If someone sinks completely into simstim (to borrow yet another excellent coinage from William Gibson), it becomes yet another evolutionary gate, similar to alcohol and various drugs. They'll tend to edit themselves from the species.
Personally, I agree with webcartoonist Joel Watson. The minute uploading to a cybernetic body is certified safe, I'm heaving this out-of-warranty meat pile into a ditch!
I hope you're right on that count. :P
As for cybernetic bodies... yeah. I think I can get behind that. Maybe. Slightly worried about some aspects of the process that may or may not even be a factor, but those would be voided if the transition was a gradual one.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
It depends imo.
If you could get cybernetic implants, who can guarantee you they aren't permanent connected to the internet and someone other than you can control it?
Additionally i am sure if it where possible to get a internet link with the brain, many people would do it. I think we all know to what this would ultimately lead. (just look how many people willingly share their private life on the internet, without any second thought.)
Sooner or later it would become a necessity in order to take part in society. Everyone who wouldn't want to join would be disadvantaged, discriminated or even worse.
No that's not the future i would like to live in.
Seems like an irrational fear.
1.) I see no reason why a cranial implant that links to the Internet would not come with a firewall to prevent such malicious behavior.
2.) That's their choice, personally I keep details about my private life to a minimum.
3.) Pure rubbish. There are people today without computers, let alone the Internet, some of which are Americans and no one has passed a law that they get must one, nor are they persecuted for such a choice.
Seems like an irrational fear.
1.) I see no reason why a cranial implant that links to the Internet would not come with a firewall to prevent such malicious behavior.
2.) That's their choice, personally I keep details about my private life to a minimum.
3.) Pure rubbish. There are people today without computers, let alone the Internet, some of which are Americans and no one has passed a law that they get must one, nor are they persecuted for such a choice.
1. Show me one pice of software/hardware (with internet connection) that's 100% save from outside manipulation, especially if someone deliberately wants to sabotabe it. A isolated device is much more secure imo. Heck there are people who could sabotage atomic power plants if they wanted to. I never got why everything needs a internet connection nowadays, even cars. lol.
2. Sure it is everyones personal choice, but just look around how many people give away their private data, beliving it would be save somewhere elase. lol. People are overtrustful or they just not well informend (not saying that i am, lol).
My point is, even todays world is already so chaotic, nobody can say for sure if your activities aren't being recorded and evaluated by some agencies computer. :eek:
3. If peer-group pressure is strong enough, you don't need a law to make people to feel forced.
There aren't any laws that force people to use cars and yet there are millions and millions of it, even though there are public transportation. No nation is forced to have nuclear weapons/power plants but for some reason some obviously think they need them...
That's the perfidious thing about new tech, everyone says it's not a necessity, but without it some feel excluded.
In private life, just look at it now, without a facebook profile you can't apply for a job sometimes.
Other example, law enforcement. There are cases where you are already suspicious without a facebook profile.
Sure these are just some wacky examples but it shows in which direction things could develop.
It is not the technology per se that's dangerous. It's what people do with it. Companies that want to sell you their newest gimcrack are telling you only the benefit of their prodicts, but they don't show you what damage can be done in the wrong hands.
And be sure SOME people will use any technology for the bad, if they think it is for their advantage.
It's a human trait, and that's why i think humanity won't make it to the stars and colonize the galaxy/universe/multiverse and so on.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
1. Show me one pice of software/hardware (with internet connection) that's 100% save from outside manipulation, especially if someone deliberately wants to sabotabe it. A isolated device is much more secure imo. Heck there are people who could sabotage atomic power plants if they wanted to. I never got why everything needs a internet connection nowadays, even cars. lol.
Oh dear, then you might as well unplug your computer now, because it's not a hundred percent safe being connected to the Internet. We wouldn't want anyone using it for nefarious ends, now would we?
Nothing is a hundred percent safe, even your home. Some crazed psychopath could break down your door and kill you right now. Thing is, though, security systems make it less likely to happen.
2. Sure it is everyones personal choice, but just look around how many people give away their private data, beliving it would be save somewhere elase. lol. People are overtrustful or they just not well informend (not saying that i am, lol).
