From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Mon May 06 2002 - 15:54:04 MDT
> Hal Finney wrote:
> > Attempts to cast this technology as demonic or threatening to human nature
> > are bound to fail. If people can become comfortable with technological
> > integrations that effectively expand human capabilities and potential,
> > then perhaps biological enhancements will seem less threatening as well.
> >
> > We've got these two major parallel paths into a posthuman future.
> > The burden is on the neoluddites to block them all, or their program
> > will have failed. Ultimately I continue to believe that our side has
> > an overwhelming advantage in the dispute.
Mike Lorrey replied:
> The technologies that will create the new revolution in individual
> liberty in this century pose a similar threat to the power structures
> and aristocracies in control today as the crossbow did back then. They
> will similarly outlaw them, and use their ability to mold public opinion
> to create a consensus opinion that these technologies are evil
> incarnate, a violation of human nature, and that anyone that uses or
> promotes them deserves to be treated in the worst sort of way.
I'm not sure exactly which technologies you are referring to, but if
you're talking about human genetic and technological augmentation then
I don't see your point. What is it about these technologies which is a
threat to the power structures? How is that that letting people connect
more efficiently to the net, or expand their strength and intelligence,
is a danger?
The usual concern is the opposite, that these technologies will be harmful
in that they will be more available to the wealthy and powerful since
they will probably be expensive initially. The worry is that the poor
will be left behind and the existing power structures will become even
more entrenched.
By this argument, government has a heavy incentive not to outlaw new
technologies, but to do everything it can to encourage them. Government
functionaries and their wealthy contributors are the ones who will see
the greatest benefits.
> We HAVE to act now. We need to dedicate our time, our money "and our
> sacred honor" to this cause. Fence sitters, armchair quarterbacks,
> whiners and lollygaggers are a drag on the cause. "Now is the time that
> tries men's souls" and all that, and summer soldiers and sunshine
> patriots just won't get the job done.
I think a good test case is the currently pending legislation to outlaw
so-called therapeutic cloning, the Brownback bill. If this passes
it will be a sign that our government representatives are willing to
restrict research that could save their own lives and it should indeed be
a wake-up call to our community. But by the same token, if it fails, as
I predict it will, it should be taken as a sign that for all the rhetoric,
legislators ultimately will vote to further their own self interest, and
that means supporting research that can enhance human lives.
The "killer app" for genetic technology is not greater intelligence
or strength. It is long life. If we can develop a treatment to
substantially extend the healthy human lifespan, nothing will stop us.
Fukuyama can yammer all he wants about how such a thing would be a
tremendous change to the historical view of human nature, and he's
right; humans with a 150 year healthy lifespan would be a clean break
from the past. But it wouldn't matter. No one would pass this up.
Rather than being forbidden, it would be subsidized and made available
to everyone, if the technology permitted it (at least in Western countries).
I'll say it again, we have enormous advantages in the forthcoming dispute.
People will always favor life over death.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:51 MST