You know, up until a month ago I would have agreed with everything you just said. But ... the world really does have it's elites. They are not, as a general rule, nice people. And with the fruit of immortality dangling in front of them ... well, that gives them all the motivation they need to commit crimes against humanity the average person can't even contemplate.

Full disclosure: the following is written by me, and represents nothing more than my own opinions:

http://dancingintheminefield.blogspot.com/2007/10/hijacking-singularity.html

Just because the future can be great doesn't mean it will be.  

For the first twenty-nine years of my life, I would have agreed with you Reason. However in January of 2001, I learned that the Ruling Elite have been making plans for me even before I was born. We have watched the mighty bastion of law and enterprise turned into a lawless organization headed by War Criminals and thugs.

We as a world society must be ever vigilant to ensure that education, reason, cultural-awareness and the rule of law are the norm. As we can see, its all to easy to give up freedoms for a bauble of distraction like “American Idol” or whatever pretty white girl seems to be misbehaving. The populace at large is ignorant and lazy. They are all too eager to give up their liberty to the new high-priests of our society, corporate elites.

Wiretapping, torture, wars based on lies over dwindling resources, religious zealots blinded by faith... Need I go on? Screw it.. Yes I think I’ll go on.

Short-sighted ideologies, lack of government transparency, politics meddling with scientific publications, the lack of separation between church and state, sexual xenophobia, religious xenophobia, cities that drown because taxation is wrong, bridges that collapse because taxation is wrong, secret prisons, secret pacts with powerful corporate interests, media consolidation, lobbying, mega-churches, Jesus camp, no-bid contracts, Stem-cell ignorance, spin, swift-boating, bullying, free trade, outsourcing, cheap labour illegal aliens, pre-emptive war, be-headings on You-Tube….

Ok, now I’m getting way too depressed. But this short paragraph has barely put a dent in the atrocities we’ve had to endure by the leader of the free-world in the last paltry 6 years. Each one of them, documented ad nauseum. I was being kind with this list as well; I didn’t add any theoretical possible tin-foil-hat things such as the Bilderberg group, Carlyle Group, or even the NRA. I just stuck with what were absolutes without conjecture.

That list alone should be pretty damning evidence that there is not only ruling elite, but they want the two-tired society. They want the Elites, and everyone else should be Serfs. There is even possible theories tied to promoting genocide to “thin the heard” of the unwashed masses.

Here is where I must beg of you Reason, to examine and look closely at what we have here you are one of our most outspoken members and I consider you the best litmus test when it comes to scrutinizing science publications and press releases.

You must understand that these people of power are different than we are. Of course we are all human, but what we value and what they value are completely different mindsets. Transhumanists value reason, knowledge, life, technology and progress.

These Elites are only concerned with maintaining their power-hold. Technology is a great equalizer. Imagine this world right now without an internet. We would be in the beginnings of a new Dark Age. Ignorance, fear and hate would be everywhere. 1984 would become flesh, and the men in power with the money could protect themselves and the rest of us would be cattle. Network neutrality NARROWLY bought us some time. The elites wanted to banish that... and with it, our last true unfettered means of communicating to a large audience.

There is only one thing “men of power” fear, loosing their power. Not even death can scare them like the thought that they actually might not be privileged. They would have to work in the system that THEY created… not at the top, but at the bottom. This is the only thing they fear Reason. They can even convince them to vote against their own self-interest, in droves, praying to a non-existent mythical figure that they all believe will take them to paradise after they die. They have much vested in it. Books were created by the old high-priests (The Bible, the Quran, and the Torah) as a simple means of herding an ignorant mass populous into submission. Those books are over 2000 years old, and they are still doing a fine job of keeping us ignorant, dependant and self-loathing. They build huge infrastructures in it, and lobby hard to continue to tweak the rule of law not in the favor of all mankind, but in their narrow dogmatic vision of the bottom line.

THIS IS NOT BY ACCIDENT!

Galileo was jailed because he sought to tell the truth. Spanish Inquisition wasn’t the Ruling Elite exerting themselves?  How many women were victimized as witches and burned at the stake? Tesla and humanity were robbed because a man with money wanted people to pay for electricity. Do you REALLY think that JFK was killed by Oswald? Watergate? Do you REALLY think that Ken Lay died on the day before sentencing?

