6 ms·
Because there are many people that (explicitly or implicitly) understand human body and mind as 'sacred' and would oppose intrusive technological improvements t
by zajio1am 2y ago
Because there are many people that (explicitly or implicitly) understand human body and mind as 'sacred' and would oppose intrusive technological improvements to that. So it makes sense to have a term for people who, on the other side, welcome such changes.
Note that i disagree with OP about glasses or insulin pump, as most people support use of technology to fix deficiencies of a human body or mind, but if one has a healthy, fit body/mind and still want technological improvements, that is a red line.
- jajko 2y ago> but if one has a healthy, fit body/mind and still want technological improvements, that is a red line. Thats a very blurry line that changes with culture, age, profession, hobbies etc. In 50 years that line will be elsewhere even within that boundary. Especially when this has nothing to do with religions since they were invented long before any of this became a topic (so much for universal truths but thats another topic).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mattgreenrocks 2y ago> there are many people that (explicitly or implicitly) understand human body and mind as 'sacred' and would oppose intrusive technological improvements to that. So it makes sense to have a term for people who, on the other side, welcome such changes. That still defines it in relation to the non-improvers, which isn't the most compelling position. Why not, "we want to augment human potential to maximize quality of life through technology?" (I worry it isn't that argument because it is still too human-centric.)