From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Sun Jul 13 2003 - 05:58:01 MDT
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 11:47:08PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> There was one thing missing imho. That is how society and people will
> change. How we are to one another is missing. There is a lot about
> technology in the vision but almost nothing about us when you get down
> to it.
True. This is in some sense "deep green transhumanism". When I wrote
this I was not looking at people, but the Big Picture (TM) - always a
dangerous thing to do. I wanted to look at our transhumanist vision from
another angle. We already cover plenty of the technology and human
benefit perspectives, and this is something our critics often attack.
They think we envision a sterile high-tech future where we live like
posthuman gods in towers of diamond and steel and where all of creation
is centered on human desires. This image offends the sensibilities of
many people and makes them see transhumanism as something opposed to the
natural and living.
> There is the statement that many types of life choices will be
> possible and room will be present for all of them. But there is
> nothing about what sort of
> sociol/political/psychological/economic/ethical structures would
> allow/enhance that.
>
> Is just the growth and increase possibilities enough? Or is much more
> required before we expect the growth in abilities actually leads to a
> future we wish to inhabit?
Of course we need more than just growth. What I was really aiming at in
my vision post was to embrace complexity, and show that complexity needs
growth. But it is not enough. I'm planning to write a more full analysis
of the cancer cell/orchid issue, because it is really at the heart of
the problem. The burning of the cosmic commons in Robin's paper is great
growth, but it does not seem to lead to much complexity, just more and
more efficiency at expanding. Here growth and evolution seems to reduce
complexity instead of enhance them. Under what circumstances do we see
an evolutionary radiation and the creation of new niches, and under what
circumstances do we get goo?
The same goes for human societies. We want societies with room for many
life choices - so what kinds of societies produce them, and how can we
compare societies (real and imagined)? Good questions. I have my own
humanist/liberal/libertarian/game theoretical ideas, but I think we need
some new and better metaideas in how to do the analysis.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se 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 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 13 2003 - 06:03:15 MDT