12 replies to this topic

[kevin]

Dear Posthumans
By Kenneth Silber 08/20/2003


http://www.techcentr...om/082003B.html

Dear Posthumans:

I am addressing you using terminology that is fashionable in 2003. I would not be surprised if you refer to yourselves by some other name. After all, we humans do not call ourselves "post-Australopithecenes." By posthumans, I mean that you are beings with greater-than-human capabilities. You may have been technologically enhanced through genetic engineering or cybernetic implants. Possibly, you are entirely technological entities, such as robots. You are, I assume, superintelligent.

A further terminological point is in order. I write at a time when a movement known as "transhumanism" is gaining attention. A common definition is that transhumans are people who have begun to exceed the limits of human biology (and transhumanists are those who favor such efforts) while posthumans represent a more full-blown transcendence. While transhumanists and maybe even a few transhumans might read this article in the relatively near term, I hope ultimately to address you, the posthumans.

It may seem presumptuous that I should be seeking to give you advice. But if you have uploaded this article from the Tech Central Station archives, then presumably you are interested in the hopes and fears that humans of the early 21st century invested in you. There is intense controversy over the technological advances that may make your existence possible. Traditional political alignments are being reshuffled over such issues.

There is a great deal of concern over what your advent will mean for humanity and the world. I believe some of these concerns are overblown; that's partly because I have my doubts about scenarios that involve extremely rapid technological change in the near future. Nonetheless, I think there is a significant chance that you will exist, later if not sooner. Therefore, I offer some ethical and practical suggestions below, which might help prevent some of the more nightmarish conceptions of your existence from coming true:

Show some gratitude. Your capabilities, options, and control over your environment vastly exceed those of earlier generations and species. Bear in mind that you would not enjoy such a privileged position were it not for the efforts of innumerable humans who came before you. The development of the technologies that enabled your existence required conscious decisions and deliberate actions. Often, the people who pioneered such technologies had to overcome the objections and obstacles of their contemporaries. A sweeping contempt for the past would be an arrogant attitude on your part. Even worse would be if you were to destroy or enslave humanity, as occurs often in science fiction.

Hard work matters. One current-day cause for unease about futuristic technologies is that they may diminish the value of effort. Something may be lost if people can, say, plug in a Chinese brain module rather than studying Chinese. The process of working on something or learning something is often about more than just the end-product; it can be a character-building experience, or enjoyable in itself, or offer unpredictable benefits. Your posthuman society might benefit from retaining a focus on these qualities, tempering technological prowess with an ethos of striving and challenge-seeking.

Individuality is important. Posthuman intelligence, as presently imagined, sometimes has a disconcerting unitary aspect, with an emphasis placed on networked or group minds or even the development of an eventual single cosmic computer. Yet human biological and social evolution has tended to increase opportunities for individuality, and it is not clear why the trend would or should be reversed in the posthuman era. Then again, some current ideas about posthuman life are very individualistic, such as hopes for personal immortality through cryonics or mind uploading. Posthuman societies, like human ones, may experience conflicts over differing views of individual and collective prerogatives.

Remember, technologies fail. I write these words from New York City, which like much of the northeastern United States just underwent a blackout. I am sure that your technologies are far more robust than the aging electrical grid of my particular place and time. Still, I suspect that even posthuman technologies are not infallible. Technological advances lead to greater reliance on technology, which in turn can increase vulnerabilities when technologies malfunction. If the technologies have become intimately integrated with your bodies and minds, that is all the more reason to focus on maximizing redundancy and reliability.

Go into space. We humans have made a start on exploring the universe beyond Earth. But undoubtedly you can do much better. Expanding into space is one way to avoid some of the problems of possible conflict between different types of beings or different views about how to live; different groups can move to different planets and stars. Earth surely is too small a stage for some of your ambitions; in fact, the same could be said for humanity today. By the way, some of our scientists believe that there exist multiple universes or higher dimensions. If they're correct about that, consider exploring those as well.

Think about names. As I mentioned earlier, you probably don't call yourselves posthumans. Indeed, one sign of the intellectual desiccation of postmodernism is its "post" name. I'm sure you have many options for what to name yourselves, including some things I couldn't pronounce. However, don't be too quick to get rid of "human." The word has been applied not only to Homo sapiens but also to Neanderthals and some of our other hominid ancestors. You may be a new species but, for better and worse, you probably bear the imprint of our influence in all sorts of ways. Maybe if you were regarded as human, there would be less resistance to your coming into the world.

Thanks for listening. Good luck.

Sincerely,

Ken Silber

Human

[Lazarus Long]

Hey Ken!

(This would be "two Ken Fuzzing" if I weren't using a pen name)

R U tawkin to mE! [angry]

I mean R U tawkan 2 ME! [":)]

I sincerely hope so. [>]

I find your advice is consistent with much of my own. )

However name playing is the game of humanity whether the epithet is slung at you, mere slang, or just the sling you uphold. You are correct about stereotypes and this is in itself an aspect of "Post" humor-ism.

