From: Extropian Agro Forestry Ventures Inc. (megao@sk.sympatico.ca)
Date: Mon Apr 29 2002 - 19:15:43 MDT
If you want to be truthful human nature is its own worst enemy. Wouldn't it
be ironic if the machine intelligences we create one day decide that enhancing
the human genome is desirable to risking desabilizing the perfection of AI.
An AI luddite of sorts. Actually each has its virtues. The trick is to
preserve consciousness and allow it to migrate from host to host be it
machine, meat or some novel creation loosely based on the former 2.
MJ
Hal Finney wrote:
> There was supposed to be a debate this past weekend at the Foresight
> conference between Greg Stock and Ray Kurzweil about whether biological
> or machine technology would be more important in the major changes ahead.
> I was not present, but it seems to me that Kurzweil has the stronger
> argument, that machine technology will continue to advance much faster
> than biology can.
>
> Even without government restrictions, ethical considerations require
> changes to the human genome to be done with the utmost caution and with
> careful consideration of the possible outcome. Since the unborn child
> cannot give informed consent to the procedure, we must be very confident
> that the intervention will be beneficial. As a result we can't expect
> very fast progress in engineering humans.
>
> Add to that the fact that we have to wait for perhaps 20 years for the
> engineered baby to grow to young adulthood before we can know the full
> impact of the genetic change. This means that dramatic changes can only
> occur on the scale of decades to centuries.
>
> Computer enhancements on the other hand can in principle remain on the
> Moore's Law curve straight through to the nanotech era around 2020.
> As the machines become more powerful we can also expect progress in
> applying them to important problems. With full nanotech we can have
> high levels of AI and direct brain computer interfaces for effective
> intelligence expansion.
>
> All these changes seem likely to occur long before we could see
> significant changes to the human genome, enough to create "posthumans",
> which I would think will take several human generations.
>
> Therefore I am not terribly concerned about the current neo luddite
> movement's goals of preserving the genetic purity of the human race.
> I agree that it is a sad and misguided effort and that it will hurt people
> by keeping them from helpful medical interventions which can heal illness,
> improve fertility and give children the best possible start in life.
> But I don't see the technology of human genetic engineering as being
> the primary driver for achieving spectacular human enhancements over the
> next century. For that I think we will rely more on machine interfaces.
>
> Of course, the luddites are probably no happier about someone wiring
> their brain into a computer than they are with someone selectively
> giving birth to a genius child. So there is still a battle to be fought.
> I just don't think this particular one is that important, other than as a
> skirmish which will help establish the initial battle lines and alliances.
>
> Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:42 MST