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.

 

Transhumanist Postgenderism - Science Fiction or Science Future?

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   
I don't think this stuff is being discussed here on ATS, but I think it's a topic that needs to be debated. It was hard for me to decide where to put this thread... while this is stuff that our scientists are really looking into, I think the discussion will also be very speculative... so I put it in Skunk Works.

The Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies white paper "Postgenderism: Beyond the Gender Binary" written by James Hughes and George Dvorsky is available for download in PDF format.


Postgenderism is an extrapolation of ways that technology is eroding the biological, psychological and social role of gender, and an argument for why the erosion of binary gender will be liberatory. Postgenderists argue that gender is an arbitrary and unnecessary limitation on human potential, and foresee the elimination of involuntary biological and psychological gendering in the human species through the application of neurotechnology, biotechnology and reproductive technologies. Postgenderists contend that dyadic gender roles and sexual dimorphisms are generally to the detriment of individuals and society. Assisted reproduction will make it possible for individuals of any sex to reproduce in any combinations they choose, with or without “mothers” and “fathers,” and artificial wombs will make biological wombs unnecessary for reproduction. Greater biological fluidity and psychological androgyny will allow future persons to explore both masculine and feminine aspects of personality. Postgenderists do not call for the end of all gender traits, or universal androgyny, but rather that those traits become a matter of choice. Bodies and personalities in our postgender future will no longer be constrained and circumscribed by gendered traits, but enriched by their use in the palette of diverse self-expression.


My friend has created a three-part series of videos to raise awareness and inspire discussion, for your viewing pleasure:




He also emailed questions to both of the writers of the aforementioned white paper and received a response from Dr. James Hughes. Here is a sample, you can read the rest on his Transalchemy blog.


Q: In "Postgenderism: Beyond the Gender Binary" it is implied that the gender we are born into (male or female) holds us back. What is it that we can't accomplish within the confines of either male or female gender?

A: Physically our biological gender is a subset of the things about the human body that, as transhumanists, we believe we will be happier to transcend. A simple example is menstruation, which imposes unnecessary discomfort and inconvenience on women now that they have fewer children. Psychologically and socially the gender binary restricts our social roles, our emotional expression, and even our cognition. Some of those constraints are cultural, learned and relatively malleable. Others, such as the gendering of the brain, will need advanced technological control of the body and brain to transcend.

Q: Dualistic gender creates our human social dynamic. The relationship between male and female brings us together and leads us to the creation of new life. If gender became singular what would happen to human relationships? Could we become emotionally, mentally, and physically detached from each other?

A: We aren't proposing a singular gender, but turning gender from a binary setting fixed at birth into a set of analog knobs that can be tuned to myriad settings. That will provide transhumans many more interesting opportunities for relationships. At the most basic level the relationship between biological men and women should improve as they begin to have more insight outside of their gender box.

Q: Artificial wombs could make childbirth physically easier for mothers, but they would also physically detach mother and child. Could this physical detachment lead to emotional detachment? Would the mother/child relationship be divided from conception onward? What would this do to the human family dynamic?

A: All mothers that opt for artificial wombs will want to ensure post-tank bonding. Most of what we know about maternal-infant bonding relates to breastfeeding, communication, holding, stroking etc. These are all things that happen after birth, not before. Adoptive parents bond with newborns just as well as birth parents. In any case, neonatal intensive care units are already artificial wombs, and we don't see attachment disorders in kids that survive them, although many premature babies do suffer disabilities because the NICUs aren't close enough yet to an artificial womb. The first 0-9 month artificial wombs will also be used by moms who could not carry a pregnancy, and they will be closely studied for any attachment or developmental problems.

Q: Virtual sex may be "safer", but again, it detaches us from actual human contact. Although virtual reality will continue to grow in complexity, how do we reconcile this with the very real decline in real world social interaction?

