Brian C. Ventura

my personal homepage

We will get better (Assigned article Soc. Sci. 2)

Posted by Brian C. Ventura on September 13, 2011

WE WILL GET BETTER

(This is a repost from The More Intelligent Life magazine. See instruction for commenting here. You may also download a printable version of the article in pdf format here- We will get better.)

What does it mean to be human? Julian Baggini meets with scientists who aspire to take evolution into their own hands …

Special to MORE INTELLIGENTLIFE

Many dystopian writers have imagined worlds in which a singular “human nature” has bifurcated or splintered into a plurality of human natures. They have portrayed societies in which the genetically modified rise above their inferior, natural cousins (“Gattaca”); or different castes of human are selectively bred for accomplishing different tasks (“Brave New World”). In some cases humans from working and middle classes evolve over millennia into two different species (“The Time Machine”), or they experience a reality that is entirely virtual (“The Matrix”).

These dystopias are readily imaginable only because at some level it is obvious that human nature is malleable. There is no reason in principle why creatures like ourselves might not become radically different over time. Until recently, such mutations were simply abstract possibilities, limited to the power of gods, sorcerers and novelists. But lately we have begun to consider the possibility that technology might change us more in a generation or two than evolution has done over millions of years.

We already have some technologies that alter how we think and feel. Anti-depressants and treatments for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) change us as much as they cure us. Students and executives are already popping drugs such as Adderall, monadafinil, donepezil and Provigil as neuroenhancers, to boost memory during exams or to maintain concentration through periods of intense work. Pharmaceutical companies are now working on the “female Viagra”, designed not to correct physiological malfunction but to change the very pattern of our desires. But pretty soon any agonising over interventions like these might seem rather quaint—like worrying about the odd pothole the day before a city is bombed into oblivion. There are much bigger changes afoot.

With psychoactive drugs, prosthetics and genetic enhancement, we are already able to fashion the fabric of the self in much more radical ways than our ancestors ever could. As we learn more about how to change and enhance our brains and bodies, we are about to gain even more power over who and what we essentially are. We are moving to a time when we are no longer satisfied with trying to understand human nature; we are now moving to prescribe it.

The most energetic proponents of these changes are known as transhumanists. One of the first to use this term in its current sense is Max More, the head of Alcor, one of the world’s leading providers of cryogenic services. They work to freeze dead human bodies in the hope of being able to revive them in the future, when technology is advanced enough to do so. He describes transhumanism as a school of science dedicated to advancing “the evolution of intelligent life” beyond its current human form and limitations, “guided by life-promoting principles and values.”

Transhumanists embrace our mutability as an opportunity for improvement, even if that means we may one day be replaced another superior species. An intellectual leader of the movement is Nick Bostrom, who heads the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University. In a remarkably matter-of-fact way, Bostrom describes to me some of the changes he anticipates and what they might mean.

One of the milder transhumanist ideas is to speed up the brain. This would be like putting a faster processor in a computer to improve its performance. But a potential byproduct of packing in more information per second would be to slow down the perceived passage of time. This is the way it is for children: every stimulus is new, so each minute is more jam-packed with information, which makes it feel like time is just dragging by. If your mind is working ten-times faster, then you are aware of ten-times more information in the moment, so time seems to pass ten-times slower.

It is impossible to imagine what life would be like after such a change. Walking a mile would feel like walking ten, eating lunch might take what seems to be three hours. Bostrom says there are ways to deal with this. “You wouldn’t have to speed it up right away,” he says, referring to the human brain. “You could perhaps take small steps to modify that in ways you found desirable. You could continue to grow over years and decades, try out new capabilities.”

Are you horrified, excited or both? There’s more. Perhaps the most extraordinary possibility arises from the fact that, as Susan Greenfield, a neuroscientist, puts it, the self is simply the personalisation of the brain. You are the individual you are because of the unique set of connections forged in your cerebrum. This means you are like a piece of software running on an organic brain, but which could, in principle, be run on a silicon computer as well. Rather than being housed in a brain and body, you could in effect “upload” yourself to a computer and live there in a virtual reality.

Bostrom sees no reason why uploading human experiences into a virtual realm should present a problem, in principle. “We know the atoms of your body are swapped out over a lifetime,” he explains. “You wouldn’t benefit if you could somehow wrap yourself up in plastic and prevent the atoms from being exchanged.” He suggests that the uploading scenario is not so different from an accelerated metabolic process, where the atoms in your body are substituted for other atoms. Indeed, uploading would have the advantage of conferring on you virtual immortality. As long as you made sure you were “backed up” often enough, it wouldn’t matter if the particular computer you were running on broke. Your service provider would just reload you onto a new one and you’d pick up where you left off.

To show why we should not be alarmed by this prospect, Bostrom offers an analogy: suppose that last night, while you were sleeping, a scientist had replaced your brain with a computer that had been programmed with all of the information that was contained in your brain. When you woke up, you would have no idea that this happened. It would seem that you were the same person who went to sleep the night before. Whether your thoughts came from an organic brain or a computer programmed to behave like one, Bostrom says, “It’s not clear to me how that would matter at all.”

But wouldn’t uploading flesh-and-blood humans into synthetic virtual worlds, where they would be turned into super intelligent fast-thinkers, transform us into completely different creatures? Would homo sapiens be replaced by homo apparatus? Bostrom is unconcerned. He reminds me that humans already undergo a “profound” transition when we age from childhood to adulthood. “We have vastly greater capacities as adults than as children,” he explains. “Our whole mental lives are different, our preoccupations.” Yet we don’t view it as bad for a child to grow up, so perhaps we’re more open to radical transformations than we might believe.

Yet transhumanism seems almost misanthropic in its zeal. Proponents appear to argue that if human beings as we know them are eliminated, so much the better. We’re a pretty rubbish species anyway, so if our successor species is better, why worry about preserving the one we have? Take Kevin Warwick, a professor of cybernetics at the University of Reading. Having implanted several electronic devices into his body, he has begun to claim (perhaps hyperbolically) that he is the world’s first cyborg—part human, part machine. “I was born human,” he says, “but this was an accident of fate, a condition merely of time and place. I believe it’s something we have the power to change.”

I’m not sure what to make of all this. But perhaps we are too ready to dismiss innovations such as superintelligence as distant possibilities. We may also be too quick to underestimate the pharmaceutical and genetic technologies that could impact who and what we are in the nearer future. For that reason, it is worrying that Bostrom admits that transhumanists haven’t given much thought to the question of what sorts of modifications would simply enhance us and which would be so transformative as to, in effect, destroy humanity as we know it and create a new transhumanity in its place.

It’s time that changed. There are questions about what it means to be human—and what we might want to protect from innovation—that need answering. To paraphrase Marx, until now, the philosophers have only interpreted the self; the point now is how, if at all, to change the self. 
 
Julian Baggini is the author of “The Ego Trick: What does it mean to be you?” published by Granta earlier this year; Picture credit: AFP, JD Hancock, J (mtonic.com) (both via Flickr)

Advertisements

135 Responses to “We will get better (Assigned article Soc. Sci. 2)”

  1. angela paguntalan said

    according to rosseau, the profit of a few ambitious men henceforth subjected the entire human race to labor, servitude, and misery. Dependent upon the new fields of metallurgy and agriculture, the human race turned towards cooperation for survival. However, in doing so, certain ambitious men preyed upon the naivete of common men. This state of affairs eventually degenerated to become ingrained in our notion of a civil albeit an unequal society (Erenkrantz).

    i am not in favor with Bostrom’s proposal because it is not reasonable enough to speed up the brain. it may be an oppurtunity for improvement, but it is not a good idea to enhance more the capability of the brain. God gave us its uses, so be it. though, it is helpful in some ways in our lives, but still it does not satisfy the problems that a person might be encountering. also, it may add to certain problems in the society. humans build computers to make life more easier. it seems that humans just keep on enhancing and enhancing everything that they forgot there is no really big problem but them. beacause of naivety, they are making more problems and sometimes it has no help. you can see that human nature is present in transhumanists. they are not satisfied with what they want to happen and they overlooked goodness that are much of help in the society.

    Rousseau has an inherently pessimistic view of human nature. In the state of nature, he believes that there are vast distinctions between the have and have-nots. Furthermore, these strong personalities tinker with the wide range of human emotions to accomplish their ends – malicious or not. Since there is such a desire to be liked, people are putty in the hands of expert manipulators. In the state of nature, these manipulators eventually attain control of the entire society. By developing an infrastructure which equalizes every person, society can become successful (Erenkrantz).

    • Brian C. Ventura said

      Your comment is not your comment. Its 60% pasted from the quickest to find online source. This is a from of cheating!! Do you not have an idea of your own?

  2. Joefritz Varon said

    The article presents a novel and phenomenal idea of how one we can live in the near future. It was stated in the article the ways that could possibly make our existence more efficient, more productive and more intelligent. On the other hand, the article explicitly showed that in making the human living more advanced we must embrace the idea of transhumanism which suggests that human beings should be merged with computers and loaded with specific data and could live eternally in a virtual world, in the same way, letting ourselves be ruled over with computers and machines.
    From the standpoint of a youth, I disagree with the notion of merging computers with humans for the sake of intelligent and efficient living because of the following reasons: First off, I believe that transhumanism loses in the way the true meaning of being a human, when you are fused with machines you are already a part human and a part robot and this could lead to living a corrupt life for you will not know what is good and bad for as long as you can achieve your goals and live an intelligent life. Second off, creating trans-humanistic society could not be made possible without somebody who controls and dominates; thus our freedom, will and intellect as humans will be curtailed and taken away. In simpler terms, there would violation of human rights and massive domination. Third off, a good life could not be achieved since good life requires virtues and according to Rousseau’s perspective “with advancement of arts, science and technology; human nature tarnishes, courage is flagged and virtues disappear” so when our virtues vanish, everything else follows leading to war and eventually a chaotic society.
    Joefritz Varon
    TF 1:00-2:30(Section2)

    • Brian C. Ventura said

      Comment noted.

      But is it not that the more intelligent human beings are the more they are able to determine the what is right and wrong, so what is the problem if, by applying technology, people become more intelligent?

      • Joefritz Varon said

        Sir, intelligent can be defined as a person exercising or showing good judgment. If technology would be used in making man more intelligent, his intelligence might be grounded on technology and not anymore derived from morality from which supposedly true human intelligence should be entrenched. Perhaps, in the end such intelligence will be utilized by man to exercise good judgment on things in which could he benefit the most, neglecting if it could inflict injury or not to other people and not anymore on the virtues.

  3. Maria Aiza S. Tolentino (1:00-2:30- Sec.2) said

    Arts, science and technology currently hold a great part in human life. A lot of advances have been made and still a huge number is planned to be carried out in the future. It may be in the fields of medicine, arts, neuropathy, etc. Some says it’s for man’s betterment; for man to be transformed into better individuals for a more efficient living. But some, on the contrary, says that it will not transform man into better individuals, instead, into new and different creatures, far from what its nature implies.

    The article tells us that people, like the transhumanists, are trying to overcome the impossible, for the purpose of enhancing man, presumably the intellectual capabilities of the brain. They proclaim that it is achievable to make it more intellectual, thus, creating something compared to a computer software; can be modified and programmed the way he wants it to be, may be quicker or more intelligent. They say that this turns man into better individuals. Does it really? I think not. This will only turn man into something far from what its nature entails, like into machines, most probably into a computer.

    As what Rousseau tells us, he is in contrast of what the transhumanists are trying to achieve. He believes that this change, through the advancement in science and technology will erase the citizens inside man. For him, natural simplicity is much better to be preserved than to be modified. So there is no great need of changing man into something that isn’t within its nature.

    Man is what he is. What he is not is what others may be, but he still has the capacity to continually live his life through this disparity. What his nature implies is then preserved. There’s no need for drastic changes that could lead to construction of new beings. Man stays within his nature, although some changes may appear as a part of maturity, these still do not keep man far from what he truly is.

    • Brian C. Ventura said

      Comment noted.

      It is indeed true that, for Rousseau, preservation of man’s nature is to be preferred over willingly changing it. If change is to happen it is only to bring it, as much as possible to its true nature.

      But does making man more intelligent, by applying technology and science necessarily mean moving man away from his nature?

  4. Maruel Joy Lim said

    Individual progress leads to scientific and artistic breakthroughs, and these lead to societal development in arts, sciences, and technology, which in turn lead to things like new medicines to cure diseases, neuroenhancers to boost one’s memory and maintain high concentration, and etc. The progress that leads to the development of the positive technologies also has its negative part which others overlook.

    It can be noticed that Rousseau’s idea about arts, sciences, and technology is contrary to the transhumanist. According to Rousseau, arts and sciences had not been beneficial to humankind because they were not human needs. He characterizes arts and sciences to the destruction of other important social values because courage flags and virtues disappear. On the other side, transhumanist gives more importance on how arts and sciences could alter the way human being thinks and feels. Given a certain example while you are sleeping not knowingly a scientist replaced your brain with a computer-programmed device containing all the information you have since then resulting in a robotic act. Nevertheless, I affirm that it is really impossible to imagine what life would be like after such changes.

