http://bigthink.com/articles/10-human-body-modifications-you-can-expect-in-the-next-decade
"Transformative technologies have always been accompanied by optimistic and pessimistic visions of how they will change humanity and society. Socrates worried that the invention of writing would have a deletrious effect on the memories of young Greeks who, he predicted, would become : the hearers of many things and will have learned nothing."
"But it is clear that we are heading in a direction that has no broader comparison in terms of it's impact on humanity as a species itself. For instance take Zoltan Istvan. He wants to live forever. Not in the metaphysical sense (books or memories) but in a very real, practical sense. And he believes technology will soon make it possible. Zoltan is planning to upload his brian and all its billions of unique synaptic pathways to a computer server. He's part of a growing community of people who believe technology can make us physically, intellectually, even morally better. They call themselves transhumanists. Transhumanists seek the continued evolution of humans beyond its current form."
Now meet John Zerzan. "He's one of the world's most famous anarcho-primitivist who believe that technology is at the root of many, if not all, of today's social problems. He wants to jettison Facebook, computers, telephones, electricity, steam-powered engines and more. He believes technology tends to distract us from our natural state, pushing us further away from what it really is to be free humans."
For this post I want you to research Transhumanist and Anarcho-Primitivism and inform yourself on the debate. Then write about which side of the debate do you find yourself. Provide a link to one of your sources that you found convincing.
Credit: The Dark Net, Inside the Digital Underworld. By Jamie Barlett
I have research the debate using https://www.huffingtonpost.com/zoltan-istvan/a-stanford-university-deb_b_6186982.html as a post. In this post they were taking quotes from a debate. Although technology has changed our morals and changed how we live everyday I don’t stand on John Zerzan. But i don't stand on Zoltan Istvan side. It is not a good idea to become basically a computer but we can't get rid of all technology. Zoltan Istvan brought up a good point in that primitive people usually don’t make it to adulthood and would die from disease since they lack the science and medicine to help cure the killer diseases. In conclusion I wouldn’t want to get rid of all technology but I don’t fully agree with Zoltan Istvan but they both have valid points.
ReplyDeleteThe Transhumanist vs. Anarcho-Primitivism Debate is one that many philosophers have found themselves arguing over since the age of technology has begun. The two sides of the debate include the transhumanists’ perspective, which advocates for the continued use of science and technology to improve and change the human species, and the anarcho-primitivism perspective, which “advocates for a return to a non-‘civilized’ way of life through deindustrialization.” A transhumanist, Zoltan Istvan, debated one of the world’s leading anarcho-primitivist philosophers, John Zerzan at Stanford University last December. After reading the transcript of this debate, I agree with the transhumanist point of view. One of the main reasons why I agree with the transhumanist perspective is because, as Zoltan Istvan has said, “a lot of the problems, a lot of the suffering, a lot of the dilemmas that the human race faces are eliminated, cured, fixed, and overcome by technology.” If humans stopped pursuing these technological resolutions, many life-threatening issues our population faces, such as the spread of diseases and lack of natural resources in many parts of the world, would not even come close to being solved or prevented. As Zoltan has stated, “what anarcho-primitivists are forgetting, that while primitive lifestyles might be more natural and harmonious with nature, people like that don’t have the medicines, technology, and science to stop basic diseases and early death.” Anarcho-primitivists, like John Zerzan, “believe technology tends to distract us from our natural state, pushing us further away from what it really is to be free humans." However, the cost of being free humans leaves as at a total disadvantage in bettering our minds and our bodies. It is important for us to “seek the continued evolution of humans beyond our current form” in order to set goals for future generations in making the world a better, safer, and healthier place.
