![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sep. 15th, 2011
A friend pointed me to the ongoing conversation going on at Slate
"Debating Extreme Human Enhancement: Should We Use Nanotech, Genetics, Pharmaceuticals, and Augmentations To Go Above and Beyond Our Biology?"
http://www.slate.com/id/2303277/entry/2303278
I'm following it, but I'm finding it kind of...boring.
One reason is that very little in the conversation seems to have changed since I did piles of research for my thesis
http://www.blindbookworm.org/decloakingdisabilitycomplete.rtf
six years ago.
Probably the most interesting aspect to the conversation is that, similar to my thesis, science fiction media is being used --by a mainstream publication, no less-- to illustrate both sides of the argument.
Where the conversation totally fails for me is that it's both theoretical and talks about the tech as if it's in the future.
It's here and now, boys.
Anyone who adopts technologies to replace a missing or misfiring limb, sensory organ, or cognitive process,is perfectly aware of the pros and cons because we live with it every day.
We're not, as the "I don't want to be a cyborg" guy so pointedly refers to one of his fellow debaters, "an enthusiast." We're not passive adopters: we note the bugs and mod the designs constantly.
We're also not trying to enslave you into our cyborg revolution, thank you (and is it just me, or does anyone else find the title of that guy's book, _Liberal Eugenics_, to be something of an oxymoron? and he implies that the *cyborgs* are the ones like Daliks??)
( continued below cut )
"Debating Extreme Human Enhancement: Should We Use Nanotech, Genetics, Pharmaceuticals, and Augmentations To Go Above and Beyond Our Biology?"
http://www.slate.com/id/2303277/entry/2303278
I'm following it, but I'm finding it kind of...boring.
One reason is that very little in the conversation seems to have changed since I did piles of research for my thesis
http://www.blindbookworm.org/decloakingdisabilitycomplete.rtf
six years ago.
Probably the most interesting aspect to the conversation is that, similar to my thesis, science fiction media is being used --by a mainstream publication, no less-- to illustrate both sides of the argument.
Where the conversation totally fails for me is that it's both theoretical and talks about the tech as if it's in the future.
It's here and now, boys.
Anyone who adopts technologies to replace a missing or misfiring limb, sensory organ, or cognitive process,is perfectly aware of the pros and cons because we live with it every day.
We're not, as the "I don't want to be a cyborg" guy so pointedly refers to one of his fellow debaters, "an enthusiast." We're not passive adopters: we note the bugs and mod the designs constantly.
We're also not trying to enslave you into our cyborg revolution, thank you (and is it just me, or does anyone else find the title of that guy's book, _Liberal Eugenics_, to be something of an oxymoron? and he implies that the *cyborgs* are the ones like Daliks??)
( continued below cut )