    Somehow, I’ve been quite interested about the idea of speeding up the brain. However, it seems like our minds are being mandated by the improvement of arts and sciences making a gap between us and the world we’re living. Saying I would preferably live with the principles of Rousseau regarding arts and sciences.

    • Brian C. Ventura said

      Comment noted.

      The article is not suggesting that development in technology will lead to a problem where “a scientist” would “replace your brain with a computer-programmed device” without you knowing it. What the author is saying is that human beings are consciously deciding to use science and technology to improve the way they think, their memory and so on.

  5. Marie Bjorn M. Landas (Sec.2) said

    The article is actually a good suggestion on how to keep the nature of man good. According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, man is innately good and becomes corrupt when he is exposed to the society. Society is filled with expectations, criticism and influences that help boost down man’s confidence. If man’s confidence is low, he tends to do things that are not in his nature – which leads to competition and violence. Therefore, it affects his nature and it will be degenerated.

    Rousseau believed that there is a state where the soul can find a resting-place secure enough to establish itself and concentrate its entire being there. Man does not need to worry about time, nor the feeling of depression or enjoyment, pleasure or pain, desire or fear. Hearing this, the advances in the arts, sciences and technology could be an opportunity for people not to feel what is considered “evil” in the society. Man does not need to worry about his feelings and the feelings of others when he works like a computer. He would be programmed like he was meant to only focus on himself and how he will be able to progress as an individual.

    Honestly, the idea of transhumanism seemed crazy. Life isn’t that exciting if we take out the feelings of joy, uneasiness, anxiety and stress. That’s why we’re created as humans, not as cold-hearted robots. We are programmed to feel our heart skip a beat, to catch our breath and to enjoy every second of life. We weren’t created only to focus on ourselves, but also to help develop the society. Everything around us will not progress if we keep progress within ourselves. We should just hold on to what we are because that’s what we do best – being an emotional wreck.

  6. Ana Marie Grace P. Macahilas (sec. 2) said

    The desire to improve the life of every individual has come about the desire of other people to completely change humanity and bring up technology. The advancement of technology over time has greatly influenced the idea of people to actually change human life. Unconsciously, this idea may be the vital cause of conflict and tragedy. This article of Julian Baggini implies that there are people who suggest that transhumanism is the means to achieve the improvement of human life. With this, technology has developed human desire for pleasure and pride. Jean-Jaques Rousseau’s concept opposes the thought of transhumanism for it allows people to focus on their ego and forget about living life the way it should be lived. Take for example the statement in the article which means that technology was able to improve our physical self through psychoactive drugs, prosthetics and genetic enhancement. In this case, people would therefore use technology as an instrument to change their natural self just to gain positive opinion from others. This may also be used to compete against each other. With this, I could say that as new inventions come to life, pride would always prevail in people. Generally, early people, who focused on self-preservation back then, have achieved the greatest happiness known to humanity; therefore, the advancement of technology diminished the ethics of humanity through the years.

  7. Jereneah Gayle C. Raco, Section 2 (11:30-1:00) said

    Humans do not believe in contentment. Every day, we try to discover and invent things to make our life easier even if these inventions would alter how we feel or think – even if this would make us programmed robots and no longer humans. Rousseau emphasized that the society is the corrupting force that transforms natural man into a self-obsessed beast which relates to what we are now. Scientists, thinking that they could improve human life into a more intelligent one would put evolution in their hands.

    Nowadays, using the advancement in arts, sciences and technology, inventors are trying to transform human minds into personalized ones that would only think for more development of the society, which they think is the common good. These inventions would also limit on how a human should react or feel about the things around him. This is a good example of Rousseau’s perspective of a man who’s only thinking is for the betterment of the society and not using his knowledge to stand out in a society. Relating this to Rousseau’s point of view that a man is naturally born good but when exposed to a society with people having their own perspectives, these inventions would actually control the characteristic of man to compete and develop pride.

    These inventions may actually be of big help in improving the society because it may lessen the biases created by the competing minds of us humans but these are honestly disapproving to the concept of being humans- humans are born to encounter trials, stumble in our own mistakes and learn from it. But with these creations controlling how we react on our surroundings, nothing is anymore real. Everything that we see or hear is merely for the perfection of the society.

  8. Dawn Marie Castro (Sec. 2) said

    The article states how humans can become a totally different species in the future. The scientists expressed ideas that seem totally out-of-this world, but with the stated proofs, it seemed possible. Their statements depict how discontented humans can be with our present situation, but even with this, the ideas of the Transhumanists seem beneficial for us in a way.

    A line that struck me in the article is this: “We are moving to a time when we are no longer satisfied with trying to understand human nature; we are now moving to prescribe it.” Rousseau’s theory states that human nature is basically good. Society is the corrupting factor that changes ‘natural man’ into a conceited being. The different technologies that have been invented and developed give us a view of how people can advance their thinking in only a matter of years. Who would have thought that an action such as replacing our brain with a computer-like processor is possible? With the scientists’ ideas of changing our natural parts to become more cyborg-like, we become less prone to outside factors like the society. In that case, we will not be able to feel like we normally do.

    The article shows how man can now think outside of the box. The drive to improve humanity opens new doors for the scientists to explore more possibilities for all of us. Once we isolate ourselves with our natural feelings, society will not be able to affect us in any way which will preserve our being naturally “good”. Rousseau also stated that, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” If these proposals push through, and we become isolated with the society, we can destroy the chains that bind us.

  9. Jonell Blancaver said

    Before I state my reaction about this article, I would just like to clear out that I am against Rousseou’s belief about the disadvantage of Arts and Science, as I do not believe that it is very harmful to a society. Likewise, ever since Socrates had pointed out the danger of arts in a society, I’m starting to believe that these Philosophers are just plain rude about the design of humanity; how would we express ourselves in different ways without art? I am an artist and I express myself through art, are Socrates and Rousseou saying that I’m endangering the humanity? How about science? How could we live without science?
    However, the moment I finished reading this article of Jullian Baggini, I’m starting to open my mind idea about the danger of Science in human nature. The article mainly stated the side of the scientist who believe that transhumanism is not a danger and a violation to nature, but is just merely a progress (like being a child and growing older as an adult). I may say, as a Christian, that “progress” of transhumanism is already a big violence to God’s design for us. However, I would not defend my opinion and my individual belief by stating my religious belief. I would just say: TRANSHUMANISM IS DANGEROUS. Of course, we do believe that Human dominance on Earth would not last a million of years; however, what transhumanism would do is shortening the life span of human existence. I tried my best to open my mind for this matter; however, I still can’t grasp much of the reason why these scientists even thought of this idea. The world is already bad with our brain capacity this much; but what would happen if our brain capacity increase ten times!? That is just so insane! Really insane! There would be smart people everywhere trying to be Philosophers and Scientists and World Leaders. There would be war! Chaos! I already see how mad our world is already with these few people being so smart and trying to be superior than the other; and having more of these people is a scenario that my brain imaginative capacity can’t even reach.
    Jonell Blancaver BACMS-1
    TF 11:30-1:00 Sec. 3

  10. angela paguntalan said

    i’ll just email my follow-up comment sir.
    it wasn’t my final comment. it was my draft.
    there were some technical error happened. i’m sorry sir.

  11. Hanna Thea A. Ramos said

    Hanna Thea A. Ramos Sec. 2

    In this article, the writer’s view was that technology has changed our generation greatly. It has even changed the way people think and feel. We tend to prescribe how things should happen instead of simply understanding how things are used to be.

    Transhumanism is defined to be the evolution of intelligent life guided by life-promoting principles and values. It considers mutability as an opportunity for improvement by speeding up the brain. Since human undergoes transition as it ages, transhumanists are open to radical transformations. They believe that if our successors our better, why should we preserve today’s generation.

    On the other hand, Rousseau believed that it is human nature to preserve himself by the power of his reason but because of the negative influence of arts, sciences, and technology, man has transformed self-preservation into pride and vanity. He believed that these so-called radical transformations had never been beneficial to support human needs instead it is the result of one’s vanity. According to him, progress is not favorable to the well-being of humanity but these changes can be counteracted if one will subject himself back to being morally upright and his duty to act on these changes will empower his reason thus helping him to discern on his inclinations.

    In my opinion, technology has improvement of human lives as its primary goal. Improving is cultivating what we have to promote well-being. However, certain aspects of these improvements had caused mankind to go beyond limits to prove himself capable of transforming lives to a higher extent. For this reason, its goal of improving became transformation, leaving behind what we possess which is morality. This implies vanity and pride. I believe that we can transform our generation to a better one but it is also our duty to preserve and maintain what we already have because they define who we really are– humans.

    • tantan said

      You must understand that politics and culture depend on the economic base. Arts and science are nothing but state apparatuses used to serve the ruling elites. in our society today, where the dominant ideology is that of a capitalist, science and arts are used in order to gain profit and serve the ruling class. Rousseau lived in a society where capitalism was starting to rise. That’s why his notion of science and arts and their progress were not favorable to the well-being of humanity. Now, can we say that the advances of science and arts during the feudal era or during the primitive communal stage were also not beneficial to humans? even your idea of morality is being molded by the status quo you are currently living. What i am pointing out is that it is not technology, science or arts that changed the way we think. Instead, it is the economic system that changed our way of thinking. It is the economic system that dictates the behavior of science and arts. Science, technology, and arts are very dependent with the dominant economic system. The question is, who holds the economic power? If we can answer this question, it is easy for us to point out the purpose of science and arts and who will benefit them.

      Now, you are talking about preserving and maintaining what we already have. does it mean that you don’t believe that change is inevitable? that everything in this world is subject to change? No matter what we do, we cannot escape from the process of change. Even the concept of morality is subject to change. As of Einstein, those who cannot accept change will be perished. Everything has its birth and dying as well. that’s the law of nature. that’s the law of change.

      I hope you can comment more regarding on this just for the sake of discussion. good eve.

      • Hanna Thea Ramos said

        thank you for leaving a comment.

        to clarify my point, i agree with the fact that change is inevitable, because change is the only permanent thing in this world that we live in. These changes help us improve as human beings and we benefit from them. As with arts and sciences, they are instruments of these improvements. As with the concept of morality, it serves as a distinctive character that separates us from other organisms, thus defining our existence.

        Now, my point is that in the process of transformation or change man should bear in mind that morality is something which is to be preserved because it defines our existence. For me, there is only one basis for the concept of morality which is our faith, talking in the religious sense.

        Rousseau believed that such transformations are not helpful to the well-being of mankind because the ruling class mainly benefits from these changes, as what you have stated in your comment. Hearing this, changes, I believe may be beneficial or destructive to mankind. It would be destructive i think when one will be overcome with vanity and pride according to Rousseau’s perspective.

        I hope a had answered your questions regarding my comment. If you wish to take a response on some points that I have just stated, I am very much glad to answer.

    • Brian C. Ventura said

      Comment noted..,

  12. Aubrey Julianne D. Tumala said

    Advancement in science and technology nowadays plays a vital role in every individual’s life. Cellphones, laptops, ipods and many more gadgets are useful in a man’s everyday life. It’s not only the youth who use this gadgets but even grown- ups. In offices, an employee uses computers. In schools and universities, teachers make their students pass assignments in the internet. There are so many things that are done with the aid of the upgrade of technology.

    According to Rousseau, Man is good but when put in a society, he tends to mingle with others that he may possibly lose his human virtues. This philosophy can be related to Julian Baggini’s work wherein he tackled about the possibility that human brain can be further improved through the use of technology. With this, I have agreed with Rousseau’s philosophy. Man truly is good and only wants the betterment of his life, and he tends to make use of technology in the society. With his usage of the advance technology, he loses his human virtue and tends to compete with others. The advancement in technology substitutes human obedience just to follow what he wants to the extent that he becomes arrogant of what he has. The sad possibility is that he may not be contented of what he already have.

    Rousseau’s philosophy is very informative. When you read it you would ask yourself if you had cling to the advancement of science and technology that you totally forgot all about your human virtues. You forgot that you are originally good. Technology is of so much help to us but let’s not forget that it may also carry with it side effects that may harm us.

  13. Francis Dee C. Francisco said

    Francis dee C. Francisco
    Section 2 (TF 1:00-2:30pm)

    What does it mean to be human?
    Based on this article, the future world where technologies and transhuman rules do not start tomorrow but already exist today. It was stated there that technology might change us more in a generation or two than evolution has done over million of years. This is not surprising at all due to the fact that new inventions are being produce and new discoveries are being acknowledge for the human species to live a more comfortable life than before. In addition, technology changes us more than evolution. True, we are evolving but how long does it take us to adapt? Hundreds, thousands, or maybe millions of years but our discovery of a new technology for one generation changes us forever.

    Yet, I am both excited and horrified by these changes. Excited by the fact that there is something that exist beyond human, something that is not natural but rathet man-made. Horrified because most of the time advance human intelligent tends to exceed to its limitations that creates something evil and destroys humanity. Therefore I can say that I do not agree to Bostrom’s proposal. Speeding up tha brain of a person makes him/her just like a computer and not a human anymore.

