Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I still haven't seen that film, have been wanting to for a while.

Never noticed that Gattaca only uses letters used in genetic codes.

 Ahtman wrote:

Oh I remember that. Very good movie too...basically its what a world under the Destiny Plan is like/a world controlled by genetic determinism. Though it also shows that even without genetic enhancements, normal Humans can reach the same level through lots and lots of hard work.

The big thing to remember is that this will be taken in babysteps, generation after generation. Right now across society we're comfortable with some use of genes to help people live normal lives (so perhaps alteration to remove the chance of down syndrome or other diseases from birth and stuff like that). And we'd be comfortable building people replacement limbs and things like that.

But then our children will grow up in a society where those things are known and accepted, and there's every chance they'll be a little more comfortable with expanding what is accepted. And their children even more so. The idea of genetic enhancement may be terrifying to us, but in a few hundred years it could be absolutely baffling to people that there was ever a time when people could be made healthier, longer living and free of disease, and people chose not to do it.

 Ahtman wrote:

That is a great movie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:
Oh I remember that. Very good movie too...basically its what a world under the Destiny Plan is like/a world controlled by genetic determinism. Though it also shows that even without genetic enhancements, normal Humans can reach the same level through lots and lots of hard work.

The message of the film essentially a romantic notion, that no matter what gifts we are given through birth, the human spirit can make up for it all. I believe the tag line was something like "there is no gene for the human spirit", and that's pretty much the whole point of the movie.

The problem with the romance of that notion is that willpower and drive are probably just as genetically determined as anything else. Still a great movie, though.

 sebster wrote:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:
Oh I remember that. Very good movie too...basically its what a world under the Destiny Plan is like/a world controlled by genetic determinism. Though it also shows that even without genetic enhancements, normal Humans can reach the same level through lots and lots of hard work.

The message of the film essentially a romantic notion, that no matter what gifts we are given through birth, the human spirit can make up for it all. I believe the tag line was something like "there is no gene for the human spirit", and that's pretty much the whole point of the movie.

The problem with the romance of that notion is that willpower and drive are probably just as genetically determined as anything else. Still a great movie, though.

Not completely so...I believe this would fall into the 'Nature vs Nurture' argument.

 Admiral Valerian wrote:
Not completely so...I believe this would fall into the 'Nature vs Nurture' argument.

Notice the 'as anything else' in my sentence. That means willpower or discipline or whatever else is, probably, subject to nature vs nurture as any other part of our us. So, the movie suggests a future where people are gene selected to be as smart as possible, and ignores the possibility that such people will also be gene selected for discipline and other positive traits.

It is effectively taking one element, the human spirit, and saying that one bit isn't influenced by genes. Which is a lovely humanist, romantic notion, but probably not true.

I imagine it'd be something that someone would have a predilection towards but the way they a brought up would still play an important part in it.
Like pretty much everything else...

Trans-Humanism is just technological advancement. We didn't have bigotry and hatred for wheelchairs and plastic limbs. The rise to transhumanism will be gradual enough that things like prosthetics and bionics will just be par the course. At first they'll be out of reach for all but the wealthiest of humans, and then eventually they'll be cheap enough to be accessible to everyone.

That's my prediction.

Genetic manipulation and the "Gattica scenario" is a bit trickier, admittedly.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Trans-Humanism is just technological advancement. We didn't have bigotry and hatred for wheelchairs and plastic limbs. The rise to transhumanism will be gradual enough that things like prosthetics and bionics will just be par the course. At first they'll be out of reach for all but the wealthiest of humans, and then eventually they'll be cheap enough to be accessible to everyone.

That's my prediction.

Genetic manipulation and the "Gattica scenario" is a bit trickier, admittedly.

There's not bigotry and hatred for people in wheelchairs and plastic limbs? I mean I guess there isn't a hatred for the handicapped, but go borrow a wheelchair from someone (not someone that needs it obviously), and spend a day in it, spend some time looking at the reactions you get from the people you interact with. While they might not say rude things, or show outright hate, there is a stigma attached to people in wheelchairs and with prosthetic limbs. Hell, go back like 5/6 years ago when Oscar Pistorious started trying to qualify for the regular Olympics. He caught fethloads of flak because people thought his prosthetic limbs gave him an unfair competitive advantage. People will see cyberdisation as other people gaining an unfair competitive advantage, until the point is shown that cyberdisation is simply an alternative way to live your life whether because you lost a piece of your natural body, or because you wish to get cyber implants.

