Cybernetic Grafts and Implants

[Hive]

How far would you be willing to go to maker yourself better?

Mood Modifications- allow you to change your mood or to make your moods more positive or to hide other emotions. the idea is to control your emotions.

Intelligence Amplification- allows you to expand your cognitive skills to become smarter or more intelligent or have your memory improved.

Structural Enhancement- to allow yourself to live longer, be stronger, etc...

Immune System Enhancements- to destroy diseases and other harmful processes in the body with nanoprobes...


we all strive for these things, but would you be willing to graft yourself with implants and technology to obtain it? I for one think this is all pretty kwl ^^

 

[SkylerOcon]

I think this all should immediately be made illegal by the United Nations as to prevent anybody from getting this.

Playing God is bad. A God clearly does not exist in the first place, so we should not be trying to fill in for our missing God.

 

[Hive]

and trying to improve yourself is playing god? we try to improve ourselves all the time, this is just the next logical step to improve our potentials.
we take meds to fight diseases, to live longer etc... how do you make a limit? People won't allow a limit to be drawn to hinder their intelligence, lifespan, etc.. when there are ways to improve it, I think. how about if someone will die unless they are given a nanoprobe injection?- it can easily become an emotional arguement in the future I think ^^ sort of like stem cell research is today (though i'm not saying they are the same at all, only similar for that one concept.)

(i'm not going to go into the dumb assumption that god clearly does not exist or that its bad to believe in such though... )

 

[SkylerOcon]

Alright, if these's were allowed this is what would happen:

The children whose parents could not afford to give them genetic implants wouldn't have the same opprotunities as those who do. There would be laws made against it, but it's hard to see somebody discriminating against something that you can't see. Sure, companies would be made to hire some non-implanted people once in a while, but anybody who has a hope of getting a decent job will have the implants.

A good example of this is the movie GATTACA. I would suggest watching it, because it's pretty relevant to the topic, and that it's a good movie.

 

[Hive]

i love gattaca lol ^^

i agree that it would unfortunately probably be more available to higher income people at first which is sad. still is that enough to stop its progress totally? Even if its widened to all incomes, people who elect to have implants will have an unfair advantage over those who don't. I can see your point there.

on the flipside though it would be able to benefit many people with diseases, mental disabilities, the average lifespan, it would allow advances in technology, etc...
In the long run I think that people will allow it. but i know its a very strong issue ^^ that's why i brought it up :D
I guess the real heart of it is, is it ethical to make yourself more intelligent, happier, live longer to a point? And if it DOES break our "humanity" how do we define that humanity?? and what are we working towards in society now (happiness, intelligence, efficiency? )? how do you define something that is intangible?

 

[Mewter]

Alright, if these's were allowed this is what would happen:

The children whose parents could not afford to give them genetic implants wouldn't have the same opprotunities as those who do. There would be laws made against it, but it's hard to see somebody discriminating against something that you can't see. Sure, companies would be made to hire some non-implanted people once in a while, but anybody who has a hope of getting a decent job will have the implants.

A good example of this is the movie GATTACA. I would suggest watching it, because it's pretty relevant to the topic, and that it's a good movie.

But I think what he's asking is whether or not we'd be willing, disregarding political technicalities for a moment, to implant ourselves with these cybernetic technologies. I for one, am okay with the last three. But the first one.... eh.... iffy.
Now, if this did become something only the really rich could obtain, I'd probably be against its public availability at all, unless everyone had equal opportunity for it, and the goods outnumbered the bads. I'm still not sure about the emotions one, though...
It'd be too easy to lie through stuff.

 

[AltF4]

Saying "but only the rich will get it" is true of ANYTHING new and cool. The price will be high and only the rich will get it... at first.

You do know that the light bulb was jsut for the rich at first, right? It was a novelty that only wealthy inner-city elites could afford.

Should we not have invented the light bulb? It's not natural! It makes light during night time! Clearly god intended for there to be darkness during night!

Nonsense. Get a real argument.


Implants and mechanical improvements are already underway. Even today, you can have entire portions of your body replaced by mechanical pieces. They don't always function as well as the fleshy counterparts, but the technology is improving.

There is no rational argument to not allowing this technology. What if we had mechanical eyes? We could make every blind person see again! We could completely cure blindness. But you're willing to condemn every blind person on the planet to their disability because of.... what exactly...?

 

[DtJ Jungle]

I don't think anyone wants to condemn this technology, I think it's more of a question of whether would you implant yourself. Alot of deaf people choose not to have hearing aids used because it takes away from what they now call the deaf culture. Some people just don't want to be aided by science or technology because it isn't natural.

 

[Hive]

i'm surprised so many people usually say this is ok though and are against mind uploading ^^ the principle is basically the same for the intelligence amplifiers- if you can assume that implanting a small device into your brain to expand say memory is able to retain your identity, then how can you say that transferring your brain slowly into a computer wouldn't- from there you can expand your intelligence/live as long as you want/surpress bad emotions?

but anyways, back to the topic ^^ I really think that it will be kwl to have these in the future, it will allow yourself to reach new potentials and be more efficient (yay!). However, I guess I can see why some people wouldn't want it too, i don't think less of anyone for it, it just depends on what things they value and how they believe identity and life operate, and most of the times these really are subjective. I however think this kind of stuff would be pretty kwl since none of my ethics are jeapordized by this, it really only creates benefits for me if it is successful ^^ (plus you'd be a cyborg technically lol, how kwl is that ^^ )

 

[RDK]

I don't think anyone wants to condemn this technology, I think it's more of a question of whether would you implant yourself. Alot of deaf people choose not to have hearing aids used because it takes away from what they now call the deaf culture. Some people just don't want to be aided by science or technology because it isn't natural.

Then those people have the right to not get implanted. What they don't have the right to do is to tell other people they can't.

This goes all the way back to the issue of human rights. As long as it's not infringing upon somebody else's rights, you do what you want and I'll do what I want.

In the case of things like sports, obviously certain enhancements wouldn't be allowed. That, or enhancements become the new standard.

 

[Aesir]

This:

Saying "but only the rich will get it" is true of ANYTHING new and cool. The price will be high and only the rich will get it... at first.

You do know that the light bulb was jsut for the rich at first, right? It was a novelty that only wealthy inner-city elites could afford.

Should we not have invented the light bulb? It's not natural! It makes light during night time! Clearly god intended for there to be darkness during night!

Nonsense. Get a real argument.

What?

first off lightbulbs =/= the human body. A light bulb won't improve your chances of getting a job however an implant that increases your cognitive functions would. In a society which hires people based on merit a person who modifies themselves will be more valuable then someone who does not. You may not find a problem with this but I can see a whole list of issues that could arise from it.

The gap between the rich and the poor would vastly increase, regardless of how accessible the technology is the rich will still have access to the best money can offer while the poorer members won't. It'll undermine what we've been telling the poor all along; "if you work hard and act responsibly you can be successful." That would be non-existent and instead replaced with "If you're born in a well off family you should be okay."


With that said I'm not against this when used for people who actually need it.

 

[Dash_Fox]

Sounds like a choice to get implants to me, I'm for it! I'd do it too if I can be a really kick *** cyborg! (See Ghost in the Shell for examples).

