So here we stand at the start of 2009 and my 25th year on Earth and it occurs to me, I may be able to say a similar line to this in the year 3009, assuming we don't blow ourselves to hell.

I look around now at how far medical science has come in the mainstream (and the truly amazing things it's done and is doing on the fringe) and I think that anyone alive today younger than thirty may have the option to see people of comic book proportions arise, or become one themselves.

Most of the baby steps for SR tech exist, and if you combined them we'd have some of it now. People just lack the creativity/interest/money to go in that direction I guess. Nobody thinks (or cares if) a coating of the new high energy black solar panels would be great to power a powered prosthesis, not to mention recent steps in super capacitance technology.

With some creativity and a little money we could have brain implants to surf the net and even see it in our heads, though I think this would require training on the implantees part, neuro-plasticity and all that.

The problem is IMHO, even if this tech all did combine in the ways to produce our RPG fantasies tomorrow, it would be VERY slow to be adopted the way it is in Shadowrun. I remember when piercings other than in the ears were one in a million, and anyone with them was a person to "steer clear of" according to mainstream society. This is the kind of mentality I see happening with all kinds of voluntary Cybertech. Bioware will be another story. As long as it doesn't touch stem cells or cloning, it will be more widespread and used (probably because it's cheaper and in most cases less dramatically invasive) but rarely talked about.

Going back to what I said, if you're under 30 and take amazingly good care of yourself, with science the way it is and will be, you might see the dawn of the next millennium. Rambling off, thanks for reading.

The curse of science-fiction is that when it tries to predict the future it inevitably gets it wrong. With the exception of space opera and maybe a few other sub-genres, most sci-fi has a shelf-life of about 10 or 15 years. The cyberpunk that Shadowrun was initially influenced by became dated by the mid-90s or so when everyday "cyberspace" became a reality. And while prosthetic research is on-going (I heard an NPR report recently about new computer-controlled limbs that Iraq war vets are being fitted with) the post-human idea of lopping off a perfectly good meat arm to stick on a stronger/better/faster robotic one is a long way off. We're more likely to see the Ghost In the Shell-style brain-in-a-jar cyborg bodies than the detachable limbs of quasi-cyberpunk fiction or role-playing games. And while neo-conservatives will no doubt fight it tooth and claw, we're more likely to see biotech as a result of stem cell research become a forefront in human-body advancement and repair technologies than cybertech.

Of course like all those sci-fi writers I could very well be wrong. These are just the trends I've been seeing.

Uh, Wesley, the reason that "neo-conservatives"* don't like embryonic stem cells is that you have to kill a developing baby to get them. They are not against stem cell research. Adult stem cells can be used in the same ways that embryonic cells can. Also great research is being done into Cord Blood stem cells.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/arti.../stem_cell.html
http://www.cordblood.com/cord_blood_faqs/cord_blood.asp

So before you toss around the "Neo-cons suck and hate Science!", please get your facts straight.

God, why do Liberals get such a pass on hating Conservatives, but if a Conservative so much as farts in the same state as a Liberal, he's crucified for being evil and hateful?

* = I HATE this label! I hate how it's used to dismiss EVERYTHING that they do.

This is disingenuous. Many newcons have been against such research for this reason. However, many others are against this kind of research for myriad other reasons, including such gems as "it fundamentally devalues human life' because of the slippery slope to cloning, or life extension, or simply that those cells generally go into making new humans when 'in the wild' so to speak. Which is a popular viewpoint for moral majority type of conservatives, as opposed to merely pro-life types. It was specifically espoused by Rush Limbaugh,and it spread to a lot of his listeners.

Anyway, it may be rendered moot soon anyway, since at least one company claims it's figured out how to get embyronic cells without destroying the blastocyst: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5696557

Meh.

Human life is about as devalued as it's going to get. We punish kiddy fiddlers worse than we punish the most heinous murderers our country has seen.

Now I still dont see why we cant take some cells that might or might not grow into a human being if given time and a willing mother((because the father doesnt have any say in this country, even if he didnt participate)).

