From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Sun Jun 08 2003 - 01:19:31 MDT
>> Spudboy100@aol.com writes:
> >
> > Brett, what is disturbing to me is my sense of how few
> > bench researchers have interest in Transhumanism or cryo,
> > or uploading. Maybe its too new a concept for them. Or
> > maybe we are all deluded and everything is hopeless, or
> > maybe there are other answers.
First I think transhumanism and posthumanism have a
surface tension about them that say humanism did not.
It takes a bit of a commitment to punch through the
superficial oddball nature and naming of some of those
groups to get at the essentially sensible propositions that
lie behind the names. Propositions such as that homo-
sapiens are not the end point of evolution but are works
in progress collectively and individually are not that hard
or too radical, imo for most people with a scientific
background to agree with. Nor is it hard to conclude that
technology sensibly applied can improve the human
condition. But what is perhaps harder is to get newbies
to take the time to look beyond the labels that don't
immediately resonate.
Second if a newbie puts a toe in the water to see what
trans-humanists are talking about and they happen to
investigate the wrong list on the wrong day they are likely
to find that much of what is discussed is pretty much the
sort of stuff they could find discussed anywhere. And they
may also ask themselves if they would want their peers to
do a google on them and find what sort of circles and
conversations they are involved in.
Third I encourage folks to remember that there are some
commercial ideas that cannot be posted to an open list
without harming their chances of being realised. There
really is more going on beneath the covers than probably
most realist and I would not be surprised if many trans-
humanists have double lives including plenty of non-card
carrying mainstream scientists and "movers and shakers"
that are interested in getting things done.
But more specifically your question seems to go to why
aren't the bench scientists rallying to the flags that seem
so sensible to those that have already climbed on board.
I think the answer to this is not all that mysterious. First
some of the bench scientists *are* coming around in their
personal capacities but they are weary of being judged
by who they hang out with in their professional capacity.
They worry about the "baggage factor".
This applies even more so for commercial companies
like stem cell companies for instance. Most of the stem
cell CEO's I know are former bench scientists that were
bright enough to have gone out and acquired business and
financial management skills. But in the last few years they
have all undergone something of a ordeal by fire in the
need to acquire political skills as well. If day in and day
out the media is hounding you for controversial political
copy about subjects such as embryonic stem cell research
and you are trying to keep investors in line and your
company focused on achieving political milestones you
simply don't have the time to take on more controversy
that you absolutely have to. Human nature being what it is
I have seen one particular stem cell CEO seek to
differentiate the credible mainstream nature of stem cell
science by contrasting what his company was doing with
the blatantly unethical practices of the Raelians. But before
the Raelians were on the scene his diversion of choice were
the cryonicists. I am pretty sure this particular scientist/CEO
has no deep understanding of cryonics (nor I hasten to add
do I) but by invoking the concept of cryonics and Raelians
in his public speeches he sought to differentiate legitimate
science (what he was doing) from the real oddball science
as he hope the media would see it. People under political
pressure and pressure from investors to deliver against
milestones often find it appealing to offer the press alternative
targets.
The trade off is essentially possible long term gain for short
term relief.
> >
> > When I first climbed aboard the Extropian list, I was
> > hoping to see some scientists promoting Transhumanism,
> > some cosmologists or astronomers writing about new,
> > wondrous, essays; such as Moravec or Tipler. Basically,
> > it ain't happening and I am not sure why this is? But we
> > seem to have a dearth of interested theorists. Harvey
> > Newstrom had a similar question about this last week.
> > I dunno. :-(
I don't quite agree with this. I think the pop science writers
like Broderick and others have done almost as much good as
the bench scientists as you call them in getting the sorts of
memes that are contained in most transhumanist circles
discussed in the public domain.
I think there is a tendency for those who understand science
a little better than average to overestimate the extent to which
"truth" as it is understood in scientific circles matters in the
courts of public opinion. ie. "Truth" is an irrelevance when one
is sick or ones relatives are sick.
Joe and Jane public and Jill and Jack congressman are not
typically scientists. The skills that get Jill and Jack into congress
are not typically the ones that they acquired at the lab benches.
Jill and Jack congressmen can't take lead public opinion and
make better public policy relating to biotechnology unless they
understand it, and for the most part they don't. For the most
part politicians come from the ranks of lawyers, or teachers
or union representatives. Their people skills are good but
their science is generally pretty lousy.
Getting even a few science savvy exceptions into the congress
can make a different. Lord Robert Winston of the English house
of Lords is a science and biology populariser almost of
Saganesque proportions in the UK. And his opinions were
respected and sought out by his colleagues. This helped get the
UK one of the most liberal stem cell research regimes in the
world.
But when Jill and Jack congressman don't have enough science
to lead public opinion quite naturally that take notice of the
opinions of Joe and Jane public. After all if they don't know the
right answer they may as well do the popular thing. So Joe and
Jane public whether they know it or not end up influencing the
sorts of policy that is set at national level on biotechnology.
Now Joe and Jane public have others things on their minds in
their busy lives than "how many angles can dance in a sim" they
care about their aged parents with Alzheimer's and their son
with diabetes and quietly at times though they don't talk about
it much they miss their dead parents and worry about the health
of their friends. They will take faith in religion is their is nothing
else to ease their pain but they will quickly re-organise their
religious beliefs to integrate real technological advances that can
improve the human condition of themselves and their loves ones
if they can find it.
Problem is they are busy and those who are pursuing truth don't
seem to think it is worth taking the time to break down and
simplify the truths so that they can see how what is going on
with stem cells and gene therapy is not something remote and
far away it is something that has the real potential to effect the
lives of them and those they care about.
The meme war is a war for the hearts and minds of Joe and
Jane average. Get Joe and Jane averages attention and the
media will stop lampooning and the politicians will follow the
votes.
What's needed I suspect is an architecture or an infrastructure
for prioritising extropic projects. There are many extropes
and transhumanists that would gladly contribute time within
an architecture of general societal improvement if they were
convinced that one could be constructed and one does not
have to be a 2003 polymath equivalent of a Leonardo Da
Vinci to make a real contribution. But the architecture is
important to make people look out a little further than they
currently do. To make things less of a zero sum game. The
architecture I suspect needs to take into account patents,
and politics, and international law.
I take as a basic premise that most transhumanist are more
concerned about their own survival than about the survival
of strangers. This throws up a problem. Transhumanists
fall into a number of different ages categories. It could be
that for the average 60 year old or greater the most sensible
effort for them would be a massive scientific push to try and
make cryonics work (as well as possible) and to be as socially
acceptable as possible. If one is 30, perhaps the priority is
in winning funding and research into stem cells and nanotech
because that might avoid the cryonics thing all together.
If one is in ones 20's or younger one may be able to spend
ones life on the beach or in complete indifference knowing that
motivated others are going to be working their buts of trying
to find solutions that will then be available to you.
Problem is it seems that the interests of the different age
cohorts do not align. The best way to make them align might
be to produce an architecture where the resources of the
many are directed in optimal average fashion but not optimal
personal fashion to the desired outcome. But that is a heck
of an architecture to come up with.
Sorry for the rant I've digressed considerably from your
question.
- Brett Paatsch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 08 2003 - 01:35:16 MDT