/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3141760]

What's /lit/'s opinion on transhumanism?

I'm working on a paper on why it's negatively portrayed in literature so often. Suggestions? Advice?

[Anonymous No.3141783]

>>3141760
Because the end of the humanist project is inherently anti-humanist, and because transhumanism attempts to transform the abject figure of capitalism: the worker the robot into an over man.

[Anonymous No.3143192]

>>3141760
It is portrayed negatively because it is a naive pipe-dream endorsed by autistic sociopaths who like genre-fiction.

[Anonymous No.3143201]

>>3143192
Not all transhumanism implies a singularity utopia kind of thing.

I'm all for body augmentation, for example. This is starting to get more and more possible as well. As far as that goes, I'm a transhumanist. So are post people when you think about it. Look at the technology we use. You're sitting behind a machine that let's you communicate instantly with people all over the world and that provides near infinite information. You are augmented.

[Anonymous No.3143204]

>>3143201
*most people

[Anonymous No.3143210]

>>3143201
watch this movie and redo your thinking

[Anonymous No.3143209]

>>3143192
pretty much

[Anonymous No.3143242]

I support the idea but dont think it will happen in the next 20 years like othera tend to believe. I view body and brain augmentation to be the next evolutionary step after having reached the most advanced form of the already advanced mammalian brain.

[Anonymous No.3143248]

ITT: masturbating materialists who have not used all of themselves

[Anonymous No.3143267]

>>3143201

That is not trans-human, that is human. Tools are part of how we interact with and conceptionalize the world, and they always have been, as long as we have been humans.

[Anonymous No.3143280]

>>3141760
A non-movement, scam, at best a new age religion. Has a high proselytisation ratio of retards that understand neither consensus science nor politics.

[Anonymous No.3143291]

>why it's negatively portrayed in literature so often

Because monsters have more appeal than angels. Murder, rape, pain, torture all sell incredibly well, while things that advance and benefit are boring.

[Anonymous No.3143293]

>>3143280
What are your views on the globally connected internet theory?
"A non-movement, scam, at best a new age religion. Has a high proselytisation ratio of retards that understand neither consensus science nor politics."
-Anon 1952

[Anonymous No.3143299]

>>3143291
>implying immortality helps society

[Anonymous No.3143320]

>>3143299
No. I was implying that the negative portrayal is because negative portrayals sell better.

As it happens, you could be right. An immortal, who invested a lot of time to learning, could be highly beneficial. Children are dumb, grow up and begin to learn, then die. An immortal could carry on learning and wouldn't have to go through the tedious process of teaching the children everything he knew before he died in the hope that they could continue. 500 years of study by a small select group of academic immortals would be incredible.

[Anonymous No.3143323]

>>3143293
oh wow, what a fucking cliche 1987 rebuttal

No, science fiction is not reality. For every wish made in the past that came true there are countless ones that didn't.

Keep being scammed though. Those pseudo-scientist con-artists really need more money from their bullshit one-trick-pony books.

It's not like we have consensus science. We need wizards! With their magix!

[Anonymous No.3143330]

>>3143320
They would eventually be killed by astronomical forces (big crunch, black hole, death of the Sun, etc.) anyway.

[Anonymous No.3143334]

>>3143323
What the fuck are you blithering about, kid? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Please stop posting.

[Anonymous No.3143341]

>>3143330
Yes, our sun will swell to a size that engulfs our planet, the andromeda galaxy is on a collision path with ours, it's estimated that the final epoch of the universe will end in a sea of black holes, but in the billions of years between now and then, we might be able to find a way of preserving ourselves.

[Anonymous No.3143356]

>>3143334
No, sorry 'kid', I absolutely know what I am talking about. Fuck right off.

[Anonymous No.3143366]

>>3143356
No, really you don't. and I told you to stop posting.

