Hacker News Reader

Comment by moolcool | Hacker News Reader

> It is obviously true that technology allows us to modify nature to an ever greater extent

I would dispute the relative significance or meaning of those changes though. We can build dams and tall buildings. We can cure diseases and develop elaborate communications infrastructure.

I don't see that these developments alter our essential humanity though. If you read any classic literature from 100, 200, or even 1000 years ago, the emotional truths resonate the same way.

View on HN

I had a deadly childhood cancer, Retinoblastoma, which would have killed me without modern medicine. I'm pretty fond of existing.

These developments sure altered my humanity. By making it possible.

Modern medicine saved my life as well. It seems like splitting hairs, but changing _who_ one is is different from changing _that_ one is. My point is that technology isn't going to do anything to alter the core human experience: envy, passion, jealousy, gratitude, love, etc... aren't mutable in the way that rationalists or transhumanists would have us believe.

I'm sorry but I fail to see how I could have any envy, passion, or love if I am dead. If these things are important in any way, then literally changing whether or not someone experiences these things seems important? You can't have the one without the other.

Also I'm not sure where Rationalists or transhumanists said "it would be cool to live way longer" and you read "get rid of love." That seems like a weird failure of your own imagination. You can't have love if you're dead, so the transhumanists want you to live longer and... experience more love!

Technological developments have massively changed our morals. I think it is even likely that without technological progress we would barely have any moral progress! Humanity was more anarchist back when we were foragers. Becoming farmers made us sedentary and allowed morals to focus more on "family values" and religion. Similarly moving from a pre-printing press world to a post-printing press world forced civilization into a more "free-speech" stance and brought about massive religious and cultural changes. We might still have the same emotions, but they are now shaped by different environments and I really believe that that makes a difference. Check out Foragers Farmers and Fossil Fuels by Ian Morris.

> I don't see that these developments alter our essential humanity though. If you read any classic literature from 100, 200, or even 1000 years ago, the emotional truths resonate the same way.

That just means that field can be static (or just updated for modern references). It doesn't mean there aren't lots of things to improve in other areas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com