The horseshoe theory reminds me why it's better to identify as centrist...

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    It is more like, we need technology to survive. Animals on the other hand can survive without it.

    It's completely circumstantial. For example, send any animal into Space without a Space suit and they would die.

    Technology is certainly helpful, but having access to food and water is infinitely more important for any species.

    A good example, read about the Japanese holdouts. These were soldiers from WW2 who kept fighting years after the official surrender, and other than their guns, they were cut off from civilization and had to live off the land. They didn't perish.

    No doubt, we have ancestors. It is more like we have developed into something special.

    But what is this "special"? For example, I never denied that humans are indeed the smartest species on the planet. Sure, that's "special". But other animals have their own claims to fame too. For example, humans are definitely not the fastest species. Nor can we hold our breath underwater without passing out or drowning. Evolution gave every creature on Earth unique traits, and it makes sense to absolutely preserve them.

    Sure, it is just once again the technological dependence.

    We would sooner collapse from lack of food or water, then from being away from a computer or a stick. That's our biological limitation. Technology helps but if you can't even feed your body, it's worthless. Remember Steve Jobs? All his life, he was in charge of Apple and was constantly surrounded by technology. But once he got sick and his body couldn't go on any further, technology just didn't matter.

    Sure, they probably did communicate, maybe even with words. The questions is, whether they were able to make complex statements, like sentences with inferences. You are right, I should try to check some anthropological literature for this.

    It's not just Apes, there are Humans today who are mentally disabled and have trouble speaking or can't speak at all. But this is only proof that having a certain intelligence threshold is important, not that a lack of IQ makes you an animal. If any one of us got into a serious car accident and lost our ability to speak, did we stop being Humans? No.

    Sure, but is our species just some code an a hard drive?

    If we can take these genetic instructions and either 3D print or grow in a lab an exact replica of Human, that's no different from one born through natural methods, than the morbid answer is yes.

    I will admit though, that this type of topic is trippy and even freaks me out sometimes about why is this possible. But that's also the beauty of trying to learn and understand why life is like this.

    I agree, all technology changes our behavior. The difference is, that none of these technologies has replaced us with something else. Cyborgs on the other hand are not just some replacement for our smartphones, no, they are the replacement for us.

    The whole concept of evolution and natural selection has seen species replace one another because of survival of the fittest. If Robot Men enter society and are clearly superior at everything, then just like in the movies, some kind of techno-war will break out, or people will assimilate and wish to join the superior race. Hell, even without robots, the exact same phenomenon is used to describe immigration.

    Whites build better and more advance societies that now has non-whites flocking to them. We have many arguments and debates on how exactly we're suppose to this. Or in the case of the other side, they have arguments on how they want to be replaced. It wouldn't surprise me that perhaps Robots in the future will have the same discussion.

    "Dude, stop being racist and open your borders to the humans. Can't you see we're all equal!"

    [–][deleted]  (4 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      Sure, but they have some environment were they can live without technology. We do not.

      Earth is our environment and we can live out technology. Proof of this is when technology gets wiped out by natural disasters all the time, or when rolling blackouts render them useless. When these things happen, the first thing people look for is food and water. You can go an entire lifetime without a TV or Car, but you can't go 3 days without being dehydrated or starving.

      How is being born via sexual reproduction similar to being 3D printed?

      Correction: I don't literally mean the process is the same, but the end result. For example, in natural reproduction, cells are responsible for creating the building blocks of a baby. If we had to do this artificially, I would imagine a robot would be able to recreate organs/lungs/cells from scratch. I'll admit that this idea might not be realistic or sci-fi, so I'll stick with the "grown in a lab" scenario instead.

      Edit: Actually, maybe I'm not wrong about the 3d printing being sci-fi. Scientists already appear to have prototypes of printing out organs.

      https://www.ft.com/content/67e3ab88-f56f-11e7-a4c9-bbdefa4f210b

      See, the transhumanism topic is not the same as Neanderthal vs. Cro-Magnon. These human beings were not asked "do you want these other to exist". Cyborgs on the other hand are a product of us. We are able to decide, whether we want this. Well, at least, assuming we are the guys making the rules.

      They weren't asked, but you could say the same about when guns were introduced and used to conquer primitive tribes. Native Africans or Indians would have preferred the playing field be kept equal, but did the Europeans care? No, they simply went to war and defeated the other tribe for losing.

      If we were to stop the same thing from happening with Cyborgs, then that require passing some kind of international law or treaty forbidding such research. But unless you can actively enforce it, at least one country will still develop it in secret, because it's a symbol of power. Kind of like nuclear weapons.

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        Not all technology gets wiped out. We can still make fire, etc.

        You need to look at natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina or the 2004 Indian Tsunami to see even fire is still useless. Especially, what can you do with it? Fire wont feed you. The only technology that makes sense is building a boat and getting out of there.

        But this goes back to the original question of why are people leaving? Because food & water is something we absolutely can't live without...

        Sure, cells, organs, etc. will be the same. The only question is whether the process is part of the "essence" of this baby.

        Ever since the 1950s, Scientists have already been able to recreate the first building blocks of life in a lab. It was a chemical process called the Miller–Urey experiment. So I would say they are well on their way of being able to create the same essence that is contained in babies.

        Once again, I agree. Either there is some world government preventing this or some country will embrace this weapon. The question I am asking (mostly myself) is whether we should just give up and accept our replacement by Cyborgs or try to fight the battle as "natural" human beings? We would be heavily disadvantaged, but at least our end would not be 100% certain. So somewhat like in those sci-fi stories you were talking about, where low-tech humans fought Robots.

        Life in general is about survival and instinctively, having more power than others. I could see one argument for cyborgs is that humans bodies impose a lot of natural limits in terms of wanting to be immortal or being able to survive under any condition. If the sun explodes, or an asteroid were to crash into Earth, how many Humans could actually survive? Probably none, since the planet itself would be destroyed. But if robots can bypass the constant need for food or water, or self-repair broken parts, then it becomes obvious that only a robot body can withstand the toughest elements the universe could potentially throw at us.

        But once again, I obviously see this as evolution in action. Even if we somehow fight against this technological shift, it also means we must solve other extinction challenges that could happen at any time.