ReplyDeletesource: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/zoltan-istvan/a-stanford-university-deb_b_6186982.html
The debate between transhumanists and anarcho-primitivists explore the effects of technology and the dramatic change technology can bring in the future. Transhumanists advocate for the use of technology to further enhance the human species. Anarcho-primitivists, on the other hand, want to return to the simple way of life through removing or having a significant decline in technology. The article I read contained excerpts from the debate between Zoltan, a transhumanist, and Zerzan, an anarcho-primitive. After reading through their compelling arguments, I side more with the transhumanist view. I agree that advances in technology in fields such as medicine has and will continue to save lives. More progression in that field can do so much good for all people. However, I feel we shouldn’t go as far as making humans into machines. As we continue to advance in technology, it’s important to keep our humanity. We should use our growing knowledge in a way that enhances our lives, but not to the point of completely relying or even becoming machines.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.huffingtonpost.com/zoltan-istvan/a-stanford-university-deb_b_6186982.html
After researching the Transhumanist vs. Anarcho-Primitivism debate, I have found myself siding with the Transhumanist argument, although I do have my objections, not for any other reason other than that I cannot wrap my head head around anyone wanting to go back to primitive living. A Transhumanist is someone who "advocates for the continued use of science and technology to improve and change the human species."Anarcho-primitivism “advocates for a return to a non-‘civilized’ way of life through deindustrialization.”" I think it's an awful idea to go back to a hunter- gatherer lifestyle. For starters, it would immensely confuse people to un-learn what they already know as the norm that is our tech centered lives. Also, it would mean not using vaccinations, thus putting at risk for diseases we’ve already found cures for. This would cause the life expectancy of humans to decrease. I do not fully agree with the transhumanist point of view either. I have my objections. For instance, I’ve believed for a long time that increased use of social media and computers has severely affected people’s ability to communicate face to face with each other. I also do not agree with the idea of humans evolving into supercomputers.
ReplyDeleteThis was my link
Deletehttps://www.huffingtonpost.com/zoltan-istvan/a-stanford-university-deb_b_6186982.html
I find Transhumanist vs Anarcho-Primitivism a very important debate in today's world. The reason for that is since we are progressing rather quickly in our technological advances, many of us don't stop think to how this can affect us in the worst ways and even the best. John Zerzan and Zoltan Iverson both have great arguments, but I find myself supporting Iverson because Zerzan doesn't have many reasons for us to give up technology other than that us humans are causing man made problems and to fix it we have to go back to domestic life. Iverson has many more reasons for why we should keep technology and advance from it. My favorite reason he gives is when he tells us about the time he visited a primitive tribe and saw the horrid conditions that they lived in. He felt no human should live like that and he felt technology will help us save people in terrible living conditions. I believe technology can help humans for the better, and even though I am terrified of the idea of our brains being put in computer, I am not terrified of the idea to help people who cannot help themselves because they don't have the technology (or aren't even advanced/ahead) needed to help them. That is what I feel on the debate. I don't agree with everything Iverson has said, but I believe he will help change the world for the better, unlike Zerzan.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.huffingtonpost.com/zoltan-istvan/a-stanford-university-deb_b_6186982.html
After researching the Transhumanist vs. Anarcho-Primitive debate, I agree with the Transhumanist or Zoltan point of view. Anarcho-Primitivism argues that we should go back to old ways of life, without all our science, medicine and technology. All of these inventions, at some point in history, were created to help us., Before medicine and science many people died or diseases, that nowadays are easy to cure, but back then were terrible diseases that people didn’t understand, nor were able to cure. Technology was invented to make our lives easier, the earliest technologies being spears, then as civilization grew mechanical clocks and even compasses were invented. These technologies greatly improved the life of our ancestors. Now we have so much more technologies, why would we leave them all behind to go back to the way we started? Zoltan said, “Transhumanists want to survive and thrive. We want to conquer nature. For a lot of humans that want to become more than they are—being an astronaut, being a scientist, being an explorer...conquering disease, conquering death, conquering the things that plague humanity—these are some of the coolest, most beautiful, most meaningful experiences that humans have ever had,” I agree with him, we should look forward to the future, rather than go back to the way things were before
ReplyDeletehttps://www.huffingtonpost.com/zoltan-istvan/a-stanford-university-deb_b_6186982.html
The Transhumanist vs. Anarcho-Primitive debate is something that greatly affects how our future will be and what we make of it. The transhumanist side the arguement believes that we should continue to advance in technology, helping to better our way of life when we are older. The Anarcho-Primitive side of the debate believes that we should slow down, or even go back in our advancements, and maintain a simpler, less complex way of life. I find myself on the Transhumanist side of the debate, because I think that although technology may be more complex in some situations, I think it also makes our lives easier.
