/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4524620]

Why do so many science fictions demonize cybernetics?

Star Trek, Borg, bad guys.
Doctor Who, Cybermen, bad guys.
Half-Life, Combine, bad guys.
Cyberpunk worlds suck by definition.

Is it all a matter of humanism versus transhumanism?

>this thread is not science

[Anonymous No.4524626]

> this thread is not science

gee op, couldn't have said it better myself

[Anonymous No.4524636]

Deus Ex
You're the man!

[OP No.4524639]

>>4524626
I respect those who like keeping /sci/ "pure". However, that doesn't override my want of discussing topics that interest me with my favorite 4chan board.

>We can sage if we want to,
>We can leave this thread behind,
>Cause this thread's not /sci/
>And if its not /sci/
>Well its no thread of mine

[OP No.4524642]

>>4524636
>Deus Ex
Never played it.
Isn't it about big bad cybernetic corporations being evil?

[Anonymous No.4524653]

In many fictional works, can you see a case of "science used wrong" rather than "science BEING wrong".
I remember an interview of the portal team saying Aperture Science and glados were evil not because science is bad, but evil robots are just fucking cool.

[Anonymous No.4524657]

>>4524642
Yes it is, and you as the player is one of their top-tier projects. But is your human moral stronger than the machine within you and the power it gives?
>Alternative endings, wonderful storytelling. Play it!

At least it portrays bionics as something useful and cool.

[Anonymous No.4524665]

For every bit of sci fi that disapproves of cybernetics, there is another which glorifies them. Most of Asimov's books, for instance, or Poul Anderson, or any of the classic sci fi authors really.

My favourite cyber/bio interaction was in the Foundation series, where they crossed over with Asimov's robot books. R. Daneel Olivaw ftw. Robots creating conditions for biological life to live robot-free. Genius.

[Anonymous No.4524666]

I think it's just fear of the unknown.
plus you know, we know we're inferior to them and look at how we treat inferior beings.

[Anonymous No.4524667]

Technology is great for inducing conflict in fiction because as an emerging market, it's always:
1. Expensive, so CLASS WARFARE,
2. Poorly understood, so UNKNOWN/UNPREDICTABLE CONSEQUENCES, and
3. Seen as replacing existing analog (read: comfortable) methods, so NOT MAH (INSERT FAMILIAR ICON HERE).

It's mostly just a matter of simple devices offering complex scenarios that the author can easily twist to suit his/her ideology, and since authors especially have a lifelong connection to a pre-digital universe, you get a lot of "too far" going on.

[OP No.4524669]

>>4524653
I wasn't saying any of the listed science fictions were anti-science. I was saying that they are anti-cybernetics, as if using science for augmenting humans is in and of itself bad.

[OP No.4524677]

>>4524665
I began reading a Foundation book but never got far. I'll bump it up a little on my reading list.

[OP No.4524683]

>>4524667
You are saying the novelists are particularly prone to using "science has gone too far" themes because their medium has to compete with recently developed mediums like video games and movies?

[Anonymous No.4524711]

>>4524683
Well, the "science has gone too far" theme goes back long before video games. Pic related. People are just evolutionarily programmed to be afraid of new stuff, because new stuff can kill you.

[Anonymous No.4524714]

It's a combination of body horror and dread about your place in a society that is increasingly impersonal and machine-like in its roles. Which can manifest as technophobia "they took our jobs" "Rage against the machine" feelings.

[Anonymous No.4524718]

>>4524683
In part, yes, but also for the age-old reason that conflict sells. Seriously, would millions of people read a cheap paperback about an alternate future where "SCIENCE HAS GONE JUST FAR ENOUGH"? Dystopia appeals for a lot of reasons: offers better catharsis, lots of room for things to improve, easy internal conflicts (such and such character is a genius, but he got his degree from the school of hard-knocks, baby), and it seems more "realistic" to the natural pessimism of humanity. We always assume we're living in the last civilized age, so it makes sense that recent innovations are the harbingers of our destruction. It's true that the effect is magnified as novels compete with more dynamic media like games and movies, but these stories were being told before the advent of nickelodeons or Nintendo.

[OP No.4524733]

>>4524718
>>4524714
>>4524711
I appreciate the input.

I hope I'll be able to return the favor.

[Anonymous No.4524764]

People are probably afraid of this

http://io9.com/5875405/why-cyborgs-and-mutants-are-more-likely-to-kill-us-than-robots

[Anonymous No.4524784]

Games also demonize it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gcsd6mJ3R08

[Anonymous No.4524798]

because only the rich will be able to afford all these changes to enhance themselves - becoming post humans/ transhumans - and then this will lead to legal complications

you may wish to google francis fukuyama "the worlds most dangerous idea - transhumanism" which explores this issue in depth regarding cybernetics

for all we know it could lead to future conflict between humans and posthumans

or at the least discrimination of humans by the elite, posthumans who have adopted and can afford enhancements

[Anonymous No.4524838]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2004/09/01/transhumanism By Francis Fukuyama

Pretty much answers your question Op.