[extropy-chat] Causes of luddism

[Brett Paatsch]

Adrian Tymes wrote:

> --- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> > It would be good to find that which motivates the
> > people at large much more 
> > strongly than their predispostions are proof
> > against.   I am not at all sure 
> > it is possible to do so on a large enough scale to
> > dislodge the established 
> > interests who wish to slow and control innovation.
> 
> One thing I've found, in talking to non-Extropians, is
> that a lot of the time, the real issue is more about
> control - especially perceived lack thereof.
> 
> "We're going to make sentient AIs *AND 
> CONQUER YOU*."
> 
> "We're going to make self-replicating MNT *THAT 
> EATS YOU*."
> 
> You can see the emphasized downside there, but try
> these:
> 
> "We're going to make everyone immortal *WHETHER
> OR NOT THEY WANT TO DIE*."
> 
> "We're going to replace the food supply with GM crops
> *WHETHER OR NOT YOU PREFER THE OLD STUFF*."
> 
> Or how about these:
> 
> "We're going to make a new generation of sentient AIs
> that take over the world *AND EVERY CURRENTLY 
> EXISTING  HUMAN WILL BE TREATED AS 
> OBSOLETE JUNK*."
> 
> "We're going to genetically enhance our children *AND
> YOU DON'T GET THOSE ENHANCEMENTS BECAUSE
> YOU'RE ALREADY BORN, AND IF YOU DON'T
> ENHANCE YOUR KIDS THEY'LL BE JUST AS 
> WORTHLESS AS YOU*."
> 
> Those are the types of messages that many people
> perceive, with the emphases added by their own
> perception filters.  This seems to be far more common
> than true Guardian or Romantic impulses, at least in
> my own experiences and conversations.
> 
> This suggests a solution: emphasize the voluntary
> nature of many of these aspects, and make sure to
> design for backwards-compatibility so those who
> already exist can transition themselves into the new
> structure (say, via uploading) if they wish*, and much
> (though not all) of the opposition may melt away.
> It's been working for me, when I broach these topics
> in public.
> 
> *Yes, there won't be any rational decision other than
> to upgrade in most cases, the way we see it.  Doesn't
> matter.  Give people the choice anyway, so they can
> make that decision themselves.  If we're right,
> they'll upgrade when the time comes.  Libertarians
> especially should be able to grok this impulse.

Excellent stuff imo. Good thinking!

Regards,
Brett

[applauding from the peanut gallery :-)]