A: Your preferencing of the authenticity of "real" interaction will seem quaint in thirty years. The interactions of people with nano-neural interfaces will be inconceivably more "real," deep, profound and intense than the existing meat puppets, staring through water balls, pawing with meat hands, driven by hormone triggers, and then basking in oxytocin pleasure once their reproductive imperative is fulfilled. It will take a while to get to hyper-real, mind-to-mind virtuality, but in the meanwhile I think people should make up their own minds about how "real" they want to get about sex. There are lots of people with too many physical or mental problems to have sex at all, or the kind of sex they would like to have. Virtual sex in its various forms will generally enhance those folks' lives.


Please discuss. I'm sure there will be some passionate individuals on both sides, so if this thread takes off, please be respectful.

I'm going to try to stay on the figurative fence here.




posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by eMachine
 


God I hope I am deader than a door nail before we become Transhumanist Postgenderist society. What a freaking train wreck that will be.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


Would you care to elaborate?

I'm just curious if that's your knee-jerk reaction or if you have any particular reasons for being opposed to it?

(Working out the possible pros and cons myself...)



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   
...meat puppets, lmao, are bad?... meat hands too?... nano-neural interfaces are good?... no, no, no and furthermore no, no, no, absolutely not...



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Yay, I'm so glad this is being discussed on ATS! This is a topic of intense interest for me, and I'm glad to see that other people are fascinated by it as well.

I refer to myself unabashedly as a transhumanist. One of the main ideas that draws me to the philosophy of transhumanism is the postgenderist movement. I have a male body. I do not "feel like" a man, or like a woman. I never have. The whole gender binary seems like a total farce to me. A postgenderist society would be a train-wreck? Our gendered society is already a train-wreck. People are pigeonholed into the roles culturally associated with their biological sex, regardless of their own self-perception. People are denied love because of what genitalia they were born with. People succumb to acts of idiotic violence to prove that they're "man enough". The whole thing reeks. If people would only get past the knee-jerk stuff and examine it for what it is, they'd see that gender is fiction... costume... parody.

Animals have sexes. Some animals, like many birds, demonstrate marked sexual dimorphism. This could be said to be a precursor to gender as a cultural phenomenon. But it is not gender. It is sexual dimorphism. There is a difference. The human idea of gender is an extension and fetishization of the hard-wired differences between the sexes. It is nothing but cultural convention, and it often gets in the way of compassion and understanding.

Look how gender colors our experience. The english language lacks a gender-neutral personal pronoun. We can say "it", but this is obviously dehumanizing. We can not talk about a person without either referring to her gender or awkwardly dancing around "his or her" gender. Why must it matter in all cases what a person's gender is? Think about if we had race-specific pronouns, age- or weight-specific pronouns. What if you couldn't talk about a person without specifying that he is hispanic, or elderly, or overweight. Does that make any sense?

Then there's the issue of sex changes. People go through years of emotional torment, grueling psychoanalysis, months of uncomfortable hormone therapy and a series of painful surgeries if they want to make a transition from one sex to the other, just to make their bodies match their minds. And once the change is made, there's no going back. It's no wonder transsexuals are considered strange in our society. Who would want to put himself (or herself) through all that? But think how that perception would change if a person could undergo an actual sex change -- a chromosomal transformation begetting real biological changes. Spend a year or so undergoing the transition. And then change back if they wanted. People could do this over and over. People might even lose track of what sex they were born with. It might even cease to matter! Think of that! Maybe people could actually get over this stone-age crap.

Postgenderism rings the death-knell of sexism and homophobia. It frees people from the tyranny of their biology and of outmoded cultural conventions. Like any revolutionary cultural movement, it will face resistance. But this is the human way: if we can, we must. There is no fighting the future. If gender wants to end (and I think it does... just look at how appreciation of androgyny has grown over the last 40 years) then gender will end. In my mind, it can't happen soon enough.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MillionEyedMask
 

Thanks for chiming in! I think I can understand your perspective.

