Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The end of humanity is coming. The Transhumanist agenda exists. Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acidy)
    While I agree the purpose of life can vary, being a subjective interpretation, some of the concepts mentioned are ridiculous, serving only to remove any purpose worth having in life. For example removing 'sexual desire'. I agree and accept that improving Human's biologically (i.e. increasing life-span) should be a priority. However some of these ideas sound plain dystopian.
    Given society's past, I'm inclined to say that there will always be someone, somewhere, lurking for opportunities of power and control and this will be the ultimate form - complete control.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I didn't even realise there was a term for this, but I generally agree with the ideas put forth.

    There are two main objections that I can think of and that some on this thread stated.

    First, the notion that there's something inherently 'wrong' in this; in a (not very explicable) moral sense, we're messing with 'humanity' on a fundamental level. This is a pretty weak argument if you think about it for more than 5 seconds; the fact is that we already utilise pacemakers to keep people's hearts running, prosthetics to let them walk, hearing aids to help them hear, and so on and so forth. Why are all those perfectly legitimate, but not having a neural implant to help dyslexics read better? And if you do that, why not an implant to help us all to calculate faster? Why not augment us so that we're less likely to have heart failure, or liver problems, or diabetes, if the technologies are available? Mass technology is moving towards that anyway; if an alien visited Earth and saw someone making a phone call on Google Glasses, for example, they'd probably think we're a telepathic species. And, thanks to technology, to some extent we are!

    The second objection is generally concern at the practical repercussions of such technology. Such discussions, however, are necessarily based entirely on speculation. It's impossible to form a cogent argument until and unless concrete technologies with measurable impact and costs are developed. For example, take the concern about creating a divided society as only a privileged few will be able to afford the technology. The same objection could have been made about mobile phones when they were first developed. Nowadays, though, mobiles are so widespread and ubiquitous that even the poorest peoples in developing countries have one, and they've actually been a great tool for reducing inequality.

    I, for one, do not object to a future where technology continues to make us and our world better in every way possible.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    I didn't even realise there was a term for this, but I generally agree with the ideas put forth.

    There are two main objections that I can think of and that some on this thread stated.

    First, the notion that there's something inherently 'wrong' in this; in a (not very explicable) moral sense, we're messing with 'humanity' on a fundamental level. This is a pretty weak argument if you think about it for more than 5 seconds; the fact is that we already utilise pacemakers to keep people's hearts running, prosthetics to let them walk, hearing aids to help them hear, and so on and so forth. Why are all those perfectly legitimate, but not having a neural implant to help dyslexics read better? And if you do that, why not an implant to help us all to calculate faster? Why not augment us so that we're less likely to have heart failure, or liver problems, or diabetes, if the technologies are available? Mass technology is moving towards that anyway; if an alien visited Earth and saw someone making a phone call on Google Glasses, for example, they'd probably think we're a telepathic species. And, thanks to technology, to some extent we are!

    The second objection is generally concern at the practical repercussions of such technology. Such discussions, however, are necessarily based entirely on speculation. It's impossible to form a cogent argument until and unless concrete technologies with measurable impact and costs are developed. For example, take the concern about creating a divided society as only a privileged few will be able to afford the technology. The same objection could have been made about mobile phones when they were first developed. Nowadays, though, mobiles are so widespread and ubiquitous that even the poorest peoples in developing countries have one, and they've actually been a great tool for reducing inequality.

    I, for one, do not object to a future where technology continues to make us and our world better in every way possible.
    It's not a weak argument because if we place AI (artificial intelligence) in our brains, if it is smarter than us, it can obviously control us. They (the AI) would be able to produce more of its kind and probably start building robots in an effort to "save" and "protect" humanity. They would be stronger in all ways and would rule us how they see fit and if their ideals is to save the planet, the human race would be in trouble since we are the ones destroying the planet. There would be an extermination of our race. They wouldn't see it as murder since they would be AI and not have emotions. I know this is on a tangent but do you seriously think it would only stop at neural implants and the like? AI would seem like the best option since it can "think" for itself. That is the mass technology I see happening.

