Where do we go from here? Kurzweil's Cyborgs vs. Taleb's Antifragility

[TylerDurden]

Ouch!    Eloquently put...

Actually, I am not one of the "robot people" despite being a progressivist. I was always far more impressed by that energy-being at the end of the film 2001 and those Vorlons and Shadows in the SF TV show Babylon 5. Robots would be too limiting for me.

I will admit that the "increased pasteurisation/cooking" nonsense is part of the downside of "progressivism". On the other hand, if science had not advanced sufficiently,  we would not by now have 1,000s of studies on the extent of the harm done by cooking.`

Re Big Brother/Brave New World:- I hated the world of 1984, but I thought Aldous Huxley's Brave New World was rather utopian, not dystopian. There were a few oddities in that book, such as the supposed need for low IQ factory-slaves in a future that should have been completely automated anyway re production, given the overall technology-level, but then Huxley  couldn't predict everything.

The real problem with the anti-progressive stance is that all technologies  have both positive and negative aspects. It merely depends on how one uses them. For example, nuclear power gave us nuclear weapons and the possibility of nuclear war, but it also, among other things, provided us with nuclear power stations  thus solving energy problems. The solution is simple, hand over as much technology(along with the training/ability/laws to allow use of  it) to individual citizens so that they can  gain control over their own lives to a greater extent than ever before. That would be a splendid, libertarian approach.

[PaleoPhil]

On the other hand, if science had not advanced sufficiently,  we would not by now have 1,000s of studies on the extent of the harm done by cooking.`

Sure, taking the best of both the new and old doesn't mean discarding all science.

The real problem with the anti-progressive stance is that all technologies  have both positive and negative aspects.

Yup, and taking the best of the new and old takes this into account.

The solution is simple, hand over as much technology(along with the training/ability/laws to allow use of  it) to individual citizens so that they can  gain control over their own lives to a greater extent than ever before. That would be a splendid, libertarian approach.

Yup, I like that, and individual energy self-sufficiency might be a good part of that.

[Dorothy]

I think the problem is one of extent. The more we try to manipulate the core of nature like gmo's, create new life forms, new universes in our basements, nuclear power plants and weapons and genetic engineering the more likely big money, power hungry individuals, corporations and governments are to wipe out the human race and the other species if not the earth itself so that we never get the time needed to evolve and mature emotionally and spiritually. We are already too smart for our own good - why try to get even smarter (in a left brain way) so we can do more damage even faster and more completely? Why try to live forever when we can't even seem to live well for the time we have?

If I could go back with the knowledge of what would come and was designated to choose "barbarism" or "progress" I would choose to not have  any of our "progress" yet because the scale is so monstrous. The level of destruction is already unbelievable. It's like a child trying to learn about fire with no parent watching to keep them from burning down the house and killing the whole family in the process......... times a billion.

Generally, the human race is like a 3 year old in it's emotional and spiritual development. We just don't think holistically or what the worse case scenarios could be. We don't think long-term nor do we think about the welfare of others beyond our own selves or little groups. We don't step back and say to ourselves that nuclear power isn't worth what the downside could be - so let's be careful and find other forms of power instead.  Greed, expediency and the desire for power run things in our world today.  We scream "I want it, I want it, I want it!!!!" just like a three year old and nothing and no one else matters - but we are doing it on a phenomenal group scale.The last thing we need is more means to act out any more than we already are. We don't care what we kill off, as long as the people in power get to play in their sandboxes longer and with more control over them and the other kids. Give that man-child in his sandbox the ability to make a nuclear bomb on his own and he could blow us all up trying to blow up that other sandbox that is so close. Recently, one dude made a new universe in his basement. Giving individuals the power to develop and choose what to do with what is coming down the avenue is even scarier than having it controlled by a group. Pick the most unbalanced person you have ever met and then imagine them having the power to spread disease, destruction or mutations to those they don't like! Don't hand a three year old a loaded gun.

I hope that one day our maturity will catch up with our scientific intelligence, but we already have such a long way to go!

