Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Off Topic => Topic started by: PaleoPhil on April 11, 2011, 05:36:08 am
-
Where do we go from here, embrace Kurzweil's future in which human beings try to transform into immortal cyborgs, or try to re-humanize ourselves by adopting a way of thinking and acting that embraces antifragility? I think the answer is obvious, but what do you think?
Ray Kurzweil in 30 Nov 2010 Time Magazine interview: "Ultimately we're going to recreate the full powers of human intelligence in a machine. By my reckoning we're about 20 years away from that threshold. .... By the time we get to the 2040s, say 2045 we'll be able to multiply human intelligence a billion fold. That will be a profound change that's singular in nature so we use this term [of singularity]. It will be a profound transformation, but it really is what human beings are all about. Human beings transcend our limitations. We make ourselves stronger, we make ourselves smarter with our tools, and that's really what the singularity will do."
(N)anotechnology, for example nanorobots, little blood-cell-sized devices like our white blood cells, but nonbiological and more capable, they'll keep us healthy from inside and that'll give us ... more time. Eventually we'll be able to ... access the information in our brains that makes us who we are. (U)ltimately we'll be able to greatly extend human longevity. The sky's the limit.
Kurzweil in The Sun, 24 Sep 2009 (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/2648937/Why-in-2029-scientists-believe-well-have-technology-to-live-forever.html): "If we want to go into virtual-reality mode, nanobots will shut down brain signals and take us wherever we want to go. Virtual sex will become commonplace. And in our daily lives, hologram like figures will pop in our brain to explain what is happening. So we can look forward to a world where humans become cyborgs, with artificial limbs and organs."
Nassim Taleb, in Antifragility: <<was just reading in John Gray’s wonderful The Immortalization Commission about attempts to use science, in a post-religious world, to achieve immortality. I felt some deep disgust—-as would any ancient do--at the efforts of the “singularity thinkers (such as Ray [Kurzweil]) who believe in humans’ potential to live forever. It is the same kind of deep internal disgust that takes hold of me when I see a rich eighty-two year old man surrounded with “babes”, twenty-something mistresses (often Russian or Ukrainian). I am not here to live forever, as a sick animal [nor, presumably, as a cyborg]. I am here to die a heroic death for the sake of the [tribe*], produce offspring (and prepare them for life and provide for them), or eventually, books. Then say goodbye, have a nice funeral in St Sergius (Mar Sarkis) in Amioun, and, as the French say, “place aux autres”, leave room for others>>
*Note: I replaced a controversial, loaded term liable to distract from Taleb's main points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BUYbEgOZt4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3bu_7Bfatg
-
Taleb has a point. Then again, genuine immortality worldwide would inevitably lead to a truly massive reduction in the birth-rate as people could put off having children forever. This, in combination with wars/suicides etc., might eventually lead to a reduction in the world's population, which would be of use.
I reckon Kurzweil's notions are absurd re the idea that humans could benefit by becoming cyborgs. If the technology is at all possible, then pure AIs would be the only real beneficiaries as they would not be subject to human limitations of any kind.
-
I have to admit, I'm not a huge book reader (although I do enjoy audiobooks). I have for whatever reasons read some of Kurzweil's books in print. Of course ANYONE can speculate about the future, but this guy has an intelligence and record for doing so that is pretty ironclad. I have no reason to doubt that if humanity can continue to live long into the future that regardless of date this stuff can/will indeed happen. I don't think he does a very good job of articulating things where his idea of benefit is very appealing IMO but then again he seems to be more interested in how the facts will lay out and then later interpreting them as 'good'.
What I really dislike about Kurzweil is if his predictions are right in terms of the time-frame (which they were in the past with internet and surrounding technology) is that there is no real Blade Runner/Star Trek like future. :) :) Seems there's like a few years of cybernetics and then the singularity stuff which I can only interpret as too radically different from what I want to participate in if not scary. Maybe i'll be wrong or won't have a choice anyway so its not worth thinking about too much.
It doesn't seem like the medical community has such a great record of reversing illnesses and stuff the way they do, but it does seem they do get better at creating artificial organs and repairing and regenerating tissues at the micro level and patching up other physical things. Once they get into the very small - nano it seems they might finally have their solutions for combating the larger problems that way. It seems pretty plausible to me that at some point people will be able to extend their life through such things..whether there will be huge debts and trade-offs like today I do not know. Definitely a larger divide between the natural folks and the more machine like people can be expected as time goes on..I mean there already is...
I think an interesting related note to diet today is that I think he himself consumes like 200 vitamin pills a day and a few other things that have already 'reversed his ageing process 20 years' or something. -\
-
Good grief, you're right, KD. Thanks for that.
Kurzweil does not believe in half measures. He takes 180 to 210 vitamin and mineral supplements a day, so many that he doesn't have time to organize them all himself. So he's hired a pill wrangler, who takes them out of their bottles and sorts them into daily doses, which he carries everywhere in plastic bags. Kurzweil also spends one day a week at a medical clinic, receiving intravenous longevity treatments. The reason for his focus on optimal health should be obvious: If the singularity is going to render humans immortal by the middle of this century, it would be a shame to die in the interim. http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/16-04/ff_kurzweil?currentPage=all
Errm, apparently there's not much need for nutrient-rich raw natural whole foods when you can take 200 pills a day and intravenous longevity treatments, according to Kurzweil. l) Once he's fully cyborg/machine, I guess he won't need any foods at all at that point, just oil, grease, metals, silicon, minerals, plastic and toxic gunk to maintenance his robot body and provide replacement parts. He'd better stockpile a bunch if he's going to live forever though, because the Chinese are grabbing a lot of it. He'd better get super good at defenses against hackers too, to protect his main "brain" database and his backups.
