[ExI] a lack of vision

John Grigg possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 24 02:37:03 UTC 2008

I belong to the "SciFi_Discussion" yahoo group and I was floored by
the naysaying comments of a fellow poster.  Perhaps more
transhumanists should look into this group.

Join up!


Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 7:25 PM
dngrsone wrote:
> Understanding that there will be medical advances to correct a large
> number of defects, I foresee there will still be a number of children
> born (or not) with problems that can't be cured with modern medical
> technology.

Modern medical technology has it's limits, but over the next one to
two centuries we will learn to heal the body from *any* ailment save a large
portion/100% of the braingetting destroyed trauma (and so permanent
personality/memory loss would be a problem, though an electronic
download of the computer scanned mind into cloned organic brain tissue
could at least partially restore things).

>I can appreciate the optimism everyone feels in regard to
> our (humankind's) ability to advance technology to new and unforeseen
> heights, but one must temper that optimism with a certain amount of
> practicality-- disease will always be a problem, just as there will
> always be disabilities due to accidents and such.  Technology, whether
> macro-, micro-, nano-, or bio- will not solve all that ails us.  For
> that matter, it is probably best that it doesn't.

Why would disease always be a problem? LOL  Now, I will say that new
diseases will from time to time rear their ugly head, but only to be put down by
22nd century+ technology.  And why would there always be disabilities?
 Again, medical technology will be able to cure them when we are
talking a century or two down the road.  Only the loss of large
portions of the brain (or the entire organ) will be possibly
irreversible injuries.

Bio, AI and nano convergence technologies will solve 99.9% of what
presently ails us.  You say "Technology, whether macro-, micro-,
nano-, or bio- will not solve
all that ails us.  For that matter, it is probably best that it
doesn't."  WHY??  Is it a
good thing for children to be in great pain from a chronic and
disabling disease that eventually ends their life before they can even
experience adulthood?  And is suffering from bi-polar disorder,
schizophrenia or severe depression somehow noble?  Tell me, have you
ever visited a dying young friend in the hospital?  I have.

> On the same token, AI is and will always be of limited effectiveness,
> and human intervention a necessity in a great variety of situations,
> lest we walk straight into any number of dystopian scenarios we have
> all read and dreaded.

I admit AI *so far* has been slow going, but if Moore's Law holds and
software keeps up, we just may see human+ level AI by roughly 2040.  I
*definitely* do not see AI "always being of limited effectiveness."
It will, given time, dwarf human capacities.

You are like one of the so-called "experts" of the past who claimed a
fast train would cause massive nose bleeds or that heavier than air
travel was impossible.  You are a person of very limited vision...

> There will always be debate over how much is too much enhancement,
> when one stops being a human being.  There will be people out there
> who will want to replace every part they can until they are nothing
> but brain... and even replace that if they think they can live forever
> in hardware.

Very true.  And so there needs to be open and public debate.  On that
we can agree.

John G

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list