TheGreatGodPan on 27/1/2005 at 04:27
Has anyone here heard of Frances Fukuyama (best known for his much derided claim of "the end of history", which should really be considered more a refutation of Marx's interpretation of Hegel than Huntingtons socio-political ideas from "The Clash of Civilizations")? He wrote a book called "Our Posthuman Future" (
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312421710/ref=pd_sim_b_6/002-1294415-8010465?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance) which seems pretty connected to Deus Ex, especially with bio-modification and the Omar. I haven't read the book (or played Invisible War), so I suppose this thread is more of a benign trolling for comments (although since trolling relies on offending people into insulting you and this is quite a bit more boring, its chances of success do not bode well). Do you think people have an inherent nature that could be eliminated by technology? How significantly does it alter our behavior, and is it odds with evolution? Will it seperate humanity, or tend to elevate us all in general (this almost sounds like a discussion on capitalism). And finally, does Nietzche fit in here anywhere? Everybody seems to love mentioning Nietzche (apparently including Fukuyama, both here and in the End of History and the Last Man), I personally could care less, but I haven't bothered to read much of his stuff.
DaBeast on 27/1/2005 at 17:15
Well, from what I can tell the book and your question regard the use of bio/genitic engineering. First we would need to know what problems to fix. Easy enough, that would be anything medical. No more disease, goodbye mortality. Just the removal of those two would have a major impact on our societies' evolutionary path.
Would we be so eager to believe in dieties if we could not die? (excluding murder etc). Without the thought that there is a paradise to go to, we would lose the binds of religion, and possibly the moral constraints that gave us. True enough, there would be no more holy wars (after everyone succumbs to the yearning to live forever)
The most likely result will be a split society, those who want to believe in thier gods and those who want to use science to better themselves. No doubt a war would ensue. Then the third, people who couldn't care less and just want to live, they will suffer most.
Which leads to the second point. Would the end result require some sort of behavour modification. Or after a period of adjustment would the people give up on the futility of wars and greed etc?
Is it possible to remove instincts?
We know it is possible to suppress them, nature has done that already to some extent, but could they be removed entirely, would we want them to?
Without emotion we would not be what we are. Without our inate curiosty we would not have advanced much beyond the monkey. Without war we would not have invented rockets and went into space.
I have ponderd on more than one occaision, the meaning of our existence. I do not believe that we sprung from Adam & Eve, I dont want to offend anyone who does, I think it's more likely we came from meteors ( a la Evolution-the movie ;) ) Although what isn't touched in that movie is the possiblity of intent and purpose. I believe there are too many similarities with other animals on the planet to just say "Nature did that, that was the course of evolution" Perhaps a preprogrammed path written in our dna or something would explain these things. (As far as I know, scientologists believe that we were "grown" or rather "planted" and evo took it's course, and that someday the Creators will return to pick up thier slaves...something like that)
In summation, I think there are too many varibles to deliver a straight answer. Just more theories. What I do know is that if we delve too deep we mightn't like what we find. I do not agree with genetic manipulation unless it's to fix problems like O negitive blood and other various genetic mistakes.
In all, not a very useful post,but, there it is :)
Matthew on 10/2/2005 at 12:58
Does form alter content? If the shape of the container changes the nature of what is inside, what will that mean for humanity? In the near future modern science will provide us with the means to solve these questions. But will we be ready for the answers?
(NOTE: Shamelessly paraphrased off the top of my head from System Shock: ICE Breaker / Terminal Access.)
It's a very interesting subject, though perhaps it might be more popular on the Comm Chat board? Personally, I think that technology can and will have a substantial impact on humanity in general and, of course, those with illnesses in particular. I understand that the first attempt at what could roughly be called a bionic eye (
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.09/vision.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=) took place a while ago wherein a camera provided the input for a blind subject to be able to see again. If that sort of work continues, how long can it be before those with money can install advanced optics into their cranium?
That brings me to another point. Besides the use to restore functionality to those who have lost it, will this mean that the gap between rich and poor becomes pronounced not only in terms of quality of life, but also in terms of life itself? Will we see a Walton Simons-style technological elite, with physiques tuned to their requirements, lording it over unaltered humans?
DaBeast on 10/2/2005 at 18:00
**** ME HARD! :wot:
Quote Posted by Matthew
That brings me to another point. Besides the use to restore functionality to those who have lost it, will this mean that the gap between rich and poor becomes pronounced not only in terms of quality of life, but also in terms of life itself? Will we see a Walton Simons-style technological elite, with physiques tuned to their requirements, lording it over unaltered humans?
Touching points I have made. I do beleive it is very likely that such a thing will happen. You only have to look at America today for an example.
People who can afford health insurance can get decent treatment while those on welfare have to wait hours for substandard care. Then at the top the fat cats get only the finest money can buy.
Although it mainly refers to time it also applies to state of the art technology being used by both private hospitals and public.
TheGreatGodPan on 10/2/2005 at 21:44
Quote Posted by GamesBeast666
Touching points I have made. I do beleive it is very likely that such a thing will happen. You only have to look at America today for an example.
People who can afford health insurance can get decent treatment while those on welfare have to wait hours for substandard care. Then at the top the fat cats get only the finest money can buy.
Although it mainly refers to time it also applies to state of the art technology being used by both private hospitals and public.
I think the gap between haves and have-nots inevitably grows because as time goes on there are more things to have. In most countries things get better for most people, so the have-nots have more than the have-nots of the past, while the haves have a whole friggin lot more.
Matthew on 14/2/2005 at 16:21
In this case however, there is the (probably remote) possibility that the haves will actually become a whole new sub-species (Homo Superior, as I believe Alpha Centauri called them). Will there be a point where nanomachines are passed on during pregnancy, rendering the newly-born baby augmented even before they can speak?
