From: Emlyn (emlyn@one.net.au)
Date: Sat Sep 23 2000 - 00:09:09 MDT
Michael wrote:
> Emlyn, I've tried to reduce your argument to its essence so we can focus
> this discussion as tightly as possible. You wrote:
> <snip>
> >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".
>
> You are defining godhood as authority presumptively assumed by a powerful
> being.
>
> I am defining godhood as the result of empowering technologies that thrust
> godly levels of responsibility upon us. We want to achieve every
> Transhumanist potential we can, and a by-product of doing so is that we
> become like the gods of myth.
>
We will never be gods. Just fallible creatures with better tools. I've got
no problem with that (go the fallible creatures, go the better tools!), but
you can't justify attributing godhood to that.
I'm having trouble with this line of argument; maybe I'm full of it (quite
probably). I'll try a slightly different tack...
Why do you want to be a God (amongst other gods, as you have noted). What
benefit do you see in it? What will you do with godhood?
> I've dealt with the issue of guardians in a previous post. "Who guards the
> guardians?" is still the operant concern. You are worried that someone
might
> create an AI guardian (or perhaps augment themselves to become a
Transhuman
> guardian) without first seeking consensus or permission. I understand why
> you would be worried about this, given humanity's checkered history,
> especially in the 20th century, of bloody dictators and their cults of
> personality. Yet I see no way to prevent any sufficiently bright,
determined
> and capitalized person from doing what you fear. What to do?
Promote a culture of trust of each other, of individual humility combined
with a belief in the ability of humanity to rise above all challenges.
Promote rationality/rational thinking. Promote self reliance, and encourage
self confidence in all people. Don't crap on other people.
I think that might just reduce the available pool of the bewildered and
confused, and limit the ability of the self important to lead the majority
astray. It might also reduce the high tolerance people seem to have, on
average, for allowing small numbers of other people to make their decisions
for them.
If people are going to gain the confidence to make their own decisions,
they'll also need information. So I guess we need to free information,
although I'd say this one's taking care of itself.
I was about to say a bunch of stuff about the "God meme", but I think it
might be a crock. The central problem is in having no useful definition of
"God meme". I think I'll stop using the word "meme", it implies an exact
object which isn't realistic when you talk about ideas. And about the
concept of God, I think the definition being used all depends on why you (or
any other transhumanists) want to become Gods (as opposed, say, really
rather powerful beings who are not human any more, but are not Gods). I've
already asked that question above.
>
>
> >Also, we are playing with fire...<snip>
>
> We should fight fire with fire. If we cannot prevent anyone else from
> achieving godly levels of power and abusing that achievement, then WE must
> strive to achieve it and use it rightly.
>
Rightly? How so?
- Other people might abuse godly power - they are the bad guys
- We will not abuse godly power - we are the good guys
- Corollary: We must "manage" the overall distribution of godly power,
because that is our responsibility as good guys. This involves, but is not
limited to, a characteristically godly level of smiting.
Humility is mostly about remembering that there is a slim chance that, just
maybe, you might be the person who is wrong after all. Or maybe there are
elements of truth on all sides. Or maybe everyone is entirely off the mark.
Godhood, on the other hand, means never having to say you're sorry.
>
> >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).
>
> The God meme was not behind the monumental crimes against humanity
committed
> by the Communists and Nazis. Quite the opposite, in fact. What you are
> actually worried about is the human capacity for evil. Evil acts are
always
> justified by appealing to whatever meme is most handy, whether that is
"the
> people" or "the race" or "God." Eliminate your fixation on the God meme,
> substitute human evil for it within your argument, and it appears that
your
> concerns (and presumed solution) becomes essentially the same as Bill
Joy's.
> Am I correct about that? Do you think we should relinquish AI, nanotech,
and
> genetic engineering? Or am I not presenting your ideas correctly?
I wrote:
"Don't get me wrong; I don't oppose any of the technologies being
developed."
I don't think I can be any clearer than that. I'll be more positive; I
support developing all the technologies available, unless there is a really
clear reason not too. Like I might not support genetically modified giant
spiders, or advertising via nanotech robots that travel through food and
scribble inane slogans on your retina. Or half human/half frog "humfrogs"
that would jump around, munching flies in otherwise respectable eating
establishments, cracking the pavement with their giant hopping, and
devaluing local property prices. Maybe I am a luddite; harrumph.
You are quite right in your assessment that not all grubby behaviour can be
attributed to the godly (although I was under the impression that the Nazis
had some kind of spiritual element which helped define their top-level
goals). And on the converse, quite a lot of good has come from the religious
world in the past.
However, I am unconvinced of the benefits of (following/striving
for/assuming the status of) gods in the future. The path we are taking is
decidedly secular; our technologies are not divine gifts, they are strictly
human creations. There is no sign that this will change any time soon (or
any time at all!).
Striving for excellence is excellent. Where's the room for
spirituality/mysticism/religosity? Why do we need it? Does it benefit us to
add it? What price do we pay?
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:07 MST