THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => CHATTER => Topic started by: RobbieOC on 15 Jul 2008, 13:34
-
I read this article on CNN.com today: eek! (http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/15/bio.tech/index.html)
These are the story highlights, according to the top of the page, if you don't want to read the whole article:
- Nick Bostrom says technology will let humans manipulate their own biology
- Ray Kurzweil predicts humans will be mostly non-biological by around 2030
- Biotechnology, nanotechnology, robotics could merge mankind with machines
This is kind of scary. And also kind of awesome? I'm kind of confused about how I'm supposed to feel after reading it. The whole talk about "the human race going extinct and the human brain becoming obsolete" is definitely scary, but the physical aspects of it are kind of awesome, frankly. I don't know. What do you guys think? Anyone know anything about this that can shed a little light on it?
-
I think it won't happen in our life times. Our organs and body parts work just fine. There's no reason to replace them. The thing most likely to be man-made on a large scale by 2030 is the immune system in developed countries, and even that is a hell of a stretch.
And if anybody really thinks they need nano machines to turn on a TV set, I don't think it's our bodies that we should be replacing.
-
Ray Kurzweil's books are cool, but he really overhypes things as far as technology predictions.
-
All I know is 30 years ago, we were promised flying cars, and space travel.
Ahem, yeah I am still not a space pirate, and by the looks of things I might never get that chance.
-
THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE FUTURE.
-
Ray Kurzweil's books are cool, but he really overhypes things as far as technology predictions.
They show a bunch of his predictions that did come true, I wonder how many he's made that haven't?
-
I only see two predictions listed: the first is kinda dumb, and the second, well, it's somewhat vague but still visionary. Apparently just one good prediction is all it takes to be taken seriously when you declare that people will be replaced by robots in 20 years.
-
hmm yeah that guys predictions seem a little far-fetched but then again at the rate things are going...who knows?
personally, i'm more interested in this:
One scientist is developing something called a respirocyte -- a robotic red blood cell that, if injected into the bloodstream, would allow humans to do an Olympic sprint for 15 minutes without taking a breath or sit at the bottom of a swimming pool for hours at a time.
EDIT: think of the connotations this could have for pot-smokers!
-
I think the word you're looking for is "implications."
-
dude i'm high
-
"The changes will be faster and more profound than the very, very slow changes that would occur over tens of thousands of years as a result of natural selection and biological evolution."
This does not sit well with me. By overriding nature's way, we will surely make mistakes and almost certainly not fix the flaws within humanity that natural selection and evolution would produce. Granted we don't nuke ourselves into oblivion before we get the chance.
-
Prediction is a mug's game. My first wife's father ran the first fusion research plant in the world (Zeta, at Harwell); when it was started up (1955 or so), he was pictured in the papers under headlines like "Free Electricity in Ten Years". Of course, he never said that, though I think he was still disappointed at how slow development turned out to be.
What you can be sure of is that the really important changes will catch you by surprise.
-
All I can say is, Magnectic Implants (http://www.bmezine.com/news/pubring/20040226.html) guys.
-
Nanotechnology is already starting this process. A lot of it will be for the better, but it brings tons of risks, both scientific and ethical, along with it.
Plus, amputees are continually getting more and more advanced prosthetic legs that are starting to make their wearers cyborg-like, at least in terms of heightened athletic abilities.
-
All I know is 30 years ago, we were promised flying cars, and space travel.
Ahem, yeah I am still not a space pirate, and by the looks of things I might never get that chance.
We already have flying cars and space travel. However, these things are for rich people. Much like growing a new heart valve inside your leg will be, or injecting yourself with nanabots that give you super strength, or whatever.
I mean, I know these scientists have to get grants, which is why invariably they're unflaggingly optimistic about the applications of technology for humankind... but it always seems left to science fiction authors to point out that the benefits of the newest technology will be the domain of the rich, and revolutionary technologies may result in the formation of a "genetic underclass" or similar.
-
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ElS9BKSsezw&feature=related (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ElS9BKSsezw&feature=related)
-
hmm yeah that guys predictions seem a little far-fetched but then again at the rate things are going...who knows?
personally, i'm more interested in this:
One scientist is developing something called a respirocyte -- a robotic red blood cell that, if injected into the bloodstream, would allow humans to do an Olympic sprint for 15 minutes without taking a breath or sit at the bottom of a swimming pool for hours at a time.
EDIT: think of the connotations this could have for pot-smokers!
Dude you could hit a two-story bong and then watch Takashi Miike movies. And then actually inhale a pizza.
-
WHERE'S MY FUCKING JETPACK?
-
I don't know about you guys, but I'm already a fuckin' cyborg.
You're not missing out on much, really.
-
Well, I am a shape shifting lizard-creature.
