What article doesn't bring up is the context of the environment that the person grew up in. If we were to describe the word apple to someone who has never seen or tasted it, they would not be able to visualize what it is with just the word. The mind would try to relate it to an object that you have already experience to fill in what an "apple" may be.

Throughout reading this article I couldn't help but laugh at the dramatic irony of our experience as students in 2017 reading Bush's predictions for the future of mechanics and technology in 1991. He speaks with a bit of wonderment, obviously trying to shock the reader with ideas considered fantastical at the time and then undermining them as "not so fantastic;" the joke of course being that even his most fantastic ideas seem rudimentary to us. That is, until I reached this part of the article, where Bush's predictions seem to have closely aligned with those of our own in the modern era. In this quote he seems to suggest a total departure from the tactile, oral, visual, and so on. Whether explicitly or not, Bush is referencing transcendence of machine (mechanical or digital) which, when you think about it, is a "fantastic" notion even by our standards of technology in 2017.

Except mind altering drugs often affect more than the individual themselves. Autonomy out to give way, in instances like these, to the greater public good/safety. Our choices always affect more than just ourselves.

Except states regularly infringe upon these rights and/or limit/remove the means of exercising such rights

This is false. For instance, there are countless documented cases in which the state has forcibly sterilized prisoners or used unwilling sterilization as a means of obtaining early parole for segments of the population deemed lesser (i.e., women of color, poor people, etc.)

Except not really. Social institutions like school, religion, saluting the flag, etc. socialize us into acceptable thought/behavior. We are free, to an extent, to rebel against these socializations, but rarely without backlash from friends, family, community, etc. See also: Red Scare

This is an interesting concept, particularly with regards to writing, because many people, myself included, think as they write. I often times do not even really know what I think about a topic until I start writing about it. Essays, for example, are usually difficult to start, but I end up figuring out what my argument is by the end because the process of writing itself has allowed me to think through the subject in a way normal biological cognition would not normally allow me to.

In this statement, our narrator explains to us the premise of his novel. I picked this statement in particular because it represents the casually slippery slope of transhumanism. Here, he says that his novel was ultimately supposed to be its own science fiction alternative universe, when really he was hiding little pieces of his personal experience with the changing roles of humans and machines through a fictional world. He then says he wished to create a utopian society where they assumably functioned together harmoniously, while trailing off an unable to imagine or comprehend a vision of what the future holds for a transhuman relationships.

Heidegger attempts to define the foundation of his argument by creating an absolute. Rather than stating "One could define technology as..." or even "Many accredited scholars and scientists agree technology is...." our author goes for the jugular and declares "Everyone knows..." With this statement he hopes to not only construct the platform for his essay, but also make his concept irrefutable by cementing it in the court of public opinion. With these choice words, he may even subtly convince readers with undefined opinions to adopt this perspective. Because for many people, being told - even discreetly - that they are different and alone in their thoughts is enough to sway the silent majority in many cases.

In today's society it is common to hear that we are chained to our smartphones, computers, and other personal electronics.The author is supporting this by saying that we are imprisoned by technology even if we like it or not. The author is also suggesting that if we resist technology our lives would be harder than it already is.

Very little should be seen as this black or white. Almost everything lies in the grey in between. To have such a one sided perspective could be reason for lack of progress.

this was left on the cutting room floor, but Hal's behavior can actually be attributed to human error. In the novelized version written by co-screenplay author - the famous Arthur C. Clarke - it is stated that Hal is briefed on the mission, but told to lie about it and obfuscate the facts about the mission and it's details to the crew. It is implied that this is what ultimately makes Hal malfunction. This helped me to understand this movement in the context of the film far more easily, and it also highlights Heidegger's focus on mankind's responsibility to it's technology and those unintended consequences.

This movie took place in the future. However there are many parallels it has to present day. Hal, the artifical intellegence on the spaceship, reminds me of A.I personal assistance that we have today. For example, Amazon Echo, Google Home, and Siri. They all were created by humans, for the sole purpose of making life easier. These personal assistance devices can play music, turn off lights, and adjust the temperature in a house. Which is similar to Hal on a spaceship. With that it in mind it is terrifying to see how technology could turn against us and malfunction, like how the director portrayed Hal. Hal seemed perfect at first, but later on in the movie he began to malfunction. This portrays that humans can try to make technology perfect, but there is always human error which makes it vulnerable to malfunctions.

