TV07 Coverage Hits the Front Page of Digg… a Little Late Monday, Jun 16 2008
transhumanism 1:16 pm
Danielle Egan’s coverage of Transvision 2007 just hit the front page of Digg, which means about 100,000 people will be reading the article today and tomorrow. The article, at New Scientist, is “Death special: The plan for eternal life“. Presented themes include uploading, life extension, and transhumanism in general.
This is not really all that unusual: transhumanist-themed stories are on the front page of Digg and Reddit every week. This is slightly more unusual because it’s about an actual WTA conference than being just an article about Aubrey or Ray. The Digg comments thread regarding the article is slightly less pithy than usual.
Danielle Egan is one of the first journalists I’ve ever met. I first talked to her at Transvision 2003 at Yale, where she shared a room with my sister, Nina. It resulted in this article being published. Initially I thought it was a smear piece, now I realize that it only looks so bad because Eliezer has the capability to fail remarkably when talking to reporters, by being too honest. (Plan to be alive after every star in the Milky Way is dead? Great, but when you’re talking about other wild-sounding stuff, why say things that dynamite your credibility unnecessarily?)
Egan gave me a pleasant conception of print journalists in general. When I attacked her on ImmInst for writing the article, she actually noticed my criticism and addressed every one of my points. Not exactly the stereotype of the heartless journalist, is it? Since then, I’ve liked most journalists I meet that cover transhumanism. During one particularly active sequence of transhumanist events about six months ago, I ran into David Gelles, a freelance journalist who formerly worked for Forbes, at every single one. Talk about investigative journalism — this is a guy who wanted the whole story.
The New Scientist article is famous for lowering the popular impression of Marvin Minsky in the eyes of the public. Here is the relevant passage:
I discover the less egalitarian side to the transhumanist community when I meet Marvin Minsky, the 80-year-old originator of artificial neural networks and co-founder of the AI lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Ordinary citizens wouldn’t know what to do with eternal life,” says Minsky. “The masses don’t have any clear-cut goals or purpose.” Only scientists, who work on problems that might take decades to solve appreciate the need for extended lifespans, he argues.
I disagree. Although the “masses” may not all be MIT professors, you’ll find that even the most humble and uneducated people usually want to live honest lives and have their own purposes which some intellectuals might roll their eyes at, but are still important: raising a family, meeting their co-workers expectations, making little improvements to their life that benefit their health, and so on. I do believe that the vast majority of the human race would greatly enjoy vastly extended lifespans, and have no trouble finding interesting things to do.
Marvin Minsky’s attitude is not typical of the transhumanist community. Even though he is widely recognized as a genius, I think he is a little bit of a cranky genius. (”Cranky” as in having a misanthropic streak, not being a crank.)
In the article, Egan writes, regarding the conference:
More immediate issues facing humanity, such as poverty, pollution and the devastation of war, tend to get ignored.
What sometimes gets swept over here is that many transhumanists believe that advanced technologies like nanotech and AI are necessary to make a large and permanent dent in these major problems. Some transhumanists (such as myself) got interested in these technologies for that very reason.
Poverty and pollution could be addressed by clean self-replicating desktop manufacturing units, based on nanotech or otherwise. As John Horgan argues, the devastation of war might be largely avoided if there were adequate food, fuel, and equality available to everyone. You can moderate and work diplomacy all day long, and people will still fight wars. What we need are to address the underlying causes — often a lack of resources due to technological shortcomings. Another possible source of war is the inherent testosterone-based tendencies of human males. In a future where wholesale brain modification technologies are available (sooner than you think), humans might be able to edit their brains such that the characteristics they want (like standing up for themselves) are retained, while maladaptive characteristics (like excessive aggression and us-vs-them-ism) are removed.
Anyway, the constant front-page Digging of transhumanist-related articles shows that there is a tremendous amount of basic interest in this area, and it’s up to us to learn how to tap into it effectively. This is a full time job, which is why financial support of organizations like the WTA is essential.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
“…the devastation of war might be largely avoided if there were adequate food, fuel, and equality available to everyone.”
What technologies offer “adequate equality”?
I don’t think Afghanistan and Iraq were caused by oil shortages. They were caused by FEAR. A fear that is not an exclusively male domain. 9/11 was caused by one group’s perception of American occupation of Saudi Arabia. These are not resource shortage problems. They’re caused by human behavior. Again, this is not a technology issue; it’s a political one.
You can only change the human condition so much before you have to start changing the human. And you can’t change humans unless they want to.
June 16th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
@Nato: “They’re caused by human behavior. Again, this is not a technology issue; it’s a political one.
I think Michael answered this well:
In a future where wholesale brain modification technologies are available (sooner than you think), humans might be able to edit their brains such that the characteristics they want (like standing up for themselves) are retained, while maladaptive characteristics (like excessive aggression and us-them-ism) are removed.
