Interesting remark. From such POV, we could suspect that the more proactive LII versions (LII-Ne; or maybe C/D LII) would have an higher probability of being pro-h+, whereas the opposite would be true for harmonizing variants (enhaced Si or Ni) .
Which itself is not a bad idea, imo. The problem was that technically he did not want just augmented humans in abstract, but superhumans with a very specific purpose in mind....I know I'm pulling a Godwin's law, but Hit-ler was a transhumanist by some standards. He wanted to use eugenics to create a race of superhumans, no?
I mean if you want to improve yourself by engineering or genetics, that's your business, and I think you should be free to do it. But if you want certain characteristics for dominating others, then it's also people's business. Of course it could be argued that everything affects sooner or later everybody, but unless we support dictatorships, that's a risk we must accept. The same could be said about drugs, for example. I personally have never consumed (except caffeine, if you want to include it) but I think people should be free to have the choice.
By the way, morality is an inherently subjective topic, so...
Uhm. Your reasoning seemed very LIIish (I'm not implying you're). You're dealing with Nature in a sort of Gaia fashion, that is, almost as a self-aware entity (at least in a superficial level), or self-behaving entity. Like if it has an internally stablished purpose and "knows" how to do for achieving it. Not that this is a bad thing, just that it seems to be a common way many LIIs see Nature. DarkAngelFireWolf69 mentioned ecosystems as a very INTj idea, and I also think Lynn Margulis was LII (see my answer to mfckr). Although probably it was the way you've expressed it, more that what you're actually thinking.Tampering with the genetic code or transplanting the human mind into a electronic vehicle is not something I consider doing lightly. Man is infected with a sort of hubris. He thinks that he can easily outsmart nature, but nature's systems of checks and balances often throw his "progress" right back in his face (The pill allowed for free love, then the AIDS crisis, man conquered the space vacuum, then Apollo 13, cities which run on oil are utopias which provide refuge from nature...which are quickly running out of resources and are destroying the ozone which keeps us all alive...and on and on and on. I agree with Agent Smith, human beings are a disease. As Joe Rogan astutely pointed out, if you look at human colonies from an airplane, they look like bacterial infections. The superorganism we call the earth should have an inclination to destroy a species which has outstripped its natural predators and is grossly overpopulating). So yeah, basically, I'm not sure that I would trust a handful of scientists to be able to create a better machine than the one nature has been tinkering with for millions of years. If you somehow managed to transplant my brainwaves or whatever into a computer, I know one repercussion is that I'd never be able to go near magnets again, for fear of them accidentally wiping me out.That's not to say I would begrudge them for trying. Fuck nature, she's a bitch. Hell yes we should at least make a sporting go of trying to subjugate her.
I disagree with such way of interpreting the issue, and particularly the concept of life. I do not like to go excessively offtopic in my own threads, so I'm not going to argue against it, the same way I've not argued against other opinions which has been expressed; my goal is collecting data for stablishing a potential correlation. Although participants are welcome to discuss as much as they want of course.
My answer to this would require a very long argument combining Physics, Chemistry & Biology. I will only point that I think you're wrong (or could be wrong, in case I'm misinterpreting you) basically because life is not equilibrium as people usually think, but the opposite. All life is, in certain way, a disease, as it can only prosper by "destruction". So what is happening with humans was somehow inevitable (also quoting Agent Smith). Well, technically more than "destruction", life is a catalyst of it.
If you're particularly intersted in discussing this topic, I would participate in a proper thread.
There are ways of achieving electromagnetic shielding. Superconductors are in fact completely opaque to magnetic fields.
That's the reason we should colonize Mars asap. By the way, Venus is closer and has a size almost identical to Earth (no low gravity problem), something many people do not knowFrom my viewpoint, I think the current global hegemony will collapse. (Even if it's a "soft" collapse like what happened to the British Empire.) Civilizations seem to have an apoptosis just like germs and men. Not even Rome lived forever. After that, I'm not sure where will be technologically, but with fundamental Islam conquering the globe, and with ego effacing mandated by the still traditionally Confucian influenced emerging superpower China, it may well be another Dark Ages. To use some of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's terms, I think the TV, the automobile, and the A/C are robust enough to stick around, but maybe not things so ornate and fragile as the smartphone and the personal laptop. To be honest, I'm hedging my bets that we will destroy the planet from either overpopulation, atmosphere destruction or nuclear fallout before we get android bodies or escape to the stars...but this is all just speculation, of course.. It's just easier to warm up when the environment is cold, than to cool down when it's too hot. But there are potential solutions.
it seems we agree, then.In the same breath as all these doubts, though , you'll hardly meet a more dyed-in-the-wool lover of the free market then me. So yeah, if the people want transhuman mods, whatever they may be, I say let 'em have it. And if the Singularity comes in my lifetime, and it's between that and dying, I'll choose the computer download in a heartbeat. And I also write this in the middle of a weightlifting cycle on quote unquote designer steroids, partially because I felt I got dealt a shit genetic hand as an ectomorph with wrists so thin I can wrap my middle finger and my thumb around them...so, in some sense, since I'm exploiting pharmaceutical chemistry and all, you might call me a "transhuman" already...![]()
Nono. Maybe I've not expressed myself properly.POSTSCRIPT: Why are ILIs the exception? That's out of left field...wouldn't LIEs be outliers too, then, with only slightly altered function order? And this totally sets aside the quagmire you've gotten us in by suggesting not even functional layouts, mind, but Keirsey's clubs as determining ideological leanings...I mean, I'm totally on board with the Celebritytypes' reasoning of Ben Stein, an anti-evolution advocate, as being an INTP/LII, based on the way in which he creates arguments...but I digress...
For your reading pleasure: http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2...stein-is-intp/
First to all, I was not considering Keirsey's clubs (does Keirsey fits as jungian typology, by the way?) but Socionics clubs. That is, the collection of strongest functions. And definitely I was not implying that clubs are the single (or even main) source of ideological views. I was not stating it from a true ideological POV, but more in the line of personal goals, which fits in Soc-clubs.
As we know, members of each club share goals, professional inclinations, hobbies, etc, (at least in a superficial way), because with the same strengths, they tend to focus in the same things and they're (more or less) equally capable .
About LIE vs ILI, well the question is simple. LIE is more an achiever & pragmatical thinker, so any skill, resource, etc which could provide personal improvement and advantages against competitors, has high potential for being welcomed. ILIs are much more deep thinkers. This, combined with their pessimistic nature, makes them more inclined to focus in the potential risks of human modifications.



Reply With Quote