Transhumanism vs Bioconservatism.

[Pip Boy]

Writing a paper on this, and while your comments won't actually count as citeable material that can help with my assignment, I thought it would be interesting and enlightening to hear everyone's opinions on the matter.

Transhumanism is the philosophy of openly accepting new forms of artificial human enhancement.

Bioconservatism is the philosophy of keeping humans free of such enhancements.

While any society that goes completely in one direction is doomed to failure, there is a lot of middle ground. So what are your takes on Stem Cell research, Neural Implants, Physical and Mental performance enhancers etc? Will it make us into a utopian society without disease or strife, or will it further separate the upper and lower classes until we lower beings are ruled by a genetically modified master race (Or we all get assimilated by the Borg)?

[Tev]

I'm actually more down with biological enhancements than I am with technological implants when it comes to Transhumanism. I hate the idea of being saddled with an obsolete modem in my head because hardware upgrades wouldn't fit right.

I'm really only Bioconservative enough to care about not buying into "first-gen" or "experimental" bio-upgrades. When animal/human splicing technology comes along you most likely won't see me near the front of the line.....but I'd be open to dating the first or second catgirl out of the vat.

[Nique]

Uhh, I guess I would say Bioconservatism in princepal, and Transhumanism by nessecity. I guess such a view might be outmodded if we reach a point where the tech becomes indistinguishable, or more effective, than our biological components (Cylons?).

[Krylo]

While any society that goes completely in one direction is doomed to failure

Why?

Also: Define failure.

[Kim]

I look forward to our cyborg clone future.

[Tev]

I look forward to our cyborg clone future.http://otakufanmx.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/nuku1.jpg

[Premmy]

I'm also more Transhumanist than Bioconservative, but I'm with Tev on the more Bio than tech angle. I WOULD like to have at least basic technology interface things involve biotech, but I figure any energy in the field of enhancing humankind would be best directed in the fields of biology.

[bluestarultor]

http://otakufanmx.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/nuku1.jpg

Somehow I don't think Tripod is the future. In fact, why the hell does that even exist anymore?



I have to say that I'm pretty well against human enhancements. Curing stuff? Great! If blind people can see, deaf people can hear, lame people can walk, etc., I think we're doing the right thing. But plugging mutant genes into our eyes to see into the UV spectrum or putting chips in our brains, in my opinion, destroys a little bit of what makes us special. That kind of attitude says being human isn't good enough, which I think is wrong. Humans are a wonderful work of art that doesn't really need "improvement" that way and I personally think it ruins our appreciation of ourselves.

[Tev]

Humans are a wonderful work of art that doesn't really need "improvement" that way and I personally think it ruins our appreciation of ourselves.Yes but that line of thinking is more based on the idea that our physical body and its inherent versatility/limitations are what make us human. For people that believe humanity is a concept or expression of thought, the idea that adding in some gills so you can explore underwater or an alternate skin-graft and a horn because tattoos and piercings were sooo "last century" isn't that big a deal.

EDIT: Actually that didn't come out quite like I meant it but I guess we'll get to that once someone picks up on the theme.

[Eltargrim]

I'm all for transhumanism, but I worry about the consequences of a partially transhumanist culture. We already have a huge divide between the rich and the poor; transhumanist treatments will only further exacerbate the difference between the two.

I think that transhumanism will result from a blend of inorganic and organic processes. Some tasks will require inorganic assets, while others can be approached from either side. There isn't an awful lot that biology can accomplish that technology can't, but the biological option may well be better than the tech alternative.

My personal focus on transhumanism involves integrated augmented reality. Images projected directly into your brain; advanced processing of what your eyes see. Expanding the range of visible light; true photographic memory.

[Tev]

My personal focus on transhumanism involves integrated augmented reality. Images projected directly into your brain; advanced processing of what your eyes see. Expanding the range of visible light; true photographic memory.Actually all much of that requires is that we begin using more of our brains than we currently do. Granted the visible light thing may take some finagling with the eye lens but your brain actually holds and catalogues far more than you give it credit for. It's one of those "use it or lose" it things though.

[Pip Boy]

Why?

Also: Define failure.

Well, since many things like Vaccines are technologies derived from medical research that improve the quality of human life, to be 100% bioconservative would mean to abandon any technology that directly interacts with human biology meaning we have...

No vaccines
No unnatural methods of childbirth
No unnatural methods of conception
pretty much no medicines whatsoever, since nearly all medicine is biotechnology in this sense.

On the other hand, a 100% transhumanist culture that totally jumps that the opportunity to ebrace any and all new human enhancements runs into other problems. We'll have people running around with massive modifications to their physical abilities, but still the same mental and emotional flaws and an ordinary human being. All these technologies won't come to exist at the same time, so odds are the more dangerous and simple ones will come before we find the DNA sequence for morality and enlightenment.

[bluestarultor]

I'm all for transhumanism, but I worry about the consequences of a partially transhumanist culture. We already have a huge divide between the rich and the poor; transhumanist treatments will only further exacerbate the difference between the two.

I think that transhumanism will result from a blend of inorganic and organic processes. Some tasks will require inorganic assets, while others can be approached from either side. There isn't an awful lot that biology can accomplish that technology can't, but the biological option may well be better than the tech alternative.

My personal focus on transhumanism involves integrated augmented reality. Images projected directly into your brain; advanced processing of what your eyes see. Expanding the range of visible light; true photographic memory.

All I can think of when you say this is that billboards will become the new banner ads. Or even the sides of buildings. Or logos on shirts. Or even just looking at a dog or bush for too long. The very sidewalks might become an endless ad feed.

In short, fuck augmented reality. I'm not going to pay a premium to not have Head-On commercials playing on the backs of my eyelids.

Actually all much of that requires is that we begin using more of our brains than we currently do. Granted the visible light thing may take some finagling with the eye lens but your brain actually holds and catalogues far more than you give it credit for. It's one of those "use it or lose" it things though.

Lens has nothing to do with it. The idea is sound, though. We've already run experiments wherein a modified virus was injected into the eyes of monkeys of some sort and successfully granted them trichromacy like our own vision. All it would take to start seeing into other parts of the spectrum would be to tweak some genes, load up a needle, and BAM, instant UV-vision.

Of course then you'd never be able to use a public bathroom again, so again, the benefits of doing so are questionable.

[Eltargrim]

Actually all much of that requires is that we begin using more of our brains than we currently do. Granted the visible light thing may take some finagling with the eye lens but your brain actually holds and catalogues far more than you give it credit for. It's one of those "use it or lose" it things though.

Common misconception: we only use 10% of our brains. Truth: we rarely use all of our brains at once, but that's because an electrical shitstorm isn't productive.

Sending images to the brain would require an external source (likely radio-wave based), and a transducer (convert the raster to electric signals). Expanding the visible wavelengths would explicitly require retinal my bad, lens augments. Retinal too, but the lens has a high degree of UV opacity. Either way, IR is more my style.

[Tev]

On the other hand, a 100% transhumanist culture that totally jumps that the opportunity to ebrace any and all new human enhancements runs into other problems.Actually this is my fear about technological human enhancements and our instant-gratification iWhatever culture.

I would much rather go for the harder, more invasive, "requires more signatures than you have ink in two pens for" gene-splicing treatments that are the result of a lot of research and development than having someone cut into my brain to install a chip-deck that may be out-moded by Christmas.

Besides, if we get the technology to alter the human form on a genetic level consistently, then doing it more than once shouldn't be as hard as trying to find space for another USB port in your arm.

[Kim]

We'll have people running around with massive modifications to their physical abilities, but still the same mental and emotional flaws and an ordinary human being.

Which is why we should ban guns among the civilian populace.

[Premmy]

Nahhhhhh

[Nique]

No vaccines
No unnatural methods of childbirth
No unnatural methods of conception
pretty much no medicines whatsoever, since nearly all medicine is biotechnology in this sense

Would we not, arguably, be left with a much more resilient human race if we did this though? Was there any disease that threatened to wipe us out as a species if left untreated by devilish medicines?

[bluestarultor]

Would we not, arguably, be left with a much more resilient human race if we did this though? Was there any disease that threatened to wipe us out as a species if left untreated by devilish medicines?

Do you want the list ordered alphabetically or chronologically? There are a LOT of diseases that took out large portions of the population. And with modern medicine, we're ironically even less biologically prepared to survive them than when they were originally decimating us.

[Nique]

I'm not saying our population wouldn't be tiny. I'm just highly in favor of selective breeding! Ubermensch! (sp?)

[TDK]

I am 100% in favor of transhumanism (AR, bio-prostheses, cybernetics, its all good!) because it is awesome and I find the idea that there is something inherently sacred or great about the human body to be outdated. As a machine, its horribly inefficient and pretty much terrible at everything it does. If we can make it better, why shouldn't we?

Also, I want sweet robot arms.

Related. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejOyiOJPdv4)

[bluestarultor]

I am 100% in favor of transhumanism (AR, bio-prostheses, cybernetics, its all good!) because it is awesome and I find the idea that there is something inherently sacred or great about the human body to be outdated. As a machine, its horribly inefficient and pretty much terrible at everything it does. If we can make it better, why shouldn't we?