    This is the same to Rousseau’s perspective that as the time passed and as we advance in terms of arts, sciences and technology leads to shame and envy, pride and contempt. Also this results to the existence of private property that causes greed, competition and inequality. The human nature which is savage and evil will arise because man will have to fight for survival in this kind of world, the future world. In addition, Rousseau believes that in our time education tend much more to destruction than improvements.

  14. Francis Dee C. Francisco said

    Francis Dee C. Francisco
    Section 2 (TF 1:00-2:30pm)

    What does it mean to be human?
    Based on this article, the future world where technologies and transhuman rules do not start tomorrow but already exist today. It was stated there that technology might change us more in a generation or two than evolution has done over million of years. This is not surprising at all due to the fact that new inventions are being produce and new discoveries are being acknowledge for the human species to live a more comfortable life than before. In addition, technology changes us more than evolution. True, we are evolving but how long does it take us to adapt? Hundreds, thousands, or maybe millions of years but our discovery of a new technology for one generation changes us forever.

    Yet, I am both excited and horrified by these changes. Excited by the fact that there is something that exist beyond human, something that is not natural but rather man-made. Horrified because most of the time advance human intelligent tends to exceed to its limitations that creates something evil and destroys humanity. Therefore I can say that I do not agree to Bostrom’s proposal. Speeding up that brain of a person makes him/her just like a computer and not a human anymore.

    This is the same to Rousseau’s perspective that as the time passed and as we advance in terms of arts, sciences and technology leads to shame and envy, pride and contempt. Also this results to the existence of private property that causes greed, competition and inequality. He also believes that the main cause of mankind’s problem is when man is separated from Nature. This will result to savageness and evil will arise because man will have to fight for survival in this kind of world, the future world. In addition, Rousseau believes that in our time education tend much more to destruction than improvements.

  15. Lorie Mie G. Lacson said

    Would homo sapiens be replaced by homo apparatus? This is the line that struck me the most in the article. It is true that we humans have a lot of potential to become better. We have the capacity to live an intelligent life. But to have an intelligent life, should we lose our humanity?
    The article showed how humans can better themselves through technological advancements which, in my opinion, are violating the laws of nature. By improving ourselves, are we to succumb to methods that are both artificial and against nature? Rousseau’s view of human nature is very different from the view of transhumanists. According to him, man is naturally good. In the state of nature, they are naturally good, free, and wise. It is only because of social arrangement that they become bad. Man doesn’t need to have a drive to acquire more. He said that when people deviate themselves from nature, they become worse. In my opinion, to live a more intelligent life can mean violating the laws of nature. An example would be the work of Kevin Warwick. Replacing parts of your body with electronic devices is against nature. It violates what Rousseau thinks of the state of human nature because according to him people don’t have the right to rise above without the permission of all. We don’t need to have distinction because from these distinctions arise different problems like greed, hate and envy.
    These technological and scientific advances greatly affect how we live our lives in so many ways. Society pressures us in a way where we feel we need to change everything we are in order to fit in. We sometimes fail to realize that what we’re doing is changing us in a bad way.

  16. Ike Lourenze Grinn Sala Sec.2 said

    Technology indeed affects our lives. In the way of living, communication, physical characteristics etc., in short, Technology greatly affects the human nature.
    In the past years, in the times of the primitive man, imagine how simple their life is, no cellular phones no television. They discover things their own way. They kill animals in order to eat. They put effort in every work they do. Come to think of it and compare it to our life today. In order to eat, just open a canned tuna voila! You have something to eat no effort at all! Or just call a fast food chain and deliver it to your house. That’s how easy our life is today.
    Technology affects the way humans communicate and the manners in communicating with others. A long, long time ago man just talk personally then there goes the letter, and later on the telephone, then the cell phones, then the internet. Sometimes because of this advancement, people changed in the way of talking with one another. Some just spend their time in front of their pc’s and cell phones. They don’t interact with others.
    The bottom line is, whatever we do, technology greatly influenced us. We cannot deny it. It is already visible in our society the way we interact, the way we feel and the way we think. Change is constant. You cannot avoid it. Because that is already our nature and according to Jean-Jacques Rousseau “We do not know what our nature permits us to be”.

    • Brian C. Ventura said

      Comment noted.

      There is no need to over emphasize the obvious, that technology change the way we live.

      There is very little about Rousseau’s point in your comment.

  17. Ike Lourenze Grinn Sala Sec.2 said

    Technology indeed affects our lives. In the way of living, communication, physical characteristics etc., in short, Technology greatly affects the human nature.
    In the past years, in the times of the primitive man, imagine how simple their life is, no cellular phones no television. They discover things their own way. They kill animals in order to eat. They put effort in every work they do. Come to think of it and compare it to our life today. In order to eat, just open a canned tuna voila! You have something to eat no effort at all! Or just call a fast food chain and deliver it to your house. That’s how easy our life is today.
    Technology affects the way humans communicate and the manners in communicating with others. A long, long time ago man just talk personally then there goes the letter, and later on the telephone, then the cell phones, then the internet. Sometimes because of this advancement, people changed in the way of talking with one another. Some just spend their time in front of their pc’s and cell phones. They don’t interact with others.
    The bottom line is, whatever we do, technology greatly influenced us. We cannot deny it. It is already visible in our society the way we interact, the way we feel and the way we think. Change is constant. You cannot avoid it. Because that is already our nature and according to Jean-Jacques Rousseau “We do not know what our nature permits us to be”.

  18. Alyssa Thea A. Teofilo said

    Alyssa Thea A. Teofilo Section 2

    Arts, sciences and technology are man’s ways of understanding human nature. He uses these to create a way that might somehow end to the discovery of the creation of man. But arts, sciences and technology should only limit itself to discoveries and facts. Arts, sciences and technology should not intermingle with what is naturally happening. It is normal that man would want to understanding things. But I believe that man should not use his knowledge transforming what ought to be natural. Some things happen just because. Man should not press himself to the limits of this world.

    In Rousseau’s perspective, arts, sciences and technology corrupt human morality because nature only destined man to live a simple life, satisfying himself only of his essential needs. Arts, sciences and technology provided man with an idea that he could be great; greater than everyone else, and so, he uses these to understand human nature in the hope of discovering a way to improve or transform himself into a better human being. Arts, sciences and technology offered him the luxury and idleness that leads to his own exploitation. For man’s nature is to want more for himself and arts, sciences and technology helped him achieve these, undermining the luxuries that life offer; friendship, love, respect, trust, and courage.

    I believe that it is not bad to want to improve the human nature. What is bad is wanting to create a whole new “advanced” person out of a real one. It disrespects the law of nature, where people eventually die. We should not make ourselves more righteous than God because He created us this way, with limitations of our capabilities and abilities, for a reason. As what Rousseau said, “We have physicists, geometricians, chemists, astronomers, poets, musicians, and painters in plenty; but we have no longer a citizen among us.” If all people were to be extraordinarily great in all aspects, then, who would need of their service? In my opinion, it is morally wrong when people use arts, science and technology in vanity because they will always be insatiable. And if worse comes to worse, if there would come a time when people can defy death, how can we prove to ourselves that God’s eternal life is real? Would we really be contented of our “artificial” eternal life?

  19. Marriane Loyd Evasco, Section 2(11:30-1:00) said

    In our time today, we can’t help but follow the trend. We do everything we can to fit in. We may not admit it but in a way the society shapes the way we live our life. In connection to what Jean-Jacques Rosseau said, man is naturally good; it is the influence of society that corrupts him into becoming a self-obsessed beast. Rosseau believes in living a simple life, to be close to nature and to enjoy what it gives us. It is evident that nowadays, technology is playing a big role in our daily life. We use it in almost everything we do, even in the simplest tasks. In the article, scientists are proposing to use technology in altering the state of human existence. Transhumanism aims to change our physical, intellectual and even our psychological capabilities with the use of scientific advancements.

    Although this suggestion is beneficial to us, it entails certain disadvantages with it. It may seem good to have our brains enhanced, to be able to function better for the benefit of the society but we would be no different to the machineries we use. It is also quite not clear how this would impact who and what we are. I believe it is better to accept what we already have and not let society dictate how we should live.

  20. Adrianne E. Albesa said

    Rousseau insisted that the science and the arts, even of how brilliance they possessed, are not tend to cater the human needs but are the results of pride and vanity. They were created not to fully help the society but to alleviate one’s self from others.

    In Bostrom’s view, there are a lot of contradictions to his idea about having a transhumanists in our world someday. Like for example, replacing the human brain with a more advance kind or faster processor which is the same as that of a computer. His intentions were clear about enhancing the capabilities of our brain in processing a lot of information that we get from the environment. But there is still a question on why do we need to do this procedures if we believe in our own capacities as a human being.

    I disagree on this kind of proposal since having cyborgs in the next generations meant not just replacing the role of humans but clearly getting them out to the society where they once owned. I don’t see the need of eliminating human species for the benefit of machines which possess super intelligence.

    If that happens, then having chaos is possible since transhumanists have “minds” which are based on the human experiences that are created by humans who soon will be replaced by another batch of transhumanists who have also minds but different human experiences. So the process still goes on and on continued by the transhumanists, searching for new advancement in the fields of arts, science or technology. They soon will seek to be at the top since they will “think” they are stronger than others.

    I believe that we need to have a life not made perfect for us to realize that we can still do something to make it almost perfect.

    Adrianne E. Albesa
    SOC SCI 2 (sec.3 TF 11:30 – 1:00)

  21. Lorie Mie G. Lacson said

    Sir, Aubrey Julianne Tumala and Lorie Mie Lacson belongs to Section 2. Sorry, Sir.

  22. Novelyn Anne Bito-onon said

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that human beings in the state of nature are “uncorrupted”. Since man are still in the state of nature, this means that there are still no civil societies built. With this, Rousseau believed that men cannot differentiate the right from the wrong nor the moral to the unmoral. The definition of “moral” was just a result of the interaction of people with each other that has made the construction of civilization. In this state of maturity, men were already forced to organize society according to how they deal with each other and how they live.

    In this so-called civilization, people have this innate desire to progress and grow. Although it is a common truth that it is through time that people will eventually mature, they still wanted to contribute more than just this. They wanted to make life easier and better. All of this are also results of Reason. In this stage, man is slowly realizing his needs and desired. According to Rousseau’s work, Discourse on the Arts and Sciences, he said that technological advancement, music and the arts was not beneficial to the human race. This is because of articles such as this.

    For me, the article written above is a result of too much vanity and discontentment. It is true that technology have eased our lifestyles but using it to defy the true roots of our humanity. It has helped us in some way but have we already forgotten to accept that we are just humans and we have limitations? We can use technology in our lives but not actually live our lives through it. We should realize that enjoying life is not about perfection.

    What’s wrong in forgetting things from time to time? Or commit a couple of mistakes? Or even failing? Have we ever thought that when we become a “Human Apparatus”, we cannot enjoy life as much as we enjoy it now. When life becomes too perfect, life itself becomes useless. Maybe it is really appropriate to say that man’s greatest evils flow from himself. We create our own problems. We even risk our humanity for something inconceivable. Are we really ready for an evolution like this? Personally, I’m not. I still want to appreciate things not because they are perfect but because they make me realize the people that really cares about me. I still want to commit mistakes and see if who among my friends will be there to help me. 🙂

    -Novelyn Anne Bito-onon Sec. 3

  23. Adrienne Villaruel said

    It is undeniably known to us humans that today, the world is at a fast pace of constant change. With innovations and advancements in technology, life has indeed become easier and more comfortable for us. Although technology has made its way through our lives and has made it convenient, it has also possibly been ruling over it.It makes us want to improve and enhance it for obviously our own benefits. Technology has made us highly dependable of it.

    Reading this assigned article I felt somehow apathetic of the newest advancements that technology has imparted to humans today. Although Bostrom presents it an optimistic point –of-view, transhumanism I have to say on the contrary is a word I take quite negatively. Humans find ways and use technology to change and improve themselves to the extent that they might possibly replace their entire being with something they themselves have created. As much as I would like technology to cater my needs I wouldn’t want it to replace me.

    On the Discourse of Arts and Sciences by Jean Jacques Rousseau, he clearly argues that advancements are not beneficial to man. He says that advancements in arts and sciences are the roots of the desire for luxury which in turn dissolves the morals of a person whose sense of virtue would also be lost. He also believes that progress in knowledge had made governments more powerful and had destroyed individual freedom. This goes to say that he does not believe in the benefits advancement could bring and sees it as an instrument for replacing rather than improving man.

    I am opposed to the gradual advancements in the arts and sciences but not entirely in favor of the opposition of Rousseau. I am open to technology because somehow I believe that it is of great help to society today. This belief is limited to the extent that I would not want it to replace me. After all, I am a homo sapien and not a homo apparatus.

