[QUOTE=ionuttzu;42969299]None of this will happen, btw.
Or at least will happen but not do all the good this video bullshits about.[/QUOTE]
I like how at the end of the video it predicts people will say shit like this about it
It'd didn't even touch on the subject of replacing our limbs with ocean liner pistons and railguns. Completely missed the point of Transhuemanitee, small thinking GDF scum
I fear that technology could end up going too far, if we remove all of life's labours, is life worth living? Enjoying the weekend rest, etc?
I don't live life for the problems in it, I live life in spite of them.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;42965586]Mars doesn't have trees though. Unless we can advance our tech so much we could colonize planets purely for growing forests there.[/QUOTE]
Terraforming is WAY more complicated than "growing forests."
In the case of mars we would either have to live in giant domes or restart the core of the planet, which would require throwing big space rocks into it until it became molten again, had a sustainable core (requiring heavy elements like uranium and such in amount to keep the core warm, as well as it being a suitable size to keep alive regardless, because of the laws of termodynamics your planet has to be of a specific size to not completely just cool off and die like mars did), you'd have to have millions of years for the planet to cool down again, then throw comets into it in mass to create enough liquid water to sustain an ocean to help regulate carbon dioxide levels. You'd have to insure that during the molten period the gasses that make up the atmosphere are not too toxic as well, since the volcanic era of a planet is when the atmosphere is usually released in masse from the bubbling mess that is the planet. You're way better off finding planets we can already inhabit or make space domes.
[QUOTE=geogzm;42971958]I fear that technology could end up going too far, if we remove all of life's labours, is life worth living? Enjoying the weekend rest, etc?[/QUOTE]
Depression Simulator 2083.
[QUOTE=ripsipiirakk;42965900]Though it sounds like a good idea it starts with the thought that humanity is single entity. That everyone would get the advances at same time and price.
Most likely all of these advances would be affordable for only the people in the well off countries, or richest in poorest countries. Further developing already existing gap between rich and poor. But this time it would not only be gap of material wealth. It would be that the rich are also in every way better than poor. Faster, more intelligent and more happy.
And in bad case it would either make the poor people think that they are their rivals in survival or that the rich would be so out of touch with the poor. That they would think they are so much better than poor that they are the true superhumans.
Just like communism, only works in theory.[/QUOTE]
Yes lets just stop technological development because the rich get it first, that's definitely a good idea.
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;42972761]guys lets go back to caves and sticks so no-one is wealthy thats much better than essentially becoming our own gods thanks[/QUOTE]
Sure we'll all live to about 20, but hey there wont be any more rich people, since they'll all get eaten by animals.
Transhumanist is synonymous with technophile for me. It poses itself against some imaginary Luddite and paints everything in such a romantic way that everyone forgets the basic practicality of it and how unnecessary this kind ideology is.
We haven't moved into some dark age, a fuckload of scientific progress is still occurring, so the only thing they suggest is pumping more money into R&D. Nothing wrong with that, but they pose it with the suggestion of putting huge effort into another Star Wars program, Jetpack soldiers or the Japs developing Death Rays in WW2. By far the best way is to create a conducive environment for technology to grow and seeing what comes of it rather than endless youtube videos about COMPUTERS CAN MAKE US SUPER SMART.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;42973241]Transhumanist is synonymous with technophile for me. It poses itself against some imaginary Luddite and paints everything in such a romantic way that everyone forgets the basic practicality of it and how unnecessary this kind ideology is.
We haven't moved into some dark age, a fuckload of scientific progress is still occurring, so the only thing they suggest is pumping more money into R&D. Nothing wrong with that, but they pose it with the suggestion of putting huge effort into another Star Wars program, Jetpack soldiers or the Japs developing Death Rays in WW2. By far the best way is to create a conducive environment for technology to grow and seeing what comes of it rather than endless youtube videos about COMPUTERS CAN MAKE US SUPER SMART.[/QUOTE]
I think that real, advanced artificial limbs are great for the handicapped but people should skip out on voluntarily getting their arms removed for a while.
Just wait it out until the infinite power of nano augmentation.
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;42973383]You kind of missed the point of the entire video then, the video states that we are already at a point where we are completely symbiotic with technology, its just the interface that will evolve.
We are already there, we already have the entire knowledge of mankind in out pockets, its just a matter of making the technology to access it better.
Though on the side of the whole "im gonna augment my body so my vital organs will never die" is going to be attempted in the coming years no matter what, like why the fuck wouldn't the worlds brightest attempt immortality itself when the technology allows it.
