[extropy-chat] Altered genes let roundworms wiggle longer

[Robert J. Bradbury]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Harvey Newstrom wrote:

Commenting on my commentary with respect to how various
elements at loose in the world might view aspects of
reanimation and/or copies of oneself:

> I doubt this.  I think it is a non-issue and the wrong problem to solve.

I might agree on the non-issue part -- it begs the issue of where
extropians or transhumanists should place their priorities.

I might disagree on it being the wrong problem to solve.  I am
an extropian.  I believe that greater complexity, understanding,
ways of operating are a good thing.  (I will admit that there
are some shots that can be taken against this perspective -- but
then I'm going to take you to the wall on when less complexity works
better than more complexity and can it be applied from a universal
perspective?  Case in point -- the understanding that viruses and
bacteria cause diseases -- and we can produce drugs that defeat them.
Nature is complex -- we have to learn to live with it.

> Specifically:  I think the real concern is not whether we can attach
> the label "self" to new copies, but whether we can *detach* this label
> from the original or pre-existing copies that are already identified as
> "self".

Ok, now this is an interesting idea.  Let us consider this to be the
concept of "mobile self".  I can already imagine a number of problems
that this would present to the legal system, the civil rights system, etc.
In short you have probably thrown things into the swamp.  Nothing wrong
with that -- we have been there before.  But I would like to see some
agenda and/or guidelines as to how society deals with a "mobile self".

> Also:  I don't recall anybody objecting to the *creation* of copies.
> People only seem violently opposed to the *destruction* of the original
> or pre-existing copies.

I also do not recall any significant objections to the creation of copies.
(One however might envision some on the basis of resource utilization --
i.e. what is the value of an unextropic copy?).  Perhaps this implies
an implicit or explicit contract with copies that they must be extropic???
Lacking this would seem to suggest that the civilization is doomed to
failure in any case so what is the point of attempting to uplift it at all
(if most of the copies are not bound to be uplifting?)  [I realize this
is a radical concept here -- most people are required to operate in
a way that benefits humanity rather than in their own self-interest.]

Now, with regard to the destruction of copies -- I think this may go
to the core of extropianism vs. transhumanism.  I'm going to throw
this out there (and you should feel free to critique it).  Extropianism
is about developing something greater that one can admire.  Transhumanism
is about developing something different that may be interesting.  Nothing
wrong with things that are different that one might admire (the late
'60s and early '70's had a lot of this).  But one has to come back to
the laws of physics.  When you push the peddle to the floor how fast
does the car go?  So Extropianism is about exploring the limits
with a background desire to stretch them.  Transhumanism is not.

Key question that extropians may engage in but transhumanists may not:
  "What are you doing to alter the fate of the universe?"

Robert