For technoprogressives it can be excruciating to witness the persistence with which spurious objections to promising technologies wield massive influence over public policy, law and attitudes. This article explores what is arguably the main underlying reason for this -- namely fear -- and what are the options for addressing this underlying fear.Of course, there is no such thing as "technology in general" that it makes any real sense to monolithically "fear" or "desire" or whatever, and it is hard to know what transhumanoid types even mean when they speak of "promising technologies," since they love to pretend that things that don't exist and show no signs of existing any time soon are "promising technologies" about which this pesky relentless nonexistence then probably counts as a "spurious objection" to talking about them at all as opposed to talking about actually existing things instead. Needless to say, it is at least sometimes the case that some people who would otherwise benefit from the adoption of a new technology fail to do so out of ignorance or misplaced fear, just as at least as often some people adopt a new technology needlessly or to their actual detriment out of ignorance or misinformation or credulousness, just as others don't adopt a new technology because they actually know better. Also, needless to say: nobody ever joined a Robot Cult to gain insight of this kind. "Look before you leap" isn't exactly rocket science, after all (although it's a proverb from which rocket scientists are likely to benefit as much as everybody else).
I have observed that transhumanoids truly love to congratulate themselves on the fearlessness with which they assert how cool magic would be if it were real. They actually seem to fancy that it is the darned "deathism" of all the non True Believers out there that makes cryonic hamburgerization a scam instead of a Royal Road to resurrection in a shiny robot body or uploading as a cyberspatial sex-angel any day now, or they seem to fancy that it is the impoverished imaginations of the naysayers that are keeping those Drextech nano-genies-in-a-bottle from unleashing the superabundance that will overcome the impasse of stakeholder politics at last. And so, they actually behave as though putting on a self-esteem seminar "can do" face and clapping louder and balling up their fists with fervor actually amounts to a kind of activism or something, and as though their wish-fulfillment fantasizing constitutes earnest progressivism somehow (questions of the actually equitable distribution of the actual costs, risks, and benefits of actually existing and actually ongoing technodevelopmental changes to the actual diversity of their actual stakeholders are of negligible interest to these visionary "thought leaders," natch).
Wicks proposes that the main obstacle to progress is fear, but I would say that the main obstacle to progress is plutocracy. I think it is convenient for privileged people to attribute fears of change to majorities suffering from repression and exploitation. Usually this sort of outrageous attribution is merely a prelude to their advocacy in the name of "fearlessness" of all sorts of extraordinarily reckless behavior the costs and risks of which will thereupon inevitably be externalized right back onto those same majorities. Visionary! Brave! As it happens, there is nothing to be congratulated in a tendency to write checks your ass can't cash (three-hundred year life-spans! poverty-evaporating nanobotic treasure caves! profitable corporate-military "geo-engineering" technofixes for climate change and resource descent! and on and on and on), and everybody knows by now that the snake-oil salesmen who crow about how there are "No Limits!" are all really just assholes who believe that there will always be suckers around in the background to clean up their messes for them. In a surprise move, I do not share the view of those who want to declare this kind of dumb damned dangerous delusive distracting con-artistry as a kind of sublime insight, optimism, risk-taking, innovation, talent, beneficence or progressivism. (It's not.)
7 comments:
> Of course, there is no such thing as "technology in general". . .
Buttons. Lots of buttons. And lights! Lots of blinking lights!
Peter Diamedes (sp?) opened his last TED talk with the whole people who disagree with me are just scared thing. He even had a slide showing a part of the human brain where the fear is generated. By way of rebuttal I think someone should have showed a slide of a rectum to demonstrate where Peter has inserted his head. As a debating technique at least it's novel.
Interestingly enough the classic Scientology rebuttal to criticism is "what are you afraid of?".
Would you care to write a post about the article of Savulescu and Sandberg that appeared in Scientific American (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428646.200-love-machine-engineering-lifelong-romance.html?)?
What really creeps me out is the totalitarian nature that characterizes these people.
> Interestingly enough the classic Scientology rebuttal
> to criticism is "what are you afraid of?".
C. S. Lewis used the same argument against atheists. He intimated that the atheists most in danger of Hell are the intellectually dishonest ones -- those who know deep in their hearts that Christianity is true, but who are afraid of surrendering themselves to God and so rationalize away the obligation via atheism (which they don't really, **really** believe deep down). This may have had something to do with why Lewis gave up the atheism of his youth (though I suspect that all his upbringing and the cultural milieu of his interests and professional duties were inexorably sucking him back to the Anglican church), but I don't think that characterization fits most atheists. It certainly doesn't fit **me** -- either with respect to belief in God, **or** L. Ron Hubbard or Ayn Rand, **or** the Singularity. If anything, I'm rather disappointed that the Vingean Singularity, which gave me a rush of adrenalin when I read the postscript to _Across Realtime_, isn't going to happen. I'd **love** to talk to a really and truly talking robot or AI, like HAL or H.A.R.L.I.E. or P-1 (_The Adolescence of P-1_ by Thomas J. Ryan) or Stanley (_An XT Called Stanley_ by Robert Trebor), or even, faute de mieux, Colossus.
TV Tropes takes on the Singularity:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InstantAIJustAddWater
--------------------------
Instant A.I., Just Add Water
"Good news, everyone! I've taught the toaster to feel love!"
— Professor Farnsworth, Futurama
Judging by television, it would seem that any sufficiently complex
computer inevitably becomes sentient. It just happens, automagically,
while the builder's back is turned.
It doesn't matter that we do not yet have a thorough understanding
of all of the mind's mechanisms. Add a handful of memory chips,
a bolt of lightning... Bingo! It's wakey-wakey for the BFC-2000. . .
> The Fearless Credulity of the Transhumanoids
I like "transhumanoids". It makes me think of "Sins of the Fleshapoids".
;->
They wish! Kuchar 4evah!
Post a Comment