HOME | DD
MichaelBroussard — Transhumanism
Published: 2011-10-23 23:03:32 +0000 UTC; Views: 24564; Favourites: 882; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Speed painting, android concept done in Photoshop CS5.Related content
Comments: 94
speed painting you say... but i would spend my entire life just trying to achive this level hahahahhaa!!!!
really nice work, dude!! cheers!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
this is awesome - would make an amazing album cover
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is BEATIFULLLLUH. Love the lighting. So here's my question - how far do you think we are from a technological singularity (that is, the point when advances in technology occur so quickly that transhumanism becomes possible)?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
great pic
and the looking up is great!!!
especially when having read the thread of nils-iver
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
speed painting, oh haha you got me there... define speed painting, cause this must have taken hours.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Starcraft inspired? awesome picture though, +fave!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is completely astonishing! Just absolutely magnificent work.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I love this. This is incredible!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
woo, cool.
like the colors
a little bit sad, but,...rawwrr~
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What are you meaning with 'transhumanism'?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Transhumanism is human evolution into the next step. Basically what that means is after modern humans, what comes next? We will have by then evolved into something that will be far superior and different from Homo sapiens sapiens. Think Ghost in the Shell (the cyborgs aren't quite fully "human" as one might define a "normal" one, but they still retain some characteristics of a human being.)
Try looking it up on wikipedia. It's a very interesting concept!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh that, that's not evolution at all when it's 'handmade', i say bet more on androids rather than messing with what's already working just fine. because this work is totally android.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
How would you define a human being? In the future, there might be technology that would enhance a human's capabilities so much that it would be difficult to say whether that person is still "human" in the modern sense of the word.
I interpreted the artwork as representing (not literally) this idea through the android; it is mechanical (the potential advantages that a transhuman would have), yet it has a humanoid shape (current idea of human)...so it wouldn't matter how the evolution is achieved, whether handmade or through physical adaptation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your calling it evolution yet we stopped 'evolving' thousands of years ago, it's completely a scientific theory you know? that's why i'm anyway sticking with 'androids' rather than augmentations unless it's an 'exoskeleton' so to speak, those are not internal, just external like your daily walking stick.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
evolution doesn't stop like that! it's happening to all species even now, not just humans. any noticeable changes would take thousands of years, but we're definitely still changing and adapting. the evolution of humans doesn't stop with homo sapiens sapiens, unless some big disaster destroys the whole earth. Scientific theories aren't theories for no reason. People do research to back up a theory and collect actual evidence to support it.
Augmentations in a transhuman aren't necessarily mechanical in nature, and doesn't have to be an exoskeleton. Theoretically speaking, you could use technology to genetically engineer a human to have super qualities that would enhance the qualities the human species (existing at that time) would have (which would be superior to current humans)Mechanical augmentations would be permanent and become ingrained and fuse into the human body (different from prosthetics)so that would be an internal change, not external.
As for the actual art, you're free to see it however you want to. I was merely expressing the idea of transhumanism. ([link] )
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And i agree, they arent theories without a reason, this reason showed up when they decided not to belive in god which is why science at that level is doomed to never get certain answers in life, only questions and decent answers to it they 'think' is correct and most times how they feel is best, i guess that's the 'humanism' part.
I for one do not belive in evolution since the 'evidences' of human bones mixed with monkeys are indeed just that, manufactured idea by mixing human and animal bones together to make them lookalike and vice versa all in the favor of winning a name in the science books, this have several times been disproven later by new studies and even if it was true all the animal stages never ever had a reason to evolve since they where complete in their own nature and had no problem living. in the evolutioners eyes we where once a crocodile and a bird and much else, that's too much contrasts in too little time and honestly ridicolous since they lay eggs and we human do not.
This is what happen when school does not update their knowledge but stick to old books written by people that has a teenagers education today, education has to move on, stick to the answers and ditch the theories.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I have never heard ANY proponent of evolution argue that humans come from crocodiles and birds. You really are not very well informed on the issue, and I would avoid arguing your point until you understand it a little better.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Whatever, it's a myth and can never be proven by animalistic lookalikes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Science explains how somethings works, as well as possible ways the universe came to be (using the most logical theories available thus far)
If you're talking about the philosophical "why are we here?", then I'd have to agree that science cannot explain that, but then again that is not the purpose of science.
"human bones mixed with monkeys"... that's a crude way to put things. Though there have been instances of hoaxes, overall the current evidence points to evolution as the most likely theory. How would you explain early human species such as homo habilis, homo erectus, the neanderthals and Lucy?
These examples have characteristics more common to primates than today's humans. Humans share almost 98.5% DNA with chimpanzees, so surely there must be a species (yet undiscovered) that acts a bridge from humans and other primates. If scientists really mixed up random crap and called it a theory, then it would be dismantled in no time!
And you're wrong about species never having to evolve. They have to adapt with their environment to survive. The climate and resources available to species were probably much different than today. If you look up on Darwin's expeditions to the Galapagos Islands, then there is concrete evidence on how the birds' physical characteristics changed based on where they lived (though they were originally all one species). What about when the dinosaurs were wiped out? They couldn't adapt, so they were killed off. Other species struggled to survive and developed the adaptations needed to live.
What does God have to do anything with evolution? That's a different matter entirely. Religion is about faith and how to live your life, not about explaining the world. Sure, long ago people used religion (e.g. Greek deities) to explain things like the seasons (Persephone and Hades), but that's a myth, it's not true. MYths were used because there were no other explanations available.
And who said humans evolved from crocodiles and birds? They would be more closer related to reptiles (birds are distant descendants of dinosaurs)
However, if you compare some of the very early embryonic stages of certain different types of animals, you'll see that they look similar to the human embryo (which looks like some form of deformed lizard). Why would that be?
Umm... and btw, schools do update their curriculum every so often to keep up with the facts (add new ones, remove those that have been proven to be wrong, etc.) Lots of schools use electronic material as well as written material. I highly doubt that anyone could become a teacher with only a high school diploma. And how can you get any answers without a theory? to do that, you need a question about something, make a possible explanation (theory) and test if it's the right answer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your mistaken. creatures does not evolve, they a race remains a race but cannot become an completely another race. originally there was the wolf and today we have many variations but they are all dogs like the wolf are, from the bernard dog and the golden retriever, they are different but both have the same stats of a dog, so goes for those birds you mention. evolution can never be proven because it's false.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
there are variations within a species, and if evolution goes far enough, they'll turn into a new species.
flying dinosaur -> flying dinosaur with feathers -> birds
evolution explanation: flying allows this species to better hunt for food and mobility, later develops feathers as a way to increasing ability to fly and for warmth; later shrinks down into birds (a larger body is harder to maintain)and within that, you get different kinds of birds. A very slow process.
eg. Wolves to dogs
dogs- different breeding techniques allows for types of dogs, but they still are dogs. You're right there, but wolves are not dogs. They both belong to the canine family, but they are not the same species.
Evolution sometimes involves a disappearance of a species, but not always. Wolves still exist alongside with dogs. In this case, you could say that in at a point in time, some wolves became domesticated and took an alternative route down the development of species (splitting from a branch in the canine family)
Your last statement is a false argument. "evolution can never be proven because it's false." You can't say something is false because you can't prove it. Then there's still the possibility that it's true, because you haven't proved that it's false.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev |