Technological Enhancement

[ChfMojoRising]

I was wondering what our people would think about cybernetic enhancements in the future. Some people I think could only accept it in a health-care capacity, such as pace-makers or hearing-aids (modern technology with more "sci fi" advancements available). Some might see a limb replaced for one with better functionality. Perhaps some may wish to digitize their entire consciousness. Conversely there're those that are firmly against any such alteration to the human form.

Where do you make your stand, and explain why you would want or not want to utilize technology.

*note: No right or wrong answers, just a possibility for fun, open ended discussion.

[antisocial one]

I will not hide that I am fully for this. Also I am for larger use of these tehnology than just on peacemaker level. Actually I am for compleate alteration of human body.

Why?

I short this is what I think

Because human body is no longer perfect for living in modern world and it was never good for many conditions whit exception of earth continents.

My best argument is probably this: today you need some 40 years of education to create top class scientist and whit more knowledge you need more time to create next generaton of scientists. Plus these scientists are very specialised in some area of science.

So key question is what happens when education time come close or over time of human life. So we are looking at fullstop of progress in future.

Also we today know that earth has limited resources and space, not to menton that sun is not eternal so we must expand in very hostile enviroments to continue progress.
Actually I do not see dilemma because mankind as we know it is actually doomed.

There are 4 scenarios

1. we evolve further
2. we will be destroyed in some big natural disaster
3. we will destroyed in some big military conflict
4. we will change ourselfs how we want to

So if i have to choose I choose option 4.

[ChfMojoRising]

I personally agree with you, actually, although I take stance leaning more towards commodity instead. For example, if I could a single eye replaced with a mechanical eye(or both, to give my self 20/20 vision and ditch the need for glasses)~ and this eye could act as a mobile web browsing device, I would happily do it. Imagine being able to google/wiki anything, at anytime~ Pending a wi-fi connection, every person with this eye would have a learning/communicating/entertainment device... awesome!

*note, I'm assuming the projects the web images out in front of you like windows sit on a desktop~ the program interface is controlled by thought, optimally~ tho possibly gestures.

[merid]

I personally am more for genetic enhancement rather than technological enhancement. My reasoning for this is threefold.

1)Genetic manipulation will still leave us with humanity. Having machines implanted all over our bodies will make us cease to be what we are, i.e. flesh and blood and turn us into something else. Personally I wouldn't want to look like the Borg.

2)Genetic manipulation has that many more applications. If we do begin genetic testing and changing of our genome we can radically alter ourselves whilst keeping the template as it where. Picture this, make the human body resistant to cancer, increase our immune system and thicken our dermis to cope with the radiation and kinetic damage done to us on a daily bases, let alone if we venture into space.

3) Technological enhancement would further the cost being applied to people. If someone has a brain computer hookup, then to be comeptetive you will have to have one. If you work in the engineering sector and someone has replaced their skin with a tougher compound, making them better suited to intense heat or intense cold, then they will have the edge on someone without.

I have no problem with technology, in fact I think that have some implants would be a godsend. I know I have used the brain computer image negatively but I do think it should be worked upon. The brain controls all the functions of the body. Imagine being able to numb the pain of a wound, it would eradicate the need for aspirin.


Just an edit, if humanity does venture out into space I think that genetic enhancements should be used to make us adaptable to other plants. i.e increased lung capacity, ability to breathe methane. Terraforming implies the destruction of the existing eco system, I don't see the need.

[ChfMojoRising]

I'm not sure I see genetic alteration as being very different from technological, at least not in a broader sense. If either is taken far enough, you're no biologically human anymore (difference between man and apes in essence) and if either is not taken far enough, you're still human, tho perhaps with some better traits/tools.

I do understand point 3 as being an issue, but consider, our society has already been through this type of scenario in recent. The technological divide had made those without computer skills obsolete in many jobs, and forced many people to gain certified knowledge in the use of computers and computer software. I would say every thing turned out ok, albeit with some moaning and groaning from the "old people" hehe.

