Using Technology to Deepen Democracy, Using Democracy to Ensure Technology Benefits Us All

Monday, December 30, 2013

It's Not That The Luddites Will Take Your Magic Toys, It's That Magic Isn't Real

Upgraded and adapted from the Moot, where "kurt9" declares:
All of this transhumanist technology is being developed by private parties using private money. This is especially true for the life extension and cryonics stuff. If we are able to develop this technology on our own, using our own resources, why do we need to get the consent of those who do not share our objects? Or even discuss it with such parties at all? We can simply develop it on our own independent of the attitudes of those who do not share our objectives. I find these kind of "debate" and discussions to be pointless.
Let's dig in, shall we?

All of this transhumanist technology is being developed by private parties using private money. This is especially true for the life extension and cryonics stuff.

Actually, no it isn't. It really isn't. "Uploading," for one, isn't even a coherent ambition (you are not a picture of you, and no computer is eternal), and the trumpeted genetic/ pharmaceutical/ prosthetic proposals are nothing but loose talk for the rubes. In the post to which you are responding I said that no medical breakthroughs will increase the average adult life expectancy in the notional democracies by so much as five years in the next ten years -- and most probably the next 25 years. Expectations of imminent breakthroughs leapfrogging you into centuries-long sexy lifespans are simply arrant nonsense. Take a look at adult life expectancy at age 65 over the last twenty-five years (years, mind you, of! accelerating! change! in the midst of the internet boom new economy boom biotech boom extropian boom). You can stamp your foot if you like but I'm fifty and I've been following futurologists and transhumanoids for thirty, this ain't my first time at the rodeo. Of course, medical research is a good thing and one hopes some good therapies and cures are indeed under development to ameliorate suffering and disease -- as I say, providing universal access to healthcare, clean water, basic support would free billions of lives to contribute to shared problem-solving and creative expression. I daresay you should know better about all the silly Robot Cult stuff when it still hasn't panned out in a decade and yet the promises remain exactly the same and exactly as fervent as a sales pitch.

why do we need to get the consent of those who do not share our objects?

You can join any cult you want to, dear "kurt9." And once you're dead it is a matter of indifference to me whether your corpse is buried, cremated, mummified, compressed into a diamond, shot into orbit, or your hamburgerized brain wrapped in foil and dropped into dry ice for Randian sociopaths to watch over in a desert. If you want to be resurrected in a sexy robot body that can do Hogwarts magic with nanofog or you want to be uploaded as a cyberangel in Holodeck Heaven I can't say that is stranger by far than the faiths billions of other people espouse. As a cheerful atheist I find these idiosyncrasies charming to the extent that they do not function as rationales for reactionary politics. Of course, if fraudulent claims are being made, they should be prosecuted, and if ridiculous claims are being made, they should be ridiculed, if reactionary claims are made, they should be exposed by good people of good will lest they harm anyone.

Or even discuss it with such parties at all?

I invite discussion but certainly am in no position to demand it or to censor it. You seemed to want to say something, and here you are saying it. I say what I want, too. It's not a bad arrangement.

We can simply develop it on our own independent of the attitudes of those who do not share our objectives.

You are not an island, and neither science nor discourse more generally are solitary endeavors. It is true that transhumanoids and singularitarians often pine in public places for a separatist enclave to retreat to -- a private island, an oil platform paradise city, a dome under the sea, a secret lab in the asteroid belt. I daresay it is no easy thing to want "technology" to enable you to live forever on a treasure pile under the ministrations of a kindly parental Robot God or whatever when all the actually knowledgeable scientists say you can't and most people know better the difference between scientific communities and science fiction fandoms.

I find these kind of "debate" and discussions to be pointless.

I don't doubt it. True Believers always do. But I tell you earnestly that you will not find techno-transcendence in Robototalism, via Robot God, Robot Bodies, Nanobotic Magic, or the rest... not because your evil luddite foes don't believe in "The Future" with their whole hearts like you do, but quite simply because magic isn't real. Science and science fiction are both marvelous, but don't get it twisted, my friend.

1 comment:

jimf said...

> Upgraded and adapted from the Moot, where "kurt9" declares:
>
> > All of this transhumanist technology is being developed by
> > private parties using private money. This is especially true
> > for the life extension and cryonics stuff. If we are able to
> > develop this technology on our own, using our own resources,
> > why do we need to get the consent of those who do not share our
> > objects? Or even discuss it with such parties at all? We can
> > simply develop it on our own independent of the attitudes of
> > those who do not share our objectives. I find these kind of
> > "debate" and discussions to be pointless.

He may be taking his cue here from the now hard-right
Michael Anissimov:

http://www.moreright.net/premises-of-reactionary-thought/
--------------------
To make progress in any area of intellectual endeavor requires discourse
among those who agree with basic premises and the exclusion of those who
do not. This is one of the reasons there isn’t a comments section at
_More Right_ — we’ve heard the liberaltarian objections to reactionary
ideas a million times, and aren’t interested in hearing your special
“knockdown argument” against hierarchy or whatever. Your objection is
not a beautiful and unique snowflake. We’ve been there, done that,
disagreed with it, and moved on. The rest of the Internet is there
for you to share your liberaltarian ideas. In some cases, we are
carefully crafting responses to critics, as many have to Scott Alexander’s
Anti-Reactionary FAQ, but for the balance of you, be quiet and lurk more.

Some small percentage of non-reactionaries have ideas or objections
that can help reactionary thought move forward, but the vast majority
do not. . .

To move forward theoretically rather than backward, we need to encourage
more discussion among those who accept basic reactionary premises and
more active exclusion of those who do not.
======

He goes on to credit Twitter for the "reactionary renaissance":

--------------------
The leap forward in reactionary thought in 2013 was primarily caused,
in my opinion, by the congregation of hundreds if not thousands of
reactionaries and neoreactionaries on Twitter. If it weren’t for
Twitter, there may have never been a Reactionary Renaissance.
Note that the discussion on Twitter is deeply intertwined with the
discussion in the comments sections of various reactionary blogs,
such as Outside In, Unqualified Reservations, Jim’s blog, Handle’s Haus,
Amos & Gromar, Nick B. Steves’, and so on, so it’s not just Twitter
alone, but the reactosphere it’s an integral part of.
======

He does a remarkable amount of "tl;dr" cutting and pasting on this
blog. Wonder where he came up with **that** idea?