From: Greg Burch (gregburch@gregburch.net)
Date: Sun Jan 05 2003 - 07:18:03 MST
[Please excuse the lengthy quoting for context]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brett Paatsch
> Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 4:04 AM
>
> Damien Broderick wrote:
> > Greg Burch:
> >
> > > Is it the same piece that I and others addressed here:
> > >
> > > http://www.extropy.org/ideas/journal/previous/2000/01-04.html
> > >
> > > 3 or 4 years ago?
> >
> > Yep. http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/99jan.htm#_Toc456110960,
> > which you cite
> > at the top, looks identical.
>
> I agree. And I feel like a newbie again swimming in data.
>
> I read the post in the subject header for the first time this
> morning and liked it because I thought it was provocative and
> mistakenly thought it was new. The misreference to Daisy the
> clone had me perplexed though, I didn't recall any Daisy, and
> I've followed that area reasonably closely, and read Wilmut
> et als book "The Second Creation".
>
> Anyway, having gotten all excited about the possibility of
> some genuinely thorough and constructive analysis I find the
> material been gone over and therefore probably some of the
> fiercer minds
> will be reluctant to take it up again. What a bummer!
>
> I just read the link Greg refers to (above top), not
> forensically, but close enough I think. I have to say, or
> rather choose to say, (as a relative newbie to both
> transhumanism and Extropian thought) it is *still* my
> suspicion that there is much in Toth-Fejel's criticisms that
> could be "valuably" considered. That's a vague statement I
> know but I'm wrestling now in part with the bandwidth of the medium. .
>
> Unlike Greg Burch, I saw Toth-Fejels comments on first
> impression as constructive and coming from an independent
> thinker and ally not an opponent. I thought, "Great! There's
> nothing like criticism to make a good thing better."
>
> For the record Greg, (having now read your Dialogue
> Concerning Transhumanist and Extropian Ethics) I'm with you
> on the theist/atheist dimension (unless you've changed your
> mind) but I don't think any,
> correction all, of Toth-Fejels points, or anyone else's, when
> they are so well put together, can be summarily dismissed.
I suppose I might have sheathed my rhetorical claws a little more, but I
sensed more negativity toward "the transhumanist/Extropian tradition" in
the entirety of Toth-Fejel's piece than any particular point he made
reveals. This comes mainly from two items in his post. First is "the
Nazi move" -- Having had my nose poked into transhumanism per se for a
decade (and far longer, without that label), I tire quickly of "the Nazi
gambit" when discussing human augmentation. I find that it's almost
always not the expression of a thought-out analysis of questions raised
by transhumanist technologies, but rather is either a simple emotional
reaction or, worse yet, a conscious rhetorical ploy. After all this
time, when I sense "the Nazi gambit," I scramble all fighters and smoke
as many of the enemy's planes as I can.
Second, it bothered me that Toth-Fejel quoted the Transhumanist
Principles and not the Extropian Principles, and also gave little (in
most cases) or no (in others) credit to the significant amount of
thought that's already gone into the questions he raised. It's one
thing, like Fukuyama apparently recently has, to "discover" the concept
of transhumanism and be shaken by the implications, but not to be aware
that there's a group of really bright people who have been thinking
about these issues in depth for a long time. It's quite another to have
done enough research to come across Anders' web site and the
Transhumanist Principles, but to still take the rhetorical position that
these Big Questions Need to be Addressed -- as if the author is a lone
voice sounding the alarm in the wilderness. This was one of the things
that bothered me so much about Bill Joy's alarmism. In this regard,
Toth-Fejel's piece exhibits just a pale shadow of the problems Joy's
jeremiad had: "Oh no! We're about to be able to change HUMAN NATURE!
Better be careful!" Taking the issues seriously on the one hand,
without acknowledging and dressing the existing literature on the
subject on the other hand, seems to me to be disrespectful of the people
who've devoted themselves to these questions at worst and superficial at
best. Thus, Toth-Fejel's article triggered in me a desire to set the
record straight and let his readers know that there was a large body of
existing literature addressing the questions he raised.
A last point also probably played a role in my reaction to Toth-Fejel's
article way back when. When I read it, I did a little research on the
author and discovered that he is a devout Catholic. That's fine and his
business, of course, but learning that made me question the sincerity of
the tone in the article in question. How can someone who holds the
beliefs he does address the subject of the fundamental re-engineering of
human nature without mentioning the Big Guy in the Sky?
> I read you paper "Extropian Ethics and the Extrosattva" a
> couple of months ago and thought it was very good. I didn't
> think your
> initial response to Toth-Fejel was of the same high standard.
An authorial comment years after the fact: The two pieces were of a
completely different nature. I took Toth-Fejel's article as a challenge
to some basic ideas I have developed after a lifetime of study and
thought, and wrote in my response with a much more rhetorically
aggressive and responsive tone. The "Extrosattva" essay, on the other
hand, was an attempt to set out my ideas about ethics and morality in an
affirmative, "stand-alone" way.
> Partly so you know I've read the paper, but mainly because it
> is an unusual viewpoint and one I'm inclined to myself, I draw your
> attention to a statement you made (its page 45 of 52 on my
> printout. Within Dialog part 1):
>
> You said (then):
>
> "(Unlike many transhumanists) I think an "objective" morality is
> possible, and thus that moral axioms are not "unprovable" in the
> sense that they are not derived from empirical observation
> and experiment".
>
> Does Extropian Ethics and the Extrosattva represent your most
> developed thoughts or public thoughts on this subject? I ask
> because I want to know where the frontiers lie in your view
> and because I want to gauge whether new efforts in this area should
> be a priority.
It is my most developed public thoughts on the subject, because my
professional work in the last few years has taken me away from being
able to write about ethics at the level I'd like to be able to. I've
certainly thought more about the questions presented there, and I can
say I haven't changed my views substantially: I still find that there is
a foundation in game theory and evolutionary psychology for an objective
morality. Returning to the subject with the seriousness and commitment
it requires is one of my fondest desires, but I'm afraid I can't for the
time being. I'd be very interested in work done by anyone else in that
direction!
Greg Burch
Vice-President, Extropy Institute
http://www.gregburch.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST