> technology has evolved into a very complex organism in its own right that is slowly absorbing us into mere parts into its whole. And in this process, the needs of biological life are secondary to the needs of the technological organism.
This makes Technology sound like a parasite: the host (humanity, Earth) is maintained only so long as the parasite desires, then discarded. Humanity will probably not remain a useful host once the supetintelligent machine superspecies can launch into the cosmos.
> It also means eliminating research into genetic engineering in healthcare, even if such research could cure rare diseases. Remember, the promise of curing rare diseases is just the dangling of bait by technology to push itself into the next stage of evolution.
Suppose that Tech's servants discover a way to transplant heads (or brains or minds or personalities), and extend human lifespan by magnitudes; there is no plausible scenario where this life-extending capability is applied to the present 8B human population, to keep the species alive in a healthy and natural form. It is far more likely that a human mind (or more) would be kept as a novelty analogue 'pet' for the machine superspecies, and I think this *one* use of people (as digital slaves) is unlikely to appeal to Technology - and it does not console me for the death of all evolved Earthly life.
It's true that humanity may not remain very useful. Although I do think we might be retained in some form for a while for our particular computational style...but not forever. Although it is true that primordial single cells were retained in the form of cells in our body, but highly modified.
As for the head transplants or brain preservation, that's probably right. Well, most of the people on the planet will be dead by that time. And it is frightening to have us as pets, but that is plausible too.
In any case, I 100% oppose more research into these advanced fields such as genetic engineering and brain research, no matter how many diseases it can cure.
Disease cures probably have value only to the individual, and may be a detriment to our species (antibiotics come to mind). Add that most of our psycho/physio maladies are *caused* by technological society, and mitigating our expressed symptoms simply allows the system (Technology) to continue, without friction from Man and without ceasing its causation of our disease. That the civilized population demands more of this medical caretaking (to counteract the abuses wrought by Tech) shows how far apart are the people who love Nature from those groveling for Technology.
That is right. Technology introduces problems and the technology is very hard to regress due to the delay between immediate benefit and long-term detriment to the wider sphere. And the resulting medical problems are then demanded as more immediate fixes, which accelerates even more technology. It's one of the prime mechanisms that technology uses to advance.
Glad you made the points in this piece.
> technology has evolved into a very complex organism in its own right that is slowly absorbing us into mere parts into its whole. And in this process, the needs of biological life are secondary to the needs of the technological organism.
This makes Technology sound like a parasite: the host (humanity, Earth) is maintained only so long as the parasite desires, then discarded. Humanity will probably not remain a useful host once the supetintelligent machine superspecies can launch into the cosmos.
> It also means eliminating research into genetic engineering in healthcare, even if such research could cure rare diseases. Remember, the promise of curing rare diseases is just the dangling of bait by technology to push itself into the next stage of evolution.
Suppose that Tech's servants discover a way to transplant heads (or brains or minds or personalities), and extend human lifespan by magnitudes; there is no plausible scenario where this life-extending capability is applied to the present 8B human population, to keep the species alive in a healthy and natural form. It is far more likely that a human mind (or more) would be kept as a novelty analogue 'pet' for the machine superspecies, and I think this *one* use of people (as digital slaves) is unlikely to appeal to Technology - and it does not console me for the death of all evolved Earthly life.
It's true that humanity may not remain very useful. Although I do think we might be retained in some form for a while for our particular computational style...but not forever. Although it is true that primordial single cells were retained in the form of cells in our body, but highly modified.
As for the head transplants or brain preservation, that's probably right. Well, most of the people on the planet will be dead by that time. And it is frightening to have us as pets, but that is plausible too.
In any case, I 100% oppose more research into these advanced fields such as genetic engineering and brain research, no matter how many diseases it can cure.
Disease cures probably have value only to the individual, and may be a detriment to our species (antibiotics come to mind). Add that most of our psycho/physio maladies are *caused* by technological society, and mitigating our expressed symptoms simply allows the system (Technology) to continue, without friction from Man and without ceasing its causation of our disease. That the civilized population demands more of this medical caretaking (to counteract the abuses wrought by Tech) shows how far apart are the people who love Nature from those groveling for Technology.
That is right. Technology introduces problems and the technology is very hard to regress due to the delay between immediate benefit and long-term detriment to the wider sphere. And the resulting medical problems are then demanded as more immediate fixes, which accelerates even more technology. It's one of the prime mechanisms that technology uses to advance.