For the sake of discussion though, if we are indeed already progressing to transcend gender stereotypes and our psychological conditioning for certain gender traits, is it prudent to artificially catalyze this natural process?

I mean, we've only really been studying and scientifically observing human biology, brain chemistry etc. (I'm no scientist) for a few decades, throughout which all of the people involved have been affected by the current paradigm, by the social ideologies we're conditioned with. How do we know that the ideological change within society regarding gender roles and such, which one could say has been progressing for centuries, won't naturally result in a 'happy medium' philosophically, psychologically, and even biologically over the course of the next century or two?

And also, if they can create the sort of virtual sex technology they're proposing, why would there be any need to change one's sexual organs? I do think it is a strange society we live in which inspires people to undergo surgery to change their gender, but in a future society which has overcome 'oppressive' gender roles with a social ideology of equality and individuality, I don't think anyone would feel they need to have an operation.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by eMachine
 


I'm disappointed to see that this thread hasn't generated more interest. Oh well, maybe we can keep it alive for a while anyway.

That is an interesting point you raise. Is cultural reform alone enough? It could, after all, be said that our society's (our species'?) fundamental problem with gender is not the result of our inherent sexual dimorphism itself, but of the cultural exaggeration of those traits and resultant patriarchal inequality. If our culture's preoccupation with sex and gender is sufficiently overcome, it might be possible that the fact of our basic sex differences would cease to matter.

However, it would still stand that males on the whole, as a result of differing brain chemistry and hormonal triggers, would continue to exhibit the drive to compete and dominate, and by default continue to subjugate females. I (and this is speaking as a male myself) would love to see the medical or technological "taming" of male aggression. Many men of conventionally male character would take great exception to the idea, citing the existing "pussification" of American males since the end of WWII, but I think it would be great. If males could learn to solve problems more like females tend to, I believe the world would be a much better place, seeing perhaps even the end of war itself. Of course females are not perfect either, and the species would surely benefit from the suppression of some uniquely female psychology as well. A general move toward anatomical and psychological androgyny would be the most preferable course.

I believe that without technological intervention, our species will not be able to overcome the detriments of the sex/gender binary through cultural change alone. It is largely our increasing reliance on technology over the last 10,000 years that has gotten us into the mess we're in now... but there is no way to go back, nor should we. The way out is through, as they say. Technology got us here, and it can take us beyond. It is, in this sense not simply an option but an ethical imperative to use our growing technology to change ourselves fundamentally. Not just our environment and our bodies, but our minds and the very character of our being. This goes not just for sex and gender, but for problems throughout the human world.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MillionEyedMask
 


While I get where you're coming from, I guess the fundamental difference in my point of view is that I don't believe in biological psychology. I think (but do not "know") our "brain chemistry" is more a product of what we think and feel rather than the cause of our thoughts and feelings.

I like to think that we control our brains more than our brains control us, or at least we could if we decided to be always conscious of the intellectual choices we make. I think if we were vigilant about self control, that is controlling our interpretation of our own thoughts and feelings rather than acting on our "instinct", we would systematically change how our brains work.

Furthermore, I don't believe aggression is a male feature. I think aggression is a necessary trait for survival, but it is somewhat misplaced in us now, because it's easier to survive today. Again, if people were encouraged (from childhood) to question their inclinations and come to a reasonable understanding of why they're inclined to respond to a situation aggressively, we could overcome this.

Another idea that makes me particularly nervous about this topic is how much easier it would be for the "powers-that-be" to control humanity with this sort of scientific advancement. I'm sure they would feel much safer if people were genetically modified at birth to be incapable of aggression. How then would we (could we?) react to tyranny and oppression?

Overall, I don't believe there are any real differences between men and women psychologically, except that we are taught to think certain things and not question them. I think we all have masculine and feminine traits which we must learn to balance within ourselves. We could do this if we didn't have the television spewing stereotypes at us constantly. (But that's how they try to get us to buy their stuff.)