Also, I want sweet robot arms.

Related. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejOyiOJPdv4)

I won't lie. I do consider biology sacred. But I also have other reasons. Quite frankly, I just don't think we as a race are responsible enough to handle it and won't be for some time, if ever.

See, my issue is that it's going to cause social issues as far into the future as my brain can process. I'll break it down. I'm not trying to insult anyone with this approach; it's just easier for me to explain my thought process through.

1) Introduction. The first thing it's going to do is spark years of debate. People will form emotionally-charged opinions and nobody will be objectively right or wrong. Nobody wins in those cases. While that's going on, it's all going to be a toy for the rich. That will aggravate class divides and further stir up the muck.

2) Expansion. The debates will still be raging, possibly even harder as more people partake. Religion officially steps into the mix. Instead of the masses having a convenient target to rally against, it devolves into them turning against themselves. Suddenly, it's not so simple as faceless "other" people. It's the guy next door, your kid's teacher, the woman you want to marry, your child's best friend. Your own kid. The first crime happens with the enhancements involved and society starts to backlash with unlimited fury. The media picks it up and makes a circus out of so much as a guy cutting in line just to keep society tearing itself apart for the sake of their own ratings.

3) Maturity. The first people to get enhanced are probably all dead at this point and society finally starts coming to accept it. Enhancements are now marketed in terms of being withheld instead of granted. Society feels its own artificial crunch to buy, buy, buy. People who don't want them are seen as strange, because why wouldn't you? It makes you BETTER!

4) Saturation. The first court case comes up ruling against enhancements being withheld. Suddenly the law's on the books that people have a right to it. Anti-naturalism starts to percolate into society. Not screwing a camera into your kid's head is seen as disgusting parenting. More cases start adding up to strengthen the sentiment.

5) Compulsion. Courts decide that it's illegal to not make your kids "better." Choice is removed from the equation. Appeals and counter-rulings rage on. Baby Bobby gets his head cracked open at birth for the hardware to be put in and never knows a natural life. Turmoil boils from parents still hanging onto notions of leading a natural life and rebellious offspring who despise never being given a choice in the matter alike. Generations of bitter people are born into what they feel is an unnatural dystopia. Court cases begin an uphill struggle over the right of choice versus the right to a "better" life. The debate starts pushing back from the other end and slowly gains traction, making a further mess of society for years.

6) Compromise. It happens eventually. The laws get patched with spit and bubble gum. You don't HAVE to enhance your kids at birth, and maybe it's illegal until they reach some sort of age of consent. Enhancement is still the norm, though. People mutter about it for a while on all sides of the debate. Pro-enhancers pressure people into doing it, anti-enhancers are shunted off to a corner with no way of stopping anyone despite their disagreement, barely less disenfranchised than before.

7) Ubiquity. Things finally settle down to the point naturalists are just seen as weird. It's probably been entire lifetimes since the whole thing started and society suffered through nonstop turmoil for longer than was in any way acceptable. Things finally cool down to where there's no longer any real debate and naturalists can live normal lives without derision. The sun explodes.




Obviously, this is an incredibly dim look at the issue and heavily dramatized, but then I'm great at blowing things ridiculously out of proportion for effect. Major changes like this kind of thing linger on in society like a heavy metal poison for years. It's taken us thousands of years to even address certain things, like homosexuality, and we're still suffering from the throes of racism despite slavery having been abolished hundreds of years ago, and sexism left over from thousands of years ago. We as a species are shit at handling change. I don't doubt this, or something similar, will happen eventually. I'm just not exactly enthusiastic about it. If you think people get up in arms over being kept alive on machines, just wait until they become elective surgery.

[TDK]

I don't see any problem with anything you said. Look at the world around you. Are any of those things really avoidable with this species? War, people being shunned for this or that, etc. Even if it leads to the end of the world, eh, we'll blow ourselves up eventually, it might as well be totally bitchin' when it does happen. Besides, its not as though you can stop it from happening. If the technology exists, people will want it one way or another, and if the law forbids it, people will go somewhere its not forbidden to get it. I know I sure as hell will. It is inevitable Mr. Anderson.

This probably isn't a particularly good or moral viewpoint in the eyes of most people, but eh, I'm somewhat of a nihilist.

I don't think that there would be laws introduced REQUIRING enhancement though, as people (specifically americans) get so up in arms about rights, even rights they don't want, that there's no way it would happen.



I could go much deeper into this and the ramifications of it and sociological effects and blah blah blah (It is a topic I love to talk about), but I'm tired and this is a summation of my personal feelings on the matter.

[bluestarultor]

I don't see any problem with anything you said.

I guess we just have different perspectives. I happen to dislike the idea of living in a society tearing itself apart for generations unto my progeny, but that's just me. :P

[Azisien]

I guess we just have different perspectives. I happen to dislike the idea of living in a society tearing itself apart for generations unto my progeny, but that's just me. :P

True but you spin it like the entirety of all existence is centered around these enhancements. None of your other analogies are really like that. That and it's probably overly dramatized. Kind of depends what enhancements exist, too. As much as people might like a Robot 8-Pack, no more then a handful of people will pay millions for it.

[TDK]

Yeah, there'll be all sorts of other post-singularity technologies that are an affront to god for people to get upset about. =D

[bluestarultor]

True but you spin it like the entirety of all existence is centered around these enhancements. None of your other analogies are really like that. That and it's probably overly dramatized. Kind of depends what enhancements exist, too. As much as people might like a Robot 8-Pack, no more then a handful of people will pay millions for it.

(Psst! That was the point! ;))


Plus, I've totally done this before. I've just gotten better at it since the whole pink-camo-diamond-and-gold-dog-tag-feather-boa-gays-in-the-military incident. Taking things to their logical extremes to illustrate a point is one of the heavy-hitters in my casual debate arsenal. :3:

[Krylo]

Issues: The first crime happens with the enhancements involved and society starts to backlashThis is going to happen long before it's common for the average person to afford them. unlimited fury Unlikely, because: The media picks it up and makes a circus out of so much as a guy cutting in line just to keep society tearing itself apart for the sake of their own ratings.The media is owned by the rich. The highly modified rich. It will be reported on by people with enhancements, written by people with enhancements, and biased by people with enhancements.

Most media outlets are going to be pro-enhancement for the same reason Fox doesn't want anyone knowing about their Muslim shareholders.

The first people to get enhanced are probably all dead at this point Unlikely, because it's likely the first/most ubiquitous transhumanist treatments will be to preserve life. We'd be looking at far longer life spans for those whom are altered.

This would also injure many of your other arguments because as time goes on the naturalists will be dying off in 50-80 years, while the transhumanists will be surviving for 100-200+ years while reproducing at equal/greater rates than the naturalists.

You'd be looking at naturalists comprising a very small percentage of humanity even without taking into account new generations accepting new technology easier than their parents.

Generations of bitter people are born into what they feel is an unnatural dystopia. Again, unlikely. Unless you think transhumanism is going to advance and gain scope to the point that everyone and anyone has it within two generations, people won't feel it's an 'unnatural' dystopia any more than people feel we live in one because of vaccinations at birth or indoor plumbing.

When something is normal in a culture, it is normal.



ALSO: honestly, we're likely to hit true AI before we start getting into deep transhumanist total altercations to the human body shit. At that point I'll take whatever keeps me on par (or close to on par) with the robot overlords.

And Meggers/Pip Boy (I just like Meggers as a name) never did tell me what he considered failure.

A purely transhumanist society may not consider the complete desertion of their human forms a bad thing, and a bioconservative one may feel that the higher death rates from preventable diseases are worth the cost for their culture.

[bluestarultor]

I know all that, Krylo. It just doesn't make for as good a story. ;)

[TDK]

ALSO: honestly, we're likely to hit true AI before we start getting into deep transhumanist total altercations to the human body shit. At that point I'll take whatever keeps me on par (or close to on par) with the robot overlords.


Ah, but if the altercations advance at the same rate as the AI (I don't even know how we would go about determining if this would happen), there wouldn't be a separation between man and machine. As machines became more human and humans more machine, the line would blur until it ceased to exist. Isaac Asimov talked about this a lot in many of his novels*, and there's also a bit of this in Dresden Codak's 'Hob' arc.

*Which I heartily recommend. Great stuff. Speaking of Asimov, there's also a few novels which examine the race of a longer-lived, more technologically advanced race of humans against a shorter lived but more populous race. The novel I have in mind is "Robots and Empire" and I recommend it if you're interested in reading about Asimov's take on how social problems between more advanced and less advanced people (as far as life span, tech, etc) would play out.

Honestly I recommend everything and anything by Asimov, as he's easily my favorite Sci-fi writer, but still.

[Krylo]

Ah, but if the altercations advance at the same rate as the AI (I don't even know how we would go about determining if this would happen), there wouldn't be a separation between man and machine. As machines became more human and humans more machine, the line would blur until it ceased to exist. Isaac Asimov talked about this a lot in many of his novels*, and there's also a bit of this in Dresden Codak's 'Hob' arc.

