Every day we're getting closer to the tech-world in the "Starfish" from Peter Watts.
I think about Starfish's dead internet a lot now. Watts was really uncomfortably prescient.
Underwater suit-wearing cyborg insect capable of diving and terra-aqua travel
41–50 of 66 posts
Re: Underwater suit-wearing cyborg insect capable of diving and terra-aqua travel
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really depends on a person's moral qualms and how deeply they are felt. For instance, different people put different amounts of effort in when a rogue house fly enters a room. Some kill, some catch and release. Which is easier? It really depends on the person and what they are willing to tolerate.
Most flies I kill, butterflies and wasps I usually guide out. But catching a insect and injecting electronic into it to force it to move where it does not want is kind of a very different thing to me.
What is , in your moral judgement, the difference between a fly and butterlies and wasps?
why kill one but guide out the other?
Re: Underwater suit-wearing cyborg insect capable of diving and terra-aqua travel
#43Looking at the severed parts, it doesn't seem like they'll live long. I wonder how long they'd survive after something like that. It looks like something out of CockroachPunk 2077
Seems like the oxygen shell itself was just attached to the cockroach with adhesive, they were able to take it off afterwards.
> After experiments, the shell can be removed and the membrane can be gently polished off to minimise any restrictions on the cockroach’s normal behaviour and daily activities. Four small dorsal openings were reserved for attaching the oxygen tubes, which were connected to the thoracic spiracles.
Re: Underwater suit-wearing cyborg insect capable of diving and terra-aqua travel
#44Just what we need at this moment, the viruses and bacteria of hissing cockroaches entering into our valuable water sources so we can drink it, and maybe experience aquatic-park-fun mode in our intestines. Or even discover (who knows? microbiologists can dream) a new exciting pandemic, when two ecosystems that never evolved to be together meet each other? Imagine those giant marine viruses, now on our cricket bars and mosquitoes.
Re: Underwater suit-wearing cyborg insect capable of diving and terra-aqua travel
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most flies I kill, butterflies and wasps I usually guide out. But catching a insect and injecting electronic into it to force it to move where it does not want is kind of a very different thing to me.
What is , in your moral judgement, the difference between a fly and butterlies and wasps? why kill one but guide out the other?
Flies fly on shit and bring that in the house. That is reason for me to not have mercy. They bring harm.
Wasps do not bring harm to me, I know how to coexist with them, but if my kids are around, I will also kill them if they seem aggressive. So my ethics are very pragmatic.
Re: Underwater suit-wearing cyborg insect capable of diving and terra-aqua travel
#46It is fun to imagine paleontologists, some millions of years from now, whatever species they will be themselves, finding a fossil of this cockroach and trying to explain it. One thing are humans having hip joint implants, but "why on Earth would they make a diving suite for a cockroach?!"
Millions of years from now EVERYTHING will be some form of cyborg. So these cockroaches might be THE missing link of when computer and living species first started to merge.
[deleted]
Re: Underwater suit-wearing cyborg insect capable of diving and terra-aqua travel
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
This argument is called reductio ad absurdum. It’s often used by people like you who want to prevent others from trying to be better.
What on earth do you mean? That's a basic form of argument, where you demonstrate that the logic of a proposition leads somewhere ridiculous, or leads to a contradiction. It reminds me of somebody I knew who thought that metaphors are dishonest and should never be used.
Yes if we follow the logic that exploiting an organism is universally unethical it leads to a ridiculous conclusion.
Maybe it would be more precise to call it a slippery slope but I’m not sure there’s another name for this kind of reductive argument.
Re: Underwater suit-wearing cyborg insect capable of diving and terra-aqua travel
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
What on earth do you mean? That's a basic form of argument, where you demonstrate that the logic of a proposition leads somewhere ridiculous, or leads to a contradiction. It reminds me of somebody I knew who thought that metaphors are dishonest and should never be used.
Yes if we follow the logic that exploiting an organism is universally unethical it leads to a ridiculous conclusion. Maybe it would be more precise to call it a slippery slope but I’m not sure there’s another name for this kind of reductive argument.
Yes, "reductive argument" is fair enough, don't want to be reductionist and dismiss the emergent properties of the thing. (What were we talking about again? The ethics of meddling with nature?)
Re: Underwater suit-wearing cyborg insect capable of diving and terra-aqua travel
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is , in your moral judgement, the difference between a fly and butterlies and wasps? why kill one but guide out the other?
Flies fly on shit and bring that in the house. That is reason for me to not have mercy. They bring harm. Wasps do not bring harm to me, I know how to coexist with them, but if my kids are around, I will also kill them if they seem aggressive. So my ethics are very pragmatic.
Killing something because it mistakenly wandered into your periphery isn't exactly what I'd call pragmatic.
If our solar system drifts too close to another civilization I don't want to get squashed. That's the maxim. We are the fly. If you don't want something bigger than you to be entirely justified in killing you for no reason, you cannot believe yourself to be entirely justified doing the same.
The golden rule is really hard to beat.
Re: Underwater suit-wearing cyborg insect capable of diving and terra-aqua travel
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes if we follow the logic that exploiting an organism is universally unethical it leads to a ridiculous conclusion. Maybe it would be more precise to call it a slippery slope but I’m not sure there’s another name for this kind of reductive argument.
Yes, "reductive argument" is fair enough, don't want to be reductionist and dismiss the emergent properties of the thing. (What were we talking about again? The ethics of meddling with nature?)
Posturing and pedantry like this doesn’t change the fact that the nature of exploitation is more important than its mere existence. I’m not sure what you’re trying to achieve with these comments but if it’s to convince me the original argument was made in good faith you should try doing it yourself.