From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Sat Dec 07 2002 - 12:12:43 MST
Anders Sandberg wrote:
> And people disagreeing with us on the fundamental
> values of transformation can easily turn the hype into scaremongering.
This, I see as our main problem here. If most people agreed that
tranforming into something better was not only intrinsically desirable
but actually possible within our lifetimes (the classical view, not as
adjusted for future medical science or even such modern technologies as
cryonics and its promise for the future), then such technologies would
have a much easier time being introduced.
In that, I think the main problem is that people do not believe it is
possible to significantly improve themselves using today's technology.
Thus, they dismiss the value of improving themselves, which leaves
openings for anti-transformative memes to invade. If we could find and
promote methods of self-transformation using stuff that is not five or
fifty years out, but which is available *today*, our beliefs would
immediately become a lot more central to the thinking of the masses.
Consider, for instance, the immediate popularity of essentially
self-service applications like Napster (et al) and the Web. What of,
say, memory or ettiquite aids, which could record what was said for
later viewing (first version just gets the raw text, later on add an
option to distill it into the concepts and specific facts the person
needs to remember), and/or prompt with responses when someone is not
sure what to say in commonly encountered situations (especially affairs
of the heart, or in cases where a lot of money is on the line)? Or
cheap (sub $10,000 total) CNC machines and CAD/CAM software, the closest
thing we have today to household replicators? Et cetera. Those are
possible without fundamental breakthroughs in science; it is up to us to
make and promote such devices, and more importantly, the potential that
their class holds.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:36 MST