Wesley J. Smith on the “Coup de Culture”
Wesley J. Smith is a conservative bioethicist that seems to have a very good idea of what exactly is happening to his antiquated Judeo-Christian system of values. He says:
"The coup de culture, as I have defined it, is the process by which the reigning cultural value system of human exceptionalism--which is itself founded in the moral philosophy of Judeo-Christianity/humanism-- is being subverted and replaced by a new paradigm steeped in utilitarianism/hedonism/radical environmentalism. The consequence has been an all out attack on the unique importance of human life, pounded constantly into the consciousness of the general population by outlets of popular culture and a biased media."
I would say, as Smith has in other posts, that the new paradigm is utilitarian utopianism. This is quickly evolving into an immortalist utilitarianism that denies death itself. Unlike some other utilitarian utopians, I am not afraid to come out and say I am a utopian. Look at how open I leave myself by making this statement. I am completely vulnerable to accusations that utopianism is a recurrent irrational human psychological attractor. Note that by "utopia", I do not mean "perfect" -- such a quality is vulnerable to definitional fuzziness -- I just mean "much much better than what we experience now".
This position sets me apart from some technoprogressive transhumanists who are non-utopian, like James Hughes.
Because Smith doesn't watch the media or play the video games of the younger crowd, he probably doesn't have that great of an idea just how much this new, emerging belief system is intertwined with the zeitgeist of youth. In the world of young people, this new belief system has already won. This is something that even some transhumanists seem not to realize.
March 12th, 2009 - 00:36
I’m an old fart now, and, I don’t play the video games; also, I have a rather jauncided view of anyone under 30, and most over 30; still, I am ALL FOR “much much better than what we experience nowâ€.
as a radical in all things, I am mostly an outsider, and always a stranger in a strange land; having said that, I think that immortalist utilitarism and being a utopia is pretty much right on, even though I have many disagreements and differences
the biggest thing about existential risk, besides the natural environment, are the attitudes, assumptions, and expectations of people, which I find to be very narrow, and which could derail the utopia ahead
March 12th, 2009 - 02:43
MA- been visiting your site for a couple of months now. I’ve noticed that you don’t have any tags for economics or utopia (or for that matter government). I was hoping you could unpack your idea of 1) what a utopia is, or, just for clarity, what you expect to be much, much better and 2) how we’ll be able to successfully transition between what we have now and what is to come- which is my main concern about the dawn of all these new technologies. I’m less concerned with existential risks as I’ve seen them identified than I am of how we’ll move from the economic/political model we presently have to something that makes better use of new tech yet doesn’t leave any one behind.
March 12th, 2009 - 03:32
MC — a lot of the picture is here:
http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html
For how to transition, I recommend we consult superintelligence on that one. If superintelligence doesn’t exist, then I have a lot of ideas, but they’re extremely long and complex, and would take too much time to write out here. For more standard answers, see the transhumanist FAQ:
http://www.transhumanism.org/resources/faq.html
For other items:
http://www.singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity
http://yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html
http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/ai-risk
March 12th, 2009 - 03:59
“just how much this new, emerging belief system is intertwined with the zeitgeist of youth. In the world of young people, this new belief system has already won. This is something that even some transhumanists seem not to realize.”
– michael, that is a powerful insight. You deserve a gold star for that…
March 12th, 2009 - 06:14
The old decry the new for their radicalism, the new decry the old for their conservatism, and 20-30 years later the new become the old and the cycle begins again.
As long as we remain human there will be religious superstition, parents who are shocked and repelled by the new, and children who think they’ve got all the answers. None of this is new, its as old as humanity itself.
Still, it’s equally human to plant one’s flag into some ideology. Turning a way of thinking into a social grouping is a very human behaviour.
March 12th, 2009 - 06:45
What is new are people that want to break that cycle entirely. Young and old.
William Millard, for instance, is 77. Marvin is 81.
March 12th, 2009 - 15:48
This kind of mandatory egalitarianism has always irked me. Why am I immoral if I and only I have discovered the key to clinical immortality — and keep it to myself? Why should I be banned from using such a thing if doing so causes no harm to the socioeconomic position of anyone else?
Why do transhuman technologies have to be “everyone or bust”? Why is it a bad thing for the elites or the wealthy to get them first? Look at the adoption of the automobile, of the cellphone, of the personal computer, of household plumbing and electricity. Media broadcasting. Professional healthcare.
Again and again, radically life-changing technologies have been in the hands of the elites first, and once the cost-per-unit declines with inevitable technological progression, everyone else gets their hands on a piece of the pie (at least, in a non-regressive socioeconomic entity; obviously racist dictatorships and the like break this trend — but, then, that’s not the fault of the technologies but of people. And highly insular.)
Sorry to rant. This is simply a pet peeve. Who gives a flying rat’s ass if the rich and wealthy get to live forever first? Sooner or later everyone else will too. That’s just how technologies work.
March 14th, 2009 - 14:27
That’s just how technologies work? Tell that to all the children in Africa who are dying of malaria.
March 22nd, 2009 - 08:11
Tom D,
They have lasers for that now! And the children in Africa will get it first, cause the elites don’t need it!
But seriously, IConrad is right. A race to the top that leaves some behind is better than a race to the bottom in the name of equality for all. An oversimplification? Certainly. But there’s a truth to it. It’s an imperfect model for progress… but I’m yet to hear anyone propose a better one.