It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Posthuman: More Human Than Human?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep
We welcome your ideas but not your bullying.

My hero. Thanks.


Back to the topic:

X wants to focus on nanotechnology. ....there are several ways to tinker with genes and the human body - nanotechnology being only one - but you want to focus on nanotech, X - because it can go waayyy out of control, right?

....So we're talking about smaller-than-microscopic little machines that can take over human cells and bodies, and change them, and maybe reproduce themselves - and not just the body that they're injected into, but maybe they could spread and infect other people too...???

If that's what you're saying - Yipes. scary stuff. ...how will anyone even know until after it happens, and the little suckers are already loose? ...and what if we can't kill them?

Is there anything to stop people from doing these kinds of experiments? ...Like laws or regulations, or some kind of controls?




posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

....So we're talking about smaller-than-microscopic little machines that can take over human cells and bodies, and change them, and maybe reproduce themselves - and not just the body that they're injected into, but maybe they could spread and infect other people too...???



And since they'de be programed to do such things, we'd see a whole new generation of hackers. Instead of computer virus' they'de be writing ..oh I dunno..nanoscript? maybe?

All we could hope for is for the little suckers to be developed in a Windows Environment.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep

Originally posted by soficrow

....So we're talking about smaller-than-microscopic little machines that can take over human cells and bodies, and change them, and maybe reproduce themselves - and not just the body that they're injected into, but maybe they could spread and infect other people too...???



And since they'de be programed to do such things, we'd see a whole new generation of hackers. Instead of computer virus' they'de be writing ..oh I dunno..nanoscript? maybe?

All we could hope for is for the little suckers to be developed in a Windows Environment.


hehe


but seriously, it's already happening...




A team of scientists at the University of California (America) have created microscopic machines that are powered by living tissue. Scientists created these 'organic machines' by growing cells from rats onto microscopic silicon chips. The tiny machines are able to propel themselves along without any external force using only their organic components.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



So now that's straight, what's next?

.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep
I can see nothing that soficrow posted that warranted the insults you made.

My 'insult' was that she didn't have a real understanding of the material. The evidence, her entire post.


Got info and evidence? Post it. We welcome your ideas but not your bullying.

How about instead of me presenting evidence to demonsrate that a NWO conspiracy invented Darwinism in an attempt to deal with ineffectual Lamarckism and took over from an Old World Order that couldn't (even tho Lamarcksim was not widely accepted even without Darwin) deal with it, that she rather presents evidence for it?



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by astrocreep
I can see nothing that soficrow posted that warranted the insults you made.

My 'insult' was that she didn't have a real understanding of the material. The evidence, her entire post.



You ranted and insulted, but offered no real argument, nor references nor evidence of your own.

I outlined a thesis and provided references.


Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by astrocreep
Got info and evidence? Post it. We welcome your ideas but not your bullying.

How about instead of me presenting evidence to demonsrate that a NWO conspiracy invented Darwinism in an attempt to deal with ineffectual Lamarckism and took over from an Old World Order that couldn't (even tho Lamarcksim was not widely accepted even without Darwin) deal with it, that she rather presents evidence for it?


You clearly do not understand my argument. You have not questioned details, nor asked for clarifications. Obviously, you haven't checked the references and you're relying on outdated dogma.

I challenge you to a duel (or whatever the intellectual equivalent is called here).

...and I recommend that you do a bit more reading before we start:


Epigenetics: Genome, Meet Your Environment
As the evidence accumulates for epigenetics, researchers reacquire a taste for Lamarckism
www.the-scientist.com...

Epigenetics and the renaissance of heresy
Link to .pdf

An evolving theory
www.chennaionline.com...


.


[edit on 26-1-2005 by Banshee]



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by astrocreep
We welcome your ideas but not your bullying.

My hero. Thanks.


Back to the topic:

X wants to focus on nanotechnology. ....there are several ways to tinker with genes and the human body - nanotechnology being only one - but you want to focus on nanotech, X - because it can go waayyy out of control, right?



Exactly right. Not only is it the tech with the "newest face" of eugenics, it is also being heralded as a "saviour tech", too much for my liking.

I also feel that this will be a manner for transhumanists to affect very swift change on very specific groups of our overall population. That, the powerful and swift delivery, is something they have lacked until the advent of nano tech.

