From: Nicq MacDonald (sehkenenra@netzero.net)
Date: Sat Jul 19 2003 - 12:58:40 MDT
> To be perfectly frank, the reason I've had a hard time committing myself
> to act on transhumanism in any meaningful way is that I've had an
> extremely hard time figuring out how and why to do that.
Same here. I've been struggling with that as well.
> Many people here have already pointed out the problems of deterministic
> optimism; many Marxists (deterministic optimists of a very different
> breed) used to call this the philosophy of the "obstetrician": if all goes
> as normal, the revolution is inevitable; so all we can do is get ready for
> it. Get people used to the idea. Hold hands. If, by some chance, an
> emergency arises that looks like it's going to threaten the outcome, by
> all means, fix it, if you can. But other than that, all that's left now
> is cheerleading... don't knock yourself out over it.
Bertrand Russell once pointed out that Marxism is remarkably similiar to
Christianity, at least in it's eschatology. Damien pointed out in "The
Spike" that "Singulatarianism" can go in that direction as well if we're not
careful.
Ray Kurzweil was recently interviewed by the new age magazine "What is
Enlightenment?", a magazine that, between the hilarious adds for cosmic
foo-foo, actually contains some interesting and thought-provoking articles.
In this latest issue, there was a long article about eschatology through the
ages, which lead me wonder if each level of psychological development (in a
system such as the Clare Graves model, or Spiral Dynamics, which many list
members are familiar with) doesn't have it's own version of the eschaton:
Red- A destructive apocalypse that destroys everyone, only the strongest
survive- Ragnarok.
Blue- A destructive apocalypse that destroys the infidels but elevates god's
chosen people to immortality- the Christian Apocalypse. Alternately,
society could degrade to a point at which it becomes impossible for
individuals to liberate themselves, and a savior must redeem the world-
Buddhism's notion of the Maitreya.
Orange- Through the use of rational science and technology, life can be
improved exponentially. However, we eventually hit a curve leading towards
infinite progress- the singularity. Alternately, there's the negative
version of this- the Marxist view, in which the consolidation of capital in
the hands of the few and massive unemployment eventually leads to a
proletarian revolution.
Green- ??? (The marxist theory could apply here as well- but green has a
more "spiritual" side to it as well)
Yellow- ??? (Ken Wilber mused about a sort of Yellow Eschaton in last year's
"Boomeritis"- speaking of which, I never wrote a review of it for the
list...)
Of course, is this sort of thinking healthy, or is it the manifestation of
some sort of pathology? As I've pointed out to people before, just because
a behavior is exhibited almost universally throughout history doesn't make
it correct- slavery, belief in a personal god, or astrological divination
come to mind.
> Eliezer has at least claimed to adopt a position something like this...
> though I note that he still seems to find time to read a few web comics
> every now and again, and perhaps watch a bit of anime. Still, we have to
> assume that Eliezer and others like him are at least trying to be ascetic;
> maybe they already are at least "maximalist" ascetics if one considers
> one's own present willpower as a limitation which we work to overcome.
It appears that he also takes time to post to the extropy list and write
short stories. Judging by "Non-Player Character", I'd say he's logged more
than a few hours playing CRPG's, which are among the biggest time-burners
I've ever encountered. And it wouldn't suprise me if he likes to crack open
a novel or two from time to time.
> And, of course, aside from that, we'd have to worry about an extremely
> non-extropian alternative: fatalism, here employed in all the negative
> senses. We're going to die at the normal time [or sooner], no matter what
> we do, so why bother working to overcome it? Why shouldn't extropians
> just "get over our fear of death" and come to terms with life as it is, as
> some people wish we would?
Extropians are generally very "orange-meme", to use the term from Spiral
Dynamics, and therefore very egocentric- not in the violent, carelessly
selfish "red" way, but in the way of the ethical individualist. Facing
death is generally out of the question to egocentrists, in a similiar manner
to the green tendency to not want to face their inherent narcissism, or the
blue tendency to not want to face the fact that their religious beliefs are
based, at heart, on a pious lie. Of course, might facing death and getting
over one's fear of it make one more productive, happier, and more sensible?
> So I've just listed three extremist philosophies: fatalism, asceticism and
> obstetrecianism. Each one advocates a radically different attitude
> towards how we should live our life: fatalism suggests that we all need to
> see therapists immediately, develop a family, and live for today while
> building a legacy as we plan for retirement. Obstetricianism suggests
> that we plan our lives as if we are already immortal today: invest in the
> extremely long term by taking few risks, acquring lots of money and saving
> it, and advocating the future. Asceticism tells us to abandon our earthly
> pursuits and to work. Hard.
Maybe we need to recognize all three approaches- realizing the future will
require hard work (Asceticism), long-term planning and advocacy
(Obstetricianism), and a sane, realistic approach to the near-term
(Fatalism).
> As everyone keeps saying, obstetricianism may have seemed more plausible
> in the 90s, but in the last few years it's grown to look pretty dingy.
> And, more to the point, it's unproductive. Yet, when Bryan says this:
It was always unproductive, but I also think most of the doom and gloom
we're seeing today is a bit misguided and premature. If one looks at
economic growth curves, they ultimately follow an upward trend, but not
without going through spectacular leaps and falls that deviate strongly from
the median trend. Look at the American 20th century- it's ultimately a tale
of depression and wars punctuated by booms and major social and
technological changes, yet all ultimately on an upward trend of growth.
