Latest post of the previous page:
That's false. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET#Mi ... sign_goalsRadius wrote: and the internet was made to ride out nuclear war
do you like it?
I did. I just don't agree.Radius wrote:then you didn't read the article: as of now, our destructive capacity cannot be topped for all practical intents and purposesrobzed wrote:We have no evidence that these enhanced beings will not make the problem worst rather than better?
But we don't do we. There might be a good reason why general intelligence has a limit, such as an information theory limit we haven't discovered yet. The science isn't there yet.Radius wrote:lolrobzed wrote:We have no evidence that intelligence can be increased greatly by any method
'appropriate' - yeah, easy to say. But whilst there are avenues of investigation, that's a far cry from actually ENGINEERING such a solution. The science isn't there yet, let alone the engineering.Radius wrote:appropriate configuration of neural anatomy and dynamicsrobzed wrote:We don't know what method will increase intelligence
let's not pretend there are no data about this already
Sure. But again, we don't actually know the practical limits of manipulation or whether certain characteristics are impossible to have together, i.e. are not independent. The science isn't there yet, let alone the engineering.Radius wrote:personality traits can most certainly be linked to the brainrobzed wrote:We have no evidence that behaviours can be manipulated to make them more 'eco-friendly' / sustainable / 'virtuous'
Thanks, but that was not my intention. I was simply pointing out what should know what we are to engineer before we do it. To do this will take time. In which time better solution might have been implemented to solve the problems in the argument.Radius wrote:no ethical system doesn't have this issuerobzed wrote:We have no evidence that we will be able to decide on what behaviours are more 'virtuous'
you might as well become a postmodernist
It is impossible to predict all the implications sort of changes we are talking about here will have.Radius wrote:whatrobzed wrote:We have no evidence that these post humans won't be outperformed by normal humans because of these changes (e.g. a high focus on reason based logic by everyone beyond a certain level might be problematic in a universe with the high cost in obtaining them)
With any advancement in any technology you always lose something. So what are you doing to lose? It's naïve to assume otherwise.
The question is, do the advancements you have suggested end up resulting in changes that end up being less well adapted?
This isn't a reason not to attempt what you suggest, but we must consider that the unknowns are likely to significantly delay progress towards this goal.
Well, if we ignore Africa and most of India, most things have never been better. I thought the problem was that we couldn't sustain this - there were difficult problems globally than the human race was poorly equipped to deal with?Radius wrote:thanks for admitting how bad things are nowrobzed wrote:There is no evidence we could significantly reduce energy use per person or globally without a collapse of civilisation
Obviously we are failing to communicate.Radius wrote: he's done fuck all
Our perspectives are different: you want to be a philosopher, I believe. They don't answer questions or make solutions. Usually they just generate more questions. Occasionally they point out things like falsification.
Scientists investigate and provide models that try to match how the world works.
I am, for the most part, an engineer. Engineers use science, maths and technology to make solutions such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems.
You argument, as I stated it, is false. It's not the best method to solve the highlighted problems in the short term.
Military research is a double edged sword (if you pardon the pun). It has accelerated science in certain cases. But it's also lead to more people dying and stopped changes in society that might have been beneficial. Commercial enterprises have lead to more advancements in human ability overall. Very close to 100% of the Internet was developed by educational establishments and commercial enterprises.Radius wrote: and in any case, military research, as I've pointed out several times here, has had huge positive externalities on numerous occasions in the past: you are in fact using it right now
I'd also like to point out, again, I'm not against enhanced humans: we have been doing that in one form or another for thousands of years - and no more so in than in the last 200 years.