PDA

View Full Version : Transhumanisim


Web Rider
12-13-2007, 09:13 PM
Since I didn't want to see the genetic engineering thread get into this and have a weird combo debate, I thought I'd make a separate topic.

In a nutshell, transhumanism is the belief that technology will overcome the problems inherent in the human condition. Longevity, disease, health, weakness, disconnectedness, ect... In short, it's the technological counterpart to eugenics and genetic engineering.

Transhumanism is the backbone of the technology industry, portraying each advancement in technology as chipping away at the wall of all those petty little things that humans do/can't do, that are generally considered faults in humanity.

So I'm curious, comparatively to the gentic modification idea, would you be more for or against mechanical modification, and just what you're general thoughts are?

Jae Onasi
12-13-2007, 09:55 PM
I think we're headed in that direction already with artificial limbs, mechanical hearts, ventilators (e.g. for quadriplegics who don't have adequate diaphragm activity). If it's an adjunct to our humanity, that's fine. If it somehow replaces humanity, that could become problematic.

Web Rider
12-13-2007, 11:27 PM
I think we're headed in that direction already with artificial limbs, mechanical hearts, ventilators (e.g. for quadriplegics who don't have adequate diaphragm activity). If it's an adjunct to our humanity, that's fine. If it somehow replaces humanity, that could become problematic.

Replaces humanity? How so? You mean like mechanical humanoids who do our work? Or physical alteration to the point that we lose what makes us "human"?

There's a variety of arguments along that line on the Wiki transhumanisim page, but I didn't read them.

So what makes us "human" in your mind? And to what extent would technological alteration make us lose whatever that is?

El Sitherino
12-14-2007, 12:42 AM
We're already machines, the way I see it "cybernetics" is basically the duct tape on our fender. I see no issue with it.

MdKnightR
12-14-2007, 01:32 AM
I have said for years that I hope to live long enough to see someone invent a way to digitize the human consciousness so that our thoughts and knowledge as individuals will outlive our physical bodies. I know it sounds far fetched, but I'm certainly not the original thinker of such things.

Take for instance the movies Freejack (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104299/) and The Sixth Day (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0216216/). They offer an interesting perspective on such things. It was interesting that The Sixth Day seemed to be meant to show the evils of human cloning, but I found myself desiring that such a technology existed. The technology itself, IMHO, wouldn't be bad, but how people used it could be. If that kind of cloning did exist, and a backup of my consciousness could be downloaded into it, it would be the next best thing to everlasting life.

Ray Jones
12-14-2007, 04:25 AM
I think that this might look risky and creepy to us today but there was also a time when cars were considered utterly useless and their speed of 10-20 mph was seen as silly and deadly.

My point is, whatever we might be able to do and will do to our bodies, will, to some degree, belong to our evolutionary path in the long run. Insane is correct when he says we *are* machines, from a certain point of view.

If we manage to repair/rebuild/enhance/control our bodies in a way that will not cause them to explode when brought together with water, the evolutionary machinery will do the rest. Whether this fits into any current view on things, or if "original" humans will be replaced in 1 million years is rather unimportant. One species replaces another because that's how it is since the beginning of life.

SilentScope001
12-14-2007, 11:15 AM
Of course, there is ALWAYS the possiblity transhumanism will create new technologies, but innate human nature always intervene and use those technologies for other actions than what the Transhumanists thought possible.

Or transhumanism doesn't work at all. Remember jetpacks? :)

Just stay alert. In 50 years, we'll find out.

Corinthian
12-14-2007, 03:00 PM
I don't like it. I'm rather partial to being a bleeding, fleshy meatbag.

PoiuyWired
12-14-2007, 03:23 PM
I think we're headed in that direction already with artificial limbs, mechanical hearts, ventilators (e.g. for quadriplegics who don't have adequate diaphragm activity). If it's an adjunct to our humanity, that's fine. If it somehow replaces humanity, that could become problematic.

Which brings us to the point... WHAT REALLY IS HUMANITY.

I mean, humanity should not be defined by having so-and-so pieces of flesh and bones on the bory, or looking like this and this. Physical forms are useufl, but really it is not the definition of humanity. Hack, with so many mental aids and stuff we use nowadays even our brain function is greatly aided by too the things we have.