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by eMachine
 


I largely agree with you, eMachine. If we, as a global society, could institute a large-scale reprogramming through cultural means, I am sure that we could overcome the difficulties we have with gender inequality. My doubt lies with humankind's ability to enact such a plan intentionally. If we could always be conscious of the choices we make and our reasons for making them, it would be a simple matter to overturn centuries of patriarchal subjugation. But to consider such strict self-discipline and singularity of purpose taking hold of the human race, even over the course of generations, seems hopelessly optimistic to me. The enlightenment and the renaissance came with grand leaps forward in our technology and our ability to organize culturally. I believe an equivalent revolution will require a sea change of a similar order.

It is a different story when considered on the scale of the individual or the community. I for one strive to be always aware of the subconscious motivations driving my actions, and it pays off, but most people don't seem to operate that way. And I live in San Francisco, notorious bastion of gender anarchy, so that makes it easy to live openly with unconventional ideas about sex and gender. Try to live a similar lifestyle in the midwestern U.S., or in many other parts of the world bound by tradition, and one wouldn't find it so easy.

You are correct in saying that aggression is not a uniquely male trait. Some of the most fierce and aggressive people I know are women, and I would be much more worried about getting on their bad sides than most men. But I think it's a qualitatively different kind of aggression. It's the kind of aggression that has evolved to defend one's family, a sort of uncompromising, self-sacrificing fury that truly is a force of nature. It is not the kind of calculating, cruel, ends-justifying-means horror that drives armies to slaughter. Not many, if any military generals have been women, to my knowledge. Men have always been the engineers of war. It is this kind of aggression, aggression without heart, that I would love to see bred or programmed out of our species.

And yes, it is always a concern that the PTB might put the puppet strings on this technology and use it to control the masses. But this has always been a cause for worry, and it has never stopped a revolutionary technology from gaining purchase before. Computer technology, all types of communications, metallurgy, even writing would have had a sinister and foreboding flavor before they were put to their modern uses, both malign and benign. If this is the direction our species is to take, there is no stopping it. I would be more concerned with the PTB completely sequestering this tech from use because they'd know it would mean the end of their reign.

There is no question that we are programmed from the time we are born to conform to cultural gender archetypes. The gender roles we embody are constructed. They are a matter of convention and tradition, not something essential. The first step in whatever revolution is to occur will be doffing these archaic roles. I know a lot of people who have already taken steps toward that ideal, and it is very heartening.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Im only 25 years old and when I read things like this tears come up, but I feel angry and bitter at the same time

The world doesnt want this...just look at the relationship threads here on ATS, "cisgendered" people rather dwell in their own blood than to consider this even slightly

And when you say or show you dont feel like them youre a castaway, some freakshow, something that should choose to make a choice

But who are THEY to say that their oh so obvious and important gender binary is the truth?!

Sorry for getting angry



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Because my gender binary is just as valid as your gender-whatever-you-feel.

What is needed is not necessarily to do away with gender binary, but as previously mentioned, to enlighten humanity to the fact that gender isn't just one or the other, but diverse, person-unique and fascinating.

Imposing one or another gender on someone is wrong when they don't feel that way, just as it would be wrong to strip me of mine.


It's sad that we still live in a world full of biases and prejudices but I find it very difficult to wrap my mind around the idea of Transhumanist Postgenderism.

And virtual sex? Icky. Though, who knows, maybe it'll turn out to be cool.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by starscape
Because my gender binary is just as valid as your gender-whatever-you-feel.

What is needed is not necessarily to do away with gender binary, but as previously mentioned, to enlighten humanity to the fact that gender isn't just one or the other, but diverse, person-unique and fascinating.

Imposing one or another gender on someone is wrong when they don't feel that way, just as it would be wrong to strip me of mine.


It's sad that we still live in a world full of biases and prejudices but I find it very difficult to wrap my mind around the idea of Transhumanist Postgenderism.

