Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Our Goals for the next Century

31 replies to this topic
Tyler
  • Tyler

    I'm not a prophet

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • Mars
  • Best Poem 2014
    Best Story 2014
    Most Talented Writer 2014
    Newcomer of the Year 2010

#1

Posted 22 July 2012 - 10:58 AM

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.
  • Shiva.

    Formerly shiva s

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2011

#2

Posted 22 July 2012 - 11:23 AM Edited by shiva s, 22 July 2012 - 11:27 AM.

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.

KaRzY6
  • KaRzY6

    ♧ Sick Kunt ♤

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2011

#3

Posted 24 July 2012 - 09:11 AM Edited by sivispacem, 24 July 2012 - 10:10 AM.

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.-

El Zilcho
  • El Zilcho

    Virtuoso

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 14 May 2008
  • European-Union

#4

Posted 24 July 2012 - 07:30 PM

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
  • Tyler

    I'm not a prophet

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • Mars
  • Best Poem 2014
    Best Story 2014
    Most Talented Writer 2014
    Newcomer of the Year 2010

#5

Posted 25 July 2012 - 01:22 AM

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
  • El Zilcho

    Virtuoso

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 14 May 2008
  • European-Union

#6

Posted 25 July 2012 - 05:45 PM

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
  • Viperman

    Logically Horizontal

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2002

#7

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:08 PM

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
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#8

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:16 AM

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.
  • Shiva.

    Formerly shiva s

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2011

#9

Posted 27 July 2012 - 10:04 PM

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
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#10

Posted 27 July 2012 - 10:42 PM

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.
  • Shiva.

    Formerly shiva s

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2011

#11

Posted 27 July 2012 - 10:50 PM

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
  • Chunkyman

    Foot Soldier

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2012

#12

Posted 28 July 2012 - 02:51 AM

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
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#13

Posted 28 July 2012 - 03:25 AM

"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.
  • Shiva.

    Formerly shiva s

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2011

#14

Posted 28 July 2012 - 07:08 AM

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
  • 3niX

    Lazy idiot

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2005

#15

Posted 28 July 2012 - 12:16 PM

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
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#16

Posted 28 July 2012 - 12:31 PM

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. icon14.gif It's always a winning statement to include the ad hominem.

"Ische ga bibble?"

3niX
  • 3niX

    Lazy idiot

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2005

#17

Posted 28 July 2012 - 12:49 PM

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.
  • Shiva.

    Formerly shiva s

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2011

#18

Posted 28 July 2012 - 12:50 PM

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
  • 3niX

    Lazy idiot

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2005

#19

Posted 28 July 2012 - 12:53 PM

Well...

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

El Zilcho
  • El Zilcho

    Virtuoso

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 14 May 2008
  • European-Union

#20

Posted 28 July 2012 - 03:20 PM Edited by El Zilcho, 28 July 2012 - 03:27 PM.

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.

Shiva.
  • Shiva.

    Formerly shiva s

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2011

#21

Posted 28 July 2012 - 03:52 PM

QUOTE (El Zilcho @ Saturday, Jul 28 2012, 15:20)
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.

I hear you, man. I've come across people who have the same opinion as yours but majority of people wants to see more and more advancements to be made and they are just ready to get used to it. If at all advancements are gonna be made, it should be done in medical field.

Romans Cousin Niko
  • Romans Cousin Niko

    Troll Patrol

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#22

Posted 02 November 2012 - 09:06 PM

Naturally the final frontier: Space. Hopefully we will have a peaceful and equal society in which we can explore/colonise the universe.

Perhaps we should just concentrate on this century.

Finn 7 five 11
  • Finn 7 five 11

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#23

Posted 03 November 2012 - 08:08 AM Edited by finn4life, 04 November 2012 - 12:16 AM.

QUOTE (El Zilcho @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 06:30)
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.

QUOTE (Tyler)
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.


I am already slightly opposed to the whole human/machine man idea just due to my feelings that i can't really change that i won't go into because that's highly subjective, i wouldn't really want to become bionic, i mean i could easily turn into one of those f*cked up botox/cosmetic surgery addicts eventually becoming more machine than human.

My problem with it would be something along the lines of what El Zilcho mentioned, the rich would get this technology and the poor would miss out, yes eventually it does filter down, but this is a little different, it may not ever filter down, or it is a very long process which leaves more people suffering/at a huger disadvantage until it eventually does come down, TV and DVD players don't cause those problems.
Imagine a few of the wealthiest people in the world could afford to have their brains enhanced to compute at the speed and efficiency of a computer like El Zilcho suggested, they are just going to become incredibly smart combined with human intelligence they will be able to think so much faster than the average human, scheming, plotting, making more money, what if these few people could simply manoeuvre things into a way that benefited them and hindered everyone else? They could just expand their fortunes massively and move themselves into positions of extreme power to ensure that this technology that they have been caressed with does not spread to the general populace, what if they have bionic bodies of extreme strength as well? Who's going to be able to stop them? Capturing someone like that to remove them from society isn't going to happen, they have super-strength, speed and are well armoured, combined with extreme intelligence, plus all the wealth, power and resources they could gain access to, these people could become Hitler/terminator cross-breeds except miles ahead in terms of mental ability, being able to develop weapons far ahead of current technologies, being able to easily foresee and predict circumstances that no regular human could possible foresee. They could manipulate the world like pieces on a chessboard.

Or perhaps a less extreme situation occurs, the rich get these bionic implants so they are super strong and super smart, then they have the same things given to their kids who will also be rich and then pass it down further, these few rich people who's wealth will be ever expanding will be highly advantaged in all forms, they will be better at everything, higher paying non-physical work is where all these super beings will be going so the average human who would normally fit these roles will have to they turn to labour-like jobs or tradespeople earning less cash and falling further down the ladder?
What happens if these richer bionic people take those jobs too? They are smarter, stronger, faster. There is no chance, the poor will get poorer the rich will get richer.
Even worse if these technologies prolong lifespan, the rich will live for very long times amassing empires of wealth and power constantly putting themselves into a better position and others into a worse position and then only passing it down to their lucky heirs who will likely do the same thing.

I don't know if that made much sense, but i'm sort of looking at the worst case scenarios.

@Melchoir below, i wouldn't take my first idea seriously haha, that was a bit of fun, the second scenario is the more serious one.

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#24

Posted 03 November 2012 - 05:29 PM

QUOTE (finn4life @ Saturday, Nov 3 2012, 18:08)
what if these few people could simply manoeuvre things into a way that benefited them and hindered everyone else?

And what about their extended family? Their friends? Their maid? Their secretaries? Their corporate/political underlings? Why would it be in their interest to keep this technology from the general public, considering that they are not that far removed from it? In other words, what's the benefit of being a demi-god running a country or corporation that's full of vastly inferior idiots?

QUOTE
these people could become Hitler/terminator cross-breeds

...

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#25

Posted 04 November 2012 - 01:00 AM

A big worry for the future is that an increase in 'human augmentation' will remove the notion of human endeavour.

Allow me to explain.
In the future, it may be possible for information to be wired into your mind. Imagine the vast recesses of the internet swirling around your brain, whilst I am dubious of the feasibility of such a scheme, I believe it to be a possibility. Now, just imagine the implications of that. Instant access to different languages, instant knowledge of sciences and arts. And whilst it is true that this access to knowledge may not translate to the ability to apply it practically, it is still inside your brain, allowing you to draw on it and use it should you wish.

But what is knowledge unless it has been learned? My best friend studied fine art at University. He spent three years toiling away and after those three years received a degree for his labours. He studied, he suffered but in the end he was rewarded by gaining knowledge.

What would that work mean if an uneducated fellow like myself could simply 'plug in' all that knowledge and have it instantly appear within my mind? It would be stolen knowledge, knowledge not attained via work or understanding but merely given to me.

Another example. An athlete trains in a certain field, whether it be running or boxing. He sacrifices many things and pushes his fragile human frame to its limits in the hopes that he can mould his body into a better form. In the future, man may very well be able to have mechanical arms and legs fitted. Applications which will be able to move at speeds far superior to those attainable by even the fastest of our number, arms able to lift more weight than even the most dedicated of bodybuilders.
All that suffering and sacrifice, instantly rendered obsolete.

My point is that enabling everyone instant access to human augmentation will remove the meaning of either hard-won knowledge or the pride that comes from honing your natural form into something more efficient. It may very well crush the spirit of human endeavour, why work for something when you can have it instantly?