That plus the fact that if it DOESN'T blur there's just a lot of terrible nastiness all around was kind of my point.

[Kim]

If we're still a capitalist society by the time we get human machines we are fucked.

[Amake]

Mei Ling put it best in Last Days of Fox-Hound: To think of things that humans make as something separate from the rest of nature is just arrogance. Being a purist about what you put in your body on that basis is not only impossible but pretty narrow-minded.

I know people who wear glasses to see better. Genetic plugins that makes the whole electromagnetic spectrum visible is really a very small step from there.

[Arhra]

You can't stop the transhumanists.

The future belongs to them.

[bluestarultor]

Mei Ling put it best in Last Days of Fox-Hound: To think of things that humans make as something separate from the rest of nature is just arrogance. Being a purist about what you put in your body on that basis is not only impossible but pretty narrow-minded.

I know people who wear glasses to see better. Genetic plugins that makes the whole electromagnetic spectrum visible is really a very small step from there.

I'll disagree on both points. I've probably said this, but humans have been flipping off the whole natural order thing for a long time. There's not a single other species that's wiped out as many species as we have, or expanded their habitats as far as we have, or developed technology anywhere even laughably cute compared to what we have. We're physically weak, slow, small, lacking in at least four of the five senses, fragile, unsteady, have no natural weapons, degrading immune systems due to no longer dying from diseases that should be killing us, defects up the wazoo because we don't die from them anymore either, and nothing going for us but opposable thumbs, big brains, and endurance, yet we've taken two of those last three and commandeered the planet.

I seriously don't think we can really count all the crap we've done as just another thing animals do. Like it or not, we're special, and as a species, we unfortunately know it.



Also, I'm going to disagree on the concept of "improving" vision in those two ways being alike, because one is more specifically a correction, while the other is outright augmentation, and one that we've proven for several thousand years that we don't need to function. I personally wear glasses. I'm blind as a bat without them to the point I can't read my screen past less than a foot away from it. But wearing them to let myself sit at a comfortable distance has as much to do with seeing day-glow pee like hawks do as getting a taste receptor specifically for the enzymes in my own saliva has to with with my ability to enjoy food. It's going to be on all the time and not particularly useful to the average person and there's no guarantee I'll even like the taste it produces, but there would be no going back assuming we did it with gene therapy.

Granted, seeing UV actually has its own applications, like, say, cutting down on the equipment for a CSI looking for blood, or urine, or saliva, or other bodily fluids, but it comes at the price of that you will forever know just how filthy the whole world is in those things.

In some cases just because you can doesn't necessarily mean you want to for the sake of your own sanity.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

10 points if you guess what I'm going to say.

Advancements to human body are costly as fuck and while I'm down with the science (I work in related fields) it would be far more effective to spend the resources that you woulld use to enhance some rich people for a few percent increase in utility on improving the lot of the poor in convential ways for gigantic increases in utility.
When you have a super society where all people are at environmental limits then come bac k to me.

Somebody probably already said this but I'm taking my new found supercity to heart and going to be like fuck reading shit, it's all about me.

Human bodies are shit though. Fuck em.

[Archbio]

I don't want to be human! I want to see gamma rays! I want to hear X-rays! And I want to - I want to smell dark matter! Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can't even express these things properly because I have to - I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid limiting spoken language! But I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws! And feel the solar wind of a supernova flowing over me! And I can know much more! I can experience so much more. But I'm trapped in this absurd body! And why? Because my five creators thought that "God" wanted it that way!

With apologies to the original author.

[Amake]

we're special Maybe, but we're still part of the natural world. In fact nothing can exist that is not part of the natural world. I don't see any point in limiting the definition of "nature" to exclude humanity, or parts of it.

As to how we have managed for several thousand years with a limited sense of vision, we also managed for several million years without glasses. You say it's a defect to not be able to see thirty feet in front of you, but it's okay to fix that. What makes it less okay to fix your ability to see the entire Internet at will? The fact that stone age man didn't need Internet at all?

[TDK]

You can't stop the transhumanists.

The future belongs to them.
High five!



Also, blues: Maybe its a bad thing in some senses, but I fuckin' LOVE flipping nature the bird and when other scientists do it.

[Magus]

All the Combine agents in here need to gtfo before I use my crowbar on their asses.

You aren't going to make a Stalker out of me!

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/5667/365pxlambdalogosvg.png

BE A FREE MAN



To be serious for a mo', I'm not really against cool stuff like robot limbs, I just figure that prior to 2352 or whatever the real thing will probably be better than any kind of robot limb they can come up with. If you're missing a limb, though, then all the power to you to get a robot limb, but pointless "upgrades" I'm not really for. What your real human limb might lack in power it makes up for in its ability to heal itself, highly sensitive, highly flexible, etc. Until we see robot limbs that are virtually indistinguishable from human limbs except for being able to lift 3000 lbs., for example, they will remain a worse option, and frankly getting your arm purposefully chopped off just so you can get a robot arm seems kind of like getting needless plastic surgery--sure, you'll look better or younger (or in this case, be able to bench press a car), but you could have gotten along fine without that. Hell, people without enhancements can lift cars and crap, they are going to be way more impressive than somebody who just went and got a robot limb. You should have to work harder to be like Schwarzzenagger.

Also like Smarty said we could take some of the money we would put into giving ourselves night vision and upgrade Africa to 21st century levels.

[TDK]

2352

A lot of experts (Ray Kurzweil, for instance) predict the singularity to happen within our lifetime. :I

There's always the thing about scientists overestimating how soon advancements will come, but that figure (2050, I believe, was the estimate) is just based on the current rate of technological growth, so its pretty viable at least in a general sense.

[Magus]

The singularity for what level of advancement, though. A few choice organs? Limbs? Your brain in a cyborg body with artificial skin? What?

[Pip Boy]

"The Singularity" is the even where man creates something more intelligent than man. Which, itself, with its increased intelligence, will be able to create something more intelligent than that. The concept is that if, with any given level of intelligence, we can create something slightly smarter, or increase our own intelligence, we should be able to use that greater intelligence to develop an intelligence even greater than that. Hypothetically, this will cause a rapid chance in society as the human race either ascend to nearly omnipotent understandings of science and math, or become the slaves of robots we created that have nearly omnipotent understandings of science and math.

[Amake]

I think if you're a committed transhumanist, your ultimate goal will have to be to undo humanity. We're here to make something better than ourselves, and succeeding in that will mean that we're no longer needed. And that's not a bad thing. Any parents here knows what I'm talking about, I'm sure.

[Aerozord]

know what I'm curious about, what effects this will have on the movement I personally have the most vested interest in, Neuro-diversity.

For one those that aren't neurologically typical are already seen as people with genetic illness. As is our society would probably attempt a genetic purge of such "defects"

The scarier thing is potential advantages. People that are autistic or with asperger's syndrome are adapt at analysis, information gathering, and computer programming. The quickly aquired outsider label and subjective morality that most have also makes them more readily willing to accept these alterations and potentially on how to abuse them. World will be very different when a tech geek is the most dangerous person in the school.

Reason I said this was scary is it reminds me of that one episode of Ghost in the Shell, a place where people have (I think it was called) Closed Shell Syndrome, a thinly veiled autism analogue, and the kids were basically made to work creating security and hacking tools that were simply beyond what normal people could make. Shame they abused their inherent compulsive personality so they worked to the point their bodies and minds began to break down.

Even without such a formalized institute both effects are possible. As I said this is inherent personality trait and anyone thats forgotten to eat or sleep while playing WoW knows that being lost in a digital world can be very addictive.

I know what I said seems incoherent, but its just several thoughts of potential occurances. For the most part I dont like the possibilities

[Amake]

We already have data processing companies specializing in catching Aspies and putting us to our most effective use. I imagine a lot of my peers dream of turning into robots, and filling their worlds with numbers rather than hard to understand people. Now, just because we think we want to stay away from people doesn't mean that's what we need, so it's pretty disturbing to have ones shallowest desires catered to this way.

But yeah, in the future you could probably neuroengineer at least young children with neuropsychiatric disorders and completely manipulate their personality to be acceptable. Or turn normal kids into troubled geniuses for that matter. We should probably have an age limit for that kind of manipulation when it becomes an issue. Like, forty.

[Aerozord]

true, the irony is aspies are likely to invent alot of these technologies, or atleast have a part in it. Though it is possible opposite will come into play. Which is good for us but bad for them. The main NT advantage is socialization and non-verbal communication, which will lose its importance as face-to-face socializing gives way to electronic. If instead darwinism hits. Those more adept at using the technologies will thrive more, perhaps to the point neurologically typical people undergo conditioning to be rewired like aspies. Eventually NTs will vanish. Though in that situation many will say its mute since humanity as is will vanish too. But it would mean that aspie logic and reasoning will be that of early transhumans if it takes place

[bluestarultor]

Maybe, but we're still part of the natural world. In fact nothing can exist that is not part of the natural world. I don't see any point in limiting the definition of "nature" to exclude humanity, or parts of it.

