From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Apr 25 2002 - 01:09:44 MDT
Dan Fabulich wrote:
>
>
> But I'm not 100% confident that *either* goal is attainable w/in my
> lifetime, or, for that matter, at all. If I could assume that human
> civilization would continue for an arbitrarily long amount of time,
> I'd be more confident that the Singularity would happen *someday*;
> that *some* generation of human beings will survive. But I'm not sure
> I can even count on that.
>
Well, you can't count on it. But if you so choose, you can do
what is possible for you to do to make it a reality sooner if it
is possible at all. Unless one believes that Singularity is
inevitable even without effort, Singularity depends on enough
people so choosing.
> What I'm responding to is the widespread notion that, since the
> Singularity is a fantastical notion and immortality research is
> nothing more than a pipe dream in a vacuum, I should plan my life as
> if I'm going to die. That means, in part, that I should try to create
> meaning in the brief few decades available to me; make sure that I'm
> adequately happy now (because I won't be able to postpone my
> satisfaction for even 120 years) and make life better for people I
> care about in other less lofty ways.
>
If you can in fact be truly happy and satisfied with only that,
then go for it! I and most here do not find it satisfying at
all and cannot find true happiness in so limited a view.
>
> In fact, I think I can suggest a plausible reason as to why the
> selfish-split is such a natural notion for ordinary people with a
> dayplanner: reaching a large selfish-split is basically rational
> behavior for people who believe that every human generation will die.
>
Great. So how do we become more than human? What is the use of
selfish striving for momentary pleaures only to see it all
irrevocably crumble to dust for yourself, for all of those you
know and for all your children generation after generation as
long as humanity exists? There is no happiness in such a hard
limit. There is only the fake happiness of temporarily
pretending that it does not exist or forgetting this knowledge.
> First, notice that even a person who believes that they should be
> purely altruistic will only reduce their own personal satisfaction to
> the point where their altruistic productivity is maximal; miserable
> people, overworked people, and people with no hope of personal gain
> tend not to accomplish as much as those who are basically happy and/or
> hopeful about their own well-being, all else being equal.
>
A fully altruistic person would take care of themselves as they
will not be of maximal benefit otherwise. No? There is nothing
wrong with enjoying oneself. Nothing at all. The question is
what one finds truly enjoyable and leading to maximal happiness
and well-being. I don't believe that most people ultimately
find that that ends at their own skin or at the boundaries of
their family and friends under a belief of ultimately complete
annihilation in a time-period only very modestly under their
control even potentially.
> Second, suppose [as I've read, but don't have data right this second,
> but ask me later] that one's hopes/expectations for the future are the
> among the most significant corelatives with *present* personal
> satisfaction. Suppose that this relationship is causal; I doubt that
> this can be proved (since present happiness probably also influences
> us to be optimistic), but it seems plausible to me.
It is certainly empowering to believe that one can make some
real difference and that more is possible than a life relatively
brutish and short for not only oneself but everyone forever.
>
> That means that altruistic people who think they can make it to
> Singularity, who think they can, therefore, postpone their personal
> satisfaction until after Singularity, will tend to be considerably
Working for Singularity and other positive improvements is not
about postpoing one's satisfaction in the least. This sort of
work *is* one's satisfaction! What could be more satisfying
than helping change the state and destiny of humankind for the
better? Seen in the proper light, this is pure joy.
> happier *now* (all else being equal) than people who think that every
> generation of humans will eventually die, because Singularitarians
> have very high expectations for their future and the future of those
> they care about.
>
People are generally happier when they see that what they do and
how they be actually can make a real difference.
> But saying that Singularitarians would be happier now *all else being
> equal* implies that one of the factors being kept equal would be work
> spent on present personal satisfaction. That means that altruistic
> Singularitarians can take fewer actions towards their own current
> personal satisfaction than altruistic fatalists *and be just as
> happy*.
>
I don't see that your suggestion holds or that the personal is
necessarily separate from that which makes a difference for all
of us. I find I am much healthier to the extent that taking
care of myself and what I personally need blends more thoroughly
with making a difference for all of us. As one of "us" I
don't have to choose between "me" and "others" in the classical
Western ethical conundrum.
I don't believe that true fatalist can be truly happy. Because
true fatalism would lead to the notion that nothing matters or
makes any real difference at all. It runs straight into nihilism.
> That suggests to me that Singularitarians, all else being equal,
> should be able to trade off more present personal satisfaction than
> fatalists and still be at their own maximum altruistic productivity.
>
> Note: Although altruistic Singularitarians wouldn't need to work as
> much to promote their own present happiness, they would still have to
> work some; I'd expect they'd still have to work pretty hard on their
> own self-interest to maintain their highest levels of productivity
> [when compared with, say, an AI].
Productivity is not a free-floating goal. Happiness and
self-interest aren't free-floating either. Sometimes we get in
trouble because we chop the continuity of our lives, our being
and becoming, up into seemingly discrete word/concepts. The
reality is not so discrete or divisible.
Effective life as measured in true happiness and well-being is
the "goal". It is not necessarily a contest between that for
oneself or for oneself in the present moment and for all of us
and for the future. Moment by moment we seek to live fully
individually and collectively, now and in the creation of our
future. The fences of our words can get in the way of the being
and doing.
> Furthermore, as they spent all their time imagining that they could
> postpone their own happiness to later, their lives will have been
> qualitatively less happy, less fulfilled, and less worthwhile.
>
This is refuted above.
> [Think how frustrating it would be to know that you've spent all that
> time working on CATAI and now GISAI/CFAI, only to learn that in 2003
> human civilization and all your work would be destroyed in nuclear
> war.]
>
Why? Why would fully engaging in life including fully engaging
in the expansion of life and its possibilities be something you
would ever regret? How could you feel fully alive without this?
> Also note that we should expect our basic evolutionary strategies to
> be fatalistic; fatalism has been basically correct for the entire
> history of life on Earth, so planning like a fatalist probably tended
> to work out best for our ancestors. Of course, the productivity gain
Hardly. The fatalists did not dream of greater possibilities or
work to make them realities. Fatalism is literally doom.
>
> That brings me back to my original question, which you may now
> understand better: do I stand a good chance of influencing the
> Singularity, or a slim chance? If I stand a slim chance of affecting
> the probability or safety of the Singularity, then I should plan my
> life like a fatalist: if Singularity happens, great, but if not, I've
> planned ahead. If I DO stand a good chance of influencing the
No, you haven't "planned ahead". You have talked yourself into
the notion that you don't need to do anything to make the future
you desire more likely because you reason that believing there
is no better future and that you really can't make one will
actually make you happier. This looks to me like a tremendous
rationalized psychic knot that cannot help but drain you of
happiness and effectiveness if you truly follow its implications.
> Singularity, then I should plan my life in a radically different way.
> (Of course, at the end of the day, there are degrees, and I'll
> probably be adopting some fraction of both strategies, but I still
> think it's worth asking whether I need to be mostly fatalist, mostly
> optimistic-Singularitarian, or something else entirely.)
>
I would vote for something else that ends the conundrum.
> So I keep on wondering: which is it? Will I personally matter a lot?
> Or a little?
>
You will matter however much you matter and however much you
realize what it matters and what it means to matter. (say that
ten times fast)
One of the things that seems to get in the way of many of us at
least some of the time is being so busy "looking in the
rear-view mirror" at how we are doing or appear to be doing that
we don't put so much energy into our actualy living. To me,
what matters is not how much I am personally responsible for or
credited with. What matters is that I am fully engaged in
living life to the max. This of necessity includes improving
and extending life and its possibilities for self and others.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:39 MST