6 replies to this topic

[Richard Leis]

There are a few concerns that keep coming up in this forum that I would like to address while inviting further discussion:

1) Is the United States falling behind in science and technology?

My answer, in the form of a rhetorical question - "Does it really matter?" The "leap frog" phenomenon is apparent all over the world. Communications technology continues to evolve and spread. United States scientists, just like everyone else, are travelling more, spending more time abroad, reaching out to colleagues around the world. I simply do not understand how this concern even comes up in a section called "Singularity". The Technological Singularity cannot be enclosed by national borders...there is no need for patriotism.

2) Will governments stifle research?

Yes, I think they will, but they will not have much success. Why? Because the individuals involved are hypocritical and people change their mind. Let us look at some examples. The White House and President Bush have gone on the record saying he will veto affirmative stem cell legislation. Yet the same administration feels it is okay to pump money into advancing the capabilities of military robotics and automation. Meanwhile, Britain has become the second country to successfuly clone humans and South Korea has shocked even the most supportive experts in cloning and stem cell research with their rapid progress. This rapid acceleration in technological progress (which includes stem cell research, robotics, automation, cloning, etc.) doesn't care what feeds its growth and in what combinations. I think progress is running blindly into the future beyond any imposed control.

3) Will the future be better? Worse?

Transhumanists and extropians are too optimistic, bioluddites and religious fundamentalists are too pessimistic, and I continue to see both extremes in these forums. The future is not better or worse overall, it is just very, very, very different. I do not honestly think that the advent of artificial intelligence and nanotechnology will solve all problems, nor do I think they will eat us. They might solve some problems, but there will be new problems and challenges for emergent intelligences (see Werking's "The Posthuman Condition"). Will a posthuman be truly happy and better off? It seems to me that posthumans will have a whole new canvas on which they can paint happy or sad existences, a canvas that stretches far beyond the confines of our own existence.

Next, I include my own concerns about our current discussion regarding the future and the Technological Singularity:

4) Heteronormative, homonormative, and human-centric biases.

We are necessarily selfish when we consider our own future. However, by being selfish we miss other trends that will play an important part in shaping that future. For example,
while transhumanists tend to be more inclusive of LGBT individuals, biases continue to be hetero- and homonormative in composition. I prefer to think of the future in terms of so-called "freaks". How do all these technological changes affect the intersexual, the swinger, the fetishist, the pedophile, the asexual...and how do they affect the future in turn? Remember, all of us humans are being swept up into these changes, bringing with us our own profiles.

Beyond humanity itself, what ranges of personalities, interests and fetishes will we discover in emergent intelligences (consider the sex life of a chimera, for example)? Who and what has investment in the future and how might they/it try to maintain their/its biases? When do we start including vegetable, mineral, and animal players in our discussions and our plans? The Technological Singularity is asking all of us who and what we consider to be part of the future. I really do not think we have any choice in the matter, but there will be a great deal of pain if we do not keep trying to stretch our brains around these concepts.

5) The Chasm between the Humanities and the Natural Sciences

In this forum we see a great deal of discussion informed by natural science and philosophy (a practice I absolutely support and even demand) but much less so by the humanities, including cultural studies. Furthermore, any such discussion too often highlights the chasm between the humanities and the natural sciences, rather than an interdisciplinary approach. Both spheres are increasingly being kept separate by their practitioners and I find that dangerous. I recently took an LGBT Studies course and saw natural science dismissed outright time and time again, when it wasn't being attacked. I also know scientists who have no time for cultural studies, even as the results of their research sweep through society.

I will sum up abruptly by stating that I dismiss the first three concerns as being inconsequential. I find the fourth and fifth to be very serious. Feel free to disagree and discuss!

[Lazarus Long]

5) The Chasm between the Humanities and the Natural Sciences

In this forum we see a great deal of discussion informed by natural science and philosophy (a practice I absolutely support and even demand) but much less so by the humanities, including cultural studies. Furthermore, any such discussion too often highlights the chasm between the humanities and the natural sciences, rather than an interdisciplinary approach. Both spheres are increasingly being kept separate by their practitioners and I find that dangerous. I recently took an LGBT Studies course and saw natural science dismissed outright time and time again, when it wasn't being attacked. I also know scientists who have no time for cultural studies, even as the results of their research sweep through society.

I will sum up abruptly by stating that I dismiss the first three concerns as being inconsequential. I find the fourth and fifth to be very serious. Feel free to disagree and discuss!

All important issues enoosphere and I hope that others here take them up for discussion since they deserve considerably more attention than they are receiving IMHO.

I would suggest for example this last comment reflects one of the underlying reasons for the disproportionate representation of males in our group rather than a balance with females.

No one should take this to assume that women are not represented in the sciences but even when they are involved they *tend* to bring a more humanist perspective to them and as a *class* (in the mathematical sense of a set) they are far more involved in the study of humanities than are men.