KD, if you do one more book or audiobook in your life, I recommend The Black Swan, or possibly even better, the upcoming Antifragility (or whatever the title ends up being). For people who are completely unfamiliar with our hunter-gatherer ancestry and have difficulty with heavy reading like The Black Swan, Ishmael by Daniel Quinn might be a better choice.
-
Good grief, you're right, KD. Thanks for that.
Kurzweil does not believe in half measures. He takes 180 to 210 vitamin and mineral supplements a day, so many that he doesn't have time to organize them all himself. So he's hired a pill wrangler, who takes them out of their bottles and sorts them into daily doses, which he carries everywhere in plastic bags. Kurzweil also spends one day a week at a medical clinic, receiving intravenous longevity treatments. The reason for his focus on optimal health should be obvious: If the singularity is going to render humans immortal by the middle of this century, it would be a shame to die in the interim. http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/16-04/ff_kurzweil?currentPage=all
Errm, apparently there's not much need for nutrient-rich raw natural whole foods when you can take 200 pills a day and intravenous longevity treatments, according to Kurzweil. l) Once he's fully cyborg/machine, I guess he won't need any foods at all at that point, just oil, grease, metals, silicon, minerals, plastic and toxic gunk to maintenance his robot body and provide replacement parts. He'd better stockpile a bunch if he's going to live forever though, because the Chinese are grabbing a lot of it. He'd better get super good at defenses against hackers too, to protect his main "brain" database and his backups.
KD, if you do one more book or audiobook in your life, I recommend The Black Swan, or possibly even better, the upcoming Antifragility (or whatever the title ends up being). For people who are completely unfamiliar with our hunter-gatherer ancestry and have difficulty with heavy reading like The Black Swan, Ishmael by Daniel Quinn might be a better choice.
yeah, i'm a big Daniel Quinn fan, thats another book i've read in print.
I think with the singularity there are no longer any bodies in need of oiling..everyone just gets downloaded into a virtual space where everything is possible...
TD might appreciate this, One of the more interesting (and somewhat related) audiobooks I got in the past year is the newer Dune series (particularly Machine Crusade) by Herbert's son Brian. I was skeptical at first but they are actually super intricate and rich books. Its a story before the ban on techology or whatever and earth was still recently in the picture. Basically it has these immortal humans in bio formed space-shuttles call sci-mechs(sp?) that serve a computer overlord. It splices this with the back story of the Fremen on Dune. It's probably not as great literature as the original books of course ( and runs a little more like Star Wars)but it's just awesome sci-fi.
-
There is a real thought provoking science fiction movie called Dark city
Its is surreal on many levels.
An ancient race has hijacked a group of humans and switches their minds around in order to find what makes them unique. The race is dieing and need a human soul in order to imprint itself upon.
No matter how sophisticated machines will become I still doubt that the human soul is something to be replicated digitally.
In the movie
The ancient race race has built a ship in which machines that amplify their collective will to create whatever world they desire, but they are a sickened collectivist cult that has no soul. They use their ability to tune to their subjects in the dark and manipulate their minds, only there are some humans who don't fall completely for the spell, and one man outright resist their efforts to imprint him with the mind of the killer, and he learns to tune his mind to control their machines and in an epic battle with the help of the mad scientist he is able to break free from the strangers hold and forge his own destiny. Perhaps these machines will be built one day and those who operate them will have the ability to live forever, but without the presents of a human soul the endeavor will be as pathetic as those strangers in the movie.
Its a bit weird but I think its cool. Just listen to the intro and you can see why it comes to mind in consideration of the topic. The power of the human mind and the ability of one man to take control of his own destiny are central themes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7qZYRHfFQs
-
The trouble with Dark City and Brian Herbert's Dune prequels and sequels is that they borrow the old, highly unrealistic, Campbellian notion that "of course " l) humans would be so much more intelligent/adaptable than either aliens or AIs. This results in rather weak story-telling, IMO, and is highly unlikely. I mean, AIs have an infinite advantage over humans in that they would have no biological limitations whatsoever re further evolution. I don't think we'll ever manage to download personalities onto the Internet or whatever, without the result being insanity as being human is inextricably tied to biological imperatives.
-
I suspect you're right about being human being inextricably linked to biology, Tyler. If humans do evolve into AIs, the result will probably be something other than what we consider human.
Other relevant concerns were raised in this blog, from which I've provided an excerpt (one interesting thing is that the futurists, who seem to be advocates of postmodern dystopia, already have a semi-insulting name for the humans who don't fully evolve into virtual beings/programs--Mostly Original Substrate Humans, who of course are expected to become second-class citizens seen as primitives):
A View From The Bottom Of The MOSH Pit
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2006
http://musingsfromthehinterland.blogspot.com/2006/02/view-from-bottom-of-mosh-pit.html
….there are a group of futurists, more rather than fewer, who postulate a point in the relatively near future, where acceleration of technological advances reaches the point where we humans can no longer predict the future. At that point, which they call "The Singularity," humanity and technology will merge and a new form of "life" will ultimately appear. They call this life "posthuman."
The "posthuman" existence will, of course, be a utopia. As one of the authors puts it, "the sooner we master these technologies, the sooner we will conquer aging and death and all the evils that humankind has been heir to." (Emphasis mine) Further, this posthuman life form will have intelligence far exceeding our own, thanks to miracles of computer wizardry.
"By the time machines make a case for themselves in a convincing way and have all the subtle cues indicative of emotional reaction, there won't be a clear distinction between machine and human."
Of course, anyone who might have a contrary philosophical view about the nature of Man and our purpose in the Universe is dismissed ad hominem as a "Luddite". Indeed, those of us with a cosmology which acknowledges the transcendent, which causes us to seek truths outside the realm of the purely physical, are simply irrational dolts. ....
-
I agree that AIs may have some scientifically indisputable advantage and the Idea that the an ordinary human could ever stand up to such incredible forces may be far fetched, but I am still a romantic at heart and believe that the human spirit is something that will never tolerate being trapped within some kind of technological matrix, no mater how appealing it may seem to the futurist of today..
Perhaps with cybernetic technology there would be ways to preserve a part of humanity within the machines, but I have an other notion that once mankind is removed from the struggles of his own ignorance and no longer has to accept personal limitations, then whatever spirit that is left will become sterile. Kind of like what you see happening with the strangers in the movie, or what the creators of star trek envisioned in the Borg.
Resistance is futile, and yet the Enterprise with its human operators seems to always finds some intangible way to escape being assimilated.
Not to mention the incredible feat that it would take to preserve cybernetics human against epigenetic deterioration, I am not saying that its impossible, only that , The Ideal visions of the post humanist may be in reality a complete monstrosity. There is always that one unforeseeable factor that requires the human spirit, unhindered, to overcome.
Of course in the star trek episode the Humans did use their android to create a computer puzzle that totally destroyed the Borg. This is the point I see within dark city, that the human can take control of the machines without being controlled by them.
If a unaltered human can take control of the machines, then he could use his will to use them to fabricate whatever he dreams, but I don't think the cyborgs and computers have this Survivors Will nor will they have any dreams to make true. So even if you call it a new form of life , that doesn't mean that those mechanical beings will truly live, even if they do one day replace all of us.They will end up like the strangers in dark city, wondering through cyberspace looking for their lost soul for eternity.
Perhaps that's a bit of a stretch but it sums up my basic sentiment.
-
or what the creators of star trek envisioned in the Borg.
Resistance is futile, and yet the Enterprise with its human operators seems to always finds some intangible way to escape being assimilated.
well..yeah... script writers :)
---
There was alot of comparison of Inception to Dark City. I tend to think Christopher Nolan really has a handle on how to articulate some pretty heavy concepts in rather subliminal ways shown early on in Memento which is kind of a parable about memes and acquired knowledge in general. To me Inception was sort of about the kind of madness around the mind and technology when these are out of proportion. I don't know if it was about singularity exactly but there was some pretty amazing illustrations of some of these kinds of concepts. The Age of Spiritual Machines (which is not Kurzweil's most recent book and was written around 2000) describes in absolute minute detail on how alot of this stuff takes place. There is actually no scientific argument for suggesting it can't happen, only science that suggests its not only possible but inevitable unless there is some kind of major shut down of such research and Moore's law computing power or extinction of much of the human race.
-
I think with the singularity there are no longer any bodies in need of oiling..everyone just gets downloaded into a virtual space where everything is possible...
Presumably this "virtual space" has some sort of infrastructure and/or energy source, yes? If so, my bet is that it requires some sort of synthetic material somewhere, at least during a transitional stage, especially if he's going to achieve his virtual immortality within 20-25 years. Notice how he doesn't talk about the actual stuff that will be needed to make the virtual world and virtual people and instead focuses on abstract utopian notions to tap people's imaginations? He would make a good circus barker. "Step right up folks to get your own virtual body in a virtual world where there are no more bearded ladies or elephant men! That's right, you can be as attractive and svelte or pleasingly plump as you like. Lots and lots of options. The skies' the limit!"
They will end up like the strangers in dark city, wondering through cyberspace looking for their lost soul for eternity.
Good analogy.
-
Presumably this "virtual space" has some sort of infrastructure and/or energy source, yes? If so, my bet is that it requires some sort of synthetic material somewhere, at least during a transitional stage, especially if he's going to achieve his virtual immortality within 20-25 years. Notice how he doesn't talk about the actual stuff that will be needed to make the virtual world and virtual people and instead focuses on abstract utopian notions to tap people's imaginations? He would make a good circus barker. "Step right up folks to get your own virtual body in a virtual world where there are no more bearded ladies or elephant men! That's right, you can be as attractive and svelte or pleasingly plump as you like. Lots and lots of options. The skies' the limit!"
Good analogy.
no
have you read The Age of Spiritual Machines? the books are INCREDIBLY detailed with this stuff including a timeline down to each year. I haven't read them in years but they are not outlined like one would think as pure hypothesis but like manuals on how to repair a VCR..super specific. In this future there is no mainframe or computers made out of metal and plastic or physical stuff like that.
In the years in between, sure like today they need time and raw resources to cultivate new technologies. With the singularity they aren't talking about AI and virtual reality in any shape or form that science fiction has predicted (like I said making no blade runner or even holodeck/replicator type technologies which are like baby stuff to this). They are literally talking without exaggeration a capability of the mind and mastery of reality "trillions of times more powerful". Transcending ideas like death, and possibly even earth/universe etc..so its something more like psychic powers in Scanners or aliens in Superman times a trillion than The Matrix. If The Matrix existed..it would represent like one tiny section of this new reality which would be multifacted.
So you have an intelligence that far exceeds human brain power which increases exponentially and then you simultaneously have a technology thats able to transform molecules at the very tiniest level. there isn't a big computer that people choose to plug into or not. Its not like there is some wizard of oz machine that can be disconnected. the actually physical matter and makeup of everything known as reality changes. the very landscape of the planet and the universe is re-created in some way that is fairly impossible for a current human to understand, because they are talking about something a trillion times greater than current human intelligence.