ReplyDeleteI forgot to put the link. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/zoltan-istvan/a-stanford-university-deb_b_6186982.html
ReplyDeleteTranshuminsist vs. Anarcho-Primative. The Transhuminsists want us to keep advancing, and the Anarcho-Primatives want us to regress. I think I agree with them, we are moving to quickly as a society, and need to stall our progress. We can look to the future, but we can forget our past this quickly.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.huffingtonpost.com/zoltan-istvan/a-stanford-university-deb_b_6186982.html
**can't
Deletehttps://www.huffingtonpost.com/zoltan-istvan/a-stanford-university-deb_b_6186982.html
ReplyDeleteTranshumanist versus Anarcho-Primitivism is a relevant debate in todays culture because of all the technological advances the last few years. Compared to 10 years ago, we are so much more advances technology wise. Almost every company; Apple, google, microsoft; has their own version of AI. This debate is difficult, because as much as technology can make life so much easier, it can be dangerous. I stand with the transhumanism side. I am on this side because i think technology is valuable to today's society, and without it we wouldn't be anywhere near where we are today. Transhumanism is about using technology to benefit humans, and improving upon it to make it better and more helpful. What if these improvements are simply to make technology safer and easier to use?
In the debate between transhumanism and anarcho-primitivism. I side with Zoltan because I do not think that "turning back time" and getting away from all technology would be negative. So much change has happened over the time that if we go backwards, it would be detrimental to our society. Technology has played a major role in our lives and if we just give it all up, it would change the world forever.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.huffingtonpost.com/zoltan-istvan/a-stanford-university-deb_b_6186982.html
Though I do believe that technology is somewhat affecting us mentally and socially, there could be any benefits of technology. New technology can change the medical industry enormously in both positive and negative ways. I don't believe that we should go back to the way things were.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.huffingtonpost.com/zoltan-istvan/a-stanford-university-deb_b_6186982.html
In the debate between trans-humanism and anarcho-primitivism, I side with Zolton Istvan because going back on all the progress humans have made to a time of when humans had shorter,more difficult lives, instead of moving forward to a world where diseases such as cancer have cures, seems counter-productive. I do not agree with immortality or a world where technology has taken over all the forests. I believe in a world where we can live in harmony with nature, heal the world, and still live with our technology,where there are less life threatening diseases for both animals and humans. Humans are not going to just give up technology, and in order to have a better world tomorrow we are going to need technology.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading through the ways in which technology can improve us I have come to side a bit more with Zoltan. Through technology we have and are continuing to make many advances that are really helping us. Of course they come with a few down sides, what doesn’t? The advances in technology have haelped in with medicine, communication, and in day to day tasks. Why would we want to go back to the dark ages? Why would we want to stop something that helps us? I believe in everything in moderation, meaning that with all great things comes responsibility. With the tasty, sugary treats we buy comes the responsiblity that we don’t buy too much and make ourselves unhealthy. With cars comes the responsibility that we drive safely so that we do not harm ourselves or others. With technology comes the responsibility that we use it to help ourselves and others without getting excessive with it. Should we really take these things away from the world just because some people do not live up to those responsibilities all the time? No, that would be rediculous and would set our society back instead of pushing it foward.
ReplyDeletehttp://bigthink.com/articles/10-human-body-modifications-you-can-expect-in-the-next-decade