Phoenix Network Forums

.. alone.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... xpand=true


An interesting read, souns like great news for future paralysis victims. Of course the downside is that a few hundreds years from now and we have people modifying themselves..
And the military might love the idea.

Conspiracy theories aside though, science will never cease to amaze. Hopefully development will be carried out briskly.


Any thoughts?

Samppa wrote:Of course the downside is that a few hundreds years from now and we have people modifying themselves..

Why is this a bad thing?

Well, for one, I'd rather stay the way I am, so when someone with a robotic arm that can crush my head comes along and mugs me, I'm sort of at a disadvantage.

Enhanced war, yada yada..

And where does the line between robot and human go? What would distinguish yourself from a robot if you were just a metal shell with a brain attached? Or would you be a brain with a metal shell? Would you be neither robot or human?

And what would become of sport? Everyone would have the latest super-feet to allow them to run faster than anyone, where's the competition? Would there be different leagues for differing people?

Well, this stuff is definitely the way of the future, but sampa is write. I for one would not want to end up with another IRobot chain of events. The Only other issue I had with the technology mentioned in that story is it's proposed reliance on wifi systems to illiminate the use of bulky cables and so on. Imagine a hypothetical sinario where in a hacker cracks the WEP key protecting the system and makes the technology and the person attached do things against their will.

Samppa wrote:Well, for one, I'd rather stay the way I am, so when someone with a robotic arm that can crush my head comes along and mugs me, I'm sort of at a disadvantage.

This situation is incredibly ridiculous! There are already easy access to "Saturday Night Special"-style firearms; does that stop you from going about your "business as usual"? Vehicular homicide can also occur easily, but don't you ride in a car (or walk on the sidewalk)?

Samppa wrote:Enhanced war, yada yada..

I suppose you've seen the Seinfeld episode where Geroge dates the "yada-yada" woman ... If not, that's fine too.

The important thing here is that you're ignoring what good technological advancements have done for warfare: after the atomic bomb was created, it was used a limited amount of times, and the overall casualties were reduced greatly. Better weaponry = easier to win = less homeland troops/civilians dead.

Samppa wrote:And where does the line between robot and human go? What would distinguish yourself from a robot if you were just a metal shell with a brain attached? Or would you be a brain with a metal shell? Would you be neither robot or human?

How much of a difference would this truly make? Most people are empty-headed and illogical, so I think that an intelligent robot companion would be a positive to many people. And why are you relying so heavily on "classifying" yourself as a human or as a machine? This question is pretty irrevelevant when you think, "Whoa, shit! That decapitated guy was saved because we stuck his brain in a metal can! w00t science!"

Samppa wrote:And what would become of sport? Everyone would have the latest super-feet to allow them to run faster than anyone, where's the competition? Would there be different leagues for differing people?

This is pure crap, to be honest. It's obvious that new leagues would be created for different "categories" of players, and games will adapt if necessary. If you don't think so, steroids can enhance your performance in sports today, but they're illegal as well. Something tells me it'll be easier to check for something like an artificial arm than for steroid use though ...

Well that's just amazing,and it's great that we start to understand such a complex organ that our brain is.

Well I think that, if they keep it the way of helping people, that's just excelent; and that would help paralized people so much.... I thank god I'm healthy at every aspect.

About the access of poor population to this things, is important. Goverments should subsidiate that help, or at least making it reasonable accesible to them.

al_tyranny wrote:

Samppa wrote:Well, for one, I'd rather stay the way I am, so when someone with a robotic arm that can crush my head comes along and mugs me, I'm sort of at a disadvantage.

This situation is incredibly ridiculous! There are already easy access to "Saturday Night Special"-style firearms; does that stop you from going about your "business as usual"? Vehicular homicide can also occur easily, but don't you ride in a car (or walk on the sidewalk)?

It's easier for me to assert the situation when I'm looking down the barrel of a gun, rather than not knowing if the guy has superior 'armpower'.

al_tyranny wrote:

Samppa wrote:Enhanced war, yada yada..

The important thing here is that you're ignoring what good technological advancements have done for warfare: after the atomic bomb was created, it was used a limited amount of times, and the overall casualties were reduced greatly. Better weaponry = easier to win = less homeland troops/civilians dead.

Yes, the atomic bomb can reduce deaths - less troops are needed, since the bomb can destroy so much instantly. If the troops themselves are fitted with the added strength, how would you need less troops though? You'll still have supertroops vs. supertroops as opposed to troops vs. troops.

al_tyranny wrote:

Samppa wrote:And where does the line between robot and human go? What would distinguish yourself from a robot if you were just a metal shell with a brain attached? Or would you be a brain with a metal shell? Would you be neither robot or human?

How much of a difference would this truly make? Most people are empty-headed and illogical, so I think that an intelligent robot companion would be a positive to many people. And why are you relying so heavily on "classifying" yourself as a human or as a machine? This question is pretty irrevelevant when you think, "Whoa, s***! That decapitated guy was saved because we stuck his brain in a metal can! w00t science!"

Humans tend to redefine their image of themselves constantly. I can only imagine the more conservative brain blowing a fuse when it realises parts of the body are not ''it's own''. The illness in which one does not realise that a part of their body belongs to themself can have nasty consequences when they do not take care of that part of the body.
Besides, I, like many others, tend to think of myself as a whole, and not just a brain.

al_tyranny wrote:

Samppa wrote:And what would become of sport? Everyone would have the latest super-feet to allow them to run faster than anyone, where's the competition? Would there be different leagues for differing people?