Pistorius is a very interesting test case for this idea. Some studies show his prosthetic legs are better than natural legs. Other scientist disagree. Whether augmetic by design or not, he was one of the first cyborgs barred from competing.

Of course, it will change over to something very, very different when the first athlete undergoes elective leg amputation in order to acquire the 8 second advantage they purportedly confer.

edit-
Actually, depending on how the murder trial shakes out he may also be the poster boy for murderous cyborgs!

Great example.

Gitzbitah wrote:
Pistorius is a very interesting test case for this idea. Some studies show his prosthetic legs are better than natural legs. Other scientist disagree. Whether augmetic by design or not, he was one of the first cyborgs barred from competing.

Of course, it will change over to something very, very different when the first athlete undergoes elective leg amputation in order to acquire the 8 second advantage they purportedly confer.

The problem I guess with Pistorius is that he might have an advantage, but we would have to see compared to whom? We learned in the last Olympics that he didn't have an advantage at all against his competitors out there, and was just very middle of the road in his competitions. But we'll most likely not know if he only had skill to be a decent runner, and the blades gave him the advantage to make him 'Olympic qualifier' level.

edit-
Actually, depending on how the murder trial shakes out he may also be the poster boy for murderous cyborgs!

Great example.

Thanks I occasionally have a good example every now and then.

 Alfndrate wrote:

Gitzbitah wrote:
Pistorius is a very interesting test case for this idea. Some studies show his prosthetic legs are better than natural legs. Other scientist disagree. Whether augmetic by design or not, he was one of the first cyborgs barred from competing.

Of course, it will change over to something very, very different when the first athlete undergoes elective leg amputation in order to acquire the 8 second advantage they purportedly confer.

The problem I guess with Pistorius is that he might have an advantage, but we would have to see compared to whom? We learned in the last Olympics that he didn't have an advantage at all against his competitors out there, and was just very middle of the road in his competitions. But we'll most likely not know if he only had skill to be a decent runner, and the blades gave him the advantage to make him 'Olympic qualifier' level.

edit-
Actually, depending on how the murder trial shakes out he may also be the poster boy for murderous cyborgs!

Great example.

Thanks I occasionally have a good example every now and then.

I suppose that, in the name of Science, Usain Bolt will necessarily have to have his legs amputated at the knee, and use the blades. Then record his "blade" time vs. his "leg" time, to really judge if there is any actual advantage or not

Seems like Lawnmower Man 2.0.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:
Just a thought: how would the rise of trans-Humans (cyborgs, genetically-modified Humans, etc.) affect society in general? After all many of them will have abilities that will surpass those of ordinary Humans, and in the case of the genetically-enhanced, probably inheritable too. I wouldn't put it out of the bounds of possibility that Humanity might diverge into several sub-species as a result, so how would this affect our modern society.

PS: try to be realistic. This isn't set in 40k, this is set in reality, so differing religions, cultural views and such will have to be taken into consideration.

For example, had I been born a 1,000 years earlier in many cultures I would've been burned alive for being suspected of being a vampire/wizard/ soulless abomination simply because I have red hair. Thankfully that's not as common anymore.

The last one is still very common

 Alfndrate wrote:

So am I, but the problem is when you start creating things like cybernetic brains, things we believe are natural like emotions, thoughts, feelings, etc... are distilled to a series of programs and functions, all cyborgs would have to start doing is to simply receive a bit of a hack to delete that function from their brain to become more machine than man.

That's already possible, though the methods are by no means precise, with normal humans. As such there is no reason to believe that the refinement of those methods would not allow for a procedure similar to what you describe.

I also think you have to consider that simply deleting all emotion is futile for any being that wants to be capable of making decisions on its own, as doing so is impossible without the ability to decide that any given event is good or bad. The real worry, to my mind, is one that has been raised in several pieces of speculative fiction: will people that are arguably something other than human still sympathize with humans, and vice versa, or will we be left with empathy?

 Alfndrate wrote:

And like Soladrin said, people discriminate enough when we're all just people, if you throw cyborgs into the mix, they'll be a second class citizenry. And a few of them might become ticked off enough to delete said thing, go full robo if you will and start plotting to overthrow humanity.

No need to delete anything, second class citizens with normal brains eventually get pissed off all on their own.

Wait... It hasn't happened already?! Youtube lied to me!




But then, maybe it isn't all roses and sunshine?

The first cybernetic upgrade I'm going to get once they're available are neural augmetics for expanded memory storage and advanced search, logic, and analysis algorithms, as well as the best in anti-hacking software. With appropriate secondaries and redundant systems of course.

 Admiral Valerian wrote:
The first cybernetic upgrade I'm going to get once they're available are neural augmetics for expanded memory storage and advanced search, logic, and analysis algorithms, as well as the best in anti-hacking software. With appropriate secondaries and redundant systems of course.

First one I'd get would be to make a certain "enhancement"




But then, on top of size, I'd also have them install some form of laser weapon

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:
The first cybernetic upgrade I'm going to get once they're available are neural augmetics for expanded memory storage and advanced search, logic, and analysis algorithms, as well as the best in anti-hacking software. With appropriate secondaries and redundant systems of course.

First one I'd get would be to make a certain "enhancement"

Not sure if I want to ask but...what kind of 'enhancement'?

But then, on top of size, I'd also have them install some form of laser weapon

An arm-mounted lasgun? That's not a bad idea. But after the neural augmetics, I think I'll save up money for a full-body cybernetics suite, just like Major Kusanagi (only her brain is organic).

 Admiral Valerian wrote:


Not sure if I want to ask but...what kind of 'enhancement'?
An arm-mounted lasgun? That's not a bad idea. But after the neural augmetics, I think I'll save up money for a full-body cybernetics suite, just like Major Kusanagi (only her brain is organic).

In regards to the second part... we'll call it a "leg mounted" lasgun




For "enhancement" think of all the ads you've seen directed at men who have "lady issues" lol

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:


Not sure if I want to ask but...what kind of 'enhancement'?
An arm-mounted lasgun? That's not a bad idea. But after the neural augmetics, I think I'll save up money for a full-body cybernetics suite, just like Major Kusanagi (only her brain is organic).

In regards to the second part... we'll call it a "leg mounted" lasgun




For "enhancement" think of all the ads you've seen directed at men who have "lady issues" lol

Oh, I see. I think we should just leave it at that.

First augment? Taser fists.

I will tesla punch you in the nuts.

 Admiral Valerian wrote:
Just a thought: how would the rise of trans-Humans (cyborgs, genetically-modified Humans, etc.) affect society in general? After all many of them will have abilities that will surpass those of ordinary Humans, and in the case of the genetically-enhanced, probably inheritable too. I wouldn't put it out of the bounds of possibility that Humanity might diverge into several sub-species as a result, so how would this affect our modern society.

PS: try to be realistic. This isn't set in 40k, this is set in reality, so differing religions, cultural views and such will have to be taken into consideration.

Some additional info:

Trans-Human technologies in question: cybernetics and genetic modification.

How they function: think cyborgs and androids from Ghost in the Shell, and augments from Star Trek/Coordinators from Gundam Seed.

How much they cost/how common are they: cybernetics would be relatively cheap and commonplace though at first they'll be quite expensive and will steadily just get cheaper and more commonplace. Genetic modification will always remain expensive.

Ok, some good responses to the OP so far, and a fair splattering of comments from the peanut gallery.

I think the first thing we need to do is separate fact or plausible gaols from fantasy. The OP writes off 40K, but really should also be writing off Gundam Seed and Ghost in the Shell will take a long time coming.

Some starters.

1. Human equivalent AI will be more difficult to create than most like to hope.
The human brain is the most complex device in the known universe and it works on a level multiple orders of magnitude more advanced than any computer. Even with our computer tech running as fast as it can there is a vast gulf between a computer and a human brain.
What we can do are build expert systems that within their own data set can mimic human responses, but they are constantly referring to preset instructions not 'thinking' for themselves.

2. The biggest problem for cyberware is tissue rejection.
We haven't cracked that yet, if we do then cybernetics will finally become possible. We have just about everything else including neural interface.
However conquering tissue rejection is on the horizon in the same way as fusion power is, the more we approach the more the horizon recedes.

3. Look to nanotech for (eventual) solutions.
Nanotech has the advantage that it can operate on a cellular level, individual nanotech machines can react to the body's defences individually and thus bypasses tissue rejection. This is because nanotech doesnt replace biological components as much as repair them. Given sufficiant programming a collection of nanites could be made to seek out and target cancer cells for instance, or repair damaged cells on an case by case basis. If we get this technology up and running, and sadly that remains an if any illness we can program against can be cured excepting those illnesses that work too quickly for the nanites to keep up or massive trauma.

4. Stem cell research can be uncomfortabhly viable.
Much of it was banned fairly rapidly without adequate public illustration as to why. It difficult not to get at least slightly tin foil at that point and it is not unreasonable to speculate what is the beef with this technology, and who might still be developing it.
However all responces should be taken with a huge grain of salt as many are given to be highly sensationalised without offering any guarantee that they are true. This includes and is not limited to rumours of human-animal hybrids, bioweapons and the like.
One of the concerns over human stem cell research is that it requires a fertilised human egg. While most nations now have legal delimiters as to when a foetus becomes a human and has rights the lines get blurred when one considers human embryos grown specifically in order to harvest for stem cells.

Can we expect advances in the near future?

1. Prosthetics improvements.
Despite my aforementioned scepticism I certainly think so. Prosthectics has advanced by leaps and bounds, quite literally so with new 'athletic' prosthetics. Also recently developed as mechanical eyes, limited neural interface and other promises. However they reamin crude and the reason they do so is because interface between organic and machine components must be kept simple and lean to avoid infection or rejection.
Meanwhile western values towards medical care will continue to fuel development of improved prosthetics, the human interface might be slow to develop but the complexity or advancement of the devices themselves is not so hindered. Many of the advances are improvements of design or materials rather than added 'features' or complexity.



As an example the artificial limbs pictures above are simple in their construction, effectively curved springs and wooden laminiate equivalents (composite bow comes to mind) rather than intricate electrically powered limbs (though they also now exist), technically if someone had thought of it limbs of this type could have been fitted for Cap'n Peg centuries ago, we had curved springs then.
Yes these sprung legs use modern laminates an polymers not available in the 18th century but the analogy holds true, sometimes a solution required to unlock an advance need not come from any form of cutting edge science but from mundane design inspiration.

2. Rejuvenation technology.
Perhaps the most exciting recent development. Human aging has long been an issue, medieval wizards and alchemists were reported to seek two grreat goals, the philosophers stone which turns lead into gold and the philosophers elixir which makes man immortal. Relevance of this it shows what two of our goals as a species are, long life and wealth.
So it beggars the question of what happens if one of our major 'dreams suddenly becomes practically achievable?
There have been hints that recent research has extended the lifespan of some mammals by a considerable margin:
http://www.mprize.org/
Are we closer to a breakthrough in human longevity? If yes what will happen to the technology? Would it be made artificially expensive to limit overpopulation or maximise profit? Would it be kept secret to prevent solcial unrest?

Some technologies are great for the individual but apocalyptic for the species. earth ias alrerady groaning with the burden of humans already on it, seven billion and counting. Wghat would happen if human life expectancy was raised to over a hundred, or over two hundrted as some speculate? And what will become of those who have no access to such medication?

