, if you're not willing to work to your physical limit, you don't require improvement, cause if you're not using the full potential you were gifted, you don't deserve more than that.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;32134165][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug[/url]

You take every masterpiece, every sculptural marvel, every musical composition and every written word, and you [I]dare[/I] to tell me that they outweigh the accomplishments of this one man using only the knowledge gained by agricultural science.

You just fucking dare.[/QUOTE]

That's a matter of perspective.

[QUOTE=MaverickIB]The disabled and people who need it for their jobs should have access to it. As in, if you're a career construction worker and need to lift more weight, then strong bionic arms should be a viable solution. Fireman? Heat resistance or bionic lungs, stuff like that. However, I don't think dipshits should be able to walk in and go "hurr i wanna breathe underwater and life heavy shit for no reason lol" and receive service.[/QUOTE]

This.

[Mr. Scorpio]

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;32134524]Nothing at all, if you're not willing to work to your physical limit, you don't require improvement, cause if you're not using the full potential you were gifted, you don't deserve more than that.

That's a matter of perspective.

This.[/QUOTE]

Find me a work of art worth a billion lives and I'll forever worship at it's feet.

[editline]5th September 2011[/editline]

And I don't really care about what your opinions are about what people deserve or not.

[TBFundy]

i don't have a problem with this in terms of efficiency

but if you think about it logically it does pose some interesting problems

1. if one lives a perfectly healthy lifestyle but refuses augmentations for various reasons, he's left in the dust

2. no matter what bullshit excuse you make, poor people (even 9-5 middle class people) could never afford this shit. you're giving trust fund kiddies another advantage that they don't need

and it probably won't be a long, long time until it's more efficient for a human to do these things rather than making a robot do it instead

[Froztshock]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;32134264]You know, I'm not sure about your experience, but mine with College students is no where near as noble dignified.

If we're going to take the argument that having great strength counts as having a weapon, would you agree to having people with a certain physical ability handcuffed in the same areas you can't bring guns?

[editline]5th September 2011[/editline]

Could you, kindly, tell me just how strong someone's arms would have to be to deliver the same impact of, say, a relatively strong man with a baseball bat?[/QUOTE]

I'm not trying to make an argument myself, just trying to clear up the confusion that he had about why Maverik suggested that mechanical arms would be treated differently.

[carcarcargo]

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;32134524]Nothing at all, if you're not willing to work to your physical limit, you don't require improvement, cause if you're not using the full potential you were gifted, you don't deserve more than that.

That's a matter of perspective.

This.[/QUOTE]

Who are you to say who does and does not deserve something?

[SCopE5000]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;32134555]Find me a work of art worth a billion lives and I'll forever worship at it's feet.

[editline]5th September 2011[/editline]

And I don't really care about what your opinions are about what people deserve or not.[/QUOTE]

For a start I wouldn't give you any augmentation, because if you don't care about other people's opinions and won't consider anything other than your own beliefs, you're almost certainly not mature enough to be a good candidate.

[editline]5th September 2011[/editline]

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32134691]Who are you to say who does and does not deserve something?[/QUOTE]

Rationality. Giving some bro 'lol watercannon' augs wouldn't make sense, whereas giving a firefighter them would.

[MaverickIB]

I think too many people are jumping the gun because it'd be cool as shit. Would I like super strong bionic arms? Fuck yeah I would. However, it's an issue far more complex than most people are making it out to be.

Honestly, I think genetic modification is a much more realistic means of advancing the human race. Would robot arms be cool? Sure. But growing arms from your own genetic material with modified genes that enhance muscle development is probably what is going to happen. Who needs bionic arms when you can just grow new better arms? I mean, you wouldn't have to worry about the body rejecting it because it'd be made from your own genetic material. It wouldn't take long to learn how to use the new ones since they'd be identical neurologically to the old ones.

It wouldn't be as cool looking but it's certainly more realistic.

[Z3r0747]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;32134165]do you not understand what im fucking saying

If every single thing that is created is unique, [I]everything[/I] is unique. If everything is unique, of what use is the fucking word as a description?

