Dejay Davison

This conversation is closed.

Biotechnology + Plutocracy = 2084?

Synthetic Biology, Nano-biotechnology, 'The Singularity'..

These are just a few of the concepts that will make the human species immune to disease and ageing, which is interesting, right?
But what interests me isn't the inevitable development of these technologies alone but how exactly they will fit and function within the socioeconomic context.

If scientists allow these technologies to be corporatised am I wrong to say there is an intuitive likelihood that it may further the gap between those with power and those without out it? If not make the gap truly impassable once and for all?

Is it hyperbolic for me to assume someone who is selfish and materialistic enough to accumulate billions of dollars would chose immortality and or intellectual enhancement to truly facilitate his position in power indefinitely?

  • thumb
    Jun 13 2013: I hope that corporations won't be here when we reach the singularity. I think that with the current model things will get more and more uneven until a majority has it so bad that they (we) will simply cut the heads of those who are stealing from us.

    Hope we don't have to but it seems to be going that way.
  • Jun 13 2013: The one problem i have with science is that it works for those with power.
    • thumb
      Jun 13 2013: Science works only with resources, sadly this is the best way of finding resources today.
  • Jun 30 2013: response to Paragraph 1: being that i am a fifteen year old teenager I find these kinds of things are more philosophical than physical eventually science will do something like this the question is should we let it do this

    response to Paragraph 2: i feel that they would have been corpratized in the beginning being that as of now the american economy is...less than great the only way to fund something as major as what you speak of is to get it from private sponcers and that would not only widen the gap but also most likely make it clearer about how large the gap is

    response to Paragraph 3: it isn't history shows that power can definitely corrupt and absolute power would be intoxicating enough for almost anyone to wish to take it
  • Jun 20 2013: If you really look at the development of biotechnology. it is not exactly as powerful as you think. First look at the familial dictatorship, like the emperors/kings, even the modern system of Kim family of N. Korea continuation. Regardless of how powerful they had been, in history, the family dominated dynasty never lasted more than 5 or 6 generations. Something seemed always went wrong about the intelligence or the leadership abilities in the descendents. Interestingly, the modern biotechnology hasn't performed that well either. The cloning process didn't do well. The cloned sheep were weaker than the "mother" which gave the genetic copy to the cloned animal. We could replace any human organs to a human, but they will not necessarily give the whole body system more longevity. The brain won't last forever, because it will go into decay by itself. If you replace the brain too, then the whole being would be a different person, so what would be the point for the dominance anyway. That probably would be no better than the transference of the "throne" from the father to the son in a political dynasty.
    What I am really saying is that the natural evolution has been carried on quite well so far, any man-made "alteration" is not likely to be better to "improve" upon it.
  • thumb
    Jun 14 2013: .

    Our society is established on human symbiosis to survive.

    The "Synthetic Biology, Nano-biotechnology, 'The Singularity'...."
    will not need the human symbiosis for survival.

    Thus, they will "make the gap truly impassable once and for all" !
    They give us invalid (harmful) happiness to go self-extinction!

    We should Be Happy Validly!
    as usual!
  • Jun 13 2013: This sounds totally plausable to me.