While I would be happy to be able to choose to die and rot, I do think that there is really nothing wrong to get a few upgrades to our body, to make it safer, better and more effective. Obviously maintinancemay be a problem in the short run, but so did everything once upon a time in the beginning.

But yeah... brain in a jar with spider legs... sounds fun. Though my love may complain about the lack of kissyness of my grey matter.

Dagobahn Eagle
12-14-2007, 03:29 PM
I don't like it. I'm rather partial to being a bleeding, fleshy meatbag.So no glasses, contact lenses, artificial limbs or organs, hearing aids, or whatever else for you, should the need arise?

Q
12-14-2007, 04:02 PM
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

PoiuyWired
12-14-2007, 06:48 PM
So no glasses, contact lenses, artificial limbs or organs, hearing aids, or whatever else for you, should the need arise?

I am partially agreeing with him. Well, I am happy with my glasses, and I will probably need hearing aid when I am old and limp, and hopefully not earlier. Should the need arise I would happily get a robotic arm or two, though IT SHOULD BE either a rocket fist or is swappable with a hyper combat drill, or that megaman/cobra handgun.

But if I really need some robotic organ to stay alive, then No Please No. I don't want my freedom of dying naturally to be robbed away (hack I don't have the freedom to take my life at least please let me die). Though it should note that Thank You for giving me a choice to take on those organs and live on should I choose to accept.

Dagobahn Eagle
12-14-2007, 07:27 PM
Why wouldn't you take an artificial heart or artificial blood to stay alive? Is it any more natural to have a heart transplant or blood donation? Or, for that matter, to read using glasses?

Web Rider
12-14-2007, 08:01 PM
I am partially agreeing with him. Well, I am happy with my glasses, and I will probably need hearing aid when I am old and limp, and hopefully not earlier. Should the need arise I would happily get a robotic arm or two, though IT SHOULD BE either a rocket fist or is swappable with a hyper combat drill, or that megaman/cobra handgun.

But if I really need some robotic organ to stay alive, then No Please No. I don't want my freedom of dying naturally to be robbed away (hack I don't have the freedom to take my life at least please let me die). Though it should note that Thank You for giving me a choice to take on those organs and live on should I choose to accept.

Yeah I'm equally confused here, you'd replace any given part of your body if it was damaged to the point of needing to be removed or it was destroyed somehow, but you wouldn't replace a lung, or a kidney? People already replace hearts, and that's more important than a lung or kidney(which you can live with only one of). Heck, think of it for Diabetics, they could have a new, working pancreas.

I don't see why you'd turn down an artificial organ but not an artificial arm. There's no difference.

Yeah, if you are on your deathbed naturally from old age, yeah, fine, but say you're 30 and you get shot in the stomach. You can be given a fake stomach and live the rest of your life. Why no to that and yes to glasses?

Dagobahn Eagle
12-15-2007, 04:52 PM
Thinking about it, you already have artificial stomachs. Only that they come in the form of plastic bag-like thingies that you attach to the outside of your body. Not very flattering.

But yes, what constitutes a natural death? Remember, there's very little medicine in nature. You don't even get CPR, far less more advanced things like defibrilation, controlled coma on a respirator until you wake up, and so on.

PoiuyWired
12-15-2007, 05:28 PM
Well, my keyword is "CHOICE". I have no problems with people continuing their lives supported by the help of technology, in fact, cudos to them. It shows our dedication and value to life. And yes I do understand that it would be especially helpful to accident victims and such. Plus, it would be a more widely available alternative to the currently "natural" organ transplant.

I am just saying that I would really don't want to be 130 and being supported by a bunch of machines like a floating brain in a jar or something like that. Being enhanced by technology to overcome difficulties is one thing, being sustained by it is quite a bit different.

Personally I think that being able to die naturally one day is a bliss, in fact it gives me more initiative to life. I mean, I know I would be much lazier if I know that I would live til, say, 500, instead of the estimated 100 or so for my generation, granted that I don't need to save up retirement fund for 400 plus years. :)

Guess its the whole "nearly eternal life makes living meaningless" thing that I am fear about. Then again, the curiosity of any events after death would be some motivation also, whatever it is to one's believe.

