How pro-technology are you?

B, A/B, C, A.

This is unrealistic and a little meaningless, though.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

According to the quiz, it's either robot arms or roast mammoth.

edited 16th Mar '11 3:51:12 PM by TrapperZoid

It's specifically designed to polarize view points.

It's a question of which extreme you would accept more readily.

GE food is a tough point, for instance, I like the concept of making foods disease resistant but I don't like the concept of termination genes or patenting species of plants.

Without good, no evil. Without want, no lack. Without desire, no need.

Trans-humanist of course. Basically I believe that there's no intrinsic law-of-nature reason that society can't be significantly better than it is now, so therefore people are just giving up without exploring their options. Perhaps there are risks (although I believe whatever risks there are are greatly overstated), but surely Utopia Justifies the Means in the long run. You'd just better make damned sure that it's actually a utopia, and that means for everyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice ?

Chasing animals until they collapse of exhaustion sounds like work to me.

Also, transhumanist.

edited 16th Mar '11 8:15:25 PM by YairJeger

1.How does the idea of a work free society sound to you?

A:Impossible/undesirable, just not going to happen.

2.What is your stance on food?

B:Pass the genetically modified crops and vat grown meat please.

3.Does technology de-humanize people?

D:Possibly but why should we cling to being human anyway?

4.If it was found that ALL technology above basic tools hurt the environment what would you do?

D. Use technology to alter the environment to conform to our needs.

5.How can we build a paradise on earth?

C:Technology. Virtual reality and robotic servants anybody?

---

Some of these answers are just retarded anyways. Like question #5 proposing "we eliminate war"

Talk about Wide-Eyed Idealist.

My other signature is a Gundam.

I was leaning towards Gundam Seed but oh well

FOR THE PRESERVATION OF OUR PURE AND BLUE WORLD!!

WHASSUP....... ....with lolis!

A, A, C, C, A. I have to agree. This test labeled me as a Bioluddite, which I'm definitely not.

Kanaya, it's hard. Being a kid growing up. It's hard and no one understands.

1.How does the idea of a work free society sound to you?

A.

2.What is your stance on food?

D.

3.Does technology de-humanize people?

C.

4.If it was found that ALL technology above basic tools hurt the environment what would you do?

C: Genetics anyone?

5.How can we build a paradise on earth?

Taking a fourth option and saying we shouldn't build a paradise, we need pain, without it there is no resolve (or character) and no future. What we should do is build a near paradise.

edited 17th Mar '11 1:01:50 AM by Vyctorian

Rarely active, try DA/Tumblr Avatar by pippanaffie.deviantart.com

"we need pain"

I don't need it. I HATE PAIN.

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

Technology has been involved in pretty much every good thing we have today, and involved in pretty much every bad thing. That alone pretty much proves that technology in and of itself is neither good nor bad. But overall, life in a first world country is a lot better than life in the third world, and technology is part of what makes that difference, so I'm in favor of it.

"All pain is a punishment, and every punishment is inflicted for love as much as for justice." — Joseph De Maistre.

I think tech is awesome until we start relying on it for almost everything. If we lost alot of it for whatever reason, alot of us would be fucked royally due to depending on it for so long.

edited 17th Mar '11 8:25:04 AM by HellmanSabian

I want to live forever as a walking cyborg brain, so I am pretty up for technology.

Transhumanist, just as expected.

I would say technology in itself is neither good nor bad. It really depends on people using it. I think most of the problems "caused by technology" is more like a human error, and can be avoided with a people with half a brain, or some kind of protocol. Though given the history of humanity, that does not sounds practical, and giving stuff to AI probably will lead to, well, you should know better, since the programmers (humanity) is most likely to leave some loopholes to drive it extreme and/or insane.

Maybe a hive mind or something will work best.

You know what? Agreed.

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

You know what? Screw the whole "pain builds character" thing, I want my paradise. You can go live in pain if you want.

edited 17th Mar '11 2:00:50 PM by EthZee

Desirable, but since there's no way such a thing could be achieved during my lifetime, it's not my concern.

As long as it gets made, I don't particularly care how.

Possibly, but why should we cling to being human anyway? There are clearly many aspects of the human condition which humans find less than satisfactory. I'm not interested in the more ridiculous fantasies of transhumanists, but one thing I do consider a good idea is abolitionism.

I'd let technology keep progressing as usual, which I suppose could include the asteroid belt thing, but I'm in no hurry. By the time the environment is too "hurt" to sustain human life, I'll be long dead. Besides, there's no way of convincing every society on Earth to give up/stop developing technology.

By redefining "paradise".

1. A. C is certainly achievable, but I do not seriously believe C could sustain 7 billion mouths to feed. Without tech, hundreds of millions would starve. B might be achievable, but not in my lifetime, or my little sister's grandchildren's lifetime IMHO. If we hand over the nukes to the A.I.s, I'd rather have a flesh - and - blood hand over the "abort" button.

2. All of the above. Let tribes and Ted Nugent hunt, let some people grow organic, develop genetic technology in case we need it, and thousands of years from now (or sooner if needed) look into whether life without food makes sense.

3. All of the above. Sitting at a computer typing this harms my health because it is not what my body is designed to do, but it does not make me a nonhuman. Stephen Hawking is already a cyborg. He speaks through a computer that interprets the motion of his eyes into English. But he is no less a man.

4. C. In that case Earth is better off without us.

5. C. If human civilization survives long enough, I am not ready to give up hope that future energy tech will reduce human impact on the environment to the point the Earth will be able to recover.

1. A
2. A/B (personal choice ftw)
3. B
4. C
5. A

Bioluddite, apparently. Not really accurate...

edited 18th Mar '11 12:58:36 PM by Yowuza