Human Arrogance Monday, Feb 25 2008
transhumanism 2:37 pm
Humanity. We think we’re the shit. The other day my gf Sarah Rose mentioned a story about a classmate that admitted his reasoning for why humanity is superior: “we’re capable of wiping out other species en masse“. Maybe so, but it’s a pretty sad reason for why we’re the best. If you have a problem with that, why not ask the passenger pigeon… oh wait, it’s extinct.
Humanity is the first species on Earth capable of bending the entire environment to its will in a complex fashion. Wait — detect the human bias — a “complex fashion”? According to a superintelligence, the fashion in which we have manipulated our external environment might be quite simple, reminiscent of the Oxygen Catastrophe initiated by cyanobacteria 2.7 billion years ago. Manipulations orders of magnitude more complex should be possible.
Anyone can admit humanity is the most successful species on the planet, in terms of its ability to understand its surroundings, reproduce exponentially, improve its quality of life, and, well, I don’t know, be the first organism since the dawn of life to make it to the Moon. What I am skeptical about is that humanity is the most successful species theoretically possible, defined by any standard you care to use — the only standard that puts humans at the top is one explicitly tailored for human-centrism.
In a way, every species is at the “top”. If you believe all species existing today have sacred value and deserve to be preserved from extinction by humanity, then I support you fully. There is enough room in the universe for quadrillions of species, never mind the petty millions we have here. The problem isn’t that I’m not an environmentalist, it’s that I’m an environmentalist beyond what most others can imagine.
What just ticks me off is hyperbolic human arrogance. We think we’re in some club that includes humans and no other species at all, including potential future cyborgs or new species of Homo created through genetic engineering. That’s why so many of us experience not a drop of remorse when we eat meat. Other animals are put there for us to exploit and enjoy — right?
Well, no. Like the Roman Empire, Homo sapiens will not be #1 forever. Time to toss out your club card that says “Homo sapiens” and exchange it in for one that says “intelligence in general”. Intelligence in general is a great thing. Humans are just a case study of the potential of intelligence.
I know some people who will berate me for encouraging a guarded disidentification with the human species. It’s even worse than preaching global federalism. But the human species is just tiny dot in a vast sea of possibility space, so why obsess over it? Dismissing the infallibility of humanity is not nihilistic (there are other possibilities!), nor does it imply I want humans to be wiped out, nor does it imply I favor some definition of optimality I want to impose on you.
Stop being so defensive and nervous, and start opening your mind to a future that belongs to more than just traditional humans.
February 25th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
I agree totally. But I would like to make a statement “Human Arrogance is just the nonexistence of compassion for other beings”. With that being said I do not believe that humans are the most successful species of this planet nor is our genus Homo the most successful. Our entire existence could not and would not be possible on this planet without the ever present fact we are in a symbiosis. Without this symbiosis human beings could not sustain its existence on this planet or any other for that matter. Plants I believe are the most successful beings on this planet. They have what we do not the able to produce there own food. And I believe that plants will proliferate with or without us! Even the teeniest tiniest beings of our planet are more accomplished than us! I hold no disregard for humankind only that we are arrogant. And there are exceptions. But humankind is wholly foolish if we believe that we are the end all of life on this planet! I love to hear responses to my remarks and they can be directed to me by way of email at tjcooltheodore@gmail.com. Please respond!
February 25th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
We could wipe out 99.9% of all plants and still be fine, survival-wise (not aesthetically so don’t even post a comment assuming I am find the possibility aesthetically or environmentally acceptable). We depend on less than 100 plant species for food, and in some cultures, less than 5. We could exclusively use algae (spirulina) for food if we really needed to. So, no, you’re totally wrong, we’re not in symbiosis, and not dependent on any other species.
The reason to preserve other species isn’t that we need them to survive. We don’t. The reason is because they have inherent value.
February 25th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
“Dismissing the infallibility of humanity is not nihilistic (there are other possibilities!)”
This is true, but it’s quite arguable that, regarding those other values “you can’t get there from here”, at least, not intentionally. Any values that unfold from your human values can reasonably be considered to themselves be human values. Any values that do not you can only come to have by accident, at least from the perspective of your current values if you were rational you would avoid self-modifications that bring you closer to them.
February 25th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Michael,
Even from the perspective of my current values, I can imagine randomly instantiating a large number of possible value systems, interviewing their adherents, and being persuaded. So why can’t I get there from here?
In terms of volition averaged across humanity, you could be right. In which case I would be willing to accept relinquishment of certain areas of the moral field.
