[aminok]

Computers and horses don't have property rights or the means to exercise them. All of this automation is augmenting humans because we do. We've gone from 122 million people owning smartphones in 2007 to 2.5 billion people owning them at the beginning of 2017 for example.

[dang]

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13595041 and marked it off-topic.

We've also banned this account for seriously abusing HN, which you can read about here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13600908.

[reddytowns]

The first neathenderals to figure out how to use tools didn't have property rights, but the tools still augmented them. We are not so different from them, and faced with an overwhelming opposing power, (tech + extreme wealth) we don't have much of a chance, either.

[aminok]

Neanderthals faced a different species of humans whose culture they were not capable of integrating into. Humanity right now forms one unified global culture through which ideas and technology freely flow. The rising tide of technology is lifting all boats (massive wage growth globally).

Moreover, it's not clear that your premise is accurate. Neanderthals constitute 3 percent of Eurasian human genes, meaning that their genes were evolutionarily successful (3% * 6 billion > 100% * 100,000), and this is ignoring the success of their close kin, with whom they already shared >99% genes.

[reddytowns]

We are about to face a few individuals with technology will hold massive power over everyone else. Given human nature, I would guess they'd primarily will be concerned with fighting among each other, and would care very little about harming the masses, if we got in between them and something they wanted. How a "unified global culture" is going to fix that, I haven't any idea. (And you believe were in a unified global culture, really? From North Korea to Sweden, really?)

Your second point is baffling to me. Why not include mice, they have 97.5% of our genes, as being successful? Why not all mammals? Oh, except horses, of course, because you said in a previous comment we are different from them. If you can call neathenderals successful, then I don't know what you are actually arguing for.

[aminok]

>We are about to face a few individuals with technology will hold massive power over everyone else.

There are plenty of counterindications to that. For instance, many forms of technology are becoming increasingly widely adopted, at a rapid pace. I gave the adoption of smartphones as one example.

>Why not include mice, they have 97.5% of our genes, as being successful? Why not all mammals? Oh, except horses, of course, because you said in a previous comment we are different from them.

I would say the success of human beings is by some metrics a success for mice, mammals etc as well..

[reddytowns]

Technology adoption != power. Everyone using a cell phone which tracks their position, communication, and behavior, and then feeds them propaganda from a central server is not increasing their ability to fight back.

>I would say the success of human beings is by some metrics a success for mice, mammals etc as well..

But, again, as you stated previously, not horses? Seriously, you are moving the goalposts all over the place.

[aminok]

The proliferation of smartphones doesn't lead to everyone getting "propaganda from a central server". A smartphone is a personal computing device that enables far more peer-to-peer communication and interactive engagement with the world than the previous mass-media paradigm of the pre-internet age (where a small number of broadcast networks, newspapers and radio stations controlled the minds of the vast majority of the population through passive one-way communication).

I agree that the loss of privacy is a huge concern, but like I said, there are positive trends as well that you are simply hand-waving away.

>But, again, as you stated previously, not horses?

Horses as well!

> Seriously, you are moving the goalposts all over the place.

I directly addressed your argument and then I also made an additional argument that your premise is not necessarily true. That's not defined as moving the goalposts.

[ouid]

could you elaborate on how this is meant to be a response to my comment?

[aminok]

Isn't that obvious? I'm not sure how I could be more explicit..

[ouid]

no, I failed to perceive the connection. I'm sorry.

[aminok]

Humans cannot be made obsolete by technology because we come to own the technology.

[aylmao]

Problem is "Humans" is not a singular.

"CEO of multibillion corporation" won't be made obsolete by technology because he/she comes to own the technology. Everyone else, could.