[extropy-chat] Causes of luddism

[Emlyn O'regan]

I totally agree. I think that the voluntary nature of all the stuff we talk
about is intrinsic to, and perhaps fundamental to, transhumanism in all its
non-fucked forms. 

Tangent: It's why, for instance, we should always be the first people to
stand up against suggestions of Eugenics. After all, our whole basis is that
we want vast choices for people, that we all may change our selves as we see
fit. Eugenics is a groupthink "solution" to a non-problem which seems to
mostly be about control (enacting one's desires upon others). Unfortunately,
it works in a similar domain to many transhuman supported technologies, and
we get tarred with its brush.

But it's not the same domain by any means; just close. For instance, the
"designer babies" issue is very much on topic for Eugenicists, but less so
by far for transhumanists. I imagine that we would all reject notions of
centralised, or state enforced genetic manipulation of the unborn. There are
difficult areas, of course; do we support parents selecting fetuses based on
genetic characteristics? Is there a difference, depending on the
characteristic (eg: gene for huntingtons, vs selecting for Y chromosomes)?
Are there cases where state sponsored (eg: subsidised individual choice) is
supportable, for example in screening for something like cystic fibrosis?
When does that become a slippery slope toward eugenics?

Actually, I think this particular issues (manipulation of the unborn) is a
hard one for transhumanists. Eugenicists find it easy (just do it!), vanilla
humanists and many religious people will find it easy also (never ever do
it). For us, it is hard. We can say with certainty about individuals, that
they can manipulate themselves to their heart's content; it's as close to a
hard and fast rule as I could think of in transhumanism. However, what is
the relationship of child to parent? What can the parent do in terms of
affecting the child's genes and development? Obviously parents affect
children profoundly, and have a duty to. Also, the whole process of
conception -> gestation -> birth affects what children can and can't be
born. With all that heavy "natural" meddling going on, where is the line to
be drawn? There are definitely things that parents should not be allowed to
do (eg: infanticide), but what can they do (eg: screen for diseases)? What
should they do? Is there anything that they have a duty to do, or absolutely
must do?

It'd be much easier to believe in God at a time like this. Bugger.
Emlyn


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brett Paatsch [mailto:bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au]
> Sent: Thursday, 13 November 2003 9:46 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Causes of luddism
> 
> 
> 
> 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 :-)]
>