February 25th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Please Mr. Anissimov. Do not in any way take my responses as an attack they were not meant to be that at all. I am a fellow Transhumanist. I also take immense offense to you removing my responses. Were you the one who wrote this article? I apologize for making so many responses to this article but that was for “internet dramatic effect”. And the fact that you did remove them hits home the idea you presented in your article of human arrogance. If I broke a response rule then I apologize immensely! But do you not agree that without the free exchange of ideas then our transhumanist beliefs cannot be brought to the forefront of scientific thought? your comment and I quote “We could wipe out 99.9% of all plants and still be fine, survival-wise” is wholly an arrogant response! It would also not be scientifically possible because the whole human ecosystem of earth is represented by a pyramid and the foundation of that pyramid is the 1St trophic level and without a huge foundation the ecosystem which we all reside upon could not survive? And the fact that our ecosystem is represented as a pyramid that without a good foundation the progress of the future could not survive? And we are in a constant symbiosis with botanicals? And that this “Fact” cannot and should not be refuted? And to denounce the relationship that humans and botanicals share is a dangerous idea? Please do not remove this response and elaborate!
February 25th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
There is enough room in the universe for quadrillions of species, never mind the petty millions we have here.
As a reductio ad absurdum of your thesis that I should consider humans as “nothing special”: there are many more than quadrillions of possible species; our Hubble volume can’t possibly contain more than an infinitesimal fraction of all possible species. By your logic, humans shouldn’t exist at all in the future; at best, maybe we could, if we bend the rules, save a single duck-billed platypus as a representative of all evolved terran life.
I, on the other hand, would personally consider a human life more valuable than the continued survival of emacs, even though emacs is, by many reasonable metrics, smarter and more complex than I am.
February 25th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Theo,
Sorry, I removed your initial comments because you made three very short comments in a row and they seemed very rambling. I don’t care about attacks or challenges, I just don’t want other commenters to be scared away by a low quality of conversation. For instance, why do you ask, “is it you who wrote this article?” when it is incredibly obvious by my name appearing right next to it? Statements like that make me worried. The quality of conversation here is way above that of the most popular social sites and blogs, and I like to keep it that way.
Anyway, I believe that we’ll soon create self-sustaining habitats (in space or underground or in the Antarctic) making use of only a few plant species. We’re already almost there. If you don’t believe me, you’ll just have to wait and see. Did you think we were going to bring all 10 million species here on Earth when we travel to Mars? The first settlers will probably only bring a few dozen, and get along just fine.
Rolf,
No, I can value the potential of quadrillions of species and still value humans greatly. For instance, I could value those species merely as things for humans to look at. I don’t actually think that, I’m just saying there are multiple other ways you can interpret my comment beyond assuming I mean the acceptance of extreme biodiversity dismisses the value of our current species. I also wasn’t saying that biodiversity should be maximized indefinitely at the exclusion of preservation of incumbent species.
Humans can exist in the future… why not? There is plenty of room. Again, not seeing how biodiversity advocacy = anti-human. You seem to be making an extrapolation unwarranted by the statements I’ve presented, though I could be mistaken.
February 25th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
I labeled the conclusion a reductio specifically because I don’t think you agree with the conclusion (you even specifically stated that you don’t want humans to be wiped out), but because I think the conclusion follows logically from what you seemed to me to be arguing, unless you, too, have some human-centric belief that humans are special, rather than merely “just a case study of the potential of intelligence”. I apologize if I interpreted your argument incorrectly.
Humans can exist in the future… why not?
The more interesting question is *why*, and the answer is “because we want our values to be, at least to some degree, human-centric.” That “some degree” may be larger for me than it is for you, although there’s probably not a huge amount we’d disagree on in practice. But the question “why not” makes it sound like “humans existing” is the default state of the Universe, which it clearly isn’t.
