[ExI] far future

[Anders Sandberg]

On 2013-12-30 02:34, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
> I am writing a book on the far future based on eugenics.  Then, 
> genetics has been nearly perfected and many changes have been made to 
> humans, both physical and mental.
>
> I would like to find out  fellow members' ideas on just what changes 
> should be made in us if that were possible and discuss them.  And yes, 
> I might include them in my book and give you credit.

The problem here is "far future". If that were just 40 years, then 
things are pretty simple: enough time for about two generations, social 
mores are not going to be totally alien, people enhance for reasons we 
recognize today, and biotechnology might be powerful but it is still 
likely nowhere near the ultimate limits. But give things a few centuries 
or millennia, and the book might be rather hard to read.

Are you going to base it on just biological changes? Because there is 
only so far you can push biology, and everything needs to be retrofitted 
to the existing mess. If you also include non-biological enhancements 
like alternate biochemistry synthetic biology, implanted nanotechnology, 
outsourced biology, not to mention external collective intelligence 
(either from AI, smartly networked people or brain emulations) then 
things can get *very* different and potentially alien, especially once 
neurotechnology allow people to modify their minds. At that point not 
only bodies but minds and kinds of individuals (if any) become cultural 
artefacts.


Looking at what people today like to change, it is pretty clear that 
people primarily want better health for their children (= likely early 
enhancement). While people talk a lot about appearance and athletics in 
regards to genetic change, I think the safe bet is that early aims will 
be general purpose goods (intelligence, social skill, happiness, 
longevity). The development speed is modulated by how quickly 
enhancement of GPGs can actually be developed, safety tested and 
evaluated - genetics is slow compared to medical implants, drugs or 
software, and natural variations typically has small effect sizes. An 
interesting issue I am currently looking into is moral enhancement (see 
the work of Savulescu, Persson and Douglas), which might or might not be 
very useful or very socially destabilizing. Note that already at this 
point - a society with cohorts of smart, energetic and moral people - 
the sociology gets rather alien.

Note that drastic morphologic change is unlikely to be popular among 
mainstream parents: few parents today dress their kids as lizards 
outside fancy dress parties, and most morphologic changes are too 
specific to be useful. Better to implement them using surgery, implants, 
attachments or external devices.






-- 
Dr Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University