:-D <---me
:-( <----you
-
Man, they just found a fungus in Chernobyl that can EAT RADIATION and grow at levels of radiation that would kill a person in one hour.
(the actual chernobyl fungus was found a while ago by a robot, but some researchers have just shown similar fungi have increased growth rates when exposed to ionising radiation)
-
WHERE'S MY FUCKING JETPACK?
Seriously, the 21st century is really disappointing so far. I mean, this is nothing like the Jetsons.
-
I don't know about you guys, but I'm already a fuckin' cyborg.
You're not missing out on much, really.
You have an adamantium spine, it's not quite the same thing.
-
This does not sit well with me. By overriding nature's way, we will surely make mistakes and almost certainly not fix the flaws within humanity that natural selection and evolution would produce. Granted we don't nuke ourselves into oblivion before we get the chance.
The argument against what you're saying is that our intellect is a new tool in evolution and if we haven't developed it enough so that we fuck this up to the point of extinction, well then that's our own bloody fault.
I personally welcome our new Cyborg overlords. HAIL.
P.S. Darryl most of our modern technology is incredibly lazifying (new word!) by the standards of the past. The idea that we should reject all technology that results in us having to go to less physical effort for mundane tasks we could probably just do ourselves would leave you in a very unfamiliar world you'd barely recognize. Don't get me wrong, I am not all for lazy fucks and the technology they rely on but surely you must see my point while you type on your lightning box.
I'm on the "not in our lifetime" brigade though, for a bunch of reasons, the most prominent being that medical research into shit like this is likely to be incredibly thorough, and also the thing about technology largely benefiting rich people first. Once again, I extend cordial welcomes to our future robot overseers.
-
P.S. Darryl most of our modern technology is incredibly lazifying (new word!) by the standards of the past. The idea that we should reject all technology that results in us having to go to less physical effort for mundane tasks we could probably just do ourselves would leave you in a very unfamiliar world you'd barely recognize. Don't get me wrong, I am not all for lazy fucks and the technology they rely on but surely you must see my point while you type on your lightning box.
Hell, all technology is designed to make us go to less physical effort for mundane tasks - or at least a lot of it, anyways. When the first australopithecine hit a stone off another stone to make a sharp edge for cutting the skin off things, or the first person in the Golden Crescent decided to plant seeds instead of doing some hunter-gathering, that's all designed to reduce the total effort required to do stuff. Technology = civilisation, plain and simple. Take away tech, and you're some sort of crazy person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Zerzan) who wants everyone to die off so they can live as a hunter-gatherer again.
I'm all in favour of the continuing technological and scientific advancement. I'm not in favour of the uses it is put to, or how it is used, or who controls it, but that's another discussion. And it's entirely possible that the technological singularity - if it can occur - will occur in the lifetimes of people who are alive today. I'd be willing to bet on seeing sentient AI before I die, for sure, although I'm definitely not a transhumanist. I'd say that things like functional cyborg eyes are about a decade away - they've already come up with some basic ones if I remember right.
-
Laziness, not necessity, is the mother of invention. I predict that we'll turn out exactly like the humans in WALL-E pretty soon.
Seriousness begins.
I think stem cell research should be researched before moving to nanotechnology. What if someone whose name happens to be Liquid takes control of everyone's nanobots and kills them?
Screw controversiality in this line of research; if the United States can have an offshore base to torture people legally, then we can do the same with stem cell research. I bet more people are against torture than stem cell research; if not, something is seriously wrong. Besides, we can get true stem cell medicines up within the next decade, while it'll take a while to replace out internal organs with machines. It wouldn't work, as well; it would have to be done on every newborn; if it's going to take that much effort for maybe another year of life, then why do it? There are more important things to focus on, that are happening now, not in 2030. Global warming, rebuilding the economy, etc.
-
Stem cell research is legal in the U.S.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
-
Stem cell research is legal in the U.S.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
Sorry, I am slightly tired. It took me five tries to type 'tired'.
I was trying to say that it is an area of controversiality, especially among Christians. Since most of the nation is Christian, it makes it slightly difficult to produce medicines containing stem cells. To me, it seems similar to the Kansas-is-putting-creationism-in-science-class controversy.
If people allow the gov't to torture people by doing nothing about it, then they should not complain about stem cell research harming unborn babies, who can't even feel yet.
-
I remember reading of this man over here who after an injury, got a computer chip in his arm to replace some damaged nerves!! Now THAT's a cyborg. Apparently he wants even more "upgrades" as they seem to work better than our own fleshy matter. I'll try and find the story later today, can't be bothered right now.
-
i think i was in the future
it was called metal gear solid (4)
-
All I can say is, Magnectic Implants (http://www.bmezine.com/news/pubring/20040226.html) guys.
