5 replies to this topic

[Utnapishtim]

The September issue of scientific american carries the heading 'better brains' and is devoted to discussing of not just potential therapeutic treatments but also possible cognitive enhancements. This is big news folks. We are seeing Sciam moving into territory, heretofore regarded as fringe and an area of debate left to transhumanists.

An editorial suggests that Sciam is well aware of this and is attempting to maintain its respectability and authoritativeness, by drawing a line in the sand between itself and those fringe radical futurists, even as it enters a discussion those fringers have been having for years at a laughably late date.

The editorial in question contains an utterly pointless and irrelevant attack on Ray Kurzweil, stating loftily that 'his grandiose statements serve merely as technophilic conceits'

Of course Sciam still is far too respectable too actually have to defend this point of view.

Instead it sets up a false dilemma suggesting that advances in pharmacology, neuroimaging and genetics invalidate uploading, and stating that 'the ultimate goal is not for us all to become cousins of Terminator and Max Headroom, rather it is to correct neural defects... ' as if uploading and pharmacological enhancements were mutually exclusive goals that cancel each other out, rather than entitely seperate issues.

I don't entirely buy into Kurzweil and his theories either, but it still maddens me to see such cheap attacks made from a pedestal of borrowed respectability, conferred by the brandname of a magazine.

The editorial ends with a clarion call for the need to develop a discipline of neuroethics.
(God forbid individuals made these kinds of dangerous choices regarding their own brains rather than a team of ethicists)

Its my hunch that such a foolish outburst of demonstrative orthodoxy was necessary in the face of nervousness on the editorial teams part in tackling such an 'edgy' topic as cognitive enhancement.

Unfortunately the editorial in question is not carried online but I'd be interested in getting anyone elses take...

Edited by Utnapishtim, 03 September 2003 - 10:55 PM.

[hughbristic]

I read it over the weekend and, as usual, I pretty much agree with you. Console yourself in knowing that the same conservatism they exhibit here is also used to criticise bullshit like Intelligent Design. On the whole, they usually come out on the right side on important issues. You can hardly criticise them for saying Kurzweil's stuff is exceedingly speculative, even if you'd rather they not just ignore what he says out of hand.

Hugh

P.S. The private message feature on the site is giving an error, so I haven't been able to respond to your earlier personal message, except via the email you provided to imminst, which, I suspect, you may never check.

[Bruce Klein]

Hugh, thanks for the PS about the PM problem.. I had suspected as much, but had not heard specifically, and will focus on correcting this.

[Mind]

I agree with you Utna. Why did they single out Kurzweil? They could have done the political thing and criticized techno-optimists anonymously and taken a moderate "in between" position on futuristic uploading and such. I suggest that Kurzweil has an intellectual enemy on the editorial board or that he is just getting too popular and stealing thunder from publications such as Sciam.

[John Doe]

I happened to buy that issue today although I had not read anything yet.

I laughed at the description of the author of the piece on ethics as a "noted ethicist".

[Utnapishtim]

I have no problem whatsoever with Sciam criticising Kurzweil or anyone else. What I do feel strongly about is that if they are going to actually single out a guy like Kurzweil they need to get down in the trenches and show me why they think he is wrong and how this is relevant to a discussion of cognitive enhancement through pharmas. This whole 'we reserve the right to be disdainfully condescending and take gratuitous potshots at anyone whose ideas are out in left field because we are Scientific American and therefore respectable' attitude is what angers me. Its intellectual laziness and snobbery of the highest order.