From: CurtAdams@aol.com
Date: Mon Apr 08 2002 - 18:14:57 MDT
In a message dated 4/8/02 13:44:51, jacques@dtext.com writes:
>Whatever the value we personaly ascribe to such a lifestyle, I don't
>see it as a desirable general target. My argument is not that it is
>not "generally sustainable". It is that much of it really consists in
>cultural tricks meant to readapt oneself, and somehow I feel that this
>should not take so much room in one's life. It seems like one is one's
>own child, and has to care about oneself as such.
I agree in many ways were are psychologically and physically suboptimal
for living in our current environment as happy, fulfulled, long-lived, etc.
individuals. No disagreement there.
>While environment changes and you stay essentially the same, you can
>rely less and less on internal guidance (desire, instinct), and you
>must rely more and more on external guidance, other cultural
>constructs.
I would say we should rely less on genetic guidance and more on memetic
guidance. I'd say they are equivalently internal/external to me - both
are physically inside me, but derive from elsewhere and elsewhen.
>But such
>activities are disconnected from what really matters in your life (if
>anything !). Which makes deep satisfaction elusive.
This I don't agree with. I don't see why deep satistifaction must rely
on genetic goals with our current getup. In the abstract, our genes
lay out what satisfies us but in the past I don't think they've had reason
to devalue memetic drives. Indeed, since that's what made us so successful
as a species they might overvalue it. Only now is there a strong reason
for genes to devalue memetic input; I expect we will evolve that way
but you and I will not have done so much.
I think the quest for "deep satisfaction" is quixotic. We are constructed
by an array of replicators with conflicting goals; you can't make them all
happy at once. Further, I think happiness is a motivator and perfect,
unimprovable
situations are rarity at best in the past. So, you are always programmed
to be somewhat disatisfied to keep you looking for the improvements which
are always there.
>This is a problem that "primitivists" tend to stress (the way I
>imagine them at least), and that "extropians" tend to repress. I don't
>like the idea that what you share in a group is a blind spot.
They do stress it, but I think a) they're chasing a chimera and b) they
don't realize how nasty the biologically driven desires can be.
>Our cognition has grown to a point where we can imagine too much
>compared to what we are and can be. Our life form seems just bizarre,
>one of too many possibilities. A fixed life form and a finite life
>span is too tight a dress. Even more than having disadapted to our
>environment, our body has disadapted to our mind. (This is how I feel,
>at least.)
I perceive a similar disadaptation, but I put a different spin on it. I
think our minds have developed into marvelous things that are increasingly
held back by the body. The body's not disadapting (which sounds
like an active process), just left behind.
(possible future scenarios snipped)
>Yet another approach would be to say that the moment we start changing
>ourselves is another "prediction wall" (but not linked per se to the
>increase of intelligence). It may not be logically unpredictable, but
>it definitely becomes much more difficult to predict than when we're
>able to count on human nature.
This would be my view. But I think we can improve the odds by considering
what encourages cooperative behavior and programming ourselves for that-
e.g., division of labor, need to cooperate, high positive externalities (=
poorly enforced intellectual property), secure property. I certainly don't
want to interfere with the tremendous potential of transhuman development
for the sake of stupid callous pieces of plastic, which is all a gene is.
To a large extend, we are means to their ends, but their ends are not
particularly
nice and I'm happy to change the situation.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:20 MST