Michael LaTorra wrote:
<snipped the preceding stuff; not so important, for here is the crux:>
> You may not like the world we have now, Emlyn, or the one we are building.
> But likes and dislikes won't change a thing. Only actions matter. So tell
me
> what you propose, and what you oppose. Does only life-extension suit you?
> Would you oppose true immortality? The same questions apply to the godly
> levels of power and knowledge. Would you want or permit others to have
such?
> Or are you simply unwilling to consider a really unbounded future?
I love the world we have now... it's a crazy place. The very coolest thing
about it, also the root of most of the bad elements (you get that), is the
electrifying rate of global technological, and the social & ideological
change which are necessarily following from this. Every day really is a new
day!
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".
Maybe I should just say "what the hell". After all, the more high and mighty
the top level goals of a particular effort, the less likely they are to
succeed, I'd intuit, and the failed journey will most likely have
marvelously useful side products.
This is a time of unparalleled change, and will look like a walk in the park
next to the times to come. It is a time for humility in our approach, and
special concern for the other beings that inhabit the planet; as it becomes
easier for the few to ignore the wishes of the many, it becomes no more
tolerable to do so.
Also, we are playing with fire - well, actually fire is a baby's toy
compared to the stuff we are messing with now. It's not a good time to get
complacent and arrogant - "we are as gods, ha ha ha!". It's time to be more
humble than ever, to be open-system, to take in information from our
environment. 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).
To your question - the whole point of not supporting the God meme, is that I
don't feel I'm in any position to permit/deny any particular course of
action to anyone (although of course I can defend my own interests, when
threatened by people who would unleash externalities on me). I don't think
that anyone else has any higher claim, either. We are a bunch of brainy
monkeys, or lizards, depending how you look; we are all fallible, and always
will be, to some extent.I'm not proposing to limit the future, I'm
recommending a particular attitude to take with you into that future;
recognise your essential finite nature. Fight against it, but never assume
you've won.
I probably don't need to ramble on about this. The rate of change increases,
and as it does, the need for openness and humility will become more evident
to everyone, or everyone who is keeping up. Gods today, dead next week.
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:40 MDT