  24. Veana Faye Solanoy Sec. 2 said

    We are living in a world where change is unavoidable; changes that have been the pillar of success for some but a pitfall of failure for others. These changes have been around us over the years. Some we should go along with and others we should overpower. Talking about technology, how would we consider it? Is it a friend or a foe?
    As what Rosseau have said, advancements have played a key role in creating a false veil to our identity. As these improvements continue to embark in our day to day existence we tend to think, ‘’maybe we’re capable to become perfect. Maybe we can surpass what we are right now”. We think that through these advancements we can hide our flaws and therefore be appointed to that state wherein perfection is at its highest. I would agree to Rosseau’s idea that a person’s aim shouldn’t be perfection but rather happiness and virtue.
    As I was reading the article, I am clearly horrified if this situation happens in the future. I will never let my organic brain turn into an artificial one. The article is trying to say that through advancements we can alter what we are and create who we can be. It’s changing human nature into something above the capacity of humans ourselves. It is creating perfection from the flaws of mankind. This is a great threat to humanity. We will never know the circumstances such a big step withholds unless we try it; which is a very great risk.
    I am contented with what I have right now and what I might have in the future. We can never challenge fate. So why bother changing it? We are only creations and therefore we all have our ends. Ending the end is something clearly illogical.

  25. Pamplona, Gio Carlo section 2 said

    The innovation of the arts, technology and sciences shows how society developed overtime. It has both positive and negative effects to humans. The mere fact that technology develops also shows that human nature has also changed. humans will continue to find ways to evolve and innovate. And as Julian Baggini researched about, humans should take matters to their own hands on how to evolve.
    According to Rousseau, “man is born free”. But because of society’s restrictions, man is “everywhere in chains”.Baggini’s interview with scientists shows that humans are developing ways to evolve ourselves to super human basis with the use of computers. I believe that if ever this goal is accomplished, it will be in accordance to Rousseau’s statement. By taking humanity’s evolution to our own hands, it is a way of violating human nature and a violation to Rousseau’s belief that man is “born free”. It is a great achievement for humanity to be able to reach this high standards of technology. But for society to introduce this technology us humans is a violation of our very being. I personally would not what for other people to implant computers to my body. Man was born free, and I think we should stay that way. The chains that bind us to society can or must be severed in some other way.it may be difficult for us to break free from this chains of society, but my view in life is that for us to live our life to the fullest, we must be totally free.

    • Brian C. Ventura said

      You have a rather different reading of Rousseau’s perspective on science and technology. Or maybe because you only based your point on a few lines attributed to Rousseau from somewhere?

  26. Kevin G. Tamayo Section 2 said

    This article portrays a somewhat horrible situation wherein the very essence of being human is changed or altered into something which is artificial. I am completely shocked by the thought of people being replaced by genetically modified individuals who think and work many times better. Also, the medicines being promoted today and used for specific purposes such as the treatment of diseases and the enhancement of the individual’s condition, thinking potential, and capacity to work are slowly but gradually changing how we live our life. By the rise of these advancements in medicine and technology, we tend to exhibit unusual actions which are forced to be accepted and considered normal in the society. I believe that if all of these things continue to develop and be etched as a part of our reality, then everything we know will be gone. We would all be concerned with concepts and ideas that would change and modernize our perspective in life to a point when we are already well-adapted to it and everything that was unusual to us before would already be normal.

    In relation to Rousseau’s perception of human nature, he asserted that it brings about animal-like passions that led humanity to develop language and reasoning, and more complex communities. He stated that human nature is malleable or unfixed which leads to a conclusion that it could be changed by various factors. He also believed that the primitive humans had been happier, “noble savages” because there was no difference between civilised life and human nature. This means that the advancement in the fields of arts, medicine, science, and technology have significantly altered human nature causing humanity to exist in a complicated society.

    • Brian C. Ventura said

      Comment noted.

      It seems that your reading of “a more complicated society” is rather neutral.

      • Kevin G. Tamayo Section 2 said

        I would just like to clarify, sir, that my view about a more complicated society is not neutral. I am actually against it. As I have stated in my comment, if this completely replaces our present society, the essence of being human and everything we achieved in the past that have played a significant role will fade into nothingness or be forgotten. As a result, we will be concerned with concepts that change our view of life and how we live to a point where everything is no longer the same and that it will be too complicated or difficult for us to comprehend life. Therefore, because of the rise of advancements in science, art, and medicine, our lives are altered in a complex manner.

  27. Graziele Ann Taclas said

    Rousseau pointed out the problem in civilized men, he said, “Our mind has been corrupted in portions as the arts and sciences improved.” Which for me, means, every time we accomplished something which is a progress to technology , we tend to (shall I say), “worship” it.. and desire to make something which is much better than the previous one .. this is the start of man’s doom.
    For a student like me who like to read science fiction book, a cyborg, a human with extraordinary features due to modern technology, a robot who is called “protohuman” is somewhat awesome, cool, and very overwhelming. But the idea of creating a new race of “homo apparatus”?.. or having someone live in a virtual reality? .. or programming the brain like a piece of machine? That’s just so unthinkable. We will not get better.. its not really making a new race of humans.. it is manufacturing a new sets of machines!
    As the article stated, “we are no longer satisfied with trying to understand human nature; we are now moving to prescribe it.” Having this attitude or habit of wanting a little more of everything will lead us to chaos, and soon we will not be wondering about human nature, we will be finding means to understand “machine” nature, for this things we create will overpower us.
    Rousseau once said, that we may have so many people who are specialized in their fields, but we have no longer citizens among us.
    I agree with Rousseau’s view, for people may benefit from the advancement of science and arts, but we tend to forget what makes us human, and that would be the greatest downfall man would ever experience. It is, not knowing who we are.

    Graziele Ann S. Taclas
    Section 2

  28. Rika Jane Reyes said

    In relation to Rousseau’s idea on advancement in arts and sciences, the text showed how able technology is to affect society in most aspects. Rousseau believed that the progress brought about by arts and sciences is not a beneficial one because it had intervened with man’s liberty which is in his nature of being free. In my understanding Rousseau refers to the advancement in arts and sciences as a triggering force to one’s human nature, producing jealousy, greed and selfishness as each man undergoes progress as an effect of the many advancements. As for me I can agree with this seeing and realizing that many changes occurred and had affected man over time. These advancements made man seem to be controllable and sometimes artificial. Almost everything we do and have today are dependent to the technology these arts and sciences is offering us, life before is different and free moving but as of now we see things unworkable without such help from technology. Not only the liberty of man to do things on their own is affected but the human nature itself that when one man has greater access to this advancement he can be greater over another and the other being lesser seeks to level himself thus creating competition. Rika Jane Reyes Sec. 3 TF 11:30-1:00

  29. Rona Lie Narida said

    Arts, Science and Technology are often confounded because much of the results of technology is based on Arts and Sciences. Today, technological achievements make up the world. It makes man’s work easier and faster.
    In Rousseau’s perspective, arts and sciences and technology have not been beneficial to humankind because they arose not truly to assist human needs but rather as an outcome of pride and selfishness.
    In my opinion, Arts, and Science and Technology led to the development in the world today. It has improved man’s life and at present, they are studied furthermore for future discoveries. But with regards to the discovery of Transhumanism, I don’t think this would lead to what they say “evolution of intelligent life”. From the title itself, We Will Get Better, I doubt this opportunity will open the gates of improvement. Do these transhumanists see the future that we will surely get better? Let us consider the fact that speeding up the brain, for an instance, could cause harm rather than increasing its efficiency.
    I agree with Rousseau’s point that this discovery is just a result of pride and vanity. I believe, it would be better if we’ll be contented of what we have for the moment and be happy with God’s blessings. We are all created equally and he has the best plans for all of us in the near future.

  30. Czarina Marie Nacionales said

    Technology has contributed many effects in our lives as human beings. When technology was not yet highly developed, everybody lived a simple life where needs are easily satisfied by nature. Although technology made our lives easier, it also made things more complicated. The inventions and discoveries of the scientists of this article is mind boggling. It’s like they wanted to transform a human into a robot.

    I believe that the full potentials of a human being can be exercised through his or her capacity to do things independently. I am not saying that we shouldn’t use technology; it’s a matter of not allowing it to fully control us. I’m amazed how a human being can think of inventions such as uploading human experience in the virtual world and speeding up our thinking capabilities.

    Why is there a need to improve our brain through the use of gadgets and devices? What came about this idea? It shows that man wants to be superior to other man. According to Rousseau, the advancement of science and art corrupted our minds and the luxury and elegance is a veil in which he sees jealousy, suspicion, fear, coldness, hate, and fraud. I’m against this invention because it destroys the normal functions of our body. I don’t see the point why we have to complicate things when we can improve and live our lives even without this highly technological kind of innovation. If this invention will be used, other scientists will also think of ideas to invent better gadgets or devices. Compare it to the cell phone business. When a new model of cell phone is produced, another better model is created after a week or two. Because of the advancement in technology, people’s desires are increasing which leads to greater competition and discontentment.

  31. reysel joy montero 2011-57150 said

    The developments of new technologies and new inventions with the use of human intellectual capacity are now on its climax putting the lives of each individual into an easy one. The study of arts and sciences stimulates people to improve certain things which are really useful in terms of helping us in our daily work. Moreover, it changes everything here on earth including the lives of people as well as the environment.
    Based on the article “we will get better”, humans tend to adapt to the changes brought about by the latest innovation of technology as time goes by not knowing it affects their moral values. According to Rousseau, new inventions create a false sense of need for luxury. He implies that science becomes simply a means for making our lives easier and more satisfying but not building our morality. For him human nature is timid, isolated and peaceful without the foresight to worry about the future so as not to distort themselves with socialization process. Reading this article, I see that man is trying to advance his ideas worrying and wasting his time on what is the outcome. Focusing on the field of arts and sciences, the public begins to highlight specific talent rather than improving virtues such as bravery, kindness and self-control. Reading this, it will alter everything about man especially the way we run our life. It only focuses on the enlightenment of arts and sciences as the main reason of development rather than improving one’s character. It emphasizes how it is unsuccessful to contribute anything positive to morality because it only gives significance on how to think as fast as the computer rather than developing values.
    Therefore, the advancement of technology affects people. Every time there is a progress in the civilization of man, their morality changes as well as their lives. Even though it will make our life easier, there is danger and uncertainties.

  32. Marie Jeanje B. Briones 2011-65088 said

    Change is the only permanent thing in this world. Man and its’ environment will continue to change. While we are observing things more closely, we cannot deny that the application of science to industrial use is one of the leading factors of change. Science takes the lead to the change of an individual and its’ environment.

    Man started as a mere entity hunting for survival while using simple gestures and movements to communicate. Then, as time went by, man started to think more critically and then stages of development occurred resulting to the development of tradition, love, moral and also the feeling of self importance and competition. Based on my reading about Rousseau’s philosophy, he simply describes natural man as creatures that are essentially good in nature; they are unspoiled by the different advancement in society such as civilization. And now, the truth awakens us, the entrance of big advancements in science, technology and art has thus begun.

    I believe that science can make our lives more pleasurable and more convenient. With the appearance of science, sickness can be cured, humans can be more advanced (like in the article “we will get better”) and people can invent things that could satisfy our own desires. However, I also believe that science can also ruin one’s morality. Unnecessary change for an individual can be implemented just for the false need for luxury and vices thus ruining one’s perception of the importance of what our God had naturally given us. Changing our physical structure in exchange for a machine, we cannot call ourselves human anymore. Machines are sometimes invented for selfish reasons and to compete with each other just to see who is more superior to the other. Advancements in arts, science and technology can emphasize talent and vices more than virtues.

  33. reysel joy montero 2011-57150 said

    The developments of new technologies and new inventions with the use of human intellectual capacity are now on its climax putting the lives of each individual into an easy one. The study of arts and sciences stimulates people to improve certain things which are really useful in terms of helping us in our daily work. Moreover, it changes everything here on earth including the lives of people as well as the environment.
    Based on the article “we will get better”, humans tend to adapt to the changes brought about by the latest innovation of technology as time goes by not knowing it affects their moral values. According to Rousseau, new inventions create a false sense of need for luxury. He implies that science becomes simply a means for making our lives easier and more satisfying but not building our morality. For him human nature is timid, isolated and peaceful without the foresight to worry about the future so as not to distort themselves with socialization process. Reading this article, I see that man is trying to advance his ideas worrying and wasting his time on what is the outcome. Focusing on the field of arts and sciences, the public begins to highlight specific talent rather than improving virtues such as bravery, kindness and self-control. Reading this, it will alter everything about man especially the way we run our life. It only focuses on the enlightenment of arts and sciences as the main reason of development rather than improving one’s character. It emphasizes how it is unsuccessful to contribute anything positive to morality because it only gives significance on how to think as fast as the computer rather than developing values.
    Therefore, the advancement of technology affects people. Every time there is a progress in the civilization of man, their morality changes as well as their lives. Even though it will make our life easier, there is danger and uncertainties.

  34. Technology has contributed many effects in our lives as human beings. When technology was not yet highly developed, everybody lived a simple life where needs are easily satisfied by nature. Although technology made our lives easier, it also made things more complicated. The inventions and discoveries of the scientists of this article is mind boggling. It’s like they wanted to transform a human into a robot.

