tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post308023602364656043..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: The problems with transhumanismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-15895843887439174332009-07-29T19:14:02.308-04:002009-07-29T19:14:02.308-04:00Jan,
I read Rokos' commentary, I hope to get ...Jan,<br /><br />I read Rokos' commentary, I hope to get back to transhumanism soon. Meanwhile, I'm engrossed by a completely different problem: the legalized corruption known as lobbying. Stay tuned...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-71284600077293892472009-07-29T19:07:31.447-04:002009-07-29T19:07:31.447-04:00Good evening, Mr Massimo Pigliucci!
It would be t...Good evening, Mr Massimo Pigliucci!<br /><br />It would be truly interesting to read your comment on Rokos comment on your article.<br /><br />Best Regards.<br /><br /><br />MowgliUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12547312746838847835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-91553831302218614322009-07-23T14:18:03.229-04:002009-07-23T14:18:03.229-04:00> J said: "But if that is indeed represent...> J said: "But if that is indeed representative, then... transhumanism is something completely trivial, banal, not worth the new shiny word coined to label it. Since we've been using technology and enhancing ourselves for thousands of years, what's new?"<br /><br />Well, if you showed a cave-man an aeroplane, he might not be of the same attitude. Human self-enhancement is an old process - even monkeys use simple tools - but a tool like a brain computer interface or a <a rel="nofollow">recursively self-improving artificial intelligence</a> is really worth attaching a shiny label to, in my opinion. <br /><br />BTW, <a href="http://transhumangoodness.blogspot.com/2009/07/response-to-massimo-pigliucci-problems.html" rel="nofollow">I have written a blog post critiquing</a> the position advocated here.Rokohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01607601948311473359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-80915612157459641852009-07-22T00:40:11.993-04:002009-07-22T00:40:11.993-04:00Well, I was going to refrain from talking about th...Well, I was going to refrain from talking about the subject, considering I know almost nothing about it. Read some article about Kurtzweil's ideas long ago, don't even remember any of it. And this post and responses. But I have one observation to make nonetheless, from the general feeling I got from the posters defending transhumanism.<br /><br />JHSteinberg <br />(first of all, kudos on showing certain individuals how humans, let alone "transhumans", should approach civil idea exchange and disagreement -- imagine spending hundreds of years with such people? suicide rates would skyrocket)<br /><br /><i>I have always understood "H+" to be the position that it is a moral good - I've heard some tag it as a moral obligation, but I do not agree with that - <b>to utilize technology to transcend our innate human limitations (i.e., tools where fingers fail us)</b>.</i><br /><br />This kind of sums up the general feeling I'm getting from the "defenders" of transhumanism here. It might be a wrong impression. But if that is indeed representative, then... transhumanism is something completely trivial, banal, not worth the new shiny word coined to label it. Since we've been using technology and enhancing ourselves for thousands of years, what's new? Nothing. Just business as usual. Eye glasses, better prosthetics, hearing aids, medicine, machines of all sorts from fire to rockets leaving the solar system, sanitation. Old stuff it is, the increasing of life span and quality. Just because it sort of looks cooler now, it does not mean it is a new approach. Qualitatively speaking, at least, I'd say.<br /><br />Now, again, I might be saying something stupid and unfair to transhumanism, since as I said I have read next to nothing about this. Maybe one day, since now I can barely read what I have to for my job...J. Marcelo Alveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09967299561849915314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38990525309739135752009-07-20T17:50:46.029-04:002009-07-20T17:50:46.029-04:00Logan,
interesting. I'm not opposed to longer...Logan,<br /><br />interesting. I'm not opposed to longer-healthier lives of course. I am just a bit skeptical of techno-optimists in general. They tend to overestimate the power of technology and dramatically underestimate the ethical/human components.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-63919082815758846812009-07-20T17:32:19.585-04:002009-07-20T17:32:19.585-04:00Massimo, I read a book a while ago titled "Li...Massimo, I read a book a while ago titled "Liberation Biology" by Ronald Bailey that defended aspects of transhumanism and the "biotech revolution". I found Bailey's arguments persuasive: for instance he makes clear that the point of longevity research is not to live older longer but to live younger longer. I think at least his chapter on life-extension should be worth your time.