[Anonymous No.3143370]

>>3143366
son you reached the new record of mad
>>>/b/
there you go

[Anonymous No.3143391]

It's our inevitable, good or bad, future. There is no such thing as humanity, and there never was. We constantly re-define ourselves to fit whatever the future presents us, this never ending cycle will continue past transhumanism as well.

[Anonymous No.3143399]

>>3143323

Including countless of things we never imagined to wish for that came true.

[Anonymous No.3143424]

>>3143399
Yes, so what?
You don't work things out by day-dreaming cool science fiction stuff but by boring consensus science. You don't need robot-cults for that.

[Anonymous No.3143425]

Most interesting portrayal of transhumanism in science fiction are the Conjoiners in Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space, I guess specifically because they're not portrayed negatively.

You could talk about how they're sort of a hive mind but not to the extent that their personalities are completely wiped out, which is why they're so likeable as a group.

[Anonymous No.3143481]

>>3143192
>>3143209

Please die in a fire

[Anonymous No.3143483]

>I'm working on a paper on why it's negatively portrayed in literature so often

Because conflict creates an easily understood narrative and the easiest way to create conflict in sci-fi is to take anything which could happen in the future and then imagining the worst possible scenario in which these can be used and then creating a narrative out of those.

We did the same thing with robots and computers until we realized we have about as much as fear from these things as we have from toasters.

[Anonymous No.3143484]

>>3143481
look kids, and here is everyone's favourite libtard sociopathic specimen

it really thinks it will live forever in a shiny, robot body and have super-sexy-sex for eternity

[Anonymous No.3143487]

>>3141760
It's a garbage fantasy that originates with repressed self-loathing.

[Anonymous No.3143492]

>>3143487

You cannot stop us. You cannot stop the future.

[Anonymous No.3143499]

>>3143248
speak, prophet.

[Anonymous No.3143513]

>>3141783

wow that's a fantastic insight. i always felt extremely hostile to these ideas but couldn't articulate it. thanks.

[Anonymous No.3143520]

>>3143492
Go to bed Diaz.

[Anonymous No.3143522]

>>3141783

also, is this anti-humanism the same as foucalt's? i suspect not, but how can we differentiate them?

[Anonymous No.3143525]

>>3143424
>You don't work things out by day-dreaming cool science fiction stuff, but by boring consensus science.

Yes, actually, you do. That's exactly where shit comes from. Daydreamers like Henry Ford who sat around thinking about transport, or Tim Berners Lee imagining some kind of universal code to join terminals. It's not done by a team of engineers trying to expand boolean expressions as far as they can, it's done by daydreamers trying to imagine ways of capturing the boolean actions into grids of silicone.

You imagine the future than drag the present forward to meet it. If you knew half of what was going on in postgraduate labs at the moment you would be dumb-struck. And it's not by kids who only scrawl differential calculus on blackboards, it's done by kids with a visionary Idea who work tirelessly to find of way of making it happen. They daydream always comes first.

[Anonymous No.3143532]

>>3143299

Immortality is only bad for genetic evolution. Human society is mostly memetic.

[Anonymous No.3143538]

>>3141760
aw, fuck it, here you go OP:
amormundi.blogspot dot com

Dozens of Dale Carrico's high quality criticism of transhmanism and transhumanists. Start with the blogposts in the bar.

Thank me later and don' you fucking dare plagiarise his shit without permission.

[Anonymous No.3143551]

>>3143525
Ideas in our complex world are worth jack shit. It's the process of consensus science supported by politics and capital that are working out what is viable and how to realistically achieve it.

Don't want to seem harsh but you have a romantic, libtardian view that's good only for wet dreaming about technology-induced power trips but not about achieving anything in real world.

[Anonymous No.3143556]

>>3143551
>Ideas in our complex world are worth jack shit.
cmon bro.

[Anonymous No.3143561]

>>3143556
Yes I mean it. Problems of todays world are problems of enormous complexity. They require effort and work of countless agents, all of them basing their work on the knowledge of those before them. Distinguishing undemocratically elected figurehead (like moronic, antisemitic, paranoidal idiot Ford) and giving him full credit for 'coming up' with stuff is fucking offensive - and coincidentally something your typical libtard does all the time.

