"We Will Alter Human Evolution Within 20 Years"

Originally posted by omega1
Do these scientist want to play God?

I'm sure when the first caveman learned how to use fire, he was accused of playing god.

Besides, even if someone is "playing god", how is that a bad thing?

Perhaps I'm drifting a bit off-topic here, but all the emotionally-charged, fear-based, afraid-of-the-future type of responses I'm seeing just remind me of the countless achievements mankind has made - and how much more achievements would we have made if there wasn't so much of the traditionalist "lets live in the past" type of thought.

For some reason I believe he/she was refering to the Hive-mind type of stuff which the origianal article focused on as it was very poorly written IMO. Not sure though which is the problem with knee-jerk posts that does little to explain their position.

[edit on 16-2-2006 by sardion2000]

The only way the hive-mind could be bad, is if it were forced on people. Just like bondage... it's between consensual adults. If they want to beat each other up with whips that's fine by me. Just don't put me in a rack unless I ask for it.

I don't think we should be playing god.

Making advancements in artificial limbs is good, that can help people.
Artificial organs, good.

But cloning is over the line, including cloning for organ replacement.

Transfering consciousness/souls is way over the line, and I'm not so sure its even possible...

Sorry if I offended anyone, but the article was crazy.

Originally posted by MonoIonic_Gold
I don't think we should be playing god.

Who should draw the line and define what is "Playing God" and what is "Okay"?

But cloning is over the line, including cloning for organ replacement.

Cloning doesn't necessarily mean cloning a full Human replacement body. Vat Grown organs is technically Cloning but without all that other stuff that makes a Sentient, Sentient.

Transfering consciousness/souls is way over the line, and I'm not so sure its even possible...

Why? Who gets to decide wether I should or should not be able to do what I want to my own body? When people start to dictate what individuals can and cannot due it sets a bad precedent. Allthough I agree, "soul" transferrance is probably not possible as the "soul" probably doesn't even exist IMHO. Also if we were able to make an exact copy of my consiousness in a Biomechanoid lifeform we could crack the AI nut once and for all without all that messy business of figuring out how to program it

Sorry if I offended anyone,

No offense taken by me

but the article was crazy.

I agree. Concentrating on the things that most people would find offensive,discusting and immoral is obviously a sensationalist method and it was a very poorly writen artilce too. The actual report is something like 200+ pages long which I want to read. Maybe I'll write a better one for ATSNN

[edit on 17-2-2006 by sardion2000]

Who draws the line? -
well... I guess you could put it to a vote...
It seems that if we let anyone who wanted to transfer into a powerful robot body, some of them could be criminals and use that body against normal people. I would hope it would go to a vote at least. But I can see your point about personal choice and freedoms.

But I think God will draw the final line, and if we go too far, he might just might make an appearance, or put a stop to it in mysterious ways.
Of course, if he did make a major appearance, that would change alot of Atheist's views.
But, he might not appear, or stop us at all...

On transfering -
I think that if you did transfer your entire brain data to a machine, it would be nothing more than a sofisticated AI program running on the machine. Your REAL brain and body would live on.
After you transfer your brain data into a computer you suddenly become the computer? No.

I suppose you could put a harddrive as a "supplement" to your brain, but thats not the same as transferring it completey to a machine. Thats just something your brain can store and access.

But, Soul or not, I don't think you can transfer your actual "consciousness".
It would just be a program running on the machine, that mimics a person.
Sure "it" could think, and maybe learn, but "it" wouldn't be the real you.


[edit on 17-2-2006 by MonoIonic_Gold]

pediatric medicine has been altering human evolution for decades

an individual that would have died before reaching reproductive age now has a much better chance to do so, and pass on their genes.

thus, the gene pool is weaker, and evolution is altered

.02

Originally posted by MonoIonic_Gold
Who draws the line? -
well... I guess you could put it to a vote...
It seems that if we let anyone who wanted to transfer into a powerful robot body, some of them could be criminals and use that body against normal people. I would hope it would go to a vote at least. But I can see your point about personal choice and freedoms.

If we vote to prohibit certain technologies it WILL cause a rather large black market to form which would give access to these technologies to the very people you wish to prevent from obtaining it. Drugs are illigal yet it doesn't stop them from being made or used and it doesn't stop other countries from obtaining/developing this technology and then using it to surpass those countries which prohibit it.

But I think God will draw the final line, and if we go too far, he might just might make an appearance, or put a stop to it in mysterious ways.
Of course, if he did make a major appearance, that would change alot of Atheist's views.

But, he might not appear, or stop us at all...