<br /><br />I am also reminded that there was a Point of Inquiry interview with a fellow named Aubrey de Grey about his book "Ending Aging", and they tackled some of the meaty issues.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16018813308037532958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-305600053794883622009-07-17T19:44:09.948-04:002009-07-17T19:44:09.948-04:00As a member of the "traditional" rationa...As a member of the "traditional" rationalistic and humanistic movement (http://www.vof.se/visa-english and http://www.humanisterna.se/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=48 ) I think this divide (even hostility) between the "traditional" rationalistic and humanistic movement and the transhumanists is very regrettable. Although I (to some extent) agree with your rebutal of Munkittrick's argument, the real problem with your post is that you take that as an example of transhumanism in large. In particular when you say that transhumanism is characterised by uncritical techno-optimism I think you are simply wrong. In fact an important work of many leading tranhumanists is a critical evaluation of the large risks with future technologies (e.g. nanotechnology, artificial intelligence). To have a broader look at transhumanism see e.g. Nick Bostrom's page http://www.nickbostrom.com/ and links from there. I think Roko's response to your post (link from his comment above) is on the point. As a semi-regular reader of your blog (which I usually appreciate a lot) I would much appreciate your comment on those in a later post.tonyfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16381314738702489946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1163236166109292152009-07-16T20:29:47.314-04:002009-07-16T20:29:47.314-04:00Yet again, Massimo, I find myself agreeing with yo...Yet again, Massimo, I find myself agreeing with you, at least with this post. Despite the gratuitous naysaying of some in this thread, which I should add, you handled expertly, you raise a few points about overly trusting technology as not just as a useful and sometimes beneficial application of science, but as a moral good in and of itself, a view that I find specious. BTW, I just recently heard episode #185 of SGU, and wanted to say congrats on your latest interview with the Rogues. Keep 'em coming.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12223878308770122395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-2323765596036610092009-07-12T17:42:53.557-04:002009-07-12T17:42:53.557-04:00I have responded to this on my blog.I have <a href="http://transhumangoodness.blogspot.com/2009/07/response-to-massimo-pigliucci-problems.html" rel="nofollow">responded</a> to this on my blog.Rokohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01607601948311473359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-62739071787661545482009-07-12T13:29:22.258-04:002009-07-12T13:29:22.258-04:00Massimo re living infinitely long can be fun if y...Massimo re living infinitely long can be fun if you are given a menu of persona to take on using a 'reincarnation engine' to be applied each time a human psyche and body is botoxedDaveShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15840516954793215700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-82918423629517879152009-07-10T17:46:28.502-04:002009-07-10T17:46:28.502-04:00Since the universe is finite and will definitely e...Since the universe is finite and will definitely end at some point, would not an "immortal being" as part of the universe also end? Since there is so much to see and learn and experience in the universe wouldn't that keep an immortal being stimulated in the end?<br /><br />This thread reminds me of a comedian's joke about immortality. He said something along the lines of spending 30,000 years trying to learn the saxophone and then deciding, hey man it's not my thing!LCShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06230899522753297278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49131888747255592112009-07-10T16:35:19.517-04:002009-07-10T16:35:19.517-04:00Holy cow, there's a lot of typos and poor word...Holy cow, there's a lot of typos and poor word choice in that last response of mine. Such is the lot of the exhausted college student?Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06207094936361302208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-71136821980926036562009-07-10T16:33:49.454-04:002009-07-10T16:33:49.454-04:00Massimo,
