/philosophy/ - Philosophy

Read some unibomber

But basically a more interesting point of view is that rather then arguing about the 'possibility' of it is weather we should consider a google using hipster of the 21st century metrosexuality human in the same way that a 12th century frank would be. When you have google doing your research for you, a kind of primitive technopathy with pervasive social media and an attention span the size of a planck length, are all those existential or classical certainisms really so certain.

But i'm not a big fan of philosophy of technology , but you can work in cyborgs in the sense of people who can't navigate the social without facebook and combaring it to transhumanism and the 'Glasses are cyborgs' crowd.

>>901
Interesting idea.

It is, of course, largely impossible to escape technologisation due to how linked it has become to everyday life pretty much everywhere and wherever it isn't, people are more than trying to integrate it. You can begin with passports containing digital information [and it is basically illegal not to have a passport], move on to the increasing reliance on digital money, and digital work in general, and end in the growing dependence on the internet for structuring social life, simply because a majority is using it that way. While it is possible to circumvent complete reliance on technology, it is impossible to circumvent technology itself entirely, and doing so only partly costs enough effort to not really seem worth it to most.

The ethical implications come with any ethical implications that an inescapable change of environment brings. We require an environment in which we act, but that environment is always provided, and we have restrictions within it. Is this problematic or ethically relevant? How about when our environment is drastically changed during our lifetimes, and resistence is essentially futile or existential suicide? Since there can't be a "free" decision in such a case, surely there is a moral statement to be made. But on what grounds? And wouldn't such a statement be more of an observation than a normative stance towards technology?

Just some ramblings. I don't think that technology per se is the big issue here, but more so the notion of freedom and restriction pertaining to our environment. We have always been fairly restricted in that, and it might be interesting to look at the ways technology seemingly broadens the scope while also seeming to narrow it down significantly.

>>928
That's quite what I was expecting to write, except for your point of view on environment changes that brings along some questions I wasn't planning on asking. I was just planning to take the normative stance, but now that you say it, it can work both ways.
I'm having trouble to find work on these kinds of questions though.

>>904
I sense a good insight, but you're not making enough sense for me to understand, could you clarify?

>>904
>Read some unibomber
This. Unabomber was very original and coherent. While I do not share his views, his manifesto was definitely worth a read.

Also, you can try out Natural Born Cyborgs, OP. I read halfway into the book. The premise is not uninteresting, but it could've been adequately explained in half the words the author used, I think.