[ExI] Hard Takeoff

[Samantha Atkins]

On Nov 28, 2010, at 12:32 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote:

> 2010/11/27 Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com>:
>> We are certainly
>> concerned that genetic engineering (et al.) have the potential to produce a
>> plague that also wipes out humanity but it would be unwise to abandon this
>> medical technology regardless of its potential for curative medicine.
>> 
>> I was thinking prudence should allay our fears.  Then I imagined the
>> counterpoint would be to investigate if humanity collectively possesses
>> enough prudence in the first place.
> 
> There are people thinking that according to the "coolest", most
> fashionable thinking,  the alternative would be between those  who are
> blind to the danger of technological progress, and/or delude
> themselves that it may be be possible to  stop it, vs. the enlightened
> few who are responsibly preoccupied with its "steering".
> 
> Personally, along traditional transhumanist lines, I think the actual
> alternative is still between those who are against technological
> progress vs. those who are in favour.
> 
> And I think that those really deluded are the "responsible" group.
> Both because progress is far from granted *and* because even if it
> were the idea of steering it would be presumptuous and short-sighted,
> not to mention fundamentally reactionary.

What?  You don't think attempting to maximize the outcomes that ensue is worth thinking about at all?   You think it is presumptuous to even bother to attempt to predict alternatives and do what we can (which admittedly may not be a lot) to make more desirable outcomes more likely?   If you do think this are you in the do-nothing camp re technology and how it is deployed in the future?  I don't think so judging from your activities but perhaps I am mistaken.   

- s