Sure people will have a higher incentive to hire "cyborgs" (only if their new parts work better than an original part or meet a specific need of the job) but that's how it is right now anyways. Would you hire a blind man to be your sniper on the battle field? Would you hire a 350 pound man to be your personal trainer? etc.

I wonder what loop holes are in my argument...

 

[SkylerOcon]

Saying "but only the rich will get it" is true of ANYTHING new and cool. The price will be high and only the rich will get it... at first.

You do know that the light bulb was jsut for the rich at first, right? It was a novelty that only wealthy inner-city elites could afford.

Should we not have invented the light bulb? It's not natural! It makes light during night time! Clearly god intended for there to be darkness during night!

Nonsense. Get a real argument.

Alright, the light bulb was only avaliable to rich people at first. But does this effect job opprotunities? No, I'm pretty sure that you won't be messed up too badly by the lack of a lightbulb.

Implants and mechanical improvements are already underway. Even today, you can have entire portions of your body replaced by mechanical pieces. They don't always function as well as the fleshy counterparts, but the technology is improving.

It is. That's good. People who have disabilities need to have their limbs replaced.

[There is no rational argument to not allowing this technology. What if we had mechanical eyes? We could make every blind person see again! We could completely cure blindness. But you're willing to condemn every blind person on the planet to their disability because of.... what exactly...?

People with disabilities should get there stuff replaced. I'm just weary of these types of things becoming so much better than the regular human body that when the price eventually does come down, that the people who still can't afford it will never have a chance to come back up. It's just unfair.

Really, I have no problem with things that make up for something you're missing... but improving something that's already there is something that we need to be cautious about.

 

[AltF4]

What?

first off lightbulbs =/= the human body.

You fail to realize how an analogy works. I give an example of something which is similar but not the same as what I'm talking about. Analogies are merely illustrative. If it helps you to understand my point, then it has served its purpose. Which apparently it has. The analogy itself is not my argument.


[quoteThe gap between the rich and the poor would vastly increase, regardless of how accessible the technology is the rich will still have access to the best money can offer while the poorer members won't. It'll undermine what we've been telling the poor all along; "if you work hard and act responsibly you can be successful." That would be non-existent and instead replaced with "If you're born in a well off family you should be okay."


With that said I'm not against this when used for people who actually need it.[/QUOTE]

Well, then I think that we need to separate what kinds of improvements we're talking about, here. There are several classes of implants.

A) The kind that simply fixes a disability. IE: Being able to restore sight to the blind.

B) An elective procedure that improves performance of an already functioning body part. IE: Extra strong / fast legs.

I can't imagine anyone being against class A improvements. (Glasses, after all, fit into this category)

Class B is the only worth debating. From a Liberty standpoint, how can you deny someone the right to alter their own body? What right does the government have in doing that? To protect the status quo?

I'm just weary of these types of things becoming so much better than the regular human body that when the price eventually does come down, that the people who still can't afford it will never have a chance to come back up. It's just unfair.

It sounds like you problem is with capitalism, not technology. Why do you feel that it's unfair for a rich person to purchase something and not a poor person? This has little to do with implants and more to do with your vision of what is and isn't "fair". Try even defining that term. It is not simple.



Really consider what you are saying. Imagine that we invent a brain chip that lets you download knowledge. Can you even CONCEIVE of how amazing of an invention this would be. And you're considering banning it on the basis that it's unfair that not everyone will get it?!?!

 

[SkylerOcon]

If they came up with a brain chip that could download knowledge, then I'm pretty sure that the government wouldn't mind handing those out.

It's not that I have a problem with capitalism. No matter how slim the chances may be, everybody is on (nearly) even ground as a human unless you have a disability or the person who you're up against is incredibly smart. With these implants, everybody who did have one would always have an advantage over those who did not.

 

[Aesir]

You fail to realize how an analogy works. I give an example of something which is similar but not the same as what I'm talking about. Analogies are merely illustrative. If it helps you to understand my point, then it has served its purpose. Which apparently it has. The analogy itself is not my argument.

a light bulb won't give you job opportunities while a cognitive enhancement will. I just felt the light bulb scenario was misleading.

Well, then I think that we need to separate what kinds of improvements we're talking about, here. There are several classes of implants.

A) The kind that simply fixes a disability. IE: Being able to restore sight to the blind.

B) An elective procedure that improves performance of an already functioning body part. IE: Extra strong / fast legs.

I can't imagine anyone being against class A improvements. (Glasses, after all, fit into this category)

Class B is the only worth debating. From a Liberty standpoint, how can you deny someone the right to alter their own body? What right does the government have in doing that? To protect the status quo?

SkylerOcon kind of dealt with this point for me already, from a liberty stand point there's nothing wrong with it. However from a social justice stand point there's so many problems with it. However regardless how rich someone gets their ability as a person isn't vastly greater then someone who is poor.

If these plants become so dominate that you need them in order to progress in life that posses a problem. No longer will getting ahead in life entail that you deserve it, it'll just mean you were fortunate enough to be born well off.

 

[RDK]

SkylerOcon kind of dealt with this point for me already, from a liberty stand point there's nothing wrong with it. However from a social justice stand point there's so many problems with it. However regardless how rich someone gets their ability as a person isn't vastly greater then someone who is poor.

If these plants become so dominate that you need them in order to progress in life that posses a problem. No longer will getting ahead in life entail that you deserve it, it'll just mean you were fortunate enough to be born well off.

It's kind of odd that I have to bring this up, but why exactly are we obliged to ensure that the average attributes of humans are kept at the same level? It would be the same exact thing if several strains of humans evolved separately with varying traits. Are you going to demand that my genes be "downgraded" so that everyone else gets a chance too?

Basically, technological implants could be considered the next step in human evolution. As it's been said before, the rich / poor conundrum isn't really a problem--it's the same exact way with anything else. Saying I can't enhance my body via technology is like saying I can't buy food or supplements that poor people can't afford, solely on the basis that they can't afford it.

America was founded on capitalism, and I don't see why it shouldn't continue that way. Unfortunately, those that have inherited the wealth of their parents won't and will never deserve that wealth if they didn't earn it themselves; that's just one of the problems with modern capitalism. But to say that I can't use my money to better myself, be it with sustenance or technology, is ludicrous.

 

[aeghrur]

It's kind of odd that I have to bring this up, but why exactly are we obliged to ensure that the average attributes of humans are kept at the same level? It would be the same exact thing if several strains of humans evolved separately with varying traits. Are you going to demand that my genes be "downgraded" so that everyone else gets a chance too?

We're not ensuring that the average attributes of humans are kept at the same level, we're trying to ensure that there is fairness of opportunity. Why is it that just because your rich, you deserve to get into the best of schools when someone else could be incredibly smart but be rejected due to his socio-economic status? Or why should you be able to get any job you want just because you were born into a rich family while I actually have to work my *** off just to get into an average job? This isn't Feudalism, I thought we were all people who deserve equal opportunities yet instead, this sounds like your a noble while I'm a peasant. o_O

Basically, technological implants could be considered the next step in human evolution. As it's been said before, the rich / poor conundrum isn't really a problem--it's the same exact way with anything else. Saying I can't enhance my body via technology is like saying I can't buy food or supplements that poor people can't afford, solely on the basis that they can't afford it.

