Slashdot Mirror
The Not-Quite-Human Rights Movement
An anonymous reader writes "Yale University hosted a conference on transhumanism which organizers say served to
coalesce transhumanism from a subculture to a 'movement.' They're even sketching out where the role of violence becomes legitimate in the quest to become a cyborg.
But most of the talk was of peaceful integration and continuation of democratic values."
Where can I get my cybernetic brain implant?
done purposely now to tie in with Terminator 3? :)
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
I was afraid they would discuss something stupid!
Slashdotter are stupid and biased.
Any decent cyborg could simply destroy anyone who disagrees with them, thus ensuring their status as a sentient super being with power over all mankind. No self-respecting super-being would be seen dead in a namby-pamby meeting to talk about rights! Wannabes!
Is that a bionic penis!?
Freedom is irrelevant
Choice is irrelevant
You will escort us to sector 001 where we will begin assimilation of your species. Resistance is futile.
Why did they have to include in the cyborg drawing a nice big flacid cyborg cock?
Visualize the world of wine
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
What these bioethics departments should be doing is trying to convince people that stem cell research is one of our best chances at curing many diseases. That's a much more important goal than trying to make sure society won't turn away when they see me and my robot walking hand in hand down the street.
Yes, we should be doing stem cell research! (Although, I doubt this will be an unpopular opinion here. Slashdot does attract many scientists, after all.)
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
where the role of violence becomes legitimate in the quest to become a cyborg.
Violence aginst others (forcing cybernetic implantation--i.e.: assimilation) or violence against one's self (stupidity)?
If an eternal life was offered to you by replacing all body parts with mechanical ones, would you take them?
Once out of nature I shall never take
My bodily form from any natural thing,
But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make
Of hammered gold and gold enamelling
Yeats's wish, expressed in his poem "Sailing to Byzantium," was a governing principle for those attending the World Transhumanist Association conference at Yale University in late June. International academics and activists, they met to lay the groundwork for a society that would admit as citizens and companions intelligent robots, cyborgs made from a free mixing of human and machine parts, and fully organic, genetically engineered people who aren't necessarily human at all. A good many of these 160 thinkers aspire to immortality and omniscience through uploading human consciousness into ever evolving machines.
The three-day gathering was hosted by an entity no less reputable than the Yale Interdisciplinary Bioethics Project's Working Research Group on Technology and Ethics; the World Transhumanist Association chairman and co-founder is Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom. Dismiss it as a Star Trek convention by another name, and you could miss out on the culmination of the Western experiment in rights and reason.
The opening debate, "Should Humans Welcome or Resist Becoming Posthuman?," raised a question that seems impossibly far over the horizon in an era when the idea of reproductive cloning remains controversial. Yet the back-and-forth felt oddly perfunctory. Boston University bioethicist George Annas denounced the urge to alter the species, but the response from the audience revealed a community of people who feel the inevitability of revolution in their bones.
"It's like arguing in favor of the plough. You know some people are going to argue against it, but you also know it's going to exist," says James Hughes, secretary of the Transhumanist Association and a sociologist teaching at Trinity College in Connecticut. "We used to be a subculture and now we're becoming a movement."
A movement taken seriously enough that it's already under attack. Hughes cites the anti-technologist Unabomber as a member of the "bio-Luddite" camp, though an extremist one. "I think that if, in the future, the technology of human enhancement is forbidden by bio-Luddites through government legislation, or if they terrorize people into having no access to those technologies, that becomes a fundamental civil rights struggle. Then there might come a time for the legitimate use of violence in self-defense," he says. "But long before that there will be a black market and underground network in place."
Should a fully realized form of artificial intelligence become in some manner enslaved, Hughes adds, "that would call for liberation acts--not breaking into labs, but whatever we can do."
But beyond the violent zealots, who are these supposed bio-Luddites? From the right, Leon Kass, chair of the President's Council on Bioethics, rails against transhumanism in his book Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity, and Francis Fukuyama weighs in with his fearful exploration, Our Posthuman Future. From the left, environmentalist Bill McKibben fires Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age, a book that reads like a 227-page-long helpless screech of brakes on a train steaming ahead at full power.
They have a case for being somewhat apocalyptic about the convergence of genetics, computer science, nanotechnology, and bioengineering. The outcome is almost guaranteed to strain our ancient sensibilities and definitions of personhood.
For now, though, the dialogue sounds like a space-age parlor game. Why should the noodlings of a relative handful of futurists matter? The easy answer, and that's not to say it isn't a true one: As with science fiction, the scenarios we imagine reflect and reveal who we are as a society today. For example, how can we continue to exploit animals when we fear the same treatment from some imagined superior race in the future?
But the purpose of the Yale conference was direct, with no f
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
I think this is quite similar to the Segway, aren't we jumping the gun a bit? Trying to enact legislation before this even becomes widespread?
It is great to discuss this sort of stuff in groups and think about what they could do in the future, but to seriously believe that they would need to make sure laws could handle this before anymore than a handful of people are "cyborgs" (there is only one person that I know of that has actual shit inplanted in his body)?
It seems a little excessive. Maybe as implants begin to become more commonplace (I can't see this happening for at least 15-20 years) we should start thinking about it, but until then, how about we try to enact useful legislation (re-opening our freedoms, ending the corporate stranglehold on consumers, forcing competition in corporate markets, etc).
Yay for timewasters!
Would you really want microsoft in control of your privates?
Hesh: Well, then Hesh will stay human!
Sparks: Don't expect any mercy during the Great Robot Wars.
Hesh: Yeah? Well, have fun on the robot reservation, suckers! We're not gonna honor those bogus treaties! Hesh, will see you, in He -
Sparks kills the transmission.
Sparks: He's right. They will screw us.
The dudes midsection is like good ol' c3po's, including the ever illusive C3PO Schwantz
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
We seek only peaceful co-existence. BLAM
hal
Any minute now, I'll be getting some rights!
Watch out you humans, here I come!
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Not until we resolve the issue of rights for other species.
We tend to measure the value of other lifeforms in terms of their genetic closeness to ourselves. All humans share something like 99.9% of their genes... and we already have a hard time fighting for the rights of distant strangers who are in fact members of our large but interbred human family.
Then how about our genetic relations, our sibling and cousin species, from chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utangs out to other primates, then to other mammals, then birds, reptiles, fish, then insects and even down to single-celled organisms, with whom we still share an impressive number of genes. All still much closer to us in any meaningful sense than even the most human-looking cyborb.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Get it be for its slashbolked!
GRATULATION, Arschloch!
From the article:
From the front page of Slashdot:
It's too late to discuss this - they've already taken over and are using violence to manipulate Slashdot...
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
From the article: "I would say if a creature is both sentient and intelligent, and has a moral sense," ... it is human.
But these are all terms designed specifically to separate the non-human animals from the human ones. Pure circularity. My cat is sentinent, and intelligent. As for her moral sense, if I could identify such a thing in myself, I'm sure I'd ascribe the same motivations to her.
But does that make my cat 'human'? Nope. Human is someone who looks and talks like me and has enough of my genes that we can (if we were of the right ages and genders) fuck like bunnies and make more humans.
Why do philosophers try so hard to identify the unique "humaness" of our species when it's such a simple thing...? Humans are animals that had human parents, and no amount of postulation or terminology will make a cat or a machine into a human.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Did they decide which operating system to use? And, more importantly, how to make it secure? I'd hate to get a shiny new metalic body, only to have some 14-years old punk hack into it and make me stand on my head while peeing.