Jae Onasi
12-15-2007, 08:45 PM
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

:rofl:

Qliveur wins Best Post in this thread. :lol:

Web Rider
12-15-2007, 10:28 PM
Well, my keyword is "CHOICE". I have no problems with people continuing their lives supported by the help of technology, in fact, cudos to them. It shows our dedication and value to life. And yes I do understand that it would be especially helpful to accident victims and such. Plus, it would be a more widely available alternative to the currently "natural" organ transplant.
But my question was as to why you would replace an arm but not a lung?

I am just saying that I would really don't want to be 130 and being supported by a bunch of machines like a floating brain in a jar or something like that. Being enhanced by technology to overcome difficulties is one thing, being sustained by it is quite a bit different.
And I get that, but lets take the Ghost in the Shell concept, where you're not some useless brain in a jar, but you've got a fully functional cybernetic body.

Personally I think that being able to die naturally one day is a bliss, in fact it gives me more initiative to life. I mean, I know I would be much lazier if I know that I would live til, say, 500, instead of the estimated 100 or so for my generation, granted that I don't need to save up retirement fund for 400 plus years. :)
I can't say I would be lazier, I think as a culture, humans are too hooked up in doing everything super fast, if we took things slower and paced ourselves more, I think we'd be better off. If we lived to say, 300 in good health, we could do things slower and still accomplish more. Not to mention if your body isn't going to degrade since it's robotic, social security is kinda a waste.

Guess its the whole "nearly eternal life makes living meaningless" thing that I am fear about. Then again, the curiosity of any events after death would be some motivation also, whatever it is to one's believe.
Immortality(the kind where you live forever in a youthful state and can't be destroyed), yes, that could make things rather tedious, but I don't think that living REALLY long is going to make living meaningless. There's ALWAYS going to be more to do in the universe, once you get one thing done, move on to another.

El Sitherino
12-15-2007, 10:52 PM
Your brain will still most likely die off at a reasonably acceptable rate. So not to worry too much about the whole "immortal life" thing.

Me, I think I'd be in to it just for the Vader fanboyism.

Corinthian
12-15-2007, 11:25 PM
Thanks but no thanks on that. Vader didn't exactly live in the Candy Mountain Cave.

Web Rider
12-15-2007, 11:26 PM
Your brain will still most likely die off at a reasonably acceptable rate. So not to worry too much about the whole "immortal life" thing.

Me, I think I'd be in to it just for the Vader fanboyism.

I suppose that's the most complicated part to replace since we're not entirely sure what all of it does. Though I'm fairly certain that by the time we figure out every last function of the brain, we'll have a sufficiently advanced computer system that the "data" of your mind can be transferred into. If it's big and black and retains a 1x4x9 ratio, well then I'll start worrying.

True_Avery
12-15-2007, 11:45 PM
Your brain will still most likely die off at a reasonably acceptable rate. So not to worry too much about the whole "immortal life" thing.

Me, I think I'd be in to it just for the Vader fanboyism.
Yeah. You can give yourself an entire robotic body, but eventually your brain will die due to natural causes. We have yet to find a way to download the brain itself, seeing as it processes faster than any known computer system, and even if we found a way to transfer over the computer could lack memory space, processing power, etc to have you existing in the same way you had before.

You can extend your life with mechanical pieces, but you cannot gain immortality through them. Now cloning, on the other hand, could make that kind of possible if you could transfer information from one brain to another.

And nothing we do to our body could be considered "natural" from a certain point of view. A hundred years ago, before advanced medicine, living past 30 was amazing. Now, the average human life span is about 70. We have blood transplants of blood that is not ours. We get organs from other people that are not ours. We have a number of things done to ourselves medically, and on a daily basis that would have never occurred naturally.

But, as Ray said, who is to say that this is not just evolution at work? We are getting closer to genetic engineering humans and transhumanisim. It is fast evolution, but it could still be defined as evolution if the altered humans end up having a better survival rate than "normal" humans.

And I get that, but lets take the Ghost in the Shell concept, where you're not some useless brain in a jar, but you've got a fully functional cybernetic body.
Haha, we are far far away from Ghost in the Shell technology... but so far that is the best representation of what humans could one day be, in my opinion. Prosthetic bodies and digital brains that can interact on a net, but with realistic limitations and problems. Love that anime.

Personally I think that being able to die naturally one day is a bliss, in fact it gives me more initiative to life. I mean, I know I would be much lazier if I know that I would live til, say, 500, instead of the estimated 100 or so for my generation, granted that I don't need to save up retirement fund for 400 plus years.
Lazier is one word. I prefer careful.

