/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2053673
>transhumanist "movement"

highschool fag detected, LMAO

Imagine, cruel people no longer able to numb their senses to the horrible things they have done.
>mfw they feel it all

>>2053681

>mfw you realize how cruel enjoying the suffering of others is

>>2053733
Only if you can numb yourself to their suffering.

>>2053677
Why? Is that the wrong term to use? It's just that whenever I see people writing about transhumanism, etc, they tend to suffix it with "movement", like it's some social thing instead of a scientific one.

>>2053756
There is no movement to it. We don't have the technology yet. Give it another few hundred years. You know.. when you're dead.

>What bothers me is that a lot of people seem to think there is something intrinsically "good" in being human.

Humans created good and evil, so why would/should we place ourselves in the evil category?

>>2053673

>However, it seems to me that a lot of people involved in the transhumanist "movement" are huge assholes, douchebags, and kind of come across as hipster scientists, or something.

How so? What behavior do you see in the transhumanist community that makes you think that?

>>2053681
>>2053744

Irony detected, captain.

On topic...

>>2053673

>What bothers me is that a lot of people seem to think there is something intrinsically "good" in being human

Yeah, I have no clue why this is either.

Evangelicals are always bad, and always a tiny minority.

So people wants humans to be just a brain in a fluid tank connected to electricity?

Are you retarded?

>>2053825

I'd prefer to leave the meat brain behind too actually.

>>2053825

*facepalm*

Yeah, yeah, you probably think transhumanists want to turn the human race into that sculpture by Paccini, "The Young Family". Pic related.

>>2053780
From what I've seen of transhumanist stuff, which is probably a small portion, I do not claim to be anything close to an expert, many of them seem to behave like activists, as if they're oppressed and they kind of give me the vibe they'd picket about it or something.

I'm not saying passion about anything involving scientific and technological progress is bad, it just seems they go about it in the wrong ways.

>>2053857

>many of them seem to behave like activists

You view that as inherently bad?

>as if they're oppressed and they kind of give me the vibe they'd picket about it or something.

Do you think picketing is inherently bad too?

>it just seems they go about it in the wrong ways.

What wrong ways?

I'm against modifying our brain

>>2053896
Why?

Hello fellow transhumanists. In the transhumanist community there seems to be a common notion that humans will not survive the singularity. This can only happen if humanity's compassion doesn't carry over past the singularity which would be terrible. With our super-intelligence we do not need the entire planet to escape and wake up the universe. In fact with our super-intelligence we can burden ourselves to travel to Mars, and leave Earth only to unaugmented Terrans as a gift. Live and let live my brethren.

>>2053927
Let the wolfs do their thing eh? I like this. There will always be people who for whatever reason don't want to go beyond human potential.

>>2053918

It could lead to a change in human nature. We have gotten this far thanks to our current brain. It'd be beautiful to spread as a race while conserving our inner humanity, while being the same we were thousands of years ago, not to think of past humans are weaker or inferior.

It is selfish to want change as soon as possible just because you want to witness it.

>>2053935

Exactly.

>>2053889
Not inherently bad, but I think there are better ways to go about informing people than shoving it in their faces. Then again, picketing worked for other people, so maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, I wasn't attacking it, that's just what it has seemed to come off to me in the past. Feel free to correct me as I haven't had that much exposure.

>>2053941

We have far too much dangerous evolutionary baggage in our current gray matter and the idea of spreading this throughout the galaxy is horrifying.

We cannot be so irresponsible.

>>2053941
I agree that it is selfish, but a lot of selfish desires have gotten us this far. Selfless acts of progression are few and far from sight.

>>2053935
>There will always be people who for whatever reason don't want to go beyond human limitations. Or even near them
fix'd

>>2053965

>>2053959

'Better the devil you know than the devil you don't'

>It could lead to a change in human nature.

So? At best "human nature" is lose and malleable that manifests in many different ways. In practice though its just a loosely define term used to justify shit tier philosophy.

>We have gotten this far thanks to our current brain.

Wrong, our brain as evolved over time. In fact we seem to be becoming smarter at a rapid rate. See Flynn effect.

>It'd be beautiful to spread as a race while conserving our inner humanity,

Explain how tranhumans will lose their "inner humanity".

>It is selfish to want change as soon as possible just because you want to witness it.