Wireless Wiretapping? Aluminum tubes? Saddam was connected to 9/11?

I’ve just taken you through a single paragraph spanning about 2000 years where the Ruling Elite exerted their will, compromised human advancement, and caused the deaths of unknown numbers of people. And you think that they won’t try to control the new technologies of Life Extension?

Let me propose a new theory. This one should scare the living *** right out of you.

Many people believe that after death, there is an afterlife. We have no proof of this, no plausible science exists that can prove or disprove it. What I just stated is old news. VERY old news. Religion spawns from a fear of death. They all have this in common. Every one. We do not simply die and rot, there is a consequence for our earthly actions and we are judged by them to either live in paradise or dystopia.

What happens when someone (Or more likely a Corporation) has this technology? It’s no longer an ethereal possibility… but real... in the flesh… tangible and undeniable. Whoever controls that technology (and you can bet it will be enwrapped in an air-tight seal of copyright law) Becomes the new God. Isn’t that what religion is offering? Eternal Life? 72 Virgins and all that stuff?

But instead of being a possibility… it’s real... and it can be had… for the right price…. What kind of moral power could this new corporate entity wield? What kind of ‘commandments’ could this new entity make? We’ve just seen the RIAA take a single mother to the cleaners for the tune of $220 K.

What would happen if say…. The Muslim world developed it first? If you didn’t convert to Islam, no life extension for you! That way, their enemies would truly die. Their numbers would continuously grow until everyone else was marginalized. Isn’t that what organized religion wants? A monolithic God that has no competition? Isn’t that what human struggle has been about for over 6000 years? How much effort do you think this faction would invest in keeping this technology proprietary?

That’s the problem Reason, they do exist, and they are always looking for leverage. We must educate, educate, educate… The elite can only exist in a sea of ignorance.

Sigh.

Reason, I agree with you 100%, especially your last paragraph.

Matt and Oortog - I could write 100 pages to rebutt your posts (beheadings shown on youtube has something to do with ELITES conspiracy? wha?), but since I have limited time, I will leave you with just a few thoughts...

1.) Do you care what people halfway round the world, who make less than $1 a day, actually do? Do you try to suppress them, so they won't impede on your salary? To these people, you are the elite. VERY wealthy/powerful individuals, the people you may consider the world's elite, ...yes, they have an interest in holding their wealth/power. As do you. It's the rare person who volunteers to take a pay cut, just cuz they're so nice. Do these wealthy people suppress everyone else, (outside of direct competitors), in order to maintain their wealth? I don't see it.  Take Bill Gates. A few years back, he was overwhelmingly viewed as a cutthroat, monopolizing, "not nice" business tycoon. Today, he is fighting hard to become one of the biggest, and most effective, philanthopists the world has ever seen. Things aren't so simple....

2.) There is a difference between incompetent/corrupt governments, and a ruling class of elites. Dubya's family connections and wealth were an advantage to him gaining the office, but they weren't everything. Kerry's uncharismatic demeanor wasn't much of an alternative to many in the country. Many past presidents didn't start out with advantages like Bush. Many presidents, including Reagan, started from relatively humble beginnings. These people were at the time among the most powerful/influential people in the world. But they weren't part of a secret society of a handful of individuals controlling the future of humanity. It is utter paranoia to suggest that.

3.) Oortog, you mentioned stem cells. Here is an exceptional technology, that could potentially help in the development of many life-saving cures/treatments. Your paradigm suggests that the elite would suppress the technology so that only the elite could benefit from it. Bush is opposed to federal funding for stem cell technology based on MORAL grounds (as misguided as you and I may think). He thinks the cost, the cost for humanity, is too great for the benefits, and has fought against it, despite huge political damage. There is no indication that he or other 'elites' are attempting to hoard the benefits of the research. Hardly the malicious actions of a repressing, evil secret elite. Again, things aren't so black and white, even if the outcome (no fed funding) is one the majority of the populace disagree with.