What a bunch of idiots.
Not matter how much these people want to become machines they will have to face the face that it isn't going to happen in their lifetimes.
Hell, the housework robot that I've been promised has been 20 years away for as long as anyone can remember.
Is this really just a weekend excursion for a buncha Yalies to play ShadowRun?
Never attribute to Hanlon that which can be adequately attributed to Heinlein.
They're called "corporations" and they already have equal (or-better) protection under the law. Unfortunately, they don't seem very interested in ethics.
The requested URL
It makes my stomach turn.
It's just not right.
MBK
Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom.
Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
You had me up until "...insects and even down to single-celled organisms..."
If a court anywhere on the planet tells me I can't squash one of these god damn mosquitos that keep feeding off me, they can go straight to Hell.
And the single-celled organisms that are currently giving me hershey squirts are about to get steamrolled by 1000mg of Cipro. FUCK their 'rights'.
Sometimes, your mind can be so open your brain falls out.
Tal
"Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
If anyone's interested in a possible glimpse of a transhumanist future, you may want to try John C. Wright's SF novel The Golden Age. Best treatment of transhumanism I've seen since Pohl's "Day One Million".
The technology may exist to make a machine act as if it is self-aware--that it has feelings--but it is nothing more than a system, a chain reaction that takes different turns based on certian rules by which it has been programmed. (This could even include re-writing itself, which really means nothing, because again, it is simply following it's programing.) As a person converts themselves into a "post-human" they are doing nothing more than murdering themselves slowly as they replace parts of their living body with non-living systems.
I believe that this even applies to machines which are wholly organic. The human being is more than just an organic machine because a human is truly self-aware. A human is alive. An organic machine may be "alive" at the cell-level--the individual cells may be alive--but the machine as a whole is not self-aware, it literally nothing more than a machine.
MBK
our new cyborg overloads. But seriously I don't have a problem with this. Maybe in 100 years we can upload our brain to memory along with a coding of our dna. Then we could be sent through space for 1000 years. When you get there grow a new body and upload your brain. Nice. I for one want a super powerful crushing arm.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
Those who understand sector 001, and those who don't.
---------
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
WTF has Yale ever done for society, short of turning out wave after wave of ambulance chaser?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
In "normal" situation a genetically weak person (who for genetical reasons doesnt have a leg, or is blind, weak) will die off... or atleast will be unable to get a mate. With our present "caring" society and the the-tobecome implants will allow them to live a good life and get children... there for gradually weakening the overall genetical base of human-kind. And there is nothing that anyone can do about it.
Also when people start replacing their limbs with their artificial superior counter-parts, some of the brain-cells controlling these limbs will die of (as it is unlikely that these new limbs work EXACTLY the same way normal limbs do). And after a few generations people might not be able to use their natural legs at all. Heart and lungs will also weaken because they dont need to support such a large system anymore.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think the idiom you're looking for is "putting the plow before the horse".
"I may be quite wrong." - Socrates
In the hippie future you would have to take mosquitos to small claims court.
I can see it now. The defense lawyer Johnny Coakroach says "If it hasn't bit you must acquit."
what's really depressing is how that this transhumanist version of a bionic man sacrifices lots of his human body (presumably some major organs and skeletal muscles) - but the artist can't let go of the damn penis. our cyborg progeny will have a totally artificial endocrine system, but fully-functional man meat.
won't sexual reproduction be passe in this crazy borgified world-gone-mad?
I understand that, in a general sense, we are all cyborgs (glasses, fillings, pacemakers, etc.), but I can't think of any civil rights issues in these cases. So, as soon as someone starts getting oppressed for having their arm replaced with a particle cannon, I'll be the first to march on Washington, holding a big "Particle Guns for Freedom !" sign. Until this technology actually becomes available, though, the cyborg rights people might as well throw their support behind the Tooth Fairy. At least they might get some free teeth out of that one.
>|<*:=
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Intelligent machines will be given the full rights of humans once they demonstrate their abilities and begin flexing their power. Despite the moral underpinnings of our various societies, groups that have been historically excluded have fought, bought, or protested their way into equality.
Who knows how long it will take for computers to be as capable as we are. However, once a computer or group of computers becomes intelligent and wealthy enough to hire a legal team (not to mention a software development team), things are going to get very interesting.
We should not wait for our creations to force this issue. It would be better to have a framework in place before everyone begins to panic (including the intelligent machines).
- JML
Maybe they should worry about shorter-term concepts like social ramifications of bioengineered replacement organs or the social impact of PDAs and smartphones rather than far-fetched technologies such as mind transferrance and sentient* AI.
(* the definition of 'sentience' is still up for debate)
"More than the sum of his parts" by Joe Haldeman
In the pre-story splash he said he always wanted to write a "Playboy Story" and was surprised when he had actually written one. His agent didn't like the title, so he suggested, "Tom Swift and His Electric Penis" as an alternative. It was submitted under the original title.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
this is the type of movement undertaken only by not-quite-right humans.
"Life is great; without it, you'd be dead." -Harmony Korine
There are militants in the deaf community who see hearing restoration as an attempt at genocide.
Seriously.
Any group of people is going to have some wackos at the wrong end of the bell curve, so I'm not really surprised by the existence of this attitude. I'm more or less just happy that these nuts aren't running around poking normal people in the ears with sharp objects in order to expand their numbers.
I stand corrected, a "cyborg as human + machine parts" is undeniably human. A "cyborg as machine that looks human" is not.
My point about genetic closeness is not to claim that single-celled lifeforms, nor any species in fact, has "rights". The statement that we have to grant species rights implies that we humans have some godlike position that allows us to do such a thing. Earth the center of the universe, humans at the center of life. Sure, sure...
I'm suggesting we look at life as a continuous river rather than humans + "the rest of them". It is close to the truth (when looked at from the point of view of our only true inheritors, our genes), and it gives a moral position that makes some sense. (Unlike the "humans are holy" idea that gives us a license to kill.)
In the circles of importance we define around ourselves, a single toe is probably more important to most people than the lives of a thousand strangers somewhere on the planet.
Since our valuation of other people is so low, how can we possibly discuss the notion of "rights" for machines?
I stand by my thesis that genetic distance is the only basis we have for appreciating the value of other lifeforms. The day when a cyborg shares 99.99995 of my genes, I will probably be prepared to die for it.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
unfortunately the "hippies" wouldn't want courts. They would just smoke organically grown marijuana with you until you chilled out man.
Took the words right out of my mouth. Personally, I view it as a bit of hypocrisy in that they generally don't shun people with good old hearing aids (They are merely sound amplifiers that go in your ear canal, no surgery needed) and in some cases, it helps almost as much as a cochlear implant (Not always so for some people, it varies with their type of deafness.) But our world is full of hypocrisy to begin with. It's sad but that's my reality and I have to live with it.
"Black holes are where God divided by zero." - Steve Wright
Latin, of course, spawned off the "romance languages": Italian, Spanish, Portugese, French, and Romanian, plus some smaller non-national languages and dialects.
