Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science Technology

The Not-Quite-Human Rights Movement 443

Posted by timothy from the b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-beeep dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Yale University hosted a conference on transhumanism which organizers say served to coalesce transhumanism from a subculture to a 'movement.' They're even sketching out where the role of violence becomes legitimate in the quest to become a cyborg. But most of the talk was of peaceful integration and continuation of democratic values."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Not-Quite-Human Rights Movement More

The Not-Quite-Human Rights Movement

Comments Filter:

  • Is this story... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Sir Haxalot ( 693401 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @07:59AM (#6569764)
    done purposely now to tie in with Terminator 3? :)

  • Well, that is a relief. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Prince_Ali ( 614163 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @08:00AM (#6569765) Journal
    I was afraid they would discuss something stupid!

  • Oh please (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @08:00AM (#6569768)
    Any decent cyborg could simply destroy anyone who disagrees with them, thus ensuring their status as a sentient super being with power over all mankind. No self-respecting super-being would be seen dead in a namby-pamby meeting to talk about rights! Wannabes!

  • Locutus would disagree.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Lord_Slepnir ( 585350 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @08:01AM (#6569774) Journal
    But most of the talk was of peaceful integration and continuation of democratic values.

    Freedom is irrelevant
    Choice is irrelevant
    You will escort us to sector 001 where we will begin assimilation of your species. Resistance is futile.

    • I always wondered why the Borg wanted to be escorted to sector 001 -- was it because they feared getting lost?
    • I've always wondered why the Borg would refer to Earth as sector 001. Since they're from the Delta quadrant wouldn't they have devised their own map/coordinate system or does everyone use the Federation's?
      • universal translator does automatic unit/mapping conversion.

        man, I'm a geek.
      • I thought about this, then I realized: Since they're speaking english, they're probally translating everything they say anyway, including the coordinate systems. Since they're using a language as convoluted as the english language, translanting coordinate systems is nothing compared to figuring out verb conjugations.

        • Re:Locutus would disagree.... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by mangu ( 126918 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @08:41AM (#6570059)
          translanting coordinate systems is nothing compared to figuring out verb conjugations


          You think english verb conjugations are difficult? You don't speak any latin language, do you?

          • Are you kidding? There are maybe a dozen or so irregular verbs in spanish, and similar numbers in French and Italian (although I dont speak the latter two, so I cant be sure). Latin itself (at least Church latin) has even fewer. English, on the other hand, has dozens and dozens. English (and the other Germanic languages) have far more irregularities than the Romance (aka Italic) languages.
      • why the Borg would refer to Earth as sector 001

        Since they assimilated Picard, and presumably all his knowledge about humans, Earth, and quite a few species... Getting Picard was a quite important goal exactly for this. Only then tell they people to escort them to sector 001, AFAIR.

        (oh my, I just admitted watching TNG...)

        Hopefully it's on-topic for talking about the Borg :)

      • Stop picking on the borg already! (Score:5, Funny)

        by johannesg ( 664142 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @10:29AM (#6570959)
        They are obviously the future of geeks. Think about it: now we are the social underdogs, but in the future gadgets (such as enhanced strength, instant communication, and integrated computer hardware) will finally allow us to strike back AND get close to seven of nine at the same time ;-)

        Today's geeks are already into sharing in many ways: source, ideas, music, etc. Becoming Borg will just take things to a much higher level.

        The one thing I am not so sure about is how Linus fits in as "the queen"...

  • hmm (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mjmalone ( 677326 ) *
    Why did they have to include in the cyborg drawing a nice big flacid cyborg cock?

    • Re:hmm (Score:5, Funny)

      by mr_luc ( 413048 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @08:22AM (#6569948)
      Hmmm. I was going to rate this a troll.

      But then I noticed -- maybe it's just my imagination -- but the cyborg's seems bigger than the human's.

      No wonder it "coalesced" into a movement. Before, it was just a few random, scattered geeks. Then, when they were running with the idea, they said to themselves "Hey . . . if I could get a bigger, stronger, artificial bicep, then what about my . . ."

