17 replies to this topic

[Casanova]

One aspect of immortality that never seems to be addressed, or rarely addressed, is the fact that not only will good persons become immortal, but so will the bad persons.
In the category of bad, I include the following human character traits; cruelty, sadism, spite, greed, thoughlessness, selfishness, etc.

I live in the increasingly ugly city of L.A., in California, and the thought of millions of mean-spirited, rude, crude, cruel, persons living for thousands of years, is a nightmare.
Of course there are millions of good persons too, but my question is, what about the bad person's we all encounter, and also the very bad person's in history, such as Stalin, Hitler, Manson, to name some of the worst.
And don't tell me that there will not be future Hitler's. If you belive that, then you are extremely naive.
Basically, this is a question about human nature.
We are 3 years into the new century, and already we have had the worst terrorist incident in history, another damn war, a world wide economic slump, due to greed, corruption, and economic mismanagement.
There is no evidence, anywhere, that human nature is changing for the best. It is the same old game, repeating itself it seems, for the next thousand years.
But, wait, there is a difference. Technology, that borders on magic, will be in the hands of humanity, including immortality.

If the choice is Linus Pauling, and Stalin, both living for a thousand years, or both dying before they are a hundred, I would choose the later.
If evil persons get thousands of years, then we had better keep life expetancy where it is; at about 80 years.
I regret not having a good person like Pauling live for a thousand years, but that is the price we will probably have to pay to keep human evil in check.

Edited by Casanova, 01 June 2003 - 12:44 AM.

[A941]

Its the job of everyone to keep the world secure.
The existence of people like Stalin and Hitler is the fault of them who havent been willing to stop them in an early state.

[Discarnate]

Quoth Casanova, "There is no evidence, anywhere, that human nature is changing for the best. It is the same old game, repeating itself it seems, for the next thousand years."

Au contrare! *grin*

There are significant differences - improvements! - in human nature today as compared to yesterday.

Sure, we have problems. No arguement, and they're pretty horrific. However, we don't have ALL the problems we had 'yesterwhen'.

- Slavery, for instance, is much less evident.

- There's SIGNIFICANT effort going into making sure people have food, even if it's not completely successful.

- There are huge strides being made, having been made, and to be made in the defense against infection and disease.

- People are communicating more with 'weirdos' from across the river, across the island, across the continent, across the world - and are finding, by and large, that there're people over there, too.

Please don't take my response as polyanna-ish. Not in the slightest. Some of our ancient problems still exist - the weak exploited by the strong, for instance, even if the definitions of 'strength' have changed. The desire of a few to gather all power to themselves, even if (again) the definitions have changed.

Quoth Casanova, again, "But, wait, there is a difference. Technology, that borders on magic, will be in the hands of humanity, including immortality."

Excellent point - and one that quite literally gives me nightmares from time to time. When I think of what a highly efficient general assembler could do in the hands of one brilliant (or even just competent) madman turns my stomach. Thinking of an AI gathering all financial, medical, and personal data available on the web and utilizing it to sic one human (or group of humans) on another is another personal bad dream. There're many, many more than I care to go into.

The only defenses I can honestly conceive of against this is clumsiness, greed, and inefficiency. That is, the technology will have hiccups which'll slow development and implementation, it'll cost a LOT, and it WON'T be universally available at first. This indicates to me that we'll have some (perhaps very short) time to adjust to each of these concepts, and to try and come up with a good concept/law/whatever to deal with the dichotomies inherent therein, specifically including your Pauling/Stalin example.

OK, I'm pessimistic. That means my surprises are generally pleasant. *wry grin*



A941 - Your post is laudable in the abstract, but to what lengths are you willing to go? Are you willing to sacrifice the rule of law to prevent a 'pervert' or 'killer' from gaining immortality? IE - will you take the law into your own hands?

How do you know your neighbors won't do the same to you? Or your victim's family & friends? (And face it, most everyone, even a Hitler, a Manson, or a Stalin, have friends.)

Also, you MAY be viewing history in 20/20 hindsight. The people in the 30's who lauded Hitler's truely massive revitalization of the German nation (and there were quite a few, including some of the brightest minds of the times!) didn't know of the future. They saw a 'genius' who had managed to drag one of the great Empires out of the mire of economic destruction, who had inspired pride into a once-beaten people, and who was leading them into a glorious future.

(NOTE - Just to be utterly and unequivocably clear - I am *NOT* a fan of the third Reich, merely recounting a limited POV from a time in history before the horrors unleashed on the world by Hitler & co.)