"Hai guys look what i can do with my finger..."
-
coupling that implant with some sort of genital piercing could provide some interesting sensations, i'm betting.
-
WHERE'S MY FUCKING JETPACK?
http://airventure.org/2008/news/080710_jetpack.html
-
Our organs and body parts work just fine. There's no reason to replace them.
Sir, I dispute your sentiment. Why? Fucking robot arms (http://www.botjunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/robot_arm.jpg).
-
I can't wait until I can really get robot lungs!
-
Stem cell research is legal in the U.S.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
No, there's still heavy restrictions placed on it.
-
Sir, I dispute your sentiment. Why? Fucking robot arms (http://www.botjunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/robot_arm.jpg).
This reminds me of a question a friend asked me once.
If offered half of a billion dollars, would you lose your legs?
-
Well, I am a shape shifting lizard-creature.
:-D <---me
:-( <----you
I approve of this use of smilies.
Our organs and body parts work just fine. There's no reason to replace them.
No need to replace them. (http://www.stelarc.va.com.au/third/third.html)
-
I'm entirely too lazy to look up the actual survey right now, so I'm not even going to attempt to make up statistics but:
In 1949 a survey was put out that asked people what they believed the likelihood of several 'predictions of the future'. Essentially they were asked what they thought the world would be like 50 years in the future as we prepared to enter the 21st century. The vast majority of respondents believed that by 1 January 2000 there would be a cure for cancer. All of it.... cured. Almost nobody thought there was a chance in hell that we'd put a man on the moon.
Anybody a shooter? If your aim is just a fraction of an inch off when you're sighting your target, at 300 meters, you're missing by several feet. Simple geometry of angles.
The same is true when you try to predict the future. It's probably safe for me to predict that tomorrow gas will still be around four bucks a gallon. There is plenty of historical trending data to support it, and very few things that could happen in the next 24 hours that would radically alter the price of gas. If you ask me what the price of gas will be this time next year... Now there are more variables to take into account and my speculation is more prone to error. I can still data-mine for trends, but the likelihood of unaccounted for variables increase as time goes on. Ask me what it will be like in 2030 and I'm basically just taking a wild ass guess. That's essentially what these guys are doing. Looking at a short term trend and extrapolating it way beyond a reasonable time frame. Sure, some of it may end up proving to be true because it follows the next logical step in technological evolution, but I'm not laying any money today on what technology is going to do for us in 2030... Know what I mean?
-
Sir, I dispute your sentiment. Why? Fucking robot arms (http://www.botjunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/robot_arm.jpg).
This reminds me of a question a friend asked me once.
If offered half of a billion dollars, would you lose your legs?
Only if I got new robot legs.
-
well, with half a billion dollars, you could probably make that happen.
-
I'm entirely too lazy to look up the actual survey right now, so I'm not even going to attempt to make up statistics but:
In 1949 a survey was put out that asked people what they believed the likelihood of several 'predictions of the future'. Essentially they were asked what they thought the world would be like 50 years in the future as we prepared to enter the 21st century. The vast majority of respondents believed that by 1 January 2000 there would be a cure for cancer. All of it.... cured. Almost nobody thought there was a chance in hell that we'd put a man on the moon.
I understand your point, and I know it doesn't really have anything to do with what you're saying... but, to be fair, if someone asked me in 1949 whether cancer would be cured/eradicated by 2000, I probably would've said yes as well. I mean, people at that time had just seen mass-produced antibiotics (seemingly) provide silver bullet cures to a whole bunch of diseases. That would've made me pretty damn optimistic about the ability of science to deal with disease.
-
ah but that's the entire problem with the predictions of these technoutopians. They're looking at some of the explosive developments in technology right now (many of these being pretty much nascent technologies, like nanotech, and the initial period of any technology is going to have the most growth) and assuming the exact same technologies will continue to develop at exactly the same rate with no political opposition whatsoever for a quarter of a century.
-
Which was exactly my point. I don't for a second dispute the reasons people in '49 made the predictions they did as they seemed very logical at the time. The only way we'll know what 2030 is going to be like is to actually be around in 2030.
-
WHERE'S MY FUCKING JETPACK?
They made functionable ones decades ago. But the problem with the flaming jets being real hot and able to burn stuff underneath the user was a turn of.
I saw an article from 1900 about how life would be in 2000. There was a lot about how we would have apples the size of melons and strawberies the size of big apples. And how we would all have electric kitchens with stoves warming in minutes and a french chef walking from house to house doing the cooking. SciFi is funny.
-
That's really not too far off. I've seen some freaking big strawberries, and aside from the whole French Chef thing... pretty impressive by whoever threw out that guess. Or lucky. Or whatever.