As to how we have managed for several thousand years with a limited sense of vision, we also managed for several million years without glasses. You say it's a defect to not be able to see thirty feet in front of you, but it's okay to fix that. What makes it less okay to fix your ability to see the entire Internet at will? The fact that stone age man didn't need Internet at all?

I think we have a conflict of definitions here. The only way we're any part of the natural world anymore is biologically. We have transcended nature and made it our bitch, at least in the Western world. And it's not even a recent development. We've been breeding animals for centuries and it's already been decades since we started messing with the genetic code of our food directly.

To be blunt, collapse modern technology and we'll talk about our place in nature. Because we aren't exactly apex predators when we're running around naked. Or else read that book by that guy who managed to get inducted into a wolf pack. Haven't read it myself, but it might give some insight.



I mean, really, maybe it's just more apparent here in America, but even a look at our farming system is a big fuck you to all things natural. You want cows, you have a cow farm. You grow corn (or maize, for non-Americans), you grow nothing but corn. Where it used to be you'd take the cow manure and throw it on the fields and rotate crops, these days American farms have every product potentially miles away from each other with zero exchange, so the cows are knee-deep in their own manure, everyone grows corn, corn, corn, and when they deplete the soil every year they just dump petroleum-based fertilizer on it and spray the plants with petroleum-based pesticides. And that's not even accounting for us having dicked around with their very DNA to make them toxic to all the bugs that would eat them.

The whole thing is like that one Ren and Stimpie episode where they're in the house of the future and the solution to door-to-door salesmen is to cover them in gunk to summon a giant mutant ant and then fry the ant with a giant magnifying glass.

true, the irony is aspies are likely to invent alot of these technologies, or atleast have a part in it. Though it is possible opposite will come into play. Which is good for us but bad for them. The main NT advantage is socialization and non-verbal communication, which will lose its importance as face-to-face socializing gives way to electronic. If instead darwinism hits. Those more adept at using the technologies will thrive more, perhaps to the point neurologically typical people undergo conditioning to be rewired like aspies. Eventually NTs will vanish. Though in that situation many will say its mute since humanity as is will vanish too. But it would mean that aspie logic and reasoning will be that of early transhumans if it takes place

This quite frankly terrifies me, because there is no one universal logic for people with Asperger's. A lot of them, for instance, are really great with animals. Then you get ones like my cousin who can talk about politics and God at three years old. If we're banking on them all making the exact same kind of sense, we're fucked seven ways to Tuesday.

[Yrcrazypa]

We are apex predators running around naked. All we have to do is look for a sharp stick and stab things with it. Our knowledge of how to use tools is our tooth and nail. Why would we need them when we can make them? We don't need thick skin because we can take something elses' thick skin. Plenty of other animals use tools, or the environment to their advantage, why can't we?

[Premmy]

We are apex predators running around naked. All we have to do is look for a sharp stick and stab things with it. Our knowledge of how to use tools is our tooth and nail. Why would we need them when we can make them? We don't need thick skin because we can take something elses' thick skin. Plenty of other animals use tools, or the environment to their advantage, why can't we?

THANK you, whenever people make the "Take away all our cars and buildings and we'd die" argument it drives me nuts. It's stupid, we survived a long-ass time without them, and we can do so again, would EVERYBODY survive? hell no, does every tiger survive in the wild? also hell, also no.

[Aerozord]

This quite frankly terrifies me, because there is no one universal logic for people with Asperger's. A lot of them, for instance, are really great with animals. Then you get ones like my cousin who can talk about politics and God at three years old. If we're banking on them all making the exact same kind of sense, we're fucked seven ways to Tuesday.

What you are describing isn't differances in logic. By logic I mean your way of drawing conclusions. Aspies being more prone to using statistics and inductive reasoning.

I honestly have no clue how humanity would evolve sociologically with Aspies being the vast majority. The differances are about as varied as with NTs, I believe things would be somewhat simular but dip deep into the uncanny valley. Its the nuances that will be differant, general political and economic structures would be the same. Cultural mores and customs will not be, since they mostly wont exist anymore. My main concern would be aspie iron clad moral structure. It is incredibly rigid but not universal. Humanity would probably be alot more factionalized

Other would be potential interaction with alien intellegences. Without NTs to force alternate perspective aspies will develope a society that will view social rituals as idiotic wastes of time and if this alien life form values such things. Yea that wont end well. Aspies dont do well when they must walk into a situation with no knowledge or guidance. NTs would be far better suited to first contact

[bluestarultor]

We are apex predators running around naked. All we have to do is look for a sharp stick and stab things with it. Our knowledge of how to use tools is our tooth and nail. Why would we need them when we can make them? We don't need thick skin because we can take something elses' thick skin. Plenty of other animals use tools, or the environment to their advantage, why can't we?

THANK you, whenever people make the "Take away all our cars and buildings and we'd die" argument it drives me nuts. It's stupid, we survived a long-ass time without them, and we can do so again, would EVERYBODY survive? hell no, does every tiger survive in the wild? also hell, also no.

I'll be brief because I have to run to class, but I'll say that tools are totally okay. One of our biggest issues though is we have zero survival skills at this point and the ratio of people who would survive to those would wouldn't is probably quite poor.

People in Africa get by just fine living much closer to nature in some cases, like the Masai. On the other hand, Western society may as well just move to the moon.

[Azisien]

I'll be brief because I have to run to class, but I'll say that tools are totally okay. One of our biggest issues though is we have zero survival skills at this point and the ratio of people who would survive to those would wouldn't is probably quite poor.

...

On the other hand, Western society may as well just move to the moon.

Probably not. I mean survival would be dictated by food availability, so if we lost most of our technology, most of us would starve regardless of being Survivor Man or not. However, even people in "western society" are walking adaptation machines. A lot of us would find ways to survive. Of course, both opposing statements are just piles of speculation, so who knows!

[Aerozord]

Actually wouldn't bioconservation include geneticaly modified foods? In that case, wow we'd be screwed. Most nations have difficulty with food and water. Most of the freshwater on the planet (not in ice) is in North America, and its the third largest provider of food. So just forcing people to live off of "home grown" local foods will cause most nations populations to tank.

[Amake]

I think we have a conflict of definitions here. Yes.

There's a great deal of people out there who use the word "nature" to mean "everything I like or am comfortable with" so that they can declare things unnatural, or against the natural order of things and therefore inherently bad, without ever having to actually consider what nature is or how things fit or don't fit into it or how inconsistent their logic is.

It's a pet topic of mine usually related to sexual orientations, mental disorders and my writing. In order to defend those things I've found it useful to define the natural world as the subject of the natural sciences, in other words the sum of the entire universe. So it kind of cramps my style when you use it to mean "a sustainable ecosystem" or whatever.

Of course I'm all for a balance of technology that would allow us and all the other animals and plants to survive indefinetly. I just disagree with your use of the word nature.

[bluestarultor]

Yes.

There's a great deal of people out there who use the word "nature" to mean "everything I like or am comfortable with" so that they can declare things unnatural, or against the natural order of things and therefore inherently bad, without ever having to actually consider what nature is or how things fit or don't fit into it or how inconsistent their logic is.

It's a pet topic of mine usually related to sexual orientations, mental disorders and my writing. In order to defend those things I've found it useful to define the natural world as the subject of the natural sciences, in other words the sum of the entire universe. So it kind of cramps my style when you use it to mean "a sustainable ecosystem" or whatever.

Of course I'm all for a balance of technology that would allow us and all the other animals and plants to survive indefinetly. I just disagree with your use of the word nature.

My use of the term is really not all that complex. I define things as either natural or manufactured for the most part. We live heavily in a manufactured world.

Obviously, there's some wiggle room in that. You could get picky and say a sharpened stick is "manufactured." In all technicality, it is. But I don't think anyone's going to argue it's nearly as complex as a gun. And I'm not saying that having things manufactured is in any way wrong, but I don't exactly see lions building themselves monorails.

Just to use a hot-button example, I think homosexuality is totally natural. It's been around for as long as we have and the animal kingdom sports it, too. I liken the persecution of homosexuals today to the persecution of lefties in the Middle Ages and Roman Empire. You look back at it and your first reaction is to think of how silly it is, but then you start drawing the parallels and it says a lot at just how stupid we are about that kind of stuff. Homosexuality will probably be just as normal to people similar hundreds of years from now as left-handedness is to us today.




Backing up now, to explain where I draw the line on what we do to ourselves, it's pretty simple. Things like clothing are necessary because they protect us from the environment. Things like glasses are okay because they help us find our way around our environment like our peers. Prosthetics, cochlear implants, and the new technologies we're developing to help blind people see are just dandy because all of them help people with disabilities function like the rest of us.

All of these technologies are fine in my book because they help the physically disenfranchised live in normal society.

Now, for things like giving ourselves cybernetic super-strength, or seeing into other parts of the spectrum, or wiring our brains into the Internet, that stuff isn't doing that. It's just creating a new divide. It's not "helping" people as much as it is "enhancing" them so that they can be a step above everyone else, and I think that's pretty much the last thing our self-absorbed, materialistic culture needs. We have enough trouble dealing with the people who can't function up to the same level normal people do without creating a biological or bio-mechanical elite using money and resources that would be better-served in bringing people up to standard.