[editline]25th November 2013[/editline]
But nah lets just let our countries spend more money than we can dream of on military instead of advancement in the sciences[/QUOTE]
That's the problem though. If you think we've already got all the technology we need to create immortality, full cybernetic bodies, or interface with the brain beyond alchemy, you're living in a dream.
Everyone wants immortality or body improvements, the reason for them not existing currently isn't because the government just wants war, it's because they're impractical and highly experimental. For all the reasons you wouldn't use a jetpack or hovercar as we have them now, that's why these technologies aren't utilised.
[QUOTE=Weirdness;42965449]Time to colonize Mars.[/QUOTE]
Time to become Mars
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;42973612]did you even read what i posted
i said we have a fully symbiotic relationship, i didn't say we were immortal
just because a clownfish and the sea anemone have a symbiotic relationship doesnt mean the clownfish is immortal
i'm saying there is literally no reason to not go down the road of seeking immortality through further technological study, unless you really think "but it will be expensive so i cant have it but rich people can :C" is a good excuse to stop further pursuits in science and the betterment of mankind[/QUOTE]
This is what I said about facing some imaginary luddite. No-one is saying we shouldn't bother researching immortality, but making a concerted effort and putting huge research into something that has no apparent practical approach and no real idea of where to start other than "Technology make immortality" is bad in every way.
There is no stop to pursuing it or the betterment of mankind, but the idea that just because you research it it will happen is absurd. Research grows naturally at its own pace based on what is practical and mandating these things because of your fear of death is counter-productive. All the effort that was wasted on things that seemed cool throughout history, all the other things they could've been working on that actually yielded results, but this is different somehow?
Here's a question;
How do you implement this technology while ensuring that no-one can use it as excuse to claim to intrinsic superiority over another.
The answer is you would need to upgrade everyone at the same time equally. Otherwise you can bet sure as rain that there will horrible social consequences ranging from the unemployment of the un-enhanced all the way to the relative genetic homogenization of a generation due to a popular 'heartthrob' idol such as Elvis or Justin bieber. Not to mention the inherent issue of transference of responsibility from the child to the parent when they choose not to make her 'smarter', and thus giving excuse to fail even though the child is operating with the classic human model.
Unfortunately such a feat is not possible, if not for a state, then certainly not for the whole world. How then can you claim to attempting to help humanity when in practice you would be doing away with the convenient social paradigm that all 'men' are created equal.
If you are so eager to tear down the old ways and definition of a human being, then you better damn well be prepared to offer a better construction to put in its place.
Ignoring the possibility of medical failure, I will instead ask how you intend to remedy the issue of the human ego, and it's tenancy to find an excuse to exterminate those deemed inferior. How do you intend to draw a line when in all respects you are giving the keys for man to destroy his own nature.
How do you think you will combat paradoxical counter-productivity? Sure living a long life is great, but we already have a population problem, how can you possibly justify increasing the lifespan of people in such a world? Who get's to live forever? Me? You? The sophist at the top of the power structure? Should all of us live forever? Can we still have kids? Where will we put them all? Shall we resign ourselves to being sparks of electricity in some super-mainframe? I reject all of these things.
The potential for social engineering that comes with this technology is immense. Not only this, but the advent of true genetic engineering could pave the way for a schism in the very species. A situation reminiscent of the proletariat of 1984. or of Hitler's vision.
Be careful for we are playing with stolen fire.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;42973831]Here's a question;
How do you implement this technology while ensuring that no-one can use it as excuse to claim to intrinsic superiority over another.
The answer is you would need to upgrade everyone at the same time equally. Otherwise you can bet sure as rain that there will horrible social consequences ranging from the unemployment of the un-enhanced all the way to the relative genetic homogenization of a generation due to a popular 'heartthrob' idol such as Elvis or Justin bieber. Not to mention the inherent issue of transference of responsibility from the child to the parent when they choose not to make her 'smarter', and thus giving excuse to fail even though the child is operating with the classic human model.
[/QUOTE]
You could say the same about smartphones, and internet; and I'd say with the historical cost of those (only companies / the very rich could afford early on). It won't be a problem, and I'm sure there will be laws passed so people cannot just fire / not hire people purely based on their augmented status.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;42973831]
How do you think you will combat paradoxical counter-productivity? Sure living a long life is great, but we already have a population problem, how can you possibly justify increasing the lifespan of people in such a world? Who get's to live forever? Me? You? The sophist at the top of the power structure? Should all of us live forever? Can we still have kids? Where will we put them all? Shall we resign ourselves to being sparks of electricity in some super-mainframe? [b]I reject all of these things.[/b]
[/QUOTE]
It won't happen this way, we are slowly going to invent this technology, and YES the super-wealthy will be the first ones to get it, followed by the rest in wealth status. A person's wealth and choice gets to choose weather they get augmented, and I'm sure we'd have come up with laws regarding children by this time.
