Techno-futurism Vs Fear of Change

a reply to: nwtrucker

I suppose I can start with title of the OP, in part.

"The fear of change".

I can rebut with the "compulsion for change", with equal merit.

I tend to apply "Keep it simple, stupid' (KISS) or, if you prefer, Occam's Razor.

You overlap Psych premises with pharmaceutical solutions, not unexpected as that wedding has already been consummated...

The divergence between 'traditional' values and neo/no-values logic would seem a starting point in understanding the cultural battle. Some would point to both Wundt, the father of modern psychology and Pavlov, the father of Psychiatry as critical points in the divergence. ( in the modern era)

Fast forward to the mechanism of therapists in addressing guilt feelings and low self-esteem, rather than traditional actions such as admitting and taking responsibility for the act/s and perhaps making some form of amends, the solution became to marginalize the moral code/s that were violated so the 'patient' could feel better about themselves.( A quick description)

Now, we've gotten to the point where one doesn't go to confession, one takes a pill. (Sorry, again a great simplification.)
It does articulate the degree of that divergence, however.

The only constant is change. No can really argue that point.

Therefore, your premise of "fear of change" is inaccurate. It is the direction of the change that is the point of contention.
Not 'change' itself.

a reply to: Kandinsky

From the title i thought it'd be more about things like implantet car key thingies and stuff like that?
I wouldn't mind having a chip for paying and unlocking stuff, but i don't see what it has to do with beakons?
Enhancing will be normal soon, the other stuff is personal taste & while i like tattoos, i'd never get one myself.
S&f for a very thought provoking op.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The search for the happiness pill, because finding happiness within is so ancient philosophy.

I think I will stick to the ancients, since no one taking a pill appears to be happy to me.

a reply to: Kandinsky

We could start by categorizing the types of modification, current and future. It seems probable that far more qualified people have already proposed classifications but I'd imagine something along these lines (please excuse the use of periods for alignment):

I. Non-genetic
.. A. Temporary
.... 1. Cosmetic
.... 2. Therapeutic
.... 3. Augmentation
.. B. Permanent
.... 1. Cosmetic
.... 2. Therapeutic
.... 3. Augmentation
I. Genetic
.. A. Somatic
.... 1. Cosmetic
.... 2. Therapeutic
.... 3. Augmentation
.. B. Germline
.... 1. Cosmetic
.... 2. Therapeutic
.... 3. Augmentation

My ordering isn't entirely arbitrary as it somewhat loosely reflects what I perceive as the levels of ethical concern and potential hazard but its also not perfect; clearly a therapeutic drug with possibly severe side effects could be more contentious than say a cochlear implant to treat deafness.

The point here is that there's a great distance between something like germline (heritable) gene modification for the purpose of augmenting one's unborn descendants and dying one's hair; the former could result in speciation among the human population while the latter might result in an embarrassing Instagram post.

Shifting gears a bit here — in my opinion, it's of the utmost importance that the public, ethicists, scientists and legislators engage in dialog about the future of humankind now. Look at how poorly we have dealt with GMOs! My biggest concern is that we'll either wipe ourselves out completely or find ourselves in a future where there is human speciation along socioeconomic strata.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Great thread!
There are so many points that come to mind from your OP that it's hard to make sense of them. The spectrum is so wide (or I'm one of those moderate types you mention above ) but I find myself agreeing with your good vs bad modification dyad.
Some modifications are symptomatic of mental illness or unwellness:



So, then the clue would be in our cultures and norms and in the things we value as being of importance. These are the areas where we need - urgently - to make changes and to promote and invest heavily in mental well-ness. And then are the 'good' modifications which you list, and who could deny the benefits of reading glasses or pacemakers?

Now I find myself wondering where this all might take us in the future; what will be acceptable compared to what will be controversial? We accept prosthetic limbs as a good thing. Will we be as accepting for people who could afford to replace their healthy limbs with more powerful prosthetics? If not, why not?

I'll be honest and say it scares me more than it excites me. Why, when it's none of my business how people choose to live? Because of exploitative private surgeons, perhaps. Because vulnerable people will follow fads, and feel even less secure about their bodies, and therefore their own self worth. This desire to be more or better, at such a fast pace is damaging to us.
So in conclusion, a cop-out response of 'it depends on the modification and if I deem it acceptable'.
Thankfully I have very little say in the running of the world, though!

originally posted by: artistpoet
The basics a Human Being requires are:-

Food,
Clean Air,
Clean Water,
Shelter,
Warmth.