Basically, the real question I have is why our own normal functioning isn't good enough. It's gotten us far enough to be having this debate. The idea that these enhancements are going to somehow make life so much easier confuses me. It's not a matter of not seeing any applications. Super strength would be great for construction, for example. But that's all any of it is good for is specific applications. You don't need to be able to bench press a bus if you're working an office job. The issue with introducing all this technology is that for most people, it's utterly pointless, and things like wiring Internet into our brains, well, there are some obvious issues with giving other people direct access to your mind.


Now, I'm going to come out and say if it's removable, I have no problem with it. We already have an exo-suit that lets a normal person hold hundreds of pounds like it's nothing. It's lightweight, strong, flexible, and you can take it off at the end of the day. Why change your eyeballs to see other parts of the spectrum when we already specifically have cameras for that purpose? No surgery or genetic modification required. Stick it in a visor and off you go. Really need the Internet at your command hands-free? Voice technology. It's actually getting to a point where it's working decently. Stick that in a pair of HUD glasses to display the screen and you're golden.

There are plenty of ways we can get the benefits of all our technological advances without mucking around making permanent changes to our own bodies. Maybe a CSI wants to be able to look around a room and see bodily fluids just to make examining a crime scene that much easier. Then maybe he'd rather not know about all the stains on the insides of the stalls the next time he needs to use a public bathroom. Maybe a construction worker wants to come home and throw some ball with his son without having to worry about blowing a hole through his chest because of his cybernetic implants, and not be marked by his job for the rest of his life when he goes and gets a desk job.

It's not like we NEED to modify our bodies. We have stuff that gets the same effect without doing so and is probably fuckloads cheaper. And better yet, transferable.

[Magus]

Oh, yeah, let's go ahead and make machines more intelligent than us, that'll turn out well.

Except it seems impossible to make something smarter than yourself. It could seem more intelligent for all intents and purposes, such as being able to process information faster or having a vaster array of knowledge that it can connect together in more ways, but that is not really "more" intelligent, it is just as intelligent as a human could be without physical constraints. It probably couldn't even come up with anything new, it would just be the same lame philosophy and math and culture we have already but arranged differently at a faster pace. Big whoop.

Also Blues why you hate on corn so much? It's not as big a problem as you make it out to be, dawg. They are growing other stuff, mang. Yeah, it strips nutrients, that's why they have crop rotation and fertilizer and stuff. You need to get over this corn hatred, before it consumes you! I understand that the farm factory system is raping the environment, but it's not all about the corn...just mostly about the corn.

Also lions wouldn't build monorails. They would build something fast to catch gazelles with, like motorcycles. Obviously.

[TDK]

Backing up now, to explain where I draw the line on what we do to ourselves, it's pretty simple. Things like clothing are necessary because they protect us from the environment. Things like glasses are okay because they help us find our way around our environment like our peers. Prosthetics, cochlear implants, and the new technologies we're developing to help blind people see are just dandy because all of them help people with disabilities function like the rest of us.

All of these technologies are fine in my book because they help the physically disenfranchised live in normal society.

Now, for things like giving ourselves cybernetic super-strength, or seeing into other parts of the spectrum, or wiring our brains into the Internet, that stuff isn't doing that. It's just creating a new divide. It's not "helping" people as much as it is "enhancing" them so that they can be a step above everyone else, and I think that's pretty much the [I]last thing our self-absorbed, materialistic culture needs. We have enough trouble dealing with the people who can't function up to the same level normal people do without creating a biological or bio-mechanical elite using money and resources that would be better-served in bringing people up to standard.


Basically, the real question I have is why our own normal functioning isn't good enough. It's gotten us far enough to be having this debate. The idea that these enhancements are going to somehow make life so much easier confuses me. It's not a matter of not seeing any applications. Super strength would be great for construction, for example. But that's all any of it is good for is specific applications. You don't need to be able to bench press a bus if you're working an office job. The issue with introducing all this technology is that for most people, it's utterly pointless, and things like wiring Internet into our brains, well, there are some obvious issues with giving other people direct access to your mind.

Who's to draw the line between disability-fixing and enhancement? Compared to the smartest man in the world, the average person is retarded. If we have the technology, why shouldn't we fix retardation? If you cannot draw an exact line, there is no line.


Now, I'm going to come out and say if it's removable, I have no problem with it. We already have an exo-suit that lets a normal person hold hundreds of pounds like it's nothing. It's lightweight, strong, flexible, and you can take it off at the end of the day. Why change your eyeballs to see other parts of the spectrum when we already specifically have cameras for that purpose? No surgery or genetic modification required. Stick it in a visor and off you go. Really need the Internet at your command hands-free? Voice technology. It's actually getting to a point where it's working decently. Stick that in a pair of HUD glasses to display the screen and you're golden.

There are plenty of ways we can get the benefits of all our technological advances without mucking around making permanent changes to our own bodies. Maybe a CSI wants to be able to look around a room and see bodily fluids just to make examining a crime scene that much easier. Then maybe he'd rather not know about all the stains on the insides of the stalls the next time he needs to use a public bathroom. Maybe a construction worker wants to come home and throw some ball with his son without having to worry about blowing a hole through his chest because of his cybernetic implants, and not be marked by his job for the rest of his life when he goes and gets a desk job.

It's not like we NEED to modify our bodies. We have stuff that gets the same effect without doing so and is probably fuckloads cheaper. And better yet, transferable.

What I'm getting out of this is that you have a problem personally with your body being modified because you hold the human form in some kind of holy reverence despite it being disgusting and inefficient, and you are projecting that onto the rest of humanity as some kind of moral imperative against modification.

Why have our brains wired into the internet? Because it would be the next major paradigm shift in information exchange and would revolutionize everything about our lives.

The reason to build it in rather than have supplementary equipment is that the latter is no different from what we have now. SURE, if I want to pick up my car I can go get a crane, but you can't possibly tell me you wouldn't rather just be able to DO IT.



We could have someone who is superstrong, sees the whole spectrum, and has access to the internet in their brain, or we could have someone carrying around a cumbersome robotic harness and a couple pairs of HUD goggles. Which is superior?


Also, many things, such as intelligence enhancements (a very real possibility) would be completely impossible to do without some kind of implant or modification. Not all technologies like this could be implantable.


Really your argument comes down to "well I'm not okay with modifying the human body because well its good enough even if it could do so much more". You're old people saying fax machines are plenty good enough and you don't need no new-fangled internets.


Also, part of your argument mentioned people not needing upgrades for desk jobs and stuff? What makes you think, with this level of technology, anyone would need to be sitting in an office working? Are there really any jobs like that that couldn't be done by sufficiently advanced computers?

Part of the thing I love about the singularity is that with 'robots' to perform menial tasks and whatnot, people will be more free to pursue their creativity, advance technology, create entertainment, etc. Although that's an idealistic notion. I feel like with the way US society works right now, they'd somehow find a way to quash the creativity of the masses and force them into soul-crushing jobs that parallel all the things wrong with office jobs regardless.

[Azisien]

We could have someone who is superstrong, sees the whole spectrum, and has access to the internet in their brain, or we could have someone carrying around a cumbersome robotic harness and a couple pairs of HUD goggles. Which is superior?

Well honestly the harness and goggles might be. First of all it's a big stretch to call the effects of being "superstrong" (whatever THAT entails exactly) being perfectly comfortable and a robotic harness that MUST BE cumbersome.

The main reason I say this, though, is probably because of upgrades. What does Super Strong Man have to go through if his artificial muscles suddenly stop working, or malfunction and snap a spine, or need an upgrade or refuel or whatever?

The harness, at least, can wear and tear separate of the user and be tossed away when harness V2.0 comes around. Now with less cumbersome!!

Edit: I change my stance. I want to be super strong and also have a robot harness (the cumbersome-ness of which is completely denied due to my super strength).

[TDK]

My thinking was that a strength-enhancing harness would by necessity be somewhat cumbersome because it must have material enough to support the weight it can lift and also distribute it somewhere else besides your frame.

[Aerozord]

One thing I want to point out is, we already have the start of this. Did you know prosthetic are banned from the olympics because they are starting to surpass human body, that cybernetics are actually in use just very rare and expensive. Depending on when you consider transhumanism to really start. Could argue its already started.
"The Singularity" is the even where man creates something more intelligent than man. Which, itself, with its increased intelligence, will be able to create something more intelligent than that. The concept is that if, with any given level of intelligence, we can create something slightly smarter, or increase our own intelligence, we should be able to use that greater intelligence to develop an intelligence even greater than that. Hypothetically, this will cause a rapid chance in society as the human race either ascend to nearly omnipotent understandings of science and math, or become the slaves of robots we created that have nearly omnipotent understandings of science and math.

forgot to mention something that occured to me after reading this. Sounds an aweful lot like gnostism. That through advancement in knowledge and understanding will lead to enlightenment.

Thing I love the most is according to this theory, its completely reasonable to believe there is a being able to create universes on a whim. As in, God, can scientifically exist.

