What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
26 Comments
- inactive, on 04/03/2009, -1/+14This is a really stupid article.
This just in: jacking off isn't as good as sex. - theviceroy, on 04/03/2009, -0/+8So looking at a picture of a mountain is not as rewarding as actually being there at the mountain?!
Wow! These psychologists are really probing the depths of the human psyche here... - brim4brim, on 04/03/2009, -1/+7Don't see the point of the article. If people find no appeal to these items they naturally won't buy them and will get the real thing instead.
Personally I buy loads of gadgets but would never get something like a cyber dog or if I did it would be in addition to the real thing and it had better do my dishes!! - LocalDocal, on 04/03/2009, -0/+5Not necessarily the same thing. If I were to put it in an analogy, I would say that the article may be suggesting that: "Sex with an android is not as good as sex with a real woman."
That's the basis of the article; that replacing something real with a false version of it could be damaging. On the other hand, I would gladly argue that. For example, the article mentions that seeing nature in front of them vs seeing it on a TV, but there's a major difference. What if technology eventually creates a VR set that actually puts you in a nature setting realistic enough for you to not be able to tell the difference? Then what?
The article makes a decent point, but its point relies on the fact that humans would be able to tell the difference between the real one and the fake one. If humans can't, then I question whether it would be a problem. - spiffyfitz, on 04/03/2009, -1/+5This is just one guy's lame opinion on this. "We put a baby with a robot, but the baby didn't like it. Clearly technology will never be as good as good old fashioned natural parenting."
For one thing: Technology is part of nature, since we came out of nature and it's only natural that we build technology.
For another thing: Our technology as it stands right now may not be suitable for parenting children, but who can measure, or even conceive how far our technology can grow as humanity advances?
This whole article is just ridiculous. - DarkLaughingMan, on 04/03/2009, -2/+6And several centuries from now Psychologists might be laughing at the predictions/theories current psychologists make. If technology gets so far advanced that it replaces nature (that you could not tell a difference between a robotic dog and a real dog if one were given to you) I don't think it would really matter to our system. Right now it may matter because we still know there's a difference in the back of our head. But will that still be the case decades or centuries from now?
- shujin, on 04/03/2009, -2/+6You don't get the right to call people losers just because you're some psychologist, ok
- Scira, on 04/03/2009, -0/+3now introducing...
I Can't Believe It's Not Nature! - horseradish2, on 04/03/2009, -1/+4Love the lukewarm reception to this article on digg. I was shocked, nay, stunned to find the shut in nerds resist the notion technology can't encompass life.
- nullcodes, on 04/03/2009, -0/+3Technology can replace nature for a lot of biological systems. For example diseases, the drugs that nature gives us suck .. so we have to use rational drug design to optimize. Similarly, since nature won't grow back limbs, we have to use prosthetics or in the future utilize stem cells.
- inactive, on 04/03/2009, -0/+3We're all cylons anyway.
- okaybrazilian, on 04/03/2009, -0/+2no *****. buried.
- inactive, on 04/03/2009, -0/+2I was wondering wtf was happening with this page.
- inactive, on 04/04/2009, -0/+2I was going to use the android thing, but I sacrificed 100% accuracy for (poorly attempted) comedic effect. I think the point still got across.
- elvick, on 04/04/2009, -0/+2You forget, that mother nature isn't exactly perfect either.
However, regardless of what we build over it, nature will always prevail. Just look at the weeds coming through the cracks in the cement. Given enough time and freedom, nature will take over what we've built over it. We just won't allow it. - bshock, on 04/04/2009, -0/+2*****.
- MrMayBeBanned, on 04/03/2009, -1/+3No *****? You need a study to tell you this?
Technology can barely even load a webpage, as evidenced by this article. - KoreyWith1K, on 04/04/2009, -0/+1People get paid to conduct this type of research? Sign me up!
- FredFredrickson, on 04/03/2009, -1/+2I guess there's no app for that, eh?
- Phazon77, on 04/04/2009, -0/+1Technology can replace nature if technology is indistinguishable from nature.
- zjbird, on 04/04/2009, -1/+2I'm not sure if they got that diagnosis from the DMV IV...
- kalvinb, on 04/03/2009, -1/+2If I have a choice of not seeing something at all and seeing an image of it, I'll go with the image. If the image is compelling enough then maybe I'll spend the money and/or time to see the real thing.
You'd have to be really silly to think technology is a replacement for the real thing. Technology is the alternative to having nothing at all.
Some people are allergic to common pets like cats and dogs. Technology could allow those people to have a version of those animals. - MrColdheart, on 04/04/2009, -0/+1I'll give it less then 100 years before we can rebuilt nature with technology.
http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/protocells-b ... - daonlyfreez, on 04/03/2009, -1/+2Of course not. We are but arrogant apes with an attitude.
And the worse thing is, along those apes, there are quite a few that are so ignorant, they'll believe anything.
But still, even those "enlightened" apes think they can smart-out a sandbox running millions of years (f*cking AT LEAST) to determine the "best" survivor, yet we apes are so arrogant we think we can do better.
We are fools to dismiss nature and count on technology alone. Technology is nothing without the source: nature. Technology can only create somthing thru trial-and-error in the most primitive way (500 test persons is MuUCH, and that is usually one test, and we call that science), and it can - and usually does - destroy a lot in the process.
With our world, our globe, our mother nature, we have no option to experiment, it's all or nothing. There are no fall-backs, there is no "load previous save-point"-option, there are no fantasies about space shuttles or living on other planets (let alone the "contact with other species" BS). - powerslave71, on 04/03/2009, -4/+4This just in, if you don't eat or drink water you'll die!
If you walk into traffic, your chances of being hit rise substantially.
If you walk around in temperatures below freezing without clothes on you'll freeze!
THANK YOU CAPTAIN OBVIOUS.
No *****, we live for nature, we live in harmony with it, well we did anyways, until recently when we ***** that all up. - UmarSajid, on 04/03/2009, -4/+3These Psychologists base it on facts, it is not from the GUT!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is