Just like with Aliens in UFO's I'll believe it when he appears on the White House lawn Didn't the God of the Bible give us Free Will? Doesn't the Bible also say that only the Devil meddles in the Affairs of Mankind? I have a big problem with this logic as if he had the will to do this then why didn't he step in to stop World War I or II? Why didn't he stop Hiroshima? The Death Squads of South America? Alot of atrocities have happened during the course of history that only Man has been able to stop. NEways back to the topic at hand.

On transfering -
I think that if you did transfer your entire brain data to a machine, it would be nothing more than a sofisticated AI program running on the machine. Your REAL brain and body would live on.

Exactly.

After you transfer your brain data into a computer you suddenly become the computer? No.

Bingo.

I suppose you could put a harddrive as a "supplement" to your brain, but thats not the same as transferring it completey to a machine. Thats just something your brain can store and access.

Neuroscientists are working on such implants to help people with Memory Disorder and Alzheimers. There is already a Parkinsons Implant that Michael J Fox has that works as a sort of pace maker to control his shaking. As for the Hardrive in the brain, that is what I personally want the most along with something that increases my intellect by several orders of magnitude.

But, Soul or not, I don't think you can transfer your actual "consciousness".
It would just be a program running on the machine, that mimics a person.
Sure "it" could think, and maybe learn, but "it" wouldn't be the real you.

Be carefull of thinking of another Sentient Being as an "it". Just because they were created by us does not necessarily make them a "thing". Of course we have no measure of Sentience as of yet and I can easily see us creating a slave race which may take exception to be treated as an inanimate object. Belief and Faith may lead certain people to believe that they aren't "people". Frankely if they start to ask for certain right and responsiblities which Humans enjoy just because we were born we should give it to them. The ones who let Dogma rule their lives will obviously object to this as it would mean that us Humans are no longer "special" and it would mean that we would have to share.

We already know how emotions occur. They are simple chemical reactions. If it were true that Emotion comes from the Soul then don't you think that drugs like Prozac would be ineffective at dampening emotions?

[edit on 17-2-2006 by sardion2000]

dont the scientists working on this technology watch any sci fi movies at all???? most of the movies with man attempting to control machine through brain, man fails and eends up getting killed by the machine or almost getting killed. ex. i robot, terminator many others too i believe.

Originally posted by GrowingConspiracy
dont the scientists working on this technology watch any sci fi movies at all???? most of the movies with man attempting to control machine through brain, man fails and eends up getting killed by the machine or almost getting killed. ex. i robot, terminator many others too i believe.

Yeah that's where they get the idea, but they aren't Naive enough to believe that Hollywood hacks are prophets.

If Hollywood didn't have some sort of boogiemen to be the antagonists then it would just be another unprofitable flick. Asking deep philosphical questions doesn't sell Tickets. Big Explosions, Scary Cyborg Monsters and "We will prevail" mentality is what sells tickets.

Oh and you Blaspheme by mentioning that hacked up POS that is "I, Robot" Read the book, it's much better.

[edit on 17-2-2006 by sardion2000]

So bringing us back to the "hive mind..."

I wouldn't really mind the idea terribly much. It could be like The Internet...8. The World Wide Cerebellum. Imagine the porn!

I think a form of collective mind would be interesting. I do have a bit of fear of things/technology moving so quickly, but I can definitely see the benefits.
When I first read about the hive-mind, I imagined every person being in contact with everyone else through simple thought. I imagined being able to think of a question, and receiving the answer almost instantly from someone who knew. I imagined being able to have an idea, and share it with the rest of the world,...having thousands of minds trying to come up with a solution, perfecting inventions, theories, philosophies, etc. In a way, the internet is a prototype to the hive-mind (a much slower and more unsophisticated one, but definitely an early predecessor, in a sense, the cave-man). Just as the internet, the hive-mind would have a lot of benefits, but also a lot of room for terrible things. I wonder what effect destructive/highly domineering/divide-and-conquer people would have on a hive-mind. Would the be eradicated by the others? To be honest, I don't think I fully understand the article, but what I typed above is basically what I get from one of it's topics.

Nanotechnology is advancing quickly. I read new articles about these things on a weekly basis. It is absolutely amazing (and scary at the same time). Right now nanotechnology focuses on improving space-craft, machinery/other technology, but I can certainly see the possible applications when it comes to human beings. These invisible-to-the-naked-eye machines could be injected into us to make us well/healthy (perform complicated surgery), or if they fall into the wrong hands, they could be used to spy on us, slowly/quickly kill us, control us/control our very physical movements, the list goes on. It could have incredible political implications.

Bottom line is, each nation must continue to advance, and research these possibilities. As someone here already mentioned, if we don't pick up the technology, some other nation will, and may use it against us. The race is on, and I hope we don't fall behind.

