- Technology will lead to extremely good outcomes (technophile)
- Technology will lead to extremely bad outcomes (technophobe)
- Technology will lead to outcomes that are on the whole neutral (technonormal?)
- Technology will lead to extreme outcomes, either good or bad (technovolatile?)
People tend to assume transhumanists are type 1, when many are in fact type 4. This is one of transhumanism’s major PR problems. On a one-dimensional scale of like/dislike, type 4 won’t even register.
(And yes, strictly speaking, 4 is just a mix of 1 and 2, and the other possible mixes should be options also.)
I think “technonormal” and “technovolatile” are good coinages, and that this blog post makes an important point. That is all!
Bingo re #4. It’s not just a matter of good and bad outcomes; vastly increased complexity will most certainly lead to more extreme scenarios. The future will increasingly take on *both* utopian and dystopian characteristics.
Whoa, whoa, hold on a minute… I take issue with the initial framing of the question: “Technology will lead to…”
Say what?? Technology does not and should not lead anywhere. It is *people* who lead, not technology itself.
I strongly urge singularitarians, transhumanists, technophiles, technophobes, and everyone else to get off the technological determinism bandwagon. Take responsibility for leading — or at least influencing — societal choices about technology, instead of passively observing a supposedly preordained outcome.
That’s rather uncharitable — of course by “technology will lead to” I mean “people using technology will lead to”. SIAI-school singularitarians can be accused of many things, but not “passively observing a supposedly preordained outcome”.