PDA

View Full Version : Implying Human Revolution.



Danjun
25th Jun 2010, 19:16
So.. guess what I thought.

Human revolution, why that name? Why the main character's name is Adam?

I've thought and thought, and hey. Adam brings a new revolution.. The Adam and the Eve, the first revolution, now the human revolution, the new revoultion.


W00T.

Kodaemon
25th Jun 2010, 19:27
It's really simple, just watch the trailer: Adam revolves people. By their heads.

BlackDove
25th Jun 2010, 19:57
It's more or less a given the ending will involve Adam being some kind of a prototype/model for Denton and the tech that spawns Denton(s).

I think they have to tie it into the first one somehow.

Angel-A
25th Jun 2010, 20:15
J.C. and Paul had distinctly biblical names, as well. Adam makes sense since HR is to be the "genesis" of DX.

Kodaemon
25th Jun 2010, 20:18
His boss has a biblical name too: David. And watch the trailer, him speaking about some powerful foes... David vs. Goliath, anyone?

ChfMojoRising
25th Jun 2010, 21:03
Clearly he's named after the monster in the timeless Mary Shelly novel Frankenstein...

;p

K^2
25th Jun 2010, 21:55
Are you trying to make a connection between "Modern Prometheus" and regenerating health?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
25th Jun 2010, 22:34
Clearly he's named after the monster in the timeless Mary Shelly novel Frankenstein...

;p


Actually, you could be onto something there.
As Frankenstein's monster had no name, when speaking to Victor he often refered to himself as the "Adam of your labours".

Interesting... maybe? :scratch:

ChfMojoRising
25th Jun 2010, 22:46
I was just be facetious ^__^

Lady_Of_The_Vine
25th Jun 2010, 22:53
I was just be facetious ^__^

I know. I was just being informative.

hem dazon 90
25th Jun 2010, 23:08
I hope this story is not anti transhumanism. We have enough anti science diatribes already

Lady_Of_The_Vine
25th Jun 2010, 23:15
I hope this story is not anti transhumanism. We have enough anti science diatribes already

I guess you didn't spot the protest banners? :p

ChfMojoRising
25th Jun 2010, 23:18
Oh man~ I wasn't even thinking of that but you're totally right Hem. There needs to be more pro-science and pro-technology stuff.
Can't help but feel the number one reason cloning has such harsh restrictions is due to all those sci-fi horror stories about human clones @_@

K^2
25th Jun 2010, 23:49
Popularizing science is a two edged sword. On one hand, yes, science gets better funding. On the other hand, we get all these people who should not be in science turning it into a business. So people who get funding aren't scientists. They are people who are good at writing grant proposals. It's terrible.

So I don't know. Maybe scaring some people away with monsters would be a good idea.

ChfMojoRising
25th Jun 2010, 23:53
Well the extreme of scaring them gets into a religious dark ages type of world (think of a neocon's perfect world explained by a christian science center) and the extreme of promoting science gets us a dark and cyberpunk world~ growing/festering under the sprawl. Everyone wearing sunglasses... at night!

I prefer the latter ;p

PlasmaSnake101
26th Jun 2010, 00:06
Popularizing science is a two edged sword. On one hand, yes, science gets better funding. On the other hand, we get all these people who should not be in science turning it into a business.

Would you not agree with me when I say business entrepreneurship and companies competing for market superiority would result in rapid technological advancement?


Well the extreme of scaring them gets into a religious dark ages type of world (think of a neocon's perfect world explained by a christian science center) and the extreme of promoting science gets us a dark and cyberpunk world~ growing/festering under the sprawl. Everyone wearing sunglasses... at night!

I prefer the latter ;p

Either one would be characterized by a police state most likely, where the rights of individuals are ruthlessly trampled upon by an imposing state. The cyberpunk alternative would be a corporatist police state where market principles are disregarded and economic freedoms are absent from life. To be honest, I would prefer the neocon world, and I can't stand the neocon ideology and the religious right. Either way rights would be trampled upon, but with neocons you're likely to have a little more economic freedom, not much more mind you.