If it's the next step in human evolution, then why do we not give it to all humans? Why only the selected few who happen to be rich? So they can sustain their fortunes and basically have primogeniture again? It's not because we're saying you can't do it because they can't afford it, it's because this will RUIN the idea of:
An American dream
Equal opportunity
Hard work means rewards
A non-static socioeconomic ladder.
Allowing only the rich to gain these implants will only lead to elitism, discrimination, regression, and primogeniture again.

America was founded on capitalism, and I don't see why it shouldn't continue that way. Unfortunately, those that have inherited the wealth of their parents won't and will never deserve that wealth if they didn't earn it themselves; that's just one of the problems with modern capitalism. But to say that I can't use my money to better myself, be it with sustenance or technology, is ludicrous.

You must have certain aspects of socialism to keep capitalism going.
Obviously, I can see you're a big advocate of capitalism, so I shall expand from that.
Now, by capitalist ideals, you should be able to get ahead by working hard correct? That innovation and imagination should be the driving factors of success? What will happen once you add in implants? Those who do not work and do not innovate will become the elite simply because they have the implants. The rich will stay rich much like the ideals of primogeniture in England because obviously, who would lose their money if they had the implants to become that much smarter? We will no longer be the America that people came here to see, but instead be the Socially static England the immigrants came away from.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to enhance yourself with technology, I'm just saying that this technology will not only ruin the ideal america was founded upon, but it will also create a static social ladder which will make us REGRESS toward Feudalist England instead of Progress.

Meh, hope this argument works for a while.

 

[Aesir]

It's kind of odd that I have to bring this up, but why exactly are we obliged to ensure that the average attributes of humans are kept at the same level? It would be the same exact thing if several strains of humans evolved separately with varying traits. Are you going to demand that my genes be "downgraded" so that everyone else gets a chance too?

Evolution is a natural occurrence, telling you can't have something you were born with is like saying you can't be human. As opposed to augmenting yourself because you just want to be better. Sorry they're not the same thing.

It's not about making sure everyones at the same level, you don't see me telling Tiger Woods he needs to stop training so we can give Joe the Plumber a chance to get good at golf too. It's about ensuring that other members of society are given the same chances as everyone else, so their lives aren't pre-determined based on the social class they happen to be born in. We have a class system, we should avoid it from turning into a caste system.

Basically, technological implants could be considered the next step in human evolution. As it's been said before, the rich / poor conundrum isn't really a problem--it's the same exact way with anything else. Saying I can't enhance my body via technology is like saying I can't buy food or supplements that poor people can't afford, solely on the basis that they can't afford it.

More like a step toward design rather then evolution.

Comparing augmentations to everything else is poor argument we've already established that with the light bulb. A light bulb won't increase your chances of acquiring or job or keeping your current job. However Physical or Mental Augmentations will effect the outcome.

That's the problem it's not the actual augmentations it's the effect they'll have on society

America was founded on capitalism, and I don't see why it shouldn't continue that way. Unfortunately, those that have inherited the wealth of their parents won't and will never deserve that wealth if they didn't earn it themselves; that's just one of the problems with modern capitalism. But to say that I can't use my money to better myself, be it with sustenance or technology, is ludicrous.

America wasn't founded on Capitalism, it existed long before we won our independence, if anything the concepts of Republicanism is what founded America. There isn't anything ludicrous about putting limitations on this, especially if it would ostracize an entire class of people from ever succeeding.

I would argue that without limitations our class system would devolve into a caste system.

 

[RDK]

We're not ensuring that the average attributes of humans are kept at the same level, we're trying to ensure that there is fairness of opportunity.

Define fairness. If I'm born with a disability, I doubt you would consider that fair by any standard.

News flash: life isn't fair. If it was, we wouldn't need the judicial system, or even a government. That's why we have these things in place.

Why is it that just because your rich, you deserve to get into the best of schools when someone else could be incredibly smart but be rejected due to his socio-economic status?

Then your beef is with the modern capitalist system and not with technological advancement.

With technological advancement comes inherent alienation of those who can't afford it. It's always been that way, ever since the beginning of industry. What you're advocating is the moral equivalent of banning people from buying expensive laptop computers just because other people can't afford them.

Why do I, a rich person, deserve the best of schools while some poor guy can't afford it? Because I earned my money, and I have the right to go to my school of choice, provided I get accepted. If the case is that I did not earn my money, and instead got it from my rich daddy, then again, your beef is not with technology but with the state of American economics.

In the case of schools, we have things called scholarships.

Or why should you be able to get any job you want just because you were born into a rich family while I actually have to work my *** off just to get into an average job? This isn't Feudalism, I thought we were all people who deserve equal opportunities yet instead, this sounds like your a noble while I'm a peasant. o_O

If I own a business, I have the right to hire whomever I want, based on whatever presuppositional bias I choose. If I don't like the way you look, or even the color of your skin, I don't have to hire you, based just on that. I doubt you would advocate the government telling producers who they can and can't hire and for what reason.

That being said, the amount of money you have is a fairly decent indicator of how useful you are to society (notice that I said fairly decent; there are exceptions to this rule, mainly inherited / stolen / undeserving wealth). If you have enough money to buy implants, and it fancies you to do so, then there's no reason you shouldn't.

If it's the next step in human evolution, then why do we not give it to all humans?

Because we don't live in a communist country.

Whatever implant said producer is peddling is a product and a service, and as such is property of the producer. Just because somebody makes something doesn't mean you get automatic access to it. Even medicine works this way; would you like to nationalize the medical field, too?

Why only the selected few who happen to be rich? So they can sustain their fortunes and basically have primogeniture again? It's not because we're saying you can't do it because they can't afford it, it's because this will RUIN the idea of:

An American dream
Equal opportunity
Hard work means rewards
A non-static socioeconomic ladder.
Allowing only the rich to gain these implants will only lead to elitism, discrimination, regression, and primogeniture again.

Kids who inherit wealth already start out with an unfair advantage, so I don't really see the argument here. You can't take implants to the grave with you, and you can't pass them onto your kids. They have to buy their own.

The whole argument of "I won't get hired because I don't have X implant" is ridiculous, BTW. Producers hire whomever is most fit for a job. If you don't have enough money to pay for an operation that will enable you to walk again after a horrific accident, then you're probably not going to get that job as a mailman that you had your eye on. Simple job economics.

You must have certain aspects of socialism to keep capitalism going.
Obviously, I can see you're a big advocate of capitalism, so I shall expand from that.
Now, by capitalist ideals, you should be able to get ahead by working hard correct? That innovation and imagination should be the driving factors of success? What will happen once you add in implants? Those who do not work and do not innovate will become the elite simply because they have the implants.

It is true that hard work and innovation are the cornerstone of capitalism. By that logic, if the new elite do not work and do not innovate, then they have nothing to offer producers, and won't get hired.

The rich will stay rich much like the ideals of primogeniture in England because obviously, who would lose their money if they had the implants to become that much smarter? We will no longer be the America that people came here to see, but instead be the Socially static England the immigrants came away from.

This whole argument is silly if you take a step back and look at it for a minute. Immigrants who come to this country chasing "The American Dream" have to start out at the bottom anyway. They don't really get "equal opportunity" when they first come here; they get whatever ****ty job they can scrounge up, and work their way up the ladder. The same exact thing will happen with implants. People will eat up the jobs that don't necessarily demand that you have X implant, and once they have enough money to invest in X implant, they can then afford it. Voila!