Super-humans (people with very high IQs, and/or better genetic traits) could pose a threat to the rest of the population. Is there any proof that people with higher IQ have less of a tendency to be "evil"? Would they choose to be good (help humanity), or bad (try to enslave/conquer the rest of the "normal" humanity)? We would have to work out the problem of who would qualify to receive a boost in IQ. Somehow I don't think it should necessarily be an issue of "who can afford it". There are countless ethical issues on this subject that can be discussed. On the other hand,...making scientists and doctors (professionals in many fields) more intelligent and high-memory-capacity-capable could be a very wonderful thing for this world.

Some of you may think that those protesting cloning and the advance of technology are inhibiting progress (and in some cases this IS true), but this (enhancing/speeding up our own evolution) is not something we can simply jump into. We must ask these ethical questions, and we must come to better understanding of the possible outcomes, otherwise terrible things could be in store for us. Sometimes I think technology is beginning to move so fast that we don't have enough time to even think of possible answers to such questions. If cloning is a humane thing to do, then maybe the scientists are not doing enough to make the world understand the process of cloning. If there is evidence that cloning hurts [B]no one[/B], but has the potential to help thousands of others, what is there left to protest? Of course I do understand that some people protest simply for religious reasons, and that alone should not be a dead end for progress. Either cloning really is wrong on an ethical level, or it is widely misunderstood. (One thing I'd like to make go away is animal testing. I've seen some videos that made me want to throw up from anger and disgust. I certainly hope we come up with an alternative soon, and I believe technology could do just that).
Alright... I think I'm done ranting for one night. I apologize for the long read.

No need to apologize. It was a well thought out, balanced and concise analysis of the issues instead of an automatic kneejerk emotional reaction. I do take exception to this remark though...

Super-humans (people with very high IQs, and/or better genetic traits) could pose a threat to the rest of the population.

About the IQ part, in my experience people who are smarter are usually less likely to become criminals, or violent bullies. I say this from personal experience just from observing the pack mentality of the Jocks versus the Individualism of the Nerds or Artists. I'm quite tired right now so I can't go into detail right now but if you wish I can elaborate further on the morrow.

Also as to your comment that we should explore all the possible outcomes before we go headlong into a technology well I have two points to make.

1. We have already explored the Majority of them through Science Fiction and on Threads like this one.

2. It is impossible to explore all the outcomes because some will be completely unexpected and inconcievable from the get go.

[edit on 17-2-2006 by sardion2000]

Originally posted by sardion2000
No need to apologize. It was a well thought out, balanced and concise analysis of the issues instead of an automatic kneejerk emotional reaction. I do take exception to this remark though...

Super-humans (people with very high IQs, and/or better genetic traits) could pose a threat to the rest of the population.

About the IQ part, in my experience people who are smarter are usually less likely to become criminals, or violent bullies. I say this from personal experience just from observing the pack mentality of the Jocks versus the Individualism of the Nerds or Artists. I'm quite tired right now so I can't go into detail right now but if you wish I can elaborate further on the morrow.

[edit on 17-2-2006 by sardion2000]

I think I understand what you're saying, yet I'm unsure that I agree completely. I'm not sure that all geniuses are exempt from having bloated egos, maybe even some unresovled childhood issues, and hence, strange/destructive aspirations. This, of course, is not the case with every high IQ out there, but I definitely think there are exceptions. Of course I could be thinking of the Hollywood mad/evil genius working on his plan to take over the world. Movies; They certainly can be a horrible influence on the mind. I would definitely love to hear your opinion on this subject. Maybe I'm not seeing something that is obvious to you.

I have a question; Different forms of genius comes to mind. Would the IQ boost include a boost to every human intelligence? In other words, would someone with boosted IQ acquire the ability to draw, play music, become great at mathematics, philosophy, etc. etc.? Would this person become exceptional in every humanly-possible way?

Also as to your comment that we should explore all the possible outcomes before we go headlong into a technology well I have two points to make.

1. We have already explored the Majority of them through Science Fiction and on Threads like this one.

2. It is impossible to explore all the outcomes because some will be completely unexpected and inconcievable from the get go.

You make a good point, especially on #2., and that's what I'm afraid of.



[edit on 17-2-2006 by 2manyquestions]

Excellent post 2manyquestions. Now you guys have me really thinking!

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
I imagined being able to have an idea, and share it with the rest of the world,...having thousands of minds trying to come up with a solution, perfecting inventions, theories, philosophies, etc. In a way, the internet is a prototype to the hive-mind (a much slower and more unsophisticated one, but definitely an early predecessor, in a sense, the cave-man).

You are right, the internet already is like a primitive hive-mind.
Imagine the confusion - if all of the forums, of the internet took place in a single thread. We would have to organize it somehow.... into sepreate threads, and seperate forums. Kind of like the internet is now, only more organized. So in a way, the hivemind is here, its just still growing.