    I believe that the full potentials of a human being can be exercised through his or her capacity to do things independently. I am not saying that we shouldn’t use technology; it’s a matter of not allowing it to fully control us. I’m amazed how a human being can think of inventions such as uploading human experience in the virtual world and speeding up our thinking capabilities.

    Why is there a need to improve our brain through the use of gadgets and devices? What came about this idea? It shows that man wants to be superior to other man. According to Rousseau, the advancement of science and art corrupted our minds and the luxury and elegance is a veil in which he sees jealousy, suspicion, fear, coldness, hate, and fraud. I’m against this invention because it destroys the normal functions of our body. I don’t see the point why we have to complicate things when we can improve and live our lives even without this highly technological kind of innovation. If this invention will be used, other scientists will also think of ideas to invent better gadgets or devices. Compare it to the cell phone business. When a new model of cell phone is produced, another better model is created after a week or two. Because of the advancement in technology, people’s desires are increasing which leads to greater competition and discontentment.

  35. Change is the only permanent thing in this world. Man and its’ environment will continue to change. While we are observing things more closely, we cannot deny that the application of science to industrial use is one of the leading factors of change. Science takes the lead to the change of an individual and its’ environment.
    Man started as a mere entity hunting for survival while using simple gestures and movements to communicate. Then, as time went by, man started to think more critically and then stages of development occurred resulting to the development of tradition, love, moral and also the feeling of self importance and competition. Based on my reading about Rousseau’s philosophy, he simply describes natural man as creatures that are essentially good in nature; they are unspoiled by the different advancement in society such as civilization. And now, the truth awakens us, the entrance of big advancements in science, technology and art has thus begun.
    I believe that science can make our lives more pleasurable and more convenient. With the appearance of science, sickness can be cured, humans can be more advanced (like in the article “we will get better”) and people can invent things that could satisfy our own desires. However, I also believe that science can also ruin one’s morality. Unnecessary change for an individual can be implemented just for the false need for luxury and vices thus ruining one’s perception of the importance of what our God had naturally given us. Changing our physical structure in exchange for a machine, we cannot call ourselves human anymore. Machines are sometimes invented for selfish reasons and to compete with each other just to see who is more superior to the other. Advancements in arts, science and technology can emphasize talent and vices more than virtues.

    • reysel joy montero 2011-57150 said

      The developments of new technologies and new inventions with the use of human intellectual capacity are now on its climax putting the lives of each individual into an easy one. The study of arts and sciences stimulates people to improve certain things which are really useful in terms of helping us in our daily work. Moreover, it changes everything here on earth including the lives of people as well as the environment.
      Based on the article “we will get better”, humans tend to adapt to the changes brought about by the latest innovation of technology as time goes by not knowing it affects their moral values. According to Rousseau, new inventions create a false sense of need for luxury. He implies that science becomes simply a means for making our lives easier and more satisfying but not building our morality. For him human nature is timid, isolated and peaceful without the foresight to worry about the future so as not to distort themselves with socialization process. Reading this article, I see that man is trying to advance his ideas worrying and wasting his time on what is the outcome. Focusing on the field of arts and sciences, the public begins to highlight specific talent rather than improving virtues such as bravery, kindness and self-control. Reading this, it will alter everything about man especially the way we run our life. It only focuses on the enlightenment of arts and sciences as the main reason of development rather than improving one’s character. It emphasizes how it is unsuccessful to contribute anything positive to morality because it only gives significance on how to think as fast as the computer rather than developing values.
      Therefore, the advancement of technology affects people. Every time there is a progress in the civilization of man, their morality changes as well as their lives. Even though it will make our life easier, there is danger and uncertainties.

  36. Veronica R. Melanio (TF 11:30-1:00 Sec. 3)

    Indeed what Julian Baggini (in his article “We will get better”) wanted to emphasize is a realization of what the reality of today offers us. Since the technology and advancement he is talking about is already present and if not is in the near future, it is surely possible that our views of what it really is to be a human of today can change. I fear that it can go up to some point that as what he said and I quote “Would homo sapiens be replaced by homo apparatus?” would become real. I agree to what he had said that transhumanism may really oppose the essence of “human” in it. Baggini proved his point through this article that too much of our desire for more knowledge and grasp of our existence – “We are moving to a time when we are no longer satisfied with trying to understand human nature; we are now moving to prescribe it.”

    Are we only trying to improve ourselves for the better experience of living or are we just justifying the final outcome or byproducts of our vanity and dreadful desires? This article is parallel to what Philosopher J. J. Rousseau believed in his philosophical work A Discourse on the Moral Effects of the Arts and Sciences that these are the causes of the corruption of human morality. The more we engage in these advancements is the more that we fail to remember, that first of all, our main goal in life is to exist, survive and experience life.

  37. Christine Anne D. Espeja said

    Science and technology ease the lives of humans. If you want to communicate to a far way friend, you’re just a click away. If you want to improve your memory, a tablet of memory enhancer can do it for you. But what the article talks about is not just a mere advancement but an alteration of human body itself. For example, human brain being replaced with artificial computers by uploading human experiences and information that was in your brain. Another is by speeding up the workings on your brain. These may not be possible at this time but these possibilities can turn into reality in the near future.
    Human nature to Rousseau is man’s relationship to nature and his natural state. He believed that man is not evil in nature as what Hobbes tells us but becomes evil when he separates himself from nature by gaining property. He also thinks that advancements in these fields may not be as beneficial as what man thinks but can corrupt man’s morality and duty to himself because man would only think for himself, for his pride and vain, how he would gain more to have power. He thinks that these are not really what human needs rather a way of having and gaining. He may appreciate what science can do but most of what it can do is for man’s satisfaction shifting away from what man really needs.
    What the article may tell us is for the betterment of our species but can also be detrimental. The technology that they are trying to develop will affect human reason and his nature. Man will lose freedom because someone will be in control.
    In the end, we are the ones to decide and for me it is best that it stay as fictions in movies.

    Christine Anne D. Espeja
    TF 1:00-2:30 (Sec 2)

  38. Ib Al-amin said

    What it means to be human?

    Rousseau wrote that morality was not a societal construct, but rather “natural” in the sense of “innate,” an outgrowth from man’s instinctive disinclination to witness suffering, from which arise the emotions of compassion or empathy.

    A movie I saw once is Equilibrium. A fictional movie wherein a third world war broke out and the ones who survived knew that humanity will never survive without a fourth world war. In order to save the world from man’s volatile nature the authority created a new form of law. They created a pill that will hinder our human emotion and passions; it is just like taking away our ability to feel. Anyone who does not go with the law shall be arrested. Because of that they never had the hate to rage war, never had to be jealous.

    Because of that, Man will never feel sadness, happiness, anger, fear, disgust, and surprise. People often behave in certain ways as a direct result of their emotional state, such as crying, fighting or fleeing. Human emotions such as fear, lust for power, jealousy, and greed can run extremely high that it can lead people to manipulate and betray each other.

    But as a human, that is what differ us from other entities. We learn how to love, hate and desire for things. A chimpanzee will fight back at his opponents for only 1 reason and that is survival but a human being has a lot of reasons why he needs to do bad things. A chimpanzee can never desire for something, an entity concerned of survival its primary objectives are its needs.

    As a rational animal we also hope for survival by attaining our essential needs, but combined with our desires and passion for what we do. We try to change things in order to survive longer, which is our desire. Our lust for a longer life, a more powerful life where we can like snap our fingers and everything we want materializes. Our desire for life to go easier…

    “For humans, Enough is never enough” –Over The Hedge

  39. Ralph Joshua P. Sarrosa said

    Ralph Joshua P. Sarrosa
    TF 1:00-2:30- Sec. 2

    The Genevan 18th century political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau greatly instigated the French Revolution and is the author of the works “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” and “On the Social Contract” which are vital elements in today’s political and social thought which assisted in the formation of democracy and social empowerment.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau)

    As found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature, “We do not know what our nature permits us to be – Jean-Jacques Rousseau”.

    As found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature#Modernism,”Rousseau argued that human nature was not only not fixed, but not even approximately fixed compared to what had been assumed before him. Humans are political, and rational, and have language now, but originally they had none of these things. This in turn implied that living under the management of human reason might not be a happy way to live at all, and perhaps there is no ideal way to live.”

    Using Rousseau’s perspective, since “human nature is not fixed” and since “we do not know what our human nature permits us to be”, we can conclude that, using Rousseau’s perspective, we would not know “what is our human nature,right now” and we would not know “how arts, sciences and technology would affect our human nature”.

    This article explicitly questions “what does it mean to be human?”. In essence, being human means that we are different from the animals we find in the wild. Our main difference would be our human nature. Human nature may actually vary from person to person and society to society. Knowing this, answering the question “what does it mean to be human?” can only be answered by the person wanting to know.

    To conclude, “what does it mean to be human?” is a question with an ever-changing unanswerable answer.

  40. Mark John G. Girasol (Section 2) said

    Honestly, I had goosebumps while reading some of the portions of the article. Who else could have imagined those very futuristic plans especially that of transhumanism? Similarly, who could have imagined before that the conveniences we have today are possible to happen? Based on history, those seem-to-be-impposible things are, I should say, not that impossible at all.

    Based on the context, it seems to me that Rousseau’s notion about human nature is very primitive. I don’t imply that his ideas about this thing is not anymore appropriate to the present time, especially to those who believe that the human body is intangible, which I definitely agree. It’s just that, certain factors could have influenced his stand about human nature.

    Let’s say I agree with him that human nature will be destroyed if humans separate themselves from nature. There are instances that we may do things like altering, or maybe modify as a euphemism, the natural us. This particularly violates Rousseau’s theory. And as I can see in this article, I would definitely point out those acts like freezing human bodies for the hope of reviving them in the future, humans slowly deviate themselves from nature.

    Yes. Technology gives us the pleasures, the conveniences, and the unecessary short-cuts we have nowadays. But have we realized that we are already destroying what is natural of us? That’s the problem with us. We sometimes act for the sake of happiness of one’s self. We don’t deliberate the factors that would eventually affect us.

    I could hardly imagine that day would come that we are totally destroyed, that we are essentially just for making everything fast, that we are all after for perfection, and that we are going to continue making desperate attempts in achieving it. That would be a chaotic world, I guess.

  41. I.B. Al-amin said

    What it means to be human?

    Rousseau wrote that morality was not a societal construct, but rather “natural” in the sense of “innate,” an outgrowth from man’s instinctive disinclination to witness suffering, from which arise the emotions of compassion or empathy.

    A movie I saw once is Equilibrium. A fictional movie wherein a third world war broke out and the ones who survived knew that humanity will never survive without a fourth world war. In order to save the world from man’s volatile nature the authority created a new form of law. They created a pill that will hinder our human emotion and passions; it is just like taking away our ability to feel. Anyone who does not go with the law shall be arrested. Because of that they never had the hate to rage war, never had to be jealous.

    Because of that, Man will never feel sadness, happiness, anger, fear, disgust, and surprise. People often behave in certain ways as a direct result of their emotional state, such as crying, fighting or fleeing. Human emotions such as fear, lust for power, jealousy, and greed can run extremely high that it can lead people to manipulate and betray each other.

    But as a human, that is what differ us from other entities. We learn how to love, hate and desire for things. A chimpanzee will fight back at his opponents for only 1 reason and that is survival but a human being has a lot of reasons why he needs to do bad things. A chimpanzee can never desire for something, an entity concerned of survival its primary objectives are its needs.

    As a rational animal we also hope for survival by attaining our essential needs, but combined with our desires and passion for what we do. We try to change things in order to survive longer, which is our desire. Our lust for a longer life, a more powerful life where we can like snap our fingers and everything we want materializes. Our desire for life to go easier…

    “For humans, Enough is never enough” –Over The Hedge

  42. Grace Salve G. Ta-aca said

    Grace Salve G. Ta-aca
    Section 2 Soc. Sci. 2

    The assigned article that I have read deals about the advancement of science and other science-related developments. This article was interesting because it is about how to improve human brain. Based on the assigned article (which is entitled We Will Get Better- a repost from the More Intelligent Life magazine), Julian Baggini, an accomplished writer, meets with scientists who aspire to make impossible possible.

    If I were to evaluate the assigned article vis-à-vis Rousseau’s perspective, I will contradict the transhumanist ideas such as Bostrom’s, specifically about speeding up the brain. I firmly believe( because I have observed) that people found themselves secure by doing just easy things and won’t plunge on something that might endanger nor place difficulty on them except if there is a stronger call to do so.

    I was intrigued by the so called “speeding” up the brain. I think speeding up the brain is a dangerous step even though it may really improve the life of a person. Maybe at first it would do well but sooner or later it will be the prospect of evil men in doing their selfish purposes. If speeding the brain will be successfully done by the transhumanists, people will try their very best to acquire it because they will think it is the safest thing to do and also in order to match or exceed their fellows. People who have acquired the invention won’t be satisfied. Moreover, they will have doubts about their advantages and tend continue to do things so that no one could be able to exceed them. As to the people behind the invention, they will look upon themselves as gods or either the wisest of men for being skillful enough to do the invention.