Also, it can be considered to have happened many times before. When cars were introduced into mainstream use, horse+buggy drivers had to adapt to new tech. Perhaps consider what the industrial revolution might have done as well.

[merid]

I'm not sure I see genetic alteration as being very different from technological, at least not in a broader sense. If either is taken far enough, you're no biologically human anymore (difference between man and apes in essence) and if either is not taken far enough, you're still human, tho perhaps with some better traits/tools.

I do consider it different. Any technological enhancement is going to outlive your body once you die. A person with a pacemaker is going to decompose a long time before the pacemaker does. Where genetic enhancement is merely increasing the usage/effectiveness of what you already have.

Yes if you take anything far enough then you will have a substantial gap but put it this way and I am not being racist, there is a stark difference in skin colour around the world, would genetic changes really be any more than that?

I do understand point 3 as being an issue, but consider, our society has already been through this type of scenario in recent. The technological divide had made those without computer skills obsolete in many jobs, and forced many people to gain certified knowledge in the use of computers and computer software. I would say every thing turned out ok, albeit with some moaning and groaning from the "old people" hehe.

Technology has played an important part in the world of evolution. But there is a difference from having a car and having a mechanical arm to do heavy lifting instead of a forklift. Technological enhancement creates elitism, you take all the people that have £100 million yachts, they are surely going to get the best enhancements.

If you take genetics. If there is a cure for cancer or polio, that can be inbred into us, do you really think the government will keep throwing money away for jabs and stockpiles of medicines, when genetic modification can save them all that money in the long run?

[ChfMojoRising]

I would equivocate differences in skin color to a person choosing a Dell over an HP (does it really matter? On a very superficial level perhaps) And in the case that some people have enhancments that are prohibitively expensive to others, thus giving the rich an advantage, I think it's likely said tech would be provided by places of business.

To give a real world example, I can't afford the $1,800 for a certain Adobe suite, which would possibly allow me to make a better living~ however, if my art skills are needed for a company, they will (almost always) provide you with exactly the tools the company needs (and that you needed for yourself) to get the job done.

Tho~ the fact that we're talking about hardware changes things a bit from my example. When leaving a company, one typically has to return the company-laptop. Imagine having to return the company-legs lol I'm sure there'd have to be employee-rights legislation to cover that.

[antisocial one]

I knew word borg will come up but that is not what i have in mind and I am thinking on very long time periods.


Today experts say that they have very big problems when they try to create artificial intelligence. So I am saying use human as starting point.
These way you actually continue evolution.

And I do not see reason why to insist on human appearance.
My idea also says that there is also no need for every creature to be same as orhers.
For example number of tools, arms and brain size/power.
It will probably be imposible to create organism that can adapt to anything.

Genetic manipulation is ok by me but we must be very cautious whit it because unlike tehnology here you still have classic reproduction and possible problems on the long run.

Also i think that organic life will never be capable of reaching intelligence level to survive in this reality.
But mechanical could and have easy time change/repair it self not to mention reproduction speed, and would have probably be more easy to shift in pure energy life form at some point far into to the future.

Even if you have machines you can have individualism but whit very good comunication between two organisms.

Whit inorganic life it is probably much more easier to create brain big as planet and use it to advence tehnology even further.

And there is no reason for this civilization to be evil.


Do you think that starship wich is completly under control of artificial intelligence is life form?

[ChfMojoRising]

Do you think that starship wich is completly under control of artificial intelligence is life form?

I think the ship could be considered a life form under one of two conditions. It must be sapient(and sentient of course), or it must be capable of some level of self advancement (like a pseudo-evolution system)

biological life forms, all have one or both of these even tho some creatures haven't evolved in millions of years.

[merid]

I think it's likely said tech would be provided by places of business.

Saying that then, it can be assumed that you would be losing part of yourself. If a company replaces your legs for instance, you would need to be insured for any damage to company property, you would also be indebted to your company for the expense that they are paying out. Contract clauses would be tightened I imagine to stop abuses to the system.