I will add that more than once when I have tried to introduce discussions of humanist issues they were ignored and/or received in hostile manner and I have felt this reflected a sort of blindside, of bias based contempt for the values of the humanities. This is not really a productive approach as the humanities also represent the source of the values for society and without engaging them in a productive manner the other concerns you raise cannot be effectively resolved.

I have often called myself a *Natural Scientist* invoking an arcane 19th Century use that was still considered a branch of philosophy. It is derivative of an attitude that contributed to my source of a screen name in that I agree with RAH and his fictional Lazarus: "Specialization is for insects".

However it is also extremely impractical for adapting to socioeconomic demand and the immense complexity of information to study in order to achieve a significant level of competence in any one field of science today.

I also think the chasm we see forming isn't just a reflection of social issues but very different methodologies regarding the results of one's efforts and the importance of intuitive versus deductive thinking. IOW's there is a psychological emphasis that involves a kind of competitive value set, which sets up a social competition for resources (funding) as well as behavioral standards when each see the other area as counter productive to their specific goals for the efforts.

Clearly as scientific study requires rigorous discipline at times it appears anathema to students of the humanities. As science seeks truth (albeit with a small 't') it is anathema to moral relativists and theist alike, both though are part of the humanities. And Lastly as science and its bastard child technology appears to be bringing about an evermore deterministic universe that is reflected in a socially more deterministic society this also invokes the wrath of the humanitarian that sees this as threating in a socially authoritarian sense.

I don't personally agree that science deserves this criticism and in fact is being scapegoated by many in the humanities for the ambitions of their *charismatics* but it is still the case that science makes all too easy a target because technology and science openly threatens many vested interests from both the secular and nonsecular sides of the humanities.

[psudoname]

There are a few concerns that keep coming up in this forum that I would like to address while inviting further discussion:


2)  Will governments stifle research?

Yes, I think they will, but they will not have much success.  Why?  Because the individuals involved are hypocritical and people change their mind.  Let us look at some examples.  The White House and President Bush have gone on the record saying he will veto affirmative stem cell legislation.  Yet the same administration feels it is okay to pump money into advancing the capabilities of military robotics and automation.  Meanwhile, Britain has become the second country to successfuly clone humans and South Korea has shocked even the most supportive experts in cloning and stem cell research with their rapid progress.  This rapid acceleration in technological progress (which includes stem cell research, robotics, automation, cloning, etc.) doesn't care what feeds its growth and in what combinations.  I think progress is running blindly into the future beyond any imposed control.

3)  Will the future be better?  Worse?

Transhumanists and extropians are too optimistic, bioluddites and religious fundamentalists are too pessimistic, and I continue to see both extremes in these forums.  The future is not  better or worse overall, it is just very, very, very different.  I do not honestly think that the advent of artificial intelligence and nanotechnology will solve all problems, nor do I think they will eat us.  They might solve some problems, but there will be new problems and challenges for emergent intelligences (see Werking's "The Posthuman Condition").  Will a posthuman be truly happy and better off?  It seems to me that posthumans will have a whole new canvas on which they can paint happy or sad existences, a canvas that stretches far beyond the confines of our own existence.

I will sum up abruptly by stating that I dismiss the first three concerns as being inconsequential.  I find the fourth and fifth to be very serious.  Feel free to disagree and discuss!

What? Governments banning transhumanism is less important then people being kinky? Why?

In reply to points 2 and 3:

2)
If you look at what governments are doing, they almost certainly will try to stop reserch if they think it could work. Look at what they have done so far: banned reproductive cloning, banned drugs even cannabis (and thus the freedom to control our own thought processes), banned the teaching of evolution even!
On a human rights front there are people being held without trial in both the US and UK, more people are thinking that certain oppinions should not be allowed (e.g. impending laws in the uk making expressing hatred against a religion a crime) and the war on terror is being used as an excuse for all this and a lot else.
What is more Bush thinks he's on a mission from god...


3) I think that the singularity will solve almost all problembs except maby how to stop a big crunch or however else the universe might end. The post singularity world must be better, as there would be no poverty, no death, no limit to what you can acheve. This can't be a bad thing!

As far as the LBG/fettishists thing goes, well there will be a lot more opportunity to do strange sexual things as a posthuman, but I can't see it being the primary motive for transhumanism.

[Richard Leis]

I think you bring up some important points, Lazarus, and the lack of participation in this topic illustrates our concerns. People label ideas such as "The Technological Singularity," "physical immortality," and "transhumanism" as GOOD or BAD but then refuse to use the tools of humanities that would allow them to check their biases, reexamine their ideas, better understand who has a vested interest, and prepare for consequences. Transhumanism, despite its efforts at inclusion, could very easily become a club for the elite without a more humanist approach. There are already some splinter groups who embrace some tenants of transhumanism while excluding certain races.

Should we exclude any one at all? Transhumanism includes within the word itself a human-centric perspective. What of AI and other sentient beings? What of chimera and other lifeforms? I'm going to repeat it over and over again, but if the Technological Singularity occurs, it will not be limited to humans. It has the potential to profounding affect every blade of grass and grain of sand.