Human behaviour will ultimately become a technological issue, because it is likely that at some point in the future, all human behavior will be technologically modifiable.
If I’m honest about this, I’d have to say that there is a large and worrying possibility that certain groups will modify their behavior to be even more aggressive and more in-group biased.
This is not to say that technology cannot solve, once and for all, the old, hard problems of war and aggression - I think it can, but I think we have to come out and say “yes, it could also make the problem much worse”. The difference between these scenarios may well be determined by our actions today.
June 16th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Say, I’m a technology researcher and I’m actually busy creating something you talk about. How would it benefit me to belong to WTA? What is it that you transhumanists actually do other than talk about technologies and improve your thinking, behavior and health with smarter ideas? As a serious researcher I have little time or interest for speculating and talking, because there’s a lot to do and little time unless our lifespans get extended.
To some the majority of transhumanists may seem mere transhumanist-meme-fans while only a few actually roll their sleeves and do something to bring the transhumanist future about, whether they’ve even heard about transhumanism or care about it.
June 16th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
To me, it seems self-evident that any self-identified transhumanist would want to belong to the WTA. It’s a way of meeting others, supporting a coherent movement, and getting information on people that work in numerous different fields. Transhumanists actually do many things, like organizing conferences with hundreds or 1,000+ people to discuss important issues, get media coverage, etc. I’m extremely disappointed that you’re actually skeptical about the productivity of transhumanists in the WTA.
There are so many examples I don’t even know where to start. Many transhumanists I know are successful entrepreneurs who frequently immerse themselves in transhumanist ideas and start companies based on inspiration derived from them.
It’s not just speculating and talking, it’s cross-pollinating between disciplines and taking a wider technical and philosophical perspective, something you can’t do if you’re a specialist with his nose deep in narrow problems in your own field.
I’m both a huge transhumanist meme-fan and someone that does things to bring the H+ future about.
Also, “talking” helps enormously in getting the public concerned about these issues and supporting them, rather than reacting with knee-jerk ignorance.
What about deciding the difference between which H+ technologies are beneficial and which are dangerous?
People complain about “talking”, but a lot of getting things done involves talking. The people that provide your funding do so because they talked about it and came to the conclusion that your work is a good idea. Even if you’re self-funded, it’s because you talked to other people about the tech.
June 16th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
“Another possible source of war is the inherent testosterone-based tendencies of human males.”
It’s always PC to take a cheap shot at males. It’s not like males haven’t born the brunt of crap throughout history. Women have almost always had it easier, but slam the males who get killed in wars and work all the crap jobs for the betterment of society. They’re just pack mules. Eff ‘em.
June 16th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I also meant to add one thing:
If “testosterone” is such a bad thing, how do you explain the fact that men are responsible for civilization itself and 99% of all the inventions in human history? Men made the world we live in. The same world that is leading to all the transhuman ideas.
Men arn’t bad. We’re the drivers of history.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:02 am
@Roko:
I concur that self-modification can be construed as an “answer” (as if my point were an objection), but there’s a fundamental difference between technologies and politics. Technologies are how we get what we want, whereas politics are more how we negotiate what we want. Technology is an ability, but, at least to a humanist, it cannot help any problem without the consent of its users.
For example, if those who have access to technologies (through invention, licensing, R&D, education, what have you) do not want to permit others to have access, it means nothing to them.
Even if people can make radical changes to their motivational systems, those changes are motivated by pre-existing motives (leaving out the more sinister prospect of coercive applications). We cannot escape some of our roots. Many may not even wish to. And no one should make them.
Consent is not a technological problem. Innovation has its limits. You can’t just unilaterally change the world without asking.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:41 am
@Transresearcher: “As a serious researcher I have little time or interest for speculating and talking, because there’s a lot to do and little time unless our lifespans get extended.”
- Implicit in this is the view that your research will be used to make the world better, rather than worse. I don’t think that scientists should just knuckle down and do whatever research is put in front of them, I think that we should all think about what the consequences might be. Personally, I have changed (or am in the process of changing) my career in science from theoretical physics to artificial intelligence for exactly this reason.
@Nato: “Technologies are how we get what we want, whereas politics are more how we negotiate what we want. … Even if people can make radical changes to their motivational systems, those changes are motivated by pre-existing motives”
- You’re correct here: but the human motivational system is a complex beast. The presence or absence of brain altering technologies will significantly change the political process that decides what gets done.
Another important thing to remember is that people are not “rational economic agents” - to use Omohundro’s terminology. We have a variety of conflicting desires and emotions which operate on different timescales and levels. (For example, why do fat people continue to overeat?). It may be the case that the vast majority of people don’t REALLY want to go to war, in the same way that a fat person doesn’t REALLY want to be fat. But in the heat of the moment, when presented with emotionally charged stimuli, people’s rational side cannot overcome their emotional desires. C.f. 9/11 and the Iraq war, or the fat man who gives in to temptation when the cake is put in front of him.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Anonymous, SHH! I’m not supposed admit this but…
women make live worth living.