I guess Phil that I very likely will be labeled a barbarian and savage while I literally play my classical violin as I watch it all burn on. If being a savage and barbarian means that I eat the natural food that is correct for my species and my health, don't want to participate in the killing off other species and the human race and would rather not participate in the continual blind march of progress without reflection into oblivion - then I accept those labels as badges of honor and distinction.

[TylerDurden]

Why not allow any 3 year-old to own a  gun? If advanced technology duly allows a 3-year-old to already gain the maturity and intelligence of a now-20 year-old, what's the problem?

There's a wonderful SF story I have yet to find which features a scenario in which every American family has a nuclear missile in their back-yard, the idea being that citizens should provide a nuclear deterrent, not the government. I think it's a wonderful idea.

Simply put, we should allow everyone to have the right to make their mistakes(or, indeed, successfully  evolve) by allowing them access to whatever technologies they wish to have. That's why I am such a fan of The Poor Man's James Bond" 2 volume book.

The only catch is that humans are so excellent at wiping out other species. It would not surprise me if national parks, a few thousand years hence, consist of only 2 or 3 trees, for example(as featured in 2000AD magazine). That said, advanced genetic engineering could bring back mammoths and all other species humans ever wiped out, so science could solve everything...

[Dorothy]

Why not allow any 3 year-old to own a  gun? If advanced technology duly allows a 3-year-old to already gain the maturity and intelligence of a now-20 year-old, what's the problem?

Just because a child can take a gun and shoot his brother by accident because he doesn't understand the the damage it can do doesn't mean that he has the intelligence of a 20 year old! That's the whole point - he doesn't have the intelligence necessary not to kill and neither do we and I doubt if making any of us more "intelligent" is going to suddenly give us emotional maturity. If we end up killing off all the humans AND all the animals by destroying the males of most species out of arrogance or our planet becomes too hot or cold for most things to survive even though we already have the "intelligence" to predict that if we keep on doing what we are doing that will be the outcome --  there will be no scientists or environment in which to bring back mammoths. Oops!

Whether or not governments/corporations have the power to control or individuals it's all still nuts! Why continue to run headlong towards something we've already proven we can handle without killing off all sorts of things that we had no intention of making sure were dead and couldn't stop killing even though we knew we were doing it!

[TylerDurden]

The point is that technology could advance to the point where that brother of that 3 year old can be resurrected. Or if all males were killed off on one occasion, the females could get more males born in the next generation via genetic engineering etc...!

[Dorothy]

I think it's the idea that we can fix anything we break/destroy in our immaturity with more of the same that is the scariest to me. It's pure hubris.

It goes along the lines of thinking that if we destroy our own mother planet maybe we can find another with rocket ships that we can move to and destroy too.

And about everyone having a nuclear warhead in the backyards ........ anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of human psychological imbalances would be able to predict that within a few minutes after getting their warhead there would be at least one suicidal person that thought that this world should die along with them pushing that button.
 

[TylerDurden]

It goes along the lines of thinking that if we destroy our own mother planet maybe we can find another with rocket ships that we can move to and destroy too.

  There are actually some SF short stories which have the exact same theme.

And about everyone having a nuclear warhead in the backyards ........ anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of human psychological imbalances would be able to predict that within a few minutes after getting their warhead there would be at least one suicidal person that thought that this world should die along with them pushing that button.

Perhaps, but by that point in time, perhaps we would all also have personal access to fields of force which prohibit all nuclear explosions in our local area etc.
 



[/quote]

[Dorothy]

  Perhaps, but by that point in time, perhaps we would all also have personal access to fields of force which prohibit all nuclear explosions in our local area etc.
 

If we all have personal access to fields of force which prohibit nuclear explosions - there would be no point in having missiles.

But this sci-fi way in the future stuff is just fiction. Right here and now we are destroying the animals that live here, ourselves and the environment. We can make gmo's, clone and genetically engineer and only those with egos the size of Saturn think that they can handle whatever possibly could come of all that.

[sabertooth]

Re Big Brother/Brave New World:- I hated the world of 1984, but I thought Aldous Huxley's Brave New World was rather utopian, not dystopian. There were a few oddities in that book, such as the supposed need for low IQ factory-slaves in a future that should have been completely automated anyway re production, given the overall technology-level, but then Huxley  couldn't predict everything.