Define selfish and explain how modifying your brain is selfish.

>>2053673
What you're identifying, perhaps correctly, perhaps incorrectly, is pretension. It's that air some people give off when they presume superiority.

The thing about it is, most of the population at this point seems to be of the prevalent belief that the human condition as it stands is desirable, unalterable, or sacred. When it comes to the transhumanistic view point, this belief is as offensive as the belief in God. Additionally, people who hold such a fundamentally wrong view of technology's place in transforming life are hobbled by their belief. They suffer from a lack of imagination which limits their potential; thus, they remain at a disadvantage when engaging against a well-informed practicing transhumanist.

tl;dr: some transhumanist have worked to become better than human and some humans become offended when transhumanist start to demonstrate superiority in domains of discourse considered taboo or impossible.

>>2054041
There are no transhumanist right now... There are psychonauts who use chemicals to explore the depths of their existence but that is as far things go right now. They are still human beings.

None of us will live to see transhumanism become a real issue. It probably never will be either. I doubt people even notice the transition. Corporations word things very carefully to not offend, or make an operation or upgrade appealing.

>>2054037
>implying the Flynn effect is evolution
>implying evolution takes place over one or two generations

>>2054083

Oh lordy lord. Drugfags will say anything to justify their habit.

>>2054037
Moreover, how is an accusation of selfishness a reason to stop? What is wrong with being selfish?

>>2054083
I hear your stance, Abyssal, but I disagree. While he's something of a fruitcake, Kevin Warwick exists.

http://eyeborgproject.com/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=ted-med-2010-machine-human-connecti-2010-10-29

http://www.gadgetreview.com/2010/07/fda-approves-eye-telescope.html

Some of us are working research and development for the express purpose of transcending the limitations of our given form. All it takes is the choice.

>>2054143
well if you're shellfish, then you have a hard carapace and are harder to hurt than the other guy, giving you an unfair advantage from his viewpoint

>>2054037

Archimedes was probably smarter than most of us

>>2054117

>implying the Flynn effect is evolution

It partly is but thats not the point. The environment has a measurable impact on the brain. Our brain is changing physically by the environment by being healthier, being more stimulated, etc, etc.

The point is that Humanity's brain changes over time and to have a reverence to a current or past structures of the human brain is retarded.

The future will be transhumanist if and when medical procedures allow humans to obectively improve their standard of living by changing some fundamental component of their physiology (breast implants wouldn't count as fundamental). Would one even call that medicine though? Is it against the hypocratic oath to make drastic alterations to a human's body if nothing is wrong with them?

>>2054164
>It partly is but thats not the point.
The fact that the Flynn effect is happening over 1 or 2 generation proves that it isn't evolution. It is either due to better nutrition from a young age or a cultural shift to more abstract/test oriented thinking.

For example, if you asked someone today what the difference between a dog and a crow is he or she might say something like "one is a mammal and one is a bird, while someone a hundred years ago would have likely said something like "dogs chase birds". Neither is wrong, neither is stupid or smart, one is simply more abstract than the other which is beneficial on tests.

>>2053673
Also, OP, it is properly a "transhumanist movement."

Ridicule and denial is good. It means we're almost to acceptance as self-obvious. It's taken a long time to get to this phase.

Yay, more utopian circlejerking, with some assholes saying there's no chance of it happening.

It could happen. It could not. All your predictions of the future are going to be wrong, I'm betting. Think about what people even 20 years ago thought today was going to be like. There will be changes you didn't foresee, technologies that turn out to be useless, new discoveries you didn't dream of. Pretending that you know what's going to happen is illogical. The best any of you can do is work towards the future you would like to see.

>>2054143

Selfishness is a definitely problem when it becomes a detriment to society on the whole. Otherwise that's a subjective call.

>>2054168

The Hippocratic oath is just that you will do no harm, and it doesn't mean that literally since making an incision technically harms the patient. There's nothing against augmentation.

>>2054209
>The Hippocratic oath is just...
Your reasoning is sound, but I feel like if you asked a doctor today if he or she would perform such a procedure there is a good chance that doctor would say no.

>>2054218
>there is a good chance that doctor would say no.

That has nothing to do with the Hippocratic oath.

Liabilities or personal views, possibly.