My point is, even todays world is already so chaotic, nobody can say for sure if your activities aren't being recorded and evaluated by some agencies computer. :eek:
There's cameras everywhere now. They're watching your actions even when you're not on the Internet, so already you don't need a cranial implant to lose your privacy. What I suggest is joining some kind of civil rights cause and motion for some kind of reform against domestic spying.
3. If peer-group pressure is strong enough, you don't need a law to make people to feel forced.
There aren't any laws that force people to use cars and yet there are millions and millions of it, even though there are public transportation. No nation is forced to have nuclear weapons/power plants but for some reason some obviously think they need them...
That's the perfidious thing about new tech, everyone says it's not a necessity, but without it some feel excluded.
In private life, just look at it now, without a facebook profile you can't apply for a job sometimes.
Other example, law enforcement. There are cases where you are already suspicious without a facebook profile.
Sure these are just some wacky examples but it shows in which direction things could develop.
What peer pressure? I still don't have a cell phone, and no one's pressured me to get one. Unless you count junk mail as "peer pressure." And you're frankly discussing fringe cases, especially when there are indications that Facebook is on its way out as the current trending social networking site. Give it a few years and it'll likely go the way of MySpace and everyone will be using something else.
It is not the technology per se that's dangerous. It's what people do with it. Companies that want to sell you their newest gimcrack are telling you only the benefit of their prodicts, but they don't show you what damage can be done in the wrong hands.
And be sure SOME people will use any technology for the bad, if they think it is for their advantage.
It's a human trait, and that's why i think humanity won't make it to the stars and colonize the galaxy/universe/multiverse and so on.
So don't get whatever technology it is. Don't attempt to hold the rest of us back because you're afraid of whatever someone's going to do with something. You'd might as well seal yourself into an Absolutely Safe Capsule and spend the rest of your existence completely isolated from the outside world just because of what might happen.
You must be an extremely bleak person to be around....
There's cameras everywhere now. They're watching your actions even when you're not on the Internet, so already you don't need a cranial implant to lose your privacy. What I suggest is joining some kind of civil rights cause and motion for some kind of reform against domestic spying.
To paraphrase Heinlein, if you outlaw spying, the government just makes the bugs smaller. Brin laid out the case for sousveillance, the ability to look back at Big Brother, in The Transparent Society, back in '99 (a cause he continues to champion on his blog, Contrary Brin), and recent developments have only served to make his point, I believe. (For instance, the case of Walter Scott, the South Carolina man shot repeatedly in the back by a police officer a few weeks ago - the case might well have wound up just being swept under the rug, like so many before it, had someone not been filming it with their cell phone.)
Don't bother trying to outlaw spying - it won't work. Instead, try to find out what They want to do with the data. The best you can hope for is to limit the damage Big Brother can get away with, because one of the major implications of modern technology - almost any modern technology - is that They can get all the information about you They want. If you're not looking back, you'll never even know what They have.
To paraphrase Heinlein, if you outlaw spying, the government just makes the bugs smaller. Brin laid out the case for sousveillance, the ability to look back at Big Brother, in The Transparent Society, back in '99 (a cause he continues to champion on his blog, Contrary Brin), and recent developments have only served to make his point, I believe. (For instance, the case of Walter Scott, the South Carolina man shot repeatedly in the back by a police officer a few weeks ago - the case might well have wound up just being swept under the rug, like so many before it, had someone not been filming it with their cell phone.)
Don't bother trying to outlaw spying - it won't work. Instead, try to find out what They want to do with the data. The best you can hope for is to limit the damage Big Brother can get away with, because one of the major implications of modern technology - almost any modern technology - is that They can get all the information about you They want. If you're not looking back, you'll never even know what They have.
That's actually a fair enough argument. I like that idea.
Oh dear, then you might as well unplug your computer now, because it's not a hundred percent safe being connected to the Internet. We wouldn't want anyone using it for nefarious ends, now would we?
Nothing is a hundred percent safe, even your home. Some crazed psychopath could break down your door and kill you right now. Thing is, though, security systems make it less likely to happen.
