🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2ddn6c$ilq@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, dreamer@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Andrew Trapp) writes...
>My favorite movie of all time (to date :-) is the sequel, "2010".  One
>scene that comes to mind is when the Dave Bowman entity(?) pays a visit
>to his former wife, who had thought him to be dead.  "Dave, is that you?"
>she asks.  "I'm not sure.  I remember Dave Bowman, and everything about
>him," he responds.  "All that Dave Bowman really was, is still a part of me."
>Sounds like Bowman got uploaded, and possibly merged with another (alien)
>entity.                ^^^^^^^^

	That is certainly what happened in the original book version of
"2001".  The book had Bowman upload into a "monolith" which was actually
a superbrain/starship.  The monoliths were the invention of alien races
seeking uploaded immortality and unlimited space travel and exploration
(alien extropians).  Bowman did not actually merge with another entity.
He became SO MUCH more intelligent that he could barely identify with
the being that he once was.

	The movie had Bowman transmuted into an "energy being" instead,
so "2010" kept that aspect.  Though, I suppose one could still say that
he was uploaded into a stable energy brain.


>(Getting off the transhumanist subject for a moment, there's another scene
>later in the movie where the monolith begins to eat up Jupiter, replicating
>exponentially.  Could Clarke have foreseen gray goo? ....)

	That is an interesting question.  Did the idea of grey goo come
before or after "2010"?


>What defines a "transhumanist" movie?  Would any movie with cyborgs in it
>qualify?  Even if it's well done (and there's a lot of lame cyborg movies out
>there), I don't think so.  One thing I've noticed in the majority of sci-fi
>films is a tendency to portray technology as evil, or something evil people
>use, or as having bad consequences. [...] For me, a transhumanist film does not
>portray technology as _inherently_ evil.  "2001" has a bit of both sides,
>the homicidal HAL being countered by examples of how technology can be an
>improvement. [...]

	That is an excellent observation.  I definitely agree.  I think
a transhumanist movie must support the idea of the pursuit of transhumanity.
Pointing out possible dangers and pitfalls on the way is fine in my book,
but it must be clear that the pursuit is worthwhile.  Since technology is
such a crucial part of that pursuit, to portray technology as inherently
evil is to portray the pursuit of transhumanity as also inherently evil
(or at least involving it).


>"Star Trek:  The Next Generation" has become a sci-fi hit on TV, likely
>because there aren't too many substitutes.  :-)

	Just wait for Babylon-5 in January!  :-)


>It usually has a positive
>portrayal of technology, although they don't take a kind view to immortalist-
>style life extension.

	You can say that again.  Though they are generally supportive of
extended life spans (like a piddling 100-200 years).


>However, there is one episode
>I'm particularly fond of, "The Nth Degree."

	Yup!  That is my second favorite episode of Next Gen.  My first
favorite is "The Measure of a Man" which debated the possibility of
rights for artificial intelligences.


>A genre that features a lot of transhumanism is sci-fi anime.

	I love japanime, and it does have a lot of transhumanism, though
everyone should be warned that it also has a lot of anti-tech themes.
Nausicaa comes to mind.  I actually like Nausicaa, but it really pushes
some radical environmentalist anti-tech ideas which I find repulsive.


>The cyberpunk anime film "Akira" features a teenager, Tetsuo, endowed with
>various psychic powers.  (Flying, powerful telekinesis, teleport, etc.)
>These powers grow over time, and Tetsuo gradually begins to lose control of
>both his powers and himself.  In the end he grows so powerful that he is
>consumed by his powers, and is transcended to another plane of existence--
>but not before doing horrendous damage.  At one point in the movie he is
>compared to an amoeba which has been given the intellect (and power) of a
>human.

	Akira is great, though even it is somewhat anti-tech.  The scientists
who created super-psi are portrayed in a bad light.  They were seen as
tampering with "secrets man was not meant to know".  Still, even given that,
the transcendence of Tetsuo (to a God-being) is still representative of the
ultimate limits of human potential.  One can still enjoy the movie if the 
anti-tech elements are ignored or taking as cautious 'warnings', and if the
elements of transcendence are taken in their most positive light.
(Personally, I loved the film.  Check out its english translation.  See it
in a theater if you can.)


>Going back to big-screen movies, I've heard of several transhuman movies on
>the drawing board, including "Hammerheads," "AI" (I think this is a Kubric
>film), William Gibson's "Neuromancer," and Carl Sagan's "Contact."  I think
>"Contact"'s been shelved for now, and I haven't heard anything about "Hammer-
>heads" or "Neuromancer" for some time now either, unfortunately.

	Wow!  Sounds promising.  I read _Contact_ several years ago
and I don't recall how it was transhumanist.  What elements of that were
there?  (All I remember was his silly, IMHO, idea that aliens would be
searching for a message from God in the value pi, i.e. 3.14216...)



        *    .
====\\.    ~  //====
||   \\ ~ . *//   ||
||    \\ *  //    || 
||     \\.~//     || 
||      \\//      || 
|| Mark  \/enture ||
====================