>>185298
he's not the opee, rest assured, i am
>>185292
it feels too pedantic for me to reply points one by one but for polity i guess im gonna
>bee makes behives spider webspin
yes, my point was this is something fixed to them and they cant let go of them, but we can, our technology (tools) are always separated from us and thus we are inherently nothing without them, and only with them are we even 'something'
>we are so similar to other animal
only the animalistic parts. but as history and creeds show, we can overcome them (ascetics, mystics, eccentrics)
>animals do self-mutilate or behave against their survival if put in some enviroments
and they usually dont last long, because their 'technology' is fixedly embedded in their own selves to the point it cant be shed, so mos tof them die inside wrong circumstances. only bottleneck mutations save their species
>wdym by "used by them"???
this is a reference to the current worries of a.i.'s probability of changing and using us for better or worse. the a.i.'s are our own creations, just like all our other creations throughout history, and our own creations (ideologies, inventions) have altered us a lot so far, and i was just referencing our current era's a.i. with this in mind

btw its oke to disagree im fine with

>>185315
some reference to some franchise? haha