Page 1 of 70 123451151 ... Last

Thread: DX:HR - Transhumanism (H+) -Politics/Philosophy/Religion/Prejudice/"Sentient"? Rights

DX:HR - Transhumanism (H+) -Politics/Philosophy/Religion/Prejudice/"Sentient"? Rights

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The highest ground...
    Posts
    23,047

    Arrow DX:HR - Transhumanism (H+) -Politics/Philosophy/Religion/Prejudice/"Sentient"? Rights

    Transhumanism

    Definition (internet sources):
    Transhumanism (sometimes abbreviated H+) is an emergent philosophy analysing or favouring the use of science and technology, especially neurotechnology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology, to overcome human limitations and improve the human condition.

    The term 'transhumanism' was coined by biologist Julian Huxley in 1957 who defined it as:

    "man remaining man, but trans-cending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature".


    In 1966, FM-2030 (formerly F.M. Esfandiary), an Iranian-American futurist who was teaching new concepts of the Human at New School University, began to identify as "transhuman" (a short hand for "transitory human") people who were adopting technologies, lifestyles and world views that were transitional to "posthumanity."

    Transhumanism, however, was given its modern definition and characterization by philosopher Dr. Max More: "Transhumanism is a class of philosophies that seek to guide us towards a posthuman condition. Transhumanism shares many elements of humanism, including a respect for reason and science, a commitment to progress, and a valuing of human (or transhuman) existence in this life. Transhumanism differs from humanism in recognizing and anticipating the radical alterations in the nature and possibilities of our lives resulting from various sciences and technologies."

    Transhumanism includes:

    * Advocacy of improvement to the human condition through enhancement technologies, such as eliminating aging and expanding intellectual, physical or physiological capacities.
    * The study of benefits, dangers and ethics of implementation of these technologies.

    ___


    To remind ourselves, the DX3 teaser trailer states the following:

    "For centuries, Man has struggled to understand his true nature."

    "What is it that makes us who we are?"

    "Soon, one answer will overide all others."

    "Who we are is but a stepping stone to what we can become."



    ___


    Okay, let's be inspired by the disclosure of the name "Deus Ex: Human Revolution" and get our teeth into some relevant discussion again. With the game in mind, I would like to invite your views on this important and relevant topic.


    I would also ask you to deliberate over the following two scenarios:

    Dr. Anders Sandberg describes modern transhumanism as "the philosophy that we can and should develop to higher levels, physically, mentally and socially using rational methods,"

    while Dr. Robin Hanson describes it as "the idea that new technologies are likely to change the world so much in the next century or two that our descendants will in many ways no longer be 'human'."


    Do you agree with Sandberg or Hanson's scenario, or perhaps you share both views?
    His summary is understandable in that he could just be suggesting that we will no longer be human in purist terms. Fair enough. One cannot argue that there will be significant change.

    My question is how can we not be human by any definition? Even if we consider extreme modifications in our biology, are we still not human in our minds? If we are believers (religious or spiritual) in some sort of continued existence after death, then surely death itself is a very significant change. We accept this change in death (not that we have a choice), so why do we not accept change in life? Will the philosophy behind transhumanism become, over time, a 'new religion'? Will this new belief system bring about the demise of existing religions... eventually? Is there argument that we would be better off having more faith in ourselves as a species, accept responsibility and make certain changes with the help of technology?

    The trailer suggested political agendas, street riots and discrimation.
    What would make some people prejudice about transhumanists? Is it fear? Self-importance? Self-preservation? Is prejudice an inability to be content with oneself? Is it a serious flaw in the thought-process of certain people? Will it always exist or will time and social change naturally bring about it's demise; or will a (technological) helping-hand be needed? Will it one day be possible to have ill-thoughts eradicated completely and, if so, would you see this as worth doing... or are we best letting things be and continuing as we are? What are some worried about? Is there a desire to protect some sort of "genetic patrimony"? Does this supercede an individual's right to choose? Transhumanism isn't geared towards making all humans 'perfect'. Rather, it wishes to offer everyone an equal start in life. Nature occasionally hands out a cruel 'short-straw' to individuals. Humans have many flaws, but we are only considering the more serious ones. Should we let all this continue, for the sake of remaining 'pure humans'?
    If humans could be "better" (not perfect) by physical modification and manipulation of genes etc, then why shouldn't we do so?


    Please bring your thoughts to the table.