If we lived a lot longer, we could be less hasty in everything we do. We could be able to see the long term effects of our choices, instead of dieing and never seeing what happens. Education would be a lot longer and less forced on the young, for example. People could also be less, or more inclined to have bunchs of children.

Guess its the whole "nearly eternal life makes living meaningless" thing that I am fear about. Then again, the curiosity of any events after death would be some motivation also, whatever it is to one's believe.
If you lived a lot longer, how would life be meaningly? It would eventually get tiring and boring, but I doubt meaningless. Always more to learn, and a longer life brings forth more opportunity.

I am just saying that I would really don't want to be 130 and being supported by a bunch of machines like a floating brain in a jar or something like that. Being enhanced by technology to overcome difficulties is one thing, being sustained by it is quite a bit different.
Despite age, that happens a lot now. Due to people's beliefs and emotions, we can keep a terminal person alive for extended periods of time even if that person would like to die. Vegetables end up getting hooked up to machines and kept alive, even though they will never function ever again. The mentally handicapped would have been eaten at birth in the wild, but humans keep many of them alive through unnatural means, though if left alone some could die within ten minutes.

Humans use technology to keep terminal people alive way past their expiration date, but we will always attempt that with what we have. You cannot really avoid that.

Thanks but no thanks on that. Vader didn't exactly live in the Candy Mountain Cave.
Indeed, but he is still alive. You may not want to live like that, but I think we would be suprised how many people would sign up to get that done to them if they were very close to death. Everything eventually dies, but this could open up opportunity to live a little longer.

I dunno what I would do personally. Being kept alive when I am worn out and in pain does not seem all too pleasant. But outright dieing is not something I'm looking forward to at the moment either, seeing as I am questionable to the beliefs that there is in fact an afterlife. Comes down to the choice of living half alive, or not existing at all.

tk102
12-17-2007, 02:37 AM
Sing along everyone:
I Am the Very Model of a Singularitarian! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=qnreVTKtpMs&feature=related)

Tommycat
12-17-2007, 03:32 AM
Hmmm maybe its the mechanic in me, but I don't see replacing biological parts with mechanical as a way to go to a more stable platform. I've seen more mechanical devices fail more quickly than an arm/heart/legs/lungs. Sure they fail, but not as often as mechanical parts. The more mechanical parts you get the more likely something will fail. Being friends with an amputee, he says that he has to constantly go to have his arm adjusted.

I really don't see the point of it. Granted you could be stronger, or even tougher, but at the cost or the sensory loss, I personally wouldn't do it. It has its military applications, possibly even medical applications, but much of that you can do by remote rather than an actual replacement.

Web Rider
12-17-2007, 03:36 AM
Hmmm maybe its the mechanic in me, but I don't see replacing biological parts with mechanical as a way to go to a more stable platform. I've seen more mechanical devices fail more quickly than an arm/heart/legs/lungs. Sure they fail, but not as often as mechanical parts. The more mechanical parts you get the more likely something will fail. Being friends with an amputee, he says that he has to constantly go to have his arm adjusted.

I really don't see the point of it. Granted you could be stronger, or even tougher, but at the cost or the sensory loss, I personally wouldn't do it. It has its military applications, possibly even medical applications, but much of that you can do by remote rather than an actual replacement.

To be technically(heh...) correct, your body is a super-advanced machine. The basic principles and designs in the human body are mimicked by almost every machine in existance, rotator cups, cooling system, electrical wiring for veins.

Of course the human body fails less, it's had ages to perfect itsself. Given we had that much time, I'm pretty certain we could do the same thing. Of course, we'd have a "machine" so human, it would probly be considered organic and not mechanical.

Ray Jones
12-17-2007, 05:57 AM
The body is a machine, just made of organic material. I mean "mechanic" doesn't really mean "non-organic". Wood, for instance, is an organic material, and can be (and was) used to build cool machines of any kind. The difference between a wooden machine and a living body is of course that where a body is made of living matter, can produce it's own energy, and can repair/rebuild itself, etc.

I think we could somehow come up with something similar, just not organic or anywhere near as elegant as life can.

But what's that thing with material anyway, at the end of the day it's all made of the same stuff, like electrons, protons, and neutrons, used to mass produce the elements we know in those things we call stars.