      And suddenly, it's a movement.
      • "More than the sum of his parts" by Joe Haldeman

        In the pre-story splash he said he always wanted to write a "Playboy Story" and was surprised when he had actually written one. His agent didn't like the title, so he suggested, "Tom Swift and His Electric Penis" as an alternative. It was submitted under the original title.

      • You can get anything you want... (Score:5, Funny)

        by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @09:53AM (#6570635)
        > No wonder it "coalesced" into a movement. Before, it was just a few random, scattered geeks. Then, when they were running with the idea, they said to themselves "Hey . . . if I could get a bigger, stronger, artificial bicep, then what about my . . ."
        >
        > And suddenly, it's a movement.

        Walk into the shrink wherever you are, just walk in, say "Shrink -- you can mod any parts you want at Cyberdyne Restaurant" -- and walk out.

        You know, if one Slashdotter, just one Slashdotter does it, they may think he's really sick and they won't take him.

        And if two Slashdotters do it -- in harmony -- they may think that they're both trollin' and they won't take either of them.

        And if THREE Slashdotters do it! Can you imagine three Slashdotters walkin' in, singin' a bar of "Cyberdyne Restaurant" and walkin' out? They might think it's a HACKER CONSPIRACY.

        And can you imagine FIFTY Slashdotters a day? I said FIFTY Slashdotters a day -- walkin' in, singin ' a bar of "Cyberdyne Restaruant" and walkin' out? Friends, they may think it's a movement, and that's what it is.

        The Cyberdyne Systems T-800 Model 101 Trans-Humanist Movement!

        And all you gotta do to join it is to mod me (+1, Funny) the next time the mod points come 'round on the thread view. With feelin'.

        You can mod any parts you want at Cyberdyne Restaurant (or be an Alice!)
        You can mod any parts you want at Cyberdyne Restaurant
        Implants, fuel cells, and neural hacks,
        Muscle over bones made outa railroad track,
        Oh, you can mod any parts you want at Cyberdyne restaurant...

    • Re:hmm (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ShooterNeo ( 555040 )
      Not to mention the question of what it's for : I suspect existence could be quite satisfying without sexual urges of any type (or hunger, or thirst, ect). Your rational brain already feels a certain pleasure when you successfully make new working connections between ideas or accomplish something, this is why you can become addicted to certain hobbies. As for building the next generation of super-cyborgs, you'd obviously use rational thought rather than randomly shaking a bag of traits and seeing what come

      • Re:hmm (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Planesdragon ( 210349 )
        As for building the next generation of super-cyborgs, you'd obviously use rational thought rather than randomly shaking a bag of traits and seeing what comes out

        Dear me, no. Eugenics (which is exactly what you're describing) is a foolish endeavor. The computational power to adapt to all possibilities is far too large; redundancy and variation are the keys to survival.

        Rational thought only needs to enter into reproduction to ensure sufficient saftey and material, to educate the next generation, and to e
    • The article is from the Village Voice. They do have an "eclectic" audience to satisfy, you know....

      ---------

  • They're even sketching out where the role of violence becomes legitimate in the quest to become a cyborg.
    That's easy -- if it's anything like the Terminator trilogy, you just shoot and blow up everything in sight! :^)

  • Stem Cell Research (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Acidic_Diarrhea ( 641390 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @08:02AM (#6569782) Homepage Journal
    I've noticed that these bioethics departments are cropping up at universities all over the place but is this the type of material they're working on? Come on, how close are we to having intelligent robot companions? I can understand the need to consider the possibility of how humans will respond to a person with a bionic arm but, honestly, there's not that much to consider. Are people with artificial limbs currently hated and shunned? No, of course not. If we make these limbs much, much better - are we to expect anything different?

    What these bioethics departments should be doing is trying to convince people that stem cell research is one of our best chances at curing many diseases. That's a much more important goal than trying to make sure society won't turn away when they see me and my robot walking hand in hand down the street.

    Yes, we should be doing stem cell research! (Although, I doubt this will be an unpopular opinion here. Slashdot does attract many scientists, after all.)

    • Re:Stem Cell Research (Score:5, Insightful)

      by s20451 ( 410424 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @08:13AM (#6569862) Journal
      If we make these limbs much, much better - are we to expect anything different?