PS, why would the robots enslave us? They are gods. It would be like if humanity enslaved slime molds.

[bluestarultor]

Oh, yeah, let's go ahead and make machines more intelligent than us, that'll turn out well.

Except it seems impossible to make something smarter than yourself. It could seem more intelligent for all intents and purposes, such as being able to process information faster or having a vaster array of knowledge that it can connect together in more ways, but that is not really "more" intelligent, it is just as intelligent as a human could be without physical constraints. It probably couldn't even come up with anything new, it would just be the same lame philosophy and math and culture we have already but arranged differently at a faster pace. Big whoop.

Also Blues why you hate on corn so much? It's not as big a problem as you make it out to be, dawg. They are growing other stuff, mang. Yeah, it strips nutrients, that's why they have crop rotation and fertilizer and stuff. You need to get over this corn hatred, before it consumes you! I understand that the farm factory system is raping the environment, but it's not all about the corn...just mostly about the corn.

Also lions wouldn't build monorails. They would build something fast to catch gazelles with, like motorcycles. Obviously.

I use corn just because it's the biggest example. When 90-some percent of all products in your entire country contain one plant, you have an issue.

What exactly is your point here? Onoes monorails aren't a natural part of nature therefore are wrong?

Missing the point entirely? I was defining to IQ the terminology I was using.


Who's to draw the line between disability-fixing and enhancement? Compared to the smartest man in the world, the average person is retarded. If we have the technology, why shouldn't we fix retardation? If you cannot draw an exact line, there is no line.


That's an incredibly simplistic view of things. I'll just direct you to the example of Harrison Bergeron. Or rather the rationale used to limit the population in it. We humans thrive on diversity. If everyone is equally smart, and equally strong, and equally good at math, soccer, picking their noses, and writing books, what the hell is the point? If anyone can do something as well as anyone else, it takes incentive and effort out of everything. You become a society of caged lions. You know what they do to help keep zoo lions entertained? They make them work for their food. Effort is a requirement for feeling reward. If anyone can do anything without ever having to put work into it, it all becomes meaningless.

What I'm getting out of this is that you have a problem personally with your body being modified because you hold the human form in some kind of holy reverence despite it being disgusting and inefficient, and you are projecting that onto the rest of humanity as some kind of moral imperative against modification.

Or, y'know, it might be that some things are both unnecessary and expensive and while no, I wouldn't get modifications myself, and I do hold humanity as a living work of art, I think trying to dismiss my points under that banner is just being dismissive.

Why have our brains wired into the internet? Because it would be the next major paradigm shift in information exchange and would revolutionize everything about our lives.

If we even used it responsibly as things are. Office workers waste untold hours of time playing Facebook games and looking at porn as it is. Also, can you honestly tell me you expect students to not be messing around online when they're supposed to be paying attention in class? Or how about a practical issue. Wiring up requires hardware and software. Last I checked, being a programmer and all, viruses aren't all that hard to write. One goes around and it can do anything from redirect you wherever the hell the writer wants or flood your brain with crap signals. You know how viruses can crash your computer? What happens when someone decides to crash your brain? Seizures, ahoy!

The reason to build it in rather than have supplementary equipment is that the latter is no different from what we have now. SURE, if I want to pick up my car I can go get a crane, but you can't possibly tell me you wouldn't rather just be able to DO IT.


Or, spend two seconds strapping on a suit? Are we really that impatient that we can't take that small of a trip before throwing cars around?

And, uh, really? No, to be honest. I have no reason to be lifting cars. If that's the kind of thing people are going to be using this kind of thing for, I think we need to seriously consider why we're handing these things out.


We could have someone who is superstrong, sees the whole spectrum, and has access to the internet in their brain, or we could have someone carrying around a cumbersome robotic harness and a couple pairs of HUD goggles. Which is superior?

Depends on the situation. If you have a guy whose sole purpose in life is to look up porn while moving motor vehicles and checking for pee, then sure, enhance him.

See, I think you're missing the whole idea of utility, here. These things are only useful when they'd be, well, useful. You could have people all running around that way, but when super strength becomes widespread, you're going to have to redesign everything, and I mean everything, to withstand it so an angry girlfriend doesn't pull off all your car doors and then throw it through the side of your house.

In some cases, it's useful to NOT have something. It means you don't have to worry about it. Much as we love giant robots, they tend to cause collateral damage, for example.

Or, in more benign cases, something is less harmful and more just pointless, and should be really be wasting money on "enhancements" that don't do us any good?


Also, many things, such as intelligence enhancements (a very real possibility) would be completely impossible to do without some kind of implant or modification. Not all technologies like this could be implantable.

I'm going to come right out and say that out of all the ideas in this thread, enhancing our intelligence has to be the worst idea presented. For one, intelligence is hard to quantify, or even define. For two, once you start handing out "smart pills" or however you do it, you instantly grant an inordinate power imbalance to people with money to buy them. Y'know, the people who happen to love screwing everyone else.


Really your argument comes down to "well I'm not okay with modifying the human body because well its good enough even if it could do so much more". You're old people saying fax machines are plenty good enough and you don't need no new-fangled internets.

No, my argument is a lot more complex than that and involves a lot of questioning our society, raising concerns over negative side effects, and wondering at the necessity of certain things.


Also, part of your argument mentioned people not needing upgrades for desk jobs and stuff? What makes you think, with this level of technology, anyone would need to be sitting in an office working? Are there really any jobs like that that couldn't be done by sufficiently advanced computers?

Part of the thing I love about the singularity is that with 'robots' to perform menial tasks and whatnot, people will be more free to pursue their creativity, advance technology, create entertainment, etc. Although that's an idealistic notion. I feel like with the way US society works right now, they'd somehow find a way to quash the creativity of the masses and force them into soul-crushing jobs that parallel all the things wrong with office jobs regardless.

Well, to be blunt, we already are automating a lot of stuff and we're slowly finding out that it's bloody stupid. Business concerns have already been royally fucked up because we gave the jobs to machines, including manhandling the housing crisis, making the stock market take a nose dive until they turned the system off, and other smaller concerns, like how everyone wants to burn automated phone systems to the ground.

The sufficiently advanced computers argument is a really selective one. Wouldn't sufficiently advanced computers be able to create music? Hint: it's already been done, in the 70s no less, and it pissed a ton of people off to the point the guy who wrote the program deleted it, purged the source code, and burned all his notes just to stop the death threats. And if they can write good music, why not create art? Or generate movies? Or do anything we can do, only potentially better?

Human brains essentially ARE sufficiently advanced computers. Thinking that machines are going to take up all the crap work and leave us in a creative utopia where we're free to run and frolic and create poetry is just naive. When computers get "sufficiently advanced," there's going to be no point in having us around anymore, and that takes all the meaning out of life.




Edit: PS - the suit in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynL8BCXih8U

[Azisien]

I'm not going to be impressed with suits like HAL until we slap them on a bodybuilder and start going 4000lb deadlifts.

[Amake]

We have enough trouble dealing with the people who can't function up to the same level normal people do without creating a biological or bio-mechanical elite using money and resources that would be better-served in bringing people up to standard. I was going to say that makes sense, you're defining unnatural as that which puts some people above others. Although I'd prefer to call that unfair. But then, If anyone can do something as well as anyone else, it takes incentive and effort out of everything. You become a society of caged lions. You know what they do to help keep zoo lions entertained? They make them work for their food. Effort is a requirement for feeling reward. If anyone can do anything without ever having to put work into it, it all becomes meaningless. You don't seem to think it's possible to have fair society anyway, so what's the difference? Is keeping the divide between the enabled and the disabled from growing bigger the best we can do?

In the worst case, if every single person suddenly gained equal godlike powers, I think we'd invent new things to disagree about and the principle of conflict would survive. We'd have much the same society as now. Probably depending on how many people think we need competition and division to give life meaning.

But I rather think we'd find other meaningful things to do. Create universes maybe.

That's assuming it doesn't go in the other direction, with us creating some superior intelligence that replaces and obsoletes us. I mentioned that scenario in an earlier post. The funny thing is that it's what happens if you are a successful parent. Most people can live with being slightly less relevant and one generation closer to monkeys than their children. Maybe doing that on a larger scale would be scary, but then growing up always is.

Of course humanity as an organism is still in an adolescent stage. We're not ready to have kids. So we probably won't. Yet.

PS. Is Jeph Jaques lurking on the board or what (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1780)

[TDK]

Stuff

See, you say you're 'considering the negative parts' and stuff, but its not as though anyone will have any say in this. They call it 'the blind march of progress' for a reason. There is not going to be a point where someone is like 'hey guys maybe we shouldn't do this because the sociological ramifications of blah blah blah' and the scientists go 'oh shit you're right, our bad we'll stop helping humanity evolve now'. And if they outlaw it (and the average person has NO RIGHT to vote on scientific advances anymore than some random guy off the street gets to contribute to your diagnosis in a hospital.), the scientists will go somewhere it is legal.

It will happen, its only a matter of time.

You can't stop the transhumanists.

The future belongs to them.

Word. ^

That's assuming it doesn't go in the other direction, with us creating some superior intelligence that replaces and obsoletes us.
I don't know why everyone thinks this is a bad thing.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I don't know why everyone thinks this is a bad thing.

It would be a good thing. Humans are horrible things.
And I don't get why the propogation of the human race is important. LIke I'm all for cracking down on childbirth and removing it as a right and people are like "But humans will become extinct"- why do I care? I'll be dead so will everyone else. Why do we care?

[Aldurin]

Transhumanism is the philosophy of openly accepting new forms of artificial human enhancement.

Bioconservatism is the philosophy of keeping humans free of such enhancements.

So if most people went toward transhumanism, we would be closer to having laser eyes and sentient andriod workers?
1 for transhumanism

But then wouldn't 99% of boobs be fake? Bioconservatism would seem better for finding a natural way for women to have that "enhanced".
1 for bioconservatism

Transhumanism could lead to mental interface with computers and augments to though capacity. I could play videogames from anywhere as long as I used my PDA to hack my computer.
An extra 3 points for transhumanism.

Bioconservatism could lead to a better level of communication between us and animals. I don't see much in this beyond avoiding death at the hands of a bear or lion.
1 point for bioconservatism


Transhumanism: 4
Bioconservatism: 2

The verdict is . . . bioconservatism for now. Most of transhumanism's benefits are potential long term ones, and I wouldn't be lining up for the beta release of anything in that category. I'll stay with my generally healthy diet and little sunlight while I wait for everything to become long-term support releases.

[Aerozord]

I
If we even used it responsibly as things are. Office workers waste untold hours of time playing Facebook games and looking at porn as it is. Also, can you honestly tell me you expect students to not be messing around online when they're supposed to be paying attention in class?

when you can download knowledge directly into your head, and what you dont have being a quick cybertrip to wikipedia away, school as an institution will cease to be.

[Pip Boy]

So if most people went toward transhumanism, we would be closer to having laser eyes and sentient andriod workers?
1 for transhumanism

But then wouldn't 99% of boobs be fake? Bioconservatism would seem better for finding a natural way for women to have that "enhanced".
1 for bioconservatism

Transhumanism could lead to mental interface with computers and augments to though capacity. I could play videogames from anywhere as long as I used my PDA to hack my computer.
An extra 3 points for transhumanism.

Bioconservatism could lead to a better level of communication between us and animals. I don't see much in this beyond avoiding death at the hands of a bear or lion.
1 point for bioconservatism


Transhumanism: 4
Bioconservatism: 2

The verdict is . . . bioconservatism for now. Most of transhumanism's benefits are potential long term ones, and I wouldn't be lining up for the beta release of anything in that category. I'll stay with my generally healthy diet and little sunlight while I wait for everything to become long-term support releases.

The thing there is that pretty much any method of increasing a woman's breast size, even if the new mass is biological tissue, is biotechnology. If her genes are altered to predispose her to bigger tits, or if she takes hormones of some kind that promote their growth, both of those contradict the purist Bioconservative point of view. So even "more natural" enhancement is not the same as actually "natural". Furthermore, this does create speculation by some that idolizing certain traits as we already do can be a risky practice as a society. Girls are already seen as unattractive by many if their breasts are too small, and many compensate for this with implants. The more this kind of thing becomes available, the more radical the changes will start to be attractive. What if the trends start to become things that can't occur naturally? People who can't afford cosmetic enhancements will begin to be seen as lesser.

[bluestarultor]

I was going to say that makes sense, you're defining unnatural as that which puts some people above others. Although I'd prefer to call that unfair. But then, You don't seem to think it's possible to have fair society anyway, so what's the difference? Is keeping the divide between the enabled and the disabled from growing bigger the best we can do?

In the worst case, if every single person suddenly gained equal godlike powers, I think we'd invent new things to disagree about and the principle of conflict would survive. We'd have much the same society as now. Probably depending on how many people think we need competition and division to give life meaning.

But I rather think we'd find other meaningful things to do. Create universes maybe.

That's assuming it doesn't go in the other direction, with us creating some superior intelligence that replaces and obsoletes us. I mentioned that scenario in an earlier post. The funny thing is that it's what happens if you are a successful parent. Most people can live with being slightly less relevant and one generation closer to monkeys than their children. Maybe doing that on a larger scale would be scary, but then growing up always is.

Of course humanity as an organism is still in an adolescent stage. We're not ready to have kids. So we probably won't. Yet.

PS. Is Jeph Jaques lurking on the board or what (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1780)

Well, no, actually, on the definition of unnatural. Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I consider the naturalness of something to be a mechanical concern, not a societal one. It's a separate issue.

So we're totally in agreement on it being unfair in the context we're speaking in, because pretty much everything we have to benefit ourselves is already unnatural and it could be hurting us worse than it is, given that most of it goes quite smoothly.

I'll say that I fully expect us to create computers that are smarter than we are in every measure we have. It'll probably happen in our lifetimes with the way we're advancing AI and computers. Once we get AI down, it's just a matter of combining them.

I'll also point out that even in my overdramatization, I acknowledged things would settle down eventually. Granted, it was immediately pending the explosion of the sun, but give us enough time and we settle down, even if it does take hundreds or thousands of years.

Lastly, pardon me for being dim, but I think we've shown in our adolescent stage that we're fully filling to go fucking around when we have no business to be with little to no protection, so we're probably going to have kids whether we're ready for them or not. ;)

See, you say you're 'considering the negative parts' and stuff, but its not as though anyone will have any say in this. They call it 'the blind march of progress' for a reason. There is not going to be a point where someone is like 'hey guys maybe we shouldn't do this because the sociological ramifications of blah blah blah' and the scientists go 'oh shit you're right, our bad we'll stop helping humanity evolve now'. And if they outlaw it (and the average person has NO RIGHT to vote on scientific advances anymore than some random guy off the street gets to contribute to your diagnosis in a hospital.), the scientists will go somewhere it is legal.

It will happen, its only a matter of time.

Last I checked, certain scientific advances have already been pre-banned despite the fact we do not and may never even have the technology. Time travel, for instance, and I'm pretty sure human cloning. Not globally, but in the places that actually might be able to do it at this point or are expected to be the leaders in the future.

And it's not like human enhancement isn't even relatively benign in comparison. Okay, you combine it with cloning and you get an enhanced underclass or something worst case scenario, but I'm not so dim on society that I expect us to throw out hundreds of years of human rights and start enhancing normal citizens to be put to work. Maybe it might poke into that area with certain jobs, but eventually, it would get shot down, and in all likelihood, it would be cheaper and more effective to just have equipment you had to leave at the office at the end of the day, so it probably would never even start.

But another thing about the blind march of progress is that just because we have the technology for something doesn't mean we're using it. We have the technology to make much more efficient car engines, but I think we can take a quick look and agree how well that's happened. We have the technology for solar cars and that's happened even less. In fact, clean energy all around is pretty well under-utilized. For example, with current solar technology, you could dedicate a speck of empty map in Arizona to one giant field and power America. We're talking about a sparing amount of square miles that's not being used for anything anyway replacing every coal, nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, and other plant in America. I think it's like only 100 square miles according to the program I watched, but don't quote me on that. Ten miles by ten miles is a lot of area, but it's not a lot of distance in either direction. You could sandwich it between two average towns.

And it's not like we don't already have the tech to do half these things.

[Aerozord]

Last I checked, certain scientific advances have already been pre-banned despite the fact we do not and may never even have the technology. Time travel, for instance, and I'm pretty sure human cloning.

not really pre-banning, I mean we can clone humans now. Though everyone worries about what the result would be.

Cloning is an odd case. The technology has existed for like, a decade, but the public at large seems to have forgotten its existence. Same with gene splicing. As I said we already have the basic technology for transhumanism now but we are cautious about its application. I think that says alot about humanity. We aren't as reckless as most think

[TDK]

Blues, do you have any idea how expensive solar panels are? I'm all for alternative energy regardless of cost, but the people who are doing it consider cost, and what you are talking about would cost more money, if I remember the cost vs energy production ratio of solar cells, than it is likely to produce in the next decade.

[Kurosen]

If there's an aspergularity I'll just be over here killing myself.

[Premmy]

oh no, what a tragedy!

[Aerozord]

If there's an aspergularity I'll just be over here killing myself.

I think I know what you mean but all I could imagine was a world ruled by asparagus

[bluestarultor]

Blues, do you have any idea how expensive solar panels are? I'm all for alternative energy regardless of cost, but the people who are doing it consider cost, and what you are talking about would cost more money, if I remember the cost vs energy production ratio of solar cells, than it is likely to produce in the next decade.

I never said I had financial numbers, just that that's all it would take. Also, the average home solar panel has an average lifespan of 40 years, with better cells obviously being better. So even if what you say is true, it's only a quarter of their lifespan and they'll have the rest to make up their own costs.


That's missing the point and diverging from topic, though.



not really pre-banning, I mean we can clone humans now. Though everyone worries about what the result would be.