-Discarnate

[A941]

will you take the law into your own hands?

No, but dont let other People do it (like George W. Bush).

[Discarnate]

People (read, the electoral college majority) in the US voted for George W. Bush. If you don't like his policies, that's fine - if you think they're really 'breaking the law', sue him. It's in the corpus of the law.

Also, it's the *JOB* of the President of the US to take the law into their hands. Executive branch, after all. *wry grin* And yeah, that includes which laws to enforce and which to let slide, which to ask for money for, and which to ask for less. Each of these have checks & balances in the US system - and if you need advice, contact your local political party/ies or head to the nearest barbershop or non-meatmarket bar... *grin*

Now, if you're not an American, I don't know what you can do about it. I guess you could make YOUR leaders know of your dissatisfaction, avoid US-profiting economies (which, quite frankly, I can't think of a single economy on the face of the planet today which doesn't interlink with the US), and talk to the American populace, letting them (us?) know *WHY* you're upset and why *we* should be upset enough to do something about it.

Sincerely,
-Discarnate

(On rereading, I still feel strongly that the system's working as designed & evolved. However, A941 - please be assured that I do *NOT* intend this as a personal attack in any way, shape or form.

The question of whether the system's current state is 'good' (whatever THAT means) or not is up for debate.

Additionally - if you're not working at fixing a perceived problem, could it be that you, dear Reader, may be part of the problem?)

Edited by Discarnate, 01 June 2003 - 06:24 PM.

[Casanova]

Great responses.
Even Carl Gustave Jung praised the early Hilter, before the horrors began, and regretted that praise for the rest of his life.
My response would be to say that human beings are flawed, in so many ways, including not having sensible pre-cognitiion, that giving them, "us" such ultra advanced technology, as decribed on these Futurist wesbites, is gambling in the extreme with species genocide.
My comment about not seeing any advances in human nature, was targeting the last 25 years, or so. In the last 25 years we have seen a gigantic explosion in technological development, but look at the social issues during that period.
The slumming of pop culture, in almost all of it's aspects; illiteracy, and the dumbing-down of way too many persons in advanced countries, the rise of violence as a solution for human communication, the increasing me-ism, that has resulted in what many social critics call the "death of civility."
The 1960s experiment in "letting it all hang out" has turned horribly sour, and malign.
Having experenced almost 5 decades of change, I see the wisdom in philosophies that start from the premise that human beings are not basically good, but rather immoral little monsters, for the most part. There is good within us, but it has to be channeled out of us by a structured, mature, disciplined, society that is not in denial about the, for lack of a better term, "beast within." Call the "beast' the old reptilian brain, the shadow or id, or the devil within, but we are definetly born with an evil component in our nature.
That is why I am not as gung-ho about all these emerging technologies as many others are.
The self-destructive side of humans is being denied by too many wishful thinkers, and as Jung and other psychologists have said, "what you deny doesn't go away, but returns with twice it's power, and force."
Deny that human beings have a huge propensity for evil, and what you will end up with is projected evil. An example from pop culture, is the excellent film, and book, "Forbin; The Colossus Project" Rent the film, if you can.
In the film, Dr. Forbin, and the Military, project their own evil into the super-computer and the computer turns on them. What are the 50 thousand stock-piled H-Bombs but projected human evil?

I am not a Luddite. What I am is a realist. Human beings seem to persist in building great structures of one kind, or another, and then destroyong them, in one way, or another. This self-destruction is heart-breaking, and you can see it working on the small scale in individual lives.
But that isn’t all; it seems too that there is something in nature itself that is self-destructive, and that goes beyond entropy.
The universe is not friendly, and it is not indifferent.
The challenges that we humans are up against, in trying to create a decent, life-affirming, joyous, world, are astronomical. The odds are stacked against us, both from within our own flawed human nature, and from without by a hostile universe.

[DJS]

The premise of improving human nature is a loaded one. However, improving societal norms is a different ball game. Ever heard of the enlightenment?? [huh] .

And all of the conjecture about whether indefinite life extension would allow truly "evil" people to live forever... please.

