6 ms·

>We are about to face a few individuals with technology will hold massive power over everyone else. There are plenty of counterindications to that. For instanc

by aminok 10y ago

>We are about to face a few individuals with technology will hold massive power over everyone else. There are plenty of counterindications to that. For instance, many forms of technology are becoming increasingly widely adopted, at a rapid pace. I gave the adoption of smartphones as one example. >Why not include mice, they have 97.5% of our genes, as being successful? Why not all mammals? Oh, except horses, of course, because you said in a previous comment we are different from them. I would say the success of human beings is by some metrics a success for mice, mammals etc as well..

reddytowns 10y ago
Technology adoption != power. Everyone using a cell phone which tracks their position, communication, and behavior, and then feeds them propaganda from a central server is not increasing their ability to fight back. >I would say the success of human beings is by some metrics a success for mice, mammals etc as well.. But, again, as you stated previously, not horses? Seriously, you are moving the goalposts all over the place.
- aminok 10y ago
  The proliferation of smartphones doesn't lead to everyone getting "propaganda from a central server". A smartphone is a personal computing device that enables far more peer-to-peer communication and interactive engagement with the world than the previous mass-media paradigm of the pre-internet age (where a small number of broadcast networks, newspapers and radio stations controlled the minds of the vast majority of the population through passive one-way communication). I agree that the loss of privacy is a huge concern, but like I said, there are positive trends as well that you are simply hand-waving away. >But, again, as you stated previously, not horses? Horses as well! > Seriously, you are moving the goalposts all over the place. I directly addressed your argument and then I also made an additional argument that your premise is not necessarily true. That's not defined as moving the goalposts.
  - reddytowns 10y ago
    > I directly addressed your argument and then I also made an additional argument that your premise is not necessarily true. That's not defined as moving the goalposts. You've stated or implied: 1. Property rights is the reason that technology is augmenting humans 2. Unified global culture is the reason that technology is augmenting humans 3. Having a genetic legacy is evidence my "premise is not necessarily true" You are definitely moving the goal posts by #1 and #2. Also, you've failed to address: 1. Why Neanderthals were augmented despite not having property rights (#1, above) 2. What my premise has to do with genetic legacy. From what I gather, you assume that as long as the people alive today share genetic material with other species, either alive or dead, my premise is inaccurate. Why? 3. What your premise actually is. Are you talking about genetically legacy, or something else? Is all that you are saying is that those alive tomorrow will at least share some DNA from those already dead? Not much of a shocker, is it? You are being, seemingly intentionally, unclear about many things, as well as bringing up several different threads of thought at once, muddying the conversation.
    - aminok 10y ago
      >1. Property rights is the reason that technology is augmenting humans 2. Unified global culture is the reason that technology is augmenting humans 3. Having a genetic legacy is evidence my "premise is not necessarily true" >You are definitely moving the goal posts by #1 and #2. That's not moving the goalposts. Please read up on what "moving the goalposts" means because what I'm doing is not that. You're being incredibly intolerant to my arguments, to the point of making wildly false accusations about them to avoid actually addressing the points made. I thought the link between #1 and #2 was obvious to you, but I guess I need to spell it out. Neanderthals never got access to the technology of humans, because they were not part of their culture. All humans alive today can access all classes of technology from around the world, because we share the same global culture, and moroever, can fully utilize said technology to augment our own abilities, because we have property rights and thus can come to own technological devices. An additional point, which I alluded to, is that the market is driving costs down and thus making technology more widely available over time, which is a very positive trend. It's only "moving the goalposts" when you ignore the fact that #1 and #2 were responses to different arguments made. >1. Why Neanderthals were augmented despite not having property rights (#1, above) You're moving the goalposts! The crux of the debate was not about why technology augmented humans in the distant past. My point was that in the modern age, due to people having property rights, technology is augmenting them. And that wasn't even my central point. My central point is that technology augments humans, and because of this, we don't face a threat of being made obsolete by machines. Are you seriously this oblivious to your own rank hypocrisy? >2. What my premise has to do with genetic legacy. From what I gather, you assume that as long as the people alive today share genetic material with other species, either alive or dead, my premise is inaccurate. Why? Because genetic success is one very widely used metric of success. It's the determinant of all biological life afterall. Why wouldn't it be a measure of success? >3. What your premise actually is. Are you talking about genetically legacy, or something else? Is all that you are saying is that those alive tomorrow will at least share some DNA from those already dead? Not much of a shocker, is it? Yes I'm talking about genetic legacy, and yes, the success of any human being would be a success for all human beings by this metric. How is that unclear? How is challenging the premise of your argument moving the goalposts?