    __


    UPDATES/Further info:

    Originally Posted by robertpolson
    Some of my notes on Transhumanism:

    General info:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

    http://www.fantastic-voyage.net/ShortGuidehtml.htm

    http://www.fantastic-voyage.net/ReaderQandA.htm*

    Kurzweil Accelerating Intelligence -*www.kurzweilai.net*

    In the news:

    ON a Tuesday evening this spring, Sergey Brin, the co-founder of Google, became part man and part machine. About 40 people, all gathered here at a NASA campus for a nine-day, $15,000 course at*Singularity*University, saw it happen.

    While the flesh-and-blood version of Mr. Brin sat miles away at a computer capable of remotely steering a robot, the gizmo rolling around here consisted of a printer-size base with wheels attached to a boxy, head-height screen glowing with an image of Mr. Brin’s face. The BrinBot obeyed its human commander and sputtered around from group to group, talking to attendees about Google and other topics via a videoconferencing system.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/bu...l?pagewanted=1

    3 Fun links to be read step by step:**

    1. http://bit.ly/h701JF*

    2.* Predictions - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age...al_Machines***

    3. Vision of the future http://www.sarifindustries.com/en

    Johnnie Walker -*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYC8fTv2jp4


    Science:

    ScienceDaily (Nov. 16, 2010) — Researchers have developed an artificial retina that has the capacity to reproduce normal vision in mice. While other prosthetic strategies mainly increase the number of electrodes in an eye to capture more information, this study concentrated on incorporating the eye's neural "code" that converts pictures into signals the brain can understand. - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1116102647.htm


    What is available now:

    Deus Ex: The Eyeborg Documentary -*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW78wbN-WuU

    A 15-Year-Old Girl’s Bionic Hand Lets Her Live a Normal Life -*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhB8DJ210qE

    New Bionic Prostheses For Partial-Hand Amputees -*http://bit.ly/kG3Bxo

    Bionic leg 2011 - http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2011/08/bionic-leg/

    Prosthetic arms of today:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk5Nc2htiRY

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk5Nc2htiRY

    Computer lens -*http://www.reuters.com/news/video?vi...videoId=111810

    Electronic contact lens -*http://www.reuters.com/news/video?vi...videoId=111810

    Meet the Courageous 18-Year-Old with a Brand New Bionic Hand*-*http://tv.gawker.com/5592972/meet-th...ew-bionic-hand
    signature image
    You are only minimally modified. Omar can help you correct this...

  2. #2
    Transhumanism is an unnecessary word, how it should be called its evolution.
    the telescopic evolution paradigm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saxX-Z6w3p4

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The highest ground...
    Posts
    23,047
    Originally Posted by atLaNt1s
    Transhumanism is an unnecessary word, how it should be called its evolution.
    If you prefer to call it 'evolution', then this is fine. It is only a word after all.
    So, what are your thoughts on the topic?
    signature image
    You are only minimally modified. Omar can help you correct this...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,958
    As I understand it, Transhumanism is about intentionally speeding up the human evolution process. I am against it. It reeks of impatience and it increases the imbalance between humans and the rest of the world and between those with the technology and those without it. I think it's a threat for the majority of people.

  5. #5
    I think if it were to come about it would no doubt be set on by the capitalists and then it would increase the divide between rich and poor more. Imagine if you could pay to be more intelligent or better at your job. Imagine if you couldn't afford to pay to do your job better!
    Perhaps then if we look at current trends and the fast rate of technological advancement; a rapid development of human improvements could cause a underground rebellion by the proletariat and civil unrest. But then there is always the chance that the technology could save the world. How about a possible collapse of capitalism it the 3rd game.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The highest ground...
    Posts
    23,047
    Interesting comments so far regarding availability for the rich and the poor.
    Regarding imbalance, would it be fair to say that the differences between those that "can" and those that "can't" will eventually even out and become readily available to the majority? As with all new technology, the costs often means that it is only available to a few in the beginning. Will not costs fall over time - becoming affordable to many more people and saving/improving how people live? Let's imagine that the situation balances out eventually - would that make transhumanism more agreeable to you? Or are there other factors in play?

    Fox, when you say it 'reeks of impatience' - do you mean you prefer us to remain exactly as we are in all ways? You see no room for improvement whatsoever? Or, that you recognise room for improvement, but you are against it all the same? If so, please could you elaborate further.