>>2054218
Only because there are no such procedures yet that have gone through testing. It would be entirely private today, unfortunately. I'm not usually one for socialized health care, but when the alternative is a caste system based on the enhancements one can afford it seems necessary.

>>2054233
>private versus social
What the fuck country do you live in?

>>2054218
Go to a plastic surgeon and he will be willing to make a multitude of augmentations to your appearance.

These are however relatively simple procedures when compared to functional improvements of say, cognition trough brainsurgery. Which while probably possible today is by no means anything easy.

New Zealand, but that's irrelevant. I'm saying that government money wouldn't cover these enhancements, and neither would insurance. It would be left to rich people only, unless these enhancements cost $20 and took 10 minutes.

>>2054232
Are you reading the minds of hypothetical doctors? I meant some of them would think it was against the Hippocratic oath to lop a healthy man's legs off to let him use a prosthetic no matter if he wants to jump over houses or not.

>>2054275
This was directed to
>>2054253

It'll be for the wealthy and influential, not for us

forever sub-humans ;_;

>>2054209
A society without selfishness is weaker for it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100914181819.htm

>>2054276
>would think it was against the Hippocratic oath

They wouldn't because it isn't.

Well, unless they're just handing out medical licenses to Joe Ignorant on the street. I don't know how it works where you are.

>>2054275
Yeah, I live in America. Everything is pretty much private so you making a distinction was kind of confusing.

You are right about insurance companies not covering it though. However once you have the changes you might be able to alter your contract to have them cover your alterations should they break.

>>2054292
"Doctor, chop off my legs! I want to replace them with a Segway"!

It CAN be considered against the Hippocratic oath no matter what you say. Many doctors would diagnose you with a mental disorder for wanting to have surgery despite having a healthy body.

>>2054275
The argument to that is that theyll become exponentially cheaper as time goes on, making it affordable to everyone.

>>2054275

>It would be left to rich people only, unless these enhancements cost $20 and took 10 minutes.

You are totally right. Look at cellphones and computers. The prices never go down and only rich people can afford them. Also when cellphones and computers first came out they were way more advance and provided much more utility than they do today. They multi-functional capabilities of early cellphones and computers were truly astounding. If only I can have access to either. *sigh*

>>2054347

>comparing self enchancement medical processes that require surgery and massive handwork to computers and cell phones.

nope.tga

>>2054347
>implying the cost of medical procedures go down with time

>>2054364
The international community of robot surgeons have declared your arugment invalid.

>>2054364

You are totally fucking retarded and don't even know it. How sad.

I am a rabid advocate of transhumanism.

>>2054325
Same argument could be posed against transgendered people. The reality is that if you see enough psychologists and psychiatric specialist, you can get a doctor to make alterations to your physiology. Especially if the alterations are not, in and of themselves, life threatening.

My argument for such an occasion comes down to if I have a healthy body why is it degrading daily? I could begin replacing parts to preempt the deleterious effects of a decaying organ. Needs a couple of technological leaps before I would approach anyone about it, but we're well on our way and the conditions necessary are likely to develop in my lifetime.

If it comes to extremes, I am preparing myself to be fully capable of carrying out the necessary operations myself, and I would be willing to ply my services. I imagine there are others who would do similar.

>>2054399
Aha! There we go. And look, right in the oath.
>I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

>>2054394

With robots that advanced, why need to improve ourselves?

ha

>>2054390
They must no like money either because apparently they they went to med school to get paid the same amount the people at the Verizon Wireless store get paid.

>>2054406
So that one day we may surpass our creations FOR SCIENCE!

>>2053673
>How do you guys feel about transhumanism?

Same way I feel about Santa Clause and the Bible, just fairytales for little kids.

>>2054404
Getting my legs chopped off doesn't prevent any disease recognized by a medical journal.

>>2054406
That isn't an argument.

>>2054419
Deep Vein Thrombosis, the most common cause of pulmonary infarction most often originates in the leg above the knee.

So it all boils down to where you chop off your legs.

>>2054419
Getting them replaced with robotic ones prevents arthritis.

>>2054410
I think you failed to comprehend the argument. He's not talking about human surgeons who operate on people to give them robot parts or who operate on robots. He's talking about robots which operate on people to give them robot parts, new hearts, etc.

