this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
61 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

1454 readers
58 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] Lanthanae@lemmy.blahaj.zone 61 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Conceptually? I'm all for it. Why wouldn't I be.

In practice, we live in a capitalist society and I don't want an arm that makes me watch an advertisement before I open a bag of chips.

[โ€“] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago

Wow, I literally have nothing to add to that. Well done.

[โ€“] dotslashme@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago

Too real man

load more comments (1 replies)

Not against it on principle, but there's no way I'd get it knowing about the way the corporations that have the resources to make it happen operate.

[โ€“] queermunist@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The flesh is weak. Only the machine is eternal.

load more comments (1 replies)
[โ€“] OprahsedCreature@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

Wearable > implantation

Just a security concern. Augmenting is great but we don't want the augmentations to become a liability. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, if we invent a robotic arm replacement for someone who's lost one, the security concerns are generally lower than the quality of life improvement of having a functioning arm 99% of the time, and there's an argument for the potential ability for rapid detachment in case of emergency, but once we get into subdermal and brain implants, we're in a territory where these things can't be easily removed in case of emergency, and the risks get immense.

[โ€“] Anissem@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

Whatever improves your quality of life Iโ€™m all for.

[โ€“] Rainmanslim@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago
[โ€“] argv_minus_one 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can't imagine a faster way to dystopia. You'd be literally incapable of disobedience.

[โ€“] flashgnash@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Depends on the implant. I have to imagine the only way this kind of thing could be adopted mainstream is for it to be open source, the risks are just too high to let some random company put obfuscated proprietary tech in your brain

[โ€“] kibiz0r@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This sparks joy: Augmentation to help people become the selves that they would truly like to be.

This does not: Some kind of transhuman singularity dystopia where we have replaced ourselves not out of a soul-driven yearning for our true self, but in service of a cold, quantitative utilitarian calculus that says we must shed our skin because it is logically inferior.

[โ€“] Shikadi 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Both. Everyone is afraid of AI taking over but it's just a tool. Human augmentation is way more likely to lead there. But in the mean time, Stephen Hawking lived quite a while only being able to speak with augmentations. Just like any other technology, it will be at the very least researched in fear that someone else will first. So might as well embrace it

[โ€“] kibiz0r@midwest.social 3 points 1 year ago

I'm not afraid of AI taking over. I'm afraid of the TESCREAL suicide cult that wants AI to take over. If they are the ones who ultimately push a singularity button, because they believe it's a moral imperative to push the singularity button, we're going to have a really shitty rapture.

[โ€“] s3rvant 3 points 1 year ago

I'm currently wearing a continuous glucose monitor. Does that count? I'm all for anything voluntary especially if it improves quality of life without impeding on others.

[โ€“] MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

I am in favour of transhumanism, but I would only want a neural implant if it's fully open source and not connected to the cloud. It also must not break the skin, because I don't want infections, especially near my brain.

[โ€“] Rottcodd@lemmy.ninja 1 points 1 year ago

I don't care what other people choose to do with/to their own bodies. It's none of my business, at all, ever.

For myself, I'm not sure. I don't have the means, so it's irrelevant, but if I did... I don't know. I don't have any issue with it really, but it doesn't particularly appeal to me either. I can of course see advantages to overcoming the limitations of a natural body, but for whatever reason, I've never been much for pursuing fulfillment by acquiring things (which is pretty much what augmentation boils down to). It just seems to be too much hassle for too little gain, and particularly since the acquisition of things never leads to real fulfillment anyway - it just fuels the desire to acquire even more things.

Most likely, given the choice, I'd choose to just continue to inhabit my natural, unaugmented shell. But I really don't know.

[โ€“] luthis@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 year ago

Natural will always feel better, but I wouldn't complain either way