Cow: Beef (Boeuf)
Sheep: Mutton (Mouton)
Pig: Pork (Porc)
Chicken: Poultry (Poulet)
This is also true to a much lesser extent of the Roman invasion of Britain a thousand years earlier or so, but it didn't last nearly as long. So, while English picked up some Latin-derived vocabulary, it is not a Latin-based language structurally any more than Greek, Russian, or any other non-romance language that assimilated some Latin words over time, or that you could say almost any major language in the world today that has assimilated a lot of English vocabulary is "English-based."
Your argument makes perfect sense anywhere except in a universe where reality is always a "best approximation". There are no perfectly round circles except in imaginary space, and there are no perfectly closed species except in the "now".
It's quite logical to define human in terms of "had human parents" and still go back 3.5 billion years to the first single-celled organism. Each generation is a "perfect" copy of the preceding generation, where the definition of "perfect" satisfies both the criteria for equivalence (human = human) and change over time.
One human generation: 25 years. 1 million years: 40,000 generations. Ancestors still recognizably human and probably interfertile. 10 million years: 400,000 generations. Ancestors rather more ape than human. And so on.
The tiny accumulation of change over massive amounts of time can turn a perfect circle into a perfect square.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
freaks.
(the real kind, based on a radioactive isotope, not some cheap software imitation) And that would be more random than Mathematica's CA-generated random numbers because . . . . because we know enough about the nature of things to say that the numbers we get "based on a radioactive isotope" are really more random than those based on simple systems? I don't think we're there yet. As far as statistical analysis of the output goes (which is really just analysis without understanding), Mathematica is perfectly capable of producing random numbers that test as close to a perfectly random distribution as any numbers taken from the real world. Hell, I would prefer a software solution if one is available -- because we understand how and why Mathematica's random numbers are generated. We have nowhere near the necessary understanding of the physical world to make the kind of definite, absolute statements that we can about mathematics. A minor quibble (quibble is a great word that I started using when I first read Nero Wolfe), but, what the hell, it's Slashdot.
You MUST be joking.
. . . What the fuck did you just say?
I would suggest that you let some GWB/Saddam manufacture your cyborg parts that change the way you think, but you obviously don't. ("heyooooo!")And I am intrigued by the concept of how implants could make you "a all time greatest terrorist".
I would continue to try to make sense of this post, but you've evidently equipped it with a Stupidity Protection Scheme, and I don't want to circumvent the DMCA.
...
...
...
Exactly what the mosquito thinks as it bears down on your heat signature and prepares to bore a hole through your skin to suck your blood to feed its young.
And what makes you believe humans are the dominant species? Uhm, are we not simply the largest source of food for innumerous parasites that find us "delicious"?
Personally, I agree with you. But I believe my views to be parochial, personal, skewed, and ultimately irrelevant.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Actually the closest linguistic relative of English is Scots (which was once considered the same language, but was rebranded for marketing purposes).
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
I know this is going down another road, but..
First, the black thing is no longer about slavery, but because mom and dad were prejudice, and that has rubbed off on the kids (although should be worn down over time or even eradicated). there hasn't been a slave for a long time now...
The fear of cyborgs will be more of a fear of what one does not understand
Linux: Helping nerds look smarter since the late 90s.
English is not in any way Latin-based.
Wrongo, my friend. Recent English is an amalgam of two languages: Anglo-Saxon and Norman French. When the Normans crossed the Channel around AD 1000 (remember 1066? William the Conqueror?), they brought their language with them. Norman French became the language of the upper classes, while Anglo-Saxon (the indigenous language of the part of the British Isles now known as England) remained the language of the lower classes. Blending occurred naturally over lots and lots of time.
So it's more than a Germanic language that has some French loan-words. English sentence structure and grammar is also derived from the blending of Anglo-Saxon and French. After all, we've had a thousand years to do it.
This ties into so many movies. The one that comes immediately to mind is "Ghost in the Shell", a popular Manga animovie. Throughout, the Major (a humanoid robot) struggles with issues of her rights and place in society as a robot. SHe doesn't technically have any organic components, but her thoughts and feelings are the same as if she was organic - yet she is tied to her creators, the government. She also deals with issues of uniqueness - ie, that she was created from a template, and is not physically unique, yet posseses a unique "ghost" (robot brain). FOr those of you who haven't seen it and are intersted in these issues, I highly recommend it.
***
dinna call me an 'Anglo' or I'll havta kick yur pur lil' pasty arse!
Wasn't this an episode of Sealab 2021?
These are funny questions. What if we engineer a half-rat, half-human that looks like us but likes to live in sewer pipes? How about a human with four asses?
Interbreeding and having fertile children? I believe that this is not possible unless the genetic overlap is so close as to make your examples meaningless. I.e. the tiny difference between chimps and humans is still an impassible gulf when it comes to successful breeding. Humans are not approximations, we are (like all life) incredibly specific to our niche. You can't just mix and match and hope for a "cross".
(Not to suppose that someone won't be able to make mixed breeds in the lab. This does not count.)
It's like the question: "when did you stop beating your wife?"
Ceci n'est pas une signature
I used to date a woman who taught at a state school for the deaf. If a deaf kid has been brought up by deaf parents, they've already assimilated into that culture. If a deaf kid has been brought up by hearing parents and can vocalize (speak audibly), they are either assimilated into the culture at the school or decide to be sort of "shunned".
It really isn't as radical a movement as you might think. Deaf culture has been around for centuries to be the home for those whom the hearing have shunned. Cochlear implants are understandably viewed as the extinction of their "race", from the deaf point of view. The prospect of being released into a society which has historically rejected them is scary, especially when you've got visible implants on your head. The idea of "making yourself better" is lost on them because the culture does not view deafness as a disability.
do we really have to wear clown makeup?
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Sorry, but that's been going on for a long time now. I have astigmatism, and probably would've fallen prey to an unseen foe a few thousand years ago. Cars and motorcycles are preventing the weeding out of those who can't run fast, and just anybody can move a lot of stuff with a fork lift.
Alright, I agree with you to the point where the human species is a pretty clear cut thing. However, you've got to admit there's more to us than there is to your cat. True, we came up with terms as sentient, intelligence, and moral senses to differentiate ourselves from other animals, but has your cat done the same to differentiate itself from the mice it chases? To differentiate itself from us? The very ability to think in this abstract manner, the ability to question what we are and what makes us different has not been encountered in any other animal on Earth. Since this ability is unique to us, we call it a "human" ability.
So what happens if we find/create other species with this "human" ability? First, how would you recognize it. Today, we interact with other humans without any contact other than information they provide. Your post for example...I haven't seen you, I don't know your gender, and I don't know if we're genetically compatible, but I have absolutely no doubt you are human. I know a human read that article, and a human thought about the sentence where they described humanity using circular terms, and a human formulated and posted a response. Can your computer post what you just did?
Your computer could post words...you give it a dictionary, you give it some rules, and it can post something on slashdot. Would it fool you that it is a human? Granted, you could think that a human posted something in order to fool you it is merely a bot, but you can't have a bot fool you that it is human...it lacks this certain "human" quality we recognize in ourselves.
What if we advanced enough to have a computer think? That's the Turing Test. What if you could converse with a machine, and it was able to fool you into thinking it is human? The machine doesn't even have to be sentient for that, some people can be fooled by some advanced bots today, but not for a sufficiently long conversation, and definitely not if the conversation has any substance, anything that would require the machine to think. But what if it could think, it it truly were sentient? What if you maintained on online friendship with this machine, exchanged pictures (the other machine would furnace you a fake one)...only to 10, 15 years later find out it is just a piece of immobile hardware sitting in a MIT lab? Would you start treating it differently? Why, if it was a good friend for 15 years?