The real problem with the anti-progressive stance is that all technologies  have both positive and negative aspects. It merely depends on how one uses them. For example, nuclear power gave us nuclear weapons and the possibility of nuclear war, but it also, among other things, provided us with nuclear power stations  thus solving energy problems. The solution is simple, hand over as much technology(along with the training/ability/laws to allow use of  it) to individual citizens so that they can  gain control over their own lives to a greater extent than ever before. That would be a splendid, libertarian approach.

Huxley believed that there was something in human nature that made it necessary for one to feel Superior to others  in order to know what to compare their own superiority too. A need for social structure and hierarchy is built into our nature. A robotic labor force isnt much too compare ranks with, and getting rid of the lower caste would lead the Alphas of the brave new world to compete within their own cast for rank leading to disharmony.

 It may be a bit of a stretch to say that it's necessary to maintain such a caste system in the brave new world, but consider how the brave new world came into being.

At the time of the birth of the new world order( I mean brave New World), it was necessary to convince the alpha class of the old world, that their position in society would be maintained, in order to get them to go along with enslaving the whole race to a technocracy. The elite have always liked to look down on the lower class  and they would not want to give up that pastime even if it could be engineered out of them. Condescension is a fundamental fact of human nature that makes one need to look down on others in order to know how superior one is. If someone doesn't have any way of knowing how much better he or she is than the next guy, then there isn't much incentive to control and dominate in order to hold that supposed position in the social order.

Perhaps human nature can be altered to rid the human race of our pettiness. Although, I sure hope not anytime soon because the descendants of my mutt offspring would not be welcome in such a world.

Handing over the technology to the free people of earth may be the better alternative, although it might have to be tightly regulated by a central authority in order to prevent evil masterminds from using Tesla free energy machines, to make death star type weapons.

The future seems screwed up either way technology takes us. If things go as they are we will pollute and destroy the earth to such a degree that the future may not be a very pleasant place to be. If the scientist can take control and form a world wide technocracy before our ecology is completely ruined then they will cull most of the human population and then enslave the rest which will be altered and engineered until they are no longer human by current standards.

Of course I don't worry too much about the end of humanity, it still seems far off from what I can see.

[PaleoPhil]

I think the problem is one of extent.

Yes, I think you hit on the crux of the issue--balance. Our technological advancements seem to be progressing at a faster rate than our emotional/spiritual development. Cordain's quote that we are "Stone Agers living in the space age" appears to apply to more than just diet and exercise. The question is, what is the right balance, for whom, for where, and how do we achieve it?

The Amish have already been struggling with this for quite a while, with different solutions worked out in different communities and with continued problems of their own. One thing seems certain--there isn't one right way of doing things for everyone.

the human race is like a 3 year old in it's emotional and spiritual development

Good analogy. We seem to have too many 3 year olds and not enough grandparents.

[PaleoPhil]

so science could solve everything...

Thanks for providing that excellent example of hypermodern utopian modernist progressive thinking. It seems to be the inevitable path most of the world is currently on.

I love science, but I'm not convinced that it will ever solve everything. With each new solution comes new questions and new problems and it doesn't seem like we spend a lot of time weighing the costs vs. benefits before adopting new technologies.

Quote from: Dorothy on Today at 01:25:06 pm
"It goes along the lines of thinking that if we destroy our own mother planet maybe we can find another with rocket ships that we can move to and destroy too."

Tyler responded: There are actually some SF short stories which have the exact same theme.

Yup, and I remember reading about some project funded by the Virgin Airlines founder and others that basically has already given up on planet earth and seeks to do just this. The problem is, if we don't learn how to live well on this planet, Dorothy is probably right that we'll just screw up the next one.

[PaleoPhil]

the elite have always liked to look down on the lower class  and they would not want to give up that pastime even if it could be engineered out of them. Condescension is a fundamental fact of human nature

Indeed, as I mentioned above, the leading Transhumanists' already have choice insults for the people who will be denigrated to an underclass when the elites become transhuman, such as "Mostly Original Substrate Humans (MOSHs)."