    You also mention the word "threat". What would that threat be, exactly? Does it negate itself in any way to the threats that currently exist (wars, homocide etc)?
    signature image
    You are only minimally modified. Omar can help you correct this...

  7. #7
    I like this philosophy, evolution is something that exists from the beginning of the world and it will always be out there naturally. Now if we can make it artificially, I can't see where the problem is.

    About the rich and poor. Yes, I imagine the situation. No money, no upgrades.
    + there will be the few who will want the power for themselves and only.

  8. #8
    Yea true it probably would eventually in reality but in a game would be cool! It kinda reflects the mood of society at seeing all these bankers getting money while we lose our jobs and has definitely influenced the film industry to make some cool apocalyptic films recently. I like the idea of striving for a united society and freedom to, but there has got to be some grit along the way. An underground revolution would be ace along. Maybe a crazy communist country could get hold of the technology and create a super race of soldiers, or workers that don't need to sleep and don't think. Effectively working zombies. Some underlying conspiracy for government to use the technology to understand and control the population would be good to. Would be good to have the choice to be good or bad in the game?

    As long as we strive to be better humans there will also be people who strive for personal gain whatever the costs. Its just human nature. But the good always prevails... At then at the end of the game you can have the everyone lived happily ever after if you want..

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,958
    Originally Posted by MyImmortal
    Fox, when you say it 'reeks of impatience' - do you mean you prefer us to remain exactly as we are in all ways? You see no room for improvement whatsoever? Or, that you recognise room for improvement, but you are against it all the same? If so, please could you elaborate further.

    You also mention the word "threat". What would that threat be, exactly? Does it negate itself in any way to the threats that currently exist (wars, homocide etc)?
    I prefer the slower, "non-invasive" (so to speak), way of evolution. There's lots of room for improvement but we can barely keep track with the technological and biological improvements we already have. A solid fundament paired with a moderate wish for progress is the way to go. Transhumanism is an unecessary extreme.

    I already mentioned the threats: it could (I actually think it's unevitable) easily lead to further division between the upgraded elite and the "lower" natural humans, for example. And no, I don' think that it ultimately leads to a better world for most people.

    Originally Posted by Soundscape_city
    But the good always prevails... At then at the end of the game you can have the everyone lived happily ever after if you want..
    See what Hollywood did to your brain?

  10. #10
    I was only Joking! You gotta understands this. Ideas are not bad its people that make them bad. Don't want to get to philosophical now

    Anyway what do you do myImmortal? Do you work for eidos?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,970
    Originally Posted by -=fox=-
    As I understand it, Transhumanism is about intentionally speeding up the human evolution process. I am against it. It reeks of impatience and it increases the imbalance between humans and the rest of the world and between those with the technology and those without it. I think it's a threat for the majority of people.
    Just guessing here, based on a hunch and not solid evidence, but I'm thinking this may be the overall theme of the game. Yeah, that seems kinda obvious from the trailer and what little we know, but...

    Originally Posted by MyImmortal
    Fox, when you say it 'reeks of impatience' - do you mean you prefer us to remain exactly as we are in all ways? You see no room for improvement whatsoever? Or, that you recognise room for improvement, but you are against it all the same? If so, please could you elaborate further.

    You also mention the word "threat". What would that threat be, exactly? Does it negate itself in any way to the threats that currently exist (wars, homocide etc)?
    I think what he means is that he doesn't mind people evolving (even artificially, through mech or nano augmentation), but that transhumanism speeds up the process unnaturally, and can have serious unintended consequences, which have already been touched on here. (Augmentation envy?)

    IOW, the benefits are okay, as long as they're done slowly over time to allow the rest of the world (not necessarily people, but society, customs, and maybe even nature) to keep up, and are available to all. Of course, human nature being what it is, that last point will never happen without some sort of revolution in human thinking, whether forced through violent revolution (which appears to be the case in DX:HR), or over a long period of time of gradual implementation (most likely over centuries or millenia).

    There are some that think our own current level of technology has left the world behind, and it's causing all sorts of problems. I'm not wanting to debate the validity of it one way or the other, but the Global Warming issue is generally a result of this expanding tech without thinking about the consequences - at least, that's what I've seen other people say about it. I'm noncommittal on the issue.