I didn't said anything about 100% secureness, but it would be stupid not to lock your front door when leaving your house, or not?
I see internet related things similar like this. If i want to use it, good.
But if i don't want to use it, i don't want a device using it without my knowledge.
What peer pressure? I still don't have a cell phone, and no one's pressured me to get one. Unless you count junk mail as "peer pressure." And you're frankly discussing fringe cases, especially when there are indications that Facebook is on its way out as the current trending social networking site. Give it a few years and it'll likely go the way of MySpace and everyone will be using something else.
Facebook, Myspace or else, that's not the point.
People are pretty naive sometimes, they are willing to give away their personal data for a apple and an egg. On Youtube some people actually show thier houses and security system for ex., inviting criminals to drop by, lol.
Sure those people can do what they want, but i think it's a good example of how naive some ppl are about sharing information about their private life.
On the other side there are companies only hireing people with a facebook profile that suits to their "philospohy". Without one you don't need to apply for that job at all.
Another example are "smart watches" and apps that count your movements all day and transmit that data to your health ensurance company which gives you some bonus if you do exercise enough. Sounds nice, doesn't it?
But what about those people who can't do sports (because of physical or psychological reasons)?
So don't get whatever technology it is. Don't attempt to hold the rest of us back because you're afraid of whatever someone's going to do with something. You'd might as well seal yourself into an Absolutely Safe Capsule and spend the rest of your existence completely isolated from the outside world just because of what might happen.
You must be an extremely bleak person to be around....
Ah yes... thanks for the conversation.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
I didn't said anything about 100% secureness, but it would be stupid not to lock your front door when leaving your house, or not?
What the hell do you think a firewall is? It's supposed to stop unwelcome visitors from accessing your system. It's a virtual lock at your virtual door.
Facebook, Myspace or else, that's not the point.
People are pretty naive sometimes, they are willing to give away their personal data for a apple and an egg. On Youtube some people actually show thier houses and security system for ex., inviting criminals to drop by, lol.
Sure those people can do what they want, but i think it's a good example of how naive some ppl are about sharing information about their private life.
Yes. People are naive. That's always been and always will be. That's still not a good argument against transhumanism.
On the other side there are companies only hireing people with a facebook profile that suits to their "philospohy". Without one you don't need to apply for that job at all.
Still, these are fringe cases. You know what that word, "fringe," means right? It's not the norm.
Another example are "smart watches" and apps that count your movements all day and transmit that data to your health ensurance company which gives you some bonus if you do exercise enough. Sounds nice, doesn't it?
But what about those people who can't do sports (because of physical or psychological reasons)?
Another example are "smart watches" and apps that count your movements all day and transmit that data to your health ensurance company which gives you some bonus if you do exercise enough. Sounds nice, doesn't it?
But what about those people who can't do sports (because of physical or psychological reasons)?
There is an easy way to circumvent these smart watches. Just let your pets or kids wear them. Unless there is some biometric sensor to confirm that you are actually wearing it, then it is easy to deceive it.
i keep saying this all the time, but humans are a self destructive race that is lucky to survive itself, its caused so much destruction and chaos over the past thousands of years of recorded history and then you got history before that with other humanoids who interbred to create us, those races died out probably by each others hands and even then we lost species of animals like the mammoth. thats thoery though and theories are just an opinion.
when i see the likes of stephen hawking i dont see a brilliant man, i see a man who has an opinion on what he thinks is going on but he has no shred of evidence to even prove it because our technology is too primitive to even consider it. its the same for any so called intelligent people who see these things, its just another opinion and hard to prove just now.
if humans stopped following this base nature they dont think about, and decided to override that purpose to create a "new world order" where there is no conflict, wars, politics, money, greed of any type, where resources are completely shared to the goal of humanity in general. we wouldnt have need to cut down whole rain forests and destroy our own eco system, we wouldnt have need of devices and objects that are made for a limited time purpose and then dumped somewhere, causing a hazard to the local ecosystem because it cant degrade and disappear.
but as it is, we dont want to change from where we are, self destructive, and so we continue to be sheeple. we have no business contacting aliens even if the chance presented itself.
edit: make sure there is more sense, didnt get the chance earlier on the write it out as i had liked due to a lack of time.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
The whole "why don't aliens talk to us if they exist then huh" thing, is based on one rather large logical flaw.