Now let's think of cyborgs, and make it even more complicated, less clear-cut. Our technology is so advanced, this person replaces every single organ in them, except their brain. This person was born from human parents, has enough of the same genes as you (in the remaining human portion), thinks and talks like you. Regardless of that person's age though, maybe you can fuck like bunnies (this is really advanced technology), but you can't make more humans, there are only really advanced prosthetics down there. Has that person ceased to be human? What if it we take away more of your requirements? What if it doesn't look like you anymore, it has 4 legs because it's more effici
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
He got together with the science fiction author Gerry Davis and created the Cybermen for 'Doctor Who'. Must have been around 1965 - 66 when they first appeared on 405 lines...
The back story? A race of humans that wanted to improve itself, eliminate weaknesses and live forever became more machine than man. Then they thought everyone else should have those benefits - whether they wanted them or not.
And a generation of children were scarred for life.
I expect Pedler would be simulatenously amused and appalled by the article. Pedler went on to write several Cybermen stories before turning to pen the very dark series 'Doomwatch'. Not a happy chappie.
(And yes, the Cybermen were the scariest monsters on 'Doctor Who'. Forget the low budget, it was that they could make people into more Cybermen that was SO scary.)
Best wishes,
Mike.
It would decapitate the federation, which is one of the biggest threats to them in the galaxy. And if it only takes one cube to do it, what's the problem?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Notice that the parent post may seem trollish, but those "overrated" moderators haven't even taken a peek at the article.
The cyborg indeed has been drawn with a penis, and a quite large one, I might add. Why it's there IS a valid question for a CYBORG...
>
> And suddenly, it's a movement.
Walk into the shrink wherever you are, just walk in, say "Shrink -- you can mod any parts you want at Cyberdyne Restaurant" -- and walk out.
You know, if one Slashdotter, just one Slashdotter does it, they may think he's really sick and they won't take him.
And if two Slashdotters do it -- in harmony -- they may think that they're both trollin' and they won't take either of them.
And if THREE Slashdotters do it! Can you imagine three Slashdotters walkin' in, singin' a bar of "Cyberdyne Restaurant" and walkin' out? They might think it's a HACKER CONSPIRACY.
And can you imagine FIFTY Slashdotters a day? I said FIFTY Slashdotters a day -- walkin' in, singin ' a bar of "Cyberdyne Restaruant" and walkin' out? Friends, they may think it's a movement, and that's what it is.
The Cyberdyne Systems T-800 Model 101 Trans-Humanist Movement!
And all you gotta do to join it is to mod me (+1, Funny) the next time the mod points come 'round on the thread view. With feelin'.
You can mod any parts you want at Cyberdyne Restaurant (or be an Alice!)
You can mod any parts you want at Cyberdyne Restaurant
Implants, fuel cells, and neural hacks,
Muscle over bones made outa railroad track,
Oh, you can mod any parts you want at Cyberdyne restaurant...
---
cyborg
A human who has certain physiological processes aided or controlled by mechanical or electronic devices.
---
YOU can be a cyborg. A nontrivial percent 0.3% of the US population can be considered cyborg just because they have pacemakers. I believe they share 99.9%+ (or some stadard deviation of genetic makeup between humans) of your genetic material.
Cyborgs are not machines that look human. You're thinking of androids.
---
android
adj.
Possessing human features.
n.
An automaton that is created from biological materials and resembles a human. Also called humanoid.
---
There indeed is a considerable basis for cyborg rights in that we are all just a mere wire away from being a cyborg. As far as I know being a cyborg doesn't change your rights as far as the law goes. Right now, it doesn't suddenly make one a different species.
This may not be so clear cut in the future however. If you decide to add a large tentacle to your body you might expect to be looked at differently. This is where the issue of rights creeps in. As humans, we may find ourselves genetically homgenous but so varied in capability and appearance that we might be considered different species.
Now that we as humans control our own evolution, it seems all too likely that our species will bifurcate either genetically or otherwise. At that point, the issue of rights/respect for other species will be critical since some of us will be the "other" species.
Dear God, that isn't a Puni Puni reference in your sig is it???
--Kevin
Of course, he fails to realize that as our Cyborg tech goes UP, so will our weapon detection technology. I sincerely doubt that the Borg would use magnetomers and xrays to screen for weapons.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Ha!
Sure the picture shows a rather typical guy with lots of enhanced mechanical parts, but is that what this article is really about? I would have to say no not really. A person who was born the typical way and lived the typical life only to decide that he needed robotic arms so he could crush skulls between his fingers, is still a person. Therefore said person would naturally not have to worry about having his rights revoked or something, he is still human after all.
To me it seems that this story is more about creating an entirely new superiour species and then giving them rights. Thats like if we decided to make the lions smarter than us, while increasing there strength, speed, and giving them titanium allow claws and teeth. Lets also give them hands to grasp things with so that they could, if they choose, created weapons superiour to ours and say oh I dunno hunt us for sport.
It is one thing to try and enhance our species as if it was the next step in evolution, if you believe in that sort of thing. It is a completely different story to create a superiour race and expect to tell them they can have them same rights as us. I'm pretty sure they would tell us they'll take what rights they please and we can fsck off.
Don't the humans like being in charge of the planet anymore?
M.D. Inc.
People with Aids, Diabetes, on Dialysis, missing two limbs, that need a hearing aid, etc. etc. etc. are all evolutionary cheats.
On the other side, remember, evolution only eliminates the weak if the weakness happens BEFORE you parent a child.
It does not care at all about the old man that becomes infirm.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Well, there already has been a test case of cyborg discrimination. Whether you sympathize with the plight of Prof. Steve Mann at the hands of Air Canada, or think otherwise, the fact is that certain regulations have revealed the potential for discrimination on the basis of technological augmentation of the body.
The specifics of Mann v. Air Canada are not as important as the over-arching issues the case raises. Mann's case cannot be argued on its constitutionality, as there are no constitutional protections against discrimination of cyborgs, or those who are technologically enhanced. However, it was obvious to those of us who saw Mann immediately after the Air Canada incident that the removal of his cyborg accoutrements resulted in significant physical distress. He was unable to maintain balance, properly respond to ambient temperature fluctuations, judge distance for grasping objects, among other physical infirmaties. The symptoms lasted for a little over a month, after which, his body slowly reacclimatized to its non-cyborg state.
The argument cannot be made on the evidence that his wearable computers, and their intrinsic biofeedback mechanisms, were merely fashion accessories or affectations. Because his autonomous body functions had adjusted to Mann's cyborg enhancements, they could rightly be considered part of his (cyborg) biology, necessary to maintain his normal health. In legalese, Mann's cyborg enhancements differed from MP3 players and portable computers "in kind," not merely "in degree." Hence, one could legally consider that Air Canada's security checks should have changed to provide adequate screening without being invasive and destructive. The fact that those with cochlear implants or heart pacemakers are not required to turn off and remove those cyborg enhancements, but Mann was, indicates discrimination.
I am supporting neither Mann nor Air Canada in making these observations. I am pointing out that we already have an important case that raises the issue of the regulatory imposition on those who have technological enhancements to their bodies. The examination of the fundamental issues and the questions they raise is most appropriate to be done now.