As for you rejecting all of these things, go ahead; that is your choice, but please let the rest of us have ours.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;42973831]
The potential for social engineering that comes with this technology is immense. Not only this, but the advent of true genetic engineering could pave the way for a schism in the very species. A situation reminiscent of the proletariat of 1984. or of Hitler's vision.
[/QUOTE]
DNA Engineering will certainly be a problem of the future, but I'm inclined to think it will become a state-regulated thing, everyone gets certain 'inoculations' for things like Cancer, Autism, Etc. when they conceived (or something of that nature); anything else would be extremely expensive, and like cosmetic surgery. With how complex the human genome is, I doubt there will be any easy way to have babies just 'made smarter', and if they are, it's their genetics and money to spend.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;42973831]
Be careful for we are playing with stolen fire.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
This is a bad when taken literally, and bad when taking metaphorically. Just because we have the intelligence to make things we should intrinsically be 'Careful, we're using stolen abilities' is absurd. We should be caring to other humans, and other animals as they feel pain, need food, and have feelings. And we should take care of the Environment as it supports us and all of the aforementioned animals.
While you may run in to people with augments who try to reason that they are somehow better, you will have the exact flipside of that coin with unaugmented people saying they are better for being "Pure" humans. Purity First is a great take on that, people who feel they are somehow better simply because they're "pure". Hell, there already have groups that are very literally exactly that, and act just like Purity First carrying out terrorist attacks on research centers and such.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;42973919]You could say the same about smartphones, and internet; and I'd say with the historical cost of those (only companies / the very rich could afford early on). It won't be a problem, and I'm sure there will be laws passed so people cannot just fire / not hire people purely based on their augmented status.[/quote]
Actually no you couldn't. Smartphones and education are things done to a human. Augmentation on the other hand is something which causes the very definition of him as a human to become different, 'better'. Granted Doctor Zedacom's point stands regarding the tendency for purists to define themselves as somehow superior as well. This does not cause problem to my argument which simply states that people will have an excuse to believe themselves [b]intrinsically[/b] superior to others. This goes both ways, and both ways it causes societal problems.
[quote]
It won't happen this way, we are slowly going to invent this technology, and YES the super-wealthy will be the first ones to get it, followed by the rest in wealth status. A person's wealth and choice gets to choose weather they get augmented, and I'm sure we'd have come up with laws regarding children by this time.[/quote]
You didn't address why this super-longevity wont go against our massive population. If it takes a while to invent it the problem will just be compounded. Furthermore you are still ignoring the problems that will be caused by a society where jobs have priority given to those ensured to be healthier, smarter, etc. The lives of the un-augmented, willing or otherwise, would be severely impacted.
[quote]
As for you rejecting all of these things, go ahead; that is your choice, but please let the rest of us have ours.[/quote] Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to stop you from sticking the needle in your baby, I am just stating these things as why you shouldn't. Regardless if what you want is immortality, then chances are you are going to be downloaded. You can have it, none for me thanks. I prefer to still be able to call myself human.
[quote]
DNA Engineering will certainly be a problem of the future, but I'm inclined to think it will become a state-regulated thing, everyone gets certain 'inoculations' for things like Cancer, Autism, Etc. when they conceived (or something of that nature); anything else would be extremely expensive, and like cosmetic surgery. With how complex the human genome is, I doubt there will be any easy way to have babies just 'made smarter', and if they are, it's their genetics and money to spend.
[/QUOTE]
This is exactly what I am saying, the extreme cost of such procedures would produce a generation of already economically endowed children of the elite. They would not only be richer and more powerful, but would have even more reason to disassociate themselves from us profane masses. When has a ruling class that considers those below them to be inferior EVER been a good thing?
[quote]
This is a bad when taken literally, and bad when taking metaphorically. Just because we have the intelligence to make things we should intrinsically be 'Careful, we're using stolen abilities' is absurd. We should be caring to other humans, and other animals as they feel pain, need food, and have feelings. And we should take care of the Environment as it supports us and all of the aforementioned animals.[/QUOTE]
All I am saying is be careful, I didn't say not to feed baby animals or whatever.
Is it just me, or does this video have the weird feeling of something that would appear in some horror movie as propaganda to support the hivemind.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;42973919]
This is a bad when taken literally, and bad when taking metaphorically. Just because we have the intelligence to make things we should intrinsically be 'Careful, we're using stolen abilities' is absurd. We should be caring to other humans, and other animals as they feel pain, need food, and have feelings. And we should take care of the Environment as it supports us and all of the aforementioned animals.[/QUOTE]
I wish you there for the tank, nuke and germ warfare.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.