Evolution is a natural occurrence, telling you can't have something you were born with is like saying you can't be human. As opposed to augmenting yourself because you just want to be better. Sorry they're not the same thing.

Sure it is. Your genetic makeup is pre-determined. In reality, so is wealth. Your parents die, you're probably going to get a sizeable chunk of that, unless you were a brat growing up. You did nothing to earn that money, and yet you get it anyway. Same with genetics; you get them from your parents, and their parents, and their parents....

It's not about making sure everyones at the same level, you don't see me telling Tiger Woods he needs to stop training so we can give Joe the Plumber a chance to get good at golf too. It's about ensuring that other members of society are given the same chances as everyone else, so their lives aren't pre-determined based on the social class they happen to be born in. We have a class system, we should avoid it from turning into a caste system.

Comparing augmentations to everything else is poor argument we've already established that with the light bulb. A light bulb won't increase your chances of acquiring or job or keeping your current job. However Physical or Mental Augmentations will effect the outcome.

Certain foods, medicines, and supplements could be considered physical augmentation. Does that mean the government is allowed to say I can't use steroids if it helps me get a job in construction over some guy that chooses not to use steroids?

It's just a matter of degress.

America wasn't founded on Capitalism, it existed long before we won our independence, if anything the concepts of Republicanism is what founded America.

You're confusing "founded" and "invented". No, we did not invent the concept of capitalism; yes, we were founded on it.

There isn't anything ludicrous about putting limitations on this, especially if it would ostracize an entire class of people from ever succeeding.

If you're a poor white male with a low standard of living, you're already pretty much ****ed, unless you're some sort of genius. Why is it that much more unfair that technological implants provide people with an edge, when we have whole slums of people that have zero chance of succeeding in life because of their social position?

I would argue that without limitations our class system would devolve into a caste system.

If we're going to split hairs, it's technically always been a little bit of a caste system. The people with money hold power; it's been that way since the beginning of time (metaphorically speaking).

 

[Aesir]

Sure it is. Your genetic makeup is pre-determined. In reality, so is wealth. Your parents die, you're probably going to get a sizeable chunk of that, unless you were a brat growing up. You did nothing to earn that money, and yet you get it anyway. Same with genetics; you get them from your parents, and their parents, and their parents....

I see what you're getting at and maybe my point was lost in the giant walls of text but I think you're missing the point. It's really about making sure the person next to me has the same chance of succeeding as me, the only determiner of that should be my merit as a person.

How just is it that you could lose a chance at having a good paying job because you happened to be shafted early in life by not being born into a privileged family?

Certain foods, medicines, and supplements could be considered physical augmentation. Does that mean the government is allowed to say I can't use steroids if it helps me get a job in construction over some guy that chooses not to use steroids?

It's just a matter of degress.

You may get the job but you certainly won't be getting the ladies if you know what I mean.

Those variables are wide spread, anyone rich or poor could get those if they so chose, the point isn't augmenting it's the distribution of those augmentations. The powerful members of society will gain the top of the line models while the commoners will be stuck with hand me downs. Again it just undermines the idea of hard works gets you somewhere, it's all pre-determination.

You're confusing "founded" and "invented". No, we did not invent the concept of capitalism; yes, we were founded on it.

Capitalism had nothing to do with the founding of this country, I can't believe you're actually trying to argue that.

If you're a poor white male with a low standard of living, you're already pretty much ****ed, unless you're some sort of genius. Why is it that much more unfair that technological implants provide people with an edge, when we have whole slums of people that have zero chance of succeeding in life because of their social position?

Again there's no guarantee that the poor members of society will gain access to the same level of technology as the richer members of society. That in it's self is a huge problem and unless that was fixed it would cause so many social problems.

If we're going to split hairs, it's technically always been a little bit of a caste system. The people with money hold power; it's been that way since the beginning of time (metaphorically speaking).

Not really, it's been more class in America then caste, you can be poor and still become successful in life.

 

[illinialex24]

Not really, it's been more class in America then caste, you can be poor and still become successful in life.

Actually, articles have shown that social mobility recently is greatly decreasing. Someone posted it before and I am too lazy to retrieve it but it shows a sharp decrease in the amount of social mobility. Which means that classes are becoming more and more like a caste system.

 

[Aesir]

Actually, articles have shown that social mobility recently is greatly decreasing. Someone posted it before and I am too lazy to retrieve it but it shows a sharp decrease in the amount of social mobility. Which means that classes are becoming more and more like a caste system.

Yeah but historically speaking it wasn't always like that, which is really the point. We should be trying to stop that regression rather then tossing our hands up and saying "Oh well what're you going to do!"

 

[aeghrur]

Define fairness. If I'm born with a disability, I doubt you would consider that fair by any standard.

News flash: life isn't fair. If it was, we wouldn't need the judicial system, or even a government. That's why we have these things in place.

Fairness of opportunity is the idea that if everyone has an equal opportunity for success. If you work hard, intelligent, and imaginative, you should be able to succeed correct? This would be fairness of opportunity. I know life isn't fair, yet we still strive toward fairness do we not? Or else, why IS there a judicial system or a government?

Then your beef is with the modern capitalist system and not with technological advancement.

With technological advancement comes inherent alienation of those who can't afford it. It's always been that way, ever since the beginning of industry. What you're advocating is the moral equivalent of banning people from buying expensive laptop computers just because other people can't afford them.

Will buying a laptop give me a higher chance of getting a job? Would having a car make you more efficient for your job? No, it won't. Will getting an implant so your significantly more intelligent grant you a higher chance at your job? Yes. Will it make you have a higher chance of getting into an incredible university simply because of that? Yeah, it will, while other people who work hard as **** couldn't because you could be lazy with an implant. So, how does this show that capitalism promotes hard work? It doesn't, it will go to show that our capitalist country will become a nation which is based upon money, not hard work, not innovation, money.

Why do I, a rich person, deserve the best of schools while some poor guy can't afford it? Because I earned my money, and I have the right to go to my school of choice, provided I get accepted. If the case is that I did not earn my money, and instead got it from my rich daddy, then again, your beef is not with technology but with the state of American economics.

In the case of schools, we have things called scholarships.

And my beef is not with technology in general, but rather the sudden collapse of our class system due to the invention of this specific technology. With it introduced, rich daddies will make their kids geniuses, they will gain money from their rich daddies because they're geniuses, and it continues. Meanwhile, the poor will be unable to buy the implants, they will be trying to survive without money for implants, and will not be able to move up the socioeconomic ladder.

If I own a business, I have the right to hire whomever I want, based on whatever presuppositional bias I choose. If I don't like the way you look, or even the color of your skin, I don't have to hire you, based just on that. I doubt you would advocate the government telling producers who they can and can't hire and for what reason.

I may not advocate it, but the government does tell business people what basis they can or cannot hire people upon? Obviously, you cannot hire based on the color of skin alone. Too bad huh? Why do you think they should allow businesses to hire people who had implants over those who didn't, which is basically another type of discrimination?

That being said, the amount of money you have is a fairly decent indicator of how useful you are to society (notice that I said fairly decent; there are exceptions to this rule, mainly inherited / stolen / undeserving wealth). If you have enough money to buy implants, and it fancies you to do so, then there's no reason you shouldn't.

