In a few days, we enter a new year but not a new beginning as all of us began with Adam and Eve.
SOME TIME AGO I WROTE A POST: Adam and Eve were black. They lived in Africa but never meet each other.
Good and evil existing in every single human being and despite their extreme differences, one couldn’t exist without the other.
In this follow up post I will once again ENDEAVOUR TO STEER CLEAR of the Bible’s account of humanity which is, in fact, both frustrating and ambiguous because of the truth of human nature in and of itself are the acceptance of the impossibility of separating good from evil, two powerful entities that live inside us all.
So there was Adam one and Adam two, Eve one and Eve two.
Adam One wants to be famous, rich, and win it all for himself and aggressively pursues that goal by calculating survival.
Adam Two seeks internal satisfaction and stability for himself and humbly offers healing and service to others.
Eve One also wants to be famous, rich and to be there for our children. Security.
Eve Two also seeks to attract love, a relationship, to be a mother.
Both care about themself first and both will kill to survive, which is the tension of One and Two that never goes away.
Adam I’s desires are infinite and always leap out ahead of whatever has just been achieved.
Only Adam II can experience deep satisfaction.
Throughout our lives, we’ve all done irrational, incoherent things and acted in totally unexpected ways. There’s a nature within us that, on occasions, pushes us to act or think against the norms.
Homo erectus was a very successful early human, spreading across the ancient world and surviving Earth’s changing environments for nearly two million years—at least five times longer than our own species has been around.
Science has taught us that the first humans were in central Africa but does not say that the first humans were black.
They could have been black, dark, reddish, pinkish, yellowish, or whatever, but the bottom line is every ethnic group, every skin colour, started with the Black Africans, because all human beings were black clear up to 10,000 BC.
Therefore Adam and Eve were black-skinned.
Biblically, there is no evidence that they were “white”.
There is still only one race of Human beings because within Adam and Eve were all the genetic material necessary to produce the variety of humans we have today. Now we are one race with a blueprint written in a code (or language convention) which is carried on very long chemical strings of DNA.
Back to Adam and Eve.
In the first post, I said they never meet each other so they were created both Androgynous.
Since the word, Adam is not used previously in the Bible before either of them arrived there is no evidence that this word must denote a male. Indeed, the explanatory phrase, “male and female he created them,” could be read as clarifying what the nature of this Adam actually was.
“Jesus and God are the “us”.
Just as Eve was taken from Man, so Jesus was taken from God… So my thoughts are not my thoughts, nor your ways are my ways.
To this end, a number of rabbinic passages preserve what may have been a popular interpretation of this passage, which indicates that the first human actually comprised of both genders.
When one looks at humanity now if we could ever all get on the same page again there is no telling what advancements and accomplishments we could attain.
Unfortunately, men have honed and refined the practice of separation into the art of alienating, persecuting and even enslaving other men by virtue of our differences; whether they be nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation or any other excuse to ostracize someone different from themselves; sometimes even to the point of genocide.
This was and is the message that Hitler and the Nazis and all-white supremacists needed and need to hear today.
No man is better than any other man. We are all just little specks of dust.
There is no empirical evidence for the hypothesis of evolution and it has never been shown that evolution happened in any degree.
If we are prepared to dismiss the Genesis narrative, then we have the problem of deciding just when in the scriptures God begins to tell the truth.
Evolution in all aspects, including theistic evolution, is a myth.
Like today, when efforts are often made by intellectual theologians to harmonize modern science with the creation account in Genesis, the rabbis of ancient times were aware of the popular scientific philosophy of their day and integrated it – albeit in a way that also subjugated it – to fit within their broader worldview.
We are now on the threshold of discovering that subatomic particles can exist in two places at once. So gravity has self-awareness, in which the quantum state of one part of the system cannot be written without reference to another part of the system.
What are my circumstances calling me to do?
At what points do my talents and deep gladness meet the world’s deep need?
Happy New year.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
Everyone sees the world in different ways however the greatest innovations of man are found in the most simple things:
Starting with Fire, Language, Tools, and Wheel writing has been the sole reason that mankind has been able to accumulate knowledge.
Since then the use of our inventions have taken us a long way, they’ve allowed us to land on the moon, travel over oceans, and even eliminate major health threats with various medicines.
You could not be blamed for asking what was actually gained by landing on the moon — a handful of rocks and a game of low-gravity golf — was of virtually no value and yet the act of the journey was invaluable beyond all measure as it personified our continuing evolution.
