|
Post by Promise and Peril on Apr 18, 2011 23:17:15 GMT -5
Question 1: If Kurzweil’s predictions are true, should human beings still be motivated to work if technology will just be able to do the job better?
Question 2: In the context of Langdon Winner’s article, “Do artifacts have politics?” what will society be like when technology combines with politics. What happens when the way we organize people is through technology, not by their skin color (keeping poor people out with a low bridge).
Question 3:Will technology surpassing human intelligence signal the end of man-kind?
|
|
|
Post by Warner on Apr 19, 2011 8:53:54 GMT -5
1) It’s weird to think about competing against technology, something that could replace our job yet not receive a salary. I think that humans should not be unmotivated to work because there will always be constant reprogramming and development that is needed. In fact, humans should be motivated because technological advances will allow them to accomplish more in a day. I think we will be better off because of all of the advances in technology.
2) I wonder if people will still be organized according to social classes though through technology. How will we decide who gets to use something such as nanobots to enhance the human body. It will most likely be those who can pay for it and then how will this further divide classes?
3) If technology surpasses human intelligence then like we said in class last week, we may have to have our behavior, possibly being more subservient. For instance, when talking about the brain scanning technology and the impact that could have on interrogation we brought up the idea of it changing human behavior entirely. Would people be less likely to lie? Would they have to learn how to convince themselves how to believe in their lies in order to beat the system? There is no doubt that this would impact our lives but I do not believe it would be an end for man-kind. I think technology and humans can coexist and benefit from each other.
|
|
|
Post by bonds0097 on Apr 19, 2011 15:56:52 GMT -5
1) Human Beings are more than biological machines that work to survive and reproduce. We are thinking, creative beings who pursue art and science for a plethora of reasons. A post-human future will not change that. On the contrary, I believe it will free us from the drudgery of material/survival concerns and allow all of us to focus on more creative and philosophical pursuits. Would we still have human garbage men? Probably not, but why should we? Instead, we'd find ourselves with more poets, artists, scientists, basket-weavers, etc.
2) Well, drawing on a point made by the article about governance challenges, I think that transformations in technology are putting more and more control in the hands of the user (personal nanotechnology, information through the Internet, etc.). The inevitable result, to my mind, is the end of government as we know it. What do I need a senator for when I can like/dislike any piece of legislation on Facebook? As technology grows, more and more information is at our fingertips and our ability to communicate with each other will soon know no limits. Eventually, I believe we will all be soverign states in our own right, without anyone holding political power over another. Any decisions made would be on the basis of voluntary association and social contract.
3) I believe we are defined by more than our intelligence. Again, we are not just a biological machine waiting to be made obsolete by a newer version. Do I believe that a post-human future will be the end of man-kind as we know it? Yes. But it will not be the end of humanity by a long-shot. It will allow us to become something more than we are, something more than what Natural Selection made us. We will transcend our limits and transform into something new but wholly different. I believe we will have no choice but to redefine what it means to be human; I believe the emergence of a super-intelligence would herald the re-birth of mankind, not its end.
|
|
|
Post by Mike S on Apr 19, 2011 19:49:56 GMT -5
I think it would be very important for human beings to still work even if technology can somehow find a way to do better. When we discussed this in class, I believe someone brought up the value of being the original creator. I believe the example given was that a computer can produce thousands of Mona Lisas, but Da Vinci still painted it first. Ultimately, I don't know if a computer could ever be programmed to have a creative and adaptive streak quite like that of a human being, but maybe my understanding is just not that well developed. I think there are some things that are just intrinsically human and indescribable. And if we are unable to describe something in words, such as emotions (ie love and happiness), how could we ever put it into ones and zeros for the computer to understand. Also, I don't think technology surpassing human intelligence would signal the end of man-kind. We will simply have to alter the way we live our lives. Technology has been changing our world since the wheel was invented, and always we have found a way to adapt, survive, and thrive. Will our lives be dramatically different? Most likely; but our lives have been dramatically changed with each new technological advance like the car, the radio, the TV, and the internet. So to say that one day technology will become more than we can manage and blow up in our faces and end our civilization is, I think, a little extreme.
|
|
|
Post by Param D on Apr 19, 2011 22:07:27 GMT -5
1) This to me basically depends on what we consider to be "work". Will human physical labor, farming, and manufacturing decrease and possibly even cease to exist? With the onset of advanced and rapidly progressing technology this seems likely. However, will humans being completely stop being productive, having careers, and pursuing their dreams? Even though increases in technology could make this easier, I do not think the vast majority of mankind could live their lives without a purpose.
2) I think the effect of the combination of technology with politics really depends on how this technology is distributed throughout society. In other words, how accessible this technology is to everyone.
|
|
|
Post by EBjanes on Apr 21, 2011 9:19:58 GMT -5
1. Yes and no. Some people will be as they are today - couch potatoes that do little work and spend most of their time staring at a screen and doing nothing productive with their lives. While others, will be driven to excell and succeed as they are today. I think you'll find a balance, just like there is today.
2. If we organize people through technology, a different type of stratification will occur. Instead of being racist, we will be separationist. The older generation that does not use our technology - texting, internet, email, facebook, etc - will be pushed aside while those with access to such technologies will have all the power.
3. No. Technology may surpass human intelligence as far as computing capacity, but robots can't paint an original painting or create a symphony. They are made to perform specific mechanical tasks that need no room for creativity.
|
|