From: Richard Steven Hack (richardhack@pcmagic.net)
Date: Thu Mar 07 2002 - 21:58:05 MST
At 12:36 AM 3/8/02 +0100, you wrote:
>Are our ideas and goals served by ignoring what other people think about
>us or even ignoring them? I would say definitely no to that.
I would say definitely yes.
>In fact,
>this tendency to regard "us" transhumanists as the enlightened few who
>"get" it and the rest as either uneducated, mistaken or a luddite
>opposition is one of the factors keeping transhumanist ideas from
>becoming mainstream.
No, what is keeping us from become mainstream is precisely because other
people are either uneducated, unenlightened, Luddite - i.I., human (in the
negative sense of the term).
> If you have already decided the others won't get
>it, you will not think much about ways of helping them get it.
Correct.
> If you
>regard them as irrelevant, you also end up regarding their economic,
>political and research impact as irrelevant.
Not necessarily - that doesn't follow. They are irrelevant in the sense
that what they believe is not relevant. What they do is relevant only in
the sense that we must be prepared to deal with it regardless of what they
do. If they assist us, all good, if not, we deal with it. But it is a
misallocation of resources to try to convince them ALL of the value of
Transhumanism.
I don't see it as a misallocation of resources to *promote* Transhumanism,
as long as we realize that the purpose is to attract those who *can*
understand and who *can* contribute. But trying to convince the world that
Transhumanism is the future will merely relegate us to cult status or
worse, wake the states of the world up to the threat to their existence and
bring down even more oppression.
> Sure, stuff we like may be
>developed by other people, but if transhumanists do not spread their
>ideas the development will be aimed by other memes - memes that most
>likely will be against transhumanist ideals.
We need to spread our memes to those who *can* understand and who
*can* develop what we need. And if necessary we need to find ways to get
the others to develop what we need - by whatever appeals (to greed, or
whatever) work.
>Saying technology is the driver puts the cart in front of the horse. It
>leaves out the circular interplay of technology and culture, and makes
>for a simplistic view that technology will advance of its own and that
>it will create a cultural climate amenable to the things we desire.
It will. In this century, technology will *subsume* culture. Oh, of
course, culture will have its influence initially. And saying that
"technology can advance on its own" makes no sense - obviously there has to
be motivation and intent - whether corporate greed or the love of
discovery; the point is that the research will continue to be done. And it
will influence the culture if people who are interested in that make it so
- such as the special effects in movies, or even the Net games being
discussed in other threads. But I do not assume nor do I require that it
influence the culture enough to make Transhumanism mainstream. That is a
simplistic notion.
>Reading up on the history of technology and ideas is a good way of
>dispelling this simple view.
>
>I have just arrived home from a meeting where I and two fellow
>transhumanists presented our latest book. Not a book obviously screaming
>"transhumanism is good! hack your genes!" but instead showing how the
>debate about genetic engineering have developed the last 30 years and
>what we can learn from it so that the upcoming debate about
>nanotechnology and other radical technologies will not become the
>polarized mess we currently find ourselves in. It was well received by a
>fairly broad bunch of reasonably influential Swedish decisionmakers,
>businesspeople and journalists - exactly the mainstream we seek to
>influence in order to get towards a transhuman society. A small step in
>the right direction, slowly building a case that will help people
>integrate ideas of technological transformation into their worldview.
>But for this to work we have to dress in suits and ties, learn to
>explain why freedom, technology and progress are good things and show
>that our vision is not just realistic but also the right thing to do.
>
And the whole thing will be tossed out the minute it conflicts with their
other basic human drives, such as the fear of death.
> > Those who wish to preserve the "humanism" "in" Transhumanism (as
> > I implied with my Gnostic reference in another post, there isn't any
> > humanism in it, despite whatever 1930's social movements existed) are
> > doomed to failure, because Transhumanism is at its heart a philosophy -
> and
> > especially an attitude - of *transcending* human nature to a *non-human*
> > nature. And as I pointed out in my "fight or flight" comments, human
> > nature (for most people) *cannot* accept the idea that *anyone* is better
> > able to survive than they. It is a primitive, I suspect hard-wired (for
> > most people) response in the brain based on our primate competitive
> > heritage and our evolved reaction to our ability to imagine and
> > conceptually understand our own death (which I don't believe animals can
> > do).
>
>I disagree. You are mixing up the two senses the word human can be used
>in: as denoting homo sapiens, and as denoting the important parts of
>rational subjects.
I do not mix up the terms. Humans can refer to the species as a whole, or
to six billion individuals, each of which behaves somewhere on a wide
spectrum of behavior and belief affected by their genes, their upbringing,
their physical and cultural environment, etc. As for the important parts of
rational subjects, I do not believe Ayn Rand's definition of the term
"human" has been accepted by the scientific community. Most scientists
would agree, I suspect, that man's capacity for conceptual processing is
the distinguishing factor between human and animal. But many would not so
agree. They are probably quite wrong, but the point is there are many
scientists who would disagree. Most scientists would probably define human
using what is strictly known by science and would hesitate to include
aspects of the human mind which are imperfectly understand. Once we get
the neuroscience down, it's another story. But the vast majority of
non-scientists, if asked, would probably be incapable of defining their
humanity except in emotional and religious terms.
> If you look at the original humanist ideas, you will
>find that they are not dependent on the subjects to belong to the
>species homo sapiens - that is just implicitely assumed since there were
>no ๓ther examples around.
I presume you mean by this that the ideas by extension must therefore apply
to Transhumans. I am not sure about this. I suspect not. In any event,
the ideas' applicability would have to be assessed on an individual basis.
I suspect the original humanists really had not idea about Transhumanism in
a concrete sense, and in any event they are so wrapped up in the "human"
(or *their* notion of the human) that they have no clue about what might be
in a Transhuman's nature.