    Of course there would be division at first with who could afford and who can't but mobile phones are a bad comparison since it's just a luxury item. And how does having a mobile phone reduce inequality? In what way?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    "We impose order on the chaos of organic evolution. You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it".
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arieisit)
    It's not a weak argument because if we place AI (artificial intelligence) in our brains, if it is smarter than us, it can obviously control us. They (the AI) would be able to produce more of its kind and probably start building robots in an effort to "save" and "protect" humanity. They would be stronger in all ways and would rule us how they see fit and if their ideals is to save the planet, the human race would be in trouble since we are the ones destroying the planet. There would be an extermination of our race. They wouldn't see it as murder since they would be AI and not have emotions. I know this is on a tangent but do you seriously think it would only stop at neural implants and the like? AI would seem like the best option since it can "think" for itself. That is the mass technology I see happening.

    Of course there would be division at first with who could afford and who can't but mobile phones are a bad comparison since it's just a luxury item. And how does having a mobile phone reduce inequality? In what way?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    See, that's the kind of scaremongering which arises from watching one too many apocalyptic 'robot takeover' films .

    Again, it's a matter of speculating too much too far ahead. For our history, when new technology has arisen, society has been capable of regulating and controlling it such that benefits are accrued while adverse effects are minimised. There's simply no sense in asking 'you really think we won't start putting AI implants that are smarter than us into our brain' because this is so far ahead in the future that the context and performance and details of such are completely unknown, and so it's impossible for both you and I to answer that question with any sort of certainty whatsoever. It's a bit like telling a peasant from 500 years ago that most manufacturing will become automated in the future, and him asking 'you really think this won't cause mass unemployment?'.

    Mobiles are not just a luxury item. They provide, for many poor in the world, the first means of long-distance communication they've ever had. It helps improve their lives immeasurably - farmers can ring ahead to markets to find out which is the best location to take their produce to for the day (previously only rich landowners could do this); it allows them to participate in the real economy and get loans/manage money via phone banking (many of them will previously have never had a bank account in their life); for many, it gives them access to the internet that they would otherwise never get because they don't have a fixed landline + internet connection, etc. Without mobiles, only the better off would be able to do these things; so in that sense, it reduces inequality.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    See, that's the kind of scaremongering which arises from watching one too many apocalyptic 'robot takeover' films .

    Again, it's a matter of speculating too much too far ahead. For our history, when new technology has arisen, society has been capable of regulating and controlling it such that benefits are accrued while adverse effects are minimised. There's simply no sense in asking 'you really think we won't start putting AI implants that are smarter than us into our brain' because this is so far ahead in the future that the context and performance and details of such are completely unknown, and so it's impossible for both you and I to answer that question with any sort of certainty whatsoever. It's a bit like telling a peasant from 500 years ago that most manufacturing will become automated in the future, and him asking 'you really think this won't cause mass unemployment?'.

    Mobiles are not just a luxury item. They provide, for many poor in the world, the first means of long-distance communication they've ever had. It helps improve their lives immeasurably - farmers can ring ahead to markets to find out which is the best location to take their produce to for the day (previously only rich landowners could do this); it allows them to participate in the real economy and get loans/manage money via phone banking (many of them will previously have never had a bank account in their life); for many, it gives them access to the internet that they would otherwise never get because they don't have a fixed landline + internet connection, etc. Without mobiles, only the better off would be able to do these things; so in that sense, it reduces inequality.
    Rubbish. Automation has caused a lot of unemployment though. And no inequality has not reduced because of phones hahaha. Whatever the poor make, the rich make 10 times more. That's how it works. You're one of those who think our leaders are benevolent, I can tell.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstraction)
    Rubbish. Automation has caused a lot of unemployment though. And no inequality has not reduced because of phones hahaha. Whatever the poor make, the rich make 10 times more. That's how it works. You're one of those who think our leaders are benevolent, I can tell.
    Automation has not lead to mass unemployment since its introduction around 150-odd years ago. To state otherwise is simply factually inaccurate.

    Strong argument on the phones.

    I don't believe anyone is particularly benevolent, no. What a strange inference to make from my point that the effects of far-flung technologies are unpredictable.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    See, that's the kind of scaremongering which arises from watching one too many apocalyptic 'robot takeover' films .

    Again, it's a matter of speculating too much too far ahead. For our history, when new technology has arisen, society has been capable of regulating and controlling it such that benefits are accrued while adverse effects are minimised. There's simply no sense in asking 'you really think we won't start putting AI implants that are smarter than us into our brain' because this is so far ahead in the future that the context and performance and details of such are completely unknown, and so it's impossible for both you and I to answer that question with any sort of certainty whatsoever. It's a bit like telling a peasant from 500 years ago that most manufacturing will become automated in the future, and him asking 'you really think this won't cause mass unemployment?'.

