A MESSAGE TO HUMANOID ENTITIES IN THE YEAR OF OUR HOMO SAPIEN 2009

The improvement of things, every thing imaginable seems to require some sort of improvement. Sometimes it seems that technological change and innovation is just part of human nature itself. Techno homo versus homo sapiens may be the contradiction we are finding in this contemplation of the question as to whether or not techological change is apparently inherent in humans, at least as we know them today. Apparently, indeed. Of course we are used to the innovations of hundreds and thousands of human-like generations, those things we were not so much born with, such as red hair, as we made such as a digging spade.

Of course I suppose it is time to reveal to an uncaring world my basic theory of technological development or perhaps, and I say only perhaps, more modestly my mere contribution if it be accepted by those technological historians and whatnot intellectuals of whatever discipline.

I should further note that this is only the seed of what I imagine to be my contribution, rather than the fully developed theory which is yet to be discerned.

The joke goes, "What's brown and sticky?" The answer is of course, the progenitor of all subsequent technology, the stick.

That's it, the stick is the alpha to whatever technological omega you may bring forth, you subtle casuist! Enough of an aside, now back to matters pertinent to another new blog, the perfection of humans and all the questions about where humanity should and ultimately will stand on those issues.

Of course any contribution of technology may be objected to on the grounds that it makes us less "human". Perhaps the first stick user heard an objection from others. Or perhaps the first human to use something upon which the stick is developed, the wheel for example others may have asserted, isn't a stick enough? Hence we see in these two general examples two kinds of conservatism regarding technological development. The most fundamental one, the one that eschews all technology is by now altogether a theoretical mode except for those free spirits that remain naked and stickless somewhere on earth. The second sort of question, about when is there too much or bad technological development is the kind of thing we will be addressing here.

I don't think any of us want to live in a stickless or technology free world but now that we can alter human beings and are on the cusp of creating humanlike beings or intelligences it is high time we address the important issues revolving around good and bad, liberating and oppressive technological development.

This range of issues overlaps concerns in the medical field and among those concerned with other already existing but nonhuman beings.

Unfortunately we see an accelerating pattern of destroying billions of years of evolutionary development with the destruction of habitats, forests, millions of species, virtually all of nature on land or sea. Without further study we can then blurt out that the vision of humanity advocated here will be in exact opposition to that carnage and ongoing destruction.

It is the siren song of millionaire wealth for all that currently drives the
relentless consumption of the biosphere. This is a foolish idea, that everyone can consume as if the earth had no limits, as if the bounty of nature is greater than any pattern of consumption underway.

This is not to eschew green and sustainable development, something that needs to be embraced while we prune away and root out the ecology destroying methods of production we now embrace.

So one might ask, even today about what sorts of genetic modifications of human skin might be ethical an which might be unethical. Would it be ethical to modify a person's skin so that it produces more Vitamin D?
What if skin could be modified to create glucose from photosynthesis, would that be an ethical modification and if so under what circumstances would it be acceptable or not?

Should the rich consumers consign a few billions to living on light? Or would there be a special diet for those with photosynthetic skins? Would certain individuals go green with such skin modifications as an act of virtue? Should they be allowed to do so?

What if death could be engineered so that the dying person is transformed into a tree or something like that over a period of days or weeks. Yes, you can be genetically engineered to become an oak, apple tree or cottonwood. "I'd like to be a cottonwood. Me too!" So a cotton wood it is and the family visits grandma and grandpa as they transform in the garden area over a period of perhaps a month, eventually becoming a tree with a long abandoned human corpse inside.

It almost makes tree worship look like another possiblity! This concern would overlap with the concerns of ancestor worship and perhaps be a more "natural form" than nature herself has provided?

What is NEW ununbium?
Instantaneous
Uncreated perfection