Thanks for the quick response! While I&#...Massimo,<br /><br />Thanks for the quick response! While I'm not one who finds New Age implications in physicics and cosmology, I think it may very well be possible that there's enough possiblities, if there is a multiverse or something akin to one, to keep an immortal being occupied. However, that wasn't really my point. Rather, I had your statement about playing the same games, reading the same books, etc., in mind. I think this would only be likely if, as I said, everything else stopped once a person became an immortal. But I also don't think that would happen. Other people would continue living their lives, inventing, writing, etc. I do see your point though. Perhaps there are only a certain, though vast, number of permutations humans can find of a given game, only a certain number of different twists to put on a given genre, etc. . . <br /><br />I think this is a reason to become immortal and find out! After all, something like immortality is so drastically different than what we experience or evolved around that it could be entirely different than what we think it would be.Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06207094936361302208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-37497063545422659472009-07-10T14:42:45.432-04:002009-07-10T14:42:45.432-04:00Jordan,
I'll look at de Grey. Meanwhile, thou...Jordan,<br /><br />I'll look at de Grey. Meanwhile, though, a truly immortal being would have of course time to explore the universe an infinite number of times, and to experience everything an infinite number of times. I simply cannot fathom how this wouldn't drive a human being to insanity. <br /><br />Again, the universe is big, but not infinite, and -- more importantly -- the kind of non-trivial variants of things one can experience is even more limited. We would be living in a perennial "Groundhog Day" sort of scenario!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-3347797760457736182009-07-10T14:30:11.105-04:002009-07-10T14:30:11.105-04:00Massimo,
As always, an engaging read. I would be ...Massimo,<br /><br />As always, an engaging read. I would be interested on your thoughts regarding how Aubrey de Grey looks at aging, and how to stop it. He has a video at TED:<br />http://www.ted.com/speakers/aubrey_de_grey.html<br /><br />as well as an interview with D.J. Grothe on Point of Inquiry:<br />http://www.pointofinquiry.org/aubrey_de_grey_ending_aging/<br /><br />I find what he has to say very convincing.<br /><br />But more substantially, I have a problem with how you discussed immortality: <br />"true immortality must be unbearable for any sentient being: imagine having so much time on your hands that eventually there will be nothing new for you to do. You would be forced to play the same games, or watch the same movies, or take the same vacation, over and over and over and over."<br /><br />The only way I could see this being true was if everything else in the universe simply stopped once a person became immortal. This reaction to immortality to me has always seemed to be an impoverished view of the universe, one that I do not think you actually hold. As you say, "We are comparing finite with infinite" but that really means bets about immortality one way or the other don't really hold weight.<br /><br />Looking forward to your next post!Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06207094936361302208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-51477852009212624762009-07-10T11:50:40.123-04:002009-07-10T11:50:40.123-04:00I think transhumanism is sort of neat, but in the ...I think transhumanism is sort of neat, but in the same science-fictiony realm as flying cars and teleporters. Since it's so deeply rooted in hypothetical future technology, it seems like any objection you raise can be waved away with yet more technology. Not enough resources for all those bodies? No problem, we'll just download our consciousnesses into solar-powered robots. Not enough space for all those robots? No problem, we'll just create a mega-super-duper-computer to store everyone's consciousness. Bored with immortality? We'll program in an unlimited number of virtual worlds to play in. And so on.<br /><br />Of course, it's one thing to imagine a technology that solves all our problems and something else to actually build it.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04094385959108877289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-44497700633755840082009-07-09T10:48:04.191-04:002009-07-09T10:48:04.191-04:00I suppose living forever would become a hell. But ...I suppose living forever would become a hell. But that could never happen since the universe comes to an end at some point. However I would dearly love to live a whole lot longer than the 70-100 yrs of a typical human lifespan. I am curious to see how things turn out!LCShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06230899522753297278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-9738063153903921412009-07-09T10:45:11.023-04:002009-07-09T10:45:11.023-04:00adi,
you know you do not need to "quote"...adi,<br /><br />you know you do not need to "quote" the literature for us to read and digest. since you are an expert you can synthesis the basic concepts and highlight the main points to support your position. coming here and yelling that you're a liar, you do not know what you are talking about and generally spewing venom does not promote good discussion and is not good intellectual practice.LCShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06230899522753297278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-87045546908560525112009-07-09T08:26:08.289-04:002009-07-09T08:26:08.289-04:00JH,