    Mobiles are not just a luxury item. They provide, for many poor in the world, the first means of long-distance communication they've ever had. It helps improve their lives immeasurably - farmers can ring ahead to markets to find out which is the best location to take their produce to for the day (previously only rich landowners could do this); it allows them to participate in the real economy and get loans/manage money via phone banking (many of them will previously have never had a bank account in their life); for many, it gives them access to the internet that they would otherwise never get because they don't have a fixed landline + internet connection, etc. Without mobiles, only the better off would be able to do these things; so in that sense, it reduces inequality.
    I do watch those types of movies occasionally but that's not the premise of my argument.

    AI being a reality is not as far off as you think.

    Stephen Hawking on AI

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5267481.html

    An excerpt

    Hawking lays out the incredible technological advancements that are currently taking place in A.I., from self-driving cars to digital personal assistants like Google Now. He believes we're on the cusp of the kinds of artificial intelligence that were previously exclusive to science fiction films.

    "Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history." Hawking writes. "Unfortunately, it might also be the last."



    Yeah, phones that have that kind of capabilities are high end and the poor probably wouldn't have moblie phone plans anyway. Why are we discussing moblie phones anyway?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arieisit)
    This is exactly why it would be the end of humanity. We'll no longer be humans essentially and that is the problem.

    How do you not see the problem with this, given our history?

    From the article.

    One of the primary concepts of the Transhumanist agenda is "The Hive Mind".

    The founders of Transhumanism have elitist views about what humanity should be. This Human Beehive concept has been envisioned by the ruling elite class throughout history as the ideal society. The ultimate slave race, scientifically designed to conform, obey and serve the needs of the elite – worker bees who do not question or rebel.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Transhumanism =/= The Hive Mind

    Also what do you consider to be the essence of being human? Will one be less human if he has an artificial arm? Will one still be human if he's consciousness is perfectly preserved and uploaded into a robotic body? Is one human if he's 33% cyborg?

    My point is that it doesn't really matter whether you're technically human or not as long as the essence of being human is still there. I don't know what exactly that essence is and I'm not sure if anyone can give a definite definition for it, but I do know that enhancing ourselves with technology would be a good way to decrease the chance of humanity actually dying out - as opposed to just an outdated term for it falling out of use. In the case of us failing to adapt, any and all definitions of humanity will come to an end and quibbling about what makes us human will no longer be relevant.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HexBugMaster)
    Transhumanism =/= The Hive Mind

    Also what do you consider to be the essence of being human? Will one be less human if he has an artificial arm? Will one still be human if he's consciousness is perfectly preserved and uploaded into a robotic body? Is one human if he's 33% cyborg?

    My point is that it doesn't really matter whether you're technically human or not as long as the essence of being human is still there. I don't know what exactly that essence is and I'm not sure if anyone can give a definite definition for it, but I do know that enhancing ourselves with technology would be a good way to decrease the chance of humanity actually dying out - as opposed to just an outdated term for it falling out of use. In the case of us failing to adapt, any and all definitions of humanity will come to an end and quibbling about what makes us human will no longer be relevant.
    They did say it is one of the primary concepts. People in this world are greedy and it's possible they'd have ulterior motives.

    What makes us human is the fact that we have free will and can think on a grandiose level for ourselves. Under the Hive Mind there will be none of that.

    I'm not against the technology to upgrade human. I have cynical views about the ones introducing it to the majority of the population.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arieisit)
    They did say it is one of the primary concepts. People in this world are greedy and it's possible they'd have ulterior motives.

    What makes us human is the fact that we have free will and can think on a grandiose level for ourselves. Under the Hive Mind there will be none of that.

    I'm not against the technology to upgrade human. I have cynical views about the ones introducing it to the majority of the population.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    "They" are fanatics and the Hive-Mind is not a primary concept of transhumanism. The primary concept of transhumanism is to improve the human condition by using technology, not to make obedient slaves.

    And I completely understand your negative views towards the Hive-Mind, they're completely rational. The thing is that no one except conspiracy theorists are considering the Hive-Mind a serious threat. At least I don't see any realistic way of it happening - there'll be so much exposure in the media, so many people will be on the edge of their seats and essentially everyone will be closely monitoring what will be happening that there's just no way that corporations can discreetly implant a mind-controlling chip.