Its actually the science and not the uh..non science which says this is all possible, which is why theres already countless organizations and major corporations participating in discussions surrounding the nature of singularity and the possible ways to control or alter or prevent it from happening.
-
have you read The Age of Spiritual Machines? the books are INCREDIBLY detailed with this stuff including a timeline down to each year.
It's commendable that he goes into more detail in the books, so that we can learn what plans he and the other futurists and the corporate and government sponsors of their general vision have for us. I've only skimmed a little of that book and one of his other books (and quit after it became too much of a downer) and read some articles by or about him and interviews of him now and then over the years. Since most of what I've read and seen him say has been rather disconcerting, I find it disheartening that he has been reported as being very accurate in his predictions because my hope, perhaps a futile one, is that many of them will not come true.
"How beauteous mankind is!
O brave new world,
That has such people in't!"
</irony>
I was hoping that someone would present some more input on Kurzweil's views and I thank you for doing so, KD.
-
I became incredibly depressed after reading the first book which was right after a lot of the 9/11 stuff which I saw with my own eyes. Its pretty easy to feel helpless from both types of things, particularly when one really doesn't know WHAT to believe.
I seemed to have developed a "Que Sera, Sera " attitude with some of this stuff. I find it interesting to think about and I do think he's a brilliant person who deserves my attention whether I particularly like the ideas or feel comfortable with them. I don't ascribe to any typical religious belief (although technically i'm a Unitarian) but part of me does believe that humanity has some kind of destiny and that much of the things that happen have some sort of purpose even when they are extremely negative. Of course part of that purpose may be in people getting very angry and shifting the inevitability of such things I guess.
I think we are kind of in an in between state with alot of this anyway. if one takes a huge step back at the technologies and things we have today..its pretty psychedelic. The only thing is is that the forms and things people use them for makes them seem normal..almost old-hat...and in a way its sort of boring to me how we live amongst so much advanced stuff..just kind of spoiled. Since we already have all the crappy pollution and residue of this stuff part of me does anticipate how we can change the way we think do things on some other level of experience....that is if we aren't going to destroy everything and try to take back the planet with pollution sucking mushrooms or something.
-
I don't ascribe to any typical religious belief (although technically i'm a Unitarian)
That's similar to my own tendencies. I'm not a Unitarian, but my father's favorite aunt was one (she was apparently a splendid individual) and I went to a Unitarian service once a couple of years ago. It didn't feel quite like home in part because the main leader is a promoter of vegetarianism, but it wasn't far off either.
...and in a way its sort of boring to me how we live amongst so much advanced stuff..
I've noticed that the more advanced something is, the shorter its lifespan tends to be and the more prone to obsolence and ending up in a garbage dump.
-
I would like to expand on kurzweil's topic of bio engendering and genetic manipulation, with a little of my own vision.
I think all the futuristic pondering can never fathom the possibility of a complete and harmonious union of Artificial intelligence and biological engineering. I am speaking in regards to the Fifth element, or the supreme being, which is a life form that has been designed by artificial intelligence, using humanoid DNA as the template, but with a degree of complex addendum's being added into it that would give such a being superhuman intelligence and ability's.
Once the power of computers reaches a certain level I do believe its possible to begin to completely unlock the power of the genetic code and even begin to design the supreme being. There are literally no limits to what could be accomplished by using super computers to fabricate a genetic code that could produce a living being with unlimited potentials, and then with the use of nano technology they could construct such a living creature.
It wouldn't be a cyborg, it would be a totally organic creation that could be programed genetically into whatever form the computers could draft. The only question is that, who would be the artist(or android) that gets to chose which prototypes of the supreme being get the OK for mass production.
If the cyborg trans-humanist take control of the world before this point is reached then I doubt the supreme being will have much chance for being given a life of liberty, but If free humanity can survive up
to the peak of the singularity, then perhaps there may be a more human element present that could artfully conduct the creation and utilization of such a being.
-
That's similar to my own tendencies. I'm not a Unitarian, but my father's favorite aunt was one (she was apparently a splendid individual) and I went to a Unitarian service once a couple of years ago. It didn't feel quite like home in part because the main leader is a promoter of vegetarianism, but it wasn't far off either.
I have adopted a Unitarian way of thinking,
It does seem like there are a lot of Vegans at my church, but they are so accepting that I don't feel the need to judge them so harshly although many of them don't know what to think about having a raw carnivore in their midst.
-
Yes, I generally prefer judgment over judging.
-
The way I see it, as science/technology advances, we will inevitably gain access to such technologies. In the case of those societies who frown on having female children, if they do reduce the number of girl children, that actually only benefits their societies since they(India, the Middle-East and China in particular) have too high a birth-rate already and need to reduce that in order to maintain a higher standard of living.
Now, people have argued that it is immoral to decide what physical or mental characteristics child should have. This idea has been rather conclusively debunked:-
http://web.archive.org/web/20060208032306/http://www.reason.com/rb/rb082504.shtml (http://web.archive.org/web/20060208032306/http://www.reason.com/rb/rb082504.shtml)
I mean, either we are just animals who do not manipulate ourselves or the environment, in which case we should just go back to living in the trees without technology, or we should go onward and choose what genes our children have. In the case of abortion, I doubt it would be necessary if technology improved. For example, it might be possible, eventually, to redesign an embryo, mid-term, to be female or male instead, rather than aborting it, or redesigning its future muscles to allow it to adapt to a high-gravity environment, or adding gills allowing it to survive in an underwater environment.... etc.
