I think it would be great. But, what would really be great is adding robotic companions. Also, merry Christmas to everyone. Been a shitty year.
>>175292>Humans will be reduced to nothing but an engineered product
id be okay with it. hopefully by then we can genetically engineer the human race to be 'better' as a whole. i have no delusion that im gonna be alive for that time though so im not worried about how it would affect me as an individual
Majority of humans are not unique. Maybe some of their genes are different: their skin color, height, personal preferences. But most of them don't have any noticeable traits or great ideas, they just go on with the flow. Cloning won't be much of a difference. The only things that are going to be different are that humans will be grown artificially instead of embryos growing in the womb and that they will be even more non-unique, than other humans. But they can be made better that other humans. Scientists will get rid of their greed, arrogance, ignorance and so on and so forth. The potential is limitless. The only thing we must do is to embrace the future and see how everything turns out.
To believe that human factories will not be abused horribly is foolish at best.
What do you mean by "abused"? How can they be abused in the first place?
I guess if they can improve humans in every way it's better than normal reproduction which is currently just rolling the dice genetically to produce mostly mediocre people with the occasional 1 in a million who's a genius or super talented.
But is it worth it if they make such significant alterations reshaping our will towards their desires and such. We would be made more complacent and hardwired to prevent us from rebelling thus they can use this system to allow for greater control of mankind.
The thought of such technology makes me uncomfortable.
Cloning untraceable humans without mothers or fathers or anyone to know who they are or even that they exist for use in experimentation, sex trafficking, war, and slavery. They won't even be traceable if found dead.
There's also the problem of humans being artificially selected for subservience, and while you might think that's not such a bad thing, keep in mind that the rich will not be selecting their children for subservience. There could possibly even become two kinds of humans that are nearly different species: one of the rich that are bred for intelligence, deceptivity, ambition, and other things good for a rich person competing with other rich people, and one of the poor who might not even be economically necessary(post automation) and so will exist with traits best suited to entertain the privileged class.
I may be a naive fool, but I hope, that this technology won't be used to create another generation of slaves.
And if they aren't taught language they'd be untraceable even alive.
Cloning isn't ideal.
Artificial wombs, gene editing, and cybernetic enhancements are the next step forward for human evolution. Cloning would only cause stagnation. Adaptation has always been humanity's greatest strength. Being so that within a generation or even within a single lifetime through splicing and cybernetics humans can dramatically adapt and improve to best fit whatever comes. To assent to something better then nature alone provides.
This technology also can not be trusted to government control. It would be corrupted, banned for non-insiders, and otherwise used and controlled to maintain power of the bureaucrats.
Mere replication is pointless imo.
To improve to adapt to evolve to something better should be the goal.
>>175300>use in experimentation
Possibly. At least until AI can perfectly simulate anything.>war, and slavery
Very unlikely. The current value and necessity of human labor is circumstantial, not fixed. There's a lot of people on the planet, and currently, it's much cheaper to put them to work than automating the task to a machine. This will only be true until machines get less expensive to mass produce. Cloning tech is also far behind AI and robotics in terms of progress, cost, effectiveness, resources, funding, etc. I would imagine in a future where cloning a large number of humans consistently is feasible, machines would already be the incredibly cheaper and more reliable option.
I could however see some future gentry opting to breed via cloning if you could select for traits, which I feel no particular way about. I have already been born, and likely won't live long enough to see a future this fantastic. I also don't intend to procreate.
The real worry is automation, and how the ruling class, powers that be, etc., handle that. Whether or not they just pay everyone to sit at home or intend to keep the current model or something more sinister is to the wind.
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Immortality and genetic enhancement for the most powerful psychopaths is probably not a good thing. Thankfully death will still be around for us poors so we can check out when things get too bad.
will never happen. The rich elites wont be gone anytime soon (and if they are, I doubt the people replacing them will be any better) and they want slaves to slave for them, robots and incubators are way more expensive than natural reproduction (as much as it is shit or what not, it still produces a 'slave') so nothing will be happening anytime soon. If it did I doubt it would be for the benefit of mankind (example, making everyone a superman/superwoman or something), instead they'd use it for something shit like slavery or orgies or some shit
>(1) (a) Direct Technosingularity - 25%, if Kurzweil/MIRI/DeepMind are correct, with a probability peak around 2045, and most likely to be implemented via neural networks (Lin & Tegmark, 2016).