      Yes! That's basically the whole point. Currently, even the best artificial limbs are a poor substitute for the genuine article. People get artificial limbs because they have lost their natural limbs, and have no other choice -- we do not hate or shun these people any more than we hate or shun people with any other disability. However, if artificial limbs become far superior to natural limbs, people will be able to choose whether they want their (perfectly healthy) natural limbs removed in favor of mechanical ones. At that point you will certainly have fear and loathing between the people who undergo the procedure (the superior beings) and the people who don't (the all-natural people).

      As for your further point, it's not the role of bioethics departments to sell stem cell research. It's their role to think about the consequences for society of any new innovatio, and sometimes they might not agree with the techies.

      • Re:Stem Cell Research (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Gangis ( 310282 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @08:23AM (#6569952) Journal
        Very good points that s20451 made.

        I suppose I would qualify as a Cyborg; I am hearing-impaired and have a Cochlear Implant [cochlear.com]. Social-wise, it's kind of a mixed bag. On one side of the coin, people in general are fascinated by the prospect of restoring hearing that was lost and the very idea of having a biological implant in my head. On the other side, however, the Deaf community generally shuns them as their equivalent of "tools of Satan." I feel that in the decades, even centuries, to come, such divisions will stil exist on this topic. It's unavoidable today and will be unavoidable tomorrow.

        • Re:Stem Cell Research (Score:2, Informative)

          by Darlock ( 7305 )
          > the Deaf community generally shuns them as
          > their equivalent of "tools of Satan."

          It is a sad sad world when a community shuns another for improving their life.

          Do they shun you because they are purists or is there a medical reason that I do not know about?

          • Well, he's not deaf, now is he?

            Really that's quite understandable. It's a commity for deaf people. If you've remedied that situation, you're not deaf, and thus not necessarily welcome in the deaf community.

            Put it another way: you're a member of your college's radical student union, picketing weekly against exploitation of the proletariat, when you have an epiphany that unfettered anarcho-capitalism is the one true social system. Do you think you'd be at least a little shunned by your old pals?

            • Re:Stem Cell Research (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Knara ( 9377 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @09:07AM (#6570245)

              In my, admittedly limited experience from taking a semester of ASL and having "deaf culture" lessons intermingled with that, what you're saying doesn't seem to be the actual issue.

              People who subscribe to "deaf culture" seem to have constructed a world-view in which deafness isn't a biological flaw, but rather a "variation". They promote the view that a diminished or absent ability to hear is a healthy variant of the human biological norm. This is, I assume, a social reaction to the idea of being "flawed" or broken, and stems, I am sure, from the fact that by and large deaf people are capable of fully interacting with human society, so long as concessions are made for their lack of hearing.

              But now its gone far beyond that, and in some cases (such as this) its gone to ridiculous extremes. Instead of being ostracized by hearing (aka "normal") humans, they ostracize people who recognize that deafness is not the human norm, and actually use technology to fix it.

              It saddened (and angered) me when I first encountered this. Deaf people of this opinion think that folks who want to "fix" them just don't "get it", and that we as hearing people (as they call it) are just some sort of other normal variation on homo sapiens. As if the ability to hear is akin to hair color or something equally as irrelevant to human functioning.

              I wonder if the same people would consider other birth defects "normal variations", and acceptable.

          • There are militants in the deaf community who see hearing restoration as an attempt at genocide.

            Seriously.

            Any group of people is going to have some wackos at the wrong end of the bell curve, so I'm not really surprised by the existence of this attitude. I'm more or less just happy that these nuts aren't running around poking normal people in the ears with sharp objects in order to expand their numbers.

            • Took the words right out of my mouth. Personally, I view it as a bit of hypocrisy in that they generally don't shun people with good old hearing aids (They are merely sound amplifiers that go in your ear canal, no surgery needed) and in some cases, it helps almost as much as a cochlear implant (Not always so for some people, it varies with their type of deafness.) But our world is full of hypocrisy to begin with. It's sad but that's my reality and I have to live with it.

    • Re:Stem Cell Research (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @08:28AM (#6569984) Homepage Journal
      Damn right.