See where I'm going with that? Depending on the resolve of these individuals, we could see vast atrocities that can be disguised as "outbreaks" or "mutated disease", which would keep the harsh light of truth off of nano tech while initial changes were made.

Sounds a bit out there, I know. But I see the disappearances/deaths of many prominent microbiologists under strange circumstances. Now, I haven't done much research into that, but from what I've seen, many of them worked(covertly or overtly) for large defense contractors on research that could help them to identify a disguised nano tech "attack".

I think, and if others will stop and consider it; if Hitler had such technology at his disposal, the face of the world would be very different today. We are entering a time where steps could be taken against specific groups of the human genome, under the guise of "fighting terror" or "bringing peace". However you label it, it sounds mighty totalitarian and mighty insane to me.

The sad fact is, that this isn't the movies. There will be no "miracle", no "happy ending". To be blunt, the vast majority of our population would be totally unprepared to combat the effects of such a situation. We would be as lambs at the slaughter, which I'm sure would please many elites.

So the awareness of the threat needs to be brought up now, while the tech has not(officially at least) been released onto the public domain. The danger is real, I'm just unsure of to what degree.

X



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Man oh man, trust me we have alot more to worry about then Transhumanists.
I know some of these people, they are rare but the movement is growing up and expanding
now that the Nanotech rollercoaster has started. These people know to a certain degree
what is going to happen if we continue with our current progression. This is not Eugenics as
most Posthumans will choose to do so, not be forced. This is the next step in Evolution people
and since "Survival of the Fittest" is more like "Survival of the Fattest" now, we as a species
are in danger of stagnation. The Merger between Carbon Based Life with technological
enhancements could mean great things for our species and they could also introduce new
horrors to this planet. I however if given the choice would love to become a "Post-Human".
In fact it is one of my primary goals in life. It may be far-fetched, but it is desirable to me
at least. Things aren't always bad and if this is done in an open way(think Open Access /
Open Source) it could mean a new species of Humans. Unfortunatly Humans dislike change,
fear it actually and when confronted with an actual Post-Human they will probably respond
with fear, predgidous and violence. Watch Mutant X, X-Men etc and you will see how it will
happen. The "Normals" will band together against the "Freaks" out of Fear and Hatred and it
could start a war. The Post-Humans would not start it, the regular Homo-Sapien
will as has been always the case in the past. Same thing goes for A.I. as well, if a war starts
the A.I's will not be the ones to start it, trust me on this and forget everything hollywood has
to say on the issue.

[edit on 26-1-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Unfortunatly Humans dislike change, fear it actually and when confronted with an actual Post-Human they will probably respond with fear, predgidous and violence.


Boy, have you got that one right. It doesn't matter how, if, when, where or why this technology comes into our lives, that statement will be true.
Us humans don't deal with change real well, it threatens our comfortable little ideas.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Man oh man, trust me we have alot more to worry about then Transhumanists.
...This is the next step in Evolution people and since "Survival of the Fittest" is more like "Survival of the Fattest" now, we as a species are in danger of stagnation. The Merger between Carbon Based Life with technological
enhancements could mean great things for our species and they could also introduce new horrors to this planet.

... I however if given the choice would love to become a "Post-Human".
In fact it is one of my primary goals in life.


Sorry Sardion, I doubt you'll be given a choice.

This technology is controlled:

1. It will benefit the chosen elite, and their minions for specific, predetermined functions only;

2. It will be used as a weapon, and for population control.

...You're buying into the marketing. Don't you know you can't believe everything you read?


.

[edit on 26-1-2005 by soficrow]



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   


This is not Eugenics as
most Posthumans will choose to do so, not be forced.


Why would you feel that anyone, other than a very select few, would be given a choice in the matter? Sure in a distant(50+years) time, you may grow children and then they choose various bots and implants as they progress, but that is further away, after the "thinning of the herd". Which is not a very human endevour at all.


This is the next step in Evolution people
and since "Survival of the Fittest" is more like "Survival of the Fattest" now, we as a species are in danger of stagnation.

Why is this the next step in evolution? Why is one-world government the next step in human direction? Because we are conditioned to believe it is? Because a "high cabal" wishes to exert control upon us in the most efficient form? Does that make either the right thing to do?