February 25th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I apologize to the greatest degree with which a human can apologize. And if you want quality conversation I will present to you this. I am an independent scholar. I have not attended a college . I plan to. When I do the fields I will be studying in are Botanical Physiology and Ethnobotany. Oh and genetic engineering and Biotechnology. Which ever of these field best serves me and human kind as a whole will be the field I focus on. And I also fervently believe that any humans message or thought holds some validation. If you did not want anyone to be rambling on your site you should specifically state that. I like this site it is a hub for Transhumanist thought this in and of itself is a n aid to all of us. I also do not believe that we are will bring “all 10 million species here on Earth” to other planets. I believe that by the time humanity reaches the point where we can create sustainable habitats on other planets (the first of which I think will be Titan) We will have no need for all of the botanical species no I believe that one day genetic engineers will have reached a point where all known botanical species will brought into one genus containing only a few species. I hope that one day there will be a plant genus that can not only produce their own food but absorb soft bodied animals at the same time. I believe that if time where to permit this all plant species would accomplish this. And this genus of plant species will be all that we need! I would also like to inquire as to your evident hostility toward planet Earth and to other organisms such as botanicals. Why transhumanists are so focused on AGI and Singularity is a conundrum to me. There is a perfect design to botanicals and all other organisms on Earth whether that design came from a being know as God or not. I believe the Transhumanist movement can learn much from the design of botanicals even to further the complete perfect fabrication of robotics. And the singularity well that is a bad idea to say the least! Thank You and I do utterly apologize. (Do not hack me again)!
February 27th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
How about this as a judgment basis for humanity’s superiority: we are the only species capable of caring about the survival of other species.
If a superintelligence does arise and must consider what to with humans and all other species I would say we’d be lucky to be given the deal livestock are given today (at least well treated livestock). I’d rather live a good life and then be harvested than denied existence because the land I require to live on is more valuable than anything but the meat I can offer. Let’s hope our transhuman superintelligent descendants keep their taste for meat!
February 28th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
You do not think that other species within our earth system do not wish to preserve the other species on this planet. “Without one the other could not survive”. I heard of a concept known as “Global symbiosis” (where I heard this I cannot recall). If any biologists can tell me what is the effect of disturbing a beneficial symbiosis to the extent that it can not be rekindled? “If the predator eats all the prey, then where will the next meal come from”. The understanding of how individuals operate in a system can that system survive”. Many complex understandings of the world around us are incorporated into every organism on earth. “For each organism can move around in that environment”. Why? cannot humanity understand these complex concepts of the world around us to the extent that other organisms can. “Because we will one day be passed in general understanding of this world by an idea known as a singularity”. Is that so bad?
February 28th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Extinction is the cornerstone of evolution. Without the consummate critic of selection and mass extinction there would be no radiation of species that has given us the lovely birds and vigorous forests. Don’t be too quick to judge the value of human arrogance, even now nature is adapting to our follies. This morning as I sat watching birds in a parking lot a small blackbird hopped out of the grill of a pickup with a mouthful of bugs that had been stuck to the radiator.
Nature is an information system too. Get the groove of its process.
February 29th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
I can dig, ‘The Guy’. I’m a big fan of all animals that flourish in human environments: small birds, squirrels, rodents and especially raccoons. These are the ‘fittest’ of the new environment we are creating. I wonder if any significant morphological evolution has occurred in these animals in the last 100-150 years.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Just as in carnivorous plant species whether Morphological or simply physiological evolution has happened that should be an achievement in an of itself. Many botanists say that the Carnivorous structures of those species is nothing more than a modified leaf. If this were true then any organism could develop minute physiological responses to foreign stimuli. If minute mutations were to occur inside organisms of a Nano-scale then perhaps one could make the statement “If a purely botanical microorganism were to develop Carnivorous behavior then it could double the amount of basic elements which it digests, and therefore ensure the continuation of those particular traits within the overall species”. These concepts of Carnivorous botanical species could hold the key to Nano-scale devices that could, not only produce its own energy but obtain basic energies from the world around it”. If Nanotech devices could become Carnivorous to a Nano-scale then they would pose only a Nano-scale threat to Human beings, and at the same time preserve those favorable traits to pass on to other species or even perhaps be included into the design of Biomechanical systems on a Nano-scale!
March 10th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
How can we eliminate 99.9 percent of the plant species in this world without eliminating 99.9999999999 percent of humans in the process Mr Anissimov? Is there a method of destruction that will not kill humans too? And even if we can survive with the 0.1 percent of remaining plants, can earth survive for long? Can you elaborate on your logic please. Thanks.
March 10th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Where do I suggest eliminating 99.9% of plant species? I’m just saying it would be possible with a little more technology, not necessarily desirable.
This is just a thought experiment… I like to think in abstract terms once in a while, instead of exclusively concrete terms.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:39 am
the value of each species is in what we can learn by studying them or by using them. basically, there isn’t even a good definition of a species is. and, soon, when we will be able to construct living beings like we’re writing software right now. and there is no need to “preserve” software, is it? when it’s out of use we can replace it with better software or delete it