The same is true with technology today.
The development of it is mind-blowing but its application is almost entirely mindless – profit-seeking algorithms and weaponized drones.
Setting aside why do we exist and what is the purpose of life? (These are hard questions that demand answers) it is what we have not achieved that will be judged by future generations.
Karl Marx once famously observed that capitalism carried within it the seeds of its own destruction but he was wrong. It’s not capitalism that’s the problem, it’s people.
The human race ended the 20th century in pretty good shape, at least comparatively speaking.
The first half of the 1900s was almost certainly the most bloody and brutal phase of humanity’s existence.
Now we have all the information in the world yet it has made us only more ideological and more ignorant; we have access to limitless opinions yet we seek to criminalise those who don’t agree with us. We are so advanced and yet so backward, so cynical and yet so stupid, that we can no longer even agree on what constitutes a fact.
Welcome to the 21st century.
Consider the internet itself, probably the most revolutionary invention in the history of humankind. Its potential to share information thus to accelerate the advancement of science and keep the world running in the event of a catastrophic disaster — the purpose for which it was first intended — is all but limitless.
And what do we use it for most? Porn.
Consider the smartphone, the match to the powder keg of the worldwide web. Almost everyone in every half-developed part of the world, even people living on the streets, has a device more powerful than supercomputers that once took up whole buildings. We can access virtually any image, any idea, any information from anywhere in the world.
And what do we overwhelmingly use it for? Taking pictures of ourselves.
Let’s look at medical technology — the smartest minds on the planet developing machines and medicines that keep the average person today alive for longer than was once ever dreamt of.
And what is the result?
We are fatter and lazier than ever, resulting in spiralling hospital costs that will send most Western governments broke in a matter of decades. It was once said that the only two certainties in life were death and taxes and yet now we are defying death and there aren’t enough taxes to pay for it.
We are too dumb to even know when to die.
It may well be impossible to connect a full chronological series of species, leading to Homo sapiens, but over millions of years of evolution, we’ve picked up some less than ideal characteristics.
Why? Because of greed.
It will take the efforts of several scientific disciplines and sophisticated technology, probably over many years, to discover the underlying nature of our mental faculties, their neurological basis, and their development over time.
And it’s fair to say that we have little idea of what we’ll evolve to in the future, but there is one thing for certain, evolution is about adapting to your environment – Weaponized drones, Climate change, Algorithms.
Algorithms that are feeding Social media, are stripping us of a collective understanding of what is going on in the world.
People like to blame fake news on Facebook, and that is true enough.
But the far greater truth is far worse than that. Neither fake news nor Facebook emerged like Athena fully-formed from nothing. They were made by us. By us and for us and of us.
While the positive uses for technology are endless I marvel as I read Asimov to see the way in which he foresaw the ethical conundrum in which we now find ourselves embroiled.
Of course, when they (the future generations) look at our achievements the one thing they will not be able to comprehend is why we have not been able to stop killing each other.
Weaponized drones are now more acceptable than land mines, cluster bombs, or chemical weapons.
It might be argued that this would be a way of sparing human beings who could stay comfortably at home and let our intelligent machines do the fighting for us. If some of them were destroyed — well, they are only machines. This approach to warfare would be particularly useful if we had such machines and the enemy didn’t.
Just like those tried at Nuremberg who attempted to wash their hands of mass killings we have now developed weaponized drones to kill, with a Punches Pilot immunity, that is violating all existing international law.
So humans through the use of technology may eventually reach a point where they can force evolution upon themselves.
Perhaps the result (if we are not already wiped out by Nuclear or a Weather bomb) will be that we’re no longer subject to the driving force of evolution – but unnatural selection by drones.
Now the question is, how accurate is this statement?
Is technological progress actually taking us backwards?
Are we advancing ourselves to death? At what point do many deaths become too many deaths?
This is the first problem with technology.
If it is accurate, we’re already screwed.
Of course, none of this is important given the glacial pace of evolutionary change, we probably won’t have to worry about that for thousands of years.
Wrong.
We’ve come to believe that, with enough information, human behaviour is predictable.
But number-crunching algorithms are leading us perilously wrong. There’s something unsettling in the idea that, amid the vagaries of choice, chance, and circumstance, mathematics can tell us something about what it is to be human.
Who we are together, as a collective entity?