      One of these days, we're going to look at ourselves, our families, our friends and neighbors, and realize that all of us have various synthetic bits (almost said "metal bits," but there's no guarantee that metals will be the materials of choice -- and anyway, "metal bits" brings something else entirely to mind) and other bits that are genetically engineered, and that we're all living longer, happier, healthier lives as a result -- and it won't seem extraordinary; it will be just the way it is. And the current "bioethics" debates will seem precisely as meaningful as arguments over whether 'tis best to lower a patient's level of bodily humours by bleeding, or raise them by fortifying him with red wine.

      I'm sure by then the Luddites will have found something else to bitch about, though.

      • Re:Stem Cell Research (Score:3, Insightful)

        by hpulley ( 587866 )

        When is a person a cyborb? Is a joint replacement enough to qualify? How about a pin and/or screw to hold a bone together? Or does it require some electrical or electronic parts to become a cyborb?

        Do we shun people with pacemakers? Cochlear implants? Hip replacements? I don't think so.

        Will we shun people who get them done electively, rather than because they are required? I see some jealousy today, "those breasts are fake," etc. but I don't think we classify people with augmented physical appearanc

      • Re:Stem Cell Research (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jafuser ( 112236 )
        I'm sure by then the Luddites will have found something else to bitch about, though.

        But not for long.

        The luddites would not be able to compete intellectually or physically with the mainstream human population. The mainstream would continue to have longer and healthier lives, all the while having many more years to accumulate wisdom. The mainstream would also use the technology to make their bodies stronger and faster.

        In the end, the luddites would not be able to compete. They would have nothing to of
    • > "What these bioethics departments should be doing is trying to convince people that stem cell research is one of our best chances at curing many diseases."

      Isn't the purpose of bioethics departments to study the ethical and moral implications of new discoveries and advances (as is suggested by the article), instead of picking a tech and shoving it down people's throats?

      > "Yes, we should be doing stem cell research!"

      Some people disagree with you. If it's a significant enough portion of the populat

    • Re:Stem Cell Research (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jafuser ( 112236 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @10:22AM (#6570904)
      Here's what we need to tell people:

      When you're on your deathbed, only days or hours from kicking the bucket, will you regret your opposition to stem cell research during the early 21s century, that might have let you happily live another 20 or 30 years?

      Nobody cares unless it directly affects them. We need to convince people that it will directly affect them.

  • where the role of violence becomes legitimate in the quest to become a cyborg.

    Violence aginst others (forcing cybernetic implantation--i.e.: assimilation) or violence against one's self (stupidity)?
    • I don't know why the blurb said that about the article and the conference. I actually read the article, and they didn't mention that violence would be legitimate at all. They did mention the possibility of different sets of rules for "transhumans", but they didn't say that allowing wanton violence was among them.

  • chicken before the egg? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @08:06AM (#6569809)
    I think this is quite similar to the Segway, aren't we jumping the gun a bit? Trying to enact legislation before this even becomes widespread?

    It is great to discuss this sort of stuff in groups and think about what they could do in the future, but to seriously believe that they would need to make sure laws could handle this before anymore than a handful of people are "cyborgs" (there is only one person that I know of that has actual shit inplanted in his body)?

    It seems a little excessive. Maybe as implants begin to become more commonplace (I can't see this happening for at least 15-20 years) we should start thinking about it, but until then, how about we try to enact useful legislation (re-opening our freedoms, ending the corporate stranglehold on consumers, forcing competition in corporate markets, etc).

    Yay for timewasters!
  • Any minute now, I'll be getting some rights!

    Watch out you humans, here I come!
  • Not until we resolve the issue of rights for other species.

    We tend to measure the value of other lifeforms in terms of their genetic closeness to ourselves. All humans share something like 99.9% of their genes... and we already have a hard time fighting for the rights of distant strangers who are in fact members of our large but interbred human family.

    Then how about our genetic relations, our sibling and cousin species, from chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utangs out to other primates, then to other mamm
    • ... chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utangs out to other primates, ... birds, reptiles, fish, then insects ... single-celled organisms, with whom we still share an impressive number of genes.
      All still much closer to us in any meaningful sense than even the most human-looking cyborb.