    Plus, it makes no sense for corporations to do that - they can't forcefully pick each person one by one to perform complex surgery on them - the costs of doing that would outweigh the benefits.

    So no, I don't consider transhumanism a bad thing. It can be dangerous, but so can scissors, cars, atomic energy, etc. It does need to be handled carefully, but the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HexBugMaster)
    "They" are fanatics and the Hive-Mind is not a primary concept of transhumanism. The primary concept of transhumanism is to improve the human condition by using technology, not to make obedient slaves.

    And I completely understand your negative views towards the Hive-Mind, they're completely rational. The thing is that no one except conspiracy theorists are considering the Hive-Mind a serious threat. At least I don't see any realistic way of it happening - there'll be so much exposure in the media, so many people will be on the edge of their seats and essentially everyone will be closely monitoring what will be happening that there's just no way that corporations can discreetly implant a mind-controlling chip.

    Plus, it makes no sense for corporations to do that - they can't forcefully pick each person one by one to perform complex surgery on them - the costs of doing that would outweigh the benefits.

    So no, I don't consider transhumanism a bad thing. It can be dangerous, but so can scissors, cars, atomic energy, etc. It does need to be handled carefully, but the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
    Yeah, this article confirms my concerns and can explain it much better than I can. Read it.

    http://vigilantcitizen.com/musicbusi...e-p-s-imma-be/

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arieisit)
    Yeah, this article confirms my concerns and can explain it much better than I can. Read it.

    http://vigilantcitizen.com/musicbusi...e-p-s-imma-be/

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm sorry, this article is even worse than the first one. First of all, they suggest that Black Eyed Peas are pro-transhumanist-agenda advertisers and engage in "Psychological Warfare and Deception"... Just give yourself a minute for that information to sink in.

    Then it goes on to say that the Transhumanist Agenda are some sort of a secret group (a la Illuminati) that is working undercover to basically makes us robot-slaves without any evidence whatsoever to support this bold claim :laugh:

    For your sake, I hope you're a troll, because this stuff is ludicrous. But thanks for the links, I haven't been amused by such malarkey in a long-long time
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HexBugMaster)
    I'm sorry, this article is even worse than the first one. First of all, they suggest that Black Eyed Peas are pro-transhumanist-agenda advertisers and engage in "Psychological Warfare and Deception"... Just give yourself a minute for that information to sink in.

    Then it goes on to say that the Transhumanist Agenda are some sort of a secret group (a la Illuminati) that is working undercover to basically makes us robot-slaves without any evidence whatsoever to support this bold claim :laugh:

    For your sake, I hope you're a troll, because this stuff is ludicrous. But thanks for the links, I haven't been amused by such malarkey in a long-long time
    Wow, thanks for your deep analysis. They have solid arguments. If you have trouble debunking them don't claim it to be a joke.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arieisit)
    Wow, thanks for your deep analysis. They have solid arguments. If you have trouble debunking them don't claim it to be a joke.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Actually, the burden of proof is with you. You suggested that "humanity is coming to an end" and gave me two rubbish articles as "proof". I'm not going to go through them in detail because if I wanted to pick through garbage I'd simply go outside and examine what people have left in the rubbish bin.

    And, yes - suggesting that a pop-band is an agent of the Transhumanist Agenda is a very solid argument indeed :laugh:

    But, naturally, if you feel that there are indeed solid arguments, by all means, please air them here. Enlighten and inform me and other TSRians. Or would you rather play the "You'll see in time, the end is nigh" card?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    If individuals want to upload their minds into some computer/hive thing on a voluntary basis, then more power to them. But if such things start being forced upon people against their will, then we are going to have problems, that's when I get the guns out.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HexBugMaster)
    Actually, the burden of proof is with you. You suggested that "humanity is coming to an end" and gave me two rubbish articles as "proof". I'm not going to go through them in detail because if I wanted to pick through garbage I'd simply go outside and examine what people have left in the rubbish bin.

    And, yes - suggesting that a pop-band is an agent of the Transhumanist Agenda is a very solid argument indeed :laugh:

    But, naturally, if you feel that there are indeed solid arguments, by all means, please air them here. Enlighten and inform me and other TSRians. Or would you rather play the "You'll see in time, the end is nigh" card?
    I don't like feeding out bits of information to people but it seems that I'll have to do that for you.