These invisible-to-the-naked-eye machines could be injected into us to make us well/healthy (perform complicated surgery), or if they fall into the wrong hands, they could be used to spy on us, slowly/quickly kill us, control us/control our very physical movements, the list goes on. It could have incredible political implications.

Nanotechnology has great possiblilities, and it interests me, but do the proper safety precautions, you dont want them to malfunction and build you an arm out of the wrong molecules, or they go to take a skin graft and take off your nose! As a weapon? thats a scary thought to get disassembled cell by cell, while still alive?
hmm maybe we need to have defender nanobots that defend the body...

Super-humans (people with very high IQs, and/or better genetic traits) could pose a threat to the rest of the population. Is there any proof that people with higher IQ have less of a tendency to be "evil"? Would they choose to be good (help humanity), or bad (try to enslave/conquer the rest of the "normal" humanity)?

I agree.
Maybe we could have them awarded to people at the completion of college degrees. Scientists, Engineers, etc. Of course this may create a surge in college attendance. It should be controlled though.... you don't want just any evil genius to become even smarter now do we?

[edit on 17-2-2006 by MonoIonic_Gold]

MonoIonic_Gold,.... I'm glad we could do that for you. I think that's what all of us are here for; to make each other think.

You have a good point about the organization of a hive-mind. I was thinking the same thing,.... how to prevent millions of thoughts being jammed into your mind, all at the same time. Maybe it would have to take on the form of a sort of virtual internet. It sounds much too complicated for me to try to figure it out right away. I'll think about it some more.

EDIT:

#1. Maybe the hive-mind is not really "communicating telepathically with everyone in the world", maybe its more like having access to billions of files (everyone's knowledge) downloaded to the hive-mind (in a way a giant hard-drive we all have access to, to which we upload every new thing we learn by the minute). Hence, there isn't really an issue of organization, because its like typing a question into the search, and receiving a long list of answers. Except you're not typing it physically, you're thinking of the question, and downloading the answers to your brain/mind/consciousness.

#2. If this is the case, certain people wouldn't be allowed to have their knowledge downloaded, such as military personell.

[edit on 17-2-2006 by 2manyquestions]

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
pediatric medicine has been altering human evolution for decades

an individual that would have died before reaching reproductive age now has a much better chance to do so, and pass on their genes.

thus, the gene pool is weaker, and evolution is altered

.02

Alot of the children being saved by our technology don't actually end up reproducing.

And your argument works just as well on adults as children. Consider all the adult diabetics who would have died but now reproduce.

I don't believe that this weakens our gene pool, although clearly the path of evolution is being altered. Technically I think our gene pool is strengthened by this because more genes are kept in the pool. The larger the gene pool is the more chance some of us will adapt to the changes headed our way.


All that being said, I think that 20 years is way to short of a time frame for the "science fantasy" at the start of the thread to become reality.

Bunnabit

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
MonoIonic_Gold,.... I'm glad we could do that for you.

I think that's what all of us are here for; to make each other think.

You have a good point about the organization of a hive-mind. I was thinking the same thing,.... how to prevent millions of thoughts being jammed into your mind, all at the same time. Maybe it would have to take on the form of a sort of virtual internet. It sounds much too complicated for me to try to figure it out right away. I'll think about it some more.

Well if the Hive mind is anything like that in The Diamond Age by Neil Stephonson then SIGN ME UP. In it the way information is passed along is by *ahem* copulating

2manyquestions , MonoIonic_Gold it's been a pleasure I'll be preparing a reply to both of you on the morrow. I'm off to bed now G'nite

[edit on 17-2-2006 by sardion2000]

[edit on 17-2-2006 by sardion2000]

Anyone catch the WB's Episode of smallville thursday night? Well if you didn't let me sumarize it for you really quick, Smallville is about a young Clark Kent whose secret identity is superman however the show is based on his highschool years, which it has progressed to college days however some complicated stuff has happened and hes not in college anymore, anyways in the episode it was about Cyborg, a hero who was take from a near death accident in which all his family died, but he lived due to some experiment performed on him without his consent, it gave him superstrength, anyways what im trying to get across is that is it possible that this happens today? People are taken from accidents in which hey nearly survive and family members die, and are experimented on? The episode made it seem possible although it is only TV it still looks like a possibility... A small industrial building, some advanced technology funded by a government source, if the family members died then the body could easily be taken by order of the law and experimented with...

The great thing about anything in life is, you as an individual ultimately has the choice of which path you will take, You can choose to live free of the technology and fight resisting it. You will only know the consequences of what you did after you have died anyways.