From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Fri Sep 22 2000 - 02:07:17 MDT
Emlyn wrote:
> Don't get me wrong; I don't oppose any of the technologies being developed.
> I take issue only with the top level goals in some cases. Particularly, this
> goal of godhood leads to an arrogance which I can't condone. It leads to
> believing that you know better than the other six billion people kicking
> around on this planet, and that can direct actions which are not morally
> supportable; for instance, the attempt to build a guardian - I haven't
> noticed any step in the plans for such creations, which involves obtaining
> broad consensus before "flicking the switch".
>
On average, as a point of fact, there is not a person on this list who
doesn't "know better" than the vast majority of the world's population
about a great many things. I am sorry if it breaks local taboos to
point this out. Intelligence is not distributed evenly.
Do you actually ask for broad consensus for your own work, for every
design and implementation decision? No? Is that only because what you
are doing doesn't affect many people or is it also because most people
wouldn't have any idea what they were talking about if they tried to
advise you on your work?
Should the human race only be allowed to advance in steps that were all
approved by the broad consensus? Should a poll have been taken before
we allowed that the sun is the central body of the solar system rather
than earth? Oh, you say, we don't need to get a consensus for facts.
But then why do you need a consensus to bring major advances into play
that 98% of the world's people never will understand well and that the
majority are singularly unqualified to pass judgement upon?
I ask these things to open conversation rather than to say "You are
wrong." I actually sympathize with some of your concern. But I don't
see how waiting for consensus is a sign of proper diligence or will
actually help humanity at all. Call it elitist if it makes you feel
better, but I believe recognizing the paucity of intelligence is simple
honesty.
I also believe that failing to acknowledge one's intelligence and
ability to help choose and produce the future can be a false modesty
that keeps one from being fully and responsibly engaged. Failing to
step up and do what you can taking full responsibility is required of a
great number of us if human beings are to have a viable, much less
joyously abundant, future.
> This is a time of unparalleled change, and will look like a walk in the park
> next to the times to come. It is a time for humility in our approach, and
> special concern for the other beings that inhabit the planet; as it becomes
> easier for the few to ignore the wishes of the many, it becomes no more
> tolerable to do so.
It is precisely because of HUGE concern for the needs of all humanity
that many of us became scientists and technologists and it is out of
that concern that we dream large dreams and see to what extent they can
become reality. We would be irresponsible, having been gifted or having
acquired such ability if we did not use it.
The cutting edge of any species is the edge. It is not the consesus
masses. Why condemn the edge for being the edge? It is there that
advance will happen that lifts the whole.
>
> Also, we are playing with fire - well, actually fire is a baby's toy
> compared to the stuff we are messing with now. It's not a good time to get
> complacent and arrogant - "we are as gods, ha ha ha!". It's time to be more
> humble than ever, to be open-system, to take in information from our
> environment. It's been discussed on the list just how dangerous some of the
> coming technologies are (ai, nanotech, etc), and if you go over the posts,
> you'll see that most of the danger is attributed to use of that technology
> by humans infected with the God meme. People who think that they know better
> than everyone else, who feel justified in producing externalities (like grey
> goo).
>
Humility taken so far is for people who will deny their own strength AND
their huge responsibility. It is not a strategy that helps anyone.
Seeing the huge potentials for change is not something that makes me the
least bit complacent. It scares the heebie-jeebies out of me quite
often. But it is where the power and future of this species lie. Those
of us who are the forerunners, the intellectual scouts, the builders of
bridges between today and tomorrow, including those of us who
cross-check that we are keeping our wits about us, certainly cannot
afford to be complacent. But that doesn't mean we should stand aside or
be frightened to look and to attempt to chart a path forward that makes
the most sense and enables the best outcomes. After all, if we don't
make the attempt, then can we expect to take care of our default? If
not us, who?
Yes, we need as many voices and viewpoints as can be fruitfully
employed. Yes, we are talking about some of the most serious things
anyone has ever contemplated and our euphoria should be tempered with
quite a bit of sobriety.
One thing that worries me is that we are quite good and coming up with
technology. We are not nearly so good at creating a unifying vision (or
sets of visions) that will more likely shape the use and unfolding of
the technology for the maximum good. If we don't create a vision or set
of positive visions to guide us then the technology will more than
likely greatly magnify all the good and bad tendencies in the world
today. I doubt that that is survivable.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:07 MST