The assumption that 'obviously' they must all be more advanced than us, if they exist at all.
There is always the possibility that they are no more advanced than, well, us.
We can't visit them yet, so why assume they must be able to visit us, takes us 100 years to send a radio signal to a star 100 light years away, and odds are they are no better equipped to detect that signal then we are to detect theirs, lot of attenuation and static interference on a radio signal over that distance.
For all we know, our nearest neighbors might still be developing side-wheel paddle steamers, and rifled muskets.
<center><font size="+5"><b>Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day... Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life...</b></size></center>
The whole "why don't aliens talk to us if they exist then huh" thing, is based on one rather large logical flaw.
The assumption that 'obviously' they must all be more advanced than us, if they exist at all.
There is always the possibility that they are no more advanced than, well, us.
The flaw in that argument is that we aren't the first "big" species to develop on this planet. Earth is much, much older than us and housed many species that have long since died out. Just think of the dinosaurs.
As far as Intelligent life is concerned, Earth wasted a lot of time.
It's reasonable to assume that there are worlds of similar age out there where intelligent species developed much earlier (when Earth was still dominated by T-rexes and the like).
The whole "why don't aliens talk to us if they exist then huh" thing, is based on one rather large logical flaw.
The assumption that 'obviously' they must all be more advanced than us, if they exist at all.
There is always the possibility that they are no more advanced than, well, us.
We can't visit them yet, so why assume they must be able to visit us, takes us 100 years to send a radio signal to a star 100 light years away, and odds are they are no better equipped to detect that signal then we are to detect theirs, lot of attenuation and static interference on a radio signal over that distance.
For all we know, our nearest neighbors might still be developing side-wheel paddle steamers, and rifled muskets.
That line of thinking you describe is based on the premise that some alien races are older than us. This assumption is made by assuming the age of humans is average, thus some races are either older (and maybe more advanced) or younger(and less advanced).
Then combine it with the assumption that there are hundreds of inhabited worlds(the more optimistic solutions for the Drake equation say there should be thousands or maybe even millions).
When you take those two statements as fact(which they aren't) it becomes logical to assume that there is a more advanced race living relatively close to Earth. Which is why some people take it as fact that aliens have been to Earth... despite lack of proof.
It's reasonable to assume that there are worlds of similar age out there where intelligent species developed much earlier (when Earth was still dominated by T-rexes and the like).
Why is that reasonable? I haven't even seen any convincing proof that sapience is a particularly desirable trait; we only developed it because we didn't have anything else that could compete with the various predatory life forms in the African savannah. It's entirely possible that sapience is a fluke, and only becomes useful in an evolutionary sense under particular circumstances (an ice age, for instance).
Just a matter of statistics. The numbers have been thrown around in this thread already.
We have no statistics by which to judge; there has arisen precisely one sapient species on this planet. A sample size of one is far too small to lead to any meaningful conclusions one way or the other.
We have no statistics by which to judge; there has arisen precisely one sapient species on this planet. A sample size of one is far too small to lead to any meaningful conclusions one way or the other.
Um... actually, during our evolutionary path, we were actually one of several sapient species. Are you forgetting all of the other hominids we were competing with before we came out on top, victorious? We're descended neither from the hobbits nor the neanderthals nor any of the other weird variants of the genus.
Um... actually, during our evolutionary path, we were actually one of several sapient species. Are you forgetting all of the other hominids we were competing with before we came out on top, victorious? We're descended neither from the hobbits nor the neanderthals nor any of the other weird variants of the genus.
Enh... that remains to be seen. The evidence is more than just a little fragmentary.
Um... actually, during our evolutionary path, we were actually one of several sapient species. Are you forgetting all of the other hominids we were competing with before we came out on top, victorious? We're descended neither from the hobbits nor the neanderthals nor any of the other weird variants of the genus.
I'm not convinced they weren't part of the same species; at the very least, if you're of European descent, odds are good that you're part Neanderthal. Just as if your ancestors hail from east Asia, you probably carry a certain percentage of Denisovan legacy.
I'm not convinced they weren't part of the same species; at the very least, if you're of European descent, odds are good that you're part Neanderthal. Just as if your ancestors hail from east Asia, you probably carry a certain percentage of Denisovan legacy.
It's the majority opinion of biologists that they were separate species; yes interbreeding was possible, but that's like breeding species of canis or equus. Neanderthals are not in our direct evolutionary heritage.
i keep saying this all the time, but humans are a self destructive race that is lucky to survive itself, its caused so much destruction and chaos over the past thousands of years of recorded history and then you got history before that with other humanoids who interbred to create us, those races died out probably by each others hands and even then we lost species of animals like the mammoth. thats thoery though and theories are just an opinion.
when i see the likes of stephen hawking i dont see a brilliant man, i see a man who has an opinion on what he thinks is going on but he has no shred of evidence to even prove it because our technology is too primitive to even consider it. its the same for any so called intelligent people who see these things, its just another opinion and hard to prove just now.
What people do you mean?
But i agree, Hawkings theories are just that, theories.
They are more ore less educated guesses imo.
if humans stopped following this base nature they dont think about, and decided to override that purpose to create a "new world order" where there is no conflict, wars, politics, money, greed of any type, where resources are completely shared to the goal of humanity in general. we wouldnt have need to cut down whole rain forests and destroy our own eco system, we wouldnt have need of devices and objects that are made for a limited time purpose and then dumped somewhere, causing a hazard to the local ecosystem because it cant degrade and disappear.
but as it is, we dont want to change from where we are, self destructive, and so we continue to be sheeple. we have no business contacting aliens even if the chance presented itself.
edit: make sure there is more sense, didnt get the chance earlier on the write it out as i had liked due to a lack of time.
I think even if we (humaity) would take such a new path like you described, only one (nation or organization) is enough to sabotage the whole system if they wouldn't want to play by the (new) rules.
But even if there where a outside threat which would unite humaity, once that threat would be gone, old hatred and animosities would quickly take upper hand.
That's how humans are, if there's no reason to kill each other, we (humanity) surely would fine some. Even if it is a bias older than dirt, if it's laughably null and void, people WILL find a way to spread hate and hostility.
And that's only what we do to each other, i don't want to start about what curelties humanity did and still does to animals and nature in general. Sometimes i feel simply ashamed.
Um... actually, during our evolutionary path, we were actually one of several sapient species. Are you forgetting all of the other hominids we were competing with before we came out on top, victorious? We're descended neither from the hobbits nor the neanderthals nor any of the other weird variants of the genus.
That depends on the point of view. Don't you think?
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
That depends on the point of view. Don't you think?
Oh sure, but it's still beside the point that the genus of homo became very surprisingly diverse for a while there. My personal favorite is the Boskop man, but I know that particular species is rather controversial about whether it actually existed.
We have no statistics by which to judge; there has arisen precisely one sapient species on this planet. A sample size of one is far too small to lead to any meaningful conclusions one way or the other.
Again, going by statistics based on observations of our galactical neighborhood there have to be billions of billions of sun-like stars.
Now, it is extremely unlikely that not at least a billion of those stars has planets and that of those planets, maybe a million are habitable.
Do you honestly think that none of these house an intelligent technologically advanced species, when Earth itself already defies that?
Oh sure, but it's still beside the point that the genus of homo became very surprisingly diverse for a while there. My personal favorite is the Boskop man, but I know that particular species is rather controversial about whether it actually existed.
This says a lot about how fragmentary our understanding is.
My first thought when reading about different sub-species is to ask how far outside the baseline it is. If the only difference from "normal" is a trait the guy down the street might have then I don't see that as an indicator that it's a different species.
Again, going by statistics based on observations of our galactical neighborhood there have to be billions of billions of sun-like stars.
Now, it is extremely unlikely that not at least a billion of those stars has planets and that of those planets, maybe a million are habitable.
Do you honestly think that none of these house an intelligent technologically advanced species, when Earth itself already defies that?