thanks for the thoughtful comment, and sorry ...JH,<br /><br />thanks for the thoughtful comment, and sorry to have disappointed you, I honestly strive for engaging and rewarding dialogue here and I'll try my best to keep it up.<br /><br />First off, let's get the "graduate student" thing over with. As I clearly stated in my original post (and remember that a blog is a diary of thoughts, not an encyclopedia or a technical treatise), the article by Munkittrick was simply what finally prompted me to write about transhumanism after having read about it for some time. I don't take what Munkittrick says as either gospel or as comprehensive, but I'm also annoyed at people dismissing him as "just" a graduate student. It's a negative argument from authority.<br /><br />To your specific comments: "The only problem at hand is the conflation of immortality/retarded aging with transhumanism as a whole. That's certainly not the definition of transhumanism as I was first exposed to it."<br /><br />The immortality issue was only one of my points, and I agree that it isn't a defining trait of transhumanism. It is, however, a major part of their discourse, and needs to be addressed. More importantly:<br /><br />"I have always understood "H+" to be the position that it is a moral good - I've heard some tag it as a moral obligation, but I do not agree with that - to utilize technology to transcend our innate human limitations (i.e., tools where fingers fail us)."<br /><br />Forgive me, but if that's the crucial point, it's a bit too weak. Only Luddites would disagree with that (hence your example of the anti-GM movement; by the way, even there I don't think things are quite that straightforward, and I cringe when I hear Monsanto presenting itself these days as an environmentally conscious company!). <br /><br />Seems to me that transhumanism is the idea that technology is (almost) an unqualified good that ought (moral) to be used for the betterment of the human race, including biological alterations (hence the "trans"). This is what I think raises serious issues, not just scientific, but ethical.<br /><br />"Endless optimism, I grant, is common among transhumanists, but is not a perquisite of the position."<br /><br />Maybe not, but it sure comes across as such (perhaps not "endless" but surely unbound).<br /><br />"Few exponential trends remain exponential indefinitely, and treating processor speed as though it represents all of technology is a joke."<br /><br />Agreed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-69913657068657996602009-07-09T08:01:30.368-04:002009-07-09T08:01:30.368-04:00Massimo,
I always enjoy and respect your writing....Massimo,<br /><br />I always enjoy and respect your writing. Given that transhumanism has been one of my pet philosophical hobbies for a while (in the sense of exploring it in my head, not eagerly hunting down dribblings from others) I was quite interested to see your take on it. <br /><br />Unfortunately, I've been disappointed.<br /><br />I take no issue with your arguments as they stand: you were quite right on every point, save one. The only problem at hand is the conflation of immortality/retarded aging with transhumanism as a whole. That's certainly not the definition of transhumanism as I was first exposed to it, not the one I've mentally explored, nor the one that I have come across in literature.<br /><br />I have always understood "H+" to be the position that it is a moral good - I've heard some tag it as a moral obligation, but I do not agree with that - to utilize technology to transcend our innate human limitations (i.e., tools where fingers fail us). This does not require that *all* technologies are neccasarily good (i.e., immortality, given that massive overpopulation is as much a problem as death of old age, and I agree that quality>quantity), but rather stands to oppose positions reflexive reactionary positions against technological change (i.e., GM foods).<br /><br />Endless optimism, I grant, is common among transhumanists, but is not a perquisite of the position. Do I believe technology will eventually solve most problems? Actually, I do. Do I believe that it will happen on a timescale even *resembling* one short enough to absolve us of responsibility? Not even close. Few exponential trends remain exponential indefinitely, and treating processor speed as though it represents all of technology is a joke. I could just as easily use automobiles as my representative technology of choice, and argue that technology barely advances at all!<br /><br />I won't attempt to formulate some over-arching thesis on transhumanism in response to a blog post. I doubt my thoughts on the matter have percolated sufficiently, nor do I have the time to edit carefully enough not to be sliced apart - I respect your eyes and wit enough not to present you with a half-baked rambling more than necessity dictates. I seek only to remind you that, as another poster said (couched in ad hominem), a grad student's FAQ is not representative of the whole. I've a feeling the over-concern with death and aging is more a matter of "framing" than anything else.