From: Brett Paatsch (bpaatsch@bigpond.net.au)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 22:41:19 MDT
Bryan Moss wrote:
> Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
> > What do you take to be the Yudkowskian Singularity?
>> I am curious if it would overlaps with Eliezer's view of
>> the Singularity.
>
> That's just the term I like to use for the standard Vingean,
> accelerating superintelligence scenario.
Ok. I thought you may have been taunting Eliezer for
a "Reader's Digest" defence. I wouldn't have minded
seeing that myself ;-)
> > [...]
> > There may be *no* effective political place to draw
> > the line for *any* organisation that starts with the
> > priority of confronting individual mortality first, unless
> > that organisation decides to pursue its goal deliberately
> > leaving some part of the human species outside its
> > considerations.
>
> This is a difficult issue. My partial solution is to argue
> that death, as an event, is culturally determined, and to
> ask that our view be given as much consideration as the
> "death is inevitable/desirable" view, under the auspice of
> the prevailing pluralism in society.
> Avoiding senescence would be a choice and a choice that
> casts itself as somewhat arbitrary, rather than a goal we
> apply to all humanity (the "millions of lives will be lost
> unless we cure aging" mentality).
I agree that the line on "millions of lives will be lost unless
we cure aging" is not one that will play well politically. Not
against a background of nations in conflict and when people
are still starving, dying of cancer, aids, etc.
> My own hope is that the tension between wanting to get
> the word out, to secure funding, etc, and wanting a morally
> defensible exclusionary practise (so we don't just seem
> like a bunch of arrogant Westerners who want to live
> forever while half the world is starving) will be alleviated
> simply by elucidating our position.
I think one can have a morally defensible exclusionary practice
in effect by having an opt-in trigger which many will chose
freely not to take. In this way all are invited to share in the
vision but not all will choose to. And some will hold the view
that the current present can give birth to a variety of alternate
futures and they prefer 'their' vision to 'ours' and be willing to
compete hard to secure what they see as the more preferably
mutually exclusive outcome.
Realising goals requires resources and in a contingent universe
the same resource cannot be simultaneously alternatively
deployed. (Though supernaturalists in government will often
attempt to underwrite rights with a currency of resources that
don't actually exist. Eg. The human rights some would ascribe
to embryos -potential persons - can only be purchased at a
reduced capacity to resource the health of sick people - actual
persons.) This makes any actions aimed at putting particular
visions or forging particular futures with social resources
inherently political. And there are no resources, including
private property, that modern political systems will not regard
as at least potentially available for redistribution and
redeployment.
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 21 2003 - 22:46:38 MDT