What do we do with the masses?
Thu, Jul 10, 2008
It's quite a plausible argument to say that we are infact living in an age of master/slave existence, as I propose that people who don't even question their existence are slaves to a system with little purpose other than to stimulate an economy (for example) and play their part in allowing those who do
on issues outside of themselves to evolve beyond them (the lesser thinking individual).
Similar to Sjef I'd like to tackle the questions put forward already:
What do we do with the weak? Or the strong for that matter, in their personal endeavors outside and beyond the common good?
Appoint a vastly superior force or entity to govern all from behind the scene.
Cough the 5 Jew bankers.
What will the weak do to the strong if they are excluded from upgrades?
Maybe rally together and attempt strength in numbers, or evolve in a different direction. Survival of the fittest.
What will the weak do if they are given upgrades?
I can imagine upgrades being so cheap that everyone has them, aka Ghost in the Shell, where people have their brains encased in 'shells' (within their heads) so they can perform alongside machines with synergy.
Therefore it is the norm to have computer UI's integrated into us, yet it is the wealthy who can afford to maintain and adopt new technology as it comes out, where the poor are stuck with the aging systems and find themselves unable to experience new features.
What is to stop an individual/group from becoming so powerful they can achieve their goal of world domination via manipulation, control or physical dominance once people have computer chips in their brains or they have strength/invincibility super powers?
Nothing, so some controlled organisation will need ot have state of the art equipment and training to exceed anyone else.
Will human 2.0 be a superior being? Racism/Bigotry with scientific support sounds terribly dangerous to me...
Human 2.0 will just be another step in our evolution, where human 3.0 is vastly superior and views 2.0 to be very primitive.
Who should make these decisions? And who will?
Democracy, while keeping a loose balance, is not always the best and direct course of choice for dealing with sensitive matters. Reason balanced with a criteria that best serves humanity could be decided upon by more intelligent but controlled machines. Our fusion with machines will blur the distinction between mankind and machine, hence new systems of belief and purpose will
If life is in essence entirely without objective purpose - what's the point?
I don't believe there is a purpose for mankind that we aren't currently fulfilling. To not explore all possibilities we create is denying our purpose.
If our desire for something more is human in nature, won't we possibly kill this and then negate the entire premise of upgrading?
If it is our desire to do something, then we will do it. No matter which way we go, it is our purpose to go there regardless of the alternatives.
When mankind can truly colonize space in all its vastness we will have the opportunity to explore multiple branches of evolution in singularity from one another.