This is pure crap, to be honest. It's obvious that new leagues would be created for different "categories" of players, and games will adapt if necessary. If you don't think so, steroids can enhance your performance in sports today, but they're illegal as well. Something tells me it'll be easier to check for something like an artificial arm than for steroid use though ...

I still don't find watching tuned metal parts running or jumping as enjoyable as watching people that have devoted their life to tuning themselves to their limits running and jumping.

This is great for paralysis victims, but this is also going to be a pretty bad thing. People are going to get themselves modified even though they don't need it, the military will definetly use this technology, and I think that it will put people in danger. Let's say a "normal" person, those that haven't had bionic parts attached to there body, and a bionic person where in a fight. Who do you think would win? The person with the bionic biceps would probably do some good damage on a normal human being...

I'm not saying that anything else is really fair, but when this blows up it's going to have to be heavily policed.

What about murder cases? " Your Honor, I didn't mean for my robotic arm to break that guys neck. It must have been a malfunction." Well, hopefully the robotic arm of the future won't run a Microsoft OS.

markgrif wrote:What about murder cases? " Your Honor, I didn't mean for my robotic arm to break that guys neck. It must have been a malfunction." Well, hopefully the robotic arm of the future won't run a Microsoft OS.

Haha. You know what? I bet Microsoft would develop their own robotic arm... and make it have one more finger than their competition, so they can create another monopoly

Knowing microsoft, it would more likely have one finger less

Samppa wrote:Knowing microsoft, it would more likely have one finger less

Now that I think about it, one finger more or less and your robotic arm wouldn't have a middle finger... I think I'd want my arm to have a middle finger.

Samppa wrote:It's easier for me to assert the situation when I'm looking down the barrel of a gun, rather than not knowing if the guy has superior 'armpower'.

The mugger mentality likely won't change that much if you upgrade their "tools." Most people know to avoid suspicious-acting strangers ;)

Samppa wrote:Yes, the atomic bomb can reduce deaths - less troops are needed, since the bomb can destroy so much instantly. If the troops themselves are fitted with the added strength, how would you need less troops though? You'll still have supertroops vs. supertroops as opposed to troops vs. troops.

I'm guessing that for all upgrades within the next few decades, bombs will still beat humans. In the meantime, the troops with the best technology will win (as they usually do). This means supertroops vs. troops for awhile, then supertroops vs. supertroops, then super-supertroops vs. supertroops, ...

Technology is always advancing, and it's hard for two competing factions to have a low "strength gap" for long if they keep pushing their technological development; one will eventually outdo the other.

Samppa wrote:Humans tend to redefine their image of themselves constantly. I can only imagine the more conservative brain blowing a fuse when it realises parts of the body are not ''it's own''. The illness in which one does not realise that a part of their body belongs to themself can have nasty consequences when they do not take care of that part of the body.
Besides, I, like many others, tend to think of myself as a whole, and not just a brain.

People who lose limbs are able to "function" psychologically, even with prosthetics. What's the difference?

Samppa wrote:I still don't find watching tuned metal parts running or jumping as enjoyable as watching people that have devoted their life to tuning themselves to their limits running and jumping.

You'll probably be watching the "old-fashioned" sports then ;)

al_tyranny wrote:

Samppa wrote:It's easier for me to assert the situation when I'm looking down the barrel of a gun, rather than not knowing if the guy has superior 'armpower'.

The mugger mentality likely won't change that much if you upgrade their "tools." Most people know to avoid suspicious-acting strangers

Are you sure? I wonder if anyone has the figures for day to day muggings. And I believe muggers aren't as easy to stereotype like that.

al_tyranny wrote:

Samppa wrote:Yes, the atomic bomb can reduce deaths - less troops are needed, since the bomb can destroy so much instantly. If the troops themselves are fitted with the added strength, how would you need less troops though? You'll still have supertroops vs. supertroops as opposed to troops vs. troops.

I'm guessing that for all upgrades within the next few decades, bombs will still beat humans. In the meantime, the troops with the best technology will win (as they usually do). This means supertroops vs. troops for awhile, then supertroops vs. supertroops, then super-supertroops vs. supertroops, ...

Thus increasing the number of needed troops for the opposing side when the other guy has superior troops. Your original statement being that you'd need less with the advanced technology.

al_tyranny wrote:

Samppa wrote:Humans tend to redefine their image of themselves constantly. I can only imagine the more conservative brain blowing a fuse when it realises parts of the body are not ''it's own''. The illness in which one does not realise that a part of their body belongs to themself can have nasty consequences when they do not take care of that part of the body.
Besides, I, like many others, tend to think of myself as a whole, and not just a brain.

People who lose limbs are able to "function" psychologically, even with prosthetics. What's the difference?

A prosthesis isn't a fully functional mechanical limb that attaches directly into you. It's an aid. There's a difference. But this is again straying from the original point made.

al_tyranny wrote:

Samppa wrote:I still don't find watching tuned metal parts running or jumping as enjoyable as watching people that have devoted their life to tuning themselves to their limits running and jumping.

You'll probably be watching the "old-fashioned" sports then

I would like an power suit or something. I am not ready to trade my limbs for artifical ones,yet.