    With doing the “speeding up the brain”, of course, money is needed to do this. And who provides the money? Of course, rich people do. These rich individuals may use this invention to control the people and eventually, the whole world. It is but natural that people prefer to do something which can impress fellows during his life. People want glory while he still lives..

    “Uploading” yourself in a computer is very exciting but it may lead to some unpleasant events. For example, those who invented this “uploading” might control your “brain” and other people’s, too. With this, you can trust no one.

    Through these works, virtue is taken for granted; it is not felt. The developments of science doesn’t make virtuous people; rather making life easier, but not better morally. People just become lazy and wanted to be fed every time they want to. People nowadays no longer ask if a man is virtuous, but if he has special talents, skills or money.

    • Brian C. Ventura said

      Where is Rousseau in your comment? You only mentioned his name.

      • Grace Salve G. Ta-aca said

        Sir, for clarification, I did mention only Rousseau’s name for I think it’s understood that the comment will be based on his perspective which was written in books such as Ebenstein’s. Moreover, I didn’t write it directly in my comment because his perspectives written in numerous books and in the internet all means the same- just written in different manners/ ways.

  43. Rousseau would have raised sounding, worthwhile arguments–even tension [1]–to the transhumanists if he lived in today’s time. Both parties are much concerned with the advancement’s effects in science and arts –but look on it at opposing ends.

    Transhumanists, according to the article, see improvement in such fields’ development positively–as an opportunity–to the transformation of humans and adaption in today’s technological advancement i.e. speeding the brain, etc. This transformation does not really matter for them since we have experiencing such transition from childhood to adolescence and adulthood.

    In contrast, this progress is actually a liability to Rousseau since these are products of abandoning virtue for pride and vanity. Conferring with his notions, it may lead to corruption of one’s soul by easing living conditions lavishly; impairing our abilities and moral well-being.

    The first party’s argument about transformation has substance–but absurd, for me, at least. Taking change in human beings extremely to the extent of substituting body parts with microprocessors (or even replacing us with a better kind) is nonsense and futile. On the other hand, Rousseau’s anti-progressive view conflicts with today’s scientific achievements, updating human knowledge with the help of high-end-instruments and sophisticated approaches. His outlook does not most likely connive with today’s trend.

    Prince Eduard R. Ragasa, BA CMS I
    Soc Sci 2 – 3 (TF 11:30-1:00 PM)

    ______________

    [1] This refers to the transhumanists’ argument that, “…if human beings as we know them are eliminated, so much the better. We’re a pretty rubbish species anyway, so if our successor species is better, why worry about preserving the one we have?” (Baggini, n.d.)

  44. Marie Jeanje B. Briones said

    Marie Jeanje B. Briones (TF 11:30-1:00 Sec. 3)

    Change is the only permanent thing in this world. Man and its’ environment will continue to change. While we are observing things more closely, we cannot deny that the application of science to industrial use is one of the leading factors of change. Science takes the lead to the change of an individual and its’ environment.
    Man started as a mere entity hunting for survival while using simple gestures and movements to communicate. Then, as time went by, man started to think more critically and then stages of development occurred resulting to the development of tradition, love, moral and also the feeling of self importance and competition. Based on my reading about Rousseau’s philosophy, he simply describes natural man as creatures that are essentially good in nature; they are unspoiled by the different advancement in society such as civilization. And now, the truth awakens us, the entrance of big advancements in science, technology and art has thus begun.
    I believe that science can make our lives more pleasurable and more convenient. With the appearance of science, sickness can be cured, humans can be more advanced (like in the article “we will get better”) and people can invent things that could satisfy our own desires. However, I also believe that science can also ruin one’s morality. Unnecessary change for an individual can be implemented just for the false need for luxury and vices thus ruining one’s perception of the importance of what our God had naturally given us. Changing our physical structure in exchange for a machine, we cannot call ourselves human anymore. Machines are sometimes invented for selfish reasons and to compete with each other just to see who is more superior to the other. Advancements in arts, science and technology can emphasize talent and vices more than virtues.

  45. Inna Erika E. Medina said

    Inna Erika E. Medina – TF 11:30-1:00 Sec. 3

    Over the past years, humans, being a rational creature had think of better ways to upgrade their standards of living. The word technology was brought to life and along with this improvements, change inevitably existed. Today, technology plays a crucial role in our lives. We are now living in a virtual world where almost everything is just one click away. However, these improvements had greatly affected the human race and our sense of being human. We rely so much on technology – medicine for illness, cars for transportation and gadgets for entertainment – to make our lives become more convenient and less strenuous, but looking at the other side of the picture technology had deeply changed the way we think and feel. Through the desire of improving one’s self people is slowly forgetting how to be human. Constant improvements became the root cause of jealousy, envy and had caused man to learn corruption. Technology already changed the way we feel and think .It had obliterated the balance of man in the society and it is because that arts and sciences were not created to aid humans but merely a result of man’s unnatural desires and conceit. I am writing in a Christian’s point of view and I firmly say that human beings are becoming more and more ambitious. They became too preoccupied by the desire of being the best and most powerful that they forget that our task is just to become caretakers of the world. We are here to live and to maintain the balance of nature, however there is only one God who has the power to neither create nor destroy everything in this world. Humanity might be slowly fading away, transforming into transhumanity but we could still make it right and that is to become human once again.

  46. Eihmile Kreistein Salgado said

    As I read through the article, only one question emanated from my mind. Why do these people keep on changing the way of life?

    I am aware that change is inevitable since we are all trying to cope with the various demands that the society put on us. However, I don’t find changes such as these mutations of the human race to be necessary for us to cope with the various changes in the world that we live in.

    When based on the philosophies of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, it is indeed unwarranted to apply such alterations. These alterations does not anymore mean progress, instead, it shows man’s vanity and pride. It signifies the nature of man of not ever being contented of the things that he has, rather, he keeps on finding ways to get what is best. But then, he never reaches satisfaction. For Rousseau, the existence of art and science brings forth foul ideas that cause man to delve into arrogance and thus, acting contrary to his true nature of being good. By this, I would also like to agree with the thought of Rousseau in such a way wherein, the application of science in our lives doesn’t seem to be reasonable at all because it may cause developments but consequently it eventually obliterates humanity.

    Seeing the various impact that transhumanism posts against humanity, I could say that it would not be helpful to support this kind of mutation because it may bring to an end our existence, the human existence. Furthermore, it changes who and what we really are. We are human, in our own ways, we will be able to build a productive society without having to subject ourselves to great alterations that will change who we are.

  47. Agot Maureen Sotelo said

    People by nature are narcissists. This is what Rousseau is trying to convey to the people when he said that arts and sciences are merely product of people’s pride and vanity and not actually expressions of human needs since people sacrifice human nature for the sake of a more intellectual culture replacing natural by artificial needs.

    As a human, it would normally hurt my ego having the thought that my species are going to be replaced by an era of genetically modified species of human but, it can be considered as hypocrisy if we deny the fact that it would be a lot more practical and easy if things are processed in a speed-up way. On the other hand, there would be instances that chaos might arise since people always thought of getting ahead of others. I’m afraid that because of the superb allure of people to perfection and advancement, they might overview the fact that one can’t always get what he wants. My opinion is to stay stationary in this state of being a human. Of course people cannot just be contented, so it’s okay to continue applying technology in people’s lives but can we put an exception to human brain? It’s the value of human nature – reason and experiece – I’m afraid to lose.

    Agot Maureen F. Sotelo
    SOC SCI 2 (sec. 2 TF 1:00 – 2:30)

  48. cristine vista said

    Rosseau states that human nature human nature is the natural state of man wherein he is an “animal” or a “noble savage”. Man in this state is not yet corrupted by the evils of the state and he has no greed towards other fellow men’s property and rank because the existence of those things is only possible in the presence of a society. Therefore, anything related to state and societies is completely unnatural. These artificial groups can be formed by a social contract.

    In the social contract, Rosseau states that in order to gain freedom to act rationally and morally, the people must sacrifice their right to do anything they want while in Transhumanism, humans generally give up their natural physicality in order to give way for advancement (in this case, to speed up the brain, change time perception and other radical human transformations). Rosseau aims for the people to be involved in the social contract to achieve their full “humanity” while Transhumanism ventures further off towards a more ambitious goal: Superhuman or INHUMAN. Inhuman in the sense that some Transhumanists believe that humanity was an accident waiting to be changed, and that would be corrected by being replaced by a more superior species that are not human. (I beg to disagree because I believe in that Natural Selection is quite reasonable.)

    The social contract forms a government whose members will be supported by surplus products. In this way, we can maintain our means to be more human by increasing our productivity which will be made possible by technological and scientific advances. They would counter the effects of climate, displeasing natural environmental conditions (like the infertility of the soil) and the people themselves who are not diligent enough to produce surplus. In the present, art, science and technology are being related to different fields of interest, not only towards our Human Nature, but also to our being ‘Human’ as well. The present has become so advanced that our concerns now are very different to the concerns of the people in the past. Our way of thinking is now rooted to practically beyond the world because most humans think that state and society were not as problematic as they were during in Rosseau’s time. Problems solved in the past have now been replaced by new problems, mostly of which, we created ourselves.

    Therefore, as time progresses our very “Human Nature” in Rosseau’s terms: Our ability to practice our humanity, which is to think rationally and act morally (something which separates us from being normal animals) is now distorted to being a radical concept. This new idea is that human nature, being a hindrance to achieve perfection as superior ‘More Intelligible’ beings, will now be changed as the aim of modern arts, sciences and technology.
    It’s really true when the author said that “it’s time that changed”.

  49. Larry John D. Nagallo said

    We will get better through transhumanism?

    According to the article above, transhumanism is describe as a school of science dedicated to advancing “the evolution of intelligent life” beyond its current human form and limitations, “guided by life-promoting principles and values.”
    I believe that the evolution of intelligent life is necessary for a principles and values that contribute for the progress of one’s life. But the point that caught my attention most is the statement i.e., Transhumanists embrace our mutability as an opportunity for improvement, even if that means we may one day be replaced another superior species.

    I begin to ask myself to what extent that a species should be labeled as superior to another species?
    It’s because the species he label “superior” has high speed brain performance? It has high-speed brain because somebody put a device in him like a processor in a computer to improve its performance? How about other factors that could contribute to the betterment of itself e.g. character and personality.

    Indeed computers perform faster than humans yet, we are never going to have a machine that is truly “human”.

    We can have intelligent machines but there’s no such thing that is tantamount to what human being can do. A human being is more than just a smart computer. Our behavior is governed not only by the higher logic of our brain, but also by millions of years of bizarre — often obsolete — instincts. If you yanked a brain out of a body and hooked it to a computer, it would no longer be truly human because of the lack of hormonal responses that come from every part of the body.

    At the end of the day, whatever man did, he did it for a reason. Man wants a happy and fulfilling life.
    A computer doesn’t have feeling like what a man has.

    Man doesn’t want a machine to rule over him. The machine can’t suffice whatever man needs unless it is told to it. Only a man can understand what another man needs for they shared a common characteristic i.e. feeling.

    It’s simply going to be too hard, impractical and, frankly, useless to make an intelligent machine that mimicked every hormonal reaction and instinctual mechanism.

    I would like to suggest that if they really want to have a more intelligent man, make it in a natural way. For example, take memory boosting supplements to enhance memory and thinking performance. Though it may have a chemical component yet it doesn’t alter the psychological factor of an individual. At the end of the day its still the man’s decision and way of thinking on how he approach others.

    • Brian C. Ventura said

      You did not follow the instruction. Your opinion is useless unless it is grounded on basic concepts defined by Rousseau, as indicated in the instruction.

  50. CHELSEA KAMILLE F. FANDINOLA said

    Section 2.

    In this rat-race paced global environment, everything is in constant flux. Over billions of years, human civilization has evolved with an interesting wealth of highly complex society. Advancements in modern technology were once mere imaginations transformed into a majestic reality. Along with these innovations, the nature of men is also continuously being altered.

    Great philosophers, such as Jean Jacques Rousseau, have made important contributions and principles regarding the effects of arts, sciences and technology in human nature along with their more abstract philosophies. He believes that even though man is free by nature, they are still bound to change because of the social contract they created. Moreover, he believes that men are good by nature – and it is the society’s institutions that corrupt them. Hence, these changes in the modern society have also an effect on the morality of men.

    It is impossible to imagine what life would be like after such changes. Bringing back dead persons, uploading yourself in a computer, living in a virtual reality, genetic alterations, transhumanism and the idea of a cyborg, part-human-part-robot, greeting you along the way is a bit creepy. I was quite horrified by the different futuristic ideas presented in the article. These ideas were once impossible. But through the course of time, a new horizon of possibility is now visible in the modern world. On the other hand, looking in Rousseau’s perspective, these technological advancements can be dangerous. These things in the society can promote greed, selfishness and vanity for human nature. It can destroy the very fabric of man’s nature.

    Advancements in the arts and sciences open the possibility for human nature to be corrupted. The growth of modern technological advancements can help mankind in creating a better civilization but it can also be an evil to the human race.