      Emphasis added.

      What's the basis for this claim? Cyborgs are genetic humans modified by technology.

    • animals other than humans (and insects) are the least of our worries...

      We have countries on this planet that still discriminate because of religion, race, culture, background, color, etc (the US is one of them duh).

      I think we should seriously worry about fixing the problems that we already have and not even bother to worry about the "rights" of insects and other animals.

      By the way, I think that a cyborg (human + machine) is FAR more close to us than a mosquito.

      Just my worthless .02
      • "We have countries on this planet that still discriminate because of religion, race, culture, background, color, etc (the US is one of them duh)."

        More accurately, its that we dont have a single country that doesn't discriminate based on some combination of religion, race, culture, etc.

    • Re: You lost me (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by Talisman ( 39902 )
      You had me up until "...insects and even down to single-celled organisms..."

      If a court anywhere on the planet tells me I can't squash one of these god damn mosquitos that keep feeding off me, they can go straight to Hell.

      And the single-celled organisms that are currently giving me hershey squirts are about to get steamrolled by 1000mg of Cipro. FUCK their 'rights'.

      Sometimes, your mind can be so open your brain falls out.

      Tal

      • In the hippie future you would have to take mosquitos to small claims court.

        I can see it now. The defense lawyer Johnny Coakroach says "If it hasn't bit you must acquit."

    • Animals have three purposes:

      1) To fit well
      2) To be delicious
      3) Anything else we damn well want to do with them

      Evolution is a competition. It's not a cooperative effort. Sure, humans are the dominant species on earth right now, but that could all change in a hearbeat (or an asteroid, or a virus, etc...). Humans are not so all powerful that we can play the role of benevolent caretaker of the world. We should take advantage of our position in the food chain now, while we still can, because the fossil record
      • ...

        Exactly what the mosquito thinks as it bears down on your heat signature and prepares to bore a hole through your skin to suck your blood to feed its young. ...

        And what makes you believe humans are the dominant species? Uhm, are we not simply the largest source of food for innumerous parasites that find us "delicious"? ...

        Personally, I agree with you. But I believe my views to be parochial, personal, skewed, and ultimately irrelevant.
    • I stand corrected, a "cyborg as human + machine parts" is undeniably human. A "cyborg as machine that looks human" is not.

      My point about genetic closeness is not to claim that single-celled lifeforms, nor any species in fact, has "rights". The statement that we have to grant species rights implies that we humans have some godlike position that allows us to do such a thing. Earth the center of the universe, humans at the center of life. Sure, sure...

      I'm suggesting we look at life as a continuous river

      • Get some definitions (Score:2, Informative)

        by Psyx ( 619571 )
        ---
        cyborg
        A human who has certain physiological processes aided or controlled by mechanical or electronic devices.
        ---

        YOU can be a cyborg. A nontrivial percent 0.3% of the US population can be considered cyborg just because they have pacemakers. I believe they share 99.9%+ (or some stadard deviation of genetic makeup between humans) of your genetic material.

        Cyborgs are not machines that look human. You're thinking of androids.

        ---
        android
        adj.
        Possessing human features.
        n.
        An automaton that is created from bio
      • "A machine that looks human" is an android, not a cyborg.

        Now, this isn't about us all-powerful humans "bestowing" rights upon other species, any more than the "Vote for Women" movement of the 1920s was about us all-wise males granting those silly girls the chance to play at politics. In reality, it was about us getting over our stupid and baseless preconception that men had some superior capacity to be decision-makers.

        In this case, it's about us finally getting over ourselves as a species. We shoul

  • Coincidence or conspiracy? (Score:4, Funny)

    by iapetus ( 24050 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @08:18AM (#6569911) Homepage

    From the article:

    They're even sketching out where the role of violence becomes legitimate in the quest to become a cyborg.

    From the front page of Slashdot:

    This page was generated by a Group of Psycho Robots for iapetus.

    It's too late to discuss this - they've already taken over and are using violence to manipulate Slashdot...

  • From the article: "I would say if a creature is both sentient and intelligent, and has a moral sense," ... it is human.