Cloning is an odd case. The technology has existed for like, a decade, but the public at large seems to have forgotten its existence. Same with gene splicing. As I said we already have the basic technology for transhumanism now but we are cautious about its application. I think that says alot about humanity. We aren't as reckless as most think

Actually, us "having" the tech is misleading, because our success rate with it is utter shit. It took, what, 200-some-odd tries to get Dolly, a sheep? And we have yet to even succeed with a monkey despite our best efforts from what I understand.

[Azisien]

Actually, us "having" the tech is misleading, because our success rate with it is utter shit. It took, what, 200-some-odd tries to get Dolly, a sheep? And we have yet to even succeed with a monkey despite our best efforts from what I understand.

And Dolly had a host of health issues and lived a fraction of the time of a regular sheep lifespan. And it was also somewhat a fluke, I thought I read somewhere. I know that whole cloning the mammoth thing is nigh impossible at the moment, if ever. I doubt we could clone a healthy human being, even with a large (realistic) budget for the project.

[Aerozord]

well personally i care more about cloning on a the cellular level, which granted we dont have. Like a gland that produces stem-cells that function like platelets, going to sources of damage in the body, granting us a degree of regeneration

[bluestarultor]

well personally i care more about cloning on a the cellular level, which granted we dont have. Like a gland that produces stem-cells that function like platelets, going to sources of damage in the body, granting us a degree of regeneration

??? (http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Vorcha)

[Aerozord]

and how is that bad? Its what our bodies do now just faster. Plus it would reduce or eliminate aging and probably cure all progressive degenerative illnesses

[Aldurin]

well personally i care more about cloning on a the cellular level, which granted we dont have. Like a gland that produces stem-cells that function like platelets, going to sources of damage in the body, granting us a degree of regeneration

But the medical industry would be cut down so badly that only people that have been in explosions would be necessary to treat. Especially if it got to the point where if you lost your hand in the blender, you'd grow it back in a week. Millions of jobs would be lost, but it might not be until everything is automated and only researchers have work.

Oh, it occurred to me that the premise of Vendetta Online (http://www.vendetta-online.com/h/storyline.html) is the perfect example of this thread topic.

[Magus]

Getting back to the talk of breast enhancement: Personally I prefer a pair of medium-sized, nicely perky breasts. Is there currently a trend of gene therapy towards that?

If transhumanism just leads to a bunch of giant tits I will be disappointed.

Frankly I think all other controversies of transhumanism should be put on discussion hold until we get through this part of it. Forget your talk of regeneration and super strength.

I mean, unless you are also wanting to talk about our inevitable sex-slave androids. In the future.

[bluestarultor]

and how is that bad? Its what our bodies do now just faster. Plus it would reduce or eliminate aging and probably cure all progressive degenerative illnesses

Because they're ugly fuckers. :P


Kidding aside, it wouldn't be bad. I was just providing an example.

[TDK]

But the medical industry would be cut down so badly that only people that have been in explosions would be necessary to treat. Especially if it got to the point where if you lost your hand in the blender, you'd grow it back in a week. Millions of jobs would be lost

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't cure cancer because it would put Oncologists out of work?

[Eltargrim]

But the medical industry would be cut down so badly that only people that have been in explosions would be necessary to treat. Especially if it got to the point where if you lost your hand in the blender, you'd grow it back in a week. Millions of jobs would be lost

Why hello Ned Ludd. How interesting to see you online. I hope all is well. It seems that the wide-framed loom didn't doom society after all! What a surprise.

[bluestarultor]

As a note on the regenerative thing, we've already got an interesting "technology" for that. Apparently if you dry up and powder pig bladders and put them on a wound, it can do so much as regenerate an entire fingertip, nail and all.

Eat it, pharmaceutical industry! You've just been outdone by pigs!

[Aldurin]

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't cure cancer because it would put Oncologists out of work?

I didn't say it's a bad thing that doctors lose jobs if we come up with advanced regeneration.

Why hello Ned Ludd. How interesting to see you online. I hope all is well. It seems that the wide-framed loom didn't doom society after all! What a surprise.

???

Breasts

Unfortunately it's thoughts that come from people like you that will encourage breast size to be considered in online dating matchups.

[Magus]

I will continue to do my duty to reduce online romantic relationships to the search for perfect breast sizes.

[Archbio]

Why hello Ned Ludd. How interesting to see you online. I hope all is well. It seems that the wide-framed loom didn't doom society after all! What a surprise.

I'll just leave this (http://campus.murraystate.edu/academic/faculty/kevin.binfield/luddites/LudditeHistory.htm) here:

The Luddites were not, as not only popularizers of theories of technology but also capitalist apologists for unregulated innovation claim, universally technophobes. The Luddites were artisans -- primarily skilled workers in the textile industries in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Cheshire, the West Riding of Yorkshire, Lancashire and Flintshire in the years between March 1811 and April 1817 -- who when faced with the use of machines (operated by less-skilled labor, typically apprentices, unapprenticed workers, and women) to drive down their wages and to produce inferior goods (thereby damaging their trades' reputations), turned to wrecking the offensive machines and terrorizing the offending owners in order to preserve their wages, their jobs, and their trades. Machines were not the only, or even the major, threat to the textile workers of the Midlands and North. The Prince Regent's Orders in Council, barring trade with Napoleonic France and nations friendly to France, cut off foreign markets for the British textile industry. Even more importantly, famine and high food prices required more of each laborer's shrinking wages. Machines and the use of machines to drive down wages were simply the most accessible targets for expressions of anger and direct action.

[Arhra]

As a note on the regenerative thing, we've already got an interesting "technology" for that. Apparently if you dry up and powder pig bladders and put them on a wound, it can do so much as regenerate an entire fingertip, nail and all.

Eat it, pharmaceutical industry! You've just been outdone by pigs!
Um, they aren't at all sure about that because people can regenerate fingertips by themselves.

In the future we will be increasingly ill-informed by stuff we heard on the future-internet.

Especially me!

Anyway, talking about how autonomous systems are inferior to humans is rubbish. A good autonomous system should be able to handle all forseeable states in its area of expertise.

Anything else is poor design.

As for true AI, well, it's still a long way off. Here's why: define intelligence.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Hey now, the Luddites were like the Tea Party- protecting the oppressed middle class from the relentless onslaught of the prols.

[Archbio]

PANTS

Now that's scholarship.

Eat it, pharmaceutical industry! You've just been outdone by pigs!

The creatures outside looked from pig to pharmaceutical executive, and from pharmaceutical executive to pig, and from pig to pharmaceutical executive again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

[bluestarultor]

Um, they aren't at all sure about that because people can regenerate fingertips by themselves.

In the future we will be increasingly ill-informed by stuff we heard on the future-internet.

Especially me!

Nonsense! Okay, yeah, that's true, but the pig is already recognizably a magical animal. Not only does it produce all three of bacon, pork, and ham, but we can use it for heart transplants and probably all sorts of other things. While it's possible we might be able to regenerate limbs, I'm inclined to give the credit to an already amazing creature which God clearly put on this Earth in preparation for us to solve all our ills. :p


Kidding aside, I'm just personally optimistic on the issue because I'd rather think that we had some way of making that kind of thing happen instead of taking a crapshoot on whatever regenerative abilities we have left. There are a lot of amazing things the human body is capable of, but you can rely on only one of them, and that's that your liver will recover from damn near anything. The irony of increasing complexity of life is that it gets screwed in the regeneration department. :sweatdrop

Anyway, talking about how autonomous systems are inferior to humans is rubbish. A good autonomous system should be able to handle all forseeable states in its area of expertise.

Anything else is poor design.

As for true AI, well, it's still a long way off. Here's why: define intelligence.

As a guy in the business of building these things, I can say with confidence that it's incredibly difficult to make a system that accounts for everything. In terms of error-handling in programs, the fallback is to throw up a message saying, "Well, this is embarrassing. We have no idea what happened and you're just screwed." The problem is that no matter how hard you test every possibility you can think of, and your coworkers can think of, and your testing staff can think of, there will be someone out there who thinks of something totally different and breaks it.

Good programming practices account for as much as humanly possible, but humans are flawed. If a system breaks, it's generally not bad design so much as an unknown unknown throwing a wrench in the gears. There will always be these, like the Death Penalty Glitch (http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Overflow_Glitch#Final_Fantasy_VII), which can take literal months of effort to execute, or like on Final Fantasy Wiki itself where some clown registered as nothing but a semicolon, which breaks their signature code every time they sign and makes it impossible to search for them.

So until we do get full AI, computers will be inferior to humans. Humans can make judgment calls that computers are simply not capable of. Maybe we're squishy, irrational, and fallible, but computers are just as fallible as their creators and not only can make devastating mistakes, but can make them for long periods without anyone noticing because we trust them so much.

[Arhra]

Perhaps I should clarify.

An autonomous system should be able to perform its designated activities to a level of expertise that is judged to be acceptable for getting the job done. It is intended to remove the risk of human error.

In this area of expertise, it is comparable to a human. I know it's difficult to avoid having strange emergent flaws due to the implementation, but at the top level design it should be bulletproof.

To clear up another point, I'm talking about an autonomous system,which is designed to operate without any oversight, as compared to automated systems, which still need people watching them. An automated process should include the reporting and investigation procedures.