Comments | david_lucifer: Web 2.0 ... The Machine is Us/ing Us

david_lucifer

Web 2.0 ... The Machine is Us/ing Us

Feb 16, 2007 14:00

Comments 30

thiyavat February 16 2007, 21:19:13 UTC

One of my other LJ friends recently posted that along with two responses, one of which he filmed himself:

http://perpetual-lent.livejournal.com/133001.html

As my comments there indicate, I wasn't very convinced by the clip in question, and have some issues with what it seems to be implying.

As I wasn't expecting a transhumanist-sympathetic audience to be in attendance on that journal though, I hope that you won't take the comment in question as meaning that I totally dismiss / look down on the technological-revolutionary-change idea; while I'm skeptical about what it means 'for the human race' in the 'grand scheme of things,' I figure my own social position is privileged enough that such changes probably will impact my life to some extent, hence I can still be enthusiastic about that aspect of it. Although even then, I still can't say that the particular portrayal of that in this particular clip is terribly captivating to me.

david_lucifer February 16 2007, 22:14:36 UTC

I agree with Cory Doctorow on Boing Boing, "This is as starry-eyed as techno-optimism gets, and it might just choke you up a little, if you care about this stuff."

I don't really understand your objection though. Maybe you think books and literacy are overrated too?

(The comment has been removed)

subdermal February 16 2007, 22:38:18 UTC

Or, in addition to the shared feature(s), objector also sees features that are unique to either A or B or both, and those features are the basis for the inconsistency in objector's opinions of A and B :)

Thread 15

subdermal February 16 2007, 21:47:33 UTC

We'll need to rethink privacy and identity for sure. Not so sure about rethinking love, but maybe I just lack imagination :)

david_lucifer February 16 2007, 21:57:16 UTC

I know a lot of people dismiss virtual relationships as invalid, but if they are real to the people involved what else matters? What does it mean to marry your love in Second Life while already in a committed relationship in real life? This is new territory.

david_lucifer February 16 2007, 22:21:57 UTC

In other words I don't think you can rethink privacy and identity without rethinking (relevant related aspects of) love.

subdermal February 16 2007, 22:34:46 UTC

Understood, but (to continue your Second Life example) I don't think that that requires a rethinking of "love". Whether or not that second relationship constitutes cheating is not a new problem. Would it be cheating if they were exchanging torrid telegrams instead? Only the delivery method of the expression of the emotions has changed. The nature of "love" (highly undefinable at the best of times) is no different.

Thread 15

michael_va February 19 2007, 17:08:17 UTC

I've been impressed with the level of discussion, and transhumanism seems an interesting idea, but I've been here and done this before ( ... )