Crossposted from
Super Concepts.
Science Fiction Author Warren Ellis has written a short blog attacking supporters of the Singularity idea which has caused some ripples
in Transhumanist circles. The blog "The NerdGod Delusion" is misinformed
and full of non-sequiturs (comparison to scientology illustrates a distinct
lack of understanding of both the Singularity and Scientology), but, I believe
it is important to take note of his comments.
The fact is, there are
similarities between believing in the Singularity and believing in religious
faith, and opponents are always going to pick up on this. This blog has shown
just how easy it is for the general population to jump to irrational
conclusions and generalize ideas.
So how is supporting the Singularity similar to religious
faith? Obviously nowadays it has developed into a community, bringing with it
the sense of belonging that goes with faith, bringing together people with
similar ideals and morals. Also, it gives hope of a utopian future – just like
some prophecy.
However, what is making “Singularitarianism” worryingly
comparable to religion in recent years is the growing dogmatic sense that
surrounds it, and the fact that it is, for many
believers, a closed belief system. There are no alternatives. Many followers
believe that it is inevitable and what it brings is definitely going to happen.
Many followers believe the projections of visionaries like Kurzweil and DeGrey
without question, which, regardless of their integrity, is irresponsible.
The Singularity, taking into account the Law of Accelerating
Returns, seems logical, even within the timeframe – but it is a prediction
that is fundamentally flawed. It may not
be possible. Real Artificial General Intelligence may never be possible due
to the nature of how intelligence evolved, nanotechnology may never be possible
due to the unpredictable behaviour of particles in the atomic world, and
immortality may never be possible if there are underlying complications to the
way the brain stores consciousness that we are yet to discover. That said, if
any of them are possible, then they
really are reasonable predictions and there is no need to attach religious
connotations to them. We just have to show caution in our commitment to them
until their feasibility is confirmed.
I commend George Dvorsky’s suggestions
for normalizing the Singularity debate. However one thing this reaction has
taught us is that we must be careful how we expose people to Future shock if we want the
Singularity idea to keep its credibility. Alternatively, we could play off the
shock value and the idea of it being a religion. The shock value itself is a
great selling point and the majority of people still want to belong to
something, still want to have a faith. Promoting the Singularity in this way
could have its merits.
Personally, I am against this principal because it goes
against the very essence of my beliefs – the essence of this blog. We should not endorse closed belief systems and
should be evolving into more open, innovative mindsets. Expect, expecting
humanity to take this step is the battle I find myself in on a daily basis.
Ellis’s comments, misinformed as they are, are a wake up
call to Singularity supporters. More effort must be made to question and debate
the Singularity, to ensure its supporters are not being represented as a single
group, and to improve its credibility through provable results.