Taking the example of the company providing software. They do not provide it to you do they? It would be provided to the machine that you use at work, whether it be desktop or laptop. This is just ensuring that you can do your job, where is the implication that you will need technological enhancements to do this?

Do you think that starship wich is completly under control of artificial intelligence is life form?

This is more an ethical question and just a little bit off topic I think. Although interesting it would be a whole other debate.

I do not see reason why to insist on human appearance.

Neither do I, but what effect will this have on the identity of humans, not just their appearance? Children wouldn't have the enhancements until they reach the age where they stop growing, what kind of identity are they going to have?

i think that organic life will never be capable of reaching intelligence level to survive in this reality

Don't quote me but I am sure that there are animals that have anti-freeze in their blood to let them survive the cold.

Trees have developed ingenius ways to make sure their seed survives, wrapping it in a hard exterior, making vibrant flowers for insects. The organic way does provide the solution, just because we don't know how to for instance breathe methane doesn't mean that with the right people researching that it couldn't be done.

In terms of procreation once genetic enhancements have kicked in, surely the dominant and recessive tendancies will sort the solution out? One person has amber eyes that allow them to see in the dark and their partner does not. It would merely be a case of making the enhanced eye's gene dominant. I am no geneticist but I imagine it would take a radical change in DNA, for instance to make humans have three arms, to actually make them incompatable with others of the race.

[ChfMojoRising]

Actually~ I would be able to put it on a home machine, owned by me. What matters to the business is that it supports the business.

And yeah, you would be indebted to them for limbs given but that debt is paid for by working. They're willing to give it because having an enabled person working for them is worth more than a person that's incapable. Mutually beneficial relationship ^^ The real question has to do with when you leave (fired, quit,retire). In some cases the company could be legally responsible for providing adequate replacements (if it's not ok to keep the job-sanctioned parts) ... or they could just let you keep what you have (perhaps if you've worked long enough)

Reminds me of an episode of Ghost in the Shell. The main character, Motoko, is speaking to a fellow soldier~ she says something to the effect of, "When we die I suppose we'll be disassembled and our mechanical parts will go back to the state. There'll be little remains left." I think it was Batou , the person she was talking to, that chimed in afterwards something like, "then we'll just take the best cybernetics money can buy and enjoy this thrill ride for as long they're willing to pay us." (I know I don't have the situation exactly down, but that was the gist of it)

[merid]

you would be indebted to them for limbs given but that debt is paid for by working

So you are allowed to keep the company car assigned to you whilst you were with a company?

[PRBori]

I personally agree with you, actually, although I take stance leaning more towards commodity instead. For example, if I could a single eye replaced with a mechanical eye(or both, to give my self 20/20 vision and ditch the need for glasses)~ and this eye could act as a mobile web browsing device, I would happily do it. Imagine being able to google/wiki anything, at anytime~ Pending a wi-fi connection, every person with this eye would have a learning/communicating/entertainment device... awesome!

*note, I'm assuming the projects the web images out in front of you like windows sit on a desktop~ the program interface is controlled by thought, optimally~ tho possibly gestures.

I agree with developing technological body parts if necessary. Actually in regards to your comment about replacing an eye, they are experimenting with a technology that would allow blind people to see through sound...

You can learn more here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and here To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


It would be interest to see if they are successful. ;D

[thod]

Perhaps the biggest advantage of genetic enhancement over technological is its robustness. Tech requires a high tech society for reproduction, to destroy a race of high tech people does not need you to eliminate the individuals, only their tech capacity. An example is the fall of Rome, with society falling into the dark ages. If they could only reproduce only with artificial wombs and those artificial wombs were destroyed the race would die out.

Consider a race that were poisoned and required a daily dose of anti venom to stay alive. Such an individual would be wholly dependent on the state for his very survival. His capacity to act autonomously is severely restricted with the state simply withholding the anti venom if he fails to comply. The idealized creature must be as independent as possible. Rats are a good example from nature.