"Evil people" or counter humanists are indicative of systemic flaws within a culture. These monsters aren't born, they are created. The advent of immortality would in no way alter the balance of "good vs evil". We should be less concerned with evil individuals and more concerned with the societies that create them. After all, Stalin didn't spontaneously appear, he was the product of the convergence of rabid communist idealogy and a thousand years of brutal csar rule. (People seem to forget that the Russian Csars were brutal rulers themselves) And let us also not forget that Hitler was not the sole reason for the Holocaust or WWII. He was the leader of a mass movement in German that was the result of societal resentment caused by the Treaty of Versaille (and to a larger extent, the radical political climate brought about by a global depression).

Stalin wasn't Soviet Communism and Hitler wasn't Nazism. Let's start recognizing the significance of sociological movements and stop deifying dictators.

[Discarnate]

Kissinger - Do you suppose that Stalinist USSR (that is, the period when Stalin was in charge) would have been different under, say Trotsky? Or if Vladimir Ulianov were still alive, and Stalin was still a second-string power?

IMO, in both of those cases, life in the USSR would hvae been considerably different. Therefore, Stalin *WAS* the core of Stalinist communism.

Similarly with Hitler. Do you think Goebbels, Himmler, or any of the ohters would have generated the same nation-state as Hitler did?

True, societies and sociological movements (to use your phrase) have to be heading in a given direction - but the leader of that society or sociological movement has quite a bit of lattitude as to how that movement/society continues to grow and change.

Counterexample - Do you think Nehru would have done the same as Gandhi did in India? I sure don't.

Also, counter-humanists don't have to be evil. IMO.

I'm also afraid I didn't catch your meaning with regards to the enlightenment. I'm assuming you mean the Italian Rennaissance, or am I missing something?

-Discarnate

[A941]

People (read, the electoral college majority) in the US voted for George W. Bush.

Really?

The election was manipulated, read M. Moore's "stupid white man"

Junior said its the Job of the Executive Branch to interprete the Law :-)

[DJS]

Do you suppose that Stalinist USSR (that is, the period when Stalin was in charge) would have been different under, say Trotsky?

But of course. I am not saying that despots have no influence, I am simply challenging the level of emphasis placed on them by this thread. And Trotsky is the most extreme example you could have picked from that time period in Russia.

IMO, in both of those cases, life in the USSR would hvae been considerably different. Therefore, Stalin *WAS* the core of Stalinist communism.

Would it? Isn't this an assumption? How much policy was decided by Stalin vs the Communist politiboro. One man can give his vision, but that vision is often the mirror image of the movement he personifies. In addition, any public policy must have the details filled in by beuracracy.

The despot is almost inseperable from his movement. By over emphasizing the significance of dictators like Stalin and Hitler (a common mistake among academics and historians alike) you are committing the same folly as the Bush Administration and the Conservative American media by narrowing your focus to one man (Saddam) when it should be focused on an entire governmental structure/ social system. Your rationale only lends more credence to the delegitimization of the sovernty of nations. Preemptive strikes become all the more convenient when it is only one really evil guy's fault.

Similarly with Hitler. Do you think Goebbels, Himmler, or any of the ohters would have generated the same nation-state as Hitler did?

Not exactly the same, but it would have been similar. This is not a point I wish to argue because it is conjecture on both of our parts and can not be proven one way or the other.

True, societies and sociological movements (to use your phrase) have to be heading in a given direction - but the leader of that society or sociological movement has quite a bit of lattitude as to how that movement/society continues to grow and change.

But once again, the leader is one in the same with the movement. He is within the movement. After Stalin wasn't there a Khrushchev, Brezhnev, etc. Who cares if a despot could live forever! He would be the same old fart making the same predictable moves. The succession of despots is much more dangerous because it adds a dimension of unpredictability. As I said earlier, a single individual can not change the balance of power in this world. There will always be inherent flaws within totalitarian systems which make them inferior to pluralistic forms of government.

[DJS]

I'm also afraid I didn't catch your meaning with regards to the enlightenment. I'm assuming you mean the Italian Rennaissance, or am I missing something?

I was qualifying my response to your thoughts on the essence of "evil". I usually put the word "evil" in quotes because I do not believe in the term. The term "evil" is often used by society to describe actions, individuals, etc. which are counter productive to the proper functioning of society. AKA -- a serial rapists inflicts untold emotional, physical and economic costs on a society. Therefore, he/ his actions are "evil". Stalin/Hitler went against what is now know as a modern western world view, therefore they were "evil".

The enlightenment was, and still is, the process by which western culture has gradually adopted humanistic ideals and deemed them "good". Other cultures/ individuals who have not adopted these ideals are usually considered bad or evil. (Is Saddam really evil, or is he just the product of a society which has never experienced an enlightenment and therefore has no humanistic tendencies?) I prefer to think of them as backwards, and western culture as progressive. A lot of this comes down to how much value is placed on the individual (I have started the read Ayn Rand and am fascinated by the concept of objectivism lol ). This is all a matter of perspective and highly prejudicial on my part. lol

[Casanova]

"One aspect of immortality that never seems to be addressed, or rarely addressed, is the fact that not only will good persons become immortal, but so will the bad persons."

The reason I wrote that, is because most of what I read from Immortalists sounds like naive idealism, and fanaticism.
We are all going to be happy beings within the "substitute heaven" of the technological singularity. The whole thing is techno-religion, with the posthuman immortals substituting for angels. Come on, face it.
Carl Jung was correct in his observastion that humans have a built in longing for the spiritual, for the union with God.
The Western world has turned it's back on the major religions, but still craves for God.
So, into our dead, grey, digital wasteland, comes Kurzweil and company, and lo and behold, we are given a new God to worship, and to long for.
The computer God, is up ahead, and it will answer all our quests for meaning, and purpose, and it will resurrect the dead, and give those who are alive the key to immortality. And the Day of Non-Judgement will usher us all into the Singularity heaven as non-corporeal information angels. Within the Singularity we will be anything we want to be, and do anything we want to do, and know everything there is to know.

Snake-oil my friends.

If you want to get another view of what the "human-made" Singularity will probably turn out to be, read this story by H.E.,
"I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream"

I see no reason to expect the first ultra intelligent computer to be "good", and benevolent. Why? We will make the damn thing, and that means it will be a product of human nature, like the H-Bomb.

As for Stalin.
If you are a Marxist, then of course human beings are just puppets of the historical march toward another naive, and idealistic heaven; the "Worker's Paradise" Give me a break Henry K.

One man, or woman, can change history dramatically. That is what human choice is all about. Blame it all on political environment, and sociology, and you strip humans of free will, and choice, and turn them into ciphers, or you turn into a stupid Left Liberal.

The only reductionism I can see here is that biology precedes culture, Study neuroscience if you don't believe that.
What bugs me is what I call 'biological fascism". It is biology that is the most tryanical force we encounter. Free will, and choice, are bounded by biology, which is the only good reason I can see for moving my conscousness into another medium.
But, if you want real freedom, then release your spirit/soul by commiting suicide, and forget about the Singularity.

[DJS]

As for Stalin.
If you are a Marxist, then of course human beings are just puppets of the historical march toward another naive, and idealistic heaven; the "Worker's Paradise" Give me a break Henry K.

There will be no breaks today. I am not a Marxist, or a Liberal. It makes me laugh to hear the comparisons. I am looking to spar and will take whatever side avails itself to me. Truth be told, I am a supply sider who considers Nixon one of the greatest foreign policy Presidents of all times. I was in favor of the Second Gulf War and am a strong supporter of missile defense. Watch the labels you throw around. [ph34r]

One man, or woman, can change history dramatically. That is what human choice is all about. Blame it all on political environment, and sociology, and you strip humans of free will, and choice, and turn them into ciphers, or you turn into a stupid Left Liberal

This is not what we are debating. The boat left and you weren't on it. Are you saying Hitler came from no where? Are you saying that Stalin came from no where? Of course society played a part in influencing their paths. This all comes back to nature vs nurture, a rather old pickle if I might say so. Why do you insists on hitting yourself on the head with this presently unsolvable problem? And more over, why am I wasting my time on this unoriginal thread?? [B)]

But, if you want real freedom, then release your spirit/soul by commiting suicide, and forget about the Singularity.

I couldn't give a rat's ass about the singularity. Like you said, another false God.

[Discarnate]

[quote]
Would it? Isn't this an assumption? How much policy was decided by Stalin vs the Communist politiboro. One man can give his vision, but that vision is often the mirror image of the movement he personifies. In addition, any public policy must have the details filled in by beuracracy.
[quote]

Fine - let's change the rules, then. No speculation allowed, on either side. *grin*

[quote]
The despot is almost inseperable from his movement. By over emphasizing the significance of dictators like Stalin and Hitler (a common mistake among academics and historians alike) you are committing the same folly as the Bush Administration and the Conservative American media by narrowing your focus to one man (Saddam) when it should be focused on an entire governmental structure/ social system. Your rationale only lends more credence to the delegitimization of the sovernty of nations. Preemptive strikes become all the more convenient when it is only one really evil guy's fault.
[/quote]

Ah, but you're speculating! Do you have numerical proof, either way? I freely admit to not having any such thing, but the way I read your post here seems to indicate that you have some sort of reproducible, double-blind study with convincing non-trivial statistical links between the dictator and the dictatorship....