I believe the point he was making is that while that sounds reasonable, it's speculation. We have no proof one way or the other.
Again, going by statistics based on observations of our galactical neighborhood there have to be billions of billions of sun-like stars.
This part is accurate, although we have yet to discover one with an Earth-like planet - not even one of those massive super-Earths. (Been finding a lot of those around M-type red dwarfs, though.)
Now, it is extremely unlikely that not at least a billion of those stars has planets and that of those planets, maybe a million are habitable.
This is the part that stops me. How can you know? We don't have enough data to establish a baseline - as I pointed out above, we haven't even found one habitable world orbiting a G-type star yet, other than Earth. Now, a lot of that has to do with the methods we have to discover them (mostly observing gravitational wobble in the stars, which only works from a certain angle and is mostly useful for finding trans-Jovian worlds), but the point remains that we have no data indicating any other Earthlike worlds anywhere. We might have to make them.
NASA does have plans for an array of telescopes, thousands of kilometers apart to simulate a truly massive visual aperture, and hanging outside the orbit of Jupiter to minimize the gravitational distortion of the Sun, which could in theory directly image worlds as small as Earth orbiting stars thousands of lightyears away, but nobody in Congress seems inclined to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars it would take to build such an array.
Aww, kojiro, you went and edited out one of your more contentious statements before I could get in there and copy it (the one about breeds of dogs - I was going to point out that all dogs are classed as Canis lupus familiaris, and are regarded as a subspecies of wolf, just as H. sapiens neandertalensis and H. sapiens denisova are regarded as subspecies of the same species as us, H. sapiens sapiens.)
This says a lot about how fragmentary our understanding is.
My first thought when reading about different sub-species is to ask how far outside the baseline it is. If the only difference from "normal" is a trait the guy down the street might have then I don't see that as an indicator that it's a different species.
While there are some very interesting-looking people in the world, I have yet to see anyone who looks exactly like a neanderthal. That, after all, would call for someone with a very different skeletal structure.
Comments
I hope you're right on that count. :P
As for cybernetic bodies... yeah. I think I can get behind that. Maybe. Slightly worried about some aspects of the process that may or may not even be a factor, but those would be voided if the transition was a gradual one.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Seems like an irrational fear.
1.) I see no reason why a cranial implant that links to the Internet would not come with a firewall to prevent such malicious behavior.
2.) That's their choice, personally I keep details about my private life to a minimum.
3.) Pure rubbish. There are people today without computers, let alone the Internet, some of which are Americans and no one has passed a law that they get must one, nor are they persecuted for such a choice.
1. Show me one pice of software/hardware (with internet connection) that's 100% save from outside manipulation, especially if someone deliberately wants to sabotabe it. A isolated device is much more secure imo. Heck there are people who could sabotage atomic power plants if they wanted to. I never got why everything needs a internet connection nowadays, even cars. lol.
2. Sure it is everyones personal choice, but just look around how many people give away their private data, beliving it would be save somewhere elase. lol. People are overtrustful or they just not well informend (not saying that i am, lol).
My point is, even todays world is already so chaotic, nobody can say for sure if your activities aren't being recorded and evaluated by some agencies computer. :eek:
3. If peer-group pressure is strong enough, you don't need a law to make people to feel forced.
There aren't any laws that force people to use cars and yet there are millions and millions of it, even though there are public transportation. No nation is forced to have nuclear weapons/power plants but for some reason some obviously think they need them...
That's the perfidious thing about new tech, everyone says it's not a necessity, but without it some feel excluded.
In private life, just look at it now, without a facebook profile you can't apply for a job sometimes.
Other example, law enforcement. There are cases where you are already suspicious without a facebook profile.
Sure these are just some wacky examples but it shows in which direction things could develop.
It is not the technology per se that's dangerous. It's what people do with it. Companies that want to sell you their newest gimcrack are telling you only the benefit of their prodicts, but they don't show you what damage can be done in the wrong hands.
And be sure SOME people will use any technology for the bad, if they think it is for their advantage.
It's a human trait, and that's why i think humanity won't make it to the stars and colonize the galaxy/universe/multiverse and so on.