> Pico Della Mirandola's discussion of human
>dignity suggests as a fundamental human trait our ability to change
>ourselves according to our will and knowledge.
"Fundamental" trait? I am not sure about that.
> I hardly expect that you
>seek to remove that trait from yourself as a posthuman.
No, but the trait does not equate to the whole of what it means to be
human. Nor is it certain that such a trait is "fundamental" to humans. In
fact, it the trait is included in Transhumans, and I do expect that to the
case, it is by definition not necessarily "human" at all. If the trait is
motivated by the feat of death, it may be human. If the trait is motivated
by the rational desire for continuity of existence, it may not be a human
trait.
> The humanist
>concept of human is rather an entity with rational abilities, that acts
>as a free moral subject and has the potential to grow - it could just as
>well apply to AIs, aliens or uplifted animals.
Fine, that is the humanist concept, and I have no problem with that. But
that is not what most *humans* mean by the term "human."
>If you regard transhumanism as a move away from humanity, it would be
>interesting to hear what you consider it as a move *towards*, and why
>that move is desirable for human individuals.
It is a move toward invulnerability, invincibility, and hence immortality
(leaving out the question of whether "eternal life" is feasible in the
physical universe). In other words, it is a move toward continuity of
existence - survival. If that is not desirable for humans, I don't know
what is. The fear of death i(and its polar corollary the desire for life)
is the basis of most animal and human reactions. The problem is that
humans still have animal reactions from their evolutionary heritage - the
"fight or flight" syndrome - and most humans display flight response -
which in a human context is the least functional way to insure human survival.
> > Transhumanists are people who, for some reason, either don't have that
> > reaction (because our genes skipped that one maybe) or have consciously
> > identified and overcome it. Such people are at absolute odds with the
> rest
> > of the human race. And trying to change those odds will not work (barring
> > nanotech to directly change everybody else's brain structure - which could
> > happen, I suppose.)
>
>So I guess you don't believe in Christian transhumanists? :-)
I believe that anyone can convince themselves that any mixed-up concept is
correct. After all, as I indicated previously, the Gnostics were
Transhumanists, as were the Taoists, in some sense. But I cannot agree
that a Christian who believes in a personal (or for that matter, an
impersonal) deity can be considered a Transhumanist. There may be people
who call themselves Transhumanists who DO believe such a Christian is
justified in calling himself a Transhumanist. That's their problem. I do
not accept Christians as being Transhumanists regardless of whether they
support nanotech, or life extension, or whatever. Their fundamental belief
structure is based on the fear of death, not on the rational desire to
survive - and that in my view is a fundamental belief of a
Transhumanist. If you're not doing this stuff to survive, what are you
doing it for? Fun? Well, fine, if you develop something I can use and you
do it for "fun", I still get the stuff, so I don't care. But such a person
's spiritual development is flawed, because they do not understand their
nature and their place in the universe and that flaw is contra-survival.
>I think assuming transhumanists to be genetically different or the
>result of some special revelation overthrowing the illusions plaguing
>the rest of humanity is quite premature. It is just a convenient and
>self-congratulatory way of isolating oneself.
It can be, I'm sure. Note that when I say it might be due to "genetic
differences", I merely mean that it is possible (not proven yet, I believe)
that people have varying temperaments and capabilities and predilections
toward certain behavior and attitudes that are a result of their
genes. It's no different than being physically attractive (albeit the
cultural notion of what constitutes physical attraction changes) - the
question is: what do you do with it?
As to "special revelation", this comes when you think seriously about what
it means to say that all values come from life, and that survival is
therefore the primary value. This has *corollaries* - as do the facts of
evolution and the facts of life on this planet and in human society. To
determine the necessary course of action based on this can be considered a
"revelation" - but simply because it *does* become the basis of one's
philosophy. Especially when you consider that the bulk of the human race
has NO CLUE.
> Assuming this you don't
>need to spread your ideas to other people (either they save themselves
>or they are automatically lost). Combined with the idea that people will
>become transhumanists when enough transhuman tech has appeared it means
>you can just sit around waiting for the rapture - there is no point in
>doing anything outwards, not even in enlightened self-interest.
That doesn't follow. I don't believe people will become Transhumanists
when the tech appears (although that *could* happen). Certainly some
people will benefit from new tech without doing anything - I certainly
didn't design and build the computer I'm typing this on. But if I want to
survive, I have to take responsibility for my survival. which means I have
to at least go out and do something to earn the money to buy the tech, or
go out and learn about the tech so I can use it, or (preferably) go and do
something to make the tech precisely because it is not a good idea to wait
around for "humanists" (who are wrapped up in numerous other pointless
issues) to do it.
>I consider this to be a serious mistake. In the past many other groups
>have reached roughly similar ideas - the Czech communists in the late
>30's, the objectivists, plenty of cults - and the results have been
>generally disastrous. The groups that ended up controlling the meme pool
>were those who talked to people, that got involved in society and
>articulated their visions.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
>asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/
>GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
No, the groups that ended up controlling the meme pool were those who
*could* talk to the people because they operated on the same irrational,
emotional basis as most people do. And those who tried to use reason to
oppose those people didn't succeed precisely because of that.
And I think too much is made of this "meme" idea of Dawkins - memes are NOT
physical viruses that suddenly and totally change the thinking of someone
exposed to them. A lot of people talk about memes in a very loose and
logically shoddy manner.
Good post, Anders. Gave me a chance to rant a bit and that always helps
clarify my thinking - :-}
Richard Steven Hack
richardhack@pcmagic.net
--- Outgoing e-mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.332 / Virus Database: 186 - Release Date: 3/6/02
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:50 MST