[ChfMojoRising]

PRBori: I actually saw on the Discovery Channel, a show called "The Human Body: Pushing the Limits" and they showed a woman with a plate implanted to her brain that hooked up to an external camera (mounted on sunglasses). It allowed her to see in a hazy, black and white image~ in fact, well enough that she was able to identify a boat far in the distance at a beach. Not bad for being entirely blind before ^^

Merid: Yes~ imagine you what you did for the company was good enough that the company would let you keep the car. Or in this cybernetic case, it may also be too burdensome for the company to worry about taking up their machine-parts~ cheaper to let ya keep them.

Thod: If something happened to the hi-tech society in that can no longer produce at the same level~ then tech-augmented people would, over time, dwindle in number as non-augmented people are born. Basically we slide back to where we started in the first place hehe.

I think, with the rats, you're talking about adaptable use of energy supply? That could be an issue for a fully cybernetic body~ but perhaps smaller augmentations could run off of thermal energy (the bodies internal temperature turned to energy) along with some means of breaking down ATP for energy (what our cells use to make energy, Adenine Triphosphate if I remember correctly) I wonder how a full cyborg, or full robot would handle this issue?

[merid]

Merid: Yes~ imagine you what you did for the company was good enough that the company would let you keep the car. Or in this cybernetic case, it may also be too burdensome for the company to worry about taking up their machine-parts~ cheaper to let ya keep them.

That seems a little bit naive to me. But I am nothing if not cynical, I can't believe that a company would let you keep expensive enhancements. Also can you say that in retirement or a promotion to management, that you would be content with possible detrimental ehancements? The system seems too much hassle to me.

[thod]

Gonads seems redundant. You carry a set of testicles around with you all your life, instead it would be more efficient to attach them when required and lower energy costs. Women would be over the moon if we had artificial wombs and they could get rid of all that complex and messy plumbing.

[ShaiGar]

I want a mental connection to the internet, with an onboard hdd.

[ChfMojoRising]

I can't believe that a company would let you keep expensive enhancements.

Well that's just it. Either the removal process must be more expensive to remove (especially if it's worn or outdated by the time of retirement). In the case that the piece is still of high value, and your value to the company hasn't exceeded that of the piece, they may remove it while replacing it with a cheap and acceptable alternative.


A mental connection to the internet with an on board HDD... yes! While you're at it, a remote HDD of a very large size that only your implant is set-up to connect to. (this way, you can have a huge database of w/e ya like available at a thought!)

I'd also like a new spine~ mine is a little bit bent. Not enough to be visually identified but enough to make all my muscles tense~ While I'm at it, perhaps legs that are powered beyond normal human capacity...

or maybe go full cyborg (save the brain) and casually change bodies every now and again lol.

hmm~ what kind of affect do you think that might have on peoples self image? If you can change whole bodies~ even gender @_@. Would it be strange if you learn your lover has a brain of the gender you don't prefer, but the body of the one you do?

[antisocial one]

Perhaps the biggest advantage of genetic enhancement over technological is its robustness. Tech requires a high tech society for reproduction, to destroy a race of high tech people does not need you to eliminate the individuals, only their tech capacity. An example is the fall of Rome, with society falling into the dark ages. If they could only reproduce only with artificial wombs and those artificial wombs were destroyed the race would die out.

Consider a race that were poisoned and required a daily dose of anti venom to stay alive. Such an individual would be wholly dependent on the state for his very survival. His capacity to act autonomously is severely restricted with the state simply withholding the anti venom if he fails to comply. The idealized creature must be as independent as possible. Rats are a good example from nature.

Ok I see have explained my self badly. My idea is to start whit human but when thnology is strong enough you can start creating pure robots but whit advanced mind.

Personally i think that this civlization of robots would be very hard to destroy.

Because they are created fast as toasters plus they don´t need to be robust because of super materials that exist in far future.