And virtual sex? Icky. Though, who knows, maybe it'll turn out to be cool.


Maybe I should have been more clear....you tell it like it its THE truth

How many times have people who felt "different" lost their jobs, friends, passions and even lives because you think is best for everyone

I dont mean this personally, but I have gone past fake sympathies



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
I would appreciate some clarification. What is it that I think is best for everyone?

Trust me, I do understand feeling different and I do understand the feeling of potential loss due to my differences, having nearly been deprived of my liberty for them, at one point.

I think everyone should be allowed to be who and what they are, no one should be able to tell me or you that we must be a certain way. Ever.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by eMachine
 


I think this is a good discussion topic, on transhumanism, but in order to get more out there a definition should have been included in the original post.


Transhumanism is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of science and technology to improve human mental and physical characteristics and capacities.

The movement regards aspects of the human condition, such as disability, suffering, disease, aging, and involuntary death as unnecessary and undesirable.

Transhumanists look to biotechnologies and other emerging technologies for these purposes. Dangers, as well as benefits, are also of concern to the transhumanist movement.


In layman's terms, this is speaking of cybernetics and humans being implanted with electronics, think of the Borg from Star Trek if you will, or even the character from my avatar, who is quasi-cybernetic is essence, and you will get the gist of this intellectual-babble and sci-fi speak.



Of course, as soon as I saw the title I knew what it was speaking on, as I speak and understand legalese and techese languages because I have followed the tech industry since I was a small child of six years old as well with the other things I speak about here on ATS.

My problem with this is that it is un-natural for the human body to accept these electronic devices and the percentage of acceptance is very miniscule without a lot of nonsense and testing to get to a certain point, as well as funding, so in essence if you are not selectively bred for this enhancement or you do not fit the perfect set of specifications, then too damn bad for you, Charlie.

I often wonder if the Pill-Pusher's in the pharmaceutical industry, having their pills laced with chemicals, plastics, and other detritus are trying to breed plastics into our bodies as a form of pre-introduction towards this very thing, hence all the attacks on holistic medicines and natural cures.

As far as postgenderism goes?


Postgenderism is a diverse social, political and cultural movement whose adherents affirm the voluntary elimination of gender in the human species through the application of advanced biotechnology and assistive reproductive technologies.

Canadian futurist, George Dvorsky is perhaps the most renowned advocate of postgenderism


Eliminate gender? Are you serious here? Then how the Hell would we breed?

In a test tube?

Oh, how efficient that would be, please note the sarcasm.

Too many times have I discussed this type of topic with a friend of mine who I have known for fourteen years and she I disagree wholeheartedly, she is the pro-stance and I am in the strong con-stance on this, she being in her 60's and I being in my mid-30's.

I say enough with playing God, that is nonsense, and gene-splicing, selective breeding, and eugenics is a scary topic because we know that once a line is drawn in the sand, the line can easily be skitted across with our foot and move one step closer to that dark brink called madness.

The Island of Dr. Moreau comes to mind if we are not careful, specifically when the breeding of human body part within swine is a topic no one blinks about when it comes on the television, or mice with human ears for grafting onto burn patients, because these are all the necessities of cloned humans and the closer we approach cloned humans and transhumanism as well as postgenderism, the closer we as human comes to the brink of extinction itself.

I know myself for one find it laughable when people have ascribed me to being a robot in that I can rattle off facts that I speak about in the specifics and technical nature as well as I have been called a "Walking Wikipedia", but to actually step through the looking glass towards human/cyborgs is indeed a thought I hope never comes to fruition in my life, my children's lives, or my grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

[edit on 24-8-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
An interesting synchronity, or whatever you call it, that I stumble upon this just after my disastrous keyword search on "feminine."

Gag. If getting a man means acting weak, submissive, useless and stupid I don't know what I'll do. I mean I want love. I want intimacy. I also like sex. And I haven't been able to fill those needs recently.

Putting on a frilly skirt and cooking from scratch is all well and good, but hiding my intelligence and pretending to be scared of every stupid little thing just so a man can rescue me...not happening.

This would make for good scifi though. Maybe aliens who reproduce artificially, with heavy eugenics and incubators. A servant race, perhaps, since they might not want to give up the pleasure of sex, but semi-sentient biocomputers would have no choice if their masters wanted to do that to them. Easier to control if they can't reproduce on their own.

I'm gonna go write about this, see where it takes me. Cause I'm smart, which apparently makes me too masculine to be desirable, so it's not like there's any point in going out tonight. I'll stay in and write about aliens instead.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Alice
An interesting synchronity, or whatever you call it, that I stumble upon this just after my disastrous keyword search on "feminine."

Gag. If getting a man means acting weak, submissive, useless and stupid I don't know what I'll do. I mean I want love. I want intimacy. I also like sex. And I haven't been able to fill those needs recently.


Some men want that all the time, other men really really hate that. My opinion is that skirts aren't all that bad, they are a clothing option and a good one for some things... it is the association the skirt and dress has had with chauvinism and female oppression which causes a negative reaction.

And honestly, I wish more women did wear skirts and dresses... they don't because of the above, and what's funny is, most of them fall into the stereotype of a weak willed, bubble headed girl anyways... so pants don't make you smarter or more respected.



Putting on a frilly skirt and cooking from scratch is all well and good, but hiding my intelligence and pretending to be scared of every stupid little thing just so a man can rescue me...not happening.


I despise women who cannot fend for themselves, who give up easily in an argument, who defer to men just because they cannot bear the discomfort of disagreement and need to feel wanted.

They are an insult to the gender. History is rife with strong women who had no problem resolving their femininity with the masculine trait of headstrong, willful personalities. They snogged and had kids too.

Of course I hate the other extreme, the Feminazi's who believe men are all bad and no good.



This would make for good scifi though. Maybe aliens who reproduce artificially, with heavy eugenics and incubators. A servant race, perhaps, since they might not want to give up the pleasure of sex, but semi-sentient biocomputers would have no choice if their masters wanted to do that to them. Easier to control if they can't reproduce on their own.


Oh, I assure you, this will be Science fact in the next 20 years. I am obsessive about these technologies because I for one want some fluidity of gender... there could be nothing finer than to have a partner who shared my views on the wonderfulness of being able to "Trade roles" for a weekend... or for a year.

Of course, I think the biological way of making offspring is both fun as well as probably more fulfilling than growing a kidlet in a vat.



I'm gonna go write about this, see where it takes me. Cause I'm smart, which apparently makes me too masculine to be desirable, so it's not like there's any point in going out tonight. I'll stay in and write about aliens instead.


Nothing wrong with a smart girl. I'm always on the lookout for them. Maybe we could have a conversation about Nietszche, Kant, Hegel, Hume, Heidegger, Socrates, Plato.... or discuss the various background of theology.... or maybe just talk more about science.

Never be ashamed of using your brain. It's quite an attractive quality to other people who use them.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Alice
An interesting synchronity, or whatever you call it, that I stumble upon this just after my disastrous keyword search on "feminine."

Gag. If getting a man means acting weak, submissive, useless and stupid I don't know what I'll do. I mean I want love. I want intimacy. I also like sex. And I haven't been able to fill those needs recently.

Putting on a frilly skirt and cooking from scratch is all well and good, but hiding my intelligence and pretending to be scared of every stupid little thing just so a man can rescue me...not happening.



Read up on body language. I'm a dominant female. I find it is incredibly easy to catch the attention of a male by using submissive signals as opposed to a submissive persona.

Men of every type (and lesbian females, well, women in general, too) respond to submissive body language. It's just as useful for attracting the attention of men who like the submissive little missy or the kind that like the domme in leather.