Even with the economic lull we're in right now, the foundation is being laid
for the next "revolution"- not nanotech or biotech, but ubiquitous wireless
computing and virtual reality- the "second information revolution", if you
will. Whenever I see someone carrying a loaded, gimmicky cell phone, I
remind myself what a PC in 1980 was capable of. When I see the latest 3d
online games, I'm stunned by how far graphical realism has come in the past
few years. We're within a decade of Stephenson's "Metaverse"- a digital
world of mobile wearable interfaces that allow anyone to "plug in", anytime,
anywhere. Of course, this could be a mixed blessing.
> What's funny is, a lot of fears could be alleviated if we just admitted
> how difficult this stuff is. Designer babies? Not likely!
In the age of glowing rabbits and super mice? Designer babies aren't as far
away as you might want to think.
> as a sort of "antidote" to obstetricianism, I know I can't help but think
> to myself that if he's right, and the ultratechnologies are as "unlikely"
> as he suggests (or even conceptually confused) and that most of it was
> "hype", asceticism is no way to spend one's life.
There are a lot of ways to spend one's life, and what's right for one person
isn't right for another.
> To use Eliezer as an example again, (never merely as a means, I promise,):
> last I checked, Eliezer has no girlfriend and no intention/expectation of
> even seeking one, no job except for pursuing the Singularity, no pleasures
> except for those he takes with some measure of guilt/remorse. (That
> feeling you get in the back of your throat... I might be having it now as
> I write this.)
Among my friends, I count about eight CS/CE students between the age of 19
and 25 (Eliezer's age group), and what I know of Elie's lifestyle doesn't
strike me as very different from these guys. None of them are currently
dating, only two of them have ever had girlfriends, and they generally don't
spend much time pursuing them. They spend most of their time either
working, hacking code, arguing on message boards, or playing computer games.
Only one of them seems to have any interesting asperations (and his is to
get in on the next tech boom and use the money he makes in that field to
attempt a privatized colonization of Mars).
Now, Elie may/may not have a bigger guilt complex than these guys regarding
how he uses his time. (I'm inclined to think that, judging by Elie's sense
of humor, he plays up the guilty conscience for our entertainment) I
somehow doubt that his asceticism is as extreme as you make it sound, nor
does it seem strange to members of the Wired generation who spend a lot of
time around CS students and hackers.
> This is all fine if that works... nobody said asceticism would be easy.
> but if the Singularity is "hype", then an ascetic lifestyle devoted to it
> would be beyond absurd: it would be a tragedy. Perhaps it would be a
> noble tragedy, if the work of the ascetic laid the groundwork for grand
> improvements in the lives of our descendents, after everyone alive today
> is dead. But if the ultratechnologies are *just* "hype", then it wouldn't
> even be that.
Last summer I submitted a post on an Extropian look at Pascal's Wager.
Really, in my mind, no lifestyle is tragic or absurd as long as it is the
one you choose and you're not (purposefully) harming others. And, as I put
in the post, if the work is done in vain, what has truly been lost, if there
is no purpose to life? Not much of anything. It may seem that it takes a
rather heroic individual to make that gamble, but when one looks at it from
the perspective of a nihilist, it doesn't seem a gamble at all, just a
choice. And when one looks at the hardships endured by humans throughout
history, Elie's "sacrifices" look pretty minor, and only tragic in a comedic
sense.
Not that I don't admire Eliezer, I certainly do, and I like to think that
the future is more in his hands than in the hands of George W. Bush or Hu
Jintao. But time will tell.
> Basically, I've figured out how to be an obstetrician, because it's
> stupidly easy. Anyone can do it. But I can't be an ascetic so long as
> there's a better than even chance (from this side of the fence) that I'm
> really an obstetrician or that we're all doomed.
Anyone can say "I believe in God", but few can shave their heads and take
the vow of silence. The question is, which one gets you to heaven?
> In the meantime, I work a fulltime job doing stuff unrelated to the
> Singularity (but I'm still young) ... and wait ... and cheerlead.
I'm still in the position of being unsure what to do with myself. I still
have two more years to go on my BA- I'll graduate in Spring of 2005 with a
degree in Philosophy and Political Science. Whether or not there's anything
really extropic out there for me to do is questionable (or any job out there
for me, period).
> I hinted at the answer above, but it should seem obvious now what it must
> be: all of the positions I've described are "extreme." None of them are
> balanced against the other; all of them are taken to their "logical
> conclusions." It's clear that there needs to be a middle ground, a
> sliding scale. Get used to working part time and perhaps I'll find it
> more fulfilling than I realize; maybe I'll get hooked and become an
> ascetic instead.
I think the balanced approach is the way to go. Too many people scorn the
middle path, whether it be in politics, spirituality, or life in general,
even though it seems, after much observation, to be the sanest approach of
all.
> Perhaps my imagination is simply drained, but it's hard to see what kind
> of work I can usefully do in my free time, to contribute to the
> ultratechnologies. Bryan was completely right when he said that they
> "cast a vast, ominous shadow over any attempt at practical action." For
> example, I respect the Free State Project, but it's a rather long shot
> that it'd bring the Singularity much closer. It's a lot easier for me to
> imagine ascetic life paths than it is for me to think of a way to usefully
> contribute in my spare time.
If the Free State Project will even succeed at all is questionable at this
point. I'm less than optimistic about the project, although I am,
admittedly, intrigued by it.
> I have sent a few extra dollars to ExI, and the Singularity Institute...
> I just sent a few more as I think about it. But it's not the same.
More than I've done. Money's a bit tight for me right now though, being
unemployed for the past month.
> Hopefully, I'm just not clever enough to see the other options. Any
> suggestions?
I could use some too.
-Nicq MacDonald
"For centuries our race has built on false assumptions. If you build a
fantasy based on a false assumption and contine to build on such a fantasy,
your whole existence becomes a lie which you implant in others who are too
lazy or too busy to question it's truth." - Michael Moorcock
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 19 2003 - 13:09:38 MDT