    I don't know if you know what validity and reliability in research is but this author does his referencing and support his claims from reliable sources. If you want to ignore that and say the burden of proof is upon me, then be my guest and stay closed minded.


    There are many musical artists that portray strong and questionable symbolism in their music videos. Black Eyed Peas is not the first nor the last, but that is beside the point.


    Do you think that this is a coincidence?

    The term ‘Transhumanism‘ was coined by biologist Julian Huxley in 1957, who defined it as “man remaining man, but trans*cending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature.”

    Julian Huxley was the brother of Aldous Huxley, who you may know was the author of the very famous book, “Brave New World“, which is a vision of the future that most people view as “The New World Order” (along with the book “1984“, by George Orwell) – a depressing future police-state world in which a one world government uses technology, such as surveillance cameras, psychological warfare (propaganda) and brutal military/police forces to control everyone and everything in this dystopian, fictional world.


    You stated in an earlier post that if they were trying to effect the Hive Mind that there would be uproars in the media etc. Another except states


    The modern mutation of Transhumanism claims to only support “voluntary eugenics“, which sounds much more benevolent than mandatory sterilization and euthanasia of undesirable humans, doesn’t it? But, if you have any sense at all, you will probably realize that this ethnic cleansing of the gene pool (“improving the species” and “improving human genetic qualities”) simply cannot and will not ever happen if it is voluntary.

    Oh but how would they ever make you do something that you would never possibly do under your own free will you may ask? This is where popular culture comes in.

    A few other excerpts


    Psychological Warfare (PSYWAR) is defined by the U.S. Department of Defense as:

    “The planned use of propaganda and other psychological actions having the primary purpose of influencing the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior…of groups in such a way as to support the…objectives.”

    The point where this becomes falsified metacommunication in mass media is when they include a primary false message in an advertisement or music video, which is designed not only to sell the product, but also to influence the viewer’s attitudes and beliefs.

    There are many layers of communication in movies, videos, advertising and news media that we usually don’t even realize on a conscious level, and that is what this part of the article and the BEP video are all about.


    Yeah and all the stuff he is saying about the communication is actually true because where I'm from we had to study Communication Studies at A level as a compulsory subject and we had to actually learn that sort of stuff. It is not hogwash.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greenlaner)
    If individuals want to upload their minds into some computer/hive thing on a voluntary basis, then more power to them. But if such things start being forced upon people against their will, then we are going to have problems, that's when I get the guns out.
    See the post below yours.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arieisit)
    X.


    There are many musical artists that portray strong and questionable symbolism in their music videos. Black Eyed Peas is not the first nor the last, but that is beside the point.
    Okay, your argument that artists portray symbolism in their works in no way justifies the comment that Black Eyed Peas are advertisers for "the Agenda". If anything, Occam's Razor suggests that they put it in because robots are cool and it gives a futuristic vibe. Also, symbolism in artists' works doesn't mean that they are part of some "mysterious, closely-knitted organisation that is the Transhumanism Agenda" and I don't know how you must think about it to make it so.

    The term ‘Transhumanism‘ was coined by biologist Julian Huxley in 1957, who defined it as “man remaining man, but trans*cending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature.”

    Julian Huxley was the brother of Aldous Huxley, who you may know was the author of the very famous book, “Brave New World“, which is a vision of the future that most people view as “The New World Order” (along with the book “1984“, by George Orwell) – a depressing future police-state world in which a one world government uses technology, such as surveillance cameras, psychological warfare (propaganda) and brutal military/police forces to control everyone and everything in this dystopian, fictional world.
    Excuse me, but how does this directly pertain to our discussion? I know perfectly well what transhumanism is and what it means and whilst the little fact about the Huxley brothers is interesting it isn't relevant. However, connecting Aldous' dystopian "Brave New World" to Transhumanism because Julian was Aldous' brother and Julian invented the term seems exactly the kind of mumbo-jumbo "logic" that creates these conspiracy theories.

