Some elitist-sounding comments by Marvin Minsky in a New Scientist article recently have caused some concern. Danielle Egan, the author of the article, posted the full transcript of her interview with Minsky in an effort to defend her choice of words and demonstrate that she wasn’t trying to misrepresent him. Some transhumanists disagreed with her. Here is Egan’s email in defense of herself, along with the full transcript, with the quoted parts bolded:
Danielle Egan here.
I’m here to stand behind the published quotes by Minsky. The transcript of our interview is copied below. You can judge for yourselves whether I took Minsky’s comments out of context or not.
(And also whether publishing any of his additional info would have softened or hardened Minsky’s published quotes.)
While I would have loved to write 5,000 words about the conference and included my interviews with all of the people I met there (and some I didn’t even get to meet), I had to deal with a 1,200 word assignment that was eventually reduced to just under 900 words by the editor. Even the published quotes from the few people included in the piece would have been much better understood if their entire interviews had been published, along with a whole lot of extra background notes. But that wasn’t possible based on the assignment and while I lament the death of long-form journalism, I think covering the basics, including the obvious polarities within the H+ movement and the not-so-warm-fuzzy comments of certain “visionary” H+ers, is much better than nothing. And in fact, I gave a lot more ink to the quotes and info around proposed democratic and ethical goals within the movement than anything else.
I agree with Sky that I didn’t capture the spirit of the conference. I think my first draft did that, but it was over 2,000 words long. And since the published draft is kicking up controversy, not to mention various attempts to discredit me, a longer more nuanced piece would probably just have pissed of MORE people. At any rate, few people enjoy seeing their whole life history, their philosophies, etc reduced to a handful of quotes, actions and a basic physical description. I’ve noticed that people are sometimes shocked by their own words, just as we can be shocked by our reflection in the mirror, thinking, ‘I don’t really look like that!’ One of our many human quirks.
But don’t transhumanists pride themselves in being shock-proof? Or do they reserve that for thinking long, hard and honestly about the future, not present day life?
Before I leave you with Minsky’s transcript, thanks again to all of you for talking to me about H+. I am hoping to do larger articles on the topic and while I have my own personal biases - journalists are flawed just like scientists! - I will do my best not to let them creep in. Journalists are supposed to sit on the fence, so by that I partly mean that I will try my best not to fall hard for you people and your grand ideas, which is a difficult task since I find many H+ views and goals fascinating, challenging, seductive and pragmatic. I’m all for the “mainstream” getting into this discussion.
Truncated interview with Minsky, over lunch, day one of the conference. Prior to this point of the interview Minsky discussed narrow AI, religion, soccer, steroids, wrestling and warned me against recreational running, telling me I only have so many steps to take in my life and perhaps shouldn’t waste them on running. (Editorial: I’ve since given up running. See what I mean about Stockholm syndrome!)
Q: The majority of Americans believe in god so they think they’re going to live forever. And most of us use technology, so it’s strange to me that transhumanism seems so radical to them.
Minsky: I once did a sort of experiment. I was at a meeting at which the subject came up and I asked a big audience, ‘How many of you would like to live for 200 years?’ Most said no. This was a bunch of non-specialized citizens who’d come to a meeting with Philip Morris for some purpose I can’t remember. But very few of them. I asked them why and they said, ‘Well it would be boring.’ Some said, ‘Well if you were infirm and handicapped it would be unpleasant.’ I said, ‘Well suppose you were healthy to the last minute? In other words, you stay 30 years old for 200 years.’ They said, it would still be boring after a while. So then the next chance I got, I had a room full of scientists and I said the same thing. They all said, ‘Yes.’ I said, ‘Why?’ ‘Because I have some hard problems that will take that long to solve.’ So what I concluded is that ordinary citizens wouldn’t know what to do with eternal life. The masses don’t have any clear-cut goals or purpose. That’s why the world is so dangerous. People will go to war because the worst that could happen is they get killed and what difference does that make. It’s not as though it were important. They don’t like getting killed but they don’t have any reason not to get killed. As far as I can tell, only scientists have problems that are hard but that they see some hope of solving. Religious people want to obey god or something and I don’t think that’s a very strong motive – and they want to avoid being punished. But they don’t have positive goals, like that. There’s a quote from WH Auden: We’re all on earth to do good, but what I can’t figure out is what the others are here for. Maybe these are people who have ambitions and interests that distinguishes them from the rest.
