I still don't think the scenario they present is that far fetched, people today regularly get operations that they personally could not possibly afford, but insurance covers it. Vets returning from wherever we're fighting then getting hooked up, most vets are probably not rich by any definition. Then get a few rich backers like David Sarif and scientific advocates like Hugh Darrow and you can frame it as a quality of life issue, or even a productivity issue.
You're right about the super limbs not being too practical or likely, I would also add illegal to that list, no beat cop wants to face off against Robocop. But I wonder if even slightly stronger limbs might pose problems of their own? Say you have one of your legs replaced with a cybernetic limb, if that one is stronger than your other meat leg, I wonder if you might not end up favoring that one and that screws up you normal gait, generating a whole bunch of new problems.
The kid in the video we see getting abused seems to only have a cyber leg, I'm not sure how much good a single leg is going to be in a fight, or flight for that matter especially if you are hugely outnumbered. Adam is a different story of course, he was clearly built for combat and infiltration.
The cynic in me would readily agree with the scenario where the wealthy wind up with everything but that sounds almost too perfect and cliche. So I think there's room for other possible futures.

Agreed on most points. This one is pretty variable though.

For the next decade or two, prosthetics will continue to be sub-optimal replacements for human limbs and only used in cases of extreme trauma. I think these will continue to be the preserve of the rich (they pretty much already are in terms of 1st vs 3rd world).

Eventually, we will get to a point where prosthetics are actually better than the equivalent human limb. That's several decades away IMO (accurate control is doable, but getting to the point of have a prosthetic that relay sensory information is a Really Hard Problem).

At that point, I think we'll very quickly see adoption of prosthetics become mainstream, but it will still be geared towards the relatively wealthy (see present day adoption of smartphones).

But once you get to that point, even the most basic model prosthetic will outperform a human limb. I believe it's almost certain that these kinds of limbs will be "smart", i.e. instead of accepting simple commands from the brain of "contract tricep", "grip fingers", etc, you'll see an arm that draw a perfect circle. And they'll be stronger than a human arm almost by default (not picking up cars strong, support structures aren't there for that, but certainly stronger than an olympic athlete)

So either way, I still don't think we'll see a "prosthetic underclass".

Interesting talk, but I think he puts way too much stock in the idea that going in guns (or rats) blazing is always the more satisfying approach. Back in the old days of Thief many people prided themselves on ghosting through levels and leaving as little evidence of their passing as possible.
I tend to stealth my way through most games were stealth is a viable option and I have never felt cheated because I didn't use some of the more action oriented systems. In Deus Ex I don't think I ever bothered with that social enhancer augment.

Adam Jensen's "I didn't ask for this" attitude actually seems pretty reasonable to me, what little of his life we saw before his accident seemed pretty happy and he didn't seem like the type to sit around thinking "If only I had a cool cyborg body". This seems more like the player is projecting their own insecurities.

And I could easily see a future where prosthetic limbs were more than just for rich people. Technology advances and becomes cheaper, cellphones used to be carried by rich assholes on Wallstreet, now every asshole has one. And not every prosthetic is going to turn you into Superman either, all a cybernetic leg needs to do is allow you to walk and run like a person with a normal leg, leaping tall buildings with a single bound is not a required feature. So most of those repressed cyber citizens are probably not sporting mil-spec hardware.

You're kidding,right? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say you don't play or have never played poker.

*ditto

But the invincibility point is nonsense. Most humans die from old age, so, yes, you wouldn't be invincible if you didn't die from aging, but that doesn't mean you'd still live a short or normal lifespan.

Also, WikiPedia says naked mole rats live up to 31 years. Is that when their tunnel cave-in is always scheduled by Naked-Mole-Rat-Jesus?

It'd be something to clone a human with the ability to stop aging like naked mole rats and the ability to regrow limbs like salamanders.

Well, except the ones originating from games where the winner was determined by which team had the most limbs still attached at the end.

ExxonMobil had the Bush administration lobbying strongly to replace the chair of the IPCC with a more agreeable alternative, which we know about because of a leaked memo. So let us not pretend that the IPCC are above the skepticism of being politically influenced. The name "intergovernmental panel" says it all, in my opinion; i had assumed the I stood for Independent.

I don't apologise for not reading the entire thread because i noticed that in your first post you said the following, and it gave me cause to doubt your take on the science in the rest of the thread. I've been in too many discussions in which i spent hours researching only to find out people were completely wrong, and i spent 45 mins on your first paragraph already. Anyway here is the quote again:

"IPCC best estimates for 2100 are about 1.5 degree increase, so another hundred years and increase that is about twice as bad. Of course, it's twice as bad as what we saw the last 100 yeas and not only survived, but thrived under."

