Decline and the next dark age?

[AJ Dual]

Are those leaf spring prosthetics just for running, or for everyday use?


Yet you've implied that there's something wrong with that. Why? I'm not in that camp, but what's wrong with it?

You're reading into it I've implied anything. There is always a chance they are right. I certainly can't prove them wrong.

I don't personally believe it, and I suspect if "the rules" are anything close to a literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian Bible, God would see through anyone engaged in "Pascal's Wager".

[MicroBalrog]

True, or perhaps Captain Ahab was an 18th century neuromancer.

Moby Dick is not set in the 18th century.

[Perd Hapley]

You're reading into it I've implied anything.

You said it would be impolite, which implies...something. Personally, though Christ can't return soon enough for me, I don't see His return as having much impact on the issue. I can see how others might think that way, though. And I agree; that would be short-sighted and a bit lazy.

[roo_ster]

Moby Dick is not set in the 18th century.

OK, 19th century before the widespread use of cap & ball technology.

Question:
How much represented in the book and/or film would be an anachronism in the 18th century?  My bet would be, "Little or nothing, save clothing fashion."

[MicroBalrog]

OK, 19th century before the widespread use of cap & ball technology.

Question:
How much represented in the book and/or film would be an anachronism in the 18th century?  My bet would be, "Little or nothing, save clothing fashion."

Mainly the setting. Nantucket only became a major whaling port in the 19th century.

Although I am sure that a person with more sea knowledge would find many tidbits.

[roo_ster]

Mainly the setting. Nantucket only became a major whaling port in the 19th century.

Although I am sure that a person with more sea knowledge would find many tidbits.

Well, I'll be dipped in apple butter whale oil.

[Perd Hapley]

On the post-human prostheses thing:

Say some parts on my car were damaged. And instead of buying the usual, factory-made replacements, I made some parts myself. Serviceable, but not as long-lasting or high-performance as what they sell at the auto parts store. Or maybe they are longer-lasting, but don't fit as well, or don't allow me to drive as fast, whatever. Maybe I can go faster now, but braking is less reliable. And so on and so forth. None of that makes my car post-automotive. It probably doesn't make it post-internal-combustion, either, which is about the only thing (besides flight or maybe auto-pilot) that would be a truly transformative leap in car tech.

Or let's say I found/made some parts that made my car perform better, go faster, save fuel, last longer, etc. That's still just an enhancement of what a car is, until I turn some corner like the ones I already listed (new power source, flight, etc).

That's how I see the people in those pictures; just as human as I am, no more and no less. Like a car with a coat hanger holding the muffler on, or with duct tape around the radiator hose. It will still do what a car does, but it has more challenges. It's not a game-changer.

[RoadKingLarry]

Not a good analogy. You can't go down the human dealership and order a new OEM replacement leg/arm/heart/liver (yet).
As for the automotive aftermarket, there is lots of stuff ot there that is inarguably better than OEM.

I don't think anyone is advocating replacment of healthy body parts with high tech prothesis as an improvement but take a "Six Million Dollar Man" scenario (or like so many of our returning vets) and I'd be up for most anything.

[Perd Hapley]

Not a good analogy.

You can't go down the human dealership and order a new OEM replacement leg/arm/heart/liver (yet).

As for the automotive aftermarket, there is lots of stuff ot there that is inarguably better than OEM.

I don't think anyone is advocating replacment of healthy body parts with high tech prothesis as an improvement

Those are three reasons why it IS a good analogy. I'll translate them.

"You can't go down the human dealership and order a new OEM replacement leg/arm/heart/liver (yet)."
In a real sense, our human parts are irreplaceable, so we're nowhere near treating our bodies as disposable, replaceable earth suits.


"I don't think anyone is advocating replacment of healthy body parts with high tech prothesis as an improvement"
You can get kludges, but no one wants to have to use them.


"As for the automotive aftermarket, there is lots of stuff ot there that is inarguably better than OEM."
Even when replacement parts are superior to the originals, cars are still cars, and people may still just be people.

[AJ Dual]

Not a good analogy. You can't go down the human dealership and order a new OEM replacement leg/arm/heart/liver (yet).
As for the automotive aftermarket, there is lots of stuff ot there that is inarguably better than OEM.

I don't think anyone is advocating replacment of healthy body parts with high tech prothesis as an improvement but take a "Six Million Dollar Man" scenario (or like so many of our returning vets) and I'd be up for most anything.

I myself am not arguing that people with prosthetics are "post human" (yet) but they certainly do seem to be the first indications of a possible trend.