FrankCSIS
26th Jun 2010, 00:33
rapid technological advancement?

I would venture to say rapid marketable advancement. I'm not certain minutiarisation of everything is that big of a technological advancement, except perhaps that it allows you to cram more bang into a smaller buck.

The areas where we desperately need advancement are not being touched because there are still cheaper alternatives out there. It's not as clearcut as we'd like it to be, that market helps development.

jtr7
26th Jun 2010, 00:38
So how many times has this public revelation occurred now?


And maybe it's not so much the beginning of transhumanism (it's not), as it is about the forbidden fruit.

ChfMojoRising
26th Jun 2010, 00:41
Well, on the cyberpunk side~ the ability to acquire information will set you free (and rich) It can become power subtly in the hands of the people~ these people will be corporations~ but also those that can hack the companies.
Tho, I'm more akin to being a street samurai *glances at my avatar* hehe Also~ at least cyberpunk advances our understanding of the world~ that's something that's important to me ^_^

K^2
26th Jun 2010, 00:48
Would you not agree with me when I say business entrepreneurship and companies competing for market superiority would result in rapid technological advancement?
No, I would not. Biggest inventions of the past century. Aerospace, nuclear power, computers. All three were mere toys commercially until the two World Wars and the Cold War didn't turn them into what they are today.

Entrepreneurship is ability to sell something that's already exist. Look at Apple. Classic example. Necessity is mother of invention, not greed. There are always easier ways to make money than coming up with something revolutionary.

If you want to credit businesses and corporations with proliferation of technology, and giving general public access to it, I can't really argue. But they are by no means responsible for any of it existing in the first place.

The proper chain is always enthusiasts, military, commerce. Anything that skips the middle step is a gimmick.

ChfMojoRising
26th Jun 2010, 00:52
well~ it was Xerox that invented the GUI interface and mouse for the PC (running some kind of Unix I believe) and then Apple bought the rights to it after they showed it to them saying "we don't know quite what to do with it".

So~ there're always exceptions and stuff~

K^2
26th Jun 2010, 00:55
Computer mouse ... nuclear power. GUI ... turbojet engines.

Not to mention that both rely on existence of computational power that was developed initially because military needed a way to quickly compute trajectories for intercontinental missiles.

ChfMojoRising
26th Jun 2010, 00:57
Well~ we probably wouldn't of had turbo jet engines if we didn't have planes~ which were invented by a couple of kids hehe

PlasmaSnake101
26th Jun 2010, 01:07
No, I would not. Biggest inventions of the past century. Aerospace, nuclear power, computers. All three were mere toys commercially until the two World Wars and the Cold War didn't turn them into what they are today.

Entrepreneurship is ability to sell something that's already exist. Look at Apple. Classic example. Necessity is mother of invention, not greed. There are always easier ways to make money than coming up with something revolutionary.

If you want to credit businesses and corporations with proliferation of technology, and giving general public access to it, I can't really argue. But they are by no means responsible for any of it existing in the first place.

The proper chain is always enthusiasts, military, commerce. Anything that skips the middle step is a gimmick.

So the greatest developments come out of war and the State? Hardly.

To quote Milton Friedman:

The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade.

Tisk, tisk, tisk. I thought your understanding of the development of society would be more refined than that. However, it's not unusual for the proponents of the State to say the markets have not developed and all development stems from the state. It's not out of the ordinary for the State to take credit for the accomplishments of individuals acting out of self interest. It is certainly more likely that the State would blame markets for hard times than their own flawed fiscal policies.

Innovation doesn't come from the state, I want you to remember. You bring up war, and it is true that war results in the rapid development of technology. However, those developments are not made out of altruism or service to the State or even necessity, they are made by self interested men looking to make money off of the next big thing. Of course governments can sponsor this development, but by no means are they the ones innovating.

About the developments you say the State gave birth to, has it ever crossed your mind that the State got involved shortly after the initial development of these ideas.

