VeggieBoards - Reply to Topic
Thread: Is technology limitless Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
02-10-2011 07:42 PM
Josh James xVx We are limited only by the smallness of our minds and the resources at our disposal. The stars call to us if we do not destroy ourselves.
02-10-2011 09:51 AM
Kappa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nishani View Post

It's only a bit of escapism, not the downfall of civilisation. Get over it.

Escapism on a large and frequent scale is a severely negative thing, however.

Anyway, I should note that it is only Transhuman technologies that I am expressly in opposition to. I think the cyborg is as undesirable as it is unnatural, though I don't hold with Haraways' rather broad definition of the cyborg as 'the moment the boundary between human and animal is transgressed,' which technically sees glasses as cybernetics. Rather, I think it best to say I am against invasive cybernetics or Transhuman manipulations.
I'm that guy at the party aren't I?
02-10-2011 09:47 AM
Nishani
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kappa View Post

The problem, I suppose, is that VR would be less affordable, and also involve headsets, etc that a majority of the population might not be too keen on. I mean, existing display headsets are hardly regarded as the best way to view the 'net... However, were people to get over that, it would result in great social degradation. TV, for those that want to placate and control, is an imperfect system, because the people viewing are often still in social spaces. Shut people off from social spaces with headsets, etc, and you have a closed circuit where you can advertise to your heart's content without friend A cutting down how stupid product X is. People are made more vulnerable, more susceptible to advertising, and at the same time lose their social skills from isolation.

It's only a bit of escapism, not the downfall of civilisation. Get over it.
02-10-2011 09:38 AM
Kappa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nishani View Post

Sounds like a doomsday scenario to me.

Droll, but besides the point. VR would be more likely to go along the route that it takes in Gibson's work, with things like Sense/Net placating a downtrodden lowerclass. Using consumer cultures in much the same way that Big Brother uses hate, to distract and control a large population. I mean, television is already at this juncture, has been for years.
The problem, I suppose, is that VR would be less affordable, and also involve headsets, etc that a majority of the population might not be too keen on. I mean, existing display headsets are hardly regarded as the best way to view the 'net... However, were people to get over that, it would result in great social degradation. TV, for those that want to placate and control, is an imperfect system, because the people viewing are often still in social spaces. Shut people off from social spaces with headsets, etc, and you have a closed circuit where you can advertise to your heart's content without friend A cutting down how stupid product X is. People are made more vulnerable, more susceptible to advertising, and at the same time lose their social skills from isolation.
02-10-2011 09:31 AM
Nishani
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kappa View Post

Generally I don't have 'silly doomsday scenarios,' actually. I merely think that invasive mental/physical technology and the cultures it will create will lead to a downturn in humanity. Whether or not we survive doesn't factor into it, it is still a negative thing. Although VR in particular does make me think of that planet the Silver Surfer encounters where everyone is under the influence of a VR machine and has destroyed their planet in a generation of neglect.

Sounds like a doomsday scenario to me.
02-10-2011 09:30 AM
Kappa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nishani View Post

I think, like yourself, a lot of people have silly doomsday scenarios regarding technology. Humans will adapt and survive. We self-regulate now, so we will in the future too.

Generally I don't have 'silly doomsday scenarios,' actually. I merely think that invasive mental/physical technology and the cultures it will create will lead to a downturn in humanity. Whether or not we survive doesn't factor into it, it is still a negative thing. Although VR in particular does make me think of that planet the Silver Surfer encounters where everyone is under the influence of a VR machine and has destroyed their planet in a generation of neglect.
02-10-2011 09:25 AM
Nishani
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kappa View Post

Greeeeeeeeeeeed! Call me a neo-Luddite, but the man-machine interface of VR is dangerous and dehumanising - not to mention depersonalising. Of course, the typical antithesis to this is to state that our reality might very well be a collective dream a la the Matrix, but I think there is a difference between elective and inelective false realities, and to elect to experience one so completely as in VR is certainly a negative thing. VR would essentially result in a real parallel of Cyberbrain Scelrosis from Ghost in the Shell S.A.C. or sad, empty lives as sponsored by Gibson's Sense/Net.
Limitless life is obvious enough in its drawbacks, unless we're planning on creating some new planets to inhabit.

I think, like yourself, a lot of people have silly doomsday scenarios regarding technology. Humans will adapt and survive. We self-regulate now, so we will in the future too.
02-10-2011 09:16 AM
Capstan I think we'll learn how to levitate objects in the near future, then, after that, our discoveries will level off for a long while. We'll spend the next few thousand-years learning how to cope with what we've already invented.
02-10-2011 09:10 AM
Kappa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nishani View Post

Not true. I could really use indefinite lifespan right now and a virtual reality machine wouldn't go amiss at my next party.

Greeeeeeeeeeeed! Call me a neo-Luddite, but the man-machine interface of VR is dangerous and dehumanising - not to mention depersonalising. Of course, the typical antithesis to this is to state that our reality might very well be a collective dream a la the Matrix, but I think there is a difference between elective and inelective false realities, and to elect to experience one so completely as in VR is certainly a negative thing. VR would essentially result in a real parallel of Cyberbrain Scelrosis from Ghost in the Shell S.A.C. or sad, empty lives as sponsored by Gibson's Sense/Net.
Limitless life is obvious enough in its drawbacks, unless we're planning on creating some new planets to inhabit.
02-10-2011 09:09 AM
DarkwingDuckie I think there are multiple issues...

Is technology limitless? I think so.

Can we, as humans, keep on evolving our technology? I don't know. It all depends how much resources we put into it and what we do with it. For example, if we use technology to eradicate us a sa species then obviously we would not be able to continue withits eolution. Also, if we do not allcate resources to technological develoment, it will not develop or develop slowly. Also, technology was more advanced in ancient Greece and Rome then it was duirng the Dark Ages so the development of society and societal values influences how technology is perceived. But I do think that no matter what social circumstances, there will be at least a few people with the curiosity and insight to want to push teh limits of technology and knowledge.

Lastly, I think a better question would be the possibilities on how new technologies may be used and whether we should persue certain new technologies and open ourselves up to their abuse. Afterall, technology just is... it is how we use it that gives it value.
02-10-2011 08:54 AM
Nishani I think it's only limited by our imaginations and creativity.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kappa View Post

None of the advances in your first post are needed, but they'll probably be attempted on a large scale at some point.

Not true. I could really use indefinite lifespan right now and a virtual reality machine wouldn't go amiss at my next party.
02-09-2011 10:00 AM
Kappa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huruma View Post

I strongly believe that genetic engineering and biotechnology should be used to eradicate suffering and create a race of humans who are super empathic and loving. Social/political/cultural reform is not enough to change the world.

And I meant is it limitless in terms of everything being possible.

I'll have to strongly disagree with you there, seeing as how we're living in a system which sees patriarchal capitalists already controlling technology, there is no way technology can be truly liberating (asides from communication technology). Additionally, genetic manipulation will either lead to a caste system, or evoluntionary dead ends. I literally just wrote a blog post about this though... don't want to rehasssssssh.

And everything possible? Probably, with the right materials and know-how. I don't think we'll ever have all the right materials because we are so limited and can't reach out into space, etc.
02-09-2011 09:56 AM
Huruma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kappa View Post

Resources are not limitless, therefore technology cannot be limitless. There are a great many things we could acheive, but we should not. Transhumanist technologies, for example, are dangerous and will destroy humanity or cast us into a dark age. Anything that attempts to manipulate the Earth's cycle or weather patterns will wreck havoc.
Humans aren't stupid, but they are arrogant and short-term thinkers. None of the advances in your first post are needed, but they'll probably be attempted on a large scale at some point.

I strongly believe that genetic engineering and biotechnology should be used to eradicate suffering (throughout the animal kingdom) and create a race of humans who are super empathic and loving. Social/political/cultural reform is not enough to change the world.

http://www.hedweb.com/hedethic/tabconhi.htm

And I meant is it limitless in terms of everything being possible.
02-09-2011 09:48 AM
Kappa Resources are not limitless, therefore technology cannot be limitless. There are a great many things we could acheive, but we should not. Transhumanist technologies, for example, are dangerous and will destroy humanity or cast us into a dark age. Anything that attempts to manipulate the Earth's cycle or weather patterns will wreck havoc.
Humans aren't stupid, but they are arrogant and short-term thinkers. None of the advances in your first post are needed, but they'll probably be attempted on a large scale at some point.
02-09-2011 09:43 AM
Huruma and how advanced do you think technology will be in a century or two or at it's greatest possible peak (it has to stop advancing eventually, doesn't it ) ?

Virtual reality machines- I think these are possible

Genetic engineering- I think so

Sentient, AI - I think so

Forwards time travel - I think this is theoretically possible but practically impossible

Backwards time travel - I don't think this is theoretically possible

Indefinite lifespan-I think this is possible

Telepathy - is it possible that some implanted microchip in my brain could receive and send signals to microchips in other brains?

etc.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

-Arthur C. Clarke

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off