    But these are all terms designed specifically to separate the non-human animals from the human ones. Pure circularity. My cat is sentinent, and intelligent. As for her moral sense, if I could identify such a thing in myself, I'm sure I'd ascribe the same motivations to her.

    But does that make my cat 'human'? Nope. Human is someone who looks and talks like me and has enough of my genes
    • Okay, you've introduced a massive fallacy here. This demonstrates why people like you need philosophers, since you don't examine your own arguments.

      "Humans are animals that had human parents, and no amount of postulation or terminology will make a cat or a machine into a human."

      By this argument, nothing whose parents were not human can be human. Ergo there can never be a "first" human, since its parents must have (by definition) not have been human. As such, unless humanity was created, in situo, t
      • Your argument makes perfect sense anywhere except in a universe where reality is always a "best approximation". There are no perfectly round circles except in imaginary space, and there are no perfectly closed species except in the "now".

        It's quite logical to define human in terms of "had human parents" and still go back 3.5 billion years to the first single-celled organism. Each generation is a "perfect" copy of the preceding generation, where the definition of "perfect" satisfies both the criteria for
        • So are you only human if you accululate genetic change in incremental amounts in line with "natural" evolution? What if we bioengineer a new genetic line who are more/less intelligent/sensitive/whatever than ourselves ... are they human (i.e. do they get human rights or greater/lesser ones?) if they can interbreed with us? What if we engineer a chimp-human cross that can interbreed with us but has more chimp-level language skills and intelligence?
          • These are funny questions. What if we engineer a half-rat, half-human that looks like us but likes to live in sewer pipes? How about a human with four asses?

            Interbreeding and having fertile children? I believe that this is not possible unless the genetic overlap is so close as to make your examples meaningless. I.e. the tiny difference between chimps and humans is still an impassible gulf when it comes to successful breeding. Humans are not approximations, we are (like all life) incredibly specific to
      • Absurd is taking half a sentence, blowing it up into a full theory, and then shooting that theory full of holes. Is that what philosophers do, go deliberately digging for logical fallacies by enforcing literalism and requiring every sentence fragment to be a tautology?

        Obviously "humans are animals that had human parents" doesn't take into account evolution. At some point our parents weren't human, but became so over time. The miracles of sexual reproduction! So strictly speaking, the statement was wron
    • So a machine with human parents (meaning creators) must therefore be... human?
    • I'm not a "transhumanist" and I think there are too many problems we need to solve that exist right now to worry ourselves with what might happen no less than 50 years from now, and that's an extremely concervative estimate in my opinion. I think regardless of what we can do about raw processing power and mechanical devices we probably aren't even less than 500 years away from reproducing consciousness in machines, or using machines to enhance ours. We just don't know anything about the nature of consciou

  • System security (Score:3, Funny)

    by NetDanzr ( 619387 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @08:24AM (#6569957)
    Did they decide which operating system to use? And, more importantly, how to make it secure? I'd hate to get a shiny new metalic body, only to have some 14-years old punk hack into it and make me stand on my head while peeing.
  • They're called "corporations" and they already have equal (or-better) protection under the law. Unfortunately, they don't seem very interested in ethics.
    • Well said!

      Corporations may also provide the most fertile breeding grounds for intelligent machines, all in the name of cost-effectiveness.

      Furthermore, I have long believed that the legal frameworks which protect corporations could enable intelligent machines to gain rights and capabilities that would otherwise not be granted to them. For example, a computer owning property seems absurd. An advanced intelligent machine may act as a defacto owner of property using willing human participants and a tanglement

  • Good time to read (Score:2, Informative)

    by CodeHog ( 666724 )
    Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom.

  • Machines will never be self-aware (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The technology may exist to make a machine act as if it is self-aware--that it has feelings--but it is nothing more than a system, a chain reaction that takes different turns based on certian rules by which it has been programmed. (This could even include re-writing itself, which really means nothing, because again, it is simply following it's programing.) As a person converts themselves into a "post-human" they are doing nothing more than murdering themselves slowly as they replace parts of their living bo

    • Re:Machines will never be self-aware (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jejones ( 115979 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @09:38AM (#6570505) Journal
      How do you know you aren't subject to the same constraints? (People used to argue that Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem somehow showed AI to be impossible, but OTOH "Anonymous Coward cannot consistently assert this proposition" is clearly true and you can't assert it, despite your supposed superiority.) Humans are systems, too, and eventually we'll figure out how we work. If things go as they have in the past, the simplicity of the underlying mechanism should be breathtaking--and humans will be no less impressive, or deserving of ethical treatment, for that simplicity.