To the cyberpunk world, what good would be scientific understanding in a world where the State is free to censor, regulate information and arrest those who dissent. Remember, a reoccurring theme in Deus Ex was that of the United States overstepping constitutional limitation. "When due process fails us, we really do live in a world of terror."

atLaNt1s
26th Jun 2010, 01:14
So the greatest developments come out of war and the State? Hardly.

To quote Milton Friedman:


Tisk, tisk, tisk. I thought your understanding of the development of society would be more refined than that. However, it's not unusual for the proponents of the State to say the markets have not developed and all development stems from the state. It's not out of the ordinary for the State to take credit for the accomplishments of individuals acting out of self interest. It is certainly more likely that the State would blame markets for hard times than their own flawed fiscal policies.

Innovation doesn't come from the state, I want you to remember. You bring up war, and it is true that war results in the rapid development of technology. However, those developments are not made out of altruism or service to the State or even necessity, they are made by self interested men looking to make money off of the next big thing. Of course governments can sponsor this development, but by no means are they the ones innovating.

About the developments you say the State gave birth to, has it ever crossed your mind that the State got involved shortly after the initial development of these ideas.

To the cyberpunk world, what good would be scientific understanding in a world where the State is free to censor, regulate information and arrest those who dissent. Remember, a reoccurring theme in Deus Ex was that of the United States overstepping constitutional limitation. "When due process fails us, we really do live in a world of terror."

Someone did his homework

K^2
26th Jun 2010, 01:15
You're quoting exceptions at me. Rare and unique exceptions. Metal working - developed for military applications. Chemistry - developed for military applications. Antibiotics - developed for wounded soldiers. Satellites - do I need to even say it? Internet - commissioned by military.

And you retaliate with Henry Ford and his assembly line. Yes, there have been a handful of inventor-entrepreneurs over the centuries. Ford and Edison do come to mind. But their input was still that of individuals. Things that define us as a civilization have been developed through wars, wars, and wars.

As for Einstein, he wasn't making a commercial invention either. He worked as a patent office clerk. Scientists, real scientists, don't work for money. They work for some ideas known to them alone. Yes, these are the kind of people who first discovered all the things improved by military over the years. But these things were not marketable until necessity for survival drove the nations' resources to improve on these inventions.

Only then do companies come in and find a way to make more of it and sell it cheaply. Sometimes, something useful, like an assembly line, comes out of it.

ChfMojoRising
26th Jun 2010, 01:16
@ Plasmas last point:
Yeah well~ that's why we have undergound organizations of hackers ;p
Information is free! If it's not free, then we'll free it! XD
I'm changing my name to Zero Cool... or Case... lol

PlasmaSnake101
26th Jun 2010, 01:25
You're quoting exceptions at me. Rare and unique exceptions. Metal working - developed for military applications. Chemistry - developed for military applications. Antibiotics - developed for wounded soldiers. Satellites - do I need to even say it? Internet - commissioned by military.

And you retaliate with Henry Ford and his assembly line. Yes, there have been a handful of inventor-entrepreneurs over the centuries. Ford and Edison do come to mind. But their input was still that of individuals. Things that define us as a civilization have been developed through wars, wars, and wars.

As for Einstein, he wasn't making a commercial invention either. He worked as a patent office clerk. Scientists, real scientists, don't work for money. They work for some ideas known to them alone. Yes, these are the kind of people who first discovered all the things improved by military over the years. But these things were not marketable until necessity for survival drove the nations' resources to improve on these inventions.

Only then do companies come in and find a way to make more of it and sell it cheaply. Sometimes, something useful, like an assembly line, comes out of it.

I think you're way off base saying no good scientist works for money. In my experience everyone works to put food on the table, and some scientists could be out to achieve prestige. I cannot deny that war accelerates faster than the markets. However, I will argue that the market alternative is much more preferable to the developments of war technology. I can't say if the bow and arrow was made to hunt animals or to kill men first, however the development was made by an individual in order to obtain profit. In this case he gains food or the possessions of the other man.