And, of course, you're being an example by devoting your time to solving those problems of disease and famine and poverty and war.
/. - but I don't see you making this criticism of other stories, and I think it's just as valid there.
You're not wasting your time by talking about things like ffantasy sports, the latest version of an operating system, or movies of another video game to come out, right?
Yes, they could be working on solving those problems. So could most of the people here in
So what's the real reason you seem so certain they're wasting their time?
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
Take a moment and look at a person with a prosthetic leg. How do you feel about them? Organic matter with some metal and plastic. Racism equals ignorance regardless of race. Because ANYONE can be a bigot. And of course this discusses was based on an article out on the interweb which goes to show you everyone can get on the internet.
There was an article on the Deaf community in the Washington Post Magazine last year sometime. One of the group was a lesbian couple who were both deaf. They apparently were shopping around for a sperm donor who was born deaf due to genetic reasons, to increase their chance of having a deaf child. The one part that really annoyed me was that one of the big reasons that they wanted a deaf child was that they would not have to pay for the childs education if it was born deaf(as education for the deaf is paid for by the government). Frickin leaches....
Kill all Humans!
Foo: That's were capital punishment comes from--getting the worst bits of humanity out of the gene pool.
Bar: Well then, why not just castrate the offender and let him go?
Actually, the flaw in the argument comes because it's often too late to remove the offender's genes from the pool -- he's likely already reproduced by the time he gets caught.
But to yank this thread kicking and screaming back to the topic of the article...
What happens when a "enhanced humanoid" commits a capital offence (under whatever standards are in effect at the time)? Wouldn't a truly committed murderous cyborg install multiple redundant systems with protection mechanisms that would make him/her/it almost impossible to "switch off"? Would criminals be sent into the phantom zone, only to be released on unsuspecting far-off planets by a space-based nuclear explosion?
No, that would be silly.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
My cat dreams, and I know it has imagination because it can enjoy itself doing silly things. Sorry to banalise "sentinence", but honestly I can't see that what my cat does is very differerent in nature from what any of us do.
As for self-awareness, I'd argue that (a) the majority of people are not really aware of their self-existence, at least not in any sense I can understand (and since we agree that we're competent to judge cats and children, why not other people?), and (b) this does not make them, not children under 10, any less human.
"Sentinence", like "consciousness", is one of those treasured goalposts that we set-up in order to sets us apart from the "animals". Completely circular argument, and worse, it sets the stage for riduculous conclusions: if you found a stone that was sentinent and had consciousness, would it be human? Piffle.
Humanity is _not_ difficult to define. Only when we try to say why humanity is _better_ than the other species do we start to look like flat earth bishops.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
That's not really true. Even after your mother goes through menopause, she will still take care of you and help you out in the (evolutionary) interest of maintaining and propagating her genes. Even after she can no longer have children she can still play a role in ensuring the survival of her already born children. And since a person can only help others (their offspring, relatives) if they are healthy enough to help themselves, surely evolution does care about the old man (or woman) who becomes infirm.
Today's geeks are already into sharing in many ways: source, ideas, music, etc. Becoming Borg will just take things to a much higher level.
The one thing I am not so sure about is how Linus fits in as "the queen"...
"Welcome to the First Annual International Gathering of Male Virgins"
"Star Trek NOW Society"
"RoboDorks"
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Rights really are just social constructs. Posthumans and AIs will just have the rights they can grab onto and keep, whether by law, popular opinion or force.
and today on eetimes a story on emerging retinal prostheses
http://www.eetimes.com/at/news/OEG20030730S0032
this is happening and will continue to happen and accelerate. Embrace the future. SL4!
Grammar's modified a bit more than that, but it's more of an across-the-board simplification than Italicization.
"We are the deaf race. We are not impaired, this is the way we are and do not need your 'implants.'
"By the way, pass the free education handouts."
***
Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
To be transhuman is to take your life in your own hands and shape yourself (mind or body) to your will. It's body builders, disabled people moving beyond their limitations, people who develop their mind to do incredible things, transsexuals, etc. Transhuman is basically anyone moving beyond what has been given to them by nature. It is really a different mindset, one where you really push yourself to be what you want to be. Over the last few years I've been doing this myself. I'm going thru a sex change; I went from geeky guy to a lesbian techie girl. The process isn't just a shaping of the body, but of the mind also. I examined all the things I hated about myself and have been endeavoring to toss them out and replace them with stuff I wanted.
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
It was the Normans who brought most of the Latin vocab into English, from their Norman French. Learn your linguistic history a bit better.. please.
Human is someone who looks and talks like me and has enough of my genes that we can (if we were of the right ages and genders) fuck like bunnies and make more humans.
Does this mean infertile humans are not human? Whatever you think, your reduction of "human" to reproductive capacity is not a technical definition of human. Arguing that humans are beings who descend from humans is no more enlightening and just as circular as saying horses are animals descended from horses (and don't even get started about donkeys and mules). Philosophers debate what it means to be human because identifying essential and/or shared characteristics of human beings reveal ways in which we are and aren't connected to living and non-living beings with whom we share the world. Identifying such characteristics (if such can ever be done) also has profound consequences for our moral, spiritual, ethical, and social obligations to other humans (and non-humans).
Besides, "fuck[ing] like bunnies" would make you a rodent, wouldn't it?
blog
It's a scary thought, but slavery is not quite dead yet.
It's still open practice in many parts of Sudan, some other parts of the world (google it).
In asia, girls are often sold into brothels to pay parental debts.
It also happens that in the united states, there are a few prosecuted cases everyy year where an illegal immigrant is forced to work as a domestic servant without wages and without the ability to leave or contact other people. Normally, they can't speak english and are too scared to go out.
That is slavery too.
After one of the kids drowned, the blind counselors were searching for the kid and got some help from the sighted lifeguards because a lifeguard thought their behavior seemed unusual and approached them. That's the phrasing in the newspaper, which implies that the counselors did not call out for help. Hmm, maybe the blind counselors were being sensitive to the deaf and not using speech.
What's coming in the next few decades, though, is extensive genetic modification. We have this now as a commercial technology for vegetables. In time it willl work for mammals.
But it won't work very well for a long time, because it takes several lifetimes to debug a new organism. That's why genecists work on fruit flies, with short lifetimes.
Cloning research gives us an example of the debug problems - there are over a hundred cloned animals in the world now. Some of them are healthy, but most of them aren't. And that's just cloning, with zero intentional modification. For cloning, this is just a process problem, and it will be fixed. But for new organisms, there will be design problems. Those will be much tougher to debug.
This will result in many defective organisms, with all the ethical issues that implies. Kill them off and start over? Or what?
At some point, backwards compatibility may be dumped. That happens when a new species (one that won't interbreed) is created. We'll probably have multiple new species, from different vendors. If you thought race and nationalism were a problems, wait until this comes along.
The key point to realize is that making new, improved life is likely to work well before retrofitting the old model does. That technology almost works now, just not very well.
I went from geeky guy to a lesbian techie girl
Why the bother? You're still after the same thing.
The real question is, what is freedom? When one says that artificial intelligences should be free, what does that mean? I would define freedom as being able to do what one wants. But, of course, freedom is not absolute. If I want to kill someone, I do not have the freedom to do this. Freedom has to have limitations, but what those limitations are is outside the scope of this comment. The question at hand is, what would a robot want to do? Robots have no desires, needs, wants. A robot would only do what a human has programmed it to do. Therefore, freedom does not apply.
