Reply
Mon 27 Jun, 2005 08:41 pm
Is there a definition of "human nature" so mystical that alteration must by definition be negative?
Eugenics?
Genetic-gene manipulation?
Cyborg?
What happens when man and machine blesh?......(for Sturgeon fans).
RE: Francis Fukuyama's anti-biotech book, "Our Posthuman Future."
Re: Definition of "human nature; is any alteration nega
Youch, Kuvasz, a heavy-duty question
But I think part of the answer lies right there in your signature: "There are many truths of which the full meaning cannot be realized until personal experience has brought it home." Look at the Nazis and their attempts at eugenix, just for starters. And look at the Bed Of Procrustes of Communism. In both cases, misery, misery, misery.
Not an exhaustive reply, by any means; just my
. :wink:
I share your concern for the future my friend.
People are not objects, not some machines that you could shut down with little significance. Yet, those that can not see that a person is not just some carbon materials, bones, tissues, and fluids, think that they understand humanity, degenerating people into genes and atoms and electrons. Yet within this very make-up, within the very combination and interactions of matter, there arise the pattern, the spark, the soul, that is aware and conscious, knowing and seeing.
Like a doubtless fool the anti-humanists work, among their datas and beliefs, yet so unaware of what makes them think such, and so unaware of the missing data, the truth beyond their scientific datas, the understanding of what the conscious is.
Kuvasz, Any person with an artificial part in his body is a cyborg. It's not just sci-fi any longer.
That's my way of marking
I wouldn't call them cyborg, I think a person would be a cybor if he has qires connected to his brain...
I think these artificial materials aren't bad things, it's just the eugenics thing I'm worried about.
Ray, check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyborg
My husband has a pace maker
Cool link. So a cyborg is any mixture of organic and mechanical parts.
I guess my definition in the last post was a result of too many sci-fi movies.
It says here that in an extreme interpretation, clothing is viewed as a mechanical part.
Hey, honey. Folks can twist definitions to suit the current mode.
Ray, it was good to see you on WA2K. Be a regular.
evolution happened the way it did for a reason. you're not saying that humans are better than other "species" simply any alteration on any species would seem negative to that species cause it isn't healthy for them especially if you look at evolution.
Thanks Letty, but I wouldn't know what to write...
Ray, write what you do best. I've seen what you have said. It's totally lucid, and that's an honest observation.
As I see it "human nature" is merely an extension of "nature", but still existing within it. The nature of humans is the nature of everything else.
Cyracuz wrote:The nature of humans is the nature of everything else.
So we are nothing but jellyfish? :wink:
Well, the nature of jellyfish is the nature of everything else.
Jellyfish share a great amount of DNA with humans. Some jelly creatures, I do not know their names, grow on the bottom of the sea. They look like pumping hearts, and have over 80% identical DNA with humans. Specifically, the genes that have to do with the heart.
Another thing. At an early stage of evolution, in the womb, we all have tails and gills. We looked more like fish than humans. Then genes kick in and gills become jaw and ear. We resemble lots of creatures before we come out looking like small humans. I don't know where I'm going with this except to say that everything is built after one single blueprint, so to speak.
Cyracuz wrote:Well, the nature of jellyfish is the nature of everything else.
Jellyfish share a great amount of DNA with humans. Some jelly creatures, I do not know their names, grow on the bottom of the sea. They look like pumping hearts, and have over 80% identical DNA with humans. Specifically, the genes that have to do with the heart.
Another thing. At an early stage of evolution, in the womb, we all have tails and gills. We looked more like fish than humans. Then genes kick in and gills become jaw and ear. We resemble lots of creatures before we come out looking like small humans. I don't know where I'm going with this except to say that everything is built after one single blueprint, so to speak.
I see, so in your view, DNA is the be all and the end all of our nature?
Re: Definition of "human nature; is any alteration nega
kuvasz wrote:Is there a definition of "human nature" so mystical that alteration must by definition be negative?
Eugenics?
Genetic-gene manipulation?
Cyborg?
What happens when man and machine blesh?......(for Sturgeon fans).
RE: Francis Fukuyama's anti-biotech book, "Our Posthuman Future."
Well?
4mrEd wrote:
Quote:I see, so in your view, DNA is the be all and the end all of our nature?
No. It is just looking at things from one level, the genetic aspect of things. In all levels of existence, and in all levels it can be percieved we end at one conclusion. The whole of creation is a tower built stone on stone. The existence of the jellyfish is what enables our existence, so to speak. It is the same evolution.
Kuvasz wrote:Is there a definition of "human nature" so mystical that alteration must by definition be negative
Doc
You travel in such deep waters that I'm not really sure what you're getting at.
Are you suggesting that you think "human nature" CAN be altered?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace