Re: About adapting technology to people (was Re: Hal Finney: "Re:Some questions...)

From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Sun Mar 24 2002 - 15:56:35 MST


Amara Graps wrote:
>
> From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury@aeiveos.com>, Sun, 24 Mar 2002
>
> > > I think that _humans_ are first and foremost and from here,
> >> we seek means of survival (*and growth*) on this planet/outwards
> >> working, as best we can, with the complex interaction between
> >> the Earth's biology, sociology, chemistry, physics, politics,
> >
> >Are we? If you accept that humans are sub-optimal, then doesn't
> >growth [really more importantly -- evolution] become much more
> >important than survival?
>
> I agree that growth is necessary, but humans must survive before
> they grow.
snip...
>
> The real richness in our present and future lives are humans/transhumans
> (and whatever other sentient beings pass our way). Those, I think should
> be the focus, not the technology. The technology in my view is simply
> one of the tools for our growth.

Yes, reflecting on last weeks comments about the myth of flawed human
thinking: just because something is suboptimal (assuming we know what
'optimal' truly is) doesn't necessarily mean that it is flawed. Indeed,
laws of physics dictate that the closer something gets to optimal, the
more likely it is to become flawed. Being 'suboptimal' in many
situations is far more optimal than being perfect (see Eli's old
Algernon papers) due to this tendency toward greater degree or odds of
being/becoming flawed.

A Singularity doesn't necessarily imply that our current standards of
measurement become infinite, merely that they become meaningless as new
standards of measurement become more relevant. Miles per hour isn't
nearly as relevant today as Megahertz is, while a hundred years ago,
bushels per hectare was a more important standard of measurement.

Using technology to increase the 'richness' in our present and future
lives depends on our using technology to understand the world to such a
greater extent that we drastically change what we deem to be important
to our lives and existence. New metrics push old ones to the background
of relevancy, singularities occur, and new frames of reference flower.

That which we determine to be of earth shattering importance today
becomes trivial at an ever increasing rate.

Mike Lorrey



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:05 MST