[quote]
Not exactly the same, but it would have been similar. This is not a point I wish to argue because it is conjecture on both of our parts and can not be proven one way or the other.

....

But once again, the leader is one in the same with the movement. He is within the movement. After Stalin wasn't there a Khrushchev, Brezhnev, etc. Who cares if a despot could live forever! He would be the same old fart making the same predictable moves. The succession of despots is much more dangerous because it adds a dimension of unpredictability. As I said earlier, a single individual can not change the balance of power in this world. There will always be inherent flaws within totalitarian systems which make them inferior to pluralistic forms of government.[/quote]

Kissinger - please, be consistant. Either allow speculation on BOTH sides of the arguement as equally valid, or as equally invalid. I agree, to the best of my knowledge this kind of thing is nonfalsifiable - a battle of belief, rather than reason.

As for the soviet chain of command - yes, of COURSE there was another after Stalin. Stalin greatly strengthened the soviet political organism. (Or is that organization - I get confused over that distinction sometimes) And if a despot could continue to live forever, it makes a HUGE difference as to what KIND of immortality, and what the ramifications of such would be. Predictability is (you got it) speculation on our part. It's equally valid to say that their skill at governing the masses would continue to grow as long as they lived!

-Discarnate

[DJS]

Point taken Discarnate. I often find myself disliking speculation which disagrees with my speculation. lol I must remind myself that all speculation is valid since we are engaging in a philosophical debate.

[Discarnate]

*wry grin* You got some good points there, Kissinger, even if I don't always agree with them, either.

And please, debate is what I'm interested in. Arguements are everywhere, and quite frankly not fun. I prefer to learn, and to teach. *smile*

-Discarnate

[Mind]

So, into our dead, grey, digital wasteland, comes Kurzweil and company, and lo and behold, we are given a new God to worship, and to long for.
The computer God, is up ahead, and it will answer all our quests for meaning, and purpose, and it will resurrect the dead, and give those who are alive the key to immortality. And the Day of Non-Judgement will usher us all into the Singularity heaven as non-corporeal information angels. Within the Singularity we will be anything we want to be, and do anything we want to do, and know everything there is to know.

I am not ready to indict Kurzweil. Vinge, Kurzweil, More...etc are only predicting a possible future based on current trends. In "Age of Spiritual Machines" Kurzweil uses artistic license to describe a possible future of humans with enhanced capabilities. This future is wrought with problems just like those of the present. He doesn't predict Utopia for humans, just functional immortality as machine/oganic hybrids. I think a lot of people hear about the "singularity" and project their fantasies onto it. They don't need help from the techno-optimists. People will find out that the search for meaning in a post-human world will be the same as the search for meaning now.

Also, I believe a more connected world will lead to fewer psycopaths gaining power over large segments of society. In the past propaganda was easier because information was more sparse. That is not the case today. I am not saying the murdering psycopaths will go away, just that they will not be able to gain power as in the past. This does not relieve us of the fact that one person could kill us all with some futuristic devious destructive weapon, but the probability is less in a connected world.

Edited by Mind, 06 June 2003 - 12:15 AM.

[David]

One thing that constantly astounds me when I read stuff like this is that nobody seems to remember that those who have the power now, write the history books.

If Adolf and the German people had won the second world war, the name Hitler would be celebrated, not reviled. To those in the Axis camp, Americans were the evil ones. (I better point out that I'm not a supporter of anything vaguely Nazi here, or I could make more than one enemy, I think!) The Allies (Including good old Australia) killed quite a few innocent civilians themselves. There was no real reason to flatten the German city Dresden, no military or manufacturing targets there! Wasn't that evil?

The Japanese were suing for peace (reportedly) before you (and us, by association) incinerated god knows how many women and children with weapons of mass destruction. Isn't that evil?

How does one quantify jerkiness? Or evil? Both of these 'labels' are relative terms. Think back to your high school days, football players were jerks to the musicians who were jerks to the Goths who were jerks to the nerds who were jerks to the ... I could go on for ever... And don't peope change? Wouldn't the opportunity to live an extremely long time allow people to be the best they can be? Shrug off any previouse mistakes, and do some good?

I make no apologies for being an optimist, by the way!