In the real world many still go in need of these.
Whilst the rest live in relative comfort

Fine if you want to be a parrot or a monkey swinging in the trees
Techno advances can do that for you if you choose to for that is your right
Yet War and poverty are for real in this modern age ...
Despite technological advances ... Humanity has yet to evolve IMO

This is kind of nonsense. People don't need to evolve. People already have everything they need to fix this without any fancy technology. All they need to do is choose not to reproduce until (if/when) they're not living in poverty. If you're living in poverty and you choose to reproduce, you just made your situation worse. You don't need any kind of evolved technology to use common sense.

This is a very well written advertisements for Axon Labs. I enjoyed the read.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
In recent months I've had cause to be involved with someone who's felt suicidal and made a couple of attempts. They're all smiles on the outside and nobody would guess what goes on in their internal mindscape. In a crowd of 20 people, you'd never spot them because we are wired to judge by appearances.

Most suicidal people don't act that way in public. Putting on the front that everyone expects or trying to be sociable is an attempt to fit back into normalcy and rid ones self of those feelings. But feelings like that don't just go away, people either find coping mechanisms or they don't.

I'm convinced that the way people act and what goes on in their head are frequently two very different things, since our society is all about appearances.

Fear. Ya. But not all fear is misplaced.

Personally, I think our society can only handle X change. Too much will wipe us out. Too little will wipe us out.

So much of progress relies on people dying and children being born. They soak up information so much swifter and with less prejudice.

Arthur C. Clarke expressed it well in 1964 on the BBC Horizon show (starts at 8:30). He said we should be proud if machines replace us. Over 99% of all life is extinct. We should expect to become extinct ourselves. However, should we create a higher form of life, it's something to celebrate, not oppose. All life is a stepping stone to higher things.

(I recommend watching both parts. His comments about the year 2000 are especially interesting. He saw the internet. He must have had long days where he wondered how it would change society.)

i think we see the same theme as always but more expressed in modern times. tech always feared, change feared, but the rate of change now is the issue. i try to observe this system wonder what the outcome, you have a given percentage always with the fear, but due to increased rate more with it to a higher degree, you gotta anticipate backlash, disintegration from the narrative, even to the point of speciation if we are to extend it's definition oh so slightly.

it's a point where, you know, not just bombs, not any one location or type, just unpredictability in the face of ever more number crunching. as if the same, just more extreme. that's the theme then? extreme... extremism isn't out there, it's our will and intent, no matter the biases.

a reply to: Kandinsky

perceptual cause of depression in the future and the psychological hacks of pharmacopia would be aimed there.

Great thread BTW.
Dont trust pharmacopia - less invasive is just watching suspected "depressives" and how their pets react amongst them.

Canine Comfort: Do Dogs Know When You're Sad? | Pets ...

www.google.com.au...

Jun 7, 2012 - When confronted with tears, dogs act as though they feel empathy. It's not yet certain ... Long-Term Opioid Use Linked to Depression. Ticks That Can ... I was shocked by how many of my friends dogs could sense my sadness.

or

5 Incredible Things Dogs Sense About You - Dogs Tips ...
mom.me/pets/dogs/19850-5-incredible-things-dogs-sense-about-you/
Jul 7, 2015 - 5 Incredible Things Dogs Sense About You. Dogs have an incredible ability to understand how their pet parents are feeling emotionally, and

a reply to: artistpoet

Techno advances can do that for you if you choose to for that is your right
Yet War and poverty are for real in this modern age ...
Despite technological advances

So should we feel guilty for the unfed or war torn everytime we paint our face or paint a tattoo? What about whenever we paint a painting or write a song? War is a tool to gather more resources at the expense of the less powerful.
Poverty will always be with us as poverty is a by product of the misallocation of resources depending on whose side of the fence you're sitting on.

I fail to see what you're really trying to say; I know you usually write well

a reply to: Isurrender73

I think I will stick to the ancients, since no one taking a pill appears to be happy to me.

I think I'm an oddity, I don't take pills. There's probably a pill for that - oh wait they've already working towards that!


www.the-scientist.com.../articleNo/35631/title/DSM-5-Rewrites-Normal/

the changes embodied in DSM-5 will lead to over-diagnosis and mistreatment.

Among the most high profile critics is Duke University psychiatrist Allen Frances, author of Saving Normal and chair of the task force behind DSM-4. In an excerpt from his book published at Wired, Frances contended that DSM-5 continues a trend toward the homogenization of people—a trend driven largely by the pharmaceutical industry’s attempts to reduce differences in behavior into easily categorized mental illnesses that require treatment with psychiatric drugs.

“With an assist from an overly ambitious psychiatry, all human difference is being transmuted into chemical imbalance meant to be treated with a handy pill,” wrote Frances. On the contrary, he added, “human difference was never meant to be reducible to an exhaustive list of diagnoses drawn carelessly from a psychiatric manual.”