I do agree with you on one thing. America has embraced a culture of ignorance, superstition, and laziness in the past few decades. Education needs to be taken much more seriously. Scientists should be heralded with as much respect and adoration as our sports stars are now. This is the biggest battle we need to face, not mysterious elites controlling the world's technological progress.

Human nature creates elites - they will continue to exist until we face our genes.

Humans are designed to be motivated to dominate and hold power over other humans and other sentient beings - it gives them pleasure.

And older Darwinians do have plans for the younger generations - plans that suit their addictions.

This extends to all aspects of life including longevity research.

oortog:

You laid it at all out. Not much I can add to a list like that.

Veritas:

1) Regarding your first point, the difference between me, making about $30K a year, and the most impoverished person on earth is about ... thirty thousand dollars (a little less if you assume $1/d, but who's counting?) The difference between me and, say, Carlos Slim Helu (the richest man in the world, worth 44 billion dollars as of 2006) is a vast gulf by comparison. But you know, money is only a part of it, and not the most important part at that. What it really comes down to is power, because when you're as rich as Helu, money just stops being important. Now, you're right, I don't go out of my way to either help or hinder that poor bastard on the other side of the world, but first, I couldn't if I wanted to, and second, when you get down to it I more or less wish him well (assuming he is, like most people, a decent sort of guy). Someone like Helu, on the other hand, does have the power to interfere with people's lives all over the world, and I would be deeply surprised to find out that he never exercises it.

To sum up, a mouse may be bigger than an ant, but they can both be stamped flat by an elephant.

2) As to the second point, I agree up to a point. Governments and elites do not have absolute power, and being composed of people they make mistakes. Chalking up every unfortunate outcome to evil where the true cause lies in simple incompetence is a trap many conspiracy theorists fall into, and those that do end up looking like raving lunatics (if they don't already.) This does not mean, however, that psychopathic monsters do not walk among us. That they do, and that they are attracted to positions of power, is simply documented fact, which is why some corporations have started administering psychological tests before admitting potential recruits to the management pool ... odd that we don't do this for politicians, don't you think?

Mislabeling incompetence as evil might make you look silly, but mistaking evil for incompetence will get you killed. And notice that I don't mention corruption: equating incompetence with corruption is a deep fallacy; corruption is a mild form of evil. Look for the worlds most corrupt regimes, and you will find psychopaths at the top.

3) It's possible that Bush opposes stem cells on moral grounds. Then again, his actions since taking office have not indicated that he is a man of any deep morality. Born-again Christian? Please. Elites throughout history have pretended to piety in order to legitimize themselves in the eyes of the truly pious amongst the masses. My guess - and it's nothing more than speculation - is that the move to deny stem cells federal funding (rather than outlaw them outright, which he would have at least tried to do if he really were acting from a moral imperative) was simply an effort to slow down a promising life-extension technology. The elites don't want life-extension techniques to mature until they're ready to cull us and replace us with robots. Robotics and AI have to mature first for their plan to work.

Your final point - regarding America's embrace of a decadent culture of ignorance - is not entirely by accident. The elites took one look at the unruly freedom loving masses of the early 20th century and said, "They read too much. They're too smart. Too hard to control." So they started building massive sports stadiums, took over the schools, progressively dumbed-down the curricula ... to the point where the majority of the population is semi-literate at best, ignorant of their own constitutional rights, and more concerned with sunday-night football than the evening news. I could go into more detail, but I think you get the idea.

The next few decades will decide the fate of our species down into deep time. The elites want to keep it all for themselves, and they're prepared to commit crimes that will quite literally wipe out the species. If they're successful, they'll probably end up wiping out civilization too, purely by accident (great power nearly always entails great arrogance, leading to great recklessness.) But if enough people wake up to what's going on, they can be stopped, and Singularity can happen the way it should, as the greatest boon mankind has ever bestowed upon itself. So Veritas - and anyone else who reads this - I urge you, for your own sake, to start doing some research. Start digging. Take a step back from the technology, which you already understand quite well (or you wouldn't be a transhumanist), and have a look at the underlying politics. If you look at the evidence dispassionately, you'll come to the same conclusion I've come to, the same conclusion oortog came to, the same conclusion thousands of people are coming to every day.