However, consider this as a counter-argument. Human augmentation, the instant accumulation of knowledge, may actually render unto us all a new age of enlightenment. Surely, giving even the most base human near omniscience will finally remove the chains of ignorance and bigotry that have set us so far back?
Some may say that those unpleasant traits are part of the human condition. But why should they be tolerated when our imperfections have led to nothing but injustice and even war? In a sense, becoming more mechanical, more cold and logical may establish a Utopia, that may be possible.

But it would be at the cost of human uniqueness and individuality. A man is defined by his experiences after all, and human augmentation may make such experiences as easy as flipping on a light switch. Every need met, every impulse sated, instant gratification, instant power. It might be worth the loss to attain such benefits, we could become Gods.

Tyler
  • Tyler

    I'm not a prophet

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • Mars
  • Best Poem 2014
    Best Story 2014
    Most Talented Writer 2014
    Newcomer of the Year 2010

#26

Posted 05 November 2012 - 08:24 PM

My issue with that notion is that we aren't actually removing human endeavor: someone made the advances necessary for your benefit, someone manufactured the pieces you use, someone theorized the algorithms that make your components work. We are the results of our parents' work in more ways than just being their physical offspring. No one in history has done something on their own, everything leading up to them crossing the finish line or breaking the equation or finishing a shelter or selling a painting was necessary. We didn't lose our appreciation for the hunt once we were able to buy meat at the supermarket, why would we lose our appreciation for the length of time it took to do something just because we can do it faster now?

I admit, there is a chance of forgetting ourselves in some instances, but that is why we study history isn't it? Transhumanism doesn't seek to abolish our success any more than technology in general, the only difference is that we are comparatively raising the bar. Instead of it being an accomplishment to read a novel, it will be an accomplishment to analyse a series and establish themes no one thought to bring up. The experiences are still there, they are just alien to us because we've yet to experience them, Typhus.

Ziggy455
  • Ziggy455

    Mahogany den writer, between the ashtrays and nuts.

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 02 May 2007
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [Expression]

#27

Posted 28 November 2012 - 11:30 PM

QUOTE (shiva s @ Sunday, Jul 22 2012, 11:23)
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.

We have machines that talk for us, think for us, check the f*cking weather for us, tell us the time, tell us what to wear, where to eat, and how to talk. It's only a matter of time before nobody goes outside anymore and we all talk through screens. Somehow I don't find the future appealing.

Tyler
  • Tyler

    I'm not a prophet

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • Mars
  • Best Poem 2014
    Best Story 2014
    Most Talented Writer 2014
    Newcomer of the Year 2010

#28

Posted 29 November 2012 - 04:39 PM

Going outside is a choice everyone makes, if at some point in the future that choice is rendered unnecessary, some people will stop. Most people will continue to go outside though, because it's still there. Just because we've got new toys to play with doesn't mean we're going to forget where we came from, Ziggy.

Ziggy455
  • Ziggy455

    Mahogany den writer, between the ashtrays and nuts.

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 02 May 2007
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [Expression]

#29

Posted 11 December 2012 - 10:06 PM

QUOTE (Tyler @ Thursday, Nov 29 2012, 16:39)
Going outside is a choice everyone makes, if at some point in the future that choice is rendered unnecessary, some people will stop. Most people will continue to go outside though, because it's still there. Just because we've got new toys to play with doesn't mean we're going to forget where we came from, Ziggy.

I know what you mean, Tyler. People will always read real books, people will always live the old life, but the further we go along, it's like more and more people seem to be attracted to the concept of having everything in life logged and scheduled on a piece of technology.

na89340qv0n34b09q340
  • na89340qv0n34b09q340

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2010
  • Saint-Martin

#30

Posted 17 December 2012 - 08:12 AM

I'm sure quite a few of you are familiar with Cyberpunk. If not, back in the '80s and '90s there was a popular genre of speculative fiction that focused on the point where technology becomes too intrusive. What could happen if our memories are uploaded to a server? Could some cracker gain access to all of the information, and use it against us? Could big corporations insert advertisements into our memories and force us to literally think that we love their products? We can see our world evolving into the worlds of Cyberpunk fiction today, employers will sometimes look for your Facebook profile before hiring you, advertisers are very active on the internet forcing many of us to look at their ads every day, and last year a major corporation's network was taken down causing some big problems in the real world for its customers.

I think that until technological advancements are absolutely reliable we should try to keep our old ways as the standard ways.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users