You live in a fucking fantasy world where humans are creative little flowers that bring peace and meaning to the universe, and that simply isn't the fucking case. If we didn't have art, we wouldn't have evolved with the need to create or observe it. If we didn't have reasons to exist, we would either make one up, or have not needed them in the first place.

Humans are an adaptive organic ooze conforming to a hostile environment, nothing more. Your brain is a result of billions of years of compulsions and reactions, strained through natural selection to produce a self replicating biological machine that will only occasionally kill itself and everything around it. Don't even fucking bother trying to make some emotional appeal that art brings some sort of special meaning to the universe.

Art is made because artists desire to make art. Art is bought because people desire distractions. Distractions in the form of moral quandaries, distractions in the form of explosions, distractions in the form of happy ending fairy tales and bloodbath gore pornography. Art in and of itself contributes nothing. It is a tool for people to keep themselves placated, nothing more.

Science is a method, but it does something far more. Science expands our ability, it removes our flaws, it brings reasonable hope to hopeless situations. You have no idea what the study of the biological world has contributed to mankind, and you have the gall to denounce it as useless?

How about this one, my ignorant little friend. You want to solve disease and starvation? How about we take a look at this man.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug[/url]

You take every masterpiece, every sculptural marvel, every musical composition and every written word, and you [I]dare[/I] to tell me that they outweigh the accomplishments of this one man using only the knowledge gained by agricultural science.

You just fucking dare.[/QUOTE]

Why are you so damn hostile? I would encourage you to read my entire post before flipping the fuck out when you see the words "no practical benefit" and "science" in the same sentence.

Where did I say that the field of biology is entirely useless? I simply pointed out that not all [I]scientific discoveries are useful on a practical level.[/I]

Instead of actually addressing my point, you choose to paint me as being anti-science. Science has [B]done enormously more good than bad[/B], but that does [B]not[/B] somehow remove it from the blame of having created harmful technologies as well.

"Art is made because artists desire to make art". Yes, I agree. That doesn't change the fact that life would be [B]extremely fucking boring if there is no entertainment, no art, and no music.[/B]

Science [I]cannot[/I] be "superior" to art because they are used for [I]totally different purposes.[/I]

Science makes our lives easier; art gives us reasons to actually live. That's all I can say.

I'm probably done debating with you since you choose to build enormous straw-man arguments and then freak out because I have a few minor qualms about science.

[carcarcargo]

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;32134768]I think too many people are jumping the gun because it'd be cool as shit. Would I like super strong bionic arms? Fuck yeah I would. However, it's an issue far more complex than most people are making it out to be.

Honestly, I think genetic modification is a much more realistic means of advancing the human race. Would robot arms be cool? Sure. But growing arms from your own genetic material with modified genes that enhance muscle development is probably what is going to happen. Who needs bionic arms when you can just grow new better arms? I mean, you wouldn't have to worry about the body rejecting it because it'd be made from your own genetic material. It wouldn't take long to learn how to use the new ones since they'd be identical neurologically to the old ones.

It wouldn't be as cool looking but it's certainly more realistic.[/QUOTE]

I think it would be fairly impossible to change your genetics after birth.

[Mr. Scorpio]

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;32134699]For a start I wouldn't give you any augmentation, because if you don't care about other people's opinions and won't consider anything other than your own beliefs, you're almost certainly not mature enough to be a good candidate.

[editline]5th September 2011[/editline]

Rationality. Giving some bro 'lol watercannon' augs wouldn't make sense, whereas giving a firefighter them would.[/QUOTE]

Your opinions are based on your own petulant bigotries and frustrations and nothing more. I will not be slaved to a repressed fool who must bring others down to bring himself up.

I consider everything my little droog. Everything. But what you don't seem to understand is that consideration is followed by judgement and decision, and my consideration and judgement of your decision of opinion is that you are a fool. So bring up your maturities and your purities and your effort and workery all you wish. I'll consider each in turn and then turn around and tell you exactly why each is a non issue. And perhaps one day you'll understand that you are not the righteous keeper and judge of mankind's state of mind.