------------
Sidebar:

KD, if you do one more book or audiobook in your life, I recommend The Black Swan, or possibly even better, the upcoming Antifragility (or whatever the title ends up being). For people who are completely unfamiliar with our hunter-gatherer ancestry and have difficulty with heavy reading like The Black Swan, Ishmael by Daniel Quinn might be a better choice.

I forgot to mention the older of Taleb's books on the subject, Fooled by Randomness, which received somewhat better reader reviews than The Black Swan.

[TylerDurden]

Indeed, as I mentioned above, the leading Transhumanists' already have choice insults for the people who will be denigrated to an underclass when the elites become transhuman, such as "Mostly Original Substrate Humans (MOSHs)."

  "Moshs", that's not very catchy.

Here are some labels I'd like to suggest, instead:-

"Original Creationists"(because regressivists want to maintain human shape as God created it. This would be shortened eventually to "Orcs".

"Devolutionists". This would be shortened to Devs/Deviants. The idea is that since   
stagnation always leads to deterioration in the end(because a non-changing scenario like stagnation cannot be maintained perpetually), people who wanted to maintain the status quo would simply "devolve" backwards, eventually.

"Regressivists". Shortened to "Regs/Regulars".

"Norms". This is the dismissive label used in the UK's wonderful 2000AD comic by its mutant characters to describe those who have not mutated/evolved.

The best term, though, for regressivists would be "Mundanes". This is the term used by SF fans of the 50s to describe those clueless people who weren't interested in Science Fiction. It was also, amusingly, used by the TV show Babylon 5's "Psi-Corps" to describe non-telepaths.

[TylerDurden]

Huxley believed that there was something in human nature that made it necessary for one to feel Superior to others  in order to know what to compare their own superiority too. A need for social structure and hierarchy is built into our nature. A robotic labor force isn't much too compare ranks with, and getting rid of the lower caste would lead the Alphas of the brave new world to compete within their own cast for rank leading to disharmony. 

  The whole point I made was that Aldous Huxley merely made a ridiculous explanation to justify having low-IQ factory-slaves in such a society. There is no real reason why a society made up entirely of alpha-class, high-IQ, citizens would always war on each other. On the contrary, it could be a utopia of peace, for all we know. Certainly, a high-tech future would have no place or need for those with low-IQs, given advanced levels of automation.

Handing over the technology to the free people of earth may be the better alternative, although it might have to be tightly regulated by a central authority in order to prevent evil masterminds from using Tesla free energy machines, to make death star type weapons.

That would mean some psychotic, ignorant of science, politician deciding what is best for humanity. We already have that with retarded politicians like Bill Clinton banning human cloning for purely emotional, not rational reasons etc.  A truly depressing scenario. No, the only solution is to allow every individual to have as much access to technology as possible. That would prevent "evil masterminds" from taking over if everyone else has access to the same level of technology. This would also speed up the evolution of the human race.

[PaleoPhil]

This is the term used by SF fans of the 50s to describe those clueless people who weren't interested in Science Fiction. It was also, amusingly, used by the TV show Babylon 5's "Psi-Corps" to describe non-telepaths.

Don't you have a term for SF/fantasy fans--nerds, or was it geeks? Or is it just sci fantasy fans or just Star Wars fans that get that moniker?

Thanks for providing us with an excellent example of the scorn and contempt that Transhumanists have for anyone who doesn't crave their utopian/dystopian dream.

[billy4184]

I'm not sure that any attempts to guide humanity's collective path will be ultimately successful. No one that I know of, in the millions of years since humans have been around, has been able to alter the direction of society as a whole from that which is commanded by nature, and many have tried.
If in fact genetic engineering did achieve this, by society giving genetic engineering a free hand, I think it would likely result in a complete loss of identity and sense of direction and cripple the human race for good. Because we move unconsciously within the framework of our own nature, without realising that there is always that invisible hand guiding us. If we removed that framework, what would we be? Humans? I think not. Animals? Definitely not. Schizophrenic psychopaths? Probably. Would we be able to save ourselves at that point? I think we may find out soon.