It should be obvious that I am a transhumanist and a science fiction aficionado.
I thought this would be interesting to discuss further (nerd-off) here. Although I am freaked out by many above repercussions as anyone, I have to agree with the above on principle, and I would be curious how other people feel. I often think more about health/diet as to how it can be a tool to 'be around' and healthy/robust when other people might be more dependent on technology, but part of this is wanting to witness those things and have experiences beyond the current 'limbo' of the moment, not returning to the past just because some things of the past are more workable or sustainable. I'm not personally that interested in going the ways of the Amish or the tribesmen...unless its some kind of hybrid of old and new lessons and values.
Anyway, discuss.
-
KD - thanks for bumping the discussion.
I have sensed (known it was coming) much of the future being discussed since I was a child and have been frightened of it from before it even started -- and especially watching it come to fruition piece by piece. I am not a sci-fi fan - these were all simple old intuition and visions. I have been terrified of someone putting a machine in my brain since before computers or nanobots were thought of. I have seen much of it and what Wurzeil predicts is on the way ...... and I hope I don't have to witness it or be subject to it.
The problem is that as a whole we are still children spiritually and morally. The more power we have the more we use it to control and to destroy. Greed, will to power and the inability to see the whole or where it might lead makes these new advancements massively dangerous to us. If we were more advanced in the primary more humane sense - cared more about each other and our planet, these things could become useful. But with tyranny so commonplace and Big Brother the one who will be wielding the use and power of these "advances" I am just as frightened now as I was a young child.
If we start to manipulate the next generation I cannot see it coming out any better than what we have done in manipulating each other and the environment and other species. We do not have the maturity to manipulate (especially on such a scale) in a way that won't be catastrophic - let alone wisely. .
We simply are not ready. The singularity first has to be spiritual (for the lack of a better word) before it is physical or the singularity might be more like what a "singularity" technically is -- the center of a black hole from which nothing returns.
-
Natural selection works despite the fact that 99 percent of all mutations are usually harmful and lead to extinction. So, one would only need a very few people manipulating their DNA etc. correctly for life to go on as before, albeit at a much faster rate.
Though I have read somewhere that genetic engineering could only improve humans by at most 100%. Any further improvements would require becoming a cyborg etc.
-
We simply are not ready. The singularity first has to be spiritual (for the lack of a better word) before it is physical or the singularity might be more like what a "singularity" technically is -- the center of a black hole from which nothing returns.
The actual singularity 'thing' is one of those things my mind says is bad because I can't comprehend it as pleasant or needed, but they say its inevitable so whether that is true or not I don't pay it alot of mind. I thought this thread might be a good area for a more general discussion of things less...singular.
Given the option - as if it actually exists - I personally wouldn't throw a monkey wrench into the technological progress to keep things in the status quo or return to a simpler time. It could be this will happen to some degree, at least temporarily, just due to the economics of things - and this could have good consequences for people in a sense 're-humanizing' themselves and their resources. At the same time I don't see technological experimentation as inherently bad and agree it seems part of our 'nature' . The -f-ups included, exploitations, and lessons learned to be entirely human which means never destined for the status quo or sticking with what 'works'.
Suspect..or possibly way dangerous..yes! which is why It seems smarter to be able to eschew alot of technologies if one can that relate to one's basic needs. Not be dependent on the man....machine. :)
-
Yes KD - going back to a simpler, more sustainable times and ways appeals to me on so many levels too. We've become divorced from so many of our primary human "needs" (at least as I see it) - like basic nutrition, sunlight and deep human communal ties (even the nuclear family is breaking apart), that to think about playing God with the species when we are already so unbalanced in our decisions is putting the cart miles in front of the horse imho. We have enough power to have created a massive kill-off of species world-wide and for the males of many species now to be mutated to the point where reproduction is waning (we could add ad nauseum to how we have f-cked things up for our planet and our health and happiness) so what criteria are we using to make the decision that we can do any better than nature? Why do people think that more complicated and controlled is necessarily going to add more value?
Take the top 3 causes of death for instance. 1. Preventable medical mistakes. 2. Cancer. 3. Heart disease. Most people could avoid all these just by simply eating a natural diet. Instead we use outrageously complicated treatments and procedures which just cause for more pain and sorrow. Greed and the desire for power runs it all. Greed and a desire for power will also run genetic engineering and already is (can we say "Monsanto everyone?). People generally will buy into anything if it's flashy and someone who they think is in authority says it - but I don't buy the flashy "live forever and have infinite intelligence" commercial - just like I don't believe that breakfast cereal filled with sugar is good for children. It's just too unnatural.
-
My Dad always says that until capitalism has been wiped off the face of the earth we will never be able to make anything great of humanity, and I tend to agree.
If genetic engineering is carried out, it will inevitably be for a profitable end, not necessarily a good or healthy one. I don't see why it would not be very profitable for some people, for example, to genetically engineer compliant and weak-willed people, if ways of doing it were discovered.
The thing I'm not sure about is: Are the flaws of human nature (which are not always flaws in all situations) so integral to our being that we will never be able to turn around and see them clearly, or control them enough that we could safely `play God' without fear?
-
The actual singularity 'thing' is one of those things my mind says is bad because I can't comprehend it as pleasant or needed, but they say its inevitable so whether that is true or not I don't pay it alot of mind. ....