Humans are what we are regardless of exceeding all that from which we come but a lot of this is about self definition. We are no more "post human" than the world is truly "post modern;" that is unless there is an Apocalypse.

What really matters is that what we call something after should also preserve genuine respect for what was. I do hope you visit and we get an opportunity to chat. [lol]

[MichaelAnissimov]

Anthropomorphic and mechanomorphic, but endearing.

[Sophianic]

An Open Letter to Kenneth Silber, TechCentral

Dear Mr. Silber,

I read with pleasure your letter to us "posthumans." I also address you with terminology that was fashionable in the year 2003, but I must confess, I have had the advantage of running my own terminology from the year 2112 through a language translator.

I was puzzled by your reference to us as "beings with greater-than-human capabilities." As we are still human, perhaps the characterization "beings with greater-than-human-circa-2003 capabilities" might be more accurate, if not more cumbersome. Please forgive me for sounding facetious, but I intend no disrespect to you. I am flattered that you would think us superintelligent. I suppose that we are, but this adjective hardly ever comes up in my social circle as part of any conversation or discussion.

It is true, however, that many of us have chosen to be enhanced by the medical science and technology of our day. I myself am a product of this science and technology, and consider myself fortunate that my entire genome has been thoroughly cleaned, modified and augmented for optimal health and negligible senescence.

As I've mentioned, there are no posthumans. And no transhumans, and no transhumanists ~ only humans who have elected to elevate themselves and extend their health and life spans through their own efforts and with the assistance of what you might call "agents of general artificial intelligence" (the terms we use would not be familiar to you).

I am generally aware of the history of what you call "transhumanism" and I remain sympathetic to what their cause represented, but toward the end of the 21st century, the movement had accomplished many of its goals and had become largely irrelevant to social and political discourse. We have succeeded in perfecting all of the technologies that matter to our material existence and we now enjoy the prospect of indefinite life spans in near-perfect health.

As you may know, Mr. Silber, change is ubiquitous in a power-evolving universe. The ultimate key to success for humanity is the power to manage that change wisely. Controversy is a result of resistance ~ in this context, resistance to progress. I am mindful and respectful of the progress that the people of your time had made, and can appreciate, at least a little, the tumultuous changes that early and mid-21st century societies endured. We are interested, not only in the hopes and fears of humanity in the early 21st century, but in all previous centuries where humanity struggled to take an ever more dominant and secure position in the cosmos.

Since I am here now, in near-perfect health, your ethical and practical suggestions to "prevent some of the more nightmarish conceptions of our existence from coming true" have come too late for me or anyone else in my world to take them to heart as you intended. I do, however, appreciate your intentions, and will take the time to respond to your suggestions as if they had value to us.

I am somewhat reluctant to say this, but I sense a certain presumptuous tone in your attitude with respect to what our stance on gratitude should be. The subtle implication here is that we could hardly be grateful for the efforts of our predecessors owing to our superior capabilities. This borders on insult, but I am willing to overlook it considering how difficult it must have been for you and your fellow travelers to maintain your respective mental equilibria near the beginning (but especially the middle) of the 21st century in the midst of so much fundamental change.

Your qualifications of decisions as conscious and of actions as deliberate are superfluous, and yet I think I can appreciate why you would lend them so much emphasis. As I am sure you already know, decisions are, by their nature, conscious, or they would not be decisions. Likewise for actions; keeping in mind that actions are not synonymous with reactions, actions are, by nature, deliberate. I can assure you, we retain the power of awareness and deliberation, and, thankfully, have not succumbed to states of mindless simulation through advances in artificial intelligence.

Your supposition that we might have a sweeping contempt for the past is puzzling. I must assume that your projection in this instance is a product of your times ~ perhaps a reaction to those who would have contempt for the past were they to assume a superior posture without the requisite maturity? You can also lay to rest your concern that we would either enslave or destroy humanity ~ for we are humanity, albeit in a form that may not be immediately recognizable to you. We have mastered our technologies and we have succeeded admirably in making the products of our intelligence serve us.

I can assure you, Mr. Silber, that we continue to seek challenges appropriate to our abilities and strive to meet them with sustained focus. And we are grateful that we can do so with considerably less stress and strain than those who lived in previous decades and centuries. If we can plug and play, we will do so, both for convenience and amusement. I can agree with your emphasis on building character. Perhaps your perception of what higher intelligence would entail is informed by a mistaken notion? Without knowing any better, that would be my current impression. If we can make use of a tool or method to improve or facilitate or enhance our social and economic interactions, we will do so, and feel no compunction for having done so. We will not temper our technological prowess to preserve an ethos that makes a virtue out of suffering.

Individuality is important, yes. That should go without saying. But in my society, individual lives remain subordinate to the law that would enforce the natural rights of all organic and biosynthetic persons. Each and every individual also remains free to shape a destiny that best fulfills their native abilities and expresses their acquired virtues. Our current emphasis on networks and Web minds through remotely seamless communication technologies not only serve to boost our collective efforts in resolving problems that affect us all, but also serve to bring us novel forms of entertainment and recreation. Recently, a group of just over one thousand scientists collectively brainstormed a more powerful, cost-effective solution to the problem of asteroids coming too close to inhabitable worlds.

