Re: Thinking the unthinkable: taboos and transhumanism

From: Phil Osborn (philosborn2001@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Aug 10 2003 - 15:55:29 MDT

  • Next message: Greg Burch: "Test -- ignore"

    At the annual SIGGRAPH conference, there used to be a
    large, robust SIG KIDS section, featuring actual live
    kids who had done something interesting in digital
    media. As press, I spent some time interviewing these
    kids and writing about what they had created.

    Then, one year the SIG KIDS area, which had been open,
    like all the rest of SIGGRAPH, to the general
    attendees, suddenly had a literal fence around it,
    with guards. When I asked how I could enter the area
    to collect material for my article, I was told simply,
    "you can't. Under no circumstances will you or anyone
    else be allowed to enter the area or speak with any of
    the kids."

    It turned out, on examination, that the decision to
    seal off the SIG KIDS are had been made because of
    concerns that some child molestor might take advantage
    of the situation - this being shortly after that
    little girl was molested and killed in the bathroom in
    Las Vegas. I asked if there had been any incidents to
    date at SIGGRAPH that would suggest reason for
    concern, and was told, no.

    SIGGRAPH is a professional conference that attracts
    tens of thousands of attendees from all over the
    globe. You don't get into the conference unless you
    are a professional with ID, and, unless you are press
    or a lecturer, etc., you pay substantial bucks as
    well.

    Not to say that some child molestor might not be
    tempted, but there are much softer targets, I'm
    certain, than SIGGRAPH, where there was constant close
    adult supervision well before the fence was erected.
    The kids participating did not generally come from
    some cloistered high-security paradise, either. Prior
    to and after SIGGRAPH, I'm sure that they walked
    unsupervised around their neighborhoods and the local
    malls, etc., where there would be long periods of time
    when NO adult who knew them would be around.

    These were not generally stupid kids, either, so there
    was less vulnerability in that respect, and, in fact,
    we know that most molestation happens at home and by
    parents, relatives or people known and trusted by the
    parents. The Las Vegas incident was the bolt of
    lightning out of a clear blue sky, a very rare
    occurence.

    When I presented this to an otherwise sane friend of
    mine, however, who was somewhat involved with SIGGRAPH
    decision making, her response was to immediately
    question my motives. Even though she knew that I had
    had years of experience working with kids in schools
    and home schooling settings, and that the focus of
    many of my articles was on the integration of
    computers with education, the fact that I would
    question these security arrangements convinced her
    that I must be secretly planning some dastardly deed.

    I asked her how she could possibly justify the
    security arrangements, in terms of cost/benefit. Her
    response was to fly into a rage, ~"I'm not going to
    watch MY GRAND DAUGHTER raped and murdered in some
    bathroom. The security at SIGGRAPH even now is
    minimal at best and should be increased! EVERY person
    who has anything at all to do with any child anywhere
    should have a complete background check first. (And
    if you disagree, then you must be a secret molestor.)"

    I wondered if the clerk at the local 7/11 who saw kids
    on a daily basis buying snacks after school had a
    complete background check first, or the paper delivery
    man, or the gardener. Maybe we should all be locked
    up, given that meeting children at the library, the
    mall, the theater, etc., is inevitable, until every
    adult has had a thorough background check. Or, as in
    the SIGGRAPH model, maybe we should just lock up all
    the kids...

    I tried to point out that perfect safety would
    literally be infinitely expensive, and putting every
    cent into that kind of security would mean nothing for
    medicine, medical research, safer cars. I.e., the
    cost of such draconian policies in practice would be
    MORE deaths of children - a LOT more, but any question
    of balance was again invariably met with a question of
    motive.

    On a related note, a huge number of day care centers
    reportedly went out of business as a consequence of
    drastic increased in insurance rates after the
    McMartin Preschool incident, and most people today
    believe that the McMartin's were convicted. In fact,
    they were all acquited, and the ultimate resolution of
    the case pointed unequivocably to the planting of
    suggestions and false memories by the state
    psychologist. None of the underground tunnels in
    which Satanic rituals had allegedly been conducted
    were ever discovered, even though the school grounds
    were thoroughly excavated, etc. Nonetheless, the
    general perception and the hysteria that followed
    resulted in huge insurance hikes and also the
    prosecutions of dozens of innocent people in similar
    cases all over the U.S.

    The next year that SIGGRAPH was in L.A., there was no
    SIG KIDS section. And no raped, murdered children
    there either, to be fair. How many of the kids who
    might have been there and missed out on the experience
    and the development of useful life skills that kept
    them alive later on in life has not been evaluated, of
    course.

    From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
    Date: Fri Aug 08 2003

    .... Something
    is sacred when it is absolute and involable, and the
    mere thought of
    trading it off for some secular value is abhorrent.
    Different
    societies have different sacredness, but all societies
    have it. In
    practice we always have to do trade-offs between
    values. As an
    example, how much do we want to pay for road safety?
    If human lives
    were infinitely valuable to us, we would gladly pay
    all money we
    could for safer roads. But we actually chose (or have
    someone chose
    for us) a finite amount. But actually being tempted or
    forced to
    make these compromises makes us uncomfortable, and
    various escape
    and coping mechanisms (such as 'moral cleansing' where
    people do
    something they consider moral to balance the trade -
    we feel
    contaminated by trading in the sacred). These taboo
    tradeoffs cause
    strong moral outrage, especially among observers. It
    is seen as
    unacceptable to trade something sacred for secular, or
    even to
    consider it.

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
    http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 10 2003 - 16:05:06 MDT