Despite the grand promises of Big Data, uncertainty remains so abundant that specific human lives remain boundlessly unpredictable. The more data that are collected, cross-referenced, and searched for correlations, the easier it becomes to reach false conclusions.
It might be true that in large groups, the natural variability among human beings cancels, however, if we end up with algorithms setting thresholds extremely unlikely outcomes are bound to arise eventually.
The gift is not a technology to enable us to realise evolution for the cruel being it is, but giving mankind the intelligence and tools to exclude ourselves from the other species on the planet and take a step back to interpret for ourselves where we as a race are going?
Leaving the brutality of evolution behind is not a gift given to us by evolution.
We have evolved to the point whereby we stand on the threshold of controlling our genetic and ultimately evolutionary destiny. Unfortunately, the problem with humans is, whenever we encounter a problem we have evolved to the point where we think that we can overcome it with technology.
Advances in technology, medicine and culture mean it isn’t just the fittest who get to pass their genes on to the next generation.
External aids could be entirely responsible for our survival.
All of this relies on earth’s natural resources which are supposedly gonna be gone by 2050!
The problems in this world are manmade therefore man can solve them.
The sad truth is that we have Governments and World Organisations that pay lip service when the real debate is a knowledge- and research-based exchange of argument and counterargument that should be focused at the analysis of a specific question, our survival.
Passion and competition, yes, but, more than anything else, debate is an exercise in critical thinking! The human brain, being a machine striving for maximum efficiency, typically remembers where information is stored, rather than the information itself.
Technology has already affected the way our memory works.
AI. After all, natural evolution wouldn’t be able to mould and program devices to a point of sophistication that may lead to sentience, but we may be able to and maybe at that point even though its not natural, it is an evolution born of natural origins and most likely would go on to create newer better versions of itself.
In theory, humans are exercising their judgement in the process, but in reality, the computer system is viewed as too “smart” to be second-guessed by a human being.
So . . . what do we need to be more afraid of?
Robots with a compulsion to out-think humans? or humans that are afraid to second-guess the robots?
We must confront an urgent problem related to technology: the automation of “pre-emptive violence” – front-loaded with a bias to kill, with little impetus to contradict that bias.
At present drones are the most devastating driving forces for terrorism and destabilization around the world.
So are we at the peak of human evolution?
Certainly not. Certainly not as long as there are humans, there will be human evolution.
We are not even close to the peak of evolution.
Just look at wthat werecently found > The Higgs Boson, Mapped the Human Genome, Cloned a sheep, built the International Space Station, discovery the Double Helix Structure of DNA, Split the Atom, invented the Internet, we’re revisiting the theories of Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.
We have Created Nuclear Weapons, the Periodic Table of the Elements, Created the Internet Developed Vaccines, Created Music, Created Photography, Flight, Electronic Devices, Traveled to the Moon, Eradicated Small Pox, Created the Television, Discovered Mathematics, Invented the Printing Press, The Phone, Discovery and Control of Electricity, Cars, Invented Zero, Created of United Nations, Discovered World is Round.
AND STILL, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACT TOGETHER.
Why?
Because you know the downfall of civilisation has really passed the point of no return when even a rich white guy can’t get anything done.
Humans are the only organism that can alter their environment to suit them (instead of the other way around)
Finally, people must take into account that nature will commence exerting its own controls LONG BEFORE the human race has reached the point where it can step off the evolutionary treadmill.
With our increasing reliance on technology – and in particular machinery – to do our dirty (but muscle-enhancing) work. The less each generation depends on physical strength, the more likely it is that the whole species will grow weaker to the point of stagnation.
As evolution relies on the survival of the fittest, evolution itself will evolve everything else in all our lives will be transitory and every other artificial intelligent goodwill application will become visionary.
Only when we’ll be able to repair and augment our children’s DNA. Then we really will have triumphed over evolution. Race” will no longer be an issue. Perhaps we will stop killing each other.
Yet we’ve got our problems. A lot of them but the very things we invented to sustain us will destroy us.
The exact nature of our evolutionary relationships with the planet and AI will be the subject of debate for the foreseeable future.
It doesn’t matter if we’re uncovering evidence for climate change or deciding whether a drug has an effect: the concept is identical.
By setting an arbitrary threshold, and agreeing that anything beyond that point gives you grounds for suspicion with greed this is the evolutionary path we are setting our selves.
Mentally the world appears to be de-evolving with smartphones and social media platforms.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.
Answering this question is not as straightforward as it might appear.