Oh dear, then you might as well unplug your computer now, because it's not a hundred percent safe being connected to the Internet. We wouldn't want anyone using it for nefarious ends, now would we?
Nothing is a hundred percent safe, even your home. Some crazed psychopath could break down your door and kill you right now. Thing is, though, security systems make it less likely to happen.
There's cameras everywhere now. They're watching your actions even when you're not on the Internet, so already you don't need a cranial implant to lose your privacy. What I suggest is joining some kind of civil rights cause and motion for some kind of reform against domestic spying.
What peer pressure? I still don't have a cell phone, and no one's pressured me to get one. Unless you count junk mail as "peer pressure." And you're frankly discussing fringe cases, especially when there are indications that Facebook is on its way out as the current trending social networking site. Give it a few years and it'll likely go the way of MySpace and everyone will be using something else.
So don't get whatever technology it is. Don't attempt to hold the rest of us back because you're afraid of whatever someone's going to do with something. You'd might as well seal yourself into an Absolutely Safe Capsule and spend the rest of your existence completely isolated from the outside world just because of what might happen.
You must be an extremely bleak person to be around....
Don't bother trying to outlaw spying - it won't work. Instead, try to find out what They want to do with the data. The best you can hope for is to limit the damage Big Brother can get away with, because one of the major implications of modern technology - almost any modern technology - is that They can get all the information about you They want. If you're not looking back, you'll never even know what They have.
That's actually a fair enough argument. I like that idea.
I see internet related things similar like this. If i want to use it, good.
But if i don't want to use it, i don't want a device using it without my knowledge.
Facebook, Myspace or else, that's not the point.
People are pretty naive sometimes, they are willing to give away their personal data for a apple and an egg. On Youtube some people actually show thier houses and security system for ex., inviting criminals to drop by, lol.
Sure those people can do what they want, but i think it's a good example of how naive some ppl are about sharing information about their private life.
On the other side there are companies only hireing people with a facebook profile that suits to their "philospohy". Without one you don't need to apply for that job at all.
Another example are "smart watches" and apps that count your movements all day and transmit that data to your health ensurance company which gives you some bonus if you do exercise enough. Sounds nice, doesn't it?
But what about those people who can't do sports (because of physical or psychological reasons)?
Ah yes... thanks for the conversation.
What the hell do you think a firewall is? It's supposed to stop unwelcome visitors from accessing your system. It's a virtual lock at your virtual door.
Yes. People are naive. That's always been and always will be. That's still not a good argument against transhumanism.
Still, these are fringe cases. You know what that word, "fringe," means right? It's not the norm.
You do realize that's entirely voluntary, right?
There is an easy way to circumvent these smart watches. Just let your pets or kids wear them. Unless there is some biometric sensor to confirm that you are actually wearing it, then it is easy to deceive it.
when i see the likes of stephen hawking i dont see a brilliant man, i see a man who has an opinion on what he thinks is going on but he has no shred of evidence to even prove it because our technology is too primitive to even consider it. its the same for any so called intelligent people who see these things, its just another opinion and hard to prove just now.
if humans stopped following this base nature they dont think about, and decided to override that purpose to create a "new world order" where there is no conflict, wars, politics, money, greed of any type, where resources are completely shared to the goal of humanity in general. we wouldnt have need to cut down whole rain forests and destroy our own eco system, we wouldnt have need of devices and objects that are made for a limited time purpose and then dumped somewhere, causing a hazard to the local ecosystem because it cant degrade and disappear.
but as it is, we dont want to change from where we are, self destructive, and so we continue to be sheeple. we have no business contacting aliens even if the chance presented itself.
edit: make sure there is more sense, didnt get the chance earlier on the write it out as i had liked due to a lack of time.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
I know i wouldn't...
My character Tsin'xing
Poisoning the house right before you move in doesn't help the resale value. :P
Member Access Denied Armada!
My forum single-issue of rage: Make the Proton Experimental Weapon go for subsystem targetting!
The assumption that 'obviously' they must all be more advanced than us, if they exist at all.
