Robert Maxwell wrote:
Robert Maxwell wrote:
No one's fighting anything, you're just upset that people aren't lapping up the Kurzweil Kool-Aid.
I'm a huge fan of technology and what it can and will do for us in the future. I just don't presume to think that any one person knows what the future will look like. That is what I consider "boxed-in": the belief that the future will look any certain way that we can predict right now. The fact is, we are notoriously bad at predicting the future, because technology isn't driven by any one factor. It's not driven just by what a bunch of eggheads imagine, nor what a megacorp's bean counters think will sell. It's a confluence of many factors that are difficult to track, measure, and predict.
I prefer to keep my options open.
I'm not upset at all. I'm trying to tell you the paradigm has changed, while no one is a prophet, we have systems available to predict the future with greater accuracy than ever before. Therefore we have the ability to affect more than ever...it's reinforcing...see how that works?
What I meant by fighting tooth and nail is the fact that humans are short-sighted...we pine for the past, eras which were supposed golden ages, when the very best we ever were is right now...even with all our imperfections. People want to bury their heads in the sand, they want to ignore technological change(how often have you heard people who use smartphone say they hate technology, or even see people choosing old phones over new ones)..it appears natural human instinct to do so as the information age expands, nostalgia flourishes(in the USA slightly less than in most countries, which to me is the only REAL world reason America is a superpower and so cool to be in)....here is where it gets good...we don't have to be that way...trans-humanism can mean expanding our human "RAM" and storage, as smartphoes, laptops, google etc are already doing to a degree. Sharing ideas, knowledge in real-time from our minds to a network can change human perception, change our provincialism as a species, mitigate tribal or political bias. It can change our perception of time to something more akin with reality. If you consider this boxed in, I feel sorry for you.
Sorry, but having a smartphone in your pocket is absolutely nowhere near being a cyborg. That's the kind of talk that makes you lose people, when you jump from current technology straight to fantasy. You also fail to acknowledge that just because something is possible
, it doesn't mean everyone's going to want to do it.
Do you really think most people will be okay with cybernetically modifying their bodies, having all sorts of implants, enhancements, etc.? What about the legal ramifications? What impact will this have on education, sports, and human health in general? Instead, the talk is all about how cool it would be if we could do all this, and that we'll soon have the ability. Maybe we will, maybe we won't, but it's foolish to believe that once it is possible and practical, everyone will do it "just because."
Wow...the fact that portable computing devices increase the depth of knowledge and in effect enhances human faculties is by far
NOT the most contentious issue I raise. Far from making me lose people, it's already an established fact...portable computers are a transformative technology, with both extenuating and direct impact on economics, knowledge, and information gathering. This has been discussed for decades.
I would read this entire pdf:
The idea that these enhancements can be tied directly into the brain and used networked in real time is more controversial. Smartphones don't make us cyborgs, but they can lead to a technology that will.
Well I have explained WHY we'd want to be cyborgs and more before haven't I? Not least if which is this: