Deus Ex: Mankind Divided

What about the fact that Eliza is not helping the stereotypes of A.I.s? She's a news AI and her thoughts about supressing info? Kill everyone.

Do you really think that's all there is to this? You're ignoring 98% of the augmentation issue to cherry pick that one point in it's favor, and it's not even that great a point.

Well, it's a tiny bit of an ad-hominen I'd argue to say that "Darrow just thinks this because he can't get augmented". The anti-augmented side has a point when it argues that augmentation is basically leading to run-away class divisions. Essentially, it's like PE Ds in sports, applied to the entire economy.

Side note, I got how all the endings tie in:

Darrow: Anti-Aug sentiment increases.

Taggart: Government power is increasing to enforce said sentiment.

Sarif: You have experimental augs nobody knew about.

edited 3rd May '16 6:19:02 PM by Protagonist506

How are Adam's augs tied in the ending? He had them before that! :-P

I'd still favor Sarif, even assuming that the augs would lead to further class divisions. Because when you get down to it, new technology in general has that effect on humanity almost every time.

Cars? Basically allows those with them to rapidly transport themselves around as they please, without having to rely upon walking, trains, or public transit.

The Internet? If you're searching skills are up to task, you've essentially got the largest known collection of information on almost every subject imaginable. Far better than a guy stuck with the old encyclopedia books, because now you can fact-check them to see if they're biased or outdated via other sources online.

Electricity? Dangerous if you don't know how to use it properly, and you'll be at a HUGE disadvantage if born into a society without it, but virtually everything we have today we owe to taming and learning how to harness it.

So for me, the whole "augs have the potential to permanently segregate and ruin the evolutionary curb" is bull, since previous techs have had similar effects and didn't permanently ruin the human race or anything.

I see that damn argument crop up so often around transhumanism debates and it always irritates me how much people treat it like it's actually a good argument.

See, here's the thing with that. Up to today, all technology has done has just been giving us better tools. Augmentation technologies promise something completely different. Their potential is to give us the capacity to fundamentally rewrite what we are at our most basic level. That's not something that was true about any other kind of technology Humanity has ever developed before.

Technology has let us enhance our capabilities and made labor easier and safer, but it has never let us tweak our basic fundamental personal traits. So, it's kind of a fallacy to compare the predicted effects of augmentation technology to the outcomes of previous technologies. In fact, the sheer historical novelty of transhuman technologies is something transhumanists themselves like to go on and on about. How it can't be compared to any other historical transition- not the agricultural revolution or even the industrial revolution.

It's also worth noting that there is a qualitative difference between bringing people who were maimed or otherwise disadvantaged up to the level of regular Human capability and using technology to enhance them beyond any semblance of Human ability. The former is almost universally positive. The latter has consequences that are inherently unpredictable, and there is no guarantee their outcome would be anything we'd consider remotely positive.

I don't really buy into any Transhumanist thinking and I just see augmentations as a great way to improve lives and help people, sure the tech can be used for bad but that's true of all technologies. Someone will find a way to use them to harm people.

Oh?

What are the intrinsic downsides to improving natural human capabilities?

HR maybe getting rereleased on current gen as a bonus to buying MD?

Basically, transhuman technologies offer the ability to alter fundamental Human traits, and potentially give Humans entirely new bodies, minds and abilities, whereas before technology could only give us better tools. This is a radical departure from the relationship Humans have previously had with technology, and engenders a completely different scheme of politics.

The vast majority of Humanity's social progress over the past few centuries has been contingent on the extending of basic rights to more and more groups of people that had been previously denied them. What grounds and buttresses this process is the recognition of the fundamental truth of Human commonality. Human beings, regardless of factors such as race, nationality, religion etc. all have more in common than they do differences- including a common interest. This is why we call these rights Human rights.

This is quite important to how we understand ourselves and how we formulate our goals and our moral sensibilities as a society in the modern age, and it is one of the things transhuman technologies stand poised to change. Put simply- and this is but one example- if, for instance, genetic modification ever becomes any sort of widespread practice, it will only be a matter of time before racism becomes literally true. I'll assume you have no difficulty imagining just what outcomes that might engender. You may think this is a rather strong statement, but that is precisely the extent to which enhancement technologies promise to modify Human beings and, by necessity, how we relate to one-another.

This is tendency is innate to human enhancement/augmentation technologies in a way that it isn't to traditional technologies. A suit of powered armor is just another tool. A cybernetic body is a whole lot more. They might let you do the same sorts of things, but the relationship the person wearing it has with it is different.

tl;dr: Transhumans are all evil ubermenschen fucks by nature. Don't trust them.

edited 4th May '16 9:20:05 AM by Gault

May I define the point of contention as: "Augmentation/Genetic Modification is non-beneficial to Human as a whole"?

