From: Robin Hanson (hanson@econ.berkeley.edu)
Date: Mon Oct 19 1998 - 11:19:20 MDT
Nick Bostrom suggested that he & I take public our private
conversation about definitions of transhumanism. I proposed:
Transhumanism is the idea that new technologies are likely
to change the world so much in the next century or two that
our descendants will in many ways no longer be "human."
This definition focuses on positive, not normative, beliefs.
To those who think that a definition should focus on normative
beliefs I ask: Why do there seem to be so few people who share
our positive beliefs but not our normative beliefs? That is,
where are the people who believe that big technology-induced
change is coming, and think that is a terrible thing?
I see three possible explanations:
1) People differ much more on normative than positive beliefs.
So most who accept our positive beliefs naturally accept our
normative beliefs. This suggests the above definition.
2) Those who think big bad change will happen prefer to ignore
the future and think mainly about today. Optimists tend to
be more vocal.
3) When thinking about the future, most people succumb to wishful
thinking, and so choose positive beliefs based on normative ones.
So those who think big techno-driven change is OK are willing
to think it will happen. And those who think such change is bad
believe that it isn't likely. Wishful thinking can be partially
rationalized by believing that humanity can stop new technologies
that threaten unwelcome change.
Robin Hanson
hanson@econ.berkeley.edu http://hanson.berkeley.edu/
RWJF Health Policy Scholar, Sch. of Public Health 510-643-1884
140 Warren Hall, UC Berkeley, CA 94720-7360 FAX: 510-643-8614
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:39 MST