Yes, and I am sure you swear by Star Trek as a predictor of the future...
Beam me up, Scotty. Oftentimes the twin sides of the technology future are presented to an extreme. Some glorify it, others see the possibilities as undeath, or unbearable.
What you mean, is someone who claims to be Posthuman. Transhuman is a person who's lifestyle is in someway on the road to becoming posthuman. My response to the arrogance of transhumanism is in the idea that there should be a posthuman, or that we can direct our own evolution... Which, whether openly expressed or not, is the end-all goal of Transhumanism. To put a person's genetic code, evolution and otherwise the rest of the non-posthuman world (via enhanced mental capacity through which the malicious could manipulate, control, or rule... well, scratch that, its already being done... but at least Bush is no mental giant...) under their will or control...
And it is the arrogance of transhumanism that believes we should and can control our changes... And I'm not arguing from a moral/religious/fundamentalist perspective, but that "gods" may not be such a desirable goal to become...
The ethical implications are not only in the possibility for destroying life; but what if some sort of virus mutated and made people immortal? I mean, look at fantasy literature and plenty of vampire fiction to realize that the quest for the cure to these diseases may inadvertently open a pandora's box. And this is not simply a dooms-day idea; what really would happen to our society if we managed to "solve" aging or death?
How is it that a system which provides for nearly unlimited wealth for a single entity is persisted by a government whose foundation is freedom for all? I say nearly unlimited, in that as soon as the lawyers were able to put words to a "potential" for wealth, companies gained domain over the immaterial world of a possible future... but in the present, and through very real monetary sanctions. The purpose of those sanctions are not to protect the songwriters, or even the consumers -- but purely the economic system itself.
I do not agree with the rigorous and nearly always profit-motivated process by which copyright infringements and patents are prosecuted. A better system, perhaps, would involve limited rights -- providing provisions for initial sales, creation of hard copies of certain quality, and of verifiably value-creating processes... To monopolize the information itself, the songs, the government effectively suffocates innovation and creative freedom.
IP was as much of a bust to humanity as it was a boon to business. They should learn a thing or two from the Slashdot system, and apply it to IP. The real property is attention and culture-shares, not data or copying.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and I am sure you swear by Star Trek as a predictor of the future... Beam me up, Scotty. Oftentimes the twin sides of the technology future are presented to an extreme. Some glorify it, others see the possibilities as undeath, or unbearable.
What you mean, is someone who claims to be Posthuman. Transhuman is a person who's lifestyle is in someway on the road to becoming posthuman. My response to the arrogance of transhumanism is in the idea that there should be a posthuman, or that we can direct our own evolution... Which, whether openly expressed or not, is the end-all goal of Transhumanism. To put a person's genetic code, evolution and otherwise the rest of the non-posthuman world (via enhanced mental capacity through which the malicious could manipulate, control, or rule... well, scratch that, its already being done... but at least Bush is no mental giant...) under their will or control...
And it is the arrogance of transhumanism that believes we should and can control our changes... And I'm not arguing from a moral/religious/fundamentalist perspective, but that "gods" may not be such a desirable goal to become...
The ethical implications are not only in the possibility for destroying life; but what if some sort of virus mutated and made people immortal? I mean, look at fantasy literature and plenty of vampire fiction to realize that the quest for the cure to these diseases may inadvertently open a pandora's box. And this is not simply a dooms-day idea; what really would happen to our society if we managed to "solve" aging or death?
How is it that a system which provides for nearly unlimited wealth for a single entity is persisted by a government whose foundation is freedom for all? I say nearly unlimited, in that as soon as the lawyers were able to put words to a "potential" for wealth, companies gained domain over the immaterial world of a possible future... but in the present, and through very real monetary sanctions. The purpose of those sanctions are not to protect the songwriters, or even the consumers -- but purely the economic system itself.
I do not agree with the rigorous and nearly always profit-motivated process by which copyright infringements and patents are prosecuted. A better system, perhaps, would involve limited rights -- providing provisions for initial sales, creation of hard copies of certain quality, and of verifiably value-creating processes... To monopolize the information itself, the songs, the government effectively suffocates innovation and creative freedom.
IP was as much of a bust to humanity as it was a boon to business. They should learn a thing or two from the Slashdot system, and apply it to IP. The real property is attention and culture-shares, not data or copying.