At the very least, material that would otherwise go to waste should be used. The only reason it isnt is because politicians still have an absolutely rediculous grip on these religious concepts, in spite of the "separation of church and state"

So what was the justification for the "friends of science" to bulldoze and put thousands of tons of dirt and rock on one of the most interesting archaeological site in the US due to "concern on the part of the White House" in 1998? http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m128..._51/ai_53901761

do those lovers of the creation myth really get to argue about something like this?
doesn't the whole point kinda contradict the whole monotheist thesis?

I have no idea what your point with this anecdote is. This has nothing to do with stem cells or the discussion at hand, and I don't recall the last time the Army Corps of Engineers was referred to as "friends of science." If you are trying to respond with some manner of political polemic, I confess your means and reasons for doing so have me confused.

Stahlseele:
People indeed argue about stem cell research, and do so quite loudly. I'm not sure how you mean that this argument might contradict a monotheistic religion, I admit. Would you care to explain?

isn't stuff like stem-cell research like looking into gods supposed cooking cauldron?
to see how things like evolution really works?
even though god did not create apes and humans evolved from there to . . nude apes basically . .
he created apes and humans? or isn't that how the myth basically goes?
man created in gods own image?
so god himself evolved from a chimpanzee? O.o

or is saying things like:"that's gods work! don't tamper with it!"
not basically taking something like that as more or less proof of his existance?
and should there not be faith instead of proof?
so if there's proof of his existance, nobody needs faith in him anymore, and without faith he is nothing?
(nerd point for whoever can pinpoint what i am badly paraphrasing here more or less)

I suppose it would be possible to make such an argument, although I can't think of anyone reputable who's ever listed that as a reason not to investigate. Some might believe it, but if they do, generally I would suspect they would argue against such research for reasons stated previously. Because quite frankly, "We shouldn't be investigating God's building blocks" wouldn't carry much weight, even in the most highly religious areas on the United States. I'm certain some people believe it, but it would get you laughed at to say it in 99% of all places.

And I believe you're paraphrasing The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy. "That About Wraps It Up For God" was the name of the book.

and one neeeerrrrrrrrd-point for you ^^
i really would love to believe that. but if i remember correctly, funds got scratched for science classes and religious classes got more funds and are supposed to be teaching the creationist sway in school again, or did i miss something?

I think Shadowrun didn't happen because we stopped listening to Lionel Richie.

And we stopped feathering our hair and wearing leg-warmers.

Well, maybe YOU did.

Hold on, I need to go put on my shutter-shades and fingerless gloves.

To be fair, that's how Liberals have felt over the past 20 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnsg0jDbHk4

Actually, Liberals get away with a *LOT* more than Conservatives could even think about doing.

=========================

Now back to the OP, I can see what you mean. I think of it this way. Back in 1989 I was messing around with my 1400 baud modem on my Commodore 64 dialing into Q-Link and I thought that was the most awesome thing in the world. Now 20 years later I have a small postage stamp sized memory module* which could hold all of C64's programs and might still have space left over. The computer industry has made almost magical leaps in the 20 years that I've been messing around with the darn things.

* = 1 GB SD card

Thats kinda a weak argument, because "liberals" and "conservatives" don't exist, they are just strawmen put up by the opposing side to avoid arguing about the real issues in a sensible way.

Anyways, shadowrun isn't perfect, but it has a number of things surprisingly right. For example, augmented reality is a very real possibility in the next 10-20 years(we won't even have to wait till 2070), and we may be seeing DNIs before too long.

I was responding to HentaiZonga's statement about how Liberals feel persecuted. Also, while it is true that a lot of times the label is as you said, sometimes is it completely accurate.



Yup, and with those contact lenses with the computer circuitry built in we may have display link tech in 5 years. Think about this: how fast has Intel been able to shrink processor circuit sizes down to 32 nm? How much smaller will they be able to get it down to in 5 more years.

Of all the things from Shadowrun that could come true in the near future, I keep telling myself that we're less than 3 years from the Awakening...

In the U.S. it's all about what the people in each particular state want. In Kansas, where I grew up, they tried to reinstate creationism. Everyone just laughed at them, even most of the conservatives. For the record, I'm an Atheist-Republican. I keep trying to get some kind of 'minority status' because of that, but, they won't take me seriously for some reason.