Wait, how does the amount of money you have indicate how useful you are? It's not a good indicator at all. Your undeserving wealth population must be huge and surely you would agree. Just look at all the politicians, big business men who got there from fraud. Are you telling me the people who are ****ing rich right now from business that fell deserve to be there? The same people that polluted our economy with VERY risky home mortgages through fraud? They are not useful to our society, so wealth is not a good indication of usefulness. I will argue that plumbers are MUCH more useful, yet are they rich? No... So why should the rich and undeserving get the implants they don't deserve and then maintain their socioeconomic status just because of those implants they didn't deserve?

Because we don't live in a communist country.

Whatever implant said producer is peddling is a product and a service, and as such is property of the producer. Just because somebody makes something doesn't mean you get automatic access to it. Even medicine works this way; would you like to nationalize the medical field, too?

Wait, but, isn't it a form of evolution? I thought as humans, we evolved as a race. o_O, so I don't get it, but that guy over there can? So he gets to instantly evolve and I don't? Wow, okay, that's not evolution. >_< Well, anyhow, I agree that everyone shouldn't get it if it's a product, but if it's a form of evolution, we should eventually all get it right? And since it's a product people can make, why not let the government give it to all? It quickens our evolution right? How could that be bad?

Kids who inherit wealth already start out with an unfair advantage, so I don't really see the argument here. You can't take implants to the grave with you, and you can't pass them onto your kids. They have to buy their own.

My argument is basically that through these implants, they can be SURE that their kids will maintain that wealth. Then, this means the rich will always be able to buy this, get good jobs, and be rich. meanwhile, the poor will have to work their butt off for low pay, make no money, and will always be rich. =/ Primogeniture anyone? Fathers land is son's land, you got land, you will forever have land? :O make that wealth.

The whole argument of "I won't get hired because I don't have X implant" is ridiculous, BTW. Producers hire whomever is most fit for a job. If you don't have enough money to pay for an operation that will enable you to walk again after a horrific accident, then you're probably not going to get that job as a mailman that you had your eye on. Simple job economics.

How is it ridiculous? It will be TRUE. The mailman thing is different as your not limiting his opportunities. He can still be amazingly successful without legs. Can you do that once these implants come and you don't have this? hardly. Your going to work your *** off without these implants and what will you get? A low paying job because your suddenly not intelligent enough. >_>

It is true that hard work and innovation are the cornerstone of capitalism. By that logic, if the new elite do not work and do not innovate, then they have nothing to offer producers, and won't get hired.

Haha, this would be in a society where everyone gets all the knowledge, otherwise known as pure capitalism. You know, both sides have all the information? Not the case. In this world, it doesn't matter if the new elite do not work nor innovate, because that's what they're doing right now! Are the elite business owners of our society innovating right now? Look at all our cars, look at our computers, look at our movies, are they innovative? Nope. They're replicative yet these elites still remain the elites.

This whole argument is silly if you take a step back and look at it for a minute. Immigrants who come to this country chasing "The American Dream" have to start out at the bottom anyway. They don't really get "equal opportunity" when they first come here; they get whatever ****ty job they can scrounge up, and work their way up the ladder. The same exact thing will happen with implants. People will eat up the jobs that don't necessarily demand that you have X implant, and once they have enough money to invest in X implant, they can then afford it. Voila!

[/COLOR]

But that's saying they CAN work up the ladder. Can you work up the ladder with implants in place? You say save money to invest in implants right? How will they do this if their ****ty job pays them for crap, and they have no money to even buy lunch! Once people get the implants, they will have a social ladder basically set in stone, with maybe the one or two occasional poor people who actually make enough to get a good shelter, consistent food, no debts, and be able to afford those implants. =/


On an unrelated note, OMG I CAN'T MAKE ANYMORE WALLS OF TEXTS. T_T

 

[Hive]

rich=/=necessarily earned it.
almost ever imo.

its sad how much this society forgets about the poor in this country though... and deludes themselves with the idea that its their fault they are in that position. capitalism becomes flawed here because by having money your more likely to get more money and skills to get more money bc of it, and so does not reward actual potential and willingness to work as much as it should.

i still believe these implants will be good though.
overall I think that people will reap more benefits bc of them. however since people base their happiness on comparing themselves to others it might be harmful in some respect in the short term unless society is willing to do something to make these more accessible.

Actually, articles have shown that social mobility recently is greatly decreasing. Someone posted it before and I am too lazy to retrieve it but it shows a sharp decrease in the amount of social mobility. Which means that classes are becoming more and more like a caste system.

exactly unfortuanely. :/ having come from almost being homeless and knowing many ppl that were forced into that situation, i can see that too well. it doesn't matter how smart you are or how willing you are to work if your unable to get the education, health, transportation, etc to do these bc of autonomous expenditures and the availability of jobs.
its sad because larger gaps in incomes are bad for the economy as well. more money to the rich= less aggregate spending and more aggregate saving which decreses growth... and if the economys goal is to protect ppls rights it is doing bad in that sense as well by letting those ppl suffer.

strict capitalism=epic fail. society already does things that limit capitalism like monopoly laws etc.. but i still think it needs to do things to help even out income gaps and promote opportunities to choose more imo.

 

[RDK]

I see what you're getting at and maybe my point was lost in the giant walls of text but I think you're missing the point. It's really about making sure the person next to me has the same chance of succeeding as me, the only determiner of that should be my merit as a person.

Okay then; if that was your original point, I agree with this 100%. However, despite how much we like to think we're born with a "clean slate", we're not. We're stuck with whatever genetic soup our parents gave to us, as well as whatever socio-economic atmosphere we were born into. Which brings me to your next point:

How just is it that you could lose a chance at having a good paying job because you happened to be shafted early in life by not being born into a privileged family?

Is this not what happens today? Just look at places like Detroit. Plenty of those people are never going to have a decent shot at improving their standard of living.

Those variables are wide spread, anyone rich or poor could get those if they so chose, the point isn't augmenting it's the distribution of those augmentations. The powerful members of society will gain the top of the line models while the commoners will be stuck with hand me downs. Again it just undermines the idea of hard works gets you somewhere, it's all pre-determination.

Again, I get what you're saying and agree 100%. If anything, something should be done about inherited wealth, which is the root of all evil when it comes to American capitalism (or of any kind of capitalism, for that matter). Unfortunately, we can't force people to give money to the people that actually deserve it. Sometimes worthless phonies collect vast sums of money, while potential geniuses starves to death.

Capitalism had nothing to do with the founding of this country, I can't believe you're actually trying to argue that.

Um, you do know that part of the reason we broke off from England was the ridiculous embargoes, taxes, and various other market-meddlings of the King, right? It's right in the Declaration of Independence. Capitalism is a cornerstone of American ideals, along with freedom, equality, and individual rights.

In any case, capitalism is simply where the means of production are distributed to openly competing, profit-seeking private individuals. Sounds like post-Revolution America to me.

Fairness of opportunity is the idea that if everyone has an equal opportunity for success. If you work hard, intelligent, and imaginative, you should be able to succeed correct? This would be fairness of opportunity. I know life isn't fair, yet we still strive toward fairness do we not? Or else, why IS there a judicial system or a government?

Go back to what I said to Aesir about how predetermined we actually are. Yes, we should have as much equal opportunity as possible, but the idea that we start out with a 100% clean slate is illusory. The fact that we have people born into poverty is evidence of this.

Again--you're not really arguing against the idea of implants. Anything we buy that is beneficial to us in spite of people who can't afford it is, apparently, morally "wrong" by your definition. I don't see how this is suddenly, drastically different for implants.

Will buying a laptop give me a higher chance of getting a job? Would having a car make you more efficient for your job? No, it won't.

LOL, um, if you don't have a car, how are you getting to work?

That's what you're not understanding. If the things you buy aren't so important for sustaining your current standard of living, why do you buy them? Apparently you can live without your car, cell phone, or laptop, so why not just practice what you preach and go dump it onto the nearest homeless guy?

Will getting an implant so your significantly more intelligent grant you a higher chance at your job? Yes. Will it make you have a higher chance of getting into an incredible university simply because of that? Yeah, it will, while other people who work hard as **** couldn't because you could be lazy with an implant. So, how does this show that capitalism promotes hard work? It doesn't, it will go to show that our capitalist country will become a nation which is based upon money, not hard work, not innovation, money.

You're not putting enough faith in the employer. If you're a smart employer, you'll hire on merit; the hiring process should have nothing to do with your socio-economic status--it should be about how fit you are for the job. In this case, the person you're describing simply isn't fit for the job.

And if the jock with implants is as big a worthless, fresh-out-of-college, pompous @sshole as you make him out to be, he's certainly not someone I would want to hire. What's the point if increasing intelligence via implants if he's still going to be worthless compared to a relatively intelligent poor person of the same age?

And if the flipside is true (his intelligence and worth is is increased, then the guy has got to be fit for the job after having the implants, so it's not like he doesn't deserve it. You either need to find a new loophole to argue, or change the form of your argument.

And my beef is not with technology in general, but rather the sudden collapse of our class system due to the invention of this specific technology. With it introduced, rich daddies will make their kids geniuses, they will gain money from their rich daddies because they're geniuses, and it continues. Meanwhile, the poor will be unable to buy the implants, they will be trying to survive without money for implants, and will not be able to move up the socioeconomic ladder.

Okay...so now you're saying it's not okay for geniuses to make a lot of money?

I may not advocate it, but the government does tell business people what basis they can or cannot hire people upon?

Um, what? No they don't. I have absolutely no idea where you're getting this from, but it's absolutely not true. I don't have hire a black person if I don't want to, solely on the basis of because he's black. As long as I don't voice why I didn't hire him, I'm in the clear.

Obviously, you cannot hire based on the color of skin alone. Too bad huh? Why do you think they should allow businesses to hire people who had implants over those who didn't, which is basically another type of discrimination?

The employer is allowed to discriminate; otherwise he would be forced to hire everyone.

Wait, how does the amount of money you have indicate how useful you are? It's not a good indicator at all. Your undeserving wealth population must be huge and surely you would agree. Just look at all the politicians, big business men who got there from fraud. Are you telling me the people who are ****ing rich right now from business that fell deserve to be there? The same people that polluted our economy with VERY risky home mortgages through fraud? They are not useful to our society, so wealth is not a good indication of usefulness. I will argue that plumbers are MUCH more useful, yet are they rich? No... So why should the rich and undeserving get the implants they don't deserve and then maintain their socioeconomic status just because of those implants they didn't deserve?

Your example of big business executives who amassed their fortunes via fraud is one out of a million other businesses that move the free market. The idea that every single businessman out there who makes a pretty penny is undeserving of his wealth is ludicrous, and I'm appalled that you would even think that. If everyone is worthless, then why are you still able to type on your computer? Shouldn't it have exploded by now due to faulty engineering?

Wait, but, isn't it a form of evolution? I thought as humans, we evolved as a race. o_O, so I don't get it, but that guy over there can? So he gets to instantly evolve and I don't? Wow, okay, that's not evolution. >_< Well, anyhow, I agree that everyone shouldn't get it if it's a product, but if it's a form of evolution, we should eventually all get it right? And since it's a product people can make, why not let the government give it to all? It quickens our evolution right? How could that be bad?

Whoever said everyone gets to participate in beneficial human evolution? The whole point of evolution via natural selection is that some are selected for because they are superior, and some aren't because their inferior.

My argument is basically that through these implants, they can be SURE that their kids will maintain that wealth. Then, this means the rich will always be able to buy this, get good jobs, and be rich. meanwhile, the poor will have to work their butt off for low pay, make no money, and will always be rich. =/ Primogeniture anyone? Fathers land is son's land, you got land, you will forever have land? :O make that wealth.

This is no different then the situation we have now.

Haha, this would be in a society where everyone gets all the knowledge, otherwise known as pure capitalism. You know, both sides have all the information?

What? You're confusing laissez-faire (pure) capitalism with something else entirely. It sounds like what you're talking about is some form of communism. In a free market, not everyone has a right to information.

strict capitalism=epic fail. society already does things that limit capitalism like monopoly laws etc.. but i still think it needs to do things to help even out income gaps and promote opportunities to choose more imo.

Okay, well you guys need to actually state exactly you think is wrong with capitalism. Bashing something that's proven to be the best economic system isn't a good way to get your point across.

And note that true laissez-faire capitalism hasn't been implemented fully anywhere. Your arguments against our current form are exactly the same as mine.

 

[AltF4]

I'd be careful about saying that America was founded on Capitalism, RDK. Both The Wealth of Nations and The Declaration of Independence were written in the same year. Capitalism is a fairly new idea, relatively.

The basic ideas of "freedom"... perhaps you could argue. If Adam Smith had been born a hundred years before he was, would the founding fathers have officially supported it? ...maybe. But saying "America was founded on capitalism" is not a very tenable position.

 

[Aesir]

After reading your post I came to the conclusion Libertarians and Progressives want the same thing only have different ways of reaching it.

Um, you do know that part of the reason we broke off from England was the ridiculous embargoes, taxes, and various other market-meddlings of the King, right? It's right in the Declaration of Independence. Capitalism is a cornerstone of American ideals, along with freedom, equality, and individual rights.

I probably missed that. my bad.

In any case, capitalism is simply where the means of production are distributed to openly competing, profit-seeking private individuals. Sounds like post-Revolution America to me.

True I probably got caught up in Republicanism and probably over looked that.

 

[illinialex24]

rich=/=necessarily earned it.
almost ever imo.

its sad how much this society forgets about the poor in this country though... and deludes themselves with the idea that its their fault they are in that position. capitalism becomes flawed here because by having money your more likely to get more money and skills to get more money bc of it, and so does not reward actual potential and willingness to work as much as it should.

i still believe these implants will be good though.
overall I think that people will reap more benefits bc of them. however since people base their happiness on comparing themselves to others it might be harmful in some respect in the short term unless society is willing to do something to make these more accessible.



exactly unfortuanely. :/ having come from almost being homeless and knowing many ppl that were forced into that situation, i can see that too well. it doesn't matter how smart you are or how willing you are to work if your unable to get the education, health, transportation, etc to do these bc of autonomous expenditures and the availability of jobs.
its sad because larger gaps in incomes are bad for the economy as well. more money to the rich= less aggregate spending and more aggregate saving which decreses growth... and if the economys goal is to protect ppls rights it is doing bad in that sense as well by letting those ppl suffer.

strict capitalism=epic fail. society already does things that limit capitalism like monopoly laws etc.. but i still think it needs to do things to help even out income gaps and promote opportunities to choose more imo.