There is always the possibility that they are no more advanced than, well, us.
We can't visit them yet, so why assume they must be able to visit us, takes us 100 years to send a radio signal to a star 100 light years away, and odds are they are no better equipped to detect that signal then we are to detect theirs, lot of attenuation and static interference on a radio signal over that distance.
For all we know, our nearest neighbors might still be developing side-wheel paddle steamers, and rifled muskets.
Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life...</b></size></center>
As far as Intelligent life is concerned, Earth wasted a lot of time.
It's reasonable to assume that there are worlds of similar age out there where intelligent species developed much earlier (when Earth was still dominated by T-rexes and the like).
Then combine it with the assumption that there are hundreds of inhabited worlds(the more optimistic solutions for the Drake equation say there should be thousands or maybe even millions).
When you take those two statements as fact(which they aren't) it becomes logical to assume that there is a more advanced race living relatively close to Earth. Which is why some people take it as fact that aliens have been to Earth... despite lack of proof.
My character Tsin'xing
Um... actually, during our evolutionary path, we were actually one of several sapient species. Are you forgetting all of the other hominids we were competing with before we came out on top, victorious? We're descended neither from the hobbits nor the neanderthals nor any of the other weird variants of the genus.
My character Tsin'xing
It's the majority opinion of biologists that they were separate species; yes interbreeding was possible, but that's like breeding species of canis or equus. Neanderthals are not in our direct evolutionary heritage.
But i agree, Hawkings theories are just that, theories.
They are more ore less educated guesses imo.
I think even if we (humaity) would take such a new path like you described, only one (nation or organization) is enough to sabotage the whole system if they wouldn't want to play by the (new) rules.
But even if there where a outside threat which would unite humaity, once that threat would be gone, old hatred and animosities would quickly take upper hand.
That's how humans are, if there's no reason to kill each other, we (humanity) surely would fine some. Even if it is a bias older than dirt, if it's laughably null and void, people WILL find a way to spread hate and hostility.
And that's only what we do to each other, i don't want to start about what curelties humanity did and still does to animals and nature in general. Sometimes i feel simply ashamed.
That depends on the point of view. Don't you think?
Oh sure, but it's still beside the point that the genus of homo became very surprisingly diverse for a while there. My personal favorite is the Boskop man, but I know that particular species is rather controversial about whether it actually existed.
Now, it is extremely unlikely that not at least a billion of those stars has planets and that of those planets, maybe a million are habitable.
Do you honestly think that none of these house an intelligent technologically advanced species, when Earth itself already defies that?
My first thought when reading about different sub-species is to ask how far outside the baseline it is. If the only difference from "normal" is a trait the guy down the street might have then I don't see that as an indicator that it's a different species. I believe the point he was making is that while that sounds reasonable, it's speculation. We have no proof one way or the other.
My character Tsin'xing
This is the part that stops me. How can you know? We don't have enough data to establish a baseline - as I pointed out above, we haven't even found one habitable world orbiting a G-type star yet, other than Earth. Now, a lot of that has to do with the methods we have to discover them (mostly observing gravitational wobble in the stars, which only works from a certain angle and is mostly useful for finding trans-Jovian worlds), but the point remains that we have no data indicating any other Earthlike worlds anywhere. We might have to make them.
NASA does have plans for an array of telescopes, thousands of kilometers apart to simulate a truly massive visual aperture, and hanging outside the orbit of Jupiter to minimize the gravitational distortion of the Sun, which could in theory directly image worlds as small as Earth orbiting stars thousands of lightyears away, but nobody in Congress seems inclined to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars it would take to build such an array.
Aww, kojiro, you went and edited out one of your more contentious statements before I could get in there and copy it (the one about breeds of dogs - I was going to point out that all dogs are classed as Canis lupus familiaris, and are regarded as a subspecies of wolf, just as H. sapiens neandertalensis and H. sapiens denisova are regarded as subspecies of the same species as us, H. sapiens sapiens.)
While there are some very interesting-looking people in the world, I have yet to see anyone who looks exactly like a neanderthal. That, after all, would call for someone with a very different skeletal structure.
Only by a minority of biologists.