Plus who will destroy them they are reproducting far more faster than some organic alien civilization and probably advance in tehnology faster. Also there could be many tipes of these robots to ensure military flexibility.
They could exist in places where organic life can`t survive.(read more resources).
I already said that organic life has problem with intelligence on the long run but I am saying it again.

I could continue but I am already of topic.

[ChfMojoRising]

As Thread-Creator-Man (rejected superhero from a DC comic?), I don't mind if we get a little bit off topic, so long as we're still in a similar vein (vain?)

Only problem I have with your form of mass production, Antisocial_one, is the lack of variation. If all robots were exactly the same, they would all have the same weaknesses. This can pose a danger similar to what we've seen in the black plague, or the small pox brought to the native-americans from the spanish. Everyone shared a weakness for that one virus and scores of people drop rapidly. We would need to build in a true system of genetic variance to prevent a problem like this destroying an entire robo-race in a millisecond. I mean~ look how pervasive the Storm bot-net is and imagine if it had the ability to destroy your machine somehow~ (tell your fans to stop spinning, while running your cpu as hard as it can~ Boom! hehehe.... what? it's MY imaginary virus lol)

[antisocial one]

As Thread-Creator-Man (rejected superhero from a DC comic?), I don't mind if we get a little bit off topic, so long as we're still in a similar vein (vain?)

Only problem I have with your form of mass production, Antisocial_one, is the lack of variation. If all robots were exactly the same, they would all have the same weaknesses. This can pose a danger similar to what we've seen in the black plague, or the small pox brought to the native-americans from the spanish. Everyone shared a weakness for that one virus and scores of people drop rapidly.)

Please show me where I said that they must be alike in shape or composition, I have even said that whitout individualism entire thing is doomed.

[ChfMojoRising]

Likely, your toaster analogy threw me off lol

[Rommel]

Simple answer: I'm just transhumanist.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[marcclarke]

I want a mental connection to the internet, with an onboard hdd.

So do I, plus a huge math co-processor, and a large amount of non-volatile RAM. A local copy of Wikipedia, updated daily, would be nice too.It sounds as if we are talking about Ray Kurzweil's Technological Singularity.To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[blueback]

The simple fact is that having the option to live forever would be pretty sweet. However, if you're planning on living for thousands of years, let alone an infinite number of years, you are going to encounter a disaster. I'm not talking about a mugging where you get shot, or a fall off of a mountain, but a real live disaster like an asteroid landing on your head or an earthquake that opens a rift into the center of the earth that you fall into.

So, if you're going to live forever, you need to be able to survive something like that. That means that you HAVE to upgrade yourself. The body we are born with is far too fragile to live through the sorts of things that WILL happen to you over eons, even if it's kept in perfect shape. At a minimum you'd have to replace everything except your brain, and then hide your brain away deep inside with a lot of shock absorbers around it. If there was a way to port your consciousness over to something more durable, some sort of computer, then that would be a good idea. Actually, it might be a good idea to do that simply so that you can "save" yourself at regular intervals. That way if something does kill you off you can reboot and try again.

[knock7]

I was wondering what our people would think about cybernetic enhancements in the future...Where do you make your stand, and explain why you would want or not want to utilize technology.

I am looking forward to human computer integration and any tech or genetic enhancements I can get. I would replace my body if I could afford to and the new body had distinct advantages. The only one I might have a problem with is replacing my brain with a new brain genetic or tech.


I personally am more for genetic enhancement rather than technological enhancement. My reasoning for this is threefold.

1)Genetic manipulation will still leave us with humanity. Having machines implanted all over our bodies will make us cease to be what we are, i.e. flesh and blood and turn us into something else. Personally I wouldn't want to look like the Borg.

2)Genetic manipulation has that many more applications. If we do begin genetic testing and changing of our genome we can radically alter ourselves whilst keeping the template as it where. Picture this, make the human body resistant to cancer, increase our immune system and thicken our dermis to cope with the radiation and kinetic damage done to us on a daily bases, let alone if we venture into space.