[Anonymous No.3143562]

>>3143513
No worries.

>>3143522
Trans-humanism is a fantasy of the professional-managerial class and labour aristocracy, used to explain their place in capitalist production as the beneficiaries of imperialism. Capitalism doesn't really care about it, except to the extent that as another bourgeois ideology it inculcates false consciousness in the working class.

Regarding Foucault, bourgeois ideologists genuinely believe him to be a useful tool to actively inform their repression of the proletariat.

Trans-humanism is a ruse, Foucault's ideology is actively informing a "repressive episteme" much like fascism as a "vitalism." Except fascism was sincere, and Foucaultian politics are ironic. First as tragedy, then as farce.

[Anonymous No.3143568]

>>3143551
>>3143561

>libtard

I will never understand this American insult

[Anonymous No.3143581]

>>3143568
look up libertarianism
that's one of the first quirks of murkkan culture I encountered while learning about contemporary USA and general economic theory while at university. Took me fucking ages, I am sad to reveal, to realise it's basically a mixture of scam (by beneficiaries) and religion (for suckers).

[Anonymous No.3143583]

>>3143551
>It's the process of consensus science supported by politics and capital that are working out what is viable and how to realistically achieve it.
You have it backwards. Half the time progress is made on commission (by the idea of someone who lacks the talent, but has the capital) other times it's done by the people with the idea in the first place. Inventors are primarily idea guys; people like Dyson who invent in their sheds then unleash their product upon the world. You are getting confused by the amount of people who work in labs. Yes it takes people to make a realisation possible, but they are usually following the 'daydreams' of someone.

You are right about politics playing a role though: A team of enthusiastic scientists in Canada decided to find a cure for cancer. Last year they succeeded and came up with 'Dichloroacetic acid (C2H2Cl2O2)' which reversed the mitochondrial growth of every kind of cancer, both in rats and in human tissue. They presented their new wonder drug to every pharmaceutical company in the US and Canada, and they all rejected it as the molecule can't be patented and there is more profit in people having cancer. This seems awful, but pharm companies are private enterprises, so their isn't much you can do.

>you have a romantic, libtardian view that's good only for wet dreaming about technology-induced power trips but not about achieving anything in real world.
You are right, sir. I will return my evil STEM MSc, and forget any notion of my PHD. Some irrational technophobic on 4chan obviously understands how to "achieve anything in real world."

[Anonymous No.3143612]

>>3143583
Your credentials are irrelevant. If by technophobic you mean rejecting non-consensus science transhumanism daydreaming then yeah, I might be.There is a long way from finding medicament to something (even as relevant as cancer) to transhumanist science-fiction dreams coming true. You actually enforce my argument. Scientific research is a result of hard work of scientific community paid by capital in a politised environment with multiple stakeholders.

You even mention in your post that coming up with results is not having an AHA! moment in your bathtub but a long and complex process of 'doing science'.

[Anonymous No.3143638]

>>3143562

>Trans-humanism is a fantasy of the professional-managerial class and labour aristocracy, used to explain their place in capitalist production as the beneficiaries of imperialism. Capitalism doesn't really care about it, except to the extent that as another bourgeois ideology it inculcates false consciousness in the working class.

fantastic, thanks.

>Regarding Foucault, bourgeois ideologists genuinely believe him to be a useful tool to actively inform their repression of the proletariat.

Trans-humanism is a ruse, Foucault's ideology is actively informing a "repressive episteme" much like fascism as a "vitalism." Except fascism was sincere, and Foucaultian politics are ironic. First as tragedy, then as farce.

but this i can't agree with. what i meant to imply was that this technological anti-humanism was oppressive while foucault's anti-humanism was liberatory, but on what basis?