It seems smarter to be able to eschew alot of technologies if one can that relate to one's basic needs. Not be dependent on the man....machine. :)
It's nice to find someone else who doesn't buy into the utopian lies of the modernist progressives, aka robot people. All that is new is not necessarily improved.
Of course, they won't be able to resist retaliating and will try to paint you as an unreconstructed savage. The fact that you welcome the best of the new as well as the old probably won't mollify them. The slightest questioning of "progress" will get you labeled barbarian, and they'll likely require instead blind obedience. They want serfs, not original thinkers. In their nerdy minds nature is evil, needing of purification, and technology is the end-all, be-all. Think of it, they actually long to shed what's left of their humanness to become robots!
It's the same inanity that claims that pasteurized dairy is light-years-better than raw fermented dairy and that cooking beats raw any day; devoid of evidence, buttressed only by fanatical devotion to the sterile brave new world of Big Brother and His robotic sheeple.
-
Ouch! ;) ;D Eloquently put...
Actually, I am not one of the "robot people" despite being a progressivist. I was always far more impressed by that energy-being at the end of the film 2001 and those Vorlons and Shadows in the SF TV show Babylon 5. Robots would be too limiting for me.
I will admit that the "increased pasteurisation/cooking" nonsense is part of the downside of "progressivism". On the other hand, if science had not advanced sufficiently, we would not by now have 1,000s of studies on the extent of the harm done by cooking.`
Re Big Brother/Brave New World:- I hated the world of 1984, but I thought Aldous Huxley's Brave New World was rather utopian, not dystopian. There were a few oddities in that book, such as the supposed need for low IQ factory-slaves in a future that should have been completely automated anyway re production, given the overall technology-level, but then Huxley couldn't predict everything.
The real problem with the anti-progressive stance is that all technologies have both positive and negative aspects. It merely depends on how one uses them. For example, nuclear power gave us nuclear weapons and the possibility of nuclear war, but it also, among other things, provided us with nuclear power stations thus solving energy problems. The solution is simple, hand over as much technology(along with the training/ability/laws to allow use of it) to individual citizens so that they can gain control over their own lives to a greater extent than ever before. That would be a splendid, libertarian approach.
-
On the other hand, if science had not advanced sufficiently, we would not by now have 1,000s of studies on the extent of the harm done by cooking.`
Sure, taking the best of both the new and old doesn't mean discarding all science.
The real problem with the anti-progressive stance is that all technologies have both positive and negative aspects.
Yup, and taking the best of the new and old takes this into account.
The solution is simple, hand over as much technology(along with the training/ability/laws to allow use of it) to individual citizens so that they can gain control over their own lives to a greater extent than ever before. That would be a splendid, libertarian approach.
Yup, I like that, and individual energy self-sufficiency might be a good part of that.
-
I think the problem is one of extent. The more we try to manipulate the core of nature like gmo's, create new life forms, new universes in our basements, nuclear power plants and weapons and genetic engineering the more likely big money, power hungry individuals, corporations and governments are to wipe out the human race and the other species if not the earth itself so that we never get the time needed to evolve and mature emotionally and spiritually. We are already too smart for our own good - why try to get even smarter (in a left brain way) so we can do more damage even faster and more completely? Why try to live forever when we can't even seem to live well for the time we have?
If I could go back with the knowledge of what would come and was designated to choose "barbarism" or "progress" I would choose to not have any of our "progress" yet because the scale is so monstrous. The level of destruction is already unbelievable. It's like a child trying to learn about fire with no parent watching to keep them from burning down the house and killing the whole family in the process......... times a billion.
Generally, the human race is like a 3 year old in it's emotional and spiritual development. We just don't think holistically or what the worse case scenarios could be. We don't think long-term nor do we think about the welfare of others beyond our own selves or little groups. We don't step back and say to ourselves that nuclear power isn't worth what the downside could be - so let's be careful and find other forms of power instead. Greed, expediency and the desire for power run things in our world today. We scream "I want it, I want it, I want it!!!!" just like a three year old and nothing and no one else matters - but we are doing it on a phenomenal group scale.The last thing we need is more means to act out any more than we already are. We don't care what we kill off, as long as the people in power get to play in their sandboxes longer and with more control over them and the other kids. Give that man-child in his sandbox the ability to make a nuclear bomb on his own and he could blow us all up trying to blow up that other sandbox that is so close. Recently, one dude made a new universe in his basement. Giving individuals the power to develop and choose what to do with what is coming down the avenue is even scarier than having it controlled by a group. Pick the most unbalanced person you have ever met and then imagine them having the power to spread disease, destruction or mutations to those they don't like! Don't hand a three year old a loaded gun.
I hope that one day our maturity will catch up with our scientific intelligence, but we already have such a long way to go!
I guess Phil that I very likely will be labeled a barbarian and savage while I literally play my classical violin as I watch it all burn on. If being a savage and barbarian means that I eat the natural food that is correct for my species and my health, don't want to participate in the killing off other species and the human race and would rather not participate in the continual blind march of progress without reflection into oblivion - then I accept those labels as badges of honor and distinction.
-
Why not allow any 3 year-old to own a gun? If advanced technology duly allows a 3-year-old to already gain the maturity and intelligence of a now-20 year-old, what's the problem?
There's a wonderful SF story I have yet to find which features a scenario in which every American family has a nuclear missile in their back-yard, the idea being that citizens should provide a nuclear deterrent, not the government. I think it's a wonderful idea.
Simply put, we should allow everyone to have the right to make their mistakes(or, indeed, successfully evolve) by allowing them access to whatever technologies they wish to have. That's why I am such a fan of The Poor Man's James Bond" 2 volume book.
