I believe that this solution to the paragraph directly above it, directly contradicts itself. If the Government bans the use of a drug not because it can make someone happier/better, but because it can have potentially negative or harmful side affects, then this solution is impossible. If the government deems some as potentially harmful then in more cases than not it most probably is. In this way no government could rationally come to this solution rather than the one above it. It would be obscure for a Government to allow a person who is educated about the dangers of a product to choose to use it. In the Government's and the medical professional's eyes this person would not be in their 'right mind'.. How then, could they ever allow someone who they do not deem 'in their right mind' to use a potentially hazardous drug?

The rhetoric of this passage raises a very important question. Are the people who are taking this drug really themselves still? If this was just a thought enhancing drug then perhaps this would be the case, however it does more than just make the user hyper-intelligent. The fact that this drug changes people's attitudes and their personalities proves that these people aren't themselves. On the other hand a hyper-intelligence may not directly change the person, but may enable them because a higher intelligence could reasonably lead to a higher confidence and a higher rationale of thinking.

Saying that the usual and formal definition of Technology as simply a tool or a means to end is untenable, not able to be defended from objection, is to take away Technology's connection to humanity. This is problematic. Technology, at least in the way humanity knows it, would never exist without humans. Sure, if you classify the way an otter uses a rock to open a clam or the way a monkey uses a stick to get ants as technology, then yes it would exist without humanity. However I believe that although technology can be classified as a tool, I do not believe that a tool can be classified as technology. Technology, as defined, is the practical application of knowledge to an area. A tool is a device used to accomplish a task, especially in a profession. The key to Technology is the idea of knowledge. Does an otter have knowledge about the anatomy of the clam or of the physics behind using a rock to open the clam? No, so the rock is a tool. Technology only exists because of Humanity's knowledge, humanity creates Technology as a tool to solve our problems, technology has in its very existence an instrumental definition. Taking that away, takes away it's connection to humanity. It makes it impersonal.

Mastery is a very interesting word here. It would be assumed that anything that humans have the capability to create we could retain mastery over. It is also interesting to consider the two meanings we could take from mastery. On one hand its that we are the masters or owners of that object, on the other it could be a mastery in the way a person masters a craft or a skill. So would this quote mean that compared to improving technology and the possibility of an ultra-intelligent A.I, our skill of creating technology would appear to be becoming obsolete, or does it mean the gradual loss of our control over technology? Either way it raises an important concern over the dangers of advancing technology and the ever looming possibility of an ultra-intelligent A.I.

If humanity were to create an ultra-intelligent computer then humans would be far surpassed. This part of the passage says that because our minds would be so simple compared to that of the machines at the point of the singularity that we would be little more than rabbits. This idea is astounding because our mental capabilities are vastly superior to those of rabbits or other animals and the idea that we could be so easily surpassed and so greatly surpassed is probably terrifying to many people. This is probably what makes the idea of a singularity such an abstract idea.

HAL, a supposedly emotion feigning ultra-intelligent A.I., has just asked Dave if he could ask him a "personal question?" This should raise a concern in Dave, but it doesn't. Earlier in the film, during the BBC interview, the interviewer asked the Astronauts if HAL had emotions or if he was just faking it, their reply was that he was definitely programmed to feign emotions, however the fact whether if he actually had emotions or not remains a mystery. In this scene HAL acknowledges the existence of emotions by asking if he can ask a question that might incite a negative emotional response, a "personal question." This revelation should have frightened Dave, because it shows that HAL is more than a computer and is capable of more than just controlling the ship and maintaining optimal performance, HAL is capable of reading emotions and perhaps even capable of being afflicted by them.

Hal is given complete control over the ship and everything inside it, even the people. It is in this way that he is beyond that of a tool. He controls, he is not controlled. As portrayed in the film he can kill any of the crew members any time, which he does, and advises the crew members of what they should do. This is perfectly described in "The Technological Singularity" where the authors states that a super-intelligent AI will be as much of a tool to humanity as we are tools to animals.

Hal is having a very human experience at this point in the film. Not only has he killed one of the cremates and intends to kill the other cremates, but he has some sense that it is wrong and it will lead to bad things for him. Even though he knows exactly what happened, he knows that it would be best for him to keep it away from Dave. This human experience only enhances when begins to die through the slow and monotonous process of being shut down. He begins to tell Dave that he can feel it and that he is afraid, showing that he has more than intelligence, but that he also has consciousness.

The author describes Transhumanism as something that the name directly defines it as. It is an idea whose followers believe that humans are not obsolete or non-perfect but instead a 'blank slate' that can be improved in specific ways through specific applications of technology to the human form, instead of relying on natural processes such as evolution or natural selection. The Latin prefix trans can be defined as either across, beyond, or through. The author describes Transhumanism simply as a movement to advance the human form, through technology, to meet our needs and ever changing values.

whoah