    Edit: Damn! Fox replied while I was typing. Slow two-finger typing...
    For when you're too lazy to repost your side of an argument/discussion: http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=115406

  12. #12
    Transhumanism also includes genetics, its manipulation, for example the ability to clone an individual, or the purposely mutation of genes, like gattaca:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/
    the telescopic evolution paradigm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saxX-Z6w3p4

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=MaxxQ1;1284290]Just guessing here, based on a hunch and not solid evidence, but I'm thinking this may be the overall theme of the game.

    Haha Thanks for clearing that up I wasn't sure if we were talking about the game or the actually idea in reality.

    Yea seeing as it says that their may be riots I'm guessing their will be some sort of revolution.. Hopefully.

    If you look at the artwork of the city I think they may have talked about this (dont quote me) Its like a crazy futuristic city will a top level of i guess rich people and the poor on the bottom..

    I wounder if there will be any open world elements to the game.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,970
    Originally Posted by Soundscape_city
    Originally Posted by MaxxQ1
    Just guessing here, based on a hunch and not solid evidence, but I'm thinking this may be the overall theme of the game.
    Haha Thanks for clearing that up I wasn't sure if we were talking about the game or the actually idea in reality.

    Yea seeing as it says that their may be riots I'm guessing their will be some sort of revolution.. Hopefully.

    If you look at the artwork of the city I think they may have talked about this (dont quote me) Its like a crazy futuristic city will a top level of i guess rich people and the poor on the bottom..

    I wounder if there will be any open world elements to the game.
    All part of the service. Shhhh... don't tell anyone, but I'm really Captain Obvious in disguise.
    For when you're too lazy to repost your side of an argument/discussion: http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=115406

  15. #15
    This game best be good after all the waiting! I'm not sure if I like that spider-man arm thing they have done. Seems a bit like they are just using the idea because the technology has already been developed. What do you reckon?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Montrealing all over this place
    Posts
    3,041
    Will not costs fall over time
    Not by much, really. The tech may go down in price eventually, for popular upgrades anyway, if it picks up enough to grant competition among firms as well as mass production economies, but I can't imagine for now any upgrade of that kind not requiring surgery, and those costs, they're not gowing anywhere near down over time.

    One could bring up plastic surgery as an example of surgery prices democratisating themselves over time, but the reality is that it usually comes with a price; quality of the work and expertise of the surgeon and staff. There are as many butched or problematic interventions as there are discount doctors turned improvised plastic surgeons out there.

    What I can see happening though are cutting edge companies paying to upgrade their most promising (or obedient) staff, the way some are presently financing advanced university studies or trades. Some form of "scholarships" are not entirely out of the picture either, but those will probably be minor. Profesional sports team may or may not finance operations for their players, but I suppose this will heavily depend on how major leagues will deal with the matter.

  17. #17
    That's sort of assuming that by the time we acheive what would truly be universally accepted as "transhumanism," we wouldn't already have the technology to fully automate surgeries, thus making them much much cheaper.

    As to the nature of transhumanisn, I am a full supporter. It is a technology like any other, it has advantages, but also comes with the potential for abuse. The fact is that we are limited by our own bodies. Our species is limited by the fact that we only have a ~75 year lifespan. It's not a lot of time to get things done, and work is always lost with the original mind, regardless of the notes they took. In theory, we will even be able to augment the processing power of the human brain. In the words of Dr. Steel, "I want to be smarter, stronger, and live longer/Speed up the accelerating returns, because carbon doesn't work/I want to evolve and operate at terahertz."

    Another thing to consider is the development of computer technologies, specifically in the field of artificial intelligence. Ignoring transhumanism, Ray Kurzweil theorizes that the technological singularity is going to happen around 2045. If it does, we're already staring down the barrel of potentially an entire other race as an independent superpower in ~35 years. If we don't want to get screwed in that relationship, we need to be able to keep up with them, and that isn't going to happen naturally.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    7,374
    Interesting thread, I'll be watching this one. Might even chip in on the discussion later on down the line.

    Originally Posted by Soundscape_city
    Anyway what do you do myImmortal? Do you work for eidos?
    That's a good question. I'm pretty sure Square Enix doesn't sign her paychecks...?

    What do you do, MyImmortal?
    Make a cup of tea. Enjoy a nice cheddar. Always bring a towel.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,032
    Originally Posted by MyImmortal
    Is it a serious flaw in the thought-process of certain people?
    this.
    Originally Posted by MrFoxter
    Reading news about DX:HR is like watching a soap opera. My daily amount of emotions has been exceeded.

  20. #20
    I don't understand - what happened to the other Transhumanism thread? I don't think resurrecting the discussion will change how people think about it, i.e. Transhumanism is BS plain and simple, and thoroughly (maybe not intentionally) anti-human in its outlook.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The highest ground...
    Posts
    23,047
    Originally Posted by TrickyVein
    I don't understand - what happened to the other Transhumanism thread? I don't think resurrecting the discussion will change how people think about it, i.e. Transhumanism is BS plain and simple, and thoroughly (maybe not intentionally) anti-human in its outlook.
    The other thread died ages ago, just like other topics have come and gone since. Besides, we have new members here who have yet to share their thoughts. Plus, we've only just heard that the game's full title is 'Human Revolution' and so it has inspired a new thread.

    Regarding your comments. Do you mean its BS and won't happen? Please could you elaborate on what you mean. The likes of cosmetic surgery and prosthetics is not BS, so we already see changes happening now.
    Why is it anti-human in its outlook? Please can you give us particular points so that we can respond.


    Originally Posted by Senka
    this.
    Yes. "The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n," (Milton: Paradise Lost)
    So, our flaws or sins(?... what some people would call it) are a fault of our minds... we can all agree on this.

    So, the question is - should we continue as we are and let things be, or should we consider using the help of technology to see if we can eradicate certain negative thought-processes? I would like to know if anyone here considers natural humanity to be beyond salvation? How many more centuries do you think we need to wait (and watch victims suffer) before we "all" reach a better place.
    If technological enhancement could suppress human vice and enhance our virtues - is there any reason to believe that by using enhancements we would interfere with human salvation?
    signature image
    You are only minimally modified. Omar can help you correct this...

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,970
    Originally Posted by MyImmortal
    So, the question is - should we continue as we are and let things be, or should we consider using the help of technology to see if we can eradicate certain negative thought-processes?
    Careful. That's a slippery-slope thought there. Whose is the final word on what is a positive or negative thought process? As I said before, human nature being what it is, there will always be someone who would take advantage of technology for their own personal needs/wants, and damn everybody else.

    Sure, society can decide what is "right" for the "greater good", but again, whose society? 30 years ago, the Soviets would have wanted a communist society. 70 years ago, it might have been fascism. Any number of societies nowadays might go for a theocracy. Not to mention that even if the human race matures enough to generally agree on what's best for the race as a whole, there are still going to be people, whether individuals or groups of like-minded people that are going to want to go against the majority. It's always been that way, and always will, unless you go the way of the Borg, forcing their way on those that may not want it.

    Originally Posted by MyImmortal
    I would like to know if anyone here considers natural humanity to be beyond salvation? How many more centuries do you think we need to wait (and watch victims suffer) before we "all" reach a better place.
    If technological enhancement could suppress human vice and enhance our virtues - is there any reason to believe that by using enhancements we would interfere with human salvation?
    I don't think the human race is, natural or otherwise, beyond salvation, but I certainly think the time it takes for us to all get along and be mature enough (as a race, not as individuals) to deal with problems without violence or forced adaptation will be measured in millenia, and not centuries. That's if we don't wipe ourselves out in the meantime.

    On the subject of augmenting humans to be "better", no matter what way you go about it - genetic manipulation, mechanical or nanotech additions, etc. - it should be available to those who WANT it, and not just to those who can afford it. As well, the choice should be freely made, not forced. Even a majority vote approving a modification should not be forced on those who may not want it. Sure, they may be left behind, but that's THEIR choice, and they still have the ability to change their minds later.

    TBH, I think humanity's greatest strength is its diversity. Our differences are what fuel our desires to move forward, and anything that narrows the differences between people will bring us that much closer to stagnation. I also think wars have a place in our maturity and advancement, provided people learn from them, and don't just continue the cycle for no gain in understanding. I'm not saying that war is good, but that it CAN help in the long run to make us better people, and I don't think it will ever completely go away.

    I don't know if I'm a pessimistic optimist, or an optimistic pessimist...
    For when you're too lazy to repost your side of an argument/discussion: http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=115406

  23. #23
    Originally Posted by MaxxQ1
    Careful. That's a slippery-slope thought there. Whose is the final word on what is a positive or negative thought process? As I said before, human nature being what it is, there will always be someone who would take advantage of technology for their own personal needs/wants, and damn everybody else.