The Merger between Carbon Based Life with technological
enhancements could mean great things for our species and they could also introduce new horrors to this planet.


I agree, in part; some great things could come from the application of nano tech to society. But as you state, horrors could be brought to us all. Is it worth the risk? If so, who get's to determine the amount of risk at any given time? What if you or your loved ones directly suffered due to the risks presented? What if the people of earth weren't given the choice of how much risk to take? What if individuals chose how, when and who to affect? That sounds inhumane to me, you?




I however if given the choice would love to become a "Post-Human".
In fact it is one of my primary goals in life. It may be far-fetched, but it is desirable to me at least. Things aren't always bad and if this is done in an open way(think Open Access / Open Source) it could mean a new species of Humans.


Again, why do you assume that these things would take an "open source" route? In a society that bases it's main decisions, not on the cost of human life, but on the cost of military expendeture, why should you or I be given any say in the matter? If we were, that's well and good, but to this point, most revolutionary tech has started as a governmentally controled operation and then moved out to the private sector and then public domain only when the next, newest tech was there. It'll be a while in this situation.





Unfortunatly Humans dislike change, fear it actually and when confronted with an actual Post-Human they will probably respond with fear, predgidous and violence.


Would the willingness of a society to embrace change lessen the horror of the potential threat? Or would it just allow the potential threat to proceed at a swifter pace?



Watch Mutant X, X-Men etc and you will see how it will
happen. The Normals will band together against the "Freaks" out of Fear and Hatred and it
could start a war.

I don't like to base my arguments on television and movies, but I understand what you're getting at. But let's remember the other side of the coin. There were individuals that chose to use their situation against the mainstream of humanity, which was exactly what most humans were fearful of.

Regardless, yes, human emotion will play a factor in any type of societal change. And there will be hidden motives behind all sides. But that does not negate the risk, and that does not prevent a disaster.

Great stuff, I appreciate it.

X



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   
One of Canada's leading poets, Christopher Dewdney, has written a book about Transhuman developments called 'Last Flesh'.

Here's the author talking about it...very interesting...

life-enhancement.com...

I looking for the book now...btw, Christopher is A K Dewdneys brother, the one who wrote Operation Pearl, the study on 911, which proposes there was a conspiracy perpetrated on the American public.

Interesting family...

[edit on 26-1-2005 by masqua]

[edit on 26-1-2005 by masqua]



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   


Why would you feel that anyone, other than a very select few, would be given a choice in the matter? Sure in a distant(50+years) time, you may grow children and then they choose various bots and implants as they progress, but that is further away, after the "thinning of the herd". Which is not a very human endevour at all.

Because there are many of us working to achieve an open system. The movement is growing you should jump on the Anti-CorporateNWO Bandwagon. There are many ways to fight them but they don't include banning technology(or Demonizing it for that matter). Some of the ways to fight the MAN is through the Open Source movement and I agree its not a forgone conclusion yet but the best I and you can do is fight for the desired future we all want to have. I can see a society where Humans, Post-Humans and AI all live together in harmony. I know it seems idealistic but without Ideals and Principals to guide us we could go down that Nightmare road you and alot of other people imagine. I myself have nightmares about such things, however the Future is NOT set in stone.




Why is this the next step in evolution? Why is one-world government the next step in human direction? Because we are conditioned to believe it is? Because a "high cabal" wishes to exert control upon us in the most efficient form? Does that make either the right thing to do?


I am working to prevent such a situation as are alot of others in the so-called "Trans-Humanist" movement. I actually believe the "high cabal" want to stop this technology from ever going mainstream(or actually being invented) because it will disrupt thier well laid plans(which is to make money and accumulate power) and change the dynamics of society forever. If Regular joes get access to this technology just think of how our society will change. BTW Why do you assume that the Transhumanists are Globalist NWOers? Infact www.betterhumans.com... which is a pro-transhumanist website seems very anti-globalisation and anti-war etc. Unless you believe its a propaganda ploy by the powers?




Again, why do you assume that these things would take an "open source" route?


I don't. I am a proponent of the Open Source and Open Access movement for quite a while. It seems to be a growing tidal wave starting in the IT industry, it could end up revolutionizing well everything. It has that disruptive potential.




but to this point, most revolutionary tech has started as a governmentally controled operation and then moved out to the private sector and then public domain only when the next, newest tech was there. It'll be a while in this situation.