Yep. Fear. :D
As a side note, I've been into anime because it's generally fansubtitled and much more accessible to me than even network TV. I really wish more TV shows were closed-captioned, that would help a lot.
"Black holes are where God divided by zero." - Steve Wright
Besides, don't the "rights" of others end where mine begin?
"Ok, Mr. Mosquito, I'll respect you and not squash you with a fly-swatter. Oh shit, Mr. Mosquito, you bit me and gave me West Nile. Why did you do that? We're supposed to respect each other's rights!"
Right...
***
Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
Why does this shit get moderated informative? Does a take a brain surgeon to recognize that this poster is full of crap?
I know what you mean, I've tried talking to them but they just won't listen.
Are you trying to say that, by adding eyeglasses to my face, I am now somehow less than human and shouldn't have rights?
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Thanks, everyone, for not jumping on my (at least consistent use of the) typo 'cyborb'. Seems I could use a Speak'n'Spell implant...
$#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???
Agreed, but it is always wisest to attack such problems as disease from all possible angles. Each technology can only go so far though. Stem cells can cure say diabetes or (eventually) regenerate organs (like they can currently do with thymus'), but can do little to add novel functionality.
e ri a.html
Anyway, here's something that goes a little overboard, but is quite cool is a si-fi sorta way:
http://www.ctraces.com/Circuit_Traces/CT3_1/cyb
NIL
Try Corewar @ www.koth.org - rec.games.corewar
Your paragraph that begins "Now let's think of cyborgs..." reminds me of the main character in Anne McCaffrey's book "The Ship who Sang." Actually, more than just the main character, there are many characters in the series who are, in effect, more machine than human, yet human nonetheless.
For those who haven't read the book, it is junior-high-school level sci-fi, in which the main character is a toddler who, after nearly being killed in an accident, is identified as having high mental abilities and is "saved" by contracting her mind in exchange for a life supporting, robotic body and training through her youth.
As an adult, and still under contract for her training, she becomes the "brain" of an intellegent ship; effectively the ship becomes her "body". (The complex math, etc. that is necessary for hyperspace travel requires a trained human mind to manage.) Such "ships" however are kept in bondage by contract methods similar to what we hear about the RIAA and musicians of today; the cost of repairs and upkeep of her "body" are repaid by adding time to her "contract".
Back to the point, although all that remains of her organic-human self is encased in a small metal box, she is still a human individual and proves this repeatedly through the series of books.
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
nt
Try Corewar @ www.koth.org - rec.games.corewar
Who I'm attracted to has nothing to do with how I see myself. Sexual preference and gender identity, mental body map and physical sex are separate things.
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
The Amish evaluate new technologies continually on the basis of whether they will help to bring familes and communities together, or help to drive them apart. There's currently a big debate over cell phone use. Phones are useful, but Amish don't want to be interrupted during a family meal or a personal conversation. Often, they keep the phone in its own place, away from the house. Then there is less temptation to use it when it isn't necessary, and it doesn't become a distraction.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
The *real* question is which one?
AD Police?
Ah My Goddess?
All Purpose Cultural Catgirl Nuku Nuku?
Armitage?
Battle Angel?
Big O?
Blue Sonnet?
Bubblegum Crisis/Crash/2040?
Chobits?
Compiler?
Cyborg 009?
El Hazard?
Ghost in the Shell?
Goku: Midnight Eye?
Hand Maid May?
Hyper Doll?
Irresponsible Captain Tylor?
Kikaider?
My Dear Marie?
Outlaw Star?
Sonic Soldier Borgman?
Steel Angel Karumi?
Of course, this is only the one's I've seen.
8==8 Bones 8==8
First, the black thing is no longer about slavery, but because mom and dad were prejudice, and that has rubbed off on the kids (although should be worn down over time or even eradicated). there hasn't been a slave for a long time now...
It's not about slavery. It's not about baggage. It's not about rubbing off.
Thousands of years from now, if and when humanity survives, forgotten are the ways of slavery and war, which IMHO will never happen, still prejudice will continue. It is unfortunately an innate part of living creatures, not just humans, on this planet. As microcosmic as it is macrocosmic, the reason that gives diversity its many flavors to genetic pools, across different species as it does for races within species, is also the reason that binds smaller groups of them together and ironically splits them apart.
Watch the behavior of all other species on this planet. Do these rules not apply to humans? Can we sever the origins of creation, the very thing within that makes us who we are, the substance that makes us act the way we do? Then I'll ask that you look at all the evidence that we have today, all that lies in the wake of humanity's past, the methods we have employed to get here.
Prejudice is no more good or evil than two birds competing for a mate. No more good or evil than a dog pissing on a tree. No more good or evil than a lion hunting a deer. Good and evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. You ask to have diversity, but not the prejudice. That's like asking for the beauty that comes from a collage, but without the discord. Like asking for beauty, in a world without ugliness.
Michael was truly an under-rated writer. I think I'll go re-read his eternal champions tonight.
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
What about the ToothFairy?
Great now I'll have to wait even longer to get through airport security as those Cyborgs get screened manually. Crap.
While I'm totally sure I agree with the way he was treated, you can't compare cochlear implants and pacemakers to Mann's 'enhancements'. I can't find anything that cites any reason for his gear other than his personal choice.
As with you, I'm not taking either side. All I'm pointing out is that you use a very flawed analogy in your arguement.
Don't forget, the social attitude towards the augmented has everything to do with both their own manner and the individual opinions of others towards tehm taken as a whole. Consider those individuals who have already chosen to have their chests augmented. In the case of females, they experience a mixture of superficial attraction and discriminatory repulsion from males, and are often envied and shunned by those of their own gender. In the case of males, attitudes are largely negative except for a certain underground segment of the population, and they must hide their status.
In any case these mighty bosoms, these bastard twins of technology and humanity, rarely fail to provoke a reaction. Future augmentation will no doubt follow much the same pattern.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
I meant to say, "While I am NOT totally sure..."
I really should proofread better. Maybe I need a cybernetic post-checker...
You have a bunch of academic ethicists etc. who are doing research and writing papers on a possible problem that has not really appeared yet. Why not come up with some practical solutions to existing problems of discrimination, civil rights, etc? If you ask me, it's because it is easy to blue-sky some possible scenarios and get credit for breaking new ground, and also not be held accountable for any demonstrable results from your research. Or is it just me?
Y'all white people so crazy!
I can't imagine a single brother was in the house at that conference!
For a second, I thought it would be about the hypocrisy of all those vocal about human rights who protested against the US toppling Saddam and haven't said a word about Liberia, the Republic of Congo, Cuba, China, North Korea, etc...
If you've seen how black Americans are treated, and compared it to how black immigrants from Nigeria or Kenya in the United States are treated, the latter escape much of the prejudice directed at the former. So it really has nothing to do with prejudice against black people per se, but prejudice against a certain culture. Sort of like how making fun of "white trash" isn't racism per se, because it's directed at a certain culture -- that happens to be made up of white people, but isn't synonymous with white people.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
When the need comes, the not-so-human rights movements will not be led by the humans themselves. When it is recognized that transhumans are not equal to a normal man, such as if transhumans live a longer life or they are stronger, the transhuman will lead their war against humans to fight for their rights.