  51. Glenn Patrick M. Uygen said

    Section 2. TF 1:00-2:30

    In contrary to Hobbes’ perspective, which states that the things that animate people are the desire for power and aversion towards death that may lead to a war of all against all, of human nature, Rousseau believed that the natural man is largely good. He affirmed that the contributing factor to a man’s perspective is the society.
    As read in the article, the writer enumerated various scientific processes and possible breakthroughs that may enhance man’s capabilities in focus to the neurological aspect. However, despite the positivity of its various effects to man, it is very much divergent to Rousseau’s view. In application, these technological advances of science, technology and the arts are the causes to man’s corrupted mind. As these are only limited to some, the acquirement of such may lead to self love and the development of his bad habits. Therefore, jealousy, fraud and the like may rise and makes the progress of sciences and the arts proportional to the degradation of morality. Noted that these advances are not essential to human, the thought of luxury breaks in, the hunger of greater procurement of benefits becomes prominent and the virtues slowly dissolve. As a result, man has become conscious of the things he acquire and what his peers may have.
    In addition, Rousseau salutes to the idea of moral simplicity of humanity. He stated that it is better if we remained close to the plain way of living (which includes our thirst for basic moral goodness) and that we may have avoided the problems that we are facing today. It is quite obvious that we do not need these genetic enhancements, superintelligence capacities, transhumanism, etc.
    As conclusion, I will say that Rousseau’s view of human nature has much sense as it has more emphasis of the positive perspective.

  52. Paul Garreth C. Lucero (Section 2) said

    After reading the article, I realize that the human mind is ever restless in theorizing or inventing certain ways that enhance or alter one’s way of living. Preserving life via cryogenics, improving brain performance using chips and the others mentioned in the article were the products of man’s drive for survival,which is natural. It may seem good at first, prolonging one’s lifespan and efficiency but this creates havoc in the society especially in human nature.
    Rousseau stated that advancements in knowledge and arts are not beneficial to humankind, for us to truly understand this we must broaden our line of thinking. Without a doubt man will continue to develop new waves of technology. These “technology” promotes inequality, corruption and eradicates self sufficiency, which we can say is not good for human nature. Discovery and development of new technology and the improvement/increase of/in knowledge provides opportunities for luxury and power thus allowing man, especially those who patented the technology and those who can afford it, to have an edge over others and be corrupt. This can cause jealousy and fear in the community thus exterminating true friendship and unity. This causes wars within the state. Furthermore, The mentioned innovations in the article require man to be dependent on the scientists. What if the scientists know that they have the power to control and manipulate man with this technology. This causes man to lose their freedom and their ability to reason without their knowledge.
    Material progression destroys the society. It causes man to lose his morals, it allows him to violate the rights of others just for the sake of power, causing them to be undermined. Material progression can only be good if the technology produced allows men to be equal amongst each other thus producing a perfect society.

  53. Dayanara Buensuceso said

    Am I supposed to be horrified, excited or both? I am not certain. First, Julian Baggini’s article struck my morale. Technological advancement is absolutely inevitable, but it also entails human advancement. At first glance, advancement is indeed advantageous. One thinks of conveniences like speedy health recovery, inspiriting exam results, industrial developments, and at the very least, self-satisfaction. Societal movers or researchers, however, give us more to watch out for. There are major breakouts in science and art in the recent era-breakouts which leave almost everyone exhilarated, yet with a considerable some, uncomfortable.

    Transhumanists, as these “societal and technological movers” are referred to, have begun freezing dead bodies to restore the life in them in the future and have also conceptualized speeding up mental processes. These do sound promising and beneficial when successful but they contend with ethics and for Jean Jacques Rousseau, the state of human nature. Rousseau withheld his stand on the natural man and the civilized man wherein the latter, lavishing in luxury, art, and science, corrupts society and even the uncritical natural man. If this was to happen, the focus of the society would tip towards all the glories of civilized refinement, thus relegating virtues essential to the nature of man. To think of the transhuman activities as elating draws one into the glory of science. Indeed, it is humane to marvel at the promising possibilities, but could it be, in Rousseau’s view, that we are promoting these transhumanists or scientists to remedy the evils which they themselves have made?

    In the opportunities that lie ahead, we can be assured that humans have the capabilities to alter our selves physically and mentally but are we assured of favourable circumstances? We are not. These technological undertakings and playing God may just totally ruin our moral conviction and morale.

    Dayanara Buensuceso
    Sec. 3

  54. Dianne Frances Penuela Sec.2 said

    Section 2

    The near future holds so many things that await humans to discover. Things that we thought are impossible would someday be slammed straight on our faces and we may never notice. Now, we are living in a complex world that anything could happen. Anything is just a press of a button away. Soon, anything could be possible. We move forward and pursue on progressing even if it means ruining our own race. Even bringing the dead back to life may come to reality, especially since there are now people who are working on it.
    But it is not always that advancing for the sake of intelligence is generally good. According to Rousseau, to whom I agree, advancements of the arts, science, and technology poison the human’s morality as morality is a part that defines the human nature. These three brings forth luxury that makes man crave for more. It does promote convenience, but it makes him lazy, dependent to the easiness to access to anything without making an effort, thus ruining his morality. These are like property where all other else may come from, such as greed. Moreover, as he said, human nature is always good, and nature had always been good to man. In oter words, being separated from nature may cause him otherwise.
    Bostrom’s intentions are not really very bad, but the effects could be. I agree that it may raise a whole new species that could make us extinct. All I can conclude in the end is we are fine the way we are. There are limits to discoveries and we may as well recognize them. Living a simple life, as Rousseau said, is what I can recommend.

  55. Rhick Lars Vladimer Albay said

    Playing God by Rhick Lars Vladimer Albay (Section 3)

    In his work Emile, Rousseau shows that he is a proponent of Christianity, following the belief that God created man as good, but then later influences have tainted this uncorrupted state. He cites the development of the Arts and Sciences as having led the world wrongly and as the origin of sloth-like leisure and material greed.

    The advancement of technology and the proliferation of art do have beneficial effects on society. Technological advancements help ease man’s daily routine and art generally gives a better understanding of worldly beauty. However, Science and Art do have, in a way, nonconventional hubristic elements.

    Present Science and Technology has opened many new doors for humanity. New medicine has produced vaccines to diseases previously thought incurable. Prosthetics has made it possible to reconstruct our faces to our liking. Genetic engineering has enabled man to toy with the very element that makes up all life forms. Art, on the other hand, shows man’s attempt to copy or put a tangible form to beauty. These activities show man’s attempt to play God, this being a very unmoral act to the devoutly religious.

    Through Science we have learned to produce phenomena that is truly God-like; designing new life-forms and bringing them to reality, dissecting the creation and form of man, and even giving a possibility for immortality. Also, Art shows man trying to capture and recreate God-created beauty through their different mediums. Man endeavors to reach certain levels of power that were previously thought unattainable. In such, it shows that man, in a way, has developed a sense of pride and greed and seeks to have equal capabilities to God.

    Through this discussion we may see why Rousseau is generally against the further advancement of Science and Technology. Knowledge and capability of these tend to foster in man a state of pride which may intern develop into material greed, and to its extreme, envying and lusting for Godly power.

  56. Krizzanie Magoleño said

    “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains. “
    This is an expression of Rousseau’s belief that we are corrupted by society. He believes that we are born good and that being good is our natural state. He believes that living a good and simple life are we to live a life of virtue. It is only when we as we grow old and become more conscious of ourselves do we become more prone to the evils of society.
    Upon reading the article “We will get better” by Julian Baggini, I have realized how much man has progressed through the course of time. The article tells us that man seeks for progress by sinking into further specializations and creating new technologies that “benefit” humankind. This is in contrast as to what Rousseau thinks how man should live his life. Rousseau believes that this behavior of man is mainly a result of man’s love of pride or vanity. In the article it tells us how there are experiments and technologies invented that alter the way we think, feel, and live our lives. It was even stated in the article that lately we have considered how technology can bring us a change more drastic than evolution. These opportunities created on idleness and luxuries have contributed for man to be corrupted. He argued that this progress in knowledge can undermine our true virtues and values. Values like love and friendship can change to jealousy, fear, and suspicion because the more we seek for knowledge, the more we go through this material progress, the more our values and virtues are corrupted.

  57. Stephanie Palacios (SOC SCI 2 section 2, 1:00-2:30) said

    In this world we live in, who wouldn’t want to have a practically easily life, where everything is so easy and that everyone knows everything? The entry seems to have given me involuntary reactions regarding my views about human nature. In things, there is a matter of cons and the pros.
    It is really the capability of man to adapt to his natural environment since it is where he belongs but come to think of it, it also gives human the limitation of his capabilities. In this aspect, man would not be able to learn more without experiencing things on his own. On the other hand, adapting in the environment and learning through it, human would become the human who they really are without other “artificial” factors.
    The way I see it, technology affecting the way human now think, act, feel, and adapt is practically making human not different from being robots. As with the view of Jean-Jacques Rousseau s, humans are naturally good but is corrupted by society. The entry explained one of the many factors which is technology. Instead of enhancing the capacities of human beings, they are merely dictated. Yes, human would have more knowledge of things and can do countless tasks, but does it make them human? I don’t think so because being human for me is defined by the choices, flaws, and victory a man would have in his lifetime.

  58. Alyanna Cortum said

    With the transhumanists’ idea of having our brains sped up and having ourselves connected to the virtual realm, comes questions. Questions about how this proves to be helpful to the human race. Will doing such change in our systems be of more advantage to how we live our lives?

    I personally believe that to create is to destroy. To create and alter a human being is to destroy the basic natural structure of blood-and-flesh of the human form. Integrating several electronic devices to the human body may result to some damages of various original parts of the human anatomy. But with these damages comes replacement of certain apparatus that would aid the human in such a way that he can perform his daily functions more efficiently.

    But what the article presented are just the good points of the proposed innovation to our beings. It did not exactly give out the negative effects. Thus the question, Will doing such change in our systems be of more advantage to how we live our lives?

    According to Rousseau, “The arts and sciences have not been beneficial to humankind, because they arose not from authentic human needs but rather as a result of pride and vanity.” (Wikipedia) He argues that arts and sciences are born from our vices. We focus more on the by-products of the advancements in the arts and sciences; these thing being wealth, fame and glory. They take our eyes off from more important things such as love of country, friends and the unfortunate.

    For me, arts and sciences proved to be helpful to how we live our lives. We could not deny the fact, that each of us is enjoying the advantages of technology. But of course, there are also disadvantages. I have to agree with Rousseau on this.

    I think the focus as of now is not on the creation of transhumanity but on the alleviation of poverty. Here, now, today, we must concern ourselves with achieving peace and order. Creating and maintaining a successful, peaceful society instead of destroying humanity.

    by: Alyanna Cortum
    BA CMS 1

  59. Danica Tan said

    Danica P. Tan – TF 11:30-1:00 Sec. 3

    I would like to believe that I am a self-proclaimed pro- transhumanist. If human beings are indeed eliminated, then it is much better. We are a bunch of dependent species that destroys and neglects all that life and nature has to offer then complain when it is all gone and forgotten. I believe that if we were to be replaced by genetically enhanced species that were meant to be a better version of the still existing human race then these successors are indeed much better in every single way.

    We are now in the era where we are growing fast and adapting to the technological advancement in our surroundings. Admit it or not, we are slowly and unknowingly becoming dependent in all these changes. How can we just simply turn our back on innovations such as superintelligence and humanoids when we can be in an open-minded disposition? I believe in all these thought for if we look closely, even if humanity will be destroyed it will be however replaced by a better version referred to as transhumanity. We are looking into the future. And we must evolve with it.
    Rousseau believed that human nature has been always good. It is the society that was corrupting it to go for more than what it has been born with. It has become a beast of its desires. But if this is for the better, why not open our doors to such options. It is for the advancement for our capacity anyway, so I think we might give it a try.

  60. Jenica Dela Pena said

    Art grew out of human’s desire of improving and inventing things for survival. With the help of understanding and learning science, humans tend to create and discover better things to make our lives easier and better. From this, I can say that arts and sciences is not harmful to the society, in contrast with what Rosseou’s belief that Arts and Sciences set as a disadvantage for it is very harmful to the society. I don’t see anything bad that arts and sciences can bring to the society it in fact help the society to be progressive.
    But from reading the article of Julian Baggini, I then understand why Rosseou see Arts and Sciences dangerous to the society. I never imagined of scientists having an idea of improving human through transhumanism. This might have been the effect of having arts and sciences as a tool for progress, human then tend to think beyond the limits having the idea of even transforming human to have brains ten times better which for me is really dangerous. From the article, they said that having humans with this brain capacity will eventually help our society to progress faster. This is where I see the point of Rosseou when he said that humans are really good in nature but they get corrupted by the society. From the demand of the society, humans find ways and ideas without realizing the bad effects and the harm it can bring.
    Arts and sciences have good advantage in our lives and in our society but it can also be a disadvantage. With this, I can say that all things have advantages and disadvantages, but it will all depend on where you will focus, to the advantage, or use and let the disadvantages damage your life.

  61. Glaiza Ann C. Alon Section 2 said

    Science and Technology today is so advance and is greatly affecting everyone. It lower your risk of exposure to diseases, enables you to change your facial or body profile and enhance your abilities.