Exactly, I personally come from the upper class. I go to a nationally acclaimed public school, where I see many people but the vast majority come from fairly wealthy families, the top 2% or 5%. Only a very small majority are not in that group and those people generally moved to this district by living with a wealthy aunt or the like.

I see kids who screw up constantly, get hooked on drugs, forget their studies and the rest. And at the end of the year, out of more than 4,000 students, I could tell you only a few that I would expect to fail later on in life. Almost every kid is expected to have a successful future and many don't have to work that hard for it. Sure, for the students who are intelligent, there is a huge amount of competition to go to the top schools, but almost our entire graduating class could get into a very decent college just by graduating.

And above 99% of students graduate. Compare this to Chicago, which is right to the south.

And since its fairly obvious from this what school I go to if you do research, if you know, please don't tell anyone just for privacy reasons.

 

[Hive]

@rdk (plus some other thoughts that aren't necessarily addresing anyone ^^)- laissez faire fails by itself. Government needs to be a part of the economic system. If business operates on its own many of these things happen:
-monopolies occur and block out competition-> which hinders growth and technology advances.
-Workers are forced to work below livable conditions. (they have less control/rights over wages, etc...)
-Ethics in business lose value since they aren't as punishable. and so there's more incentive to do them.
-Recessions last longer and hurt harder. (due to waiting for the Short term supply to shift instead of the gov. just changing demand which would be much quicker.)
-Business Cycles are more severe.
-Wealth gaps are higher -People won't be able to have as much control in finding which jobs they are most suited for specializaition will go down.
-and companies and people would implement more policies that are bad for the economy on the whole but good for themselves in the short run (that's part of why we need the federal reserve)
strict laissez faire by itself is probably a bad idea though.

The Great Depression for example, is the most obvious truth that laissez faire by itself can't work. unemployment hit near 10%, hoovervilles, negative expectations, suicide rates go up, etc... until the gov. started to increase spending to promote demand.
If laissez faire were allowed to work by itself then yea, it would eventually restore equilibrium. It does this by having the short run supply shift forward (in a recession) to meet the long run equilibrium. However this takes much longer and is much more severe then if government just uses fiscal policy to shift demand up. We NEED Government to spend more to help demand rise again so we can surpress these kinds of recessions before they collapse. We need to balance out income gaps more as well so that spending can increase too.

sorry, I guess I'm talking a lot but I guess its a little emotional for me. Just recently (1-2 years ago, fortunately i'm more scure now ^^) after applying to 60+ places locally and then only finding a job at a place where you count barcodes at minimum wage for 8 hours a day at 2 am+ in the morning.... havng had to give up ALL of the jobs i wanted to be in the future bc i couldn't afford the education even though i had the potential (easily), and had to focus on other priorities, like food, and escaping homelessness out of sheer luck and watching some ppl get into thieving/drugs/unable to get medical care/transgendered friends unable to get surgeries etc. It became apparent that there are REALLY big flaws in the capitalist system right now. Its the worst feeling in the world to be on the edge of losing everything. I know i'm biased but really this society really needs to do more for people in need (not me right now). And In my opinion the rich really need to be taxed more, not bc they deserve it but bc they have the means to help with less sacrifice-> one million dollars is nothing to someone who has one billion dollars, but everything to someone who has nothing. I'm not saying we need to entirely even out incomes, that would hurt incentives to work, however, society at least needs to be able to support and provide the necessary employment opportunities and some kind of financial assistance to at least get people at livable levels (housing, food, some recreational money, etc..). it will help everyone in the long run.

I mean I know people who work 1000 times harder mentally and physically then some of the highest income earners and are still struggling... the economy doesn't necessarily promote determination, potential, or hard work (and its not an inverse relation either- all income gaps have good and bad ppl). There were some studies on this awhile ago that came to the same conclusion that wealth was not tied to intelligence to a substantial amount.. The economy isn't exactly "survival of the fittest" ... it doesn't serve that purpose that well imo
I'm not against upper class people as a whole, I just think that the gov. and the people as a whole need to do more for the worse off at the expense of some of the people with a better capacity to help.

 

[aeghrur]

RDK, I'll answer you another day. My wall of text just got deleted, and I'm not in the mood for writing another one what so ever right now. >_< Sorry man, but I will get you a response soon.

 

[Reaver197]

Urgh, I hate it when that happens. That's why I usually type what I know will be long posts in Google Docs first, so it autosaves it.

Anyway, I just want to deal with a couple assumptions that seem to be rampaging through a lot of posts. One seems to be the implicit assumption that "intelligence" boosting implants would be made on children. Given how long and drastically the brain changes and matures during the first twenty or so years of a person's life, I can't say that neuroscientists would find it safe or effective to provide babies or children with neural implants.

So, chances are, if the brain really doesn't stop maturing until the age of 25 or so, people won't be getting implants until about after college or there about. Everything before then will have to be learned and done in the good old fashion way, unless, of course, we find ways to genetically engineer for greater intelligence, but that's a different topic than this one.

Another assumption is that intelligence is somehow the only factor for success. I must emphatically state that this is not the case. Being supremely intelligent does not necessarily mean you will be successful. Success is highly contingent upon other factors. Emotional and social aptitude and "intelligence" are probably even more important for success than raw, computational prowess, and those two traits are definitely not something that people can just make implants for to improve.

Also, there seems to be this conception that rich people are largely undeserving of their wealth. By what basis has this been judged? As far as I can tell, it's based merely upon anecdotal evidence, which is hardly sufficient to make such grand, sweeping generalizations. On the flip side, there is no evidence to say that poor people work harder for success than rich people do (or did). In fact, there might even be some people who are deserved of their poor financial state, or, at least, brought it upon themselves.

Now, often for new technologies, they do have to go through a phase in which only the more financially successful can afford them, because making a new technology is expensive and the production of it is probably not yet that efficient. However, it is often important for the developers of new technology to go through such a phase in order to get enough capitol in order to further develop and streamline the technology, after which they can then probably lower the cost of them. In fact, such companies would have a distinct incentive to lower the cost of their product in order to access as wide of a market as they can. So, while the technology may at first be prohibitively expensive, who's to say it wouldn't become relatively cheap?

I don't think there is any issue of marketing such technology once it becomes available. The biggest issues will be in the development of them, like how safe they will be, and what detrimental effects they will have on people.

I personally feel that the intelligence boosting implant is one of the more boring implants to consider. It would probably only increase our ability to do computations and retain information (if they can even achieve that). Structural and muscle enhancements would be interesting, especially in regards to sports, as what would the difference be between them and steroids?

The mood modification one would be the most interesting, and probably most easily achievable, one, at least to me. Especially, if someone else could have control over the implant, thus your emotions. They would be able to, in a way, mind control you via your emotions (I've been thinking about using this very idea in a story). In a way, this would be the most revolutionary one, as we would finally be able to directly control, change, and even make ourselves feel emotions, rather than just controlling them and masking them. Hell, it could even be used for large scale "brainwashing", like making everyone feel exceptionally devoted and unquestioning of their country (or a particular political party). Scary.