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11243379751618636000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-53951302166616819492009-07-09T07:09:03.680-04:002009-07-09T07:09:03.680-04:00The problem with your attitude is that you assume ...The problem with your attitude is that you assume that I am both malicious (you use the word "liar") and that I have not done a minimum of background work (and I do mean a minimum, since this is a blog with entries in the 1-2000 words range, not a scholarly publication).<br /><br />The first charge is an ad hominem attack for which surely you have no evidence. The second one is also not true, I maintain, but would at least lead us to an actual discussion if you were genuinely interested in it. No, I did not ask for "all of the transhumanist literature," I simply asked for a brief statement of what you think about: a) was so misleading in my original post; b) what are the major strengths of the transhumanist position that I somehow missed. I heard neither.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-37263068224462552742009-07-09T02:17:07.549-04:002009-07-09T02:17:07.549-04:00Oh, it's just that I hate liars and the title ...Oh, it's just that I hate liars and the title of your article is a brazen lie.<br /><br />And since, as I suspected, your intention is to have me quote to you all of the transhumanist literature that you're too lazy to read on your own before "criticizing" it, I'll take my leave now before you waste any more of my time.<br /><br />Do your own research if you really want to address the subject seriously.donjoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06862233880034662032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-83121451948965313452009-07-08T21:10:49.207-04:002009-07-08T21:10:49.207-04:00Despite all your bile (why do you get so emotional...Despite all your bile (why do you get so emotional about this anyway?) you still have not pointed out what big arguments in favor of transhumanism I missed, or what exactly it is that you find so objectionable in my criticisms. Have fun with the next round...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11754304307112433662009-07-08T16:25:18.648-04:002009-07-08T16:25:18.648-04:00Address the issues? What issues? You barely said a...Address the issues? What issues? You barely said anything of note.<br /><br />You picked a few weak arguments for extreme longevity and dismantled them (amazing!), then you put forward the tired old "overpopulation" objection without even mentioning the main answer to it (here's a little page you may have missed in your rush to "rationally" criticise without knowing: http://www.sens.org/index.php?pagename=sensf_faq_concerns) and you had the audacity to title your article "THE problems with transhumanism".<br /><br />Since when are a few weak arguments and one misunderstood problem with the specific concept of extreme longevity "THE" problems of transhumanism? Did you link to the Wiki article just for show or have you really read it? Do I have to quote here all the big themes of transhumanism that you didn't touch at all for you to finally get what my objection is? <br /><br />If you've got any intellectual honesty, you'll change the title to "Some problems with extreme longevity", because that's all you really talked about in this entirely inconclusive piece.donjoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06862233880034662032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-27020894246778618852009-07-08T00:42:33.534-04:002009-07-08T00:42:33.534-04:00Hey, I also read Future Shock once. If Transhumani...Hey, I also read Future Shock once. If Transhumanism is a call to arms then I decline to serve. As an example I do not want trillions allocated to a project aimed at extending lifespans at the same rate E.P.A.s are to be extended.<br /><br />But its precepts are a no-brainer. <br /><br />Enough people at advanced ages still in control of their faculties still do not want to die. Therefore they will use all resources at their disposal to prevent that. As one of these resources is available technology, <br />then as technology grows, it is possible for us to live longer.<br /><br />The finer point I am catching from transhumanism is that changes in technology may well render moot some basic philosophical questions about life. Absolutely. <br /><br />But to sign on to technology as a standalone value also seems dangerous to me. We need a market first. In this case the market is the 80-100 year-olds and their loved ones who think they have a shot at longevity. Thats the driver and those are the risk takers.<br /><br />Re the idea of sitting around with infinite amounts of time on your hands, well that sound like an argument against time-travel. We take an example from our present circumstances, post it as a paradox and walk away. Without having bothered to consider that in such a world where time travel is possible or there is a Ponce de Leon Blvd in every city, other rules and factors will also be in play rendering the supposed paradox silly.DaveShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15840516954793215700noreply@blogger.com