There are billions of us alive all consciousness of each other but unable to explain why.
Perhaps this is why religions were created.
Consciousness is everything people experience.
However, there are different levels of consciousness and they can be related to other global changes in conscious level. All are private and inaccessible to observers.
(Conscious level (how conscious one is) and conscious content (what one is conscious of) are related to each other.)
So at what is a structure complex enough to become conscious.
Why am I human instead of a particle?
If we are particles we are no longer dealing with a purely material theory of consciousness because the source of the conscious particles cannot itself be material.
Its source requires an immaterial intervention.
I will return to consciousness later in the post.
The role that technology plays in human life is becoming an increasingly urgent question not just in tackling climate change but what will be considered in the future to be human.
Where we’re headed and what it will mean for humanity is a question seldom discussed.
Bioelectric implants, genetic modification packages, the ability to tamper with our very biology — there won’t be enough time to adjust or to reassess who we are and what it means to be human.
Our technology is developing so much faster than our culture and our institutions, and the gap between these things can only grow so far before society becomes dangerously unstable.
It’s hard to really know what we are becoming because so many of these changes are unforeseen or unpredictable.
At the moment computers and robots interact with the world without being conscious.
Are we at risk or are we becoming semi-machines who are like the marionettes of our own moment-to-moment experiences?
We’re losing our ability to be in the world in a way that isn’t mediated by some electronic appendage.
The more we live through screens, the more we are living in a narrow bandwidth, an abstract world that’s increasingly artificial the more we are becoming non-human.
The virtual world might be safe and controllable, but it’s not rich and unpredictable in the way the real world is.
What is all this doing to our habits, to our cultural sense of who we are?
With synthetic biology, which is basically human beings redesigning their biological structure we are distant to lose our connection to reality altogether.
Why?
Because it’s about us modifying our very genetic code which is extremely dangerous if it’s not controlled and safeguarded.
Intelligence is the most powerful instrument around.
If you’re embodying that kind of intelligence in increasingly sophisticated machines we will be coming to depend on them more and more over time.
(What worries me is that we’re headed in the direction of building AI technologies that are at the human level and, eventually, far beyond that.)
If AI becomes so intelligent that they can perform an infinite variety of tasks across domains of activity. We’ll continue to make them smarter and more capable and more powerful until we reach a point at which they start to learn on their own and start to modify themselves. Once that happens, they’ll be fully unpredictable — and then who the hell knows what happens next.
Any fool on the street can tell you that with nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, machine learning, bioengineering, brain implants, quantum computers, algorithms, robots that technology is changing at a whiplash-inducing pace.
So because there is no widely accepted theory about what happens in the brain to make consciousness possible what is it about being human that really matters?
Back to look at Consciousness.
Nothing has authority over it but is it what makes us human.
Nothing is above it. Nothing rules it.
Since everything exists within it, it does not exist within anything.
Since it is not dependent on anything, it is eternal, it is outside of realms of being and time.
In fact, consciousness actually exists independently and outside of the brain as an inherent property of the universe itself like dark matter and dark energy or gravity. It is not dependent on anything. No one can envision it. No one can comprehend it. Neither physical nor unphysical it is beyond knowledge.
It simply apprehends itself.
The brain does not create or produce consciousness; rather, it filters it.
This implies a very real and direct connection between the brain, human consciousness and the existence of the Universe — that they are fundamentally inseparable at the quantum level.
Consciousness permeates reality.
Rather than being just a unique feature of human subjective experience, it’s the foundation of the universe, present in every particle and all physical matter.
Who or what counts as human?
It’s well-known that the Nazis considered Jews to be non-human creatures.
All the questions we currently face can be traced to this, larger, underlying question. What is Human?
If one says that all and onlyHomo sapiensare humans, one is expressing a preference about where the boundary separating humans from non-humans should be drawn.
What sort of evidence can settle the question?
There’s something about us that is the opposite of artificial. It’s the opposite of something made.
This raises the below questions.
What genetic engineering stuff promises to bring down the line is human beings who are tailored to particular purposes, either by themselves over time or by other human beings.
We becoming products or commodities, and products or commodities are subordinated to particular functions or purposes.
All the values that give our lives meaning are at risk.
What becomes of autonomy? What becomes of free will?
All these questions are on the table.
By the year 2500, people will not need to be exactly like they are now so it stands to reason that semi humans will break the bonds that hold our present-day society together. They will shatter our sense of identity so quickly that it creates a kind of existential chaos.