    Science is so progressive that sometimes it borders to the impossibility. The article “we will get better” prove this. Even though science is so advance, it is still absurd to say that we can be do what fantasy movies introduce to us. We can’t live in a virtual world and be uploaded or downloaded to computers. It morally downgraded us.we are human not some data that can files and destroyed so easily with one press on the keyboard. This advancement, if ever would be achieve, would cause an abrupt change in every human being. It would change their activities and attitude towards life. Some may be so addicted to this Virtual world or realm and may no longer remember or differentiate reality and fantasy. We were born with brains to use it for our own good not to play with it. We can not speed it up or slow it down just because we like to. We are human intelligent enough to draw the limit to where we should explore with science and technology. It is not right to play with our body and brain.

    We should not be complacent just because everybody is praising science. It did helped us a lot but it also did ruin us. Not all made by science had a good effect so this introduced technology may also be bad.

  62. Ina Maureen Ebba said

    Would we be really inferior to the next few generations to come? That article was very mind-perplexing. A lot of things are really running in my mind after reading that article. I just can’t imagine what will the future would be in the days to come. All I know and believe is that everything changes and within these changes are different forms of growth and development. Thomas Hobbes applied Descartes’ way in describing humanity as matter in motion, just like machines. It’s like every move of a human being contributes for it’s development and for it to function, way batter than it did before. Also according to Thomas Hobbes man’s natural state is one where life would be nasty, short and brutish. We all know that although we think that life’s unfair, but in the end we would just take back what we’ve said and realize that life is something more than you tink it is. That is why, Jean Jacques Rousseau criticized the approach of Hobbes, because he believed that the primitive humans had been happier, noble savages. Rousseau shocked the western civilization with his Second Discourse by proposing that humans had once been solitary animals, without reason or language or communities, and had developed these things due to accidents of pre-history. For me it was lucky accidents that made man develop from stage to stage. Change is really present that made men progress and will still be progressing upto the future because of the accidents also known as discoveries of the modern men.

    Ina Maureen Ebba
    BA CMS I
    TF 11:30-1:00 Sec. 3

  63. Jonell Blancaver said

    Before I state my reaction about this article, I would just like to clear out that I am against Rousseou’s belief about the disadvantage of Arts and Science, as I do not believe that it is very harmful to a society. Likewise, ever since Socrates had pointed out the danger of arts in a society, I’m starting to believe that these Philosophers are just plain rude about the design of humanity; how would we express ourselves in different ways without art? I am an artist and I express myself through art, are Socrates and Rousseou saying that I’m endangering the humanity? How about science? How could we live without science?
    However, the moment I finished reading this article of Jullian Baggini, I’m starting to open my mind idea about the danger of Science in human nature. The article mainly stated the side of the scientist who believe that transhumanism is not a danger and a violation to nature, but is just merely a progress (like being a child and growing older as an adult). I may say, as a Christian, that “progress” of transhumanism is already a big violence to God’s design for us. However, I would not defend my opinion and my individual belief by stating my religious belief. I would just say: TRANSHUMANISM IS DANGEROUS. Of course, we do believe that Human dominance on Earth would not last a million of years; however, what transhumanism would do is shortening the life span of human existence. I tried my best to open my mind for this matter; however, I still can’t grasp much of the reason why these scientists even thought of this idea. The world is already bad with our brain capacity this much; but what would happen if our brain capacity increase ten times!? That is just so insane! Really insane! There would be smart people everywhere trying to be Philosophers and Scientists and World Leaders. There would be war! Chaos! I already see how mad our world is already with these few people being so smart and trying to be superior than the other; and having more of these people is a scenario that my brain imaginative capacity can’t even reach.
    Jonell Blancaver BACMS-1
    TF 11:30-1:00 Sec. 3

  64. Fydah Marie Sabando said

    Fydah Marie Sabando TF 11:30-1:00
    Sec 3 CMS 1

    Human development is on the race with technological advancements and innovations. At first they may sound a fast way for the better and a whole new definition of life but have we really ever thought of the consequences that these advancements and innovations may incur in a much bigger aspect? Rousseau have defined “human nature” as an essentially good aspect of society. But I guess it is the society’s demands and its surroundings that are putting too much pressure in man that all these forces influence the man to give in to the bad realms of society.

    Indeed, there have been many articles that are recognizing the importance of medical devices and other technologies to all aspects of human’s advancement. It is even justifying the so-called benefits for the human race. True enough, many of the health technologies and advancements such as medicines and highly researched drugs are indispensible. Anti-depressants, neuroenhancers, and other drugs that could control our hormonal changes and biological reactions may aid us, but is that just what they do? I have thought that these were the only issues that I would encounter with regards to the growing issue on the innovation on human race. I would never have thought that transhumanists, “reloadable” super brains, “flesh-and-blood humans in synthetic virtual worlds”, and cyborgs are already in our midst and are challenging the very existence of the Homo sapiens race. Is it really for the betterment and salvation of our race when in its premise states to replace the present human creation? I don’t really think it’s a feasible proposal for mankind. It is abusing the gift of evolution from where man was able to appreciate God’s creations and his self.

  65. Jenny Rose Serfino said

    Jenny Rose Serfino TF 11:30-1:00

    Rousseau may see human nature in a dim lighted situation. Man is expected to put boundaries and limit oneself to the distinction between limitations and taking risks. But as human nature would demand attention and acceptance from society, one would try to put up with all these limitations that bounds him and thus push him to give in to the manipulations of society. In due time, we may not realize that these manipulators are not “human nature” itself but rather are the sole controllers of our society. Thus, by Rousseau’s own perception, society has been successful as it controls all of the human nature and its essential aspects.
    With the advancement and fast growing development in our society, I would have to agree that indeed human nature is at its last days of glory. We are threatened by these very advancements. We are all faced with the challenge of whether to take on the fight or just succumb to these changes. Yes, these changes may greatly affect our well-being but as Bostrom would have to put it, if we just put ourselves into deep slumber and oblivion against these great new technological advancements, then it would not matter at all.
    I believe that Bostrom has a point. Our world is slowly evolving to become “super earth” and so we humans are threatened to also take on the challenge to become “super humans”. All we have to do is to accede to these challenges and to give in is the secret to the success in the evolution of human race. Let us just sleep through all these and if one day we finally wake up, we will find ourselves becoming better humanoids than just being plain humans.

  66. Jenica Dela Pena said

    Art grew out of human’s desire of improving and inventing things for survival. With the help of understanding and learning science, humans tend to create and discover better things to make our lives easier and better. From this, I can say that arts and sciences is not harmful to the society, in contrast with what Rosseou’s belief that Arts and Sciences set as a disadvantage for it is very harmful to the society. I don’t see anything bad that arts and sciences can bring to the society it in fact help the society to be progressive.
    But from reading the article of Julian Baggini, I then understand why Rosseou see Arts and Sciences dangerous to the society. I never imagined of scientists having an idea of improving human through transhumanism. This might have been the effect of having arts and sciences as a tool for progress, human then tend to think beyond the limits having the idea of even transforming human to have brains ten times better which for me is really dangerous. From the article, they said that having humans with this brain capacity will eventually help our society to progress faster. This is where I see the point of Rosseou when he said that humans are really good in nature but they get corrupted by the society. From the demand of the society, humans find ways and ideas without realizing the bad effects and the harm it can bring.
    Arts and sciences have good advantage in our lives and in our society but it can also be a disadvantage. With this, I can say that all things have advantages and disadvantages, but it will all depend on where you will focus, to the advantage, or use and let the disadvantages damage your life.
    TF 11:30-1:00 Sec. 3

  67. Jenica Dela Pena said

    Art grew out of human’s desire of improving and inventing things for survival. With the help of understanding and learning science, humans tend to create and discover better things to make our lives easier and better. From this, I can say that arts and sciences is not harmful to the society, in contrast with what Rosseou’s belief that Arts and Sciences set as a disadvantage for it is very harmful to the society. I don’t see anything bad that arts and sciences can bring to the society it in fact help the society to be progressive.
    But from reading the article of Julian Baggini, I then understand why Rosseou see Arts and Sciences dangerous to the society. I never imagined of scientists having an idea of improving human through transhumanism. This might have been the effect of having arts and sciences as a tool for progress, human then tend to think beyond the limits having the idea of even transforming human to have brains ten times better which for me is really dangerous.
    From the article, they said that having humans with this brain capacity will eventually help our society to progress faster. This is where I see the point of Rosseou when he said that humans are really good in nature but they get corrupted by the society. From the demand of the society, humans find ways and ideas without realizing the bad effects and the harm it can bring.
    Arts and sciences have good advantage in our lives and in our society but it can also be a disadvantage. With this, I can say that all things have advantages and disadvantages, but it will all depend on where you will focus, to the advantage, or use and let the disadvantages damage your life.
    TF 11:30-1:00 Sec. 3

  68. Edwin Dusaban Jr. said

    In line with Socrates’ idea that among the professions in the Working Class, the job of a painter
    Is hazardous to the society since it creates images far different from what is good; Rousseau agrees that art and science is not necessary for the progression of a society rather through natural ways. Although we should not neglect that these two (art and science) has really helped a lot in making our lives more convenient; it would be hypocrisy if we do not acknowledge the benefit it had given us in the past centuries. But as what I’ve read in the article about transhumanists planning to create human cyborgs in the future though improving their nervous system, I can say that there is already an abuse in the limitations of arts and science.
    I agree on what Rousseau has stated that the corruption of man’s mind is proportional as how much his society had progressed. There is no need for a superior human race when in fact we already have a high intellect. After all, our present society (with all of its technological advancement and stuff) was attained through the use of our brilliant minds. I conclude that I am in favor of Rousseau’s idea that such use of art and science is not necessary for the future human race.

  69. Edwin Dusaban Jr said

    Science and art has been part of my life since the moment I was born. I never imagined life without the progress brought by science. In addition, I’m also surviving life with art. I love to sing: a form of performing arts; that means, art is a big part of my life.
    I never thought of the harm that science and art could do in the human race. I just saw the beauty of it in many angles, and never realized I missed the most important angle of it. I missed to see the angle of its danger in the society.
    The moment I read about the basic principle of Roisseou about the danger of Science and Art to the human nature or the society, I began to question my own perspective, and my own life. I just realized that my entire life was growing up in a different way than what was originally designed for humans and seeing the truth in a blurry perspective, and these realizations were more cleared out for me when I read this article by Julian Baggini. Progress is good, but what they are doing is defying the limitations of human nature. In some perspective, transhumanism (as what the article is about) is very advantageous when you look at it in a positive way. However, if you look at it in roisseou’s perspective, you’ll see that the philosopher is indeed correct. Transhumanism could lead to the end of human race. I don’t need to be a genius to figure this out; I just needed my common sense. Raising the dead, doing enhancement to the brain, putting on gadgets permanently to your body and some sorts are defying the gravity, and as far as I know, everything that tries to defy gravity ends up falling down.
    TF 11:30-1:00 Sec. 3
    (sir, i really apologize for being late for two hours. there were some uncontrolled circumstances. but before i could make this reaction, i had to understand more and grasp Roissou’s principles. i really wish that you’d give me a chance.)

  70. Carl Angelo Celebria BA Psych said

    This article really reminds me of the Japanese animated movie “Ghost in the Shell”
    with themed question of “when robots learn to feel, who decides what is human?”
    After reading about Rosseau, I planned to watch the movie again, but for now I will just use my memory.

    Rosseau was right, as we learned more , we were getting further away from nature and now as we step into the future, we are no longer just getting further away from nature, we are also getting further away from humanity.

    Kevin Warwick – world’s first cyborg—part human, part machine. “I was born human,” he says, “but this was an accident of fate, a condition merely of time and place. I believe it’s something we have the power to change.”

    To emphasize on the word “PART” human and machine, we are what we are, I believe that to create is to destroy, as we create the better human, we destroy our humanity.

  71. Ma. Victoria N. Nortiga BA Psychology said

    Are we really to get better? Or are we to get worse? Transforming natural humans into individuals- implanted with several electronic devices changes our identity from humans to machines.

    As to Rousseau, man is destined to live a healthy, simple life and to satisfy his needs-only referring to our essential needs such as food, female, and sleep. On the other hand, to “advance the evolution of an intelligent life” is just a need merely created by the society.

    Basically transhumanism is the product of man’s reason. Rousseau once emphasized that the more we use reason, the more we draw ourselves away from nature and create problems. Thus, we use reason to solve our problems, and in our recent case, it’s its goal to solve the problem of the deficiencies of a naturally functioning brain. But why are we to speed up the brain if at the first place it is to function that way?
    There is no problem in fact with how our human brain works. Reason’s acclaimed answer to this ostensible problem makes the solution also ostensible and useless.
    We must realize that our society enchains us to various technological advancements, deceives our natural way of viewing life, and makes us discontented to the extent that we want transformation from being humans to super humans.

    After all, I bet, Rousseau would still prefer to address us in a pronoun “he” though we’re slow-thinking than to use a pronoun “it” being super intelligent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: