<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Actually, a 95% vote is only required for a change in the genetic makeup.<br><br></div>The reason the narrator goes to the future is to learn what changes have been made, and ultimately to vote on them along with the future persons. Keep in mind that all possible genetic profiles are possible. Even further, genes can be created, built up molecule by molecule, to create results not found in current humans. That's one reason it has taken so long to get to this point: enormous amounts of experimentation on plants, animals, and humans have been done.<br>
<br></div>Re economy: OK, so it may be an economy but there are no finances - no money, no barter.<br><br></div>I am asking all of you for the same reason that the future people are asking the narrator: is this it? The best we can be? For example, since all future people are neither very introverted or very extroverted, could there be reasons for creating such? Or take any other psych or physical trait. Is it the best idea to have people mostly the same so there is no comparison, no one-upping one another? Since there is no violence more variety might not be a problem. Might. <br>
<div><div><div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Anders Sandberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anders@aleph.se" target="_blank">anders@aleph.se</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On 2013-12-31 20:44, William Flynn Wallace wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Some good thoughts in your missive.<br>
<br>
Keep in mind that all humans have the same genes except for outward appearance. All 'evil' types are long gone. There is a movement towards reducing the population to two people, like Eden because of a massive guilt complex. It is felt that humans have spoiled the planet (in fact cleanup is still underway with billions of robots in the oceans etc. cleaning up chemicals). So they want to redesign man so that this will never happen again. They are so fervent that it is almost like a religion.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
OK, it is your scenario. But why are you even asking us if you have already decided on all the salient points? This kind of cultural values could in principle motivate any behaviour.<br>
<br>
If the cultural values were to terraform planets (as repentance, say, to keep the guilt complex theme) the population would be optimized for that. But they could just as well have done away with all guilt (turning into a super-rational libertarian sociopath society) or turned into a functional soup with no individuals (but goal-threads producing meaningful projects aimed at achieving goals). The space of possible cultures and goals is vast, even when you have a society with only one central goal, rather than the more complex multi-goal societies we have in reality.<div class="im">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
So, I am presenting the idea of perfection and asking if it is indeed perfect (as are they).<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
But this scenario is contrived from a literary sense. You are essentially getting a fantastic Aesop problem ( <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasticAesop" target="_blank">http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/<u></u>pmwiki.php/Main/FantasticAesop</a> ). The future people are simultaneously super-able to do and be a lot of things, yet they have chosen to do and be certain ultra-specific things - thanks to their ability to be anything. Asking whether this is perfection is like asking if a millionaire ruining himself by building a monument to his dead wife is acting right: whether it is depends on how he is written, the scenario doesn't really tell you much about either what *real* millionaires ought to be doing or what values normal people ought to be holding in similar (but cheaper) situations.<br>
<br>
Imagine a society with people of different views instead. How would they approach the guilt? How would they approach their possibilities? How would they approach their different views?<br>
<br>
Now, I think there is a good issue here, and that is whether it is a good idea to use enhancements to make unified mindsets across society. But then the back story should focus on exploring that rather than laying it on thick how utopian the society is.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Dr Anders Sandberg<br>
Future of Humanity Institute<br>
Oxford Martin School<br>
Oxford University</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/<u></u>mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-<u></u>chat</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>