@HentaiZonga
Yup, cuz it's not like Liberals have controlled the House and Senate for the last 20 years, or spent their time indoctrinating children in preschool by having them read books like "Jane's Two Mommies". Oh, wait, they have. And, don't make this about gay rights, I honestly don't give a damn about that subject, one way or the other. My point is that parents should teach their kids about morality issues, not government employees with agendas. But, it is the best way to make sure furture voters agree with you. Get 'em young, and turn them against their parents. It's almost... Stalinesque in it's elegance.

On topic:
Wasn't there a chimpanze with electrodes in it's brain playing computer games somewhere in the last few years?

Um, parents have agendas too, and with terms like "nanny state" and "helicopter parents", I'd say that theyre just as misguided.

Yeah, but it's THEIR KID! They have the right to raise them to believe whatever they like, even if you or I don't agree with it. It's only if the child is neglected or abused that the government has a right to intervene, not just because daddy is a skinhead/neo-nazi. If he hasn't hurt anyone, you can't take his kid. And, if the kid grows up to be an asshole, society will treat him accordingly, just like it did his father.

Starmage, "Nanny State" refers to the concept that the Government is taking care of the children rather than the parents. It's kinda like the Mega Corps of Shadowrun... cradle to grave service to the Corp.

Um, no, they haven't. From 1981-1985, the Republican Party controlled the Senate. From 1995-2005, the Republicans controlled both the Senate AND the House. And from 2001-2008 the Republicans controlled the White House and the Supreme Court.

Actually, direct neural interface already exists. It's still in the "testing" phase but it exists. However, there are serious medical ethics issues when it comes to the idea of cutting into a perfectly good brain simply so a person can inteface with a machine faster. And Augmented Reality exists as well, in the form of locative art.

EDIT

Actually, that may be its original definition, but I see that its being used more and more to define how governments unnecessarily regulate to project those very small few who are dumb enough to make certain mistakes without giant warning labels.

If someone wants to pay for a DNI implant, then let them.

If someone wants to pay for sex, let them. Yet the laws in most countries say "no." Just because we want something doesn't necessarily mean we should get it. There tend to be ramifications down the road.

I find that to be stupid, if I want to pay for sex, and someone wants to sell it, I should be allowed. Not that I would, wait...does being married count? That ring was pretty expensive...

Big difference here Wesley. When you pay for sex you are involving a second person. If I had the money I could go out and get myself as modded as that Cat Man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Avner

If you look at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Avner#...ethics_concerns you will see that the medical community thinks this is causing him harm, but he's freely able to do this. This would be the same thing with the DNI implants. If I had the money and the desire, I could go out and get this done to me. Would it be advisable... Hell NO! Is it possible... Yup!

Well, if you were brave and wanted to McGuyver your own DNI implants you could do it yourself. But realistically it would take the skills of someone with medical training to stick it in you. So a second person would be involved. And if the procedure was deemed medically unethical or illegal and someone wanted to get cybered up, one would need to find a black market surgeon with that kind of specialty. Some kind of... street physician.

Street Physician © 2008 Wesley Street

Personally, I have no problem with people sticking implants in themselves or turning themselves into cats. It isn't illegal nor do I find it immoral. But there would be serious hurdles to overcome with the professionals who would be capable of engaging in such procedures before a DNI would be mainstream.

Actually, that's wrong. Most countries say "yes, but like any occupation you have to follow health and safety and keep it off the streets so it doesn't become an inconvenience". So far as I know, only the US bans it. Even Iran allows prostitution, from what I hear.

Technology in 2060 is apparently good enough that a DNI has no significant risks, or else the benefits outweigh the costs. In the real world, we have yet to overcome the infection vector issues of anything breaching the physical barrier between inside and outside the human body. It may actually be that in SR your augmented person's hygiene habuts includes applying some kind of antiseptic to their augmentation.

Prostitution, like gambling and drug use, is banned for a few reasons. One is the perceived violation of moral norms. Another is the understood increase in crime resulting from the presence of that sort of activity. Plus of course, there's the drop in real estate values which makes it unpopular on a local level.

DNI implants may or may not be seen as violating moral norms. It's pretty new, but it depends on how it's introduced to the world. DNI implants are unlikely to have any influence on crime or local real estate values. Assuming DNI implants have a low rate of ill-health or death, I think it unlikely for them to be banned, except insofar as the government is trying to control research to make sure it can properly tax and restrict it.

I stand corrected.