Quanon
12-17-2007, 07:03 AM
Thing is how will people abuse this new technology .

Think of it , a robotic arm could have 4 times the power of a well trained meaty muscled arm .

Giving someone a punch with that would crush their skulls , or tear your car door off .

How would you setup a controle system , that doesn't look to tyranic , but doesn't give to much freedom so you can go to the blackmarket and put laserlights in your fingertops to annoy your teacher beyond belief .

Though I like the idea to expand my brain , I'm a sucker in Math and so I wouldn't mind a calculator or logics divice added to my head .

Then again , if big corporates start to produce the software / hardware we might end up with a Microsoft in Robotic Organs .

You would get all the same persons everywhere , cause they HAVE to use all the same products ...

Then again were nowhere near such things , so I'll let time to its job .

Tommycat
12-17-2007, 07:44 AM
Um I said biological not organic. I said mechanical, not machines.

Biological components(as I intended it to mean, perhaps I needed to clarify) are parts specifically grown to do a task. Where as mechanical components are built for the task. Basically, anything that must be assembled by a man or machine tends to fail more often than something that is biologically grown to do that task.

I wouldn't worry too much about a Microsoft brain controller with an Intel chip inside it, as there will always be a Mac or Linux with an AMD or other company.

Come to think of it I can see machines in the future with biological components as a realistic possibility.

Ray Jones
12-17-2007, 08:26 AM
Uh-huh, and when do you render organic to be non-biologic? And machines are non mechanic at what point exactly?

Biological components(as I intended it to mean, perhaps I needed to clarify) are parts specifically grown to do a task. Where as mechanical components are built for the task. Biologically grown is no different to being assembled, it's just done another way. The point is when we build an robotic arm, we have different goals/criteria for it than nature has. Plus, nature had a little bit more time for proper development.


Basically, anything that must be assembled by a man or machine tends to fail more often than something that is biologically grown to do that task.Poppycock. How do you want to compare what (for instance) a lift does to that what human legs do, anyways?

PoiuyWired
12-17-2007, 01:27 PM
Biological components(as I intended it to mean, perhaps I needed to clarify) are parts specifically grown to do a task. Where as mechanical components are built for the task. Basically, anything that must be assembled by a man or machine tends to fail more o

Depends on the mentioned device, its purpose, effectiveness, specificness etc.

To say its failing more is kinda weird cause technically the body is repairing itself continuously for the most part. Also when specific function are called to, the artificial toys can be quite superior. I find my chainsaw a bit more effective at cutting wood than my teeth.

Tommycat
12-17-2007, 10:25 PM
Uh-huh, and when do you render organic to be non-biologic? And machines are non mechanic at what point exactly?
I answered that in the next line.

Biologically grown is no different to being assembled, it's just done another way. The point is when we build an robotic arm, we have different goals/criteria for it than nature has. Plus, nature had a little bit more time for proper development.
I disagree. Assembly of a mechanical device is connecting of two or more pieces to create something. Assembly of a biological device is done through cellular replication.

Poppycock. How do you want to compare what (for instance) a lift does to that what human legs do, anyways?
I assume you mean the elevator lift, not a hydraulic lift. You cannot compare them. However you can compare their use with the body itself. The parts of the body are designed in the general idea of all the parts working together to accomplish a task. For example a Cheetah's legs are strong, but its the combination of the legs and remainder of the body that makes it fast. So Unless you are willing to include the whole body, I cannot answer.

Ray Jones
12-18-2007, 04:19 AM
I disagree. Assembly of a mechanical device is connecting of two or more pieces to create something. Assembly of a biological device is done through cellular replication.On atomic level, that "difference" disappears. However, if you take a bunch of cells, or a bunch of small components and stick them together, what's so different about it?


I assume you mean the elevator lift, not a hydraulic lift. You cannot compare them. However you can compare their use with the body itself. The parts of the body are designed in the general idea of all the parts working together to accomplish a task. For example a Cheetah's legs are strong, but its the combination of the legs and remainder of the body that makes it fast. So Unless you are willing to include the whole body, I cannot answer.Let's take a human arm and robotic arm then, which are at least able to behave in similar way. How would you compare them regarding "functional failures"?
Hardly, because while that robotic arm is able to lift a hundred kilos non stop in a 24/7/365 manner it needs maintenance several times a year, your human arm can only lift 50 kilos 10 times and then needs a rest but usually no "maintenance" for like 80 years. You simply cannot compare those failure rates, because we have a completely different design with different goals and different presets here.