If surgery is reduced to a robotic process, healthcare will follow an corollary of Moore's Law and technological unemployment will finally hit one of the industries that is most in need of it.

Hmmm... technocratic oath. "I swear I shall invent technology to supplement me in whatever capacity I am able."

Do you want your grandchildren to look like this?

SAY NO TO TRANSHUMANISM!

>>2054429
Not "me." Humanity.

>>2054430
That's just evolution, not transhumanism.

>>2054430
Who cares what children look like, its not like you're going to be attracted to them anyway. Unless you are..

>>2054439
I was thinking of that as a small part of the whole. I think developing an oath would be appropriate.

I thought the use of me as opposed to humanity was more personal, and I always think of oaths as being personally oriented. I'm open to suggestions and alterations.

What do you think of simply "us"?

Immortality shit will become cheap if it is just medicine.

Any surgery and it'll be rich-people-only for about a century after it's created.

Fuck your shit

I feel good about it. It will be a long time before we can alter our brains, but as soon as I am able to change/add/manipulate other body parts I will. First will be synthetic bones and muscles, then extra organs (I'll keep the originals), eventually I'll look like something from War HAmmer 40k.

>>2054473
What's wrong with that?

What crazy christfags have to say on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dz1LNUg6zw

>>2054473
Your brain in a vat argument is invalid. I will be getting rid of all organic components in preparation to leave Earth. If it isn't radiation resistant, it isn't staying. If it's not modular and replacable, it isn't staying.

So it's more like this. Assuming I keep a hominid shape at all.

Do transhumanist still predict that anyone under 30 or something right now will probably live to see the transition?

>>2054495

Robotic > Genetically Engineered.

>>2054509
Oh my huurdedeeeerrp!

>>2054514
Remember, Singularitans are whacked-out batshit nuts. They believe people under 70 right now are going to live to see it. They think we're going to have strong AI by 2021 or some shit.

>>2054514

The most optimistic camp is at around 35 years. I believe statistics show them being at around 20% (don't quite remember) of trans-humanists.

>>2054509
>she loved her grandkids before they were born
>mfw she loves sperm

>>2054514
De Gray predicts that's the case in part because that's what he's working on. I'm confident that the average lifetime will extend out to about 90 yrs of age at a minimum for gen Y.

>>2054473
So I'll be like Mr House from New Vegas and be able to command a robot army from my vat? I see nothing wrong here.

>>2054517
>doesn't know the human body is made up of a trillion nanoscale factories, each containing the blueprints for every single component within the body
The most we can hope to do with technology is meet the complexity of life. From there it is a matter of using that complexity in different ways. Your argument is invalid.

>>2054543
>>2054513

Dude I'd rather be a human in body and mind and not a remote controller in a tub, lol

>>2054543

My face when my fellow transhumanists are fine with both scenarios like me.

>>2054538
Pardon, had a senile moment there. I thought you were asking about longevity predictions. Personally, I see the transition occurring by 2050 at the latest. We wired the world together in less time than that. In fifty years time, we've gone from the moon to the world-wide web, from transistor to personal supercomputers. In the next ten years we'll see quantum computers hit the enterprise market. I expect within fifteen years we'll see personal quantum computers.

As it stands, we are seeing some remarkable social transitions occurring between the generations.

>>2054473
Is that from Orion's Arm?

>>2054550
Obviously once technology advances far enough we'll be able to leave the vat and get new bodies.

>>2054550
Being a remote control is great. This is how your tell the 4chan server to update it's html for a page when you post. plus you have the added safety of being in a building. If you are so into local control you shouldn't use the internet.

But in the end you can always give your building legs so you can travel, if you want...

>>2054545

>Implying that machines want become more complex than nature.
>Implying that robots wouldn't be able to smash your pathetic fleshy body to the ground.


I hope you enjoy being a beta male in the future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6JTvzrpBy0

>>2054550
Which is exactly why the brain in a tub scenario is implausible. It certainly isn't what I've been working towards. I'm not keen on keeping the human mind. It's like running Windows on a computer. It's prone to all manners of tampering and casual damage. Overall it functions, but it's over engineered in some aspects and under engineered in others.

Now if by human mind you mean keeping free will, creativity, emotion, and personal experience? Those are necessary conditions for artificial intelligence to pass the strong Turing Test. We will be keeping those.

People seem to equal the singularity to shit being precisely like today, except we invent strong AI that magically transform the world.

This won't happen, we'll have built, all by human hands, amazing technologies, including vast arrays of life extension technologies before any such AI driven transition occurs.

People died quite effectively due to heart failure a few decades ago, today you can easily live for 20 years with a condition that would've killed you in a year with no medication. Life extension doesn't need to be radical, it just needs to tackle the most common deadly defects.

That being said, life extension in 30 years will be crazy; people will grow a new aorta and digestive tract just like that when the old ones get a bit rusty. And people will probably have lab on chip monitors implanted that check their blood and serum values, upon detection of massive organ failure it would release substances which put the patient in a low-metabolism hibernation and call emergency services.

I find it helpful at times like these to remind myself that our true enemy is Instinct. Instinct was our mother when we were an infant species. Instinct coddled us and kept us safe in those hardscrabble years when we hardened our sticks and cooked our first meals above a meager fire and started at the shadows that leapt upon the cavern's walls. But inseparable from Instinct is its dark twin, Superstition. Instinct is inextricably bound to unreasoning impulses, and today we clearly see its true nature. Instinct has just become aware of its irrelevance, and like a cornered beast, it will not go down without a bloody fight. Instinct would inflict a fatal injury on our species. Instinct creates its own oppressors, and bids us rise up against them. Instinct tells us that the unknown is a threat, rather than an opportunity. Instinct slyly and covertly compels us away from change and progress. Instinct, therefore, must be expunged. It must be fought tooth and nail, beginning with the basest of human urges.

>>2054473
On the left is what it will look like from the inside, on the right is what it will look like from the outside. At least for starters.

>>2054473
i see no problem here, except that the brain in that picture is unprotected from predators or any form of being that has male intent towards it. >>2054513
im with this guy. anything that is incapable of withstanding harsh conditions will have to be upgraded or replaced. the final form should be able to function in space(seems like it would be good to have that option available), and would likely be backed up in various places to prevent any loss of consciousness in the event that the physical form is destroyed.

I can't wait for ad block plus so I can block out bill board and commercial advertisements.

>>2054603
I'm mainly concerned with AI because it is the pre-requist to complete technological metamorphosis. It's contributions towards the singularity, if such a thing will come to exist, are the most major because we have only begun exponential advancement over the past hundred years or so. The singularity if realized would allow tetrational advancement which would very very rapidly dwarf the whole of human history within a couple of iterations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetration

Even if the singularity is false, AI means the beginning of technological life and the real move to space. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100903072649.htm

>>2054601
>implying free will exists

>>2054622
>>2054601
>>2054576

the problem is ethics

So is it actually possible to keep the "same" consciousness when transferred to a different brain or what have you? I suppose this is more of a philosophical question than a scientific question and most answers would just be speculation anyway, I'm just curious if there has been any theories or whatever? I don't see it being impossible, after all, the matter that makes up my brain isn't totally the same matter that has always made up my brain and yet I still have consistent consciousness.

>>2054714
I think the idea we agreed on was continuity in consciousness. If one could have the procedure done without losing consciousness the whole way, with artificial neurons replacing the organic ones then syncing up to a computer simulation, it could be said to be the same consciousness.

>>2054680

>Browsing wikipedia
>Read about James D. Watson
>"People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."
>whatapimp.jpg

>>2054714
>>2054729
Question, do you ever step in the same river twice?
>>2054736
>>2054680
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604079
http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3612
Quantum mechanics, non-locality specifically, implies free will.

>>2054729
I was also wondering what would happen with
>>2054631 's scenario, the physical form is lost, but how would consciousness be consistent, without it just actually being >>2054473 ?

>>2054714
consciousness (aka qualias) doesn't exist

read Daniel Dennett
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/quinqual.htm

>>2054795
>implies free will.
no it does not

>>2054817
Read the papers before you make declarations. IF you do not consider the argument put forth and it's evidence, you are not a scientist. In which case, STFU and GTFO.

>>2054825
I've read the papers and none of them implies free will

Life sucks and will always suck. It would be better if everybody just killed themselves now

>>2054900

Oh boy, yes, grant us all your teenaged wisdom!

>>2054909
I'm probably older than you

>>2054909
The author himself noted the irony of that comic. The character is meant to be an asshole, too.

>>2054857
Either you haven't read the "How much free will do we need to demonstrate free will" or you have grossly misunderstood it. Similarly, you haven't read the free will theorem because it specifically *IS* the logical implication of three assumptions devised from quantum mechanics.

Third possibility, you're trolling.

>>2055052
>Conway and Kochen do not prove that free will does exist. The definition of "free will" used in the proof of this theorem is simply that an outcome is "not determined" by prior conditions, and some philosophers strongly dispute the equivalence of "not determined" with free will.

>>2054795
>Quantum mechanics, non-locality specifically, implies free will.

>>2055061
>>2055052
Does that article seriously consider dualism?

>>2054685
I see no ethical problem with self-alteration. I see social taboo violation perhaps but not any kind of ethical or moral imperative not to do it.

>>2054900
As for this? It certainly appeals to the "white ruling" elite expectation. However, it is incorrect. For two major outstanding reasons.

First, China, which house approximately half the world's population, is one of the major driving forces in technological advancement and basic research. We have no reason at this point in history to doubt that this trend will not continue into the future unabated. The western world is floundering while the Eastern world is growing at breakneck pace into the future. Second, it holds the advancement of any individual segment of the global society as being implicitly non-beneficial for the global society as a whole.

The major transhumanist at this point are in fact around the western seaboard of the pacific ocean. Notable among them are Nippon and South Korea.

>>2055061
Some philosophers can follow the dictates of the pic.

>>2053673
Back on track, OP. Transhumanism is about one of the most awesome things happening today.

For those new to the idea, I give you the Transhumanist declaration:
http://humanityplus.org/learn/transhumanist-declaration/

>>2054808
Thanks for the read.

>dualism

>>2055137
That image, my friend, is a philosophy to live by.

It always bothers me when I mention the possibility of immortality to someone and their retort is "That would be so sad!"

I get this feeling that people like that don't actually value life, or have given up.

>>2053673
Obviously you haven't watched Ghost in the Shell

>>2055256
Damn straight, democratic transhumanism is so much better than that libertarian transhumanism.

Also, are there any games or movies where transhumanism is portrayed in a positive light? HL2 and Bioshock both portray it as a negative thing, in general.

>>2055385
I can't think of any, as that site says "The most common objections to a transhuman future come from science fiction".

>>2054900
does that comic include countries that have power but only have it on for like an hour a day in the with or without power catagory,

>>2055385
How about technocratic transhumanism or cybernetic transhumanism a la the Venus Project or variations of a government that employs the scientific method as the main criterion for decision making and consensus building?

>>2055400
I guess utopian futures make for shitty games. If the protagonist is enhanced then it means their side has an obvious advantage. Doesn't fit into the underdog plot we seem to love so much.
>>2055404
That's fine too. I just don't want a caste system where the rich get enhancements and the poor don't.

How much memory would be required to upload a human brain to a computer?

>>2055441
My guess is 100 petabytes. That's just a guess, though.

>>2055426
I want a reality-centric system wherein rich and poor only really apply to the whole system. There is no such thing as profit. There is only plunder. When anyone makes a profit, we are all poorer for it.

The caste system, within certain constraints, is unavoidable. People distribute along the spectrum. What we can do is seek for the systematic improvement of the conditions of people. We can seek to implement the distributions from which we can derive as a whole the greatest benefit.

Not a utopia by any measure but better day by day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory

>>2055426
OH SHIT OH SHIT

GUYS

I HAVE FOUND

A pro-transhumanist video game.

PIC FUCKING RELATED.

>>2055469
AND THEN ANOTHER ONE.

FUCK, GOGDAMN.

>>2055480
Actually, I approve. That game got me on the road to transhumanism. Deus ex strikes me as crapsack world and fearmongering.

>>2055520
Yes, and no. In one of the endings you can merge with a strong AI and fix the world.

Basically it's a crapsack world due to conspiracies, not technology, and the writers seem very well aware that technology can be used for very good ends (there's a group of scientists working on a universal constructor in an old airforce base, they oppose the bad guys).

na, we're all gonna merge into 1 huge quantum entity sooner or later. its just a matter of us surviving till then or not.

Bicentennial man ftw.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnKFEOCO4T8