Firstly, the planet's flora and fauna have most certainly NOT thrived during that time. Humans have flourished by exploiting nature, so yes we have 'thrived'. In the same way that if i were to steal money from a dozen old ladies, i might say i was thriving even though i was out of work during the economic downturn. Pretty much every source agrees that the one thing the ecosystem is not doing is thriving - we are in or on the verge of the sixth mass extinction on the planet. So this is an inspiring yet futile "hurrah for us!" bravado that ignores the truth; we stand on the deck of a galleon around a big bonfire, ripping up planks and chopping up the boat, throwing it on the fire and going "we're all lovely and warm!" as we sit lower and lower in the water.

Secondly and in my opinion most significantly, according to the IPCC conclusions on page 8 you have used the term "best estimates" to mean "best case scenario" rather than "most reliable estimate" - which is why i have downvoted that comment, as it is misleading and incorrect. I would say it's cynically misleading, but i suspect you've lifted that from a cynical source rather than being cynical yourself.

I don't know if you realise, but you referred to only one result out of four, the rest of which strongly indicate a greater than 2 degree rise. Your reference is to RCP 2.6 which assumes CO2 emissions peak between 2010 and 2020. A decade in which the most populous countries on the planet are developing and a decade in which we must start to reduce global emissions so that we have a good chance of your best case scenario happening. We are already half way through it, and according to Mauna Loa observatory and every other source i could find (including EPA, NOAA and IEA) we are still increasing our CO2 emissions year on year including this year, where we've broken the 400ppm milestone, 120ppm greater than pre industrial times, half of which occured since 1980 (Pieter Tans).

So in fairness, you might have underplayed the IPCC report (which you seem to get almost all of your information from) in as much as newtboy might have overestimated the dangers and rapidity of climate change. I think you're out on a limb by telling him that the scientific community disagrees with him and he's using dodgy sources, when you've cherry picked one quarter of a conclusion from one source (the IPCC) to argue for your best case scenario which you refer to (unscientifically and incorrectly) as the "best estimate".

However, i do at least appreciate that despite your doubts (and in my opinion, slight confusion over the results, i don't think you're being intentionally misleading) you are very much behind changing our behaviour and using resources that are more appropriate... and that's what really matters right now is that people recognise the need to change.

I'm fairly certain he is using both at once, which is not a difficult feat. You're already doing that and much more while playing games. I don't see how inputing language and numbers via a 2 analog input system is "insane". From someone who has tested input peripherals, it's just different, like so many systems already out there. You should watch me with a rubik's cube. Peripheral testers use cubes (among other analog devices) to warm up.

It's actually really cool to see this concept in the mainstream, though I'd imagine you may need to practice common positioning. For example, t, h, followed by a vowel will be a pattern that becomes muscle memory, just as w, e, and then r, etc. They're simple algorithms that you don't even realize you're following, but simple take practice.

You know what else is insane? Playing a drum kit using all 4 limbs independently. That's insane! Speed Metal is insane! Me playing Dance Dance Revolution on Challenge is INSANE! Alllllllll of these simple things which are "insane". LOL!!!

Up vote for the raven totally owning the cat. Looks like it even goaded the cat to come out onto the limb so it could safely mess with it.

i think some here are missing the point of this short video.
while we can all argue the particulars of religion,it's failings and its successes,the fundamental reasons for its existence remains.

the militant atheist will argue holy text with the very same literalism that a fundamentalist exhibits,all the while ignoring the massive contributions to humanity in the realms of:art,philosophy,politics and even science.

while this dynamic of the argument is not necessarily wrong,it is,however,inaccurate.one cannot ignore,nor dismiss the positive contributions of religions,which have been legion.this does not mean that religion is above reproach nor criticism,just that a militants argument is incomplete without acknowledging this vital facet of human history.

the problem gentlemen,is fundamentalism,of ANY flavor.
religion is not going anywhere,much to the chagrin of atheists,but the reasons why humanity gravitates towards religion,or a search for the divine and sacred,remain a very powerful influence.

religion must,and has over the centuries,evolve to incorporate the paradigms that are added daily.the religion that is rigid in its interpretations and implaccable in its philosophy...dies.human history is littered with the remains of lost religions that refused to evolve with humanity.

a good example is the dark ages.which was partially perpetrated by a rigid understanding of christian theology (and an abuse of power and authority)affecting millions.it halted human progress and imposed a suffering and misery that is still remembered to this day.then the church experienced a philisophical shift and the reformation was exacted,ending the dark ages and introducing the 'age of enlightenment"...and human progress was allowed to proceed.

interestingly enough,while this was all happening in europe and human misery was a direct result of religious rigidity,the muslims were carrying the torch for human progress.making such additions as algebra and other huge strides in the sciences.

how is that for irony?