 

[Hive]

i'm basing the ideat that wealthy get there mostly by luck/social situations because of this :/

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21618379-2,00.html
and the fact that physicists only make a median salary of 50,000-90,000, about average in terms of general pop., would indicate its not intelligence.
and i'm pretty sure we can all agree that lower income people at least work as hard than say upper class people (construction workers for example).
these plus upper income have like what 5 times more income than middle class (250,000 compared to 50,000)?
so my question is this- what principle then do ppl with money implement to deserve it more? deserve 5 times as much?
I'm not saying everyone doesn't deserve what they make, i'm saying on average wealth groups aren't really representative of anything substantial. and i honestly believe they aren't.
to clarify I guess bc i'm not actually against anyone here (i'm not against the ppl in any income group, please don't misinterpret this that way ; ; ). given a theoretical situation- that all people are equal in terms of skills/determination to work/desire to be happy in adequate levels etc... and given the same demand for jobs/labor that exists today. even though everyone is equal jobs and incomes would still be distributed unevenly (higher and lower classes) as a result of jobs needing to be distributed among all of the positions. the econonomy has a natural tendency to create income and wealth groups bc of job availability regardless of determination, intelligence or potential. so why do we need to instill a conclusion that it does otherwise?

also a lot more poor people then are given credit for aren't really responsible for their situations that i've met, mostly discourage workers, poor employment environments, difficulty to advance social status and initial bad money are the main factors and not within their control. many things like drugs that people attribute to them are a result from being poor and being isolated socially not a cause. the same way as many rich people are also not responsible for their situations without some amount of luck. anyways, my main point is people have to lay off of this "just world scenario" where they think everyone is where they are bc they deserve to be there. its entirely untrue, especially when used in the context of an excuse for not helping/supporting them.


anyways, mood modification i think can be really kwl or really bad depending ^^ I think it might be nice in small doses, but I'd also want to make sure i experience an appropriate amount of bad things too.
actually mood modification would probably be the least i'd want to touch lol Eventually it would just distort your idea of average happiness imo and you would come to rely on it more and more for comfort because the real world will lose value (in terms of happiness). does that make sense?
(anyone read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? btw?) happiness is overrated lol. ^^

 

[Reaver197]

A free market system establishes an income depending on how much people are willing to pay for a service, which is also dependent upon how rare it is to find someone with the qualifications to perform said service, how urgent/necessary it is to the customer, and the quality of the service they receive. Ultimately, the amount of money people receive is their consumers deciding that they should pay them that amount of money.

So, of course, given the wide variety of jobs that can be done or performed, how difficult it is to train/find someone to do it, the quality of the job, how quickly it was done, etc, etc. A discrepancy in income will be a natural consequence of this.

Anyway, I would also like to say, that if poor people spend much-needed money on things like drugs, they are responsible for helping their financial instability. To pretend they are helpless to avoid it or should be excused from being held accountable for it would be grossly inappropriate, not to mention demeaning to them, as to imply they have no ability to control or conduct themselves in the best manner for their situation.

As for the "just world", yes, I do agree that the world is not just, especially since our sense of justice is so relative. We will never have a perfect world. But, have no illusions, the idea of people "deserving" certain things is purely a subjective judgment, whether it be that they don't deserve the money they have, or whether they deserve more financial support. I especially find it irksome to pass such judgments when there is no way to know all the circumstances of these people's situations, so we have very little basis to go on to judge people by.

 

[Hive]

hmmm... i agree with a lot of what you are saying reaver ^^ there's a point though i think that you can make the assumption that people do deserve things though. doesn't everyone deserve to have the chance to succeed and to have livable conditions and have the opportunity to find happiness? this is where i'm trying to focus on, the economy shouldn't be a caste system, everyone should have the opportunity to succed, and if that doesn't happen they should still be able to have basic rights.. The upper classes in this country have the capacity with the least amount of sacrifice than anyone else to make this happen. Now they aren't responsible for the other persons situation, however, still doesn't it make sense that they should help the most? $500 dollars means less and less to someone with more money do you see what i'm saying? in the long run it would be better for the economy too, more money to these people means demand will go up, education will go up, and eventually competition for jobs will go up.

i would actually argue as well that there is a point where people aren't responsible for taking drugs and stealing, etc....
if someone is homeless and is given no real opportunity to get out of that situation who's real fault is it if he steals bread, or something to actually give himself some amount of perceived happiness in life? Now this doesn't mean it applies to everyone, but to a point i think society has a responsibility to provide these things. not just to provide livable conditions, but to give them some amount of room for recreation as well. Isn't the point of the economy to promote overall happiness anyways? Surviving with the lowest necessary living conditions is like functioning instead of living.

 

[BFDD]

Surviving with the lowest necessary living conditions is like functioning instead of living.

You can live a perfectly happy life even with just the minimum living conditions. As long as your needs are met you are perfectly capable of being happy. People can even be happy in situations that don't meet their basic needs. You are in control of your own happiness.

Artificial enhancements may give the rich an "unfair" advantage. Why does that matter? It may make it harder for poor people to become rich, but those that really want to rise above will do it anyways. What is really important is to make sure that the rich don't gain so much advantage that the poor are stuck in a place where it becomes difficult to survive.

This may even help people overcome a disadvantage. With better technology out losing a limb won't necessarily be a disadvantage, if the technology is good enough. Or those born with mental disabilities could be able to compete with the average person.

You keep focusing on the rich gaining an advantage, but really they already have an advantage and they always will even without artificial enhancements. Why not focus on how this could help people that are at a huge disadvantage?

 

[aeghrur]

Ah... I give.
I can't argue this anymore, lol. I'll take that lesson from Aesir and know when I lose.

 

[Mewter]

You keep focusing on the rich gaining an advantage, but really they already have an advantage and they always will even without artificial enhancements. Why not focus on how this could help people that are at a huge disadvantage?

The price for older cybernetic implants will probably become more affordable over time, anyways. They'll just get cheaper and cheaper, and assuming older versions keep working and are still in stock, people will always have a way to get them.
Plus, you're right about the rich always having an advantage. Besides, what are super rich people going to do with the advantage of implants anyways? The only sector of jobs I see really being affected by these are sports.
Edit:
Oh wait. It will probably affect any division that deals with any physical work.

 

[GoldShadow]

Brain implants could make people smarter. Immune implants would strengthen their immune system. So really, it could affect every sector.

Not that any of that really matters because, as has been rehashed over and over and over again, the rich already have and have always had those advantages. Rich parents can send their kids to better schools, afford tutors, and pay for SAT classes. Rich people get sick less than poor people, and when they do get sick, they get better healthcare.

It's nothing new and it's why the "rich/poor" class argument is moot. Implants and grafts would be no different.

Anyway, my thoughts on this are the same as Alt's, which can be found earlier in this topic.

 

[Mewter]

By GoldShadow
Brain implants could make people smarter. Immune implants would strengthen their immune system. So really, it could affect every sector.

Shoot. I forgot about those. I took into the immune part, but today's society is pretty much like that anyways. The really dynamic changes such as strength was what I was talking about. Of course, immunity could help a lot, and I had forgotten about smartness enhancers. I don't like the idea of people becoming more intelligent than you just because they have the opportunity to receive an implant and you don't, even if you were smarter in the first place. Eh, it's a personal issue. It would work out like this, though.
That reminds me.

Now, if this did become something only the really rich could obtain, I'd probably be against its public availability at all, unless everyone had equal opportunity for it, they'd get it first anyways..

I posted this earlier in the thread, right before Alt. Somewhere along the thread I changed my mind and my position. Saying everyone has to get it is pretty impractical, anyways.