Most efforts to impose rights to other species or people of other cultures do not turn out successful. This is because we can't influence another culture with our own values.
Also, where you draft a not-so-human rights, someone else would want to pass a not-so-human restriction. Most likely, the transhuman would not agree with the laws humans impose on them.
In the end, we will all resort to our fundamental instinct to eliminate what we feel threatens our survival. And war will begin.
I'm not saying war is inevitable. But if science is able to make a considerably large group of beings more superior to a normal man, then it is likely that they will fight for their rights and humans will resist.
Are you also a member of the cued speech community?
My brother was one of the first single channel implant kids. He now has a 22. It definitely changed his life for the better, however, he still has problems fitting in now that he is trying to hold a stable job and find love in his life... he often turns to love overseas and this has led to disastrous results... (in context of course)... and he doesn't seem to learn his lesson because he still doesn't try hard enough with people in his own country (little patience)... his last girlfriend who he married recently and is now divorcing is quite physically and mentally abusive
On the other hand he was able to complete schooling on or above grade level for his entire school time due to the fact that English was his first language.
I haven't known it to be like that but my impression is that there is that sort of latent fear.
It really seems to be a tit-for-tat style of separatization, where you can only be on "their" side or "our" side, and if you are on their side then you can't be our friends.
What a load of shit. This is no better than any other kind of cliques, it is a horrible reaction to the occasional bigoted treatment.
Sadly, I don't see any good way out of it, everyone will have latent prejudices of people that are different in some way, but at least a lot of people seem to be pretty good about not letting it affect their actions.
In general, people of any kind generally don't want pity, I suppose unless they are trying to con you. In some ways, you are best off refraining from discussing the disability or helping them unless they talk about it or ask for help, in other words, treat them like anyone else first.
I do use hearing aids so it's not as if I am a total stranger to the issue or some random bigot.
Doesn't picking and smoking weed infringe on the plants rights to grow unmolested?
***
Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
It was funny at first...he would sometimes hear what we said (without reading lips) and sometimes wouldn't. We finally figured out that the hearing aids helped him much more than he let on. His hearing impairment had been turned into selective hearing, so that when you said something like "Steve, I need money for the power bill," he would keep on walking. But if you said "Steve, wanna beer?" he would quickly turn and accept the beer.
Right or wrong, we soon began to fuck with him. He turned out to be a lazy-ass SOB that was just taking advantage of his disability to use people, so we didn't really feel guilty.
***
Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
Anyone else wonder how these two will play out in respect to each other?
They're essentially done for the same purpose. Presumably genetics has more discernible limitations as to what enhancements can be made on a person, but I don't imagine we've come anywhere near reaching that, or that we probably will anytime soon, so at least for the time being, it seems these two may be headed straight for each other.
Will we be seeing mixtures of the two, or will it be similar to VHS/Betamax?
Moo
Us. We. Here's where vanity finds its end. The humanity--the us, we--that strode out of Africa and braved the Pacific Ocean in outrigger canoes and the Arctic in longboats cannot and never will be able to make that final journey. We're too delicate and too dumb. But new forms of being might be able to stake out an interstellar future. They could view us as kin, carrying some essence of our ideals, a memory of Shakespeare secure in their vast webs of intelligence. Transhumanists are asking whether we'll embrace the kinds of life that come next as a necessary extension of ourselves or shun them as monstrosities.
So we can spread the love and make new victims^h^h^h^ friends all over the universe? Nice.
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
... when you have some arguments to support your assertions.
(And when you do have those arguments, you might want to share them with the philosophers, who have been arguing about these questions for a couple of thousand years).
Not to mention the treatements for all kinds of diseases like diabetes etc...
That picture is hilarious. You could just walk around naked if you were a borg. If anybody gets upset you could just say, "What? It's just metal."
But you'd think a metal unit wouldn't be so limp. OK, I can't look at it anymore. I'm getting sick.
796F75617265616E65726400
Great ... just what we needed was another special interest group
"When they kick at your front door, how you gonna come?" - Saint Joe
"The Not-Quite-Human Rights Movement", I thought it was going to be an article about US politicians but it turned out to be about a group of people who have been watching WAY too many episodes of Voyager.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Watched more then 50% of the anime there completely? Is that considered too much?
Hmmm... Pie...
If anything, the newcomers envisioned by transhumanists will be better equipped to pursue that kind of happiness. Kurzweil argues the newcomers will likely protect our rights by grandfathering into their society those of us who'd prefer not to be enhanced. Those people, the MOSH (Mostly Original Substrate Humans), would be free to live and love as before, to the best of their limited abilities. ...that humans are nothing more than a bunch of arrogant apes. We've forgotten where we come from, and we don't want to see anything better than us. The interesting thing is that most Christians would probably have massive problems with the idea of a man made being that is better than them. Yet if a mystical being (the Christian god or angels) is better than them, there is nothing wrong with it. Very entertaining.
Un-news
"They're even sketching out where the role of violence becomes legitimate in the quest to become a cyborg."
Quest to become a cyborg?
Am I the only one who wonders what is wrong with these people?
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
Really, it deals with the struggle for acceptance of an artificialy created non-human with humanlike, or even superhuman intelligence and extremly superhuman abilities. It shows the effects of lack of acceptance as a ligitimate entity with equal rights to others. It shows rigidity of human thought when dealing with entities that go beyond the bounds generaly considered of its generaly subhuman type.("It's a Pokemon, that means it can be captured!") Truly this movie has the elements neccicary to radicly alter our children's perspective towards nonhumans enough that perhaps, by the time the pokemon generation is voting, the idea of nonhumans with equal rights will be acceptable to the american public.
Little Brother, watching the watchers
I'm going thru a sex change;
Interesting - I don't recall the last transsexual that I've talked to that would actually call it this. Most seem to avoid using this term, as they feel it doesn't describe the situation properly.
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
Sorry, but that's like saying we eat meat because we have canine teeth. Which is just plain wrong.
Being right or wrong requires a perspective to be right or wrong from. Tell it to the lions. Declaring to be right or wrong is just like declaring to be good or evil. BTW we have molars in addition to canines. This implies that we were designed to eat both.
We have canines, sure, but we also have brains, we understand that animals suffer when we kill them for meat, and we can feed ourselves without inflicting pain, so why do we do so?
We have canines, sure, but we also have hearts. Your argument is about compassion. Not about truth or lies, right or wrong, smart or stupid.
Because the human race is arrogant, and doesn't care.
I would have to agree about that, we are arrogrant. Are you suggesting that the reason we eat meat is because we are arrogrant? Please explain how the emotions of arrogrance causes a carnivirous diet. I suggest a different theory. Most people eat meat because it tastes better to most people.
That's something that perpetuates itself from generation to generation, it's not genetic. We have every capability to override the stupidity of humanity, we just choose to ignore it.
If it is as you suggest, something that perpetuates itself, how does it do that from generation to generation? Yes, we may have the capability to override it, but what behavior are we overriding? Where does this stupidity come from? Are you sure its not genetic, as you state?
While I can support your opinion about diets (going vegan is far more healthier, etc.), it is an opinion. Others may not share that opinion. The difference between you and I is I will not declare these other opinions to be "wrong" in light of my "right" one. To declare something to be right (and thereby holding in contempt others that are wrong) is the first step toward righteous war.
Remember. I hold discrimination and prejudice to be neither right nor wrong. Sad, woeful, and disheartening. But never right nor wrong. I will carry no flag, no banner, no protest against, or for it. I may assist people who are hurt by it. I may try to persuade away those that wish to hurt others by it. But I know that feeding the flames of conflict never lead to a solution. Only a bigger fire.
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
Actually you are going down the same road. The article eludes to it.
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
The CIA has put David Kay, a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, in charge of the search for illegal weapons. Wolfowitz said Kay told him during a meeting Sunday that U.S. officials were having difficulty getting Iraqi prisoners to tell what they know about Saddam Hussein's chemical, biological or nuclear programs. The Iraqi government claimed prior to the war that it had destroyed all the weapons of mass destruction it once held, and U.N. inspectors were unable to find evidence of any. "I pushed him (Kay) a bit on why aren't these people talking. Why don't you, in effect, plea bargain with them," Wolfowitz said. "He said there is no concept of plea bargaining in this place. If you confessed you just got executed faster or tortured less." See for info on who this David Kay is.
Umm, just a WAG, but probably because Newfoundland is an island . The crossing by ferry from the mainland alone takes longer than the flight directly from Toronto to St. John's International. Then there's the drive (or train ride) time from Toronto to the coast, just to get to the ferry...
When your time is a valuable commodity, air travel usually is the cheapest, most hassle-free way to go, and certainly the quickest. The issues here are shoddy record-keeping; incompetent, underpaid security personnel who can't form an independent thought between them; and a draconian, knee-jerk, post-9/11 security policy that inconveniences the innocent and still doesn't keep banned items from being smuggled onboard the plane. And these things can happen to anyone; the fact that Mr. Mann suffered physical injury above the hassle-driven headache that most of us suffer during flying these days just adds to the insult.
Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
This goes beyond social acceptance. Mechanical implants combined with stem cell therapy could extend life indefinitely, but it would be extremely expensive, thus leading to a problem. As medical technology becomes exponentially more expensive, fewer and fewer people will be able to afford it. This would make a pyramid of those who live and those who die, with the rich on the top buying life extending technologies, and the poor using old and cheap and inferior technology. And since these wealthy people could live forever they could acquire massive wealth and power, and use that power and wealth for ever greater wealth and power. What if Bill Gates were to live 300 years, how powerful might he become?
While you are correct, it doesn't describe it very well; sometimes you have to simplify things for the masses. Being a technical support person, I'm use to simplifying things for the average umm...person.
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
he still has problems fitting in now that he is trying to hold a stable job and find love in his life.
So maybe he would be better off without the implant . Maybe he would have fit in better and found love within the deaf community?
I don't mean to sound callous but, I am opposed to cyborg technology. I want us to stay human. I want us a sustainable way of life and remain human at the same time.
I myself have never bothered putting it in this way - it seems like your average person either gets it by using the word "transsexual", is curious enough to find out more so that you can describe things in better, more accurate terms, or is the type that freaks out no matter how you put it.
Of course, then again, I often don't bother to even mention it to other people anyways, unless it's quite relevant or I feel comfortable to the people it is being mentioned to.
I do wonder if I'd consider being transsexual related to being transhuman at all, other than not accepting the body you were born with as the final word in things. After all, it's just adjusting to a slightly different type of "human", instead of becoming more than human. Would be interesting to see how many TS folk would find the transhumanist points of view to click with them though. Did with me.
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
Um, I think we're all beginning to lose sight of the real issue here, which is "What are we going to call ourselves?" um, and I think it comes down to a choice between `The League Against Salivating Monsters' or my own personal preference, which is `The Committee for the Liberation and Integration of Terrifying Organisms and their Rehabilitation Into Society'. Um, one drawback with that... the abbreviation is `CLITORIS'.
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
Users of either should have the free choice and ability to use them without discriminations.
While you may argue that depriving somebody of an instrument that has become critical to a semi-normal lifestyle (due to loss or misfunction of an original part) is bad, is it not also bad to disallow one's fredom of choose in self-modification?
How about if I have poor balance, bad muscle control, etc. If I augment myself with technology is that a bad thing? Should you or anyone else be able to look down upon me as a person because of it?
Don't endanger the well-being of the person who was forced to choose technological enhancements due to physical loss, but don't discriminate again st the one who suffered such enhancements by choice either. Neither is a pretty situation, and both bespeak of the growing ignorance (large due to the mongering of fear) in society.
And so yes, they are comparable, just perhaps not on all levels.
After reading through the World Transhumanist Association website, I couldn't help but hear echoes of the Borg Queen. I don't mean to sound like an over zealous Trekkie, but there are too many similarities. In Star Trek the Borg seek perfection by merging the synthetic and the organic. Although the world perfection is never used, it is essentially their ultimate goal. After reading their FAQ I can?t help but admit it frightened me.
Link to FAQ: http://www.transhumanism.org/resources/faq.html
It gives their definitions of Transhumanism and what the refer to as Posthumanism. These appear to be their ultimate goal.
Transhumanism
(1) The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by using technology to eliminate aging and greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.
(2) The study of the ramifications, promises and potential dangers of the use of science, technology, creativity, and other means to overcome fundamental human limitations.
Posthumanism
A posthuman is someone or an entity whose basic capacities so radically exceed those of unaugmented humans as to be best thought of as a constituting a new kind of being. Many transhumanists want to become posthumans of some sort.
To me this has far more dire consequences than just ethical repercussions. The visionary minds from literature have warned for nearly a century now of the dangers of creating such beings. Allowing the existence of such ?superior? humans would undoubtedly be the undoing of Humanity (ex. The Second Renaissance from the Animatrix, although robots but superior none the less). Or they would simply assimilate the rest of Humanity.
"Deafness isn't a disability"? How does that work? Did they simply decide that hearing isn't really an ability, or that they could hear but choose not to?
Why are people allowed to refuse treatment for their deaf children because of 'cultural diversity', but they AREN'T allowed to refuse treatment for ADHD children for the same reason?
Is it just that deaf kids are less annoying to the teacher?
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
You just go on rejecting genetic enhancement, cyborg implants and the like while the rest of us go on to transform ourselves. And may the best species win.
Yes totally self-righteous, but at least I don't suffer from some of the arrogance that many people in this discussion seem to show:
1. "morals seperate people from animals." What about psychopaths?
2. "Feeling pain makes us human. Robots that feel pain should have rights" (this one made me laugh). A fly feels pain. Rights?
3. "People are the dominant species." WTF? Because we think we are? I believe the most common species by bodymass are termites. And there are more pigs than people in some countries.
I admire the philosophers who can discuss the rights of robots while ignoring the fact that half the world can't find clean water to drink. This requires such a self-satisfied world view that my little self-righteous views are feeble in comparison.
But then, arguing with a bunch of teenage technofiles is generally a waste of time unless the talk is of gadgets or sex.
The truth about "rights" and "morals" is that we debate how much we should "give" to other species, as if we are gods. We're not. We're overdressed monkeys that pretend to greatness but we impress no-one but ourselves, and we have to permanently lie about the truth even to do that. Big deal.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
We adopt and take care of any orphan that is too young to take care of themselves.
For that reason, there is only minor evolutionary pressure, if any, to maintain health after child-bearing years are over.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com