The only catch is that humans are so excellent at wiping out other species. It would not surprise me if national parks, a few thousand years hence, consist of only 2 or 3 trees, for example(as featured in 2000AD magazine). That said, advanced genetic engineering could bring back mammoths and all other species humans ever wiped out, so science could solve everything...
-
Why not allow any 3 year-old to own a gun? If advanced technology duly allows a 3-year-old to already gain the maturity and intelligence of a now-20 year-old, what's the problem?
Just because a child can take a gun and shoot his brother by accident because he doesn't understand the the damage it can do doesn't mean that he has the intelligence of a 20 year old! That's the whole point - he doesn't have the intelligence necessary not to kill and neither do we and I doubt if making any of us more "intelligent" is going to suddenly give us emotional maturity. If we end up killing off all the humans AND all the animals by destroying the males of most species out of arrogance or our planet becomes too hot or cold for most things to survive even though we already have the "intelligence" to predict that if we keep on doing what we are doing that will be the outcome -- there will be no scientists or environment in which to bring back mammoths. Oops!
Whether or not governments/corporations have the power to control or individuals it's all still nuts! Why continue to run headlong towards something we've already proven we can handle without killing off all sorts of things that we had no intention of making sure were dead and couldn't stop killing even though we knew we were doing it!
-
The point is that technology could advance to the point where that brother of that 3 year old can be resurrected. Or if all males were killed off on one occasion, the females could get more males born in the next generation via genetic engineering etc...!
-
I think it's the idea that we can fix anything we break/destroy in our immaturity with more of the same that is the scariest to me. It's pure hubris.
It goes along the lines of thinking that if we destroy our own mother planet maybe we can find another with rocket ships that we can move to and destroy too.
And about everyone having a nuclear warhead in the backyards ........ anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of human psychological imbalances would be able to predict that within a few minutes after getting their warhead there would be at least one suicidal person that thought that this world should die along with them pushing that button.
-
It goes along the lines of thinking that if we destroy our own mother planet maybe we can find another with rocket ships that we can move to and destroy too.
There are actually some SF short stories which have the exact same theme.
And about everyone having a nuclear warhead in the backyards ........ anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of human psychological imbalances would be able to predict that within a few minutes after getting their warhead there would be at least one suicidal person that thought that this world should die along with them pushing that button.
Perhaps, but by that point in time, perhaps we would all also have personal access to fields of force which prohibit all nuclear explosions in our local area etc.
[/quote]
-
Perhaps, but by that point in time, perhaps we would all also have personal access to fields of force which prohibit all nuclear explosions in our local area etc.
If we all have personal access to fields of force which prohibit nuclear explosions - there would be no point in having missiles.
But this sci-fi way in the future stuff is just fiction. Right here and now we are destroying the animals that live here, ourselves and the environment. We can make gmo's, clone and genetically engineer and only those with egos the size of Saturn think that they can handle whatever possibly could come of all that.
-
Re Big Brother/Brave New World:- I hated the world of 1984, but I thought Aldous Huxley's Brave New World was rather utopian, not dystopian. There were a few oddities in that book, such as the supposed need for low IQ factory-slaves in a future that should have been completely automated anyway re production, given the overall technology-level, but then Huxley couldn't predict everything.
The real problem with the anti-progressive stance is that all technologies have both positive and negative aspects. It merely depends on how one uses them. For example, nuclear power gave us nuclear weapons and the possibility of nuclear war, but it also, among other things, provided us with nuclear power stations thus solving energy problems. The solution is simple, hand over as much technology(along with the training/ability/laws to allow use of it) to individual citizens so that they can gain control over their own lives to a greater extent than ever before. That would be a splendid, libertarian approach.
Huxley believed that there was something in human nature that made it necessary for one to feel Superior to others in order to know what to compare their own superiority too. A need for social structure and hierarchy is built into our nature. A robotic labor force isnt much too compare ranks with, and getting rid of the lower caste would lead the Alphas of the brave new world to compete within their own cast for rank leading to disharmony.
It may be a bit of a stretch to say that it's necessary to maintain such a caste system in the brave new world, but consider how the brave new world came into being.
At the time of the birth of the new world order( I mean brave New World), it was necessary to convince the alpha class of the old world, that their position in society would be maintained, in order to get them to go along with enslaving the whole race to a technocracy. The elite have always liked to look down on the lower class and they would not want to give up that pastime even if it could be engineered out of them. Condescension is a fundamental fact of human nature that makes one need to look down on others in order to know how superior one is. If someone doesn't have any way of knowing how much better he or she is than the next guy, then there isn't much incentive to control and dominate in order to hold that supposed position in the social order.
Perhaps human nature can be altered to rid the human race of our pettiness. Although, I sure hope not anytime soon because the descendants of my mutt offspring would not be welcome in such a world.
Handing over the technology to the free people of earth may be the better alternative, although it might have to be tightly regulated by a central authority in order to prevent evil masterminds from using Tesla free energy machines, to make death star type weapons.
The future seems screwed up either way technology takes us. If things go as they are we will pollute and destroy the earth to such a degree that the future may not be a very pleasant place to be. If the scientist can take control and form a world wide technocracy before our ecology is completely ruined then they will cull most of the human population and then enslave the rest which will be altered and engineered until they are no longer human by current standards.
Of course I don't worry too much about the end of humanity, it still seems far off from what I can see.
-
I think the problem is one of extent.
Yes, I think you hit on the crux of the issue--balance. Our technological advancements seem to be progressing at a faster rate than our emotional/spiritual development. Cordain's quote that we are "Stone Agers living in the space age" appears to apply to more than just diet and exercise. The question is, what is the right balance, for whom, for where, and how do we achieve it?
