From: Brett Paatsch (bpaatsch@bigpond.net.au)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 05:59:16 MDT
JDP <jacques@dtext.com> writes:
Giu1i0 Pri5c0 a écrit (23.7.2003/07:43) :
> > This is a good idea, I often thought the same.
> >
> > ### Alex: Regarding 2) A 'guide to Transhumanism
> > for Dummies' would be a very usefull thing. Many
> > people are put off by the apparent Elitist and heavy
> > 'high tech' emphasis of Transhumanism. Generally
> > they run away from the idea because they think it is
> > just for Boffins and nerds with high IQ's and letters
> > after their name.###
>
> I wonder who could write such a thing: if you are
> haunted by doubt and worry regarding our future,
> then you will likely prefer to answer your own
> questions; if you are not, then I doubt your guide
> will be worth reading.
Others would respond to this differently I'm sure but
here's my answer.
A person could conclude that the principle barriers
to there achieving an indefinite life span in their life
time is not that the technological wherewithal is not
available to their generation in time for them to use
it but rather that the principle impediment to actualising
the technologies are political and systemic. They
arise from the structures of our current societies.
Societies where the FDA and the need for clinical
trials put speed limits on the translation of in principle
solutions into purchasable products. Societies where
the intellectual property laws relating to patents are
such that it is incredibly difficult for the various
potential patent holders of various components of
an enabling technology to locate each other and
negotiate control so that the parts of a solution can be
effectively brought together by somebody.
Societies where civil rights are under threat because
clowns in political office are able to manipulate the
media and sell almost any crock to an unsceptical
public.
In Australia recently there was a poll that found that
roughly one third of Australian's though PM Howard
had intentionally mislead them in relation to the
reasons for going to war, another third thought he
had unintentionally mislead them and yet his overall
popularity has increased.
In my view possible the biggest impediment to the
realisation of indefinite lifespans for people in my
life time are that voters with no clue are getting the
governments they deserve.
So, if the problem is mainly that the voters have no
clue then producing some more easily digestible
material (call it propaganda if you wish) to help
them understand what is going on in the policy
setting forums of government is in my interest just
as it is in there.
Will I write a book titled Transhumanism for
Dummies. No, I prefer to work with the brighter
students in the class. I'm more ambitious in the
change I want to leverage. But I'd be happy to
chip in with a chapter or two or respond to specific
requests for assistance from others whom I know
share my values.
Would I like to read at some point when I can find
time chapters on Bayes, written by Eliezer, work
on AI written by Anders, work on ethics written
by Greg - absolutely. And these guys *have* gone
to some trouble to make such papers available,
but selfish time constrained specimen that I am
I would still, all things being equal like to be able
to put my hand on some of these hardy perennials
of transhumanism, just that little bit easier. This would
mean that if I wished to discuss these topics with
others who have done more groundwork I could
spare them some of the rehashing and also spare
myself some searching for a good primer. I could
also point others who I knew to be interested in
these topics to primers with some confidence that
what they would find when they went there would
be quality.
For me the fact of democracy give rise to a need
to increase the savvy of the voter because I don't
see plausible alternatives to democracies coming
within the timeframes I am interested in.
Regards,
Brett Paatsch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 06:05:59 MDT