fundamentalism,in any form,must be fought at every level.so on that note i tend to side with atheists who are on a constant vigil in revealing the utter hypocrisy of a fundamentalist theosophy,but i will not ignore the wonderful and fantastic contributions that religion has added to human history.

because the fundamental reason why humanity gravitates toward religion is still there and it is not going anywhere.so religion,like man,must evolve to encompass the new paradigm in order to express our humanity,inspiration and awe in the face of the divine.

i am not an overly religious man.
that form of theosophy is not my path,but i recognize the importance of religion and its positive contributions.the challenge is to allow the more archaic and atrophied theosophy to fall away and dissolve like a vestigal limb.keep the parts that inspire and exalt humanity and allow the unnecessary and irrelevant to die with dignity,to become a footnote in our history.

which is what i gathered this video was attempting to convey and why i found it interesting.

@shinyblurry
thanks for the link buddy,now i am depressed.

@bobknight33
please do not take offense when i say:your last comment is so riddled with contradictions,fallacies and outright ignorance in the understandings of -religious history,politics and philosophy that i cannot even begin to address a singular point.that comment is just one big mess.

i will say this in regards to your comment.
to assert that atheists have no moral compass due to their lack of faith and/or religion is just patently bullshit.unless of course,you secretly wish to murder,steal and bang your neighbors wife and the ONLY thing keeping you from acting out is your fear of god.
or hell..whatever..judgement.

do you see what a facile and inept argument that is? morality is inherent to each individual.we all develop our own moral code.now religion can help clarify that moral code,but if you take religion away? we still will all have a moral code we live by.

we also rationalize.
ah..now there is something we humans excel at..rationalizing.or better put:lying to ourselves in order to justify poor behavior.here is where the atheist and the religious diverge.because the atheist has no holy text to twist and manipulate in order to justify that poor behavior,they have to own it and take responsibility.the religious person,however,can abdicate responsibility onto an ancient text based solely on their own interpretation (or some authority they have given power).human history is burdened with the mass graves of such justifications.

ok..i am rambling.
i love this subject and rarely get to engage in discussions such as this.if you have made it this far..i thank you for your kind patience with my own proclivities towards verbosity.

You could have stopped your comment there

Everything about this video was wrong wrong wrong. If you want to own an animal and are not willing to invest the time to understand the behaviour of that animal. Firstly, you shouldn't own it but secondly, you deserve what's coming to you.

You never ever "play" with a cat with your own limbs. Not with protection on, not under the bed sheets, not as a kitten with their cute harmless teeth, never. Cats are built to kill things and they're very good at it.

This wasn't play though, this was deliberate intimidation and the cat was extremely distressed. Cats are very protective of the top of their heads, as you would rightly imagine and it tells you a lot the cat is immediately angry he goes near it.

This means they have no bond, none, so the history of this person and the cat is not good. If a cat trusts you, it would not react in this manner, it may shy away or gently tell you "I'm not in the mood for a head scratch", even to a stranger a cat is unlikely to do more than give a soft warning bite at first (they hurt but generally won't penetrate skin).

So you really shouldn't have any sympathy for this person, nothing in this video remotely suggests he has ever been kind to this cat and if it is feral, well then he's just a damn idiot.

I've never had a cat, i don't want to be a jerk and i don't want to encourage people to mistreat pets (obviously). So with that said, why is everyone being so harsh to the guy? They played a bit, the cat goes for him and the guy is gentle with it despite the cat trying to hurt him (as he should be).

Are the noises it makes towards the end indicative of long term exposure to stress? I've seen videos with that same noise and no hatred to the owner. I know a lot of people with a lot of pets and many of them have little behaviours together that an outsider could easily think bad of, perhaps they play fight all the time but the cat for some reason hates the glove he bought it to play with. He doesn't look like a regular cat baiter and he isn't dressed like someone who expects slashing attacks to be coming limb-wards. The label is crisp and white and visible, i'm not sherlock holmes but i'd say they bought a new toy, the cat for some reason didn't like it, and they filmed the reaction which they didn't expect to go so badly. Otherwise they filmed and released one particular day in a string of abuse-filled days - and the cat won?

I don't see anything worse than someone using a little fluffy thing on a stick/string to tease a cat into chasing it and attacking it. That's all he did, but with the glove.. a little play fight, and the cat had an unusual reaction to the glove. People seem to think he's a bad guy and deserves savaging though, so could someone explain why? I'm just a bit shocked at the vitriol for him.

@artician - not just for grooming but for clawing at too which is why it looks a bit velcro-ish, so a cat person tells me. I was under the impression he was using it within the limits of its intended use.

Forget the aesthetic value, what happens when the prostheses is actually better (stronger, faster, more accurate, more dextrous) than a real limb. Because it's going to happen and almost certainly within our lifetime.

At what point do we tell an athlete that's been in an accident that they are no longer allowed compete because their prosthetic is too good?