I'd like to first define "Augmentation" as encompassing mechanical augmentation, as appears in Deus Ex, and genetic modification. This naturally does not include AI or robots.

As an individual with an inclination that leans toward being an evil ubermenschen fucks, I request clarification.

The assertion: "fundamental truth of Human commonality" requires specification before it can be debated, as on it hinges the major point of your argument. For want of a better word, are you asserting that we share a common "Humanity" that would be altered somehow through augmentation? If that is the case, please state the reasons.

The slippery slope fallacy is unbecoming, as well. Historical trends indicate general widespread of useful technologies, and I see no particular traits unique to augmentation that should prevent this. Do you accept that, on the subject of nature as technological development, Augmentation technology is of the same class as other technology? In that case, augmentation would faces the same problem posed by capitalism and materialism, and therefore all technology. I'd assert that technological advances (with caveat) is unobjectionable. I'd also asserts that debating proper caveat is beyond the scope of this debate.

How is the relationship between a person using a non-augmentation technology, for example, a car has with the car and one using augmentation technology, for example, a pacemaker has with the pacemaker differs?

Thoughts of the day: A man with robot arms is no less capable of love than fleshbags one free of augmentation.

Don't worry, I was being facetious with that tl;dr bit.

The "common Humanity" I'm referring to is not some abstract an ineffable quality that all Humans are supposed to possess so much as a condensation of all the relevant traits and conditions that define the Human species. All Humans share certain necessities, desires, capabilities etc. and we all more or less deal with the same kinds of problems. This is the "fundamental truth of Human commonality" that lays the foundation for basically all modern politics and morality. The legitimacy and widespread adoption of Democracy is one example, which has as it's conceptual basis is the common interests and equal value of every Human being. Human liberation movements like feminism, civil rights and LGBT rights also have this as their grounding truth.

I think I specified clearly that I do not consider Augmentation technology to be of the same class as other technology, and gave a good account of my reasons for thinking this. Transhuman technology offers something no other technology previously invented has, the potential of altering the fundamental makeup of Human beings. Consider that the "particular traits" unique to augmentation technologies that necessitate the distinction. The only thing my position is contingent on is the simple recognition that this distinction is important, which doesn't come across as a particularly controversial statement to me.

I'll break down the difference in relationship between a baseline Human worker and their technology and a transhuman and their technology. The baseline Human worker goes to work and uses tools to do their job. They then put the tools down and go home, still a baseline Human. The transhuman, on the other hand, is their tools, and so, their capacity for productive work is not them + tools, it's just them. The value they can create at work gets folded into their self. They are, as a person, just better at doing work than the baseline Human worker- in fact, that's the whole point of having augments.

Transhuman technology is flexible, so this same principle applies to every area of life beyond the workplace as well. So, if the transhuman can expect to reap any kind of dividend from their augmentations- which, if they couldn't, then there wouldn't be much point in getting them in the first place- then this breaks the arrangement described above. Put clearly, the "fundamental truth of Human commonality" that underlies virtually every shred of moral, social and political progress we have made as a species, and that has come to define the modern world, is now objectively false.

I figure this would be a pretty big problem.

edited 4th May '16 1:31:44 PM by Gault

I'd argue this runs into the problem of Unhumanible Alien Rights and Tall Poppy Syndrome. Humanity's value doesn't come from our material form per say-there's no reason why a sentient android isn't as valuable as a human. Equality of rights isn't equality of performance.

I'd compare it to the X-men or the Incredibles. Imagine, hypothetically, there was a group of people who were naturally very talented/had super powers. It would not be ethical to force these people not to use their powers just so the rest of us can be equal to them.

I concede to your definition of "common Humanity".

I dispute the assertion that "a man with tools" and "a man with augmentation" are fundamentally different. I propose the example: "a man with knowledge"

A man with robot hands is better at construction work than a man without.

A man with hammer is better at construction work than a man without.

A man with architectural knowledge is better at construction work than a man without.

(A+B) is better at C than (A). The fact that some Bs are stuck 24/7 does not connote significant differences. Knowledge is a skill, obtainable through time and opportunity. The fact that it doesn't occupy a physical manifestation in the material world doesn't invalidate the equation.

I posit that tool (B) is a set that contains items, augmentation, knowledge and more.

A man cannot simply hang his experiences and skills at his locker when he exits the workplace, that doesn't make him above or beyond the fundamental truth of human commonality.

