From: Natasha Vita-More (natashavita@earthlink.net)
Date: Thu May 17 2001 - 12:49:16 MDT
From: "Natasha Vita-More" <natasha@natasha.cc>
>>You might consider using percentages: For example, 25% of Australian
population already has had an augmentation to their bodies. 5% now use
robotic arms or legs; 10% have received pacemakers; %3 percent IUDs. (There
are arbitrary, but I think you could get some solid facts which would be
persuasive in your introduction to augmentations.)<<
>I read a book called "Communicating Science" which said that this was
actually not so important on TV... TV likes vague generalisations +
assionate delivery.<
If you are being interviewd for a TV documentary, they are going to edit.
Producers and directors perfer crisp explanations over lengthy explanations.
If they give a topic 3 minutes, for example, they want some alluring and
exciting information and facts. They also like sensationalism which can
later come back to bite you. I have run into this a number of times where I
have had to turn down TV programs because they just wanted to exaggerate and
sensationalize extropians as lovers of metal and dislikers of humanness.
This is an issue that we need to think about and consider the consequences
of overly hyping cyborgdom.
You have an opportunity to influence a lot of folks and introduce extropian
ideas -- and your music as well.
>I'm very good with handwaving and broad brush opinions masquerading as
"Fact", so I'll probably steer clear of garish numbers as far as possible. A
nice one is that 10% of americans are cyborgs when you look at drug feed
implants, pacemakers, articifical joints, articificial skin, etc. It must be
true, I read it on the web somewhere.<
Why even consider using garish numbers. Why not explain how the percentage
of folks receiving enhancements and augmentations are increasing. Bring it
home by explaining that these enhancements are ones that even grandma has.
>> HRT is a different augmentation - a chemical augment to monitor female
hormones to prevent the onslaught of menopause. You could suggest that even
the mind is augmented by ingesting certain hormones to regulate the
chemistry of our bodies for a more healthy and vital life.<<
>HRT is supposed to extend life, though, as a side effect (cool side
effect). Drugs may well count as cyber enhancements too... anyone got an
opinion on that?<
HRT is estrogen or combination estrogen/progestin medication. It is
generally prescribed to relieve menopausal symptoms (such as hot flashes,
etc., reduce risk of osteoporosis and reduce risk of cardiovascular disease.
There is some evidence that it may also be useful in preventing Alzheimer's
disease and colon cancer, but not used for "extending life" per se.
Male hormone testosterone is also a HRT for men.
Drugs are definitely enhancements. We alter our brain chemistry with
chemicals. These chemicals have helped millions of people who suffer from
depression and other more severe mental diseases. Drugs that enhance the
concentrations neurotransmitters - norepinephrine and/or serotonin at these
receptors alleviate some symptoms of depression.
Chemicals for augmenting the brain's chemistry such as dopamine would be
good to mention.
>> How about the man who stared in The X Men? Isn't he Aussi?
Here you could mention how reversing aging has been on the cover of
magazines, Time, Newsweek, etc.<<
>I like the bit about it being on the covers of publications, good stuff.<
>> nose lift = rhinoplasty.
>Calling it rhinoplasty... that's just rubbing it in, isn't it? Like calling
permanent hair removal a "Gorillaectomy", or liposuction a
"DeElefantation".<
Not quite. It's complimentary to refer to the correct surgical procedure,
not insulting. Rhinoplasty is the medical term for nose surgery. Why call
nanotechnology "computers with small stuff". Or The Spike a the metal thang.
:-)
>Well, indeed. I'm afraid I can't get too excited about enhancements that
are all about aesthetic stuff... there are just too many important things
that need doing first. Like getting past dying young, for a start.<
Why not?? Aesthetics are essential to future technologies. It's a misnomer
to think asesthics are fluff. Makes me think of Harvey Newstrom's recent
post about the mistaken idea that scientists as being overly nerdy.
>However, I do recognise that money will end up in life extension fields by
way of the beauty industry. Also, I understand that I am a weird geekoid,
and may not necessarily represent the average citizen :-)<
And you might be someone who wants to be more appealing to your wife in 40
years.
>>So, you could introduce the idea of enhancing "beauty in the eye of the
beholder" by saying we can tweak our visual recognition patters to highlight
facial qualities that we like and reduce those that we find unappealiang.<<
>Ugly detector... yes, that would be amusing. Also, it raises some
interesting questions. Why bother to look after your physical appearance at
all, if people will, for the most part, repaint you as they desire in their
mind's digital eye?<
Er, not exactly the language I had in mind. I was thinking more of Sasha's
"Enhanced Reality" (located at his Web site) or my "Primo 3M+'s" vision
enhancements:
"V i s u a l F i e l d
Network sonar sensors map data
_____________
Infrared/ultraviolet-sensitive high-acuity
single-photon detecting,
acceleration-resistant eyeballs.
Enhanced reality visual overlays through
retinal implants allow you to
view information on top of physical objects.
You can also edit your visual experience,
removing unsightly objects and morphing
scenes into images of your choice.
Sensory input can be patched in through
global Net connection, allowing
viewing of remote locations
from Webcams, space telescopes,
and flying micro-cameras.
External visual input gives you
eyes in the back of your head.
Natasha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:41 MST