(forgive me for going to wiki but it was concise:)

>Foucault challenged the foundational aspects of Enlightenment humanism, as well as their strategic implications, arguing that they either produced counter-emancipatory results directly, or matched increased 'freedom' with increased and disciplinary normatization.

>His anti-humanist scepticism extended to attempts to ground theory in human feeling, as much as in human reason, maintaining that both were historically contingent constructs, rather than the universals humanism maintained.

so foucault's rejection of humanism wasn't at the behest of productivity, efficiency, immortality, etc. (i.e. alienation), but came from a desire to open up the potential for an un-alienated human capacity and self-understanding.

i think the comparison to fascism is misguided. his politics is actually quite sincere in his later work and he sees himself continuing the tradition of the frankfurt school.

[Anonymous No.3143641]

>>3143562

>Trans-humanism is a fantasy of the professional-managerial class and labour aristocracy, used to explain their place in capitalist production as the beneficiaries of imperialism. Capitalism doesn't really care about it, except to the extent that as another bourgeois ideology it inculcates false consciousness in the working class.

fantastic, thanks.

>Regarding Foucault, bourgeois ideologists genuinely believe him to be a useful tool to actively inform their repression of the proletariat. Trans-humanism is a ruse, Foucault's ideology is actively informing a "repressive episteme" much like fascism as a "vitalism." Except fascism was sincere, and Foucaultian politics are ironic. First as tragedy, then as farce.

but this i can't agree with. what i meant to imply was that this technological anti-humanism was oppressive while foucault's anti-humanism was liberatory, but on what basis?

(forgive me for going to wiki but it was concise:)

>Foucault challenged the foundational aspects of Enlightenment humanism, as well as their strategic implications, arguing that they either produced counter-emancipatory results directly, or matched increased 'freedom' with increased and disciplinary normatization.

>His anti-humanist scepticism extended to attempts to ground theory in human feeling, as much as in human reason, maintaining that both were historically contingent constructs, rather than the universals humanism maintained.

so foucault's rejection of humanism wasn't at the behest of productivity, efficiency, immortality, etc. (i.e. alienation), but came from a desire to open up the potential for an un-alienated human capacity and self-understanding.

i think the comparison to fascism is misguided. his politics is actually quite sincere in his later work and he sees himself continuing the tradition of the frankfurt school.

[Anonymous No.3143654]

>>3143612
>There is a long way from finding medicamen[...] to transhumanist science-fiction dreams coming true.
So people with prosthetic limbs don't exist? Paraplegics who can control a computer by blinking, pic related who reads emails via an array of lasers beamed into his eye? We don't have artificial muscle tissue and organs? There isn't a woman in Germany with a new jaw grown in a petri dish? We don't have subdermal grafts capable of stopping a bullet? The human nervous system can't already interact with electronic data packets? Feel free to keep your blinkers on, the rest of the world will advance around you.

>is not having an AHA! moment in your bathtub but a long and complex process of 'doing science'.
It's called a 'eureka moment', and yes it is usually the cause. Obviously it's followed by a long period of 'doing science' though.

[Anonymous No.3143660]

>>3143641
>so foucault's rejection of humanism wasn't at the behest of productivity, efficiency, immortality, etc. (i.e. alienation), but came from a desire to open up the potential for an un-alienated human capacity and self-understanding.

Authorial fallacy? Excuse me while I go deal with Human Resources Managements' attempt to audit my work culture and decompose my total labour into productive and non-productive components and then control my execution and force me to control myself. The Panopticon wasn't an analysis of hitherto existing society—it was a programme for the assassination of proletarian subjectivity.

>i think the comparison to fascism is misguided. his politics is actually quite sincere in his later work and he sees himself continuing the tradition of the frankfurt school.

The politics implicit in his theory involve running around like a headless chook from one repressive episteme to the next. Liberation is impossible in Foucault, the only politics possible is repression.