    Sure, society can decide what is "right" for the "greater good", but again, whose society? 30 years ago, the Soviets would have wanted a communist society. 70 years ago, it might have been fascism. Any number of societies nowadays might go for a theocracy. Not to mention that even if the human race matures enough to generally agree on what's best for the race as a whole, there are still going to be people, whether individuals or groups of like-minded people that are going to want to go against the majority. It's always been that way, and always will, unless you go the way of the Borg, forcing their way on those that may not want it.



    I don't think the human race is, natural or otherwise, beyond salvation, but I certainly think the time it takes for us to all get along and be mature enough (as a race, not as individuals) to deal with problems without violence or forced adaptation will be measured in millenia, and not centuries. That's if we don't wipe ourselves out in the meantime.

    On the subject of augmenting humans to be "better", no matter what way you go about it - genetic manipulation, mechanical or nanotech additions, etc. - it should be available to those who WANT it, and not just to those who can afford it. As well, the choice should be freely made, not forced. Even a majority vote approving a modification should not be forced on those who may not want it. Sure, they may be left behind, but that's THEIR choice, and they still have the ability to change their minds later.

    TBH, I think humanity's greatest strength is its diversity. Our differences are what fuel our desires to move forward, and anything that narrows the differences between people will bring us that much closer to stagnation. I also think wars have a place in our maturity and advancement, provided people learn from them, and don't just continue the cycle for no gain in understanding. I'm not saying that war is good, but that it CAN help in the long run to make us better people, and I don't think it will ever completely go away.

    I don't know if I'm a pessimistic optimist, or an optimistic pessimist...
    i think at the core of this debate is the question of whether or not being human as any meaning aside the definition of what constitutes a "human".

    do we matter? does what we do matter? if it matters, then we should preserve it? to preserve the meaning of being human?

    i tend to think we dont matter. and that we're justa collection of cells and chemicals. my meaning for the htings that happen in my life are for me and no one else. it's the duality of our lives being hyper-special and sacred and because of that, alos totally meaningless.

    i think transcending human biology is inevitable... and will maybe strt out as being an elite ting, but once it becomes necessary for survival on earth, since earth is also chaninging and will have to adapt... once the air is no longer totally suitable for human breathing, we will have to adapt with the earth... and modification might be necessary...

    or if we moveto space... it seems reasonable to assume that some sort of space gear will be needed (i'm thinking some sort of space suit) and after awhile... why ALWAYS wear a suit... just build everything into my body.

    i think human modifation is a part of evolution. and technology in general, including chemical technology... it's all natural. the idea of something being artificial should be discounted as too black and white for a highly advance society of... apes.... we wont cease to be apes... h+ is clearly "human PLUS" as oppose to non human.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,554
    Of course this whole transhumanism thing (especially in 2027) is nonsense. There will never be much use for augmentations except for some unique cases and certainly won't be worth the downsides.This was beautifully and realistically depicted by DX in which mechanically augmented people were extremely rare and in all cases government projects (even in 2052, yes).
    Perhaps when nano-augmentations become possible, which might allow augs to integrate with body more naturally, augmentations will become more widespread, but its use will still be rather limited. It's crazy awesome to be able to lift a car with one arm, but its usefulness is limited in everyday life and certainly not worth the loss of a limb and millions of dollars and months of revalidation and relearning all basic body functions.
    Apparently there are people who think the best way to make
    a prequel is to contradict the thing to which it is a prequel.

  25. #25
    Originally Posted by gamer0004
    Of course this whole transhumanism thing (especially in 2027) is nonsense. There will never be much use for augmentations except for some unique cases and certainly won't be worth the downsides.This was beautifully and realistically depicted by DX in which mechanically augmented people were extremely rare and in all cases government projects (even in 2052, yes).
    Perhaps when nano-augmentations become possible, which might allow augs to integrate with body more naturally, augmentations will become more widespread, but its use will still be rather limited. It's crazy awesome to be able to lift a car with one arm, but its usefulness is limited in everyday life and certainly not worth the loss of a limb and millions of dollars and months of revalidation and relearning all basic body functions.
    i'm sure there must be some sort of... lawn cutting aug that would be great for alot of people.... or a snow shoveling one. or a plumbing aug.

    but you point out something that i haven't heard much... that whole idea that, according to the trailer from years ago... there are enough augmented people to induce prejudice... how come NONE were encountered in DX except for anna/gunther?

Page 1 of 70 123451151 ... Last