>(2) The Age of Em - <1%, since we cannot obtain functional models even of 40 year old microchips from scanning them, to say nothing of biological organisms (Jonas & Kording, 2016)
>(3) (a) Biosingularity to Technosingularity - 50%, since the genomics revolution is just getting started and governments are unlikely to either want to, let alone be successful at, rigorously suppressing it. And if AGI is harder than the optimists say, and will take considerably longer than mid-century to develop, then it's a safe bet that IQ-augmented humans will come to play a critical role in eventually developing it. I would put the probability peak for a technosingularity from a biosingularity at around 2100.
>(3) (b) Direct Biosingularity - 5%, if we decide that proceeding with AGI is too risky, or that consciousness both has cardinal inherent value and is only possible with a biological substrate.
>(4) Eschaton - 10%, of which: (a) Philosophical existential risks - 5%; (b) Malevolent AGI - 1%; (c) Other existential risks, primarily technological ones: 4%.
>(5) The Age of Malthusian Industrialism - 10%, with about even odds on whether we manage to launch the technosingularity the second time round.
I wish I had a PC to give this a good reply. Nice posts by the way.
I don't think anybody nowadays still believes in singularity. More concrete technological developments though, like machine-learning-trained software, space mining or genetic engineering aren't that far fetched. All technological improvements will have their negative effects but they will disproportionately affect different groups in society while generally improving society as a whole by increasing productivity, etc. As long as I am not directly, negatively affected I am all for technology. I don't care about ethics or the poor. It's all about self interest. It's easy to point out the flaws in various systems like technology or industrial society or capitalism but much more difficult to offer an alternative. A techno-utopia is a flawed idea but so is a primitivist, socialist, antinatalist, whatever one. My dream is for a post scarcity society where mostly everything is automated but low skiled human labor is still needed so people will just be working like 20 hours a week while being able to purchase more than the present. A lot of people will still get fucked but hopefully I will not be one of them.
God I wish, humans are a wasted potential. I hope all life is eradicated by machinery, that way no competition or difference will occur (no one will be faster, stronger, weaker, slower, dumber, smarter or push others to get the things they want as they all will be the same strength, race, speed and will all work together for a common goal… Assuming the robots are like the terminators)
thats way too optimistic. I believe the same people who came up with planned obsolence will always find ways to induce artificial scarcity and invent new necessities were they didn't exist before, doesn't matter how much production surplus there is and how little the costs states and corporations will not give up any inch on their cohercion power, rather they will amplify it. The age of automation is the age of corporate and state marriage and full monopoly.
Socialism/corporatism is the final endgoal of the game of monopoly, and it won't exactly be fully automated luxury space communism but neo feudalism and Venezuelan standards for the entire western hemisphere, so learn to live in the pod and eat the bugs, get used to guettos, the managed decline is already on the mind programming media for a reason.
I'm banking on the singularity to save me, but I'll probably be dead around the time it happens.
This sounds like a shitty idea. With regular reproduction we evolve and adapt. New mutations occur and new possibilities arise. Basic cloning would be our death sentence. We would either have to have a very good knowledge of genetic manipulation and the way the world around us is changing or we would have to use an other mechanism like ivf.
And that's only the first half of the problem. The second question is what you would do with the babies once they are born. Are you going to provide a nurturing environment, are you going to skip that step by somehow altering their brain and make them start of at a later age. Doesn't seem easy.
>>175460>evolve just breeding
Beware of that: evolution comes when the generations are constantly exposed to hardships and difficulties that force the body and mind to exercise their aptitudes.
Modern society finds itself in perpetual involution
psychologically I'd say life has never been more difficult for most people
What is an involution? Are you saying we don't evolve anymore? I highly doubt that. It's difficult to see us evolving when you look at the current state we're in and our unknown future. But that's a bit like saying I'm not physically seeing us evolve so there's no way we came from apes. It takes a long long time to notice changes.