I have never seen this movie, so the start of this scene is a bit confusing. Why are these people secluded from what seems like the rest of society? I also notice that there are no people of color aboard on this "rocket bus;" it seems like only the upper class are included so far.

The author provides us here with some insightful guidance for navigating the pitfalls of technology in our near future. However, the dichotomy is that this poetic and magnanimous declaration is also implicitly self-serving. 'Let's be benevolent to our creations, so they don't rise up and incarcerate us.' This statement shows the complexity and discord of the human animal. I agree with Vinge that we should indeed adopt this philosophy in the future. I doubt that will happen though, as we don't do it now. As a rule, we don't treat 'lesser' species with any regard or 'humanity'. We don't even treat other humans with much compassion. The difference in living conditions and experiences from the richest of humans to the poorest would be inconceivable and rage inducing. We exploit the animals and our planet all to 'better' ourselves and get shiny new stuff. This duality comes from both our insecurity, and our hubris. Another quote sums this up succinctly. "In humans, the hardest development problems have already been solved." It would seem that even the authors think we've got it all figured out, even though they spend most of their piece warning of and impending techno-doom. But we haven't got anything figured out. Humanity is like a five-year-old with a gun. Do we really need a bigger gun?

The author refers to both the computer network and its user when he refers to them "waking up." This may be a prediction of a soon to be symbiotic relation to us and technology. We are already using technology to mange our social life, our infrastructure, and even our health with pacemaker. We are already living in a world where we are inseparable from technology, but will we one day be completely be inseparable?

Saying that computers are "awake," creates a relationship between deception and consciousness. When computers are turned on, one may personify them to be "awake," but they are not actually conscious; they are deceptively "waking up." This mirrors how the author sees human beings and technology, as one in the same.

The author speculated of technology that could think for itself, in other words Artificial Intelligence. Surprisingly, these things already exists. For example the computer developed by IBM, "Deep Blue". This computer was created for the sole purpose of thinking for itself and playing chess. This computer even beat a word champion in chess, Garry Kasparov. Although, this computer could only think about one thing this still support the fact that super humanly intelligent computers could be developed.

Not to sound ominous, but this could be considered the path to a slippery slope. Blackford asserts that these advancements have indeed started out with the best of intentions, the may however - like many technologies before them - leave humanity with unintended and dire consequences it their wake. For example, amazing breakthroughs like GPS embedded microchips can track your children's whereabouts in an emergency. Conversely, humans can now be tracked anywhere on the globe by anyone with the means.

I think that this quotation makes clear the fact that transhumanism is similar to secular ideology in the sense that both are entities striving to achieve something greater than the natural human being. However, the difference in the two lies in the purpose of the wanted "transcendence". To be honest I didn't have a clear understanding of what the author is trying to say in this essay so don't regard this as correct; but rather as what I got from it.

This part of the text is a good example of how technology has become transparent because cellphones and other computers are used so regularly that the knowledge of how to use them, are second nature; however, social groups that are excluded from this idea are the lower class whom cannot afford such luxuries. Most of these examples seem to be geared towards the upper middle class.

In this passage the author is allowing his intended audience, people who are curious in transhumanism, a glimpse into the future when technology merges with the human body. At this point one must question at what point does technology becomes a prosthesis? The author uses this imagery of technology merging with our body to form prosthesis, devices that function as a artificial body part, to suggest that technology at one point may be an extension of the human body. This extension of the human body supports his trans humanist ideas because it may allow a person to reach beyond their human potential.

I have to argue with this. Everyone seems to think that the only thing pill is capable of doing is preventing pregnancy. The pill can be used in other ways as well. Some women can have hormonal imbalances in their bodies and can have an abnormal menstrual cycle. With an abnormal menstrual cycle some women can have issues such as experiencing menstrual cycles for the whole month, or even skip months without getting their period. With an abnormal cycle it is very hard to regulate these cycles and know when they are supposed to start or end. The pill contains hormones which helps keep these cycles regulated. The pill can even reduce pain from PMS which is a plus because some cramps can be unbelievably painful. The pill can even help with acne and other such problems. These are just some of the benefits the pill is capable of doing. In the paragraph he says that the pill is not a treatment or a cure but that is just plain wrong. The pill is helping cure many women who experience hormonal problems.