Matt -

1a.) the scale isn't that far off. $30,000 : $1 is comparable to $900,000,000 : $30,000

(again, a bit different if $1/d instead of just $1/year, but you get the idea). The scale is comparable to someone making nearly a billion dollars a year. There are only about 950 billionaires in the world (that's entire net worth, not what they make in 1 isolated year.)

1b.) If you made an effort, even at $30k a year, you could SO make a difference in someone's life who made only $1/day. A $500 contribution to Heifer International, for example, is enough to buy that person an actual cow, which can make a world of difference.

If you take the longer view, you could donate to the Mprize or other longevity research, which has the possibility of helping us all. You don't need to have millions or billions to make a difference.

1c.) How do you know what feelings a billionaire actually has towards others? You admittedly don't help or hinder others, but wish them well. Why would you think a billionaire would be any different? What joy do you think it gives them to actively suppress or hinder others?

1d.) Funny you mention Helu. Helu isn't known ever to have been formally investigated, indicted, convicted or otherwise sullied in regard to bribery, influence peddling or any other scandal. He recently started to turn his attention towards philanthropy. A year ago Helu infused his charitable foundation with $1.8 billion; in the fall he pledged to donate up to $10 billion to the foundation in the next four years to fund health and education programs. Yet even his philanthropic ambitions are greeted with wariness, or outright derision, faulting him for not giving more. He pledges to donate 20% of his current net worth, and yet still he is 'evil'.

http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2007/0326/134.html

1e.) why would the elephant choose to malaciously stomp either the mouse or the ant? The elephant gains nothing. Capability is different than intention, let alone working with other elephants in a vast conspiracy to limit the actions of all small creatures.

2.) You say "Mislabeling incompetence as evil might make you look silly, but mistaking evil for incompetence will get you killed." So does that mean we naturally assume everyone with wealth/power, or everyone who doesn't agree with us, or is just an idiot who screws up his job, is therefore evil, just to be safe? Caution and suspicion is great. But there comes a point when it is unfounded and goes too far and enters paranoia. I am of the opinion that most people, including billionaires, are inherently good, decent people. Virtually nobody (outside of a handful of psychopaths) considers themselves 'evil'. They honestly believe they themselves are honest and good and behave in an upstanding manner. Evil is a label that is so grossly overused it weakens the usage when talking about truly heinous acts.

3.) Site one ounce of proof of ANY of these claims. "The elites don't want life-extension techniques to mature until they're ready to cull us and replace us with robots. Robotics and AI have to mature first for their plan to work." Wha? Whachoo talkin' bout, Willis?

Do you have any idea how crazy that sentence sounds?

Building sports stadiums is an effort to dumb down America? No, it's an effort to make tons of money.

Most of your conclusions seem to be based on speculation and generalities. I don't believe in these ELITE conspiracies for the same reason I don't follow various religions. There is no proof, and many of the ideas are rather silly and based in outdated notions, not facts.

Veritas,

1)The main difference that should be considered when figuring the contrast between myself and a $1/day worker as opposed to a billionaire and myself is not our monetary worth, it is the position we hold with respect to others in society.  More clearly, I mean to say that in terms of influence over others, we hardly net more than the poor individuals you mentioned.  It is not the daily lot of either of us to exert control over groups of people in any obvious way.  Our will isn't sufficiently attached to the world (like it is to our muscles) for us to actually participate in its direction and evolution any more than a bacterium which lay in our intestines can control the motion of my body (with precision, that is!).  However, someone (and I don't mean anyone or any given one, I mean that there probably is one) with the societal position of a billionaire could possibly be connected to the world in a way that would be more comparable to our mind's control over the musculature of our body - some of them as part of a daily routine make choices that affect so many people that they can create waves of inluence that the rest of us can only reel in and fight like little boats in a storm.  It is this power, not the difference in money, that makes them such a threat.  For in the elephant example, sure maybe there is no reason for the elephant to arbitrarily crush the mouse and the ant, but maybe the elephant just likes to dance and doesn't care what he steps on!  Especially since, as it was mentioned above, there is a correlation between the control seeking attributes in the type of mind that seeks such extreme power (which would take a very extreme series of actions, as most of us could probably assume given the feeling of intensity I have in my own life sometimes while I remain a little hermit!) and certain pathologies.  A way to sum up the point is this.  Butterfly effect aside, there is no way that my daily actions and even the most ambitious of my agendas will ever create an effect that will trace its way across the globe to affect someone in some 3rd world country in a way that is even remotely direct, even if that was my intention.  I would have to consciously enter the social arena as a player in that field with the intent of attaining influence in some way if ever that was to happen.  But those "elite" (and I don't mean conspirators, I don't really have an opinion on that yet) LIVE in those fields because their interests must necessarily involve so many people that their interests in essence become political.   As a second summary, I refer back to my own elephant dance.