[Anonymous No.3143657]

>>3143641
If you think Foucault is liberatory I feel bad for you son, there are 99 discursive epistemes of repression, but for liberation there's none.

>>Foucault challenged the foundational aspects of Enlightenment humanism, as well as their strategic implications, arguing that they either produced counter-emancipatory results directly, or matched increased 'freedom' with increased and disciplinary normatization.

Foucault challenged them, sure, but he didn't demonstrate dick. I don't know about you, but where I live it is legal for dudes to fuck dudes and this is as a direct result of Capitalism's progressive function in history. Similarly with the certainty of women as objects of valorisation in the forced 2 income household and the production of independent female subjectivity in the working class. Marx's explanations that freedoms become fetters, but fetters are weapons is much more apt.

>>His anti-humanist scepticism extended to attempts to ground theory in human feeling, as much as in human reason, maintaining that both were historically contingent constructs, rather than the universals humanism maintained.

This doesn't limit the universality of the contingent system within the contingency it is adapted to. Historical materialism is adapted to any society where material reproduction of speaking beings exists. That's a pretty fucking huge contingent realm.

[Anonymous No.3143693]

>>3143654
yeah we have a problem with semantics

You must realise that humans are already transhuman in a sense - since every tool ever devised is a form of augmentation, is a prosthetic. Starting with rock or fire, through clothes, to glasses and prosthetic limbsand what have you.

Transhumanists in a sense the OP meant are cranks that devised an artificial point in 'technological development' (lel), usually 20 years in the future (double lel) that is, they say, a kind of singularity, a supa-breakthrough - "yep brain in a jar, TEH TRANSUMANIST FUTURE IS HERE!"

In this sense all homo-sapiens (along with many other species: primates, crows, parrots etc.) are transhuman (transanimal?) and the word becomes meaningless.

[Anonymous No.3143701]

>>3143693

[Anonymous No.3143707]

>>3143693
All OP said was "What's /lit/'s opinion on transhumanism?" He never stated anything about the 'kurzwelian singularity'; that's not just the biological realm, it's pretty much everything- total atomic control over reality. Transhumanism is just breaking out of our biological shackles through technological development.

[Anonymous No.3143727]

>>3143707
Why muddy the water, dude. What else do you think OP had in mind? Since he didn't specify I am pretty sure he meant the most mainstream (because advertised) face of transhumanism: of kurzweil/goertzel/yudkovsky type.

There is no 'biological shackles' to be broken out of. Consensus science is addressing the problems of health and well-being. Why do we need the cranks, again?

[Anonymous No.3143729]

>>3143657

>Foucault challenged them, sure, but he didn't demonstrate dick. I don't know about you, but where I live it is legal for dudes to fuck dudes and this is as a direct result of Capitalism's progressive function in history. Similarly with the certainty of women as objects of valorisation in the forced 2 income household and the production of independent female subjectivity in the working class. Marx's explanations that freedoms become fetters, but fetters are weapons is much more apt.

check your cis privilege

>This doesn't limit the universality of the contingent system within the contingency it is adapted to... That's a pretty fucking huge contingent realm.

yes you make a good point, but its a linguistic tiff. in that quote "universal" means essential/unchangeable, but the way you use it you mean "dominant", "hegemonic", "unquestioned" etc. so you imply there is no universality in the first sense, only the latter.

foucualt and marx were in agreement here. understand concepts/phenomena as constructed, therefore deconstruct them and reconstruct something better.

the point is that once something is revealed as unessential/the product of historical construction, it can then be changed. both marx and foucualt have tools to achieve this.

>>3143660

no it was actually a guide on how to destroy it. its weird how marxists are fooled by the way he describes things, as if he were supporting them just because he doesn't use the polemic language of moral disgust.

>The politics implicit in his theory involve running around like a headless chook from one repressive episteme to the next. Liberation is impossible in Foucault, the only politics possible is repression.

down with the big bad State then hey? dw about my office, my lecture hall, my community, or any of the real places and phenomena that impact my life.

[Anonymous No.3143748]

>>3143727
The most mainstream idea of transhumanism is an amalgamation of biology and technology. If OP wanted to know about the technological singularity he would have asked about that, not transhumanism.

>There is no 'biological shackles' to be broken out of.
>Consensus science is addressing the problems of health and well-being.
So "problems of health and well-being" aren't shackles; ageing, blindness, appallingly inefficient biological functions, mental deficiencies, diseases, aren't 'shackles.' Even without your blessing way we will continue to break free of them.

[Anonymous No.3143751]

>>3143729
>check your cis privilege
Eat a bag full of identity politics dicks.

>in that quote "universal" means essential/unchangeable, but the way you use it you mean "dominant", "hegemonic", "unquestioned" etc. so you imply there is no universality in the first sense, only the latter.

Speaking things using tools socially is a pretty fucking "universal" domain. Show me non speaking consciouses, or non social speakers, or non productive thinking speakers. Holy shit—is that a defence of humanism's universality on the basis of its contingent domain being consciousness? FUCK IT IS LIKE I'VE READ KANT.

>>3143729
I'm glad that you accepted by failure to challenge the critique that Foucault has been instrumentalised as the repressive politics of contemporary capitalism.

>office, my lecture hall, my community…
It is like half of Marxism never existed to you, isn't it? I'll just leave the Johnson-Forest tendency here as a guide to reading. Foucault's politics are idealist, he puts discourses before the relations of social being—and don't try to slip side ways out of this discourses are ways of knowing. The social reality of your lecture hall is that you're there to produce, and, if your threat to the reproduction of value is sufficiently great you will be shot in it.

[Anonymous No.3143752]

>>3143729

"The State" as the coextentuous repressive class function and bourgeois departmental apparatus in the fantasy of Leninism has nothing to do with this. As demonstrated in Italy or Haliburton, Capital is quite happy to employ freelancers. At the end of the day it is the repressive function, for everything else there's hegemony and workplace class struggle.

Foucault can't see small progresses and demands an annihilation of a mode of being he sees as being uncontested if transformed until now. Marx can (and does) point to immanent and actual moments of prior classlessness. What is the German Peasants War except Engels' exercise in viewing the prefiguration of a liberated peasantry?

[Anonymous No.3143757]

i'd love to stay boys and laugh at your dogmas but i have to study, i.e. discipline and punish myself

i'll be around kthnxbi

[Anonymous No.3143771]

>>3143192
>naive pipe-dream
I disagree.

[Anonymous No.3143775]

>>3143242
>having reached the most advanced form of the already advanced mammalian brain.
I don't think we have.

[Anonymous No.3143777]

>>3143748
>So "problems of health and well-being" aren't shackles; ageing, blindness, appallingly inefficient biological functions, mental deficiencies, diseases, aren't 'shackles.' Even without your blessing way we will continue to break free of them.
>breaking out of shackles
Breaking out is something definitive. That implies there is a point (some kind of singularity?) where the process ends and a human, suposedly, achieves transhumanism(?). That is completely ridiculous as I outlined in my previous post:
>>3143727
because humans and other animals improve their conditions through prostetics (any kind of tools) since like forever.
If that's not what you meant you chose a poor metaphor and it's not my fault.

For that, we haven't ever needed transhumanism and we don't need it now. Or if you are playing just semantics games and calling the process of human enterprise 'transhumanism', then suit yourself, but that makes this discussion pointless.

[Anonymous No.3143791]

>>3143777
So you're just trying to find somebody who will argue that the road to the singularity has followed Moores law correctly so far, and deduce from that we will have full immersion with our immediate biosphere at the point predicted? You are choosing to do this by ignoring the fact that enhancing the body through technological means, is transhumanism.

[Anonymous No.3143798]

Imma let you transhumanists finish, but I just have to say one thing first to the Foucault appreciator and the Foucault reviler:

>biopolitics

[Anonymous No.3143800]

>>3143791
So playing semantics games it is.
Welp, I'm out.

