From: Michael LaTorra (mike99@lascruces.com)
Date: Fri Sep 22 2000 - 09:28:02 MDT
Emlyn, I've tried to reduce your argument to its essence so we can focus
this discussion as tightly as possible. You wrote:
<snip>
>Don't get me wrong; I don't oppose any of the technologies being developed.
>I take issue only with the top level goals in some cases. Particularly,
this
>goal of godhood leads to an arrogance which I can't condone. It leads to
>believing that you know better than the other six billion people kicking
>around on this planet, and that can direct actions which are not morally
>supportable; for instance, the attempt to build a guardian - I haven't
>noticed any step in the plans for such creations, which involves obtaining
>broad consensus before "flicking the switch".
You are defining godhood as authority presumptively assumed by a powerful
being.
I am defining godhood as the result of empowering technologies that thrust
godly levels of responsibility upon us. We want to achieve every
Transhumanist potential we can, and a by-product of doing so is that we
become like the gods of myth.
I've dealt with the issue of guardians in a previous post. "Who guards the
guardians?" is still the operant concern. You are worried that someone might
create an AI guardian (or perhaps augment themselves to become a Transhuman
guardian) without first seeking consensus or permission. I understand why
you would be worried about this, given humanity's checkered history,
especially in the 20th century, of bloody dictators and their cults of
personality. Yet I see no way to prevent any sufficiently bright, determined
and capitalized person from doing what you fear. What to do?
>Also, we are playing with fire...<snip>
We should fight fire with fire. If we cannot prevent anyone else from
achieving godly levels of power and abusing that achievement, then WE must
strive to achieve it and use it rightly.
>It's been discussed on the list just how dangerous some of the
>coming technologies are (ai, nanotech, etc), and if you go over the posts,
>you'll see that most of the danger is attributed to use of that technology
>by humans infected with the God meme. People who think that they know
better
>than everyone else, who feel justified in producing externalities (like
grey
>goo).
The God meme was not behind the monumental crimes against humanity committed
by the Communists and Nazis. Quite the opposite, in fact. What you are
actually worried about is the human capacity for evil. Evil acts are always
justified by appealing to whatever meme is most handy, whether that is "the
people" or "the race" or "God." Eliminate your fixation on the God meme,
substitute human evil for it within your argument, and it appears that your
concerns (and presumed solution) becomes essentially the same as Bill Joy's.
Am I correct about that? Do you think we should relinquish AI, nanotech, and
genetic engineering? Or am I not presenting your ideas correctly?
Regards,
Michael LaTorra
mike99@lascruces.com
mlatorra@excite.com
3229 Risner Street
Las Cruces, NM 88011-4823
USA
505.522.5121
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:07 MST