First, regarding transhumanism, Machine Gods etc., a usefull summation of life for the bios to be broadcast daily:
Your obsolence is inherent
Your irrelevance inevitable
Your existence tolerated
And should you oppose us
Your termination absolute
Second, a short bit on Hope I find necessary:
Hope is the sweet name given to the betrayal of reason. Keep your heart closely guarded in her presence. She will take everything you allow and give nothing in return. If you wish to deal in Hope, that is your business, but I'll have none of it. In my experience, there are far more merciful ways to ruin a persons life.
Third:
If ones life benefits others, this is all well and good. However, if ones life is lived entirely in the service of others and with no personal benefit, this is slavery. No sane person would agree to this.
Fourth:
If the sum of existence is nihil, as it is known to be, then there can be but two reasons for existing when one has the option and awareness not to: fear and vanity. If one is prone to neither, what is the remaining reason for choosing survival on a daily basis? Fear still holds sway, but I doubt whether that's for the best.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Machine Gods
The problem with a home computer and internet is that, by the time I get around to writing this, I've gone full circle with the ideas I wanted to put down. As such, I feel inclined to begin with the conclusion rather than the beginning. Fortunately, starting from the beginning is usually more interesting.
Assuming sentience=life in the valuable sense, whereas functional organs and cells are nothing more than biological machinery, it becomes easy to accept the possibility of replacing meat-and-bone bodies with technological versions. Purity of essence, sentience, over purity of body, a decaying skin-bag. For all its uses and wonders, the biological human body is poorly designed, short-lived and inefficient.
It seems to me an inevitability that luddites opposed to transfers of consciousness to non-bioligical forms would eventually be left behind; incapable of keeping up with the hours, efficiency, capabilities and knowledge of mechanical humans. However, one of historys more important lessons is that blindly chasing after one path of progress and abandoning all other possibilities leaves you with no way out when the chosen path is no longer sustainable/desirable/affordable.
I hope, then, that human cells would be preserved, cultured and modified over time to allow for potentially beneficial mutations. In time, the improved biological machine might surpass the artificial one. In particular, the artificial body presents the problem of procreation. Even with potential immortality, stagnation is not desirable. Part of humanity could remain in machine form or all revert to the next bio form.
Perhaps biological humans would benefit from a period of manufactured extinction. All currently circulating transferable diseases, for instance, would die out. Furthermore, modifications could allow for custom bodies to meet specific requirements. Perhaps multiple bodies would even be possible for differing occasions.
How, then, does one test the biological machines? Do those uncomfortable with virtual existence choose to aid research? Punishment for criminals? Or do we go the rather crude route of social stratification, which is to say that the wealthy become Machine Gods, manipulating the very genes of lower classes and evaluating/culling them for desired variance?
Then the annoying conclusion: I've essentially gone Deus Ex to Nier via Ghost in the Shell. It's disheartening to spend hours thinking of concepts only to realize that, subconsciously, you already had all these ideas given to you by other sources. Still, the inbetween phase of upper-class machines using lower class bios as living research is not one I seem to recall seeing. Perhaps a step missed by others.
Assuming sentience=life in the valuable sense, whereas functional organs and cells are nothing more than biological machinery, it becomes easy to accept the possibility of replacing meat-and-bone bodies with technological versions. Purity of essence, sentience, over purity of body, a decaying skin-bag. For all its uses and wonders, the biological human body is poorly designed, short-lived and inefficient.
It seems to me an inevitability that luddites opposed to transfers of consciousness to non-bioligical forms would eventually be left behind; incapable of keeping up with the hours, efficiency, capabilities and knowledge of mechanical humans. However, one of historys more important lessons is that blindly chasing after one path of progress and abandoning all other possibilities leaves you with no way out when the chosen path is no longer sustainable/desirable/affordable.
I hope, then, that human cells would be preserved, cultured and modified over time to allow for potentially beneficial mutations. In time, the improved biological machine might surpass the artificial one. In particular, the artificial body presents the problem of procreation. Even with potential immortality, stagnation is not desirable. Part of humanity could remain in machine form or all revert to the next bio form.
Perhaps biological humans would benefit from a period of manufactured extinction. All currently circulating transferable diseases, for instance, would die out. Furthermore, modifications could allow for custom bodies to meet specific requirements. Perhaps multiple bodies would even be possible for differing occasions.
How, then, does one test the biological machines? Do those uncomfortable with virtual existence choose to aid research? Punishment for criminals? Or do we go the rather crude route of social stratification, which is to say that the wealthy become Machine Gods, manipulating the very genes of lower classes and evaluating/culling them for desired variance?
Then the annoying conclusion: I've essentially gone Deus Ex to Nier via Ghost in the Shell. It's disheartening to spend hours thinking of concepts only to realize that, subconsciously, you already had all these ideas given to you by other sources. Still, the inbetween phase of upper-class machines using lower class bios as living research is not one I seem to recall seeing. Perhaps a step missed by others.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Illiterati
What would happen if there were a group of people so dedicated to the oral tradition of storytelling that they would intentionally seek to destroy the written word, so humanity would have no choice but to revert to non-written stories?
This sounds idiotic, but there are two very important points that lend credibility to the theory:
1. They wouldn't accomplish much, because they would be absolute shit at organizing. Everything would have to discussed orally, there would be no legal agreements or easy communication and plans would be almost impossible to discuss. Think about it: how do you explain to somebody who doesn't/can't read how to use Skype to set up a conference call? It's a doomed venture. These people would be so ineffectual as to be non-existent.
2. I like this bit in particular: Nobody could prove that they (don't) exist. There would be no documentation, no incriminating evidence left in the paper shredder, no uncoverable secrets.
Seriously, if it weren't for the problem of communication, this would be brilliant. You can never be caught, if there's no proof you were even involved and courts require more than just hear-say or claims.
It would be the most perfect and perfectly useless conspiracy ever. I love this idea.
This sounds idiotic, but there are two very important points that lend credibility to the theory:
1. They wouldn't accomplish much, because they would be absolute shit at organizing. Everything would have to discussed orally, there would be no legal agreements or easy communication and plans would be almost impossible to discuss. Think about it: how do you explain to somebody who doesn't/can't read how to use Skype to set up a conference call? It's a doomed venture. These people would be so ineffectual as to be non-existent.
2. I like this bit in particular: Nobody could prove that they (don't) exist. There would be no documentation, no incriminating evidence left in the paper shredder, no uncoverable secrets.
Seriously, if it weren't for the problem of communication, this would be brilliant. You can never be caught, if there's no proof you were even involved and courts require more than just hear-say or claims.
It would be the most perfect and perfectly useless conspiracy ever. I love this idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)