What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
28 Comments
- mandarin, on 07/13/2009, -0/+10MOTOKO!!!!
- B1665r, on 07/13/2009, -0/+10"and we'll have movie-style mind links within a decade at most"
Futurist predicts future and fails! - starslab, on 07/13/2009, -1/+10Buried for alarmist tripe. Come up with some specific examples, rather than just assuming everyone's got Microsoft inside(tm).
- MarkusDee, on 07/13/2009, -0/+9It's a shame that more money isn't given to risk analysis. I think that if the money that was spent on the Iraq War was put into research (science, social science, and the humanities), then the world would be a better place today.
- angusm, on 07/13/2009, -0/+9The good news: soon, we will be able to interface our brains directly to the Internet.
The bad news: this won't make us any smarter or more successful, except in a world where the ability to summon up Lolcat images on demand is the key to success
The really bad news: we'll be forced to run copies of Norton Anti-Neuro-Virus continuously, so that some thirteen-year-old in Taiwan can't download software into our forebrain that causes us to have epileptic seizures every time someone says the word "reprehensible"
The not-so-bad-after-all news: the Internet porn industry will post record profits - dicer999, on 07/13/2009, -2/+10Ethics without science is the downfall of our society.
- kemp34, on 07/13/2009, -3/+11Science without ethics is the biggest threat to modern humanity.
- zeth006, on 07/13/2009, -0/+4Both maxims can coexist. Neither are conflicting and most of us should be able to at least some truth in both.
- inactive, on 07/13/2009, -2/+6We'd be living on the moon if we took the money we spend on defense and applied it to science and technology.
- simpsond, on 07/13/2009, -1/+5I think we should stick to neural output for a while, and leave the input to our current senses. This way we could control computers with our virtual "limbs" but not worry about them injecting pain or infinitely looping orgasms etc.
- toxicshok, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3That's ........ reprehensible.
- fury420, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3"ethics" are misleading & ultimately counterproductive when they are expressed by someone who has no grasp of what is happening, why it is happening, and what the desired outcome is. Yes, science needs ethics, but the ethical questions need to be raised & discussed by people with at least a loose understanding of the science involved, not ignorant religious people who view "ethics" and "morals" as their exclusive domain
- Hetman, on 07/13/2009, -1/+3I disagree. The people who are able to more effeciently sorte through mass amounts of information to find patterns and usefull info will have a significant advantage over the rest. It might not make you smarter but it will change how we interact with information and each other.
- DeadlyTedly, on 07/13/2009, -1/+3Those who can, live to do;
Those who can't, live in fear of what is done. - serif69, on 07/13/2009, -1/+3There is nothing worrisome about an infinite loop of orgasm.
- TopherT, on 07/13/2009, -0/+2If we don't pursue the science someone else will, without the technology ourselves we have nothing to stop those others from destroying or overrunning us. Powers wielding molecular assembly capability or strong AI would simply overrun those who chose not to pursue those technologies. Even if they weren't hostile, by cultural contact alone your civilization would adopt the same tools without consent from governing bodies.
- TopherT, on 07/13/2009, -0/+2kemp, listen man, maybe you're right, maybe some technology causes more harm than good, maybe it will even be our undoing as a species, but you can't stop it. Even if you made it illegal in this country to do the research, even if you got the UN on board, and the signatures of all nations on the globe you still couldn't stop it. The best outcome if you're really a moral consequentialist is to use the science and technology to create self healing systems that protect what we value.
- fury420, on 07/13/2009, -0/+2I bet people with uncontrollable nymphomania or extreme sexual sensitivity would disagree
- TopherT, on 07/13/2009, -0/+26lkuq34piy6 t
WE-94U45Q8YN79PESDFRJ
P9O5YHLXJFGKFJTGHGDFTHND;jDGJKLHDTKL.JFH - kemp34, on 07/13/2009, -2/+3Please explain this assertion.
- ocean17, on 07/13/2009, -0/+1Gah, this guy couldn't write a shopping list: "new neologism" & "infinity billion".
This digg should have been called "exaggerated hyperbole" - kemp34, on 07/13/2009, -1/+2My point is, to advance technologically (say with nuclear technology, brain scanners, EMF devices, etc.) without proper ethical premises to guide their use, is a recipe for disaster, as unscrupulous individuals with immense technology are a threat to all decent people. (It's quite like the Death Star in Star Wars. Great power + terrible ethics = danger for all).
- feignNU, on 07/13/2009, -0/+1Damn that sucked.
- Apond, on 07/13/2009, -0/+1We'd be living on the moon? Really? Why?
- kemp34, on 07/13/2009, -3/+3So do you advocate technological advancement with no ethical guidance?
- Hetman, on 07/13/2009, -2/+1I will take my chances with the microsoft.
- darkism, on 07/13/2009, -4/+3Ethics are a terrible impediment to science.
- Rankao, on 07/13/2009, -2/+0so a choice between Society and Humanity is it?
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is