Tommycat
12-18-2007, 04:54 AM
On atomic level, that "difference" disappears.
But we aren't assembling mechanical devices on an atomic level. What's your point in this? I made my distinction, explained what I meant. Now you're trying to say that they are the same. I disagree. They aren't assembled the same way. There is no outside force assembling biological machines.

Let's take a human arm and robotic arm then, which are at least able to behave in similar way. How would you compare them regarding "functional failures"?
Hardly, because while that robotic arm is able to lift a hundred kilos non stop in a 24/7/365 manner it needs maintenance several times a year, your human arm can only lift 50 kilos 10 times and then needs a rest but usually no "maintenance" for like 80 years. You simply cannot compare those failure rates, because we have a completely different design with different goals and different presets here.
Fine, lets say catastrophic failure. There are fewer catastrophic failures from biological parts failing in a catastrophic way in the same amount of time as a similar mechanical part with the same job. I mean we could point to a monkey's arm rather than a human arm for something that requires more up time. And having worked with robotic arms, they require cool down time as well. Not to mention that they do not get stronger if they mildly exceed their weight capacity. Quite the opposite.

I admitted that there are advantages in my first post in this thread. But in order to lift 250 kilos with your arm you also need the remainder of your frame replaced as well. Your spine would need to be strengthened, back musculature would also need replacing. If you're talking about for physical labor, You are talking about much more replacing. Then there is blood creation, which comes from the marrow in our bones(If I remember my A&P classes right... its been a while). If you replace too much of your skeletal structure, you risk not having enough blood being created.

Honestly it would make more sense to do the Shadowrun Rigger method rather than the General Grievous method. Tap into neural functions to control mechanical creations(vehicles).

Ray Jones
12-18-2007, 09:28 AM
But we aren't assembling mechanical devices on an atomic level.That we are not assembling stuff on atomic level is not true. We already have technology that allows us to grab and assemble single atoms together to objects, and yes, even mechanical devices, like a nanoturbine made of not more than 6 molecules, have been constructed already.


What's your point in this?That we are in fact, like all things made of matter in this universe, nothing but a bunch of atoms.


I made my distinction, explained what I meant. Now you're trying to say that they are the same. I disagree. They aren't assembled the same way.Yes, but..? I said if we take a close enough look, there is no true difference in the assembly of mechanical and biological "devices".


There is no outside force assembling biological machines.Not sure if that is true. Organ transplantation could be considered as 'assembling modules of biological machines'.


Fine, lets say catastrophic failure. There are fewer catastrophic failures from biological parts failing in a catastrophic way in the same amount of time as a similar mechanical part with the same job.Example please? I mean a plane's turbine or a car's brake does not really have a biological counterpart. My argument stands, comparison is not possible.


I mean we could point to a monkey's arm rather than a human arm for something that requires more up time. And having worked with robotic arms, they require cool down time as well. Not to mention that they do not get stronger if they mildly exceed their weight capacity. Quite the opposite.Hence difference in design, goal and presets.


I admitted that there are advantages in my first post in this thread. But in order to lift 250 kilos with your arm you also need the remainder of your frame replaced as well. Your spine would need to be strengthened, back musculature would also need replacing. If you're talking about for physical labor, You are talking about much more replacing.But I don't want to lift 250 kilos. I introduced that example to show that you cannot compare human and robotic arms that easily. However, I think robotic arms used as prostheses is a good thing nonetheless. But the aim here is not necessarily lifting of tons, but rather an almost *exact* copy as replacement for a human arm, for instance. When we are able to do what nature can, then we can take one step further and think about enhancements.


Then there is blood creation, which comes from the marrow in our bones(If I remember my A&P classes right... its been a while). If you replace too much of your skeletal structure, you risk not having enough blood being created.I am well aware of that. However, no one wanted to replace a complete skeleton, but if, sure that'd be an issue to solve.


Honestly it would make more sense to do the Shadowrun Rigger method rather than the General Grievous method. Tap into neural functions to control mechanical creations(vehicles).Depends on what your aim is. I think some vehicle won't necessarily help someone who lost an arm and leg in the same way as an artificial replacement would do. However, neural interfaced controllers for big ass machines or maybe just the average everyday technology like a computer or car is something we will see for sure in the future too.