I must say that I felt highly sympathetic when I read about the fragility of your infrastructure, but I am also aware of the lack of faith that the people of your time demonstrated with respect to the free enterprise system. As you say, our technology is robust, but more than that, it is self-correcting, self-improving and self-enhancing, in large part because of highly advanced systems of artificial intelligence that we put in place. Their highly interdependent, sophisticated and efficient character make our technologies nearly infallible. And because they are so intimately entwined with our lives and our selves, we do what we must to keep them robust and reliable.

As of this writing, the solar system has been fully explored; the inhabitable locales in our local system have been colonized and we are now in the process of sending our first substantial expedition toward the stars. As for the earth, I can assure you that it is large enough for many of our ambitions. Space represents only one frontier, among many. Others include the oceans of life on earth, the oceans of interaction that arise from meeting collective goals through Web minds, and the oceans of possibility that exist within our own minds through virtual reality. A multiverse presumed to exist beyond our perceivable dimensions is mysterious to say the least, and an endless source of fascination and speculation, but I find it rather curious that you would presume to counsel us to explore it more fully.

You are correct about us not calling ourselves "posthumans." In fact, we are proud to call ourselves human. Although there are those among us who would transform themselves radically enough to cease being human, the majority of us are quite content to remain human, at least until such time that we can see obvious and desirable advantages to automorphing ourselves into a new species. Granted, some of us are more comfortable with the prospect of biosynthetic makeovers and digital mergers than others, and would not be averse to making them happen in the not-so-distant future. Judging from the content of your letter, I think you would agree that the diversification of human destiny along organic, synthetic and digital pathways can only serve to make us all more resilient in a universe largely indifferent to our individual and collective hopes and dreams ~ I myself leave open the possibility that "the universe" (the biocosm, if you will) is not wholly indifferent to our intentions owing to the existence of synchronicity, perfect geometrical shapes, as well as physical laws and constants (for example).

In closing, I wish to thank you for this opportunity to expound at length about what life is like in the year 2112. I trust that you and yours are well, and that you continue to explore this vast and wondrous world with a critical but open mind.

Sincerely,
Sophianic
Human, c. 2112

P.S. If you're ever in the neighborhood, be sure to drop by The Immortality Institute for a visit (http://www.imminst.org) ...

[Jace Tropic]

Sophianic,

I'm compelled by inspiration to say that this letter is utterly outstanding and beautifully written.

Jace

[Lazarus Long]

I think that is a wonderful letter Soph. I am impressed at your eloquence and agree with its style and intent. I do not see us as ever truly being post humorous, at least we should hope not and I suspect that in another century this article and your letter will bring me a chuckle still.

[Bruce Klein]

I concur with Jace's assessment. Wonderfully written, as always.

Maybe we could do the same with Somerville. I'd like to create a type of running debate with her. Sophianic, would you be interested in participating? I'll be happy to formally set things up.

Somerville's Recent Article:
How perfect do we want to be?

[Sophianic]

Jace,

Thank you kindly for your glowing compliment.

Lazarus,

I, too, hope, we don't lose our sense of humor in the course of reaching for the stars, both figuratively and literally.

Bruce,

Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the inclination to participate formally in a running debate with Professor Somerville. I do, however, intend to send her a letter in the near future, and I'd be happy to have you include it in any formal arrangements that you do make.

Best,

[kevin]

We will not temper our technological prowess to preserve an ethos that makes a virtue out of suffering.

That's one which bears repeating.. and repeating.. and..

Excellent work Sophianic..

[chubtoad]

"I myself leave open the possibility that "the universe" (the biocosm, if you will) is not wholly indifferent to our intentions owing to the existence of synchronicity, perfect geometrical shapes, as well as physical laws and constants (for example)."

The letter was excellent, it will get the point across for sure.

[Bruce Klein]

Thanks for the reply Sophianic,

I had in mind something similar to the following by Simon Smith, of which I'll approach Mrs. Somerville with the request as she may wish to debate me (unless anyone else feels up to the challenge). This request may go well with any such letter you present to her. Or, I could offer it independently. Let me know.

James M. Pethokoukis of US News is posting an e-mail debate between the New Atlantis's Eric Cohen and Betterhumans's Simon Smith called "A rollicking debate on technology's impact on our lives."
http://www.usnews.co...ws/nexthome.htm

[Sophianic]

Kevin,

Yes, indeed; although suffering makes virtue possible, we must be careful not to confuse the two.

Chubtoad,

You might be interested in reading Biocosm, a recent release that may prove to have some important insights into the quest for immortality.

Bruce,

As I normally don't like to write to deadline (I view most of what I write as an organic, creative process with its own timetable), I'd be reluctant to let you know when I would finish. I could let you know when I complete it and then let you decide when to present it.

[Bruce Klein]

Sophianic,

I understand. Obligations tend to stifle creativity. Yet know the avenue is open and I'll be happy to collaborate in anyway.