3) Technological enhancement would further the cost being applied to people. If someone has a brain computer hookup, then to be comeptetive you will have to have one. If you work in the engineering sector and someone has replaced their skin with a tougher compound, making them better suited to intense heat or intense cold, then they will have the edge on someone without.

I have no problem with technology, in fact I think that have some implants would be a godsend. I know I have used the brain computer image negatively but I do think it should be worked upon. The brain controls all the functions of the body. Imagine being able to numb the pain of a wound, it would eradicate the need for aspirin.

I think you have a problem on some level with replacing body parts with tech, but that is just my impression.

1.) Technological enhancements could look like human body parts.
2.) Why couldn't tech have as many applications?
3.) This is a problem either way. If engineering tech body parts or genetic enhancement is a business, you can bet we will pay for it and the richest will get the best enhancements.

You did miss a big advantage of genetic enhancements over tech, the possibility that they can be naturally passed on to your children (pay once inherit forever ;) ).

[zoophilia]

I am a transhumanist. However, I don't like blind enthusiasm for this sort of thing as it has great potential to do more harm then good. With that said, I am a big believer in computational humanity and I think we are evolving more and more toward an "openness" model. I think that this will move humanity toward acting in ways that are in mutualistic including the sharing of mental resources, experience, etc through direct synaptic firing communication.

[Beery Swine]

I'm a trans-humanist, but not a post-humanist (if that's even the proper term). I define post-humanism as destroying what makes us human. Vague, I know, but its also adaptive. I'm all for putting my brain in a synthetic body that has all the advantages of a standard model, like pleasure and general sensation, the ability to heal itself and/or be maintained by others ata body shop, etc. kinda like in Ghost in the Shell, but to replace my brain with a computer program would simply render a seperate entity and destroy the prototype, namely Beery. This is why I would never allow any Star Trek engineer to "beam me up." All it does is destroy you and make a copy elsewhere. Fuck that bullshit. Brain enhancements are another story. If the standard brain is kept but added to with computers/nanotech, HELL YEAH. No more learning to play an instrument or drive a car, just access the relevant information when its needed and discard it when its not in use, like hitting the "X" on a document or program on your computer. It's gone but its still there.

The chief function of the body is to carry the brain around.
Thomas A. Edison

[Ool]

I'm a trans-humanist, but not a post-humanist (if that's even the proper term). I define post-humanism as destroying what makes us human. Vague, I know, but its also adaptive. I'm all for putting my brain in a synthetic body that has all the advantages of a standard model, like pleasure and general sensation, the ability to heal itself and/or be maintained by others ata body shop, etc. kinda like in Ghost in the Shell, but to replace my brain with a computer program would simply render a seperate entity and destroy the prototype, namely Beery. This is why I would never allow any Star Trek engineer to "beam me up." All it does is destroy you and make a copy elsewhere. Fuck that bullshit.

How do you know you’re not a separate entity from the person you recall having been a minute ago and that that person you recall having been is not dead now? Assuming you had been beamed instantly without your permission, without your new self even realizing it happened, how could it tell the difference?

Come to think of it, I think that person you remember having been a minute ago is no more anyway, “beaming” or not…

[Beery Swine]

How do you know you’re not a separate entity from the person you recall having been a minute ago and that that person you recall having been is not dead now? Assuming you had been beamed instantly without your permission, without your new self even realizing it happened, how could it tell the difference?

Come to think of it, I think that person you remember having been a minute ago is no more anyway, “beaming” or not…

Aha, trying to pull the "philosophy" card on me, eh? I've seen you do that before.:irked: Suffice to say, I don't know on any point.:undecided: Also suffice to say I won't take the risk.

Transhumanism :thumbsup:
Posthumanism :thumbsdown:

Emoticons can be addictive.