    The modern mutation of Transhumanism claims to only support “voluntary eugenics“, which sounds much more benevolent than mandatory sterilization and euthanasia of undesirable humans, doesn’t it? But, if you have any sense at all, you will probably realize that this ethnic cleansing of the gene pool (“improving the species” and “improving human genetic qualities”) simply cannot and will not ever happen if it is voluntary.
    What?:confused:
    I don't understand what exactly do you mean by "voluntary eugenics" and your article doesn't do **** to explain it. Neither does wikipedia know what it means(I looked at the "Eugenics" and "Transhumanism" pages).

    But this doesn't matter because the whole paragraph is irrelevant rubbish. Yes, of course the extermination of "undesired races" will be involuntary... How does that extermination relate to transhumanism?

    And since when did Transhumanism become about "voluntary eugenics" and racial (or other) segregation? "Improving the species" doesn't equate to sterilising people deemed "undesirable". You can improve it by giving people better memories or by giving amputees very functional prostheses. Naturally, you can make it something that promotes segregation, but you can make this argument for practically anything: "Let's not invent reading and writing because then a certain group of people will know how to do it and the underprivileged won't."; "Let's not invent phones because those with power and money will be able to communicate much faster than the plebs and in case of a war we will have a significant disadvantage." and so on.

    Of course, I understand that theoretically there can be segregation issues due to a certain group of people being able to afford the upgrades. But consider this: until it becomes widely available only very few people will be able to afford it - that number won't be enough to cause serious trouble. When it becomes more available it will be very difficult to keep it from the "non-elite". Also, if mega-rich-corporations are so keen on making all less powerful than them slaves why don't they do it now? Why wait until transhumanism kicks in? They certainly have the means - biological weapons, atomic weapons, private military power, all enough to turn people into scared sheep and make them labour for them. I doubt that robotic arms on a billionaire will suddenly make him more able to conquer the world.

    Anyway, all of the points in that paragraph are so out of context and so far-fetched that it took me quite a while to figure out what was the point(there is no relevant one, really) , all very common signs of pseudo-science/logic gibberish going on. Of course, here I don't have to look at the signs of gibberish because the gibberish is on the face of it.

    Psychological Warfare (PSYWAR) is defined by the U.S. Department of Defense as:

    “The planned use of propaganda and other psychological actions having the primary purpose of influencing the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior…of groups in such a way as to support the…objectives.”

    The point where this becomes falsified metacommunication in mass media is when they include a primary false message in an advertisement or music video, which is designed not only to sell the product, but also to influence the viewer’s attitudes and beliefs.

    There are many layers of communication in movies, videos, advertising and news media that we usually don’t even realize on a conscious level, and that is what this part of the article and the BEP video are all about.
    Again, I know what psychological warfare is and it's, again, irrelevant to our discussion. The term you're looking for is propaganda. Psychological warfare, in general, is when you mislead, demoralise, frighten, or otherwise psychologically influence your opponent.

    Now explain to me, how is the "Imma Be" video an example of this propaganda. I actually took the time to watch it (I found it quite upbeat and catchy, except for Fergie's part ) and in no conceivable way does it influence you to become pro-Bee Hive or make you want to eradicate "the lesser races" or become some sort of "technological-elitist posthuman-master race member". It's just cool robots dancing, for God's sake. By this logic Daft Punk, the Deux Ex series, and everything to do with science fiction and futurism is an agent of "the Agenda".

    Yes, I agree, it's an advertisement of that robots are cool, but that is because they bloody are cool and the idea that they are cool is very innocuous.

    Retrospection time:

    The reason I started this discussion with you is that I really thought you had a point and perhaps you could persuade me with it so I could know more about transhumanism and its dangers. Now after studying your *cough cough* arguments closely, I have come to the infallible conclusion that you have absolutely no intelligent point at all and I have wasted my time. Well, next time I'll know not to seek too much enlightenment on public forums and to avoid links to sites with questionable content.

    I'm sure you'll detect a sneering, patronising tone in my writing, and as much as I tried I couldn't feel guilty enough to not use it. You deserve it. I had to sit sift through all that garbage only to find nothing, whilst you just posted a couple of rubbish quotes. If you were a troll(and I can tell you're not - you believe in this crap) this would be a masterpiece of a trap, but as it is it's just a waste of time and opportunity. But like they say, fool me once - shame on you.

    Say "Hello" to Tinfoilhat-Land for me.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wasn't the world supposed to end in 2012? [There was loads of Youtube Videos about Illuminati etc]

    Either way to sum my opinion up ...

    Meh YOLO SWAG.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 6, 2014
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.