3. The Genetic have and have-nots.
Some here have expressed an opinion that transhumanism should be left until we are more equal.
I admire the sentiment but think it heavily and unrealistically optimistic. We are not equal and most efforts to achieve equality normally refer to replacing one ruling eleite with another, also economic politicas requires poverty indirectly in order top create wealth, let alone gain power.
I think that as any transhuman technologies emerge they will widen the social gap, not narrow it. Some 'improvements likely will be available only to those who can afford it. Any procedure that requires frequent medication, or complex materials or expert medical care will be restricted to an elite portion of the human population whether we want it that was or not due to the complete inability to provide advanced medical care for the entire human population unless asaid population was greatly reduced and carefully managed.
If advances proliferate they will cement a ruling elite, especially if the advances improve physical or mental strengths mirrored to uneven social or economic opportunity. This will inevitably lead to unrest or a rewiring of the social system requlting in some form of genetic feudalism as a chosen few gain augmentations that the rest have no material, political or economic access to.

I can already see cybernetic arms capable of throwing more than ten punches a minute being banned in California and New York. For the children.

 SOFDC wrote:
I can already see cybernetic arms capable of throwing more than ten punches a minute being banned in California and New York. For the children.

Ohh, an assault arm?? Pre-emptively ban all "assault cybernetic arms", or at the very least, a 5 punch max capacity

Its worth considering that anabolic steroids became a controlled substance in the US, in large part, because they artificially enhance physical performance.

 dogma wrote:
Its worth considering that anabolic steroids became a controlled substance in the US, in large part, because they artificially enhance physical performance.

These steroids are restricted because of:

a) Their prohibition for use in competitive sport outside of bodybuilding.
b) The possibility of exploded muscles and other health consequences.

One can still get anabolic steroids in the US and elsewhere, their application in professional bodybuilding is legal if applied at the correct dosages. They are available on open prescription. They are also used in veterinary medicine in small amounts, mainly to give animals with failing health that are too weak to eat properly a chance to recover long enough in ingest food. Checking in Wiki I find that there are also numerous uses in human medicine.

Thus two points come to mind, some medicinal products are restricted due to both fairness and for health reasons. However other substances are permitted, The IOC only passes a list of banned substances, not those permitted and those not specifically listed are permissible. In general performance enhancers that do not hamper long term health or performance are generally permitted, and there is a concensus that those atheletes who use and then come off certain performance enhancing drugs never match their performance from before they started taking the drugs, Ben Johnson is a highlighted case of this, though his later poor performance may well have been due to his tainted reputation than any 'climbdown'.

Furthermore steroid use is also frowned upon in the military, even where maintaining a physical peak is also important and 'fairness' is not a consideration. So it is fair to assume that some health consequences are considered to outweigh the performance enhancement benefits gained.

 Orlanth wrote:


1. Human equivalent AI will be more difficult to create than most like to hope.
The human brain is the most complex device in the known universe and it works on a level multiple orders of magnitude more advanced than any computer.

Wrong. The processing speed of any computing device, brains included, is scalable on the Sentience Quotient scale, from -70 (a 'brain the size of the universe with only one processor, having processed only one bit of data since the beginning of time) to +50 (the quantum limit). A human brain clocks at +13. Most animals clock between 8 and 12. IBM Watson, the last true-language supercomputer (it won Jeopardy! in 2012) clocks at +12. There is no significant difference in processing power between our current level of technology, and what our brain acheives. What is left for us to figure out is the incredible diversity of neural modules.

Also, we'll have a much easier job than Nature, since we do not have to account for developpment. The main reason why our visual cortex is (relatively) huge and (relatively) incredibly complex, is because our brains don't know (and cannot know) the simplest of variable : the distance between our two eyes.

Now, as for what I'd like to be developped :

1. Programmable sexual stimulation upon completion of specific task. I know, you think "lol, what a perv loser", but that would solve every procrastination issue ever. I know the spinal implant for women already exist, the complicated thing would be to get the program to recognize the completion of complex tasks. It would, incidentally, also launch the human race in a new era of decadence, but hey, it's still a classy way to kick the ant hill.

2. This. So much this.


3. Any accessible external memory medium would make my life about a billion time easier.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:


3. Any accessible external memory medium would make my life about a billion time easier.

Between this and my earlier post regarding neural augmentations, how would the educational system cope? After all, if certain students possess neural augmentations, wouldn't that be considered as an unfair advantage?