I can too easily imagine the following scenarios:

(1) It is just moments before the Singularity. Leon Kass and Francis Fukuyama have fought transhumanists every single step of the way. Suddenly, reality becomes too much and they finally convert. They accept what transhumanists have been pointing out all along and prepare to become transhumanists themselves. But they find their path blocked by transhumanists who pass judgement. It's payback time. No future for you!

(2) The Singularity occurs and the bulk of the lifeform mass in flux is bacterial. We never considered the values of bacteria and yet they will determine the posthuman future.

(3) It is years before the Singularity. The world has become much more tolerant of LGBT and beyond individuals. New technologies emerge that allow gender and sexuality reassignment to become outpatient procedures. Suddenly, millions of gay men and women are standing in line to become heterosexual. No one can understand how the hell that happened. Those who do not choose the procedure begin to complain that their community is being decimated.

If that last scenario sounds absurd, take a look at the hearing impaired community. Many are adopting cochlear implants but many are fighting the technology because they feel their community is being disbanded.

I suggest is that we begin to examine and discuss the relevant issues now. Even if we do not come to any concrete conclusions, it is beneficial to shed some light on areas that reside in the shadows. There are numerous pitfalls we could uncover and subsequently avoid or limit.

[Mind]

With regards to #1) U.S. falling behind. You are right, it doesn't really matter. It is only a matter of pride. It would be sad to see a former tech leader fall by the wayside and maybe even become a drag on progress.

[Richard Leis]

What? Governments banning transhumanism is less important then people being kinky? Why?

Yes, because it doesn't matter if governments ban transhumanism, if the U.S. falls behind, or if the future is better or worse. Technology will progress despite the involvement or lack thereof of the U.S. or other governments, and the posthuman future will contain new opportunities and new obstacles.

What does concern me is the possiblity that transhumanism will exclude wide demographics of people and other entities, including those with acceptable and unacceptable fetishes, while making the same mistake as previous philosophies and ideologies by trying to idealize a normative individual. I am also concerned that the artificial separation of the humanities and the natural sciences is preventing important dialogue about these issues to take place within the transhumanist and other technology progressive communities. Transhumanism must be informed by both.

Beyond adult and concentual fetishes, should murderers be allowed to live forever? What about pedophiles? What if technology "cures" them...then is it okay to forgive them and allow them to transform through the Singularity with the rest of us? Which transhumanists and posthumans are to be considered adults and which are children? Is it okay to have sex with an AI in the bodily form of a biological human child? Should any sentient being be allowed to have sex with another sentient being and under what limits, if any? Do bestiality, pedophilia, and other deviant activities exist in the transhuman and posthuman worlds and if so, what should be done about them? Can murder be an acceptable fetish if technology can bring anyone back to life?

Many in this forum may not be transhumanists or singularitarians but do seek physical immortality. Who gets physical immortality...everyone? Anyone who wants it? Only good transhumanists? If you have been imprisoned for life do you get to be physically immortal but imprisoned for eternity? Do we want to provide physical immortality and intelligence technology to our dogs, cats, mice, and other pets even if we cannot get their consent? Should they be allowed to commit suicide or should the procedure be reversed if they become sentient and decide they don't want to be? What about our plants? Why might I want and not want to make my rose bush a sentient immortal? Can I have sex with my sentient and immortal rose bush if I want? If so, how old does it have to be? Should I use protection? Will other transhumans or posthumans recognize our relationship?

I know for a fact that transhumanists will have various gut responses to these questions. To me, this is much more significant with longer term ramifications than the first three concerns I mentioned. Unfortunately, I find little discussion about these issues.

I recently attended a cultural studies conference at the University of Arizona. One of the discussions was about the affects of future technologies on individuals and societies. The attendance to this session was deplorable. The attendants astutely pointed out issues that have remained under the radar while attendants in other rooms debated assimilation/liberation in the LGBT movement, women's rights in the Middle East, and growing conservatism in the United States. I am not at all suggesting that we ignore present day concerns. Instead, it is important for us to discuss short term and long term, present and future concerns. So-called future concerns are coming much more quickly than anyone anticipated.

[Richard Leis]

With regards to #1) U.S. falling behind. You are right, it doesn't really matter. It is only a matter of pride. It would be sad to see a former tech leader fall by the wayside and maybe even become a drag on progress.

Mind, I do not mean to disrespect your or any other person's patriotism. Patriotism is simply something I no longer feel. I feel a great deal of pride for any human breakthrough and advance, whether it occurred in the U.S. or not. In fact, I even feel the same pride when I hear that an automated agent has made a new discovery (something that is happening more and more in the field of astronomy). Eventually I hope to feel pride for the constructive accomplishments of any sentient being, whatever its animal, plant, mineral, quantum, or other substrate.

At this rate, I think the U.S. could reject their tech leadership and start bombing other countries to prevent technology advancement and it would still have no affect on progress.