I can guarantee that the developments that individuals worked on and sold to the state was done in order to obtain some form of monetary gain.

I give in to you though, you've bested me on a fact that I knew but wished not to accept. War and military development trumps the market on development, but I believe the costs of war and the threat of military technology are to great to be scene as an alternative. Would you agree that markets are second to war and military developments?

PlasmaSnake101
26th Jun 2010, 01:27
@ Plasmas last point:
Yeah well~ that's why we have undergound organizations of hackers ;p
Information is free! If it's not free, then we'll free it! XD
I'm changing my name to Zero Cool... or Case... lol

Freedom of information isn't worth much when the State has a gun to your head. The Deus Ex world featured shoot on sight permission for officers and martial law in many nations. The people were obviously being subverted by governments or institutions wishing to govern and establish more control.

I'd prefer a world where I can still walk down the streets at night.

ChfMojoRising
26th Jun 2010, 01:29
The pen is mightier than the sword, they say ;)

PlasmaSnake101
26th Jun 2010, 01:31
The pen is mightier than the sword, they say ;)

Until someone plants a bullet in the writer's chest.

ChfMojoRising
26th Jun 2010, 01:33
But my words will live on, and inspire the revolution XD
*plans to re-watch or re-read V for Vendetta*

nathanj
26th Jun 2010, 01:33
No, I would not. Biggest inventions of the past century. Aerospace, nuclear power, computers. All three were mere toys commercially until the two World Wars and the Cold War didn't turn them into what they are today.

Entrepreneurship is ability to sell something that's already exist. Look at Apple. Classic example. Necessity is mother of invention, not greed. There are always easier ways to make money than coming up with something revolutionary.

If you want to credit businesses and corporations with proliferation of technology, and giving general public access to it, I can't really argue. But they are by no means responsible for any of it existing in the first place.

The proper chain is always enthusiasts, military, commerce. Anything that skips the middle step is a gimmick.

they both add technology. however i agree that war is the primary lever for human evolution (hence why we need more of it). for instance computer technology is actually far superior in the business sector compared to the military sector according to the people i have talked too. the supercomputers the NSA uses are built by companies like IBM. those "tough" notebooks were built by companies for the military. assault rifles are built by private industry for the military. dragonscale armor will probably be adopted by the military if they ever figure out the design flaws.

one of the reasons we outpaced the world and also one of the reasons the germans were so advanced is because of all the brain power that both countries were able to confiscate from companies and from academia. the military is great of big projects like the abomb and going to the moon. they are however notoriously bad for incorporating new technology on a smaller scale. look at all the crap we've gone through with the M-16 and M-4 carbine. for crying out loud they still insist on making their main battle tank with that craptacular turbine engine. had our guys not so been boneheaded we would have taken the basic design of the AK and made some modifications so that it was more accurate like ours. but no. we are going to keep using the same rifle no matter how prone to error, maintenance intensives and jamming it is.

PlasmaSnake101
26th Jun 2010, 01:42
But my words will live on, and inspire the revolution XD
*plans to re-watch or re-read V for Vendetta*

A revolution to be fought with swords, you can see that the greatest factor for resolving conflict is physical force and the destruction of your foes. With the people firmly oppressed they wouldn't really stand a chance. Once conflict occurred it would get pretty bad for all parties involved.

V for Vendetta was pretty cool, even if it was a blatant attack on a real political party. Such blunt messages just get on my nerves.

I agree with the above by the way, but remember I'm extremely anti-war.

ChfMojoRising
26th Jun 2010, 01:45
Well that was the movie that basically said boo extreme right wing fascism.
The book was evil oppressive govt versus complete anarchy. In the end both sides are equally bad choices but for very different reasons.

K^2
26th Jun 2010, 01:52
I think you're way off base saying no good scientist works for money. In my experience everyone works to put food on the table, and some scientists could be out to achieve prestige. I cannot deny that war accelerates faster than the markets. However, I will argue that the market alternative is much more preferable to the developments of war technology. I can't say if the bow and arrow was made to hunt animals or to kill men first, however the development was made by an individual in order to obtain profit. In this case he gains food or the possessions of the other man.
If a scientist works for money, he's not a real scientist. A good scientist will always find a way to be payed for what he does, at least enough to not go hungry, but don't confuse one with the other.

People who work for money go into business and make their money.

And the man who came up with a better bow to kill another man did so out of fear that the other man will do it first. Same as with any other weapons.

Next thing you'll be telling me that Soviet Union and United States were in a nuclear arms race to take each others' possessions. You can't take something from a country you melt into a piece of quartz. Even less so if same happens to your country.

These people were scared s***less. That's why they developed weapons. And this is how it has always been.

I can guarantee that the developments that individuals worked on and sold to the state was done in order to obtain some form of monetary gain.
I see you are looking at the world through pink glasses of a man growing in the time of peace.

Alright, how about you give me any serious advancements since the end of the cold war, and during time of economic prosperity all around, that compare to the advancements made during 5 years of the Second World War, when people barely had enough food to eat.


I give in to you though, you've bested me on a fact that I knew but wished not to accept. War and military development trumps the market on development, but I believe the costs of war and the threat of military technology are to great to be scene as an alternative. Would you agree that markets are second to war and military developments?
War is simply not-sustainable as a permanent state. It has been tried with Cold War, and it was a good run. But eventually economy collapses. Periods of war and peace give by far the fastest development of technology. We have been peaceful for way too long, and it shows.

As for the second part, you are essentially asking if the greed is the second best driving force after fear? I don't think so. It's the driving force for path of least resistance, which is only sometimes through innovation. Historically, philosophers and scientists did not work for money. They worked for fame, for knowledge, for ideals. Greed would fall somewhere down the line from these.

nathanj
26th Jun 2010, 01:59
we do need another cold war thats for sure. that is the ideal situation for existance. we have literally backslided in our space program to the point that we couldnt make a moon landing today if we wanted too. how the hell are we supposed to dominate alien species if we cant even do something we did 40 years ago. its pathetic.

im also convinced are next war will not be with china or north korea or even iran. its canada!

as for greed vs fame. davinci worked for both. he lived pretty well and actively sought out sponsors that could afford him. bill gates and steve jobs......worked for profit pure and simple. discounting the profit motive ignores the vast technological gulf between capitalist and noncapatilist countries. even the chinese communists realize that which is why they have adopted limited capatilism in the last several years. the soviets and eastern block could easily keep up with us in military technology. but when it game to quality of life and other technologies they werent even close.

my little theory is that pure scientests like the fame, while applied science scientests like the money.

PlasmaSnake101
26th Jun 2010, 02:02
The possession up for grabs during the Cold War was the dominance that comes with being the worlds only superpower. I guess neither side though nuclear winter was a good exchange for that.

Fluffis
26th Jun 2010, 02:02
im also convinced are next war will not be with china or north korea or even iran. its canada!

And cue music!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxPRHXgYVlk

nathanj
26th Jun 2010, 02:16
fortunately the canadians have capitalism so they will last longer than the soviets did. nuclear war is also off the table with them because.........well that is just obvious. im actually looking forward to the next cold war especially since i can watch them with my binoculars............im watching you. :cool:

PlasmaSnake101
26th Jun 2010, 08:38
fortunately the canadians have capitalism so they will last longer than the soviets did. nuclear war is also off the table with them because.........well that is just obvious. im actually looking forward to the next cold war especially since i can watch them with my binoculars............im watching you. :cool:

Sarah Palin could see the Russians from her backyard, don't ya know.

pringlepower
26th Jun 2010, 09:22
fortunately the canadians have capitalism so they will last longer than the soviets did. nuclear war is also off the table with them because.........well that is just obvious. im actually looking forward to the next cold war especially since i can watch them with my binoculars............im watching you. :cool:

That's just a stupid theory because you assume there'd be a Canada-US Cold War. Canada has a huge border and an army of 60 000 people, and a navy with 33 ships. If the US invades Canada, they win, and I doubt Canadians have the fanatacism and vigour of Islamist insurgents to have any meaningful guerilla resistance.