1b) There is such an enormous difference between having private control over large sums of money and connections to large amounts of people and politicians and being able to donate money to a charity that I feel like laughing that I even have to dispel this point you have made.  Charity organizations must in order to exist appeal to a large public sentiment because they rely on the support of large amounts of people to exist.  Therefore, a selfish motive could never be promoted by one of these! It would necessarily involve enough people that it would actually meld more in the the area of public will than any sort of private agenda.  This discussion is not a debate on whether we can be philanthropists just like billionaires can.  It is about the FOCUS of power that resides within them that does not have to be checked by a larger population the way that a charity group does.  The imbalance of power is what is the problem, much like the imbalance of power that exists within a nuclear weapon compared to the worlds power to withstand such devices, which is what makes them so dangerous.  The charity example is very silly.

1c) see above.  it doesn't matter what their feelings are.  Their most indifferent actions can affect the world in both potent benevolent and malevolent ways.  

I don't care to address most of the rest of the points really, I feel like I have said enough.  But I would like to comment on 3) . . . Yes, I thought that he overdid it too with the robots, but I think it just sounds that way if we listen to him literally, as if he was actually proposing that distinct scenario specifically.  I think he was just using an example to make his point sound more visceral.  Basically, I feel that the "elite" - whether CEOs or billionaires or presidents or conspiratorial overlords - must be extremely detached from the populace as experienced by its units.  After sending 18 year olds to die by the thousands for oil (do I have to make a disclaimer of speculation to counter the argument before it happens? here it is!) for the first time without having to actually look at their faces probably puts the individual human life into a much different perspective.  

It is not ridiculous to think that to people on a high enough level, this is just a very immersive real-time strategy game.  If you don't think so, consider any leader who sends others to fight without joining in himself.  There is obviously not enough imperative present in the notion leading to the conflict to actually motivate direct action on the part of the leader, to inspire his own physical motion and lead him to risk for the cause.  This likely means that to him, the idea is less than worth dying for.  To send others to their deaths for an idea that is less than worth dying for means that you value human life less than a concept not even worth dying for, and acting on that belief exhibits a fundamental lack of connection with the lives being spent.  

If that example seems too specific, I only mention it to show that there can be a gradient of connectedness with the human population for those who reside in positions to move humans en masse like playing a command and conquer video game.  Inevitably, this means that there are some extremes in the spectrum, (not meaning that this proves  that there are extremely evil people, only that it proves that some sort of detachedness exists at some extreme, whatever it is, and it can be seen to be at least as bad as that exhibited by those who would send others to die for money) and that they DO exist in reality, somewhere, either today or tomorrow.  The real fear I think is not that these people are evil, it is that their experience of humanity is so different, that something we care so much about, like - not being poor for instance (I mean us as an idividual specifically, not poverty in general) - doesn't even register on their radar.  It is much like being at the mercy of a new force of nature, one so large that it could possibly destroy all of us, and which doesn't merely control the elements of water, fire, earth or wind, but all the human infrastructure which connects and sustains all of us, which yields the power of the entire worldwide nuclear arsenal and also that of the greatest creative faculties available to us.  I don't think the debate is necessarily about whether there exists evil in high places; it is rather, given the vicinity of the volcano and the knowledge of its potency, do we choose to ignore it only because it is not consciously evil?