>>808774

That's not the point, the point is humanity altering itself so much that it will become and entirely different entity, not really related that much to what it once used to be.

That's about right, enjoy living in the last century worth living in.

> Will technology destroy humanity as we know it?
IMO if transhumanism doesn't happen, then nanobots will destroy humanity as we know it, yes.

>>808785

>transhumanism

Thanks, I didn't knew that term. This will save me a lot of effort when explaining this to someone.

>>808785

How would nanobots destroy us? I'm curious.

>Will technology destroy humanity AS WE KNOW IT?
(emphasis added)

Yes, of course. We're CONSTANTLY destroying humanity "as we know it". Just look at the world 200 years ago, or even 100, or even 20.

>>808768
Protip: the industrial revolution changed humanity as we know it.
Protip: Humans learning how to use spears, make bows, and create fire changed humanity as we know it.

>>808793

Fair enough. I'm talking about drastic changes like for example leaving our bodies behind. Or changing them completely.

No because that sort of thing will be disallowed by the government. The government will destory us by developing these things in secret and eventually they will grow out of their control.

>>808797
That shit is SO far removed. Why not talk about human genetic engineering instead? You know, something that might actually start happening in your lifetime?

No. Technology and technologically enhanced beings will just crowd it out until baseline humans are either extremely rare or extinct.

>>808799
>The government will destory us by developing these things in secret and eventually they will grow out of their control.
What "these things" are you referring to? And what are you smoking? Because it smells like paranoia and fatalism.

>>808801

I mentioned that too of course. In the first post. I saw no point in saying everything again.

But yeah, altering our genes is much more plausible.

>Will technology destroy humanity
no, technology and humanity will become one.

If you want to get to the details then first define humanity.

Then we can talk about how it changing will destroy it.

>>808803
Genetic engineering. For reference and an example see the "Incredible Hulk" tv series or movie.

>>808811

>interesting discussion about the future of man kind
>incredible hulk

I'm sorry buddy...

>>808811
>For reference and an example see the "Incredible Hulk" tv series or movie.
You best be trolling nigger.

Imo as soon as we make computers have brains very similar to ours, and they realise, they can defeat us, they will.

>>808811

Are you 12?

>>808820
And why the hell should we make computers that want control?

>>808822
since there are a lot of people trying to make computers that share intelligence and feelings, they basicly want to recrete a human brain, and it's one aspect of humans.

>>808814
>>808819
>>808821
Too fucking easy guys.

>>808826

Wow, that's really mature of you.

>>808822
many computers are designed to control industrial and economic processes.
it's just a matter of time before they will controll human resources as well.

>>808839
Oh I'm sorry, I'm must have missed the memo that said 4chan was a mature website.

>>808792
In principle, they might not, they might just be considered pests like cancer or ants. But I expect the hacker ethic will cause more problems than evolution managed to discover at this point.

>>808848

Interesting idea.

>>808854
The way I (samefag) see it is this. Nuclear non-proliferation is only possible to the extent you can keep weapons-grade fissionable material out of people's hands. The tech to build a nuclear weapon is literally 1950's technology. How are you going to stop the spread of 1950's technology? Obviously, you can't. So, fissionable material is your best bet.

Will this be the case with nanotech? I mean, I am not going to see nanobots in my lifetime, almost certainly, so it is hard to know for sure how the technology will work, but I don't see the same kind of impediments to the spread of *application* as I do with nukes.

Wait, so let me get this straight:

Thousands upon thousands of years of human beings manipulating their environment (which other animals do) in order to increase the chances of individuals surviving is "natural," but manipulating our bodies (which we do already with medicines, diet, etc) is considered "nonnatural?"

I never understood this distinction that human manipulation is somehow unnatural. It presumes that the world was made a certain way, and we should keep it that way, for no other reason other than "BUT IT WAS MADE THAT WAY!"

Granted, I'm not knocking environmentalism, but why are ant colonies "natural" while the Sydney Opera House is an "affront to nature?"

>>808768
>or maybe our race will divide into ...

Thats the plot from bioshock you dink.

>>808944

I don't play video games any more. The newest game I played was from 2001.

>>808958
bioshock is "omg so game of teh year!!" but you're missing Left 4 Dead 2 which is the shit.

one day...

>>808820
>Imo as soon as we make computers have brains very similar to ours, and they realise, they can defeat us, they will.

That's why it's good that no one is considering building a computer that would have brains very similiar as ours. Such computer would have no use. But we will have computers that are smarter and more reliable than humans in performing spesific tasks.

>>809021

have you played Supreme Commander

the cybran faction is basically what the Transhumans hope to achieve in terms of human/machine integration

an Artificial AI fused together with a Human brain, whereas the human brain is flawed the AI fills the gap when the AI is not capable of having emotions or the so called the "human nature"

plus not to mention with cybernetic body enhancements the normal early 21th century athlete would be no mach for a enhanced human in terms of performance

>>809046
>an Artificial AI fused together with a Human brain

This would probably work. Implants could perform for example complex calculations that human brain isn't capable of performing fast and return the results to conventional brain. Many of these functions could be reflex like or comparable to extending your arm for example.

>>809088
I already have one of these. It's called a "calculator." If people are implanting shit in their brains, it is going to be to solve problems they can't already solve.

>>809153

I think it's likely that any implants we have will just be there to allow us to control other machinery/computers or they'll be for medical purposes.

>>808768

Go read the Singularity is near by ~Ray Kurzweil.

>>809153

But imagine having a calculator in your brain which could process complex mathematical problems virtually instantaneously. Useful, no?

>>809153

True, but implant could do more than just perform simple calculations. For example, consider that you would like to solve why people become transhumanists. The implant would read the definition of the problem and return as a result the fact that when people are unhappy with their bodies, deppressed and lonely a though about nerd rapture becomes ones only solace. A distant utopia where they can be anything they want and everything is free because god-computers take care of your every need.

>>809214
>Go read the Astrology really works bitches! by ~Gaylord McFucktard.

I'm not really into pseudoscience, but thanks anyway.

Yes, humans will be annihilated completely thanks to transhumanism.

One day, we all belong in one of two factions: genetic super-furries, or brains-in-robot-bodies.

>>809248
>genetic super-furries, or brains-in-robot-bodies.

What about genetic super-men?

>>809248

I want to see that war.

Space marines ripping 'real' furries apart.

>>809257

Social pressures will force them to at least have a tail.

>>809266
>Social pressures will force them to at least have a tail.

How about a green blank face and a suit?

>>809264
It wouldn't be a war, it'd be a furry genocide

>>809284

The most fun genocide ever huh?

>>809289
Right after Auschwitz
yukyukyuk

>>809294

That's not funny. My grandfather died that way.

Actually, he did, but I don't really care.

>>809222
> implanted calculator would be useful
It could be, but it is not immediately obvious to me that it would be. The sorts of problems I need an aid in solving are large enough that not having a visual medium available (like a computer screen) would be a hindrance. I mean, I'd love to have an embedded scheme interpreter in my head for fucking around, but how complicated of a program could I make, anyway? I think these kinds of things are highly speculative. A brain<->joystick or brain<->keyboard is very possible in principle, to ease interfacing. Much beyond that is too much science fiction for me to care about.

>>809214
> will be there to control computers
Exactly. I sometimes view technological progression as a history of brain/reality interfaces. I love this Wittgenstein quote, along that line of thinking, about using a stick to poke at things: "When I touch this object with a stick, I have the sensation of touching in the tip of the stick, not in the hand that holds it."

>>809302
oh
...
Weeeeeell this is awkward

>>809004
Still haven't completed that. Giving it another go currently, but it's been so long I'm having to do the training mission to remember how to play it.

>Will we give into the temptation of easy and fast gratification and leave our nature for good?

Yeah, why not? OH MY GOD PEOPLE WANT TO DRASTICALLY IMPROVE THEIR OWN LIVES! WHATEVER SHALL WE DO?!?

>>808801
>That shit is SO far removed. Why not talk about human genetic engineering instead? You know, something that might actually start happening in your lifetime?

I partially agree with you, but it looks like in-vivo (in this context meaning done to already living human beings and not the not-yet-born) biological modification via biotechnology is far closer than you might think.

>>809633
lawl

its not easy create a embryo
its not easy put ONE gene (one new protein)
Its fucking impossible put a lot of gene to create a big change.

There's a great short story on this called "Twilight" by John W. Campbell that suggests that we WILL eventually become technologically advanced enough to change our genes to become perfect, and create machines that would outlive the entirety of the human race, but at the cost of our biological ability to reproduce. It's quite interesting and I promise there are no faggot vampires or werewolves in it.

>>809668
o rly

Google "gene therapy success"

>>809684
in b4

inmune system

diseases of one mutated gene