Don't mistake the words 'submissive body language' for an act of submission which strips away the assertive woman that you seem to be. It is nothing of the sort.

I find it interesting that I can attract males and females (I'm straight) of every sort with these types of signals. I'm not positive what it says about gender, but it seems to be something that surpasses it entirely. It seems to trigger our desire to care for one another, something that is a definite benefit in the beginning of a relationship.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Interesting. Wonder if a version of submissive gestures would work for men. Make them seem less threatening. I going to try this out. It can't hurt.

Removing binary gender could potentially mess up our signals. There are instincts to be taken into account as well as cultural gender. Instead of getting rid of the Mars/Venus misunderstandings you could create even worse communications problems.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 

Thanks for explaining it a bit more. You're probably right about adding that definition to the OP, but it's too late for me to edit now unfortunately.


I often wonder if the Pill-Pusher's in the pharmaceutical industry, having their pills laced with chemicals, plastics, and other detritus are trying to breed plastics into our bodies as a form of pre-introduction towards this very thing, hence all the attacks on holistic medicines and natural cures.


I hadn't considered that possibility, but you could be on to something. I'm not comfortable putting all those synthetic materials and chemicals into my body, so perhaps I won't make a good cyborg.

It really freaks me out that the future could end up being like the video game Deus Ex... advanced AI, cybernetics, nanotechnology.


Eliminate gender? Are you serious here? Then how the Hell would we breed?

In a test tube?

Oh, how efficient that would be, please note the sarcasm.


One of my concerns, if that is the case, is what happens when society collapses? We know human society has a tendency to do that. If we become unable to breed naturally, and society collapses... bye bye human race.

reply to post by Blue Alice
 

I've been confused about femininity as well. I think there's more to being a woman than shopping, wearing make-up, and watching soap operas. I don't think our society understands the feminine... for centuries there were religious and social rules to make women submissive, then during the 20th century it was flipped upside down so women could be used in the workforce.

What a woman is, seems to be defined by what the controlling powers in the society need women to do.

I'm not convinced there are any real gender differences aside from how we have been conditioned. People are unique and I don't think most of them fit into stereotypes unless they force themselves to.

As our society progresses, I think we're moving away from the traditional stereotypes of the "alpha male" and "perfect woman" being attractive. The real "alphas" in my opinion are those who can think and come up with creative and technical solutions to problems.

I think smart people are attracted to other smart people, and hopefully they reproduce and make smart babies (not in test tubes). Hope for humanity.


Thanks all for contributing to the discussion!



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by eMachine
 


If this type of process is allowed to happen then the Government will have their ultimately pliable and subservient masses and cannon-fodder in order to have the "perfect citizen" and "perfect soldier", which is ludicrous to say the least, because without thought man is nothing but a slave.

Being "jacked-in" to the system would be like Johnny Mnemonic, or even the other Reeves movie The Matrix where your brain can be hacked by the evil "crackers" (criminal hackers), or even by the White-Hat's and your lessons for the day can be dowloaded for assimilation with the hive-mind.

This is absurd and insane that anyone would willingly undergo this, let alone that someone would want this type of control over any other human being. Yes, ultimate control is what Government wants, but that is even way too far in that you cannot program someone electronically how to think for you, this is electronic and bio-chemical castration to say the least, and madness to say the worst.

The sci-fi "geek" in me sees the wonderous new toys of the electronics of being implanted with these devices and goes "cool", thinking of the wonderful and neat new avenues of play that I might have, yet the realist and human side of me see this and wonders just how much of my brain will be scrambled and left like a bad cheese omlette. It is still disturbing though because I know just how many people out there would run collectively to these people's laboratories begging to be the first guinea pig for the test, without a moments hesitation or consideration that they would in essence lose their very humanity.

I for one, and I cannot speak for anyone else, love to think.

And then there's this :

Patent 6470214: Projecting thoughts into your head.

The last thing I want is voices in my head, espcially not someone else's.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join