The technological singularity - inevitable?

[theVOID]

I am familiar with Kuirzweil.

You say he is trying to live to singularity? What a sad, and probably frightened old man.

He's actually very lively and passionate, and hardly that old.

Just to represent the other side of the argument, I will show you mine.

I like being human, and will take no further steps towards cybernetic integration. Would you accept (or pay for) a microchip that monitors blood pressure? Would you accept a microchip that adds "telepathy"? I would do none of these things. I don't want to integrate more with tech, I see tech as already killing me. I want much less tech. You talked to Rabbit about how our lives are so improved by tech, and I think you are looking through a bit of tunnel vision. To say there not no negatives would be a misnomer, and I think there are far more negatives to modern tech than positives.

If i had a problem with blood pressure and this would improve my life and lower the chances of risk then yes, gladly - telepathy aint possible so no.

Tech is already killing you? How so? If it weren't for tech the life expectancy of humans would still be around 40, we'd still be hunters fighting each day just to have enough food to get by. I don't know about you but survival sounds like a really shit full time job to me.

I will defend my right to make my own choices, and I choose to be as human as possible, and not a cyborg. I also wouldn't accept farmed body parts, wear a RFID with financial uses (or any use) or and kind of tech modification to my own living organism.

That's your choice.

I might consider wearing glasses, but I wouldn't get a pacemaker. I know some people don't understand, and think that to say I don't want wireless computer devices in my body is like saying I won't wear glasses.

I hardly believe anyone would reach that conclusion.

There is a perceived flaw that anything that came before me is OK, and anything new is scary, that would be legitimate future-phobia... But I am saying that there is a difference between the selective breeding of wheat, and the genetic manipulation. I would support selective breeding, but not the manipulation.

Not even if the wheat is demonstrably better for you, contained more nutrients and energy, was cheaper and had no negative effects? It's your choice of course, but it's a non-issue for me.

So just to show you that there are people who think Kuirzweil is full of crazy talk, here I am. I would not amend my human person in any technological way. I would defend myself from such invasions, and if it were forced upon me I would asses the possibility of ceasing my pseudo-life (if the computer would let me). If you think you will end up some superman if you have little computers live for you, good luck. I think you are missing what it is to be human, and ignoring glaring risks of such choices.

Thanks,
-Pip

I don't think for a second that we would come out as supermen, we would just have a new way to make our lives longer and healthier, when our bodies fail or when an accident takes our leg it doesn't have to effect our lifestyles at all.

'Being human' has nothing to do with whether my body has mechanical parts or not, whether or not my brain is totally organic or even whether or not my mind is in my brain or body at all - it is an identity formed from our births into a species of intelligent primates intellectually alone on a pale blue dot is a dark little corner of the cosmos - that's all 'being human' is, it's a group identity.