[ExI] hard science

[Anders Sandberg]

William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> , 15/2/2014 7:29 PM:
OK Ben and Natasha and everyone:  if we are not going to be wearing ape suits in the future, what will we be like? 
I think we will have an enormous amount of potential diversity. If you can modify yourself easily, it might be more like fashion. Yet fashion also shows that even when you are essentially unconstrained by practical limits there are social factors that cause convergence: you cannot dress arbitrarily within a culture and be taken seriously, and dress is very much about signalling to other members. I think the same is true for bodies: if anybody could look like anything it would be hard to tell what moods they have (is a waving of the pedipalps laughter or a frown?) or how to relate to them (wearing a tie signals a certain social pattern in a man). Hence I would assume that the shapes and patterns of the ape suits will be used as a template for the convergent appearances people are then varying around.
When I think about my ideal body it is something like the T1000 in Terminator: able to reshape itself fluidly to look like anything. But I would mostly look human when dealing with other humans - the insect-like stilt legs would be used for rapid locomotion and the wings for fun, but not during parties or academic meetings. 
...in the mainstream culture. In special environments (space, the arctic, cyberspace, the oceans) people will have other constraints that might overrule such niceties. And of course subgroups will be experimenting with radical differences. Plus, and this might wreck the above argument, better mind-to-mind communication might make appearance as a communications and social signifier irrelevant since you can just transmit that stuff in augmented reality or directly.

 In my book I consider the possibility of little green men:  skin able to convert sunlight to energy, smallness because it's far more efficient, no digestive tract and its disgusting products.
Reminds me of my one most controversial paper: http://www.smatthewliao.com/2012/02/09/human-engineering-and-climate-change/
My boss still cringes when I mention the "green dwarf paper" ;-)

And if babies are made by machines, then breasts and penises and all the rest of our sex equipment are unnecessary.  Producing the highs of all types, orgasms, drugs, peak experiences should be fairly easy long before the far future without  relying on sense organs.
Yes, but good pleasures are not just about maximal dopamine in the medial forebrain bundle (or its counterpart). Just like the ancient Greeks noted that there is a great deal of difference between simple pleasures, complex pleasures and real excellence, we know that to really enjoy something it has to be meaningful and involve nontrivial components.
Just consider the sensual possibilities with bodies that can remap their surfaces, change their shapes, experience things in new sensory ranges, and apply millennia of culture and style. (One of the best descriptions of posthuman eroticism and hedonism along these lines can be found in Scott Westerfeldt's "Evolution's Darling", where one of the main characters uses nanotechnology in the bedroom for good effect. Might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it is interesting as an example).
Plus, there are nontrivial risks in being able to hack one's motivation systems. I think hedonic engineering is one of those areas where posthumanity will be skating closest to a really dangerous (but exciting!) edge. 


Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140216/b6e88a89/attachment.html>