[MetalWounds]

How would our metabolisms support such features? It seems logical to conclude that the mechanical parts would consume more energy than our existing human parts. Would there be a greater need for food consumption?
If one had mechanical arms or legs designed to increase capacity, it would also be logical to assume that our "frames" would need to be upgraded. A bionic arm is only as strong as the bone structure that it's grounded to.
I would be all for an "auxiliary" mental computing faculty, in fact, the idea of a hardwired internet connection makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. But what of the viruses that our computers are subjected to in this day and age, or even "spyware"?

[Dream Weaver]

The simple fact is that having the option to live forever would be pretty sweet. However, if you're planning on living for thousands of years, let alone an infinite number of years, you are going to encounter a disaster. I'm not talking about a mugging where you get shot, or a fall off of a mountain, but a real live disaster like an asteroid landing on your head or an earthquake that opens a rift into the center of the earth that you fall into.

So, if you're going to live forever, you need to be able to survive something like that. That means that you HAVE to upgrade yourself. The body we are born with is far too fragile to live through the sorts of things that WILL happen to you over eons, even if it's kept in perfect shape. At a minimum you'd have to replace everything except your brain, and then hide your brain away deep inside with a lot of shock absorbers around it. If there was a way to port your consciousness over to something more durable, some sort of computer, then that would be a good idea. Actually, it might be a good idea to do that simply so that you can "save" yourself at regular intervals. That way if something does kill you off you can reboot and try again.

Nanotechnology is predicted to reach the point within the next century that they can download the entire consciousness of a person directly from the brain and put it in a computer file. Then, the question is where do we go from there? Do we create a robotic body for that consciousness, but then again what about biological processes. Can electronic circuits and "positronic brains" replicate humanity? That's a whole other debate though.
Less drastically, nanotechnology has great applications in medicine and can greatly extend life in my opinion. Also, just a random statistic related to the topic; the first people to live to be 200 are alive today. It makes me wonder what kind of breakthroughs are happening already.

[zoophilia]

genetic enhancement is merely increasing the usage/effectiveness of what you already have.

I think that acceptance of "the new" comes in several phases. In the first phase, people are generally opposed to it or have a morbid fascination with it. Those opposed are generally against the alteration of a system that works for them, those fascinated are in favor of an alteration to a system in which they are not survivable. The second phase comes when people realize the possible benefits of limited exposure to the new on the one hand and the possible negatives that could result from it on the other side. This is where people begin to dig deeper and ask more questions about the ramifications. Step 3 is when people rationalize the changes that would benefit them without thinking of the greater implications. Step 4 is when the benefits given to particular groupings are expanded to all of those within "the same category."

The phrase in which you advocated the preservation of "what you already have" reminded me of how the acceptance of modern medicine and more specifically plastic surgery happened within our culture. At first, it was immoral/weird/deviant (for those for whom the system did not work such as transexuals). Then it became ok in cases like car accidents where it was seen as a "restoration" of the 'original' state of being. Then it began to be applied to people with genetic deformations because they were being remade in "the way they were meant to be." From there it was a short leap to having small breasts being "a way not meant to be" and the general acceptance of the technique. I think it will be much the same with cyborgism, digital representation of personality, etc when people learn to embrace their identity as mathematical expression (note: this would not limit humanity to behaving like machines [though they could do so if they so chose] because anything [including emotion, poetry, love, physical touch, etc] can be represented mathematically). I agree with beery swine that a loss of some aspects of humanity would not be advantageous. At a certain point though, all of the distinctions between biological and technological and natural and synthetic become rather arbitrary.

[Monte314]

Think about the "leveling" effect some of these "enhancements" would have on society: all persons would essentially have instantaneous access to the entire corpus of documented human knowledge. This would mean that all persons would have virtually the *same* knowledge upon which to draw, so knowledge would cease to be a differentiator among people.

If some kind of automation could dramatically enhance the ability to reason, logical thinking might become similarly moot as an "intellectual advantage".

In other words, we are looking at a world where many INTJ distinctives would cease to be relevant...

... in other words, given the opportunity to posit a utopic future, INTJ's will craft a world where everyone is just like them!