4 ms·

>Kurzweil predicts that by the early 2030s, most of our fallible internal organs will have been replaced by tiny robots. We'll have "eliminated the heart, lungs

>Kurzweil predicts that by the early 2030s, most of our fallible internal organs will have been replaced by tiny robots. We'll have "eliminated the heart, lungs, red and white blood cells, platelets, pancreas, thyroid and all the hormone-producing organs, kidneys, bladder, liver, lower esophagus, stomach, small intestines, large intestines, and bowel. What we have left at this point is the skeleton, skin, sex organs, sensory organs, mouth and upper esophagus, and brain." What developed country’s government would allow people to experiment with such things? Risk-aversion is a real brake on the singularity, and it tends to increase with wealth.

pchristensen 19y ago
I think this is a much better argument against it than any of the more common technologically pessimistic ones.
colinplamondon 19y ago
That's assuming that breakthrough research will continue to come out of the United States and Europe, as opposed to China, where human rights purposefully lag without repercussion from other nations. The major advances over the fifty years will likely come from China for that very reason- the countries that are less risk-adverse will have the greatest technological strides as the frontiers of technology get more and more morally murky. Is it ok to remove someone's organs and replace them with the mechanical equivalent, knowing that they may very well die as a result? Is it ok to do it with their permission? Without their permission? France just had a issue where a woman had a rare form of cancer that caused her to look like the girl from Saw with her eyeball hanging out, on top of the whole 'dying of cancer and in excruciating terminal pain' thing. She was in so much pain, so miserable, and so without hope that she decided she would opt for euthanasia. The courts denied her petition, and she quickly committed suicide on her own. If we have issues like that with cancer patients, just imagine the issues when we start dealing more with genetic engineering, nano-technology, human cloning, and cybernetic enhancement. Here in the US, these technologies will, for better or for worse, be held up by the government and our courts as we collectively attempt to wrap our minds around the implications. In other countries, research will move along, full speed ahead.
Tichy 19y ago
I think it is already happening, there are artificial hearts, for example?
- jimbokun 19y ago
  Yes, I think Kurzweil's response would be that these things will be replaced in people with a condition that would be fatal if the original organs were left intact. Over time, people would be come more and more "cybernetic" as their natural parts failed and technology came up with "improved" replacements.
- ryanmahoski 19y ago
  Experimental procedures are less regulated than standard practices. "Kurzweil and Grossman justify it not so much with scientific citations — though they have a few — but with a tinkerer's shrug. 'Life is not a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study,' Grossman explains. 'We don't have that luxury. We are operating with incomplete information. The best we can do is experiment with ourselves.'"

pchristensen 19y ago

I think this is a much better argument against it than any of the more common technologically pessimistic ones.

colinplamondon 19y ago

That's assuming that breakthrough research will continue to come out of the United States and Europe, as opposed to China, where human rights purposefully lag without repercussion from other nations. The major advances over the fifty years will likely come from China for that very reason- the countries that are less risk-adverse will have the greatest technological strides as the frontiers of technology get more and more morally murky. Is it ok to remove someone's organs and replace them with the mechanical equivalent, knowing that they may very well die as a result? Is it ok to do it with their permission? Without their permission? France just had a issue where a woman had a rare form of cancer that caused her to look like the girl from Saw with her eyeball hanging out, on top of the whole 'dying of cancer and in excruciating terminal pain' thing. She was in so much pain, so miserable, and so without hope that she decided she would opt for euthanasia. The courts denied her petition, and she quickly committed suicide on her own. If we have issues like that with cancer patients, just imagine the issues when we start dealing more with genetic engineering, nano-technology, human cloning, and cybernetic enhancement. Here in the US, these technologies will, for better or for worse, be held up by the government and our courts as we collectively attempt to wrap our minds around the implications. In other countries, research will move along, full speed ahead.

Tichy 19y ago

I think it is already happening, there are artificial hearts, for example?

jimbokun 19y ago
Yes, I think Kurzweil's response would be that these things will be replaced in people with a condition that would be fatal if the original organs were left intact. Over time, people would be come more and more "cybernetic" as their natural parts failed and technology came up with "improved" replacements.
ryanmahoski 19y ago
Experimental procedures are less regulated than standard practices. "Kurzweil and Grossman justify it not so much with scientific citations — though they have a few — but with a tinkerer's shrug. 'Life is not a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study,' Grossman explains. 'We don't have that luxury. We are operating with incomplete information. The best we can do is experiment with ourselves.'"