Up to this point yes. But this is the first technological revolution where we have the Internet. The work being done in Nanotechnology didn't start in government labratories as alot of Conspiracy Theorists like to believe. It may end up in the Military-Industrial complex but right now Private Industry spending is far outpacing public govenment spending.




Would the willingness of a society to embrace change lessen the horror of the potential threat? Or would it just allow the potential threat to proceed at a swifter pace?


I believe the former, allthough in order to placate society openness is required. It all comes back to Open Access and if we cannot succeed using that model then we are as good as dead anyway. I would rather die then live in a world where technological progress is being made behind closed doors without any public knowledge or consent.




Regardless, yes, human emotion will play a factor in any type of societal change. And there will be hidden motives behind all sides. But that does not negate the risk, and that does not prevent a disaster.

I abosuletly agree, but I say combat hidden motives with open honesty. It's really the only way it can be done if we are to avoid an Orweillian Nightmare. We cannot ban it, we cannot demonize it but what we can do is turn it against them in the end. I do not assume anything btw as everything is still up in the air.



Great stuff, I appreciate it.


Thanks! Ditto 2 u



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   
[edit on 26-1-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Absolutely brilliant post Sardion. Thanks. Much to consider, rethink. Off the top, your points about open Access/Open Source ring true. It's our best hope, maybe our only one...

And thanks for link to betterhumans. Had that one stashed somewhere, but lost it.


.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thread about the darker side of Nanotech research of today. Has nothing to do with Nanobots though it is equally as scary. Allthough it could have uses in Rocket Boosters(which is another rout to wrest control from the Powers that be Space Exploration that is
)

[edit on 26-1-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Can you name any of these medical schools that advocates eugenetics in ethics courses? Iknow people who have been in medical school and there is certainly nothing of the sort in their experience.


Sorry, didn't even notice this until re-reading the thread.

Just off the top of my head, I'll say Peter Singer, at Princeton.

I do think I may have worded this incorrectly, though. What I should have said is, it *appears* to have a basis in eugenics. I didn't write the courses, so I cannot say that as a certainty, and shouldn't have. It is used to decide which patients will receive a certain level of care, while others will not.

An example of this might be, if a kidney came up and there were 2 people it could be used for, a businessman and a person with Down's Syndrome, the businessman will get the kidney every time. It's also used to decide when a patient is no longer financially viable to treat. However, those with money can overcome this problems.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Funny that this comes up. Back when the Nazis were doing their part for humanity under the banner of racial improvement/preservation there was a school of thought, mostly represented in art, called Futurism.
Futurists and Thule Members (often one in the same) were the ones who gathered around a newspaper that was bought out by the early NSDAP and eventually this coalition created brought the Nazi party to the forefront.

Futurism was all about the promise of modern machines and violent conquest and national aggrandizement with the aid of such machines. The Blitzkrieg was the basically the product of military know-how applied to the Futurist ideas.

Just a word on the little spat between Nygdan and Soficrow... I don't claim to know the issue but Soficrow has obviously done the homework here and I'm not sure it's fair to assume that just because someone comes to different conclusions than others that they don't know what they are talking about.
It's a little much to claim to a certainty that this vast conspiracy is real because a lot of this has involved assigning motives where motive is not necessarily clear.
The answer to the question isn't really the issue to me. It's the conflict between the absolute tone of the conspiracy suggested by Soficrow and the aggressive and insulting nature of Nygdan's skepticism.
I've been guilty of both of these offenses actually at one point or another, as have many. I'm not sure that anything truly horrible has been said here- just a little spirited disagreement between two people who each have the potential to be incorrect in their conclusions.
Have a chill pill... like some clever fellow around here has on his avatar- fight war, not wars!



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
sardion2000,

I respect your point of view, really.

I of course, feel your looking at it a bit too optimistically. But I'm sure it can be said that to you my view is too pessimistic, fair enough.

Are you, when speaking on nano tech, are you speaking of the research in the industrial sector of NT or the Bio sector of NT?

While I think that the industrial applications of NT will be more "open", I believe that the Bio aspects of NT will be much more of a "closed door" that the public will have little say over for quite a time.