Men are supposed to die early or die after a hard life. We want to.
Now that’s not an endorsement, but it happens.
Besides, women have been given equal rights, only recently.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Anonymous, I acknowledge all of that, but in the context of extremely advanced technologies that can kill billions with the push of a button, testosterone becomes a liability.
Neither gender is perfect. That’s why I think the whole human race will choose to reshape itself (including mentally) with technology.
I can take cheap shots at women too. Women tend to contribute very little to the hard sciences, for instance.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:55 am
“Anonymous, SHH! I’m not supposed admit this but…
women make live worth living.”
No doubt billions find the above statement true. I, too, would have to agree if my genes tell me it is so. However, there is no intrinsic worth in the opposite sex other than reproductive. And even that may be removed by technology.
If you find ways to make scientific contributions, the role of the opposite sex as source of worth may drop to zero in comparison to your research. The dictates of the genes become a distraction and a hindrance to achieving your goals, rather than a source of perceived worth.
Other species reproduce too, and no doubt find the opposite sex makes their life worth living, its primary goal and purpose.
From a civilization’s perspective, it is science and the creation of knowledge that makes life worth living, not pursuing the opposite sex, which keeps us at an evolutionary pace of development, at which we as a species have been far too long already.
June 18th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
However, there is no intrinsic worth in the opposite sex other than reproductive.
Man, what a sexist asshole.
June 18th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Oh…that’s not what I had in mind. I can see now you can misinterpret it that way. I didn’t mean it from the standpoint of the person but from the standpoint of the (selfish and uncaring) genes, for whom the opposite sex’s worth is just one; its reproductive capability. And it goes both ways, equally applicable to both genders.
People regardless of ANY parameter, such as gender and age, have intrinsic value and are to be treated with respect. I’m absolutely opposed to all kinds of isms, bigotry and biases, simply because of their irrationalism not to speak of the sheer evil-factor.
If you still are able to construe the argument as sexist, let me know.
June 18th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I bet 50 credibility points this is eventually quoted out of context.
June 18th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Sorry Transresearcher, the Internet sucks right now due to a lack of tone data. In a conversation I would have immediately understood what you meant.
Nick, you realize the dumb stuff I have to worry about all the time, which prevents me from saying a lot of true-but-possibly-offensive things I always want to say.
A lot of people are looking for transhumanists to be elitist, or otherwise prejudiced against others, going over everything we say with a magnifying glass to look for out-of-context quotes to use in their vitriolic article or blog post. But in the end, we’re the ones being prejudiced against, as our values tend to be typical of any socially progressive humanist.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:02 am
“More immediate issues facing humanity, such as poverty, pollution and the devastation of war, tend to get ignored.”
This certainly must be one of the most baseless criticisms of transhumanism, simply because those who do not subscribe to transhumanism evidently aren’t doing much better at reducing poverty, war, and so on.
June 28th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Regarding Minsky and life extension. I heard him give a talk once and he made similar comments, however the “spin” was quite different. From what I recall (and I should recall reasonably accurately as it kind of stuck in my head) he said something like this:
On a number of occasions when giving a talk to the general public I’ve asked for a show of hands for who would like to live forever. Very few hands go up, if any at all. When I ask people why they wouldn’t like to live forever one of the most common answers is that life would get very boring once you’d done everything. When I put the same question to a group of engineers or scientists many hands will go up. When I ask them why, they cite all the things they would like to learn, build, research, do and understand… if only they had more time.
June 28th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
So it’s not Minsky’s opinion; it’s an observation. The regular folk are just passing by, happy to turn to dust as if they never existed. The researchers, engineers, and scientists are here to leave permanent marks on the Universe - for as long as they can.
How many % of world population are scientists and engineers? How many % in the industrialized world? 5%? 10%?
How many productive lifetimes has entertainment robbed us so far? More than (chemical) drugs and perhaps even wars.
June 28th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
The human lifespan is ill-suited to research. No wonder they didn’t get much done back in the old days when you were dead by the time people today start their career. Research is always a race against time.
Bored? Try science.
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:37 am
(I don’t mean to throw this conversation off topic.)
Transresearcher,
I could’ve said women are *one* of the things that make life worth living, I didn’t mean to imply they were the *only* thing. I was talking from how evolution would want a male to see it.
I’ve thought about how relationships effect productivity and have read the studies. They show a decline in productivity, especially after children.
But it’s different with transhumanists. I used to think the only right decision was to fore go relationships. Now I’m unsure.
In a relationship you lose autonomy. You can’t be a machine.
But in a good relationship, love makes you taps into resources you didn’t know you had. In transhumanism, you are literally trying to save your loved ones, amongst others, from death.
August 24th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
8fThank’s.6d I compleatly disagree with last post . wmh
паркет и ламинат 5l