The fact that those with augmentation will perform better at the specific tasks there augmentation are designed toward doesn't reduce their cognizance of common Humanity.

A doctor, trained in medicine, doesn't lose the ability to empathize with people who never studied medicine. Knowledge encompasses pre-knowledge. Augmented Human should thus be similarly endowed with empathy for non-Augmented Human.

I asserts that person+augmentation =/= person+tool is a false conclusion.

Augmentation enhances human capabilities and makes up for deficits; it doesn't interfere with empathy anymore than any other scientific advances.

I've always been bothered by the "When everyone's super, no one is!" statement. How is that a bad thing?

So Pro Human Trans Human.

Basically, humanity is made of people of varying skills and abilities with there always being Always Someone Better and that shouldn't interfere with our empathy for other humans.

Do I have that right?

It doesn't interferes with our empathy, due to basic structure of human society. Differences in capabilities =/= differences in nature.

Soooo, yeah, sure. Geez, you people with the concise point making and the summation creation.

All members of this REAL LIFE group who's ideology doesn't inherently involve hurting people are "evil". Yeah, that totally isn't bigoted at all.

tl;dr are usually jokes, and they says this one is, as well. Careful with cherry picks, please.

EDIT: Apologies for interacting in the stead of another person.

edited 4th May '16 2:31:13 PM by pblades

While the Silicon Valley high tech types most loudly pushing for transhumanism possess problematic political views to say the least, that's clearly not a statement to be taken at face value.

x3 Transhumans don't exist yet

@protagonist506, this disconnect between Humanity's innate moral value- or Human dignity as it's otherwise known- and it's value in every other respect when faced with an increasingly transhuman world is precisely the central antagonism at work here.

The premise of Human dignity- that all Humans are universally and innately owed certain practical rights- stands to be undermined by the advent of transhuman technologies. The moral ideal of political and social equality relies on the truth of common Humanity to be a relevant concept, so in addition to being inherently anti-equality, transhumanism is also inherently anti-democratic.

Human rights cannot exist simply in theory. Rights are concrete. They have to be. That is what it means to be serious about the concept of Human rights. In other words, if I- a baseline Human- am in theory no different in fundamental moral worth than the android I lost my job to because my fleshy meatsack body couldn't hope to compete with mechanical perfection, then guess what? I'm not actually equal in moral worth to that android, in every meaningful way I am in fact less.

For someone who believes strongly in the fundamental equal moral worth of every Human being, this is an unacceptable arrangement.

@pblades, the ability to accrue and utilize knowledge is not something that we require transhuman technology to do. It is and has always been an innate ability of baseline Human beings, and so it is folded under the "Human commonality" concept. It's not as if I assumed that the transhuman in the example in my previous post somehow didn't also have the ability to gain knowledge of how to do his job, I have absolutely no idea why you'd assume that.

The big problem here, which you appear to be missing, is the implications of comparative advantage. Something one person has that someone else does not, and how this causes them to change how they relate to one-another. All Humans have, by default, the ability to gain knowledge about things, including how to do work, so that is already included in the aforementioned comparison between the labor efficacy of Human workers and transhuman workers.

You are entirely correct to say that an augmented worker has no less cognizance of the truth of Human commonality than a baseline Human. After all, they are Humans Plus (h+). They are Humans, with all that entails, and some fairly significant improvements tacked on. Having all that to begin with, and then getting upgraded with augments, is what puts them in the advantageous position when compared to normal Humans in the first place.

However, their cognizance of common Humanity is not actually relevant to the relationship they have with baseline Humans. The relationship is a question of interests and relative physical capacity, not some flaw in personality or mental disconnect between transhumans and baseline Humans. There is potential for that as well, but as a separate problem. You'll note I never mentioned cognizance or empathy even once in my previous posts, so I wonder where you got that from, and what argument you thought I was making.

@honeyishrunkmyself, transhumans do not exist yet. Transhumanists do exist and are real people, but I didn't mention them in that facetious tl;dr bit. Also, whether their ideology does or does not inherently involve hurting people is precisely the topic of discussion.

It has started.

Gotta love that propaganda and meta-stuff.

Soundtrack.

Hope they punch up the music for the 2nd game...

I remember finishing DE:HR and when you get at the end the remastered orchestral theme of the original Deus Ex plays, realizing upon listening to it that basically none of the music original to HR had left an impression. It's there. It's ambient. It fits the mood sure, but none of it stuck with me.

edited 19th May '16 5:44:55 AM by Ghilz