Re: A vision

From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Sun Jul 13 2003 - 05:58:01 MDT

  • Next message: Robert J. Bradbury: "RE: Number of carbon atoms in the Earth's biomass"

    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