[extropy-chat] Re: themes in anti-transhumanist arguments

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:

> --- Neil Halelamien <neuronexmachina at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On a related note, I think most of the anti-transhumanist arguments
> > I've come across have tended to follow one of the following themes:
> > 
> > 1. Religion: Certain advanced technologies violate the will of God.
> 
> Common answer: whose God?  (See refutations of Pascal's Wager.)
> 
> Less common answer: point out that some interpretations of God would
> actually see advanced technologies as not only okay, but part of
> God's
> plan for us - specifically, allowing us to better understand God's
> wisdom and to better accomplish God's work, just like we have for all
> of human history.

Or: Says who? The bible says nothing about nanotechnology, space
travel, or genetic engineering. In fact, it appears that Jesus cured
people of diseases that were genetic in origin, which could only be
done by genetic engineering, while the angels allegedly took Ezekiel
for a galactic joyride. Furthermore, humans, according to God's alleged
design, were capable of living as long as 999 years (Methuselah), which
was cut short by diseases put upon us by our own sinful and corrupt
living. Additionally, if Mary was impregnated and gave birth as a
virgin, such could only have been accomplished with nanotechnology, so
nanotech is apparently 'god's will'.

> 
> > 2. Environmentalism: Advanced technologies will increase humanity's
> > capability to ruin the environment. (I suspect most
> environmentalists
> > would object to turning the solar system's mass into a Dyson
> sphere)
> 
> Common answer: it will also increase humanity's capability to save
> and restore the environment - as, for example, it has measurably done
> ever since the environmentalist movement started. (Actually before,
> but environmentalists are more likely to accept this counter if they
> are allowed to take some credit for it.)  There is every reason to
> believe this trend will continue.
> 
> Less common answer: if things really go to heck, advanced
> technologies will allow us to completely evacuate humanity from
> the Earth, to let the Earth recover while our lives go on.

As demonstrated by Peter Huber, it is primitive farming and rural
populations that causes the most environmental damage. Dense living in
cities and high tech farming technologies (including genetic
engineering and cloning of more productive plants and animals) allows
us to feed more people on less acrage, allowing more land to return to
nature.

Advancing technology not only improves our ability to use resources
more efficiently, but improves the efficiency by which we are able to
recover them from nature with less damage.

> 
> > 3. Social justice: The rich, western world, and/or corporations
> will
> > get access to advanced technologies first, leading to greater
> > economic
> > and social disparities.
> 
> Common answer: look at the current definition of "poverty", versus
> the
> definition many decades ago.  Note that, for example, few people
> actually starve in industrial countries, unlike in the 1800s.  Why
> should we care if some people get super-rich and go play in their own
> world, if in the bargain we can drastically improve living conditions
> for the world's poor?
> 
> Less common answer: of course it will.  But the faster we develop the
> technologies, the faster we can get them to the rest of the world and
> correct not only those disparities but the ones we currently face.

The rich always pay the development costs of technology, and the more
they are allowed to do so, the less expensive those technologies become
over time (and sooner), which means that more people will eventually be
able to utilize them... Better the rich pay the development costs
directly rather than everyone pay for them indirectly through taxation,
which will waste half the money on government bureaucracy.

> 
> > Perhaps it would be useful to put together a resource (maybe a
> wiki?)
> > of arguments we often encounter, along with useful
> counter-arguments?
> > We of course don't want to end up being like certain
> > anarcho-syndicalists, with their never-ending verbatim quotation of
> > Chomsky talking-points, but having such a resource could still be
> > useful.
> 
> A Wiki specific to us might never be known to the vast majority of
> people to whom the information would be of use.  I wonder if we could
> put it on some entry in Wikipedia without violating their NPOV.  (If
> we violate it, they'll remove our text, and our effort will have been
> for naught or even counterproductive.)

Wikipedia's NPOV is a POV that is determined by the people who run
Wikipedia, much as MSM purport their editorial slant is 'moderate' and
'middle-of-the-road', or at their most honest "slightly left of
center", when in fact they are significantly left leaning and fascist
tending.

Establishing our own Extrowiki would allow us to establishour own NPOV
as specifically extropic in outlook. This exists to a degree in Neal
Stephenson's Metaweb (http://www.metaweb.com), which I write articles
for, but is focused on his writing specifically, although other authors
works have been covered and Neal does want it to become a general resource.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com