And there are some cases where the prosthetic is better. I'm trying to find the article, but there's a rock climber who lost his legs to (something) and he's found he's even better at it now, in part because his prosthesis weighs less than his original legs giving him less weight to muscle up the cliff, and mainly because he can replace his walking feet with two metal picks he can just jam into any hold or crack. Ones that would be too small for toes, and he no longer has feet or ankles that can tire on him.

Granted, it's a pretty niche application for now, but if his favorite self-defining activity is rock climbing, to this guy it's everything.

And IIRC, there's some anecdotal reports of the soldiers who've gone back to the field with prosthesis getting hit with bullets/fragments and obviously having no further harm come to their body.

[MicroBalrog]

In a real sense, our human parts are irreplaceable, so we're nowhere near treating our bodies as disposable, replaceable earth suits.

1. Do you, however, see how these prostheses are a step towards developing a 'replacement' part that is equal to, or then better than the original?

2. I have lost certain body parts (teeth) and had them replaced with new ones that are far better than the original.

You can get kludges, but no one wants to have to use them.

See above.

Even when replacement parts are superior to the originals, cars are still cars, and people may still just be people.

You can replace - part after part - turning a Volkswagen Beetle into a dune buggy. A tactical dune buggy is a post-beetle in the same sense cyborgs are post-humans.

An analogy is, for example, these:







They've all started out as tanks, but not a single one of them is a tank.

[RoadKingLarry]

Those are three reasons why it IS a good analogy. I'll translate them.

"You can't go down the human dealership and order a new OEM replacement leg/arm/heart/liver (yet)."
In a real sense, our human parts are irreplaceable, so we're nowhere near treating our bodies as disposable, replaceable earth suits.


"I don't think anyone is advocating replacment of healthy body parts with high tech prothesis as an improvement"
You can get kludges, but no one wants to have to use them.


"As for the automotive aftermarket, there is lots of stuff ot there that is inarguably better than OEM."
Even when replacement parts are superior to the originals, cars are still cars, and people may still just be people.

 
Going back to the Six Million Dollar Man scenario for a second, the character's "replacement parts" were clearly superior to original in capabilty those parts didn't make him less human, the DNA was still human, the soul/Id/spirit/mind is still human and any progeny would be plain ole human.
Obviously nobody that's sane wants their arms or legs blown off by and IED or crushed to pulp in a car crash but it happens, every freaking day for car crashes. The technology is rapidly reaching a point where those people could be fitted with prothesis that would make them better suited for the rigors of interplanetary space travel, or other activities that OEM humans are not really designed to do if they were of a mind to do that.
I don't think the label "Post-human" implies that they would no longer be people.

[Tallpine]

I was more thinking along the lines of how people might "evolve" if multiple generations were to live in micro-gravity environments.

[MillCreek]

To my eye, those three armor units above appear to be modified for fire-fighting duties.  Are they?

[MicroBalrog]

They're all rescue vehicles, aye. Two are fire trucks, and the third is a protected bulldozer for us in chemical plant fire or atomic plant accidents. They started out as T-55 tanks.

This fire suppression vehicle started out as a T-62:



It basically suppresses forest and oil fires "with the use of salvo-fired capsules with fire retardant substance."

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

They're all rescue vehicles, aye. Two are fire trucks, and the third is a protected bulldozer for us in chemical plant fire or atomic plant accidents. They started out as T-55 tanks.

This fire suppression vehicle started out as a T-62:



It basically suppresses forest and oil fires "with the use of salvo-fired capsules with fire retardant substance."

A Katyusha firefighting device. Now I've seen everything.

[Perd Hapley]

Thanks, MicroBalrog, for providing multiple examples of stuff we can't yet do with humans, and may never be able to do.

I myself am not arguing that people with prosthetics are "post human" (yet) but they certainly do seem to be the first indications of a possible trend.

And there are some cases where the prosthetic is better. I'm trying to find the article, but there's a rock climber who lost his legs to (something) and he's found he's even better at it now, in part because his prosthesis weighs less than his original legs giving him less weight to muscle up the cliff, and mainly because he can replace his walking feet with two metal picks he can just jam into any hold or crack. Ones that would be too small for toes, and he no longer has feet or ankles that can tire on him.

Granted, it's a pretty niche application for now, but if his favorite self-defining activity is rock climbing, to this guy it's everything.

And IIRC, there's some anecdotal reports of the soldiers who've gone back to the field with prosthesis getting hit with bullets/fragments and obviously having no further harm come to their body.

Now those are examples that point more toward your point of view. As you say, they are niche applications, and may be out-weighed by down-sides. Thought-provoking, though. 