[Anonymous No.3143810]

>discussing politics itt
>marx, lenin, etc
>lol
>implying any of your silly games matter when stong AI takes off
>suggesting we will stay human / where we are and or crawl back to caves
>denying expodential gains in computation and globalization
>failing to see upcoming and ongoing drastic change that's already changing the human condition in radical ways

Anyone denying the coming singularity is a scared luddie begging for things stay the same, nice and comfy.

[Anonymous No.3143811]

>>3143800
It's not 'playing semantics.' A man who plugs a computer into his nervous system to give him a mental map of a room, so he can walk around without any light yet still 'see' objects, has transcended the barriers of humanity. I don't care if you hate it, but that's what transhumanism is, not the technological singularity.

[Anonymous No.3143826]

>>3143810
>if my science-fiction were real it would be SOO COOOL

[Anonymous No.3143831]

>>3143826
>Implying sci-fi wont become real.
>Implying the human body doesn't readily accept upgrades.

Stay mortal.

[Anonymous No.3143840]

>>3143811
Who the fuck are you to set and enforce definitions? International community of narcissistic-nerds-for-AI like extropians and other retards operating since ~87 have their own definition, what makes your so special?

>A man who plugs a computer into his nervous system
Why the fuck a computer? A torch, a fur cloak, a magnifying glass is not enough for you? Not E-XXX-TREME enough? All of those were huge breakthroughs augumenting human capabilities. The fact that you needn't stab your skin first to benefit from them makes them too unjazzy to consider?

[Anonymous No.3143875]

>>3143840
I didn't say transhumanism started with a man plugging a computer into his nervous system, you moron. I was explaining to you (the person who jumped from thinking transhumanism was the technology singularity to thinking it was wearing a coat) that the man who plugs a computer into his nervous is a perfect example of transhumanism, as you were struggling to comprehend the difference between that and the singularity. Also, this is probably the kind that OP is looking for, but if you want to discuss coats with him then feel free to do so.

[Anonymous No.3143889]

My grand-dad's got a pacemaker that keeps his heart going and two metal hips. Is he a transhumanist?

>yfw the first real transhumanists will be old geezers in robot bodies yelling at kids to stay off their space-lawns.

[Anonymous No.3143907]

>>3141760
Its negative in the same way that nature is portrayed as good. Its really easy to recognize nature vs. technology when nature is the "good". Its much harder to recognize when tech is "good". Usually when people write nature vs. technology as the main theme, its pro nature. I would say there is a lot of pro tech writing, it just goes unnoticed.

Also, progress and technology scares people because its change. Change, beneficial or otherwise, is always hated. No matter how amazing it would be to become a robot, people will just say "BUT YOURR NOT HUMAN ANYMORE". They don't understand and are therefore terrified.

[Anonymous No.3143937]

>>3143907

Reminds me of my discussion with some guy who worked on automated guidance for planes. He said everyone thinks it's a great idea but nobody would want to sit in the plane without a pilot, even if it was statistically safer.

[Anonymous No.3143949]

>>3143937
It does make me said that there isn't that much pro tech writing, especially in mainstream works. I guess a lot of writers are /lit/ anti-science stereotypes.

[Anonymous No.3143954]

>>3143949
Except the whole genre of science fiction.

[Anonymous No.3143970]

>>3143954
The genre is 75% "science gone wrong", but yeah you are right to a degree. I just know I was never shown any pro-technology material in my schools. It was all poems and stories about nature or how many is dangerous.

[Anonymous No.3143973]

>>3143970
*man

[Anonymous No.3143978]

>>3143949
>transhumanism
>consensus science
pick one, fatty

also,
see me after class

[Anonymous No.3143997]

>>3143978
I never referred to transhumanism in my post, nor did I say the scientific community agreed with it.

I'm also pretty fit. U mirin?