[extropy-chat] Re: Webcast of the First Workshop on Geoethical Nanotechnology

[Adrian Tymes]

I think I agree with Perry's statement, but restating it in clearer
terms (or, at least, in my terms):

--- "Perry E. Metzger" <perry at piermont.com> wrote:
> > Geoethical nanotechnology is the development and implementation
> under a
> > global regulatory framework of machines capable of assembling
> molecules
> 
> Unless I see evidence to the contrary, I'm afraid I'll be rather
> suspicious that the word "Geoethical" and the phrase "global
> regulatory framework" are not biocompatible with my lunch, so tuning
> in to this "webcast" might cause me to lose it.

Most or all recent proposals for global regulatory frameworks have been
thinly-disguised proposals to postpone or permanently outlaw the
technological research that is one of the main tenets of transhuman
philosophy.  X-ethics - i.e., geoethics, bioethics, and similar types
of "ethics" - have turned out to be mostly just restatements of luddite
and religious beliefs, many of them (like the Precautionary Principle,
as it is applied in practice rather than the ideals it tries to
achieve) demonstrably more dangerous than the dangers they seek to
address.

It does not overstate things to say that these delays equal death.  The
sooner we can develop and distribute the technologies that will
significantly enhance quality of life, the more people will live longer
and more productive (as well as happier and more fulfilling) lives.
True, there are risks that must be addressed on this path, but at this
time we do not even know enough about the possible risks to reliably
legislate against them.  Indeed, much of the basic research being
conducted on nanotechnology at this time is just starting to get a
glimpse of what is possible and what is not; recall the scare about
"grey goo", until new research (which would almost certainly be
impossible, or practically impossible, under a ban) discovered quite
recently that grey goo is actually impossible, at least on any large
and self-perpetuating scale.

It has been the case in related industries that significant legislation
- aside from that which also applies to older, more well-studied
threats, like pollution - generally just stops the research from being
done to clarify and classify the threats, thus actually preventing
reasonable legislation from ever being drafted.  Efforts are ongoing,
in legislatures which passed said laws and have come to realize the
consequences, to oveturn them despite the political climate of fear
they have set up - and thus at potential risk to the legislators' own
political careers.  (The uneducated public sees a law against
something, and comes to the usually quite reasonable conclusion that
their legislators, having adequately studied the topic, found the
dangers outweighed the risks.  So, when a legislator proposes removing
said laws, the public's trust in the legislator understandably slips,
even if the legislator is in fact doing the right thing.)

> It is sad to see people who once wrote eloquently about libertarian
> approaches to the world giving even lip service to words like "global
> regulatory framework".

Given the above, it is disturbing - to say the least* - that advocates
of transhumanism would lend any degree of credibility to new attempts
to impose said regulatory frameworks, or to any new "X-ethical"
arguments.

It is, perhaps, possible to attempt to subvert and recast these
regulations and ethics, by demonstrating the ethics of things like the
Proactionary Principle and the damage - "horrors" is perhaps not too
strong a term - inevitably caused by things like the Precautionary
Principle.  But if this is the true intent of ExI's presence, then
given as this is drastically different from the common proposals for
global regulatory frameworks and X-ethics, this should be explicitly
stated.  It was not.  Ergo, this gives the appearance of ExI endorsing
things like the Precautionary Principle - and even giving the
appearance of doing so goes against ExI's interests.

* To the degree that, like Perry, I shall most certainly not listen to
this Webcast - so as to avoid purging my most recent meal, among other
reasons.