The Amish have already been struggling with this for quite a while, with different solutions worked out in different communities and with continued problems of their own. One thing seems certain--there isn't one right way of doing things for everyone.
the human race is like a 3 year old in it's emotional and spiritual development
Good analogy. We seem to have too many 3 year olds and not enough grandparents.
-
so science could solve everything...
Thanks for providing that excellent example of hypermodern utopian modernist progressive thinking. It seems to be the inevitable path most of the world is currently on.
I love science, but I'm not convinced that it will ever solve everything. With each new solution comes new questions and new problems and it doesn't seem like we spend a lot of time weighing the costs vs. benefits before adopting new technologies.
Quote from: Dorothy on Today at 01:25:06 pm
"It goes along the lines of thinking that if we destroy our own mother planet maybe we can find another with rocket ships that we can move to and destroy too."
Tyler responded: There are actually some SF short stories which have the exact same theme.
Yup, and I remember reading about some project funded by the Virgin Airlines founder and others that basically has already given up on planet earth and seeks to do just this. The problem is, if we don't learn how to live well on this planet, Dorothy is probably right that we'll just screw up the next one.
-
the elite have always liked to look down on the lower class and they would not want to give up that pastime even if it could be engineered out of them. Condescension is a fundamental fact of human nature
Indeed, as I mentioned above, the leading Transhumanists' already have choice insults for the people who will be denigrated to an underclass when the elites become transhuman, such as "Mostly Original Substrate Humans (MOSHs)."
------------
Sidebar:
KD, if you do one more book or audiobook in your life, I recommend The Black Swan, or possibly even better, the upcoming Antifragility (or whatever the title ends up being). For people who are completely unfamiliar with our hunter-gatherer ancestry and have difficulty with heavy reading like The Black Swan, Ishmael by Daniel Quinn might be a better choice.
I forgot to mention the older of Taleb's books on the subject, Fooled by Randomness, which received somewhat better reader reviews than The Black Swan.
-
Indeed, as I mentioned above, the leading Transhumanists' already have choice insults for the people who will be denigrated to an underclass when the elites become transhuman, such as "Mostly Original Substrate Humans (MOSHs)."
"Moshs", that's not very catchy.
Here are some labels I'd like to suggest, instead:-
"Original Creationists"(because regressivists want to maintain human shape as God created it. This would be shortened eventually to "Orcs".
"Devolutionists". This would be shortened to Devs/Deviants. The idea is that since
stagnation always leads to deterioration in the end(because a non-changing scenario like stagnation cannot be maintained perpetually), people who wanted to maintain the status quo would simply "devolve" backwards, eventually.
"Regressivists". Shortened to "Regs/Regulars".
"Norms". This is the dismissive label used in the UK's wonderful 2000AD comic by its mutant characters to describe those who have not mutated/evolved.
The best term, though, for regressivists would be "Mundanes". This is the term used by SF fans of the 50s to describe those clueless people who weren't interested in Science Fiction. It was also, amusingly, used by the TV show Babylon 5's "Psi-Corps" to describe non-telepaths.
-
Huxley believed that there was something in human nature that made it necessary for one to feel Superior to others in order to know what to compare their own superiority too. A need for social structure and hierarchy is built into our nature. A robotic labor force isn't much too compare ranks with, and getting rid of the lower caste would lead the Alphas of the brave new world to compete within their own cast for rank leading to disharmony.
The whole point I made was that Aldous Huxley merely made a ridiculous explanation to justify having low-IQ factory-slaves in such a society. There is no real reason why a society made up entirely of alpha-class, high-IQ, citizens would always war on each other. On the contrary, it could be a utopia of peace, for all we know. Certainly, a high-tech future would have no place or need for those with low-IQs, given advanced levels of automation.
Handing over the technology to the free people of earth may be the better alternative, although it might have to be tightly regulated by a central authority in order to prevent evil masterminds from using Tesla free energy machines, to make death star type weapons.
That would mean some psychotic, ignorant of science, politician deciding what is best for humanity. We already have that with retarded politicians like Bill Clinton banning human cloning for purely emotional, not rational reasons etc. A truly depressing scenario. No, the only solution is to allow every individual to have as much access to technology as possible. That would prevent "evil masterminds" from taking over if everyone else has access to the same level of technology. This would also speed up the evolution of the human race.
-
This is the term used by SF fans of the 50s to describe those clueless people who weren't interested in Science Fiction. It was also, amusingly, used by the TV show Babylon 5's "Psi-Corps" to describe non-telepaths.
Don't you have a term for SF/fantasy fans--nerds, or was it geeks? Or is it just sci fantasy fans or just Star Wars fans that get that moniker?
Thanks for providing us with an excellent example of the scorn and contempt that Transhumanists have for anyone who doesn't crave their utopian/dystopian dream.
-
I'm not sure that any attempts to guide humanity's collective path will be ultimately successful. No one that I know of, in the millions of years since humans have been around, has been able to alter the direction of society as a whole from that which is commanded by nature, and many have tried.
If in fact genetic engineering did achieve this, by society giving genetic engineering a free hand, I think it would likely result in a complete loss of identity and sense of direction and cripple the human race for good. Because we move unconsciously within the framework of our own nature, without realising that there is always that invisible hand guiding us. If we removed that framework, what would we be? Humans? I think not. Animals? Definitely not. Schizophrenic psychopaths? Probably. Would we be able to save ourselves at that point? I think we may find out soon.