From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sun Jan 06 2002 - 21:59:22 MST
Thanks to Greg for posting this URL:
> http://www.thepublicinterest.com/current/article1.html
I finally got a chance to read it.
It is worth a read my many, if not all.
> Notice three things: 1) he has adopted the terminology of "posthumanity" to
> describe what he warns against;
Yes, at the very end -- but he fails (IMO) to make the case as to
why posthumans are undesirable.
What parent would not want their children to be smarter or more
successful than themselves?
What person entering the Olympic competition would not want to
use the best technologies available? (One wants a level playing
field -- not one where natural genetic abilities *or* individual
opportunities for access to technology or coaching determines victory.)
(But we *know* that isn't what Olympic competitition is all about.)
Constraining humanity will be a difficult strategy and I don't
think this article manages a successful argument for it.
> 3) his unfortunate prescription is government
> regulation of an admittedly unprecedented type and scale. Too bad.
I don't think it is "unprecedented" in scale. I do think it will
be as successful as previous efforts have been (i.e. not much).
I'd also observe that even if he does manage some regulatory
body in the U.S., there are a diverse range of international
opinions on this. Convergent regulatory strategies will be
difficult. And even if they are successful, they are regulating
"small" technologies -- one may think one controls them, but it
is unlikely one ever realy will.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:11:26 MST