PoiuyWired
12-18-2007, 06:10 PM
Well, the general mundane people just want to live their lives and a reasonable comfortable and convenient way, and a few limbs to replace their lost ones would be of great help. Hack, getting a few limbs in addition to your normal ones would be nice also... Dr. Octopus style... or just some little extra something to please your girlfriend?

Hmmm... soon I can have a full sized gundam at by garage. Next time someone piss me off at the bar I can actually yell Gundam Fight!

Dagobahn Eagle
12-18-2007, 08:18 PM
Thing is how will people abuse this new technology .Not more than they abuse existing medicine (doping comes to mind). I fail to see how making yourself better is 'abuse' in the first place.

Think of it , a robotic arm could have 4 times the power of a well trained meaty muscled arm .And our generation has 4 times the lifespan of the Ancient Egyptians.

Giving someone a punch with that would crush their skulls , or tear your car door off .Reality check, please. We don't need robotic arms - we have these
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Rb_s45ct44Hc8M:http://www.airsplat.com/Images/ER-UTG-M-AK-47.gif
You're making this kind of firepower sound like something new. We're not in the Stone Age anymore, we're in the modern-day world with atomic bombs, machine guns, and rockets. I don't worry the least bit about an arm that could crush my skull. They invented such a weapon in the Stone Age. It's called a club.

And even if you're strong enough to rip out a car door or smash skulls, so what? Many people in the world are that strong (watch a sumo-wrestling match or one of those shows where super-strong men compete to push trailers the fastest down a course)? We don't go about restraining them, do we? Do sumo wrestlers and boxing champions need to walk around in handcuffs because they otherwise smash someone's face?

How would you setup a control system , that doesn't look to tyrannic , but doesn't give to much freedom so you can go to the black market and put laser lights in your fingertips to annoy your teacher beyond belief.And that'd be different to simply buying a laser pointer how?

Though I like the idea to expand my brain , I'm a sucker in Math and so I wouldn't mind a calculator or logics divice added to my head.If such things are developed, there'll no doubt be ways to keep students from using them to cheat.

You would get all the same persons everywhere , cause they HAVE to use all the same products ...Why, though? Existing mechanical aids (glasses, artificial legs, contact lenses, hearing aids, etc.) are all different, and, in the case of vital stuff like artificial hearts, kinda need to pass quality control anyway. Pacemakers don't crash and require reboots every other second, nor will they ever unless we descend into a Soviet Russia-style regime when medicine is below sub-standard and saving lives is not considered important.

As for 'all being the same people', you're thinking in sci-fi terms, where everyone look like Terminators or something. Have you seen the artificial hands prostheses they're developing? They look pretty much just like human hands, and you can even control them rudimentary through brain signals, pretty much the same way you control your natural hands.

Think of it this way: you're going to buy contact lenses. The lenses are all from the same producer. Yet they're all different colours, and even if everyone in the world required contacts, all from the same producer, they'd still have different-colored contacts - unless of course they all got hit by some sort of huge fad or something.

Yes, technically this could lead to a dystopia where the ruling elite is much stronger, smarter, and so on than the proletariat. But this is not exactly a new risk. We already have ways to make ourselves much stronger and smarter than everyone else, don't we? If I lift weights seven days a week at the nearest fitness gyms, I would eventually become really strong, right? So technically, we could have a dystopia where fitness studios, weight-lifting and steroids were limited to the ruling elite and the proletariat was a bunch of piss-weak, unfit wretches.

Yet we're not the least bit afraid of training studios.

Web Rider
12-18-2007, 08:26 PM
Honestly it would make more sense to do the Shadowrun Rigger method rather than the General Grievous method. Tap into neural functions to control mechanical creations(vehicles).

The pointed difference between the two is that "peoples" bodies in Shadowrun were not destroyed. Grievous is essentially a major amputee because his body was destroyed.


You would get all the same persons everywhere , cause they HAVE to use all the same products ...
Except for different appearances, people ARE the same everywhere, and we all do use all the same parts. Sure, they come in a variety of shapes, and two primary designs(male and female), but if you were to compare my arm to the arm of anyone else in the world, the setup would be exactly the same.

And as far as that goes, your outsides are purely aesthetics anyway, and that's the simplest part of building a machine, the box it comes in.