But why invade Canada. We're nice guys. We invented the zipper. You owe us.

JablesKage
26th Jun 2010, 09:25
however canada does have the uk as an ally

pringlepower
26th Jun 2010, 09:43
however canada does have the uk as an ally

If the US invades Canada it's gonna be more than just the UK that'll be pissed

K^2
26th Jun 2010, 11:29
we do need another cold war thats for sure. that is the ideal situation for existance. we have literally backslided in our space program to the point that we couldnt make a moon landing today if we wanted too. how the hell are we supposed to dominate alien species if we cant even do something we did 40 years ago. its pathetic.
Oh, don't even start me on that. I just ran the numbers a few days ago. The mission from Lunar Orbit to Mars would take up the same amount of fuel from Earth surface to the Moon. NASA was half way to Mars. Literally.

St. Mellow
26th Jun 2010, 14:12
Orson Welles said it best:

"In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed - they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love and five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did they produce? The cuckoo clock!"

:D

Kodaemon
26th Jun 2010, 14:19
I love that quote (Welles reportedly ad-libbed it for the movie!), but the problem is the Swiss never made cuckoo clocks.

They do make other ...interesting stuff (http://www.zanzig.com/travel/switzerland-photos/m012-68a.jpg) though. :nut:

pringlepower
26th Jun 2010, 18:48
;1432325']Orson Welles said it best:

"In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed - they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love and five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did they produce? The cuckoo clock!"

:D

It's ironic how prior to the 1500s the Swiss were the most badass mercenary country around

Pretentious Old Man.
26th Jun 2010, 19:11
"development" and "progression" are loaded words.

Maybe it's because I'm a historian, but I can discern no really positive progress leading to the modern world. New advances have brought with them new ****.

As a race, we've undeniably changed. But it's arrogant of most modern humans to assume they've actually progressed.

pringlepower
26th Jun 2010, 19:37
"development" and "progression" are loaded words.

Maybe it's because I'm a historian, but I can discern no really positive progress leading to the modern world. New advances have brought with them new ****.

As a race, we've undeniably changed. But it's arrogant of most modern humans to assume they've actually progressed.

You can't call the invention of Viagra not a development. It completely changes the future of human race as a whole!

Pretentious Old Man.
26th Jun 2010, 20:40
You can't call the invention of Viagra not a development. It completely changes the future of human race as a whole!

I meant developments in a more macro-sociological sense, but whatever floats your, uhhh, boat! :rasp:

My point is that people still get married, cheat, have kids, die, kill, rape, laugh, etc. Until these things meaningfully change, the "humanity has advanced" brigade are simply loosing sight of the fact that the fundamentals of the species remain absolutely unaltered.

AaronJ
26th Jun 2010, 22:53
It's really simple, just watch the trailer: Adam revolves people. By their heads.

I lol'd.

Dead-Eye
27th Jun 2010, 00:26
they both add technology. however i agree that war is the primary lever for human evolution (hence why we need more of it).

Please scroll to the bottom of this and then come back and say that "we need more war":
link (http://*********************.com/Offended) (NSFW)

...and before you comeback with some snide remark just keep in mind that stuff like this happens in the world because people like you are too blind to see how ignorant you're beliefs are.

K^2
27th Jun 2010, 06:59
Your link got censored.

The wars are necessary because people are two dumb to do what's good for them unless someone holds a gun to their head. Think about that next time you look at war imagery. War is just a symptom. If you manage to get rid of wars, there will be famines, disease outbreaks, and civil unrest. The body count will not be any better. At least, in wars, there is an inherent period of peace. That's worth fighting wars for.

maddermadcat
27th Jun 2010, 08:12
Please scroll to the bottom of this and then come back and say that "we need more war":

Coprophilia is the product of war?

Irate_Iguana
27th Jun 2010, 13:47
Your link got censored.

My bet is he linked to the "offended" page on Encyclopedia Dramatica.