Going back to the Six Million Dollar Man scenario for a second, the character's "replacement parts" were clearly superior to original in capabilty those parts didn't make him less human, the DNA was still human, the soul/Id/spirit/mind is still human and any progeny would be plain ole human.
Obviously nobody that's sane wants their arms or legs blown off by and IED or crushed to pulp in a car crash but it happens, every freaking day for car crashes. The technology is rapidly reaching a point where those people could be fitted with prothesis that would make them better suited for the rigors of interplanetary space travel, or other activities that OEM humans are not really designed to do if they were of a mind to do that.
I don't think the label "Post-human" implies that they would no longer be people.

Then you agree that we don't see any evidence of a developing post-humanity, especially not one that is fundamentally different from humans. It is a key part (perhaps the central part) of what AJ is saying, that "post-humans" will probably have radically different view-points, values and priorities.

[MicroBalrog]

I think it comes back to the idea, what changes people's values and viewpoints?

Do we believe these are bound on some kind of 'basic human nature' (and then, what constitues this 'human nature')? Or do we believe these are also based on environment and nurture and the ideas we accumulate when we grow up?

[RoadKingLarry]

"post-humans" will probably have radically different view-points, values and priorities.

In many ways the view points, values and priorities of current humans might seem almost alien to to a person living at the dawn of the 20th century.

[AJ Dual]

Do we believe these are bound on some kind of 'basic human nature' (and then, what constitues this 'human nature')? Or do we believe these are also based on environment and nurture and the ideas we accumulate when we grow up?

My observations in my own family of twins, and also with two adopted siblings raised in the same household, and who had different birth parents is admittedly an insignificant sample for any kind of rigorous scientific proof, but it's enough to make me personally believe that "nature" and genes rule us way more than most people can really conceive of, or would be willing to believe.

My Sister In Law, is adopted, as is her brother. Raised by very gentle people in a well-to-do neighborhood with excelent schools.

My SIL is a special-education high school teacher and girl's tennis coach. She located her birth mother in her mid-twenties, and found out after getting pregnant in college, her mother went on to get married, have more children, and was a special-education teaching assistant and a girl's volleyball coach.

Her brother has the distinction of being the only student ever removed from their suburban high school hog tied and in a straight-jacket to restrain him. He then was constantly in and out of prison and probation/parole for larceny, assault, domestic violence, drug possession and drug distribution. During one of his stints on the outside, he located his birth parents. Both in their 50's by this point, and both still in prison.

He is now serving a 25-to-life sentence for the murder and dismemberment of his live-in girlfriend, and the subsequent burning and dismemberment of her corpse, and trying to hide the remains in a frozen lake.

[Tallpine]

In many ways the view points, values and priorities of current humans might seem almost alien to to a person living at the dawn of the 20th century.

The current young folks are human     

You coulda' fooled me 

[Ron]

I think it comes back to the idea, what changes people's values and viewpoints?

Do we believe these are bound on some kind of 'basic human nature' (and then, what constitues this 'human nature')? Or do we believe these are also based on environment and nurture and the ideas we accumulate when we grow up?

Tabula rasa?

[Perd Hapley]

I think it comes back to the idea, what changes people's values and viewpoints?

Do we believe these are bound on some kind of 'basic human nature' (and then, what constitues this 'human nature')? Or do we believe these are also based on environment and nurture and the ideas we accumulate when we grow up?

Both, of course.

[makattak]

I think it comes back to the idea, what changes people's values and viewpoints?

Do we believe these are bound on some kind of 'basic human nature' (and then, what constitues this 'human nature')? Or do we believe these are also based on environment and nurture and the ideas we accumulate when we grow up?

Yes, there is a "human nature". We are not born a blank slate.

My little 7 month old already has a clear personality and has had one for 7 months. She just has an ability to express it more.

Have you ever seen an infant angry? I have. She wasn't angry at anyone, but trying to crawl you could tell she was getting angry because she knew what she wanted to do but was unable to do it.

This was a 3 month old infant. I also watched her, at a few weeks old (meaning 3-4 weeks), give me the same "What are you doing!?" eyebrow raise and pulling her head back that I do when I tried a new way to play with her. An expression I had never used with her, but that I immediately recognized.

Admittedly, I already believed that nature is hugely inborn and nurture simply helps mold that nature. My experience with my little girl has confirmed that opinion; in fact it has made me lean even more towards nature.

[MicroBalrog]

Yes, there is a "human nature". We are not born a blank slate.

That may be true, but then we don't know - there exist arguments - what is part of that nature. Human perceptions of time, family bonds, etc. alter with time in amazing ways.

For example - do you think you would value time in the same way if you knew you are expected to live 150 years? 1500 years?