Q: I meet scientists with all sorts of goals. Some of them don’t seem very scientific to me, or there are ulterior motives for the science. But some of the transhumanists I’ve met have very ethical goals and some seem quite conservative, cautious; used to be boy scouts.
Minsky: What does that mean, to be a boy scout?
Q: Learned survival methods as a child, and now are sort of boy scouts about things like nanotech.
Minsky: I know what a boy scout is. I have a merit badge for tying knots. I don’t know what you mean by boy scouts about nanotechnology.
Q: Caution and concern about the negative implications of these techs. They want nanotech, but want it used in a wise, ethical way.
Minsky: The problem is combining those qualities in the same person. The reason we have politicians is to prevent bad things from happening. It doesn’t make sense to ask a scientist to worry about the bad effects of their discoveries, because they’re no better at that than anyone else. Scientists are not particularly good at social policy.
Q: But shouldn’t they have an ethical responsibility for their inventions?
Minsky: No they shouldn’t have an ethical responsibility for their inventions. They should be able to do what they want. You shouldn’t have to ask them to have the same values as other people. Because then you won’t get them. They’ll make stupid decisions and not work on important things, because they see possible dangers. What you need is a separation of powers. It doesn’t make any sense to have the same person do both. Is this a new idea to you? Many people find it shocking.
Q: But this is also a problem in the scientific community.
Minsky: No, it is not. It is not a problem. Science is like a big animal that grows over thousands of years. It’s different than all other intellectual things because it has critical thinking and you win a prize if you show that an article of faith is right. It’s a very important thing and cultures without science are to me are like parasites that survive for their own good. Religion doesn’t do good for other people. It’s an organization that tries to convert people into its way of thinking. Science doesn’t do that. Every scientist will give his arm to show that the others are wrong. No priest would give his arm to show that the Pope is wrong. So science is different from other things because you have to check your beliefs. The general beliefs are probably crazy. Like birth control. Religious people say I want as many people as possible and I don’t care if it fucks up the environment.
Q: But you can make the same argument for some scientists. There are scientists with bias, like in the medical community, ties to drug companies, ego.
Minsky: You see them as being morally defective? That doesn’t matter because they get caught. Everyone who engages in scientific fraud gets caught. Maybe they get away with it for a while. I’m not saying that there aren’t lots of people who are corrupt and make money by selling something like homeopathic drugs. It’s a 40 billion dollar industry. It’s not science. It’s just another set of religious-like beliefs. A person is not a scientist or an atheist. A person is a very complicated thing. We’re talking about scientists as a set of humans who are rather fragile but important because it’s about taking a belief and testing it. That doesn’t mean you convince everyone that you’re right.
Q: But as you said, the primary goal of science is to tackle an issue the other way around. By attempting to prove a theory is wrong. But too much of the time, they try to prove that something is right.
Minsky: I think you’re confusing science with some idea that each scientist is a perfect thing, but they’re just people, they’re not particularly ethical and they’re not even particularly admirable. That’s the reason you shouldn’t ask scientists to be responsible for their discoveries. That’s the job of people that have other sets of values that are usually wrong anyway. For example we have a very high priority of reducing infant mortality. To focus on what you don’t like about particular scientists is missing – what’s causing wars and things? Not the scientists, it’s the true believers. Of course we need more wars because the true believers are making the population grow out of bounds and they’re making more money with war and they want their converts to kill the converts of other religions. Generally the ethics on the surface of most systems of belief or cultures are competitive and that’s a big mess. I feel that science is dying out in the US while we’re fighting these – well if you look at the Bush people, they’re trying to make this in to a religious country.
Q: But increasingly scientists are also beholden to their funders and their funders include the government and corporations.
Minsky: That’s the great thing about science. It doesn’t matter, if your theory is false, your reputation goes.
Q: But you can be marginalized if you don’t produce the results the person or people paying for your research want.
Minsky: Yes, like being paid to show that smoking is good for you. Wasn’t there a recent one that showed ex-smokers are delayed in their Alzheimer’s. It’s funny to look at our culture, because our heroes are actors and what’s an actor? A professional liar?
~~~
There is no question that Minsky’s quotes in this article have set back transhumanism’s efforts to dispel its elitist associations for at least a year. The question is: who’s to blame, Minsky, Egan, or the editors of New Scientist?
By the way, I believe that everyone could enjoy a really long life (not just scientists), and I hope you do too.
59 Responses »
brain-computer interfacing