I believe that even though the companies researching Bio apps with NT are indeed privatized, you'll find that 97% of their funding comes from the government, and most of that is from a defense network perspective. That seems to merit concern for the initial focus of their research, as military applications rarely have "improving quality of life" as their main focus. I'm sure you understand what I'm saying. What's to stop the primary funding body(ies) to steer the bio NT into a more closed circut direction that leaves the average individual with less choice?

If that indeed does happen, what will that mean for the average individual in the long run? If that indeed does happen, what if a Transhumanist agenda is cultivated in that sector? And how hard would it be for the average citizen to combat this?

It's the potential of the threat in a closed circut situation that concerns me. Not the potential of the benefit in an open environment of study/application.

Appreciate your thoughts.

X



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I was just thinking.. it would take a CONSIDERABLE amount of advancement in the field of genetics, but in a generation or two it could be within the capabilities of the government to forcibly improve the human race, even without us really knowing they were doing it at first.

In vivo gene therapy using a virus would be a good way to force genetic change on the population as a whole. There are several obstacles though.

1. Your immune system tries to kill the vector (virus) which is delivering your new genes. This is where viruses like AIDS come into play; they can protect the vector from the body, so all they have to do now is render an AIDS like virus harmless and incorporate the desired genes into it.

2. You can't really be sure where on your genetic sequence the virus will place its DNA. If it goes onto a non-coding gene it won't produce offspring. If the wrong gene occurs in the wrong place it will give you cancer. In hopes of avoiding this, they are attempting to develop a way of adding a new chromosome. This would allow for greater changes with lower risk of failure if it were doable.

3. Targeting would be extremely important. If you didn't want -everyone- to get an upgrade, you'd have to find a way of targeting your attack at a specific gene which not everyone had, or by taking great pains to administer the treatment selectively with immunizations or such while hiding the truth behind it.

If you can get around those and a couple of other barriers though, they could add the genetic capability for our bodies to produce nano-machines to improve our capabilities. An asymptomatic virus would circulate, nobody would even know they had it, but people would start to notice changes.

Their bodies could create "respirocytes" to give them greater endurance, but they wouldn't know how they hadn gained it.
They might develop additional muscle fibers, making them stronger and faster, but again they wouldn't know why they were suddenly bulking up.

Or you could go the negative way. You could have the body synthesize depressants to keep people nice and docile all the time.
You could render target races infertile and eliminate them.

After a couple rounds of epidemic-borne genetherapy you could have population managed anyway you like, and have the survivors be supermen. All you'd have to do is overcome the challenges to delivery, which aren't really that great.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 04:08 AM
link   
meh, doom, gloom, death & dismemberment. Whatever.

Cyborgs, Transhumans, Cyborg transhumans, cyber-trans-meta-morhpologically-enhanced-super-high-capacity humans...horse & cart, cars, flying cars, intergalactic space ships....the world essentially doesn't change.

You'll have rich hollywood types getting every latest technological breakthough just as all the rich hollywood types currently get all the latest plastic surgery etc.

You'll have your middle-class getting SOME enhancements to improve their self esteem, restore lost limbs or whatever, and you'll have your lower class looking and dreaming, and ocassionaly having their dream come true through the aid of someone from the mid or upper classes.

You'll have your people protesting against human modification, others protesting for it, the ethics police will be out in force just as much as they are nowadays, and somewhere in the middle a loon will swap his arm for a chain-gun and mow down a shopping mall cos he got fired from work...

We'll still have wars. Sure, soldiers might be able to lift a car with their pinky or jump over tall buildings with a single bound, but we'll also during that time have been developing more powerfull weapons, most likely emp to take out any cybernetic implants, there will still be guns, possibly lasers or railguns...bio-weapons? yeah sure, we'll probably have them, and we will have the equipment to protect us from them. First came the sword, then came the bamboo armour. Guns came into play, and suddenly we've got kevlar & reactive armour....

It'll all be the same as it is now, just with newer technology. Look at how many kids can't leave home without a mobile phone. Not that hard to see "mobile implants" becoming a common household item sometime in the future...

It's called industrial, social & technological evolution. Why fight it, it's gonna happen regardless. Just sit back and enjoy the ride...life if always going to have it's ups and downs, so stop ya worrying and starting making the most of the short time you have on this planet



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join