As you say we all have different information available to us and therefore
reach different conclusions. We can reduce the incidents of disagreement by
developing complete freedom of information. This freedom must include not
only the elimination of confidentiality (all your embarrassing medical
problems are fodder to the future) but also a fully integrated
communications system - if we spend all our time searching for the
information we desire we will have no time to reach our conclusions.
----- Original Message -----
From: Anders Sandberg <email@example.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: SOC: Opposition to Transhumanism
> "D.den Otter" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > ----------
> > > From: Anders Sandberg <email@example.com>
> > > You can be opposed against transhumanism and the things we hold dear
> > > without being fanatic about them.
> > ...but not without being stupid.
> Not at all. I can imagine intelligent and well-educated non-stupid
> people opposing transhumanism too, based on their values and knowledge
> of how the world functions. They are in many ways more troublesome
> than fanatics.
> For example, imagine a sociologist who has studied the incidence of
> burnout in our society who comes into contact with transhumanist
> thinking. He will point out that the psychological effects of the
> tremendous changes and speed-ups we are proposing will lead to burnout
> and psychological distress on a massive scale, maybe so much that
> society will desintegrate. The transhumanists will of course claim
> that this will be fixed by technology , the adoption of transhumanist
> thinking and self-help as well as reconfigurations of human
> psychology. But the sociologist, drawing on his knowledge base in
> social psychology and history, will regard this hypothesis as highly
> unlikely to occur, in fact less likely than the hypothesis that this
> is just transhumanists defending their own worldview (you can do a
> completely correct Bayesian analysis of this situation and come to
> this conclusion - given the priors of the sociologist). We of course
> have slightly different information, and regard the first possibility
> as more likely (even if we should always ask ourselves how much is due
> to possibility two). So in the end he will disagree with us and if he
> considers us dangerous, try to move against us.
> In the above example both sides could try sharing their analysis and
> facts, trying to make an analysis together both could agree on. But
> even worse is if the basic values differ - a person valuing the
> eternal and unchanging would be opposed to us in principle, and there
> is no logical or emotional reason for him to change his values.
> Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
> firstname.lastname@example.org 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:05 MDT