  • I for one welcome (Score:3, Funny)

    by Cackmobile ( 182667 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @08:43AM (#6570074) Journal
    our new cyborg overloads. But seriously I don't have a problem with this. Maybe in 100 years we can upload our brain to memory along with a coding of our dna. Then we could be sent through space for 1000 years. When you get there grow a new body and upload your brain. Nice. I for one want a super powerful crushing arm.

  • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • conceptual artist must be male (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wwest4 ( 183559 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @08:54AM (#6570140)
    what's really depressing is how that this transhumanist version of a bionic man sacrifices lots of his human body (presumably some major organs and skeletal muscles) - but the artist can't let go of the damn penis. our cyborg progeny will have a totally artificial endocrine system, but fully-functional man meat.

    won't sexual reproduction be passe in this crazy borgified world-gone-mad?
    • You've apparently never heard of this quiet subculture that uses things called "dildos."

      Heh, there was even something at http://www.cyberdildonics.com/ a while back, though I'm too lazy to see if it's still up. The website, that is.

      I reckon the prevalence of the wang-chung on our carbon-fiber hero is more attributable to the IMpossibility of reproduction from his, shall we say, deep sea fishing.

      Paper? Porn mags.
      The phone? Phone sex lines.
      Internet? persiankitty
      Cyborgs? Unrestricted, unsimulated hooch
      • funny, and good point. i guess i prejudged cyborgs as cold and unfeeling - i've watched too much mainstream entertainment depicting a post-singularity human apocalypse imposed by rational, emotionless machines... i forgot that the borg queen still cared about nookie.

  • I don't get it... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bugmaster ( 227959 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @08:55AM (#6570143) Homepage
    In order to have a cyborg rights movement, wouldn't we need to get some cyborgs, first ? I mean, technically, I could start a Pink Unicorn Rights movement, but it's not really all that useful.

    I understand that, in a general sense, we are all cyborgs (glasses, fillings, pacemakers, etc.), but I can't think of any civil rights issues in these cases. So, as soon as someone starts getting oppressed for having their arm replaced with a particle cannon, I'll be the first to march on Washington, holding a big "Particle Guns for Freedom !" sign. Until this technology actually becomes available, though, the cyborg rights people might as well throw their support behind the Tooth Fairy. At least they might get some free teeth out of that one.

    • Cyborg Rights (Was Re:I don't get it...) (Score:4, Informative)

      by McLuhanesque ( 176628 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @10:18AM (#6570861) Homepage
      Well, there already has been a test case of cyborg discrimination. Whether you sympathize [wearcam.org] with the plight of Prof. Steve Mann at the hands of Air Canada, or think otherwise [hissyfit.com], the fact is that certain regulations have revealed the potential for discrimination on the basis of technological augmentation of the body.

      The specifics of Mann v. Air Canada are not as important as the over-arching issues the case raises. Mann's case cannot be argued on its constitutionality, as there are no constitutional protections against discrimination of cyborgs, or those who are technologically enhanced. However, it was obvious to those of us who saw Mann immediately after the Air Canada incident that the removal of his cyborg accoutrements resulted in significant physical distress. He was unable to maintain balance, properly respond to ambient temperature fluctuations, judge distance for grasping objects, among other physical infirmaties. The symptoms lasted for a little over a month, after which, his body slowly reacclimatized to its non-cyborg state.

      The argument cannot be made on the evidence that his wearable computers, and their intrinsic biofeedback mechanisms, were merely fashion accessories or affectations. Because his autonomous body functions had adjusted to Mann's cyborg enhancements, they could rightly be considered part of his (cyborg) biology, necessary to maintain his normal health. In legalese, Mann's cyborg enhancements differed from MP3 players and portable computers "in kind," not merely "in degree." Hence, one could legally consider that Air Canada's security checks should have changed to provide adequate screening without being invasive and destructive. The fact that those with cochlear implants or heart pacemakers are not required to turn off and remove those cyborg enhancements, but Mann was, indicates discrimination.