by aminok 10y ago

reddytowns 10y ago

Technology adoption != power. Everyone using a cell phone which tracks their position, communication, and behavior, and then feeds them propaganda from a central server is not increasing their ability to fight back. >I would say the success of human beings is by some metrics a success for mice, mammals etc as well.. But, again, as you stated previously, not horses? Seriously, you are moving the goalposts all over the place.

aminok 10y ago
The proliferation of smartphones doesn't lead to everyone getting "propaganda from a central server". A smartphone is a personal computing device that enables far more peer-to-peer communication and interactive engagement with the world than the previous mass-media paradigm of the pre-internet age (where a small number of broadcast networks, newspapers and radio stations controlled the minds of the vast majority of the population through passive one-way communication). I agree that the loss of privacy is a huge concern, but like I said, there are positive trends as well that you are simply hand-waving away. >But, again, as you stated previously, not horses? Horses as well! > Seriously, you are moving the goalposts all over the place. I directly addressed your argument and then I also made an additional argument that your premise is not necessarily true. That's not defined as moving the goalposts.
- reddytowns 10y ago
  > I directly addressed your argument and then I also made an additional argument that your premise is not necessarily true. That's not defined as moving the goalposts. You've stated or implied: 1. Property rights is the reason that technology is augmenting humans 2. Unified global culture is the reason that technology is augmenting humans 3. Having a genetic legacy is evidence my "premise is not necessarily true" You are definitely moving the goal posts by #1 and #2. Also, you've failed to address: 1. Why Neanderthals were augmented despite not having property rights (#1, above) 2. What my premise has to do with genetic legacy. From what I gather, you assume that as long as the people alive today share genetic material with other species, either alive or dead, my premise is inaccurate. Why? 3. What your premise actually is. Are you talking about genetically legacy, or something else? Is all that you are saying is that those alive tomorrow will at least share some DNA from those already dead? Not much of a shocker, is it? You are being, seemingly intentionally, unclear about many things, as well as bringing up several different threads of thought at once, muddying the conversation.
  - aminok 10y ago
    >1. Property rights is the reason that technology is augmenting humans 2. Unified global culture is the reason that technology is augmenting humans 3. Having a genetic legacy is evidence my "premise is not necessarily true" >You are definitely moving the goal posts by #1 and #2. That's not moving the goalposts. Please read up on what "moving the goalposts" means because what I'm doing is not that. You're being incredibly intolerant to my arguments, to the point of making wildly false accusations about them to avoid actually addressing the points made. I thought the link between #1 and #2 was obvious to you, but I guess I need to spell it out. Neanderthals never got access to the technology of humans, because they were not part of their culture. All humans alive today can access all classes of technology from around the world, because we share the same global culture, and moroever, can fully utilize said technology to augment our own abilities, because we have property rights and thus can come to own technological devices. An additional point, which I alluded to, is that the market is driving costs down and thus making technology more widely available over time, which is a very positive trend. It's only "moving the goalposts" when you ignore the fact that #1 and #2 were responses to different arguments made. >1. Why Neanderthals were augmented despite not having property rights (#1, above) You're moving the goalposts! The crux of the debate was not about why technology augmented humans in the distant past. My point was that in the modern age, due to people having property rights, technology is augmenting them. And that wasn't even my central point. My central point is that technology augments humans, and because of this, we don't face a threat of being made obsolete by machines. Are you seriously this oblivious to your own rank hypocrisy? >2. What my premise has to do with genetic legacy. From what I gather, you assume that as long as the people alive today share genetic material with other species, either alive or dead, my premise is inaccurate. Why? Because genetic success is one very widely used metric of success. It's the determinant of all biological life afterall. Why wouldn't it be a measure of success? >3. What your premise actually is. Are you talking about genetically legacy, or something else? Is all that you are saying is that those alive tomorrow will at least share some DNA from those already dead? Not much of a shocker, is it? Yes I'm talking about genetic legacy, and yes, the success of any human being would be a success for all human beings by this metric. How is that unclear? How is challenging the premise of your argument moving the goalposts?