So what are these technologies adding to the human experience and, more importantly, what are they subtracting from the human experience?
We live in a world of wonder and mystery, and the more we discover, the more there seems to be to find out but should we be more worried about the world we’re creating?
The artificial kind of worlds.
.This post is compliments of the FRIGHTLY SORRY<SORRY<SORRY. CLUB.
All human reverberation comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
There is no doubting that the influence of technology will go beyond new equipment and faster communications and that Science and technology are in danger of out running our morality.
The evolution of technology has morphed the relationship between consumer and creator forever. But life exists in individual moments and it is up to us to make sure those moments are vital to technology. Each of us has meaning, and it is us that bring these moments to life not the other way around.
This for me defines the dangers of Technology. There is a danger that we will end up starved for wisdom and individual wonder distorting the values of civilization.
Sharing may well be the mechanism that propels culture forward, but individualism driven by knowledge is what counts. Therefore we should be wary of falling into the trap of futurism. There may be a temptation to follow technological determinism, that is the idea that technology provides a logical sequence of development that pervades society regardless of its effects.
So it is necessary to study the relationship of science, technology, innovation and government. We need to stay attuned to the power dynamics at play.
Ultimately as we continue to develop and our technological capabilities even the stars will be open to our explorations.
Will humanity be prepared for the greatest discoveries of the history of our civilization? No
Will we find other intelligent civilizations far older and incredibly superior than our technological capabilities and collective wisdom? Yes
Our collective destiny could end with speculation on the values, ethics and consciousness of these civilizations and lessons they may hold for the future of humanity.
Recently I have concentrating on the effects of what Technology could do to Society and how we will behave or change as its influence grows.
We are already living in a world few could have imagined 50 years ago. In a new economy—powered by technology, fueled by information, without a sustainable Life-Plan.
As technology continues to spread, questions emerge:
What are we losing as a society? What is the effect on social relations? Work, after all, is more than just a job or paycheck. It is where we meet friends, share ideas, and build a common sense of purpose and a social network.
What happens if we all become Google Slaves. (see previous post) Is it creating an Hip-pro activity world designed by us that will not work. With voice mail, e-mail, and computer networks, how do we preserve the human network and the social interaction that work has helped to facilitate? What takes its place?
As I have said there may well be a strong link between technology adoption by society and its culture. But technology is never purely beneficial. It has negative and positive effects, There is a need to distinguish between desirable sustainable development and economic growth.
While it is not possible to foretell the future, it is useful to examine present trends and determine their possible consequences.
The use of computers and the Internet in workplaces is become more pervasive as work and skills are being redefined and reorganized.
The demands of the future will require increased efforts to include these workers who have been left behind and have not shared in our prosperity.
It will also require successfully integrating millions of immigrants into the workplace.
If we’re not careful, our technological evolution will take us toward not a singularity but a sofalarity.
The problem with technological evolution is that it is under our control and, unfortunately, we don’t always make the best decisions.
Does Technology want what life wants: Increasing efficiency; Increasing opportunity; Increasing emergence; Increasing complexity; Increasing diversity; Increasing specialization; Increasing ubiquity; Increasing freedom; Increasing mutualism; Increasing beauty; Increasing sentience; Increasing structure; Increasing evolvability. I think not.
Technological evolution has a different motive force. It is self-evolution, and it is therefore driven by what we want as opposed to what is adaptive. In a market economy, it is even more complex: for most of us, our technological identities are determined by what companies decide to sell based on what they believe we, as consumers, will pay for.
When it comes to technologies, we mainly want to make things easy. We are at a time of great creativity, of great potential for change for better or worse.
Technology is not the only cause of these changes, but scientists have made clear that it is a driving factor.
It is already dispensing death by algorithms.
Assuming that we really are evolving as we wear or inhabit more technological prosthetics—like ever-smarter phones, helpful glasses, and brainy cars—here’s the big question:
Will that type of evolution take us in desirable directions, as we usually assume biological evolution does?
The technology industry, which does so much to define us, has a duty to cater to our more complete selves rather than just our narrow interests. It has both the opportunity and the means to reach for something higher. And, as consumers, we should remember that our collective demands drive our destiny as a species, and define the post human condition. Both Google and Apple would do well to keep this in mind.
All of these factors have contributed to rising inequality. The development of a hierarchy of knowledge, a prejudiced vision towards a desired future rather than recognition of more plausible realities.
We all want a future defined not by an evolution toward super intelligence but by the absence of discomforts.
In general, humans have a tendency to always choose the easiest option without
stopping to think that maybe, to think another perspective would open other
possibilities.
As If we need more problems in the world here is one that is going to blow the minds of our children’s children.
It’s the belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and technology.
If you were to build a human from scratch, from the bottom up, at some point you cross the threshold into humanity — if you believe in evolution, at some point we ceased being a great ape and became human.
Likewise, if you slowly remove parts from a human, you cross the threshold into inhumanity. Again, though, we run into the same problem: How do we codify, classify, and ratify what actually makes us human?
Does adding empathy make us human? Does removing the desire to procreate make us inhuman? If I physically alter my brain to behave in a different, non-standard way, am I still human? If I have all my limbs removed and my head spliced onto a robot, am I still human?
As technology advances, so do our visions of the future.
Artificial wombs? Not so far-fetched. We already have the ability to keep donor hearts pumping externally with nutrient-rich oxygenated blood before transplants are performed. We are already putting animal brain cells into robots as a control system.
The only thing creeper than a baby robot named Diego-San is a cyborg fetus with no name. It’s an interesting concept that before long we might be incubating our unborn children in tanks, but we might want to think about what that means for population control.
We can’t find a single reason to make a human-gazelle hybrid, but fusing animals and humans (however frightening the concept may be) could be good for something.
It’s only a matter of time before we start digging up skeletons of robots past. With all of these robot dogs walking around and being taught new tricks, how long will it take for robots to adopt other more efficient animal designs?
Whether or not you’re a Transhumanist, future society and all of the potential it brings does seem exciting.
Now all we need is a box that keeps our brain working long enough for a cyborg transplant. Sounds routine enough.
Humans are extending current biological limitations, and in the next few decades what it means to be human might change considerably.
At first glance these questions might sound inflammatory and hyperbolic, or perhaps surreal and sci-fi, but don’t be fooled: In the next decade, given the continued acceleration of computer technology and bio medicine, we will be forced to confront these questions and attempt to find some answer.
Through genetic engineering, nano tech, cloning, and other emerging technologies, eternal life may soon be possible.
So what will happen when we finally craft a computer with greater-than-human intelligence? (the technological singularity).
If every human on Earth suddenly stopped dying, overpopulation would trigger a very rapid and very dramatic socioeconomic disaster. Unless we stopped giving birth to babies, of course, but that merely rips open another can of worms: Without birth and death, would society and humanity continue to grow and evolve, or would it stagnate, suffocated by the accumulated ego of intellectuals and demagogues who just will not die?
Likewise, if only the rich have access to intelligence and strength-boosting drugs and technologies, what would happen to society? Should everyone have the right to boost their intellect? Would society still operate smoothly if everyone had an IQ of 300 and five doctorate degrees?
Humans have always used technology, but never has society been so intrinsically linked and underpinned by it as is to days Society.
As we have seen in just the last few years, with the advent of the smart phone and ubiquitous high-speed mobile networks, just a handful of new technologies now have the power to completely change how we interact with the world and people around us.
In just the last 100 years, we’ve doubled our life span again, created bionic eyes and powered exoskeletons, begun to understand how the human brain actually works, and started to make serious headway with boosting intellectual and physical prowess. Trans cranial direct current stimulation is being used to boost cranial capacity, and as we’ve seen in recent years, sportspeople have definitely shown the efficacy of physical doping.
If you were born 500 years ago, odds are that you wouldn’t experience a single societal-shifting technology in your lifetime — today, a 40-year-old will have lived through the creation of the PC, the internet, the smart phone, and brain implants, to name just a few life-changing technologies.
Just think about how many industries and jobs have been obliterated or subsumed by the arrival of the digital computer, and it’s easy to see why we’re wary of transhumanist technologies that will change the very fabric of human civilization.
That all changes with the children of today, however.
To them, anything that isn’t computerized, digital, and touch-enabled seems unnatural. To them, the smart phone is already an extension of the brain; to them, mind uploading, bionic implants and augmentations, and powered exoskeletons will just be par for the course. To them, transhumanism will just seem like natural evolution — and anyone who doesn’t follow suit, just like those fuddy-duddies who still don’t have a smart phone, will seem thoroughly inhuman.
For the children of tomorrow, living through a series of disruptive technologies that completely change their lives will be the norm.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/58784929/641190830.0.jpg)