      I am supporting neither Mann nor Air Canada in making these observations. I am pointing out that we already have an important case that raises the issue of the regulatory imposition on those who have technological enhancements to their bodies. The examination of the fundamental issues and the questions they raise is most appropriate to be done now.

  • Rights are Earned (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jamesmartinluther ( 267743 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @08:59AM (#6570175) Homepage
    Intelligent machines will be given the full rights of humans once they demonstrate their abilities and begin flexing their power. Despite the moral underpinnings of our various societies, groups that have been historically excluded have fought, bought, or protested their way into equality.

    Who knows how long it will take for computers to be as capable as we are. However, once a computer or group of computers becomes intelligent and wealthy enough to hire a legal team (not to mention a software development team), things are going to get very interesting.

    We should not wait for our creations to force this issue. It would be better to have a framework in place before everyone begins to panic (including the intelligent machines).

    - JML
  • Maybe they should worry about shorter-term concepts like social ramifications of bioengineered replacement organs or the social impact of PDAs and smartphones rather than far-fetched technologies such as mind transferrance and sentient* AI.

    (* the definition of 'sentience' is still up for debate)
  • do we really have to wear clown makeup?
  • This discussion is exactly the one raised by Doctor Kit Pedler during the 1960s. Pedler was fascinated and appalled by the growing technologies of organ replacement, artificial intelligence and cybernetics.

    He got together with the science fiction author Gerry Davis and created the Cybermen [bbc.co.uk] for 'Doctor Who' [bbc.co.uk]. Must have been around 1965 - 66 when they first appeared on 405 lines...

    The back story? A race of humans that wanted to improve itself, eliminate weaknesses and live forever became more machine than

  • Transhuman is more than just cybernetic implants (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tekoneiric ( 590239 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @10:50AM (#6571117) Journal
    To be transhuman is to take your life in your own hands and shape yourself (mind or body) to your will. It's body builders, disabled people moving beyond their limitations, people who develop their mind to do incredible things, transsexuals, etc. Transhuman is basically anyone moving beyond what has been given to them by nature. It is really a different mindset, one where you really push yourself to be what you want to be. Over the last few years I've been doing this myself. I'm going thru a sex change; I went from geeky guy to a lesbian techie girl. The process isn't just a shaping of the body, but of the mind also. I examined all the things I hated about myself and have been endeavoring to toss them out and replace them with stuff I wanted.

  • What's really going to happen (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @11:26AM (#6571458) Homepage
    Most of the people talking about this are fantasizing about what they'd like to happen. But "uploading" and strong AI are still a long way off. We don't have a clue about how to do either. (We don't even understand the components brains use to store data, let alone the format;. That's how bad the state of the art in neurobiology is.)

    What's coming in the next few decades, though, is extensive genetic modification. We have this now as a commercial technology for vegetables. In time it willl work for mammals.

    But it won't work very well for a long time, because it takes several lifetimes to debug a new organism. That's why genecists work on fruit flies, with short lifetimes.

    Cloning research gives us an example of the debug problems - there are over a hundred cloned animals in the world now. Some of them are healthy, but most of them aren't. And that's just cloning, with zero intentional modification. For cloning, this is just a process problem, and it will be fixed. But for new organisms, there will be design problems. Those will be much tougher to debug.

    This will result in many defective organisms, with all the ethical issues that implies. Kill them off and start over? Or what?

    At some point, backwards compatibility may be dumped. That happens when a new species (one that won't interbreed) is created. We'll probably have multiple new species, from different vendors. If you thought race and nationalism were a problems, wait until this comes along.

    The key point to realize is that making new, improved life is likely to work well before retrofitting the old model does. That technology almost works now, just not very well.

  • Step to the side please.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by bodland ( 522967 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @12:25PM (#6571986) Homepage
    Great now I'll have to wait even longer to get through airport security as those Cyborgs get screened manually. Crap.

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close