I've read quite a bit recently about the Singularity etc. when 'machines' will be able to constantly engineer better versions of themselves and produce exponential improvement. This raises some important questions about our future. But why not learn from the prediction? We should genetically engineer humans to produce progressively better and better generations. "Humans" with 'souped-up' bodies and advanced minds. Or shouldn't we? Of course, this is unlikely to happen in the near future due to 'moral' reasons but the technology is developing. And it wouldn't be possible to advance anywhere near as fast as AI, but transhumanism surely should involve not only merging with computers, but also realising the immense potential of "transevolution".

Yes, we should. "Nature" has been doing it and is always doing it, more or less randomness and without any other principle than immediate survival of the individual. Most species seem to have gone extinct, so it's not a "perfect" system.

Evolution guided by conscious intelligence rather than an accumulation of individual actions that operate partly on chance will act more rapidly and will pare away incidentals of genetic drift and possibly suicidal specializations.

Increased intelligence will likely insure that the means to do this are preserved and thus result in one of those species like horseshoe crabs that last far longer than most. In fact, it will enable us to preserve all species currently existing along with versions tailored to certain ends (my favorite would be highly intelligent and long lived dogs, though the equivalent in parrots and cats might be nice).

It is not at all clear to anyone what "evolution guided by conscious intelligence" would produce.  Anyone discussing this should consider the horrendous history of mankind's attempts to manufacture transcendence.  The Soviet New Man never appeared and many real lives were lost in the process.  The same kind of cataclysm happened in communist China.  Socialism was an attempt to change human nature and it had a human cost.  It's all very nice to have "enhanced humans," but will it really create "better humans," or simply more powerful ones who are still burdened with the same evils that make us human in the first place?  Can we not imagine that more powerful humans will have more power to do evil?  Can you engineer goodness or character to go along with these supposedly benign upgrades?  Humans will always be selfish: if we make them "better" in this way, we will only make them more selfish.  We won't transcend human nature, we will only make its evils more acute.  I like what Francis Fukuyama said: "Can people conceive of dying for a cause higher than themselves and their own fucking little petty lives?  I mean, can they think of dying for...anything beyond themselves?  It think that the very asperiation is wrong--this aspiration to live forever--because your own petty life trumps all other values..."  Or Bill Joy, "A realistic view of the world would say that people are evil and people make mistakes and we ought to use common sense."  Resist the singularity.  Stay human. 

It's more accurate to say that technology is magnifying our power to do both evil and good. This is already obvious. One lone crazy with a suitcase nuke has tremendous power to do evil. At the same time one lone, concerned citizen can video tape the police beating Rodney King, get it on the air and change the course of history. Gandhi's power to do good was magnified by newspapers and radio. It works both ways.

My guess is that this will stay true for all future technology created. Subtly enhances everything, that's what elegance means.

I disagree because that's too simple. What's more likely to happen is that some of us will exchange the agony of the human condition for the agony of the post-human condition. History has shown that in solving an old problem we always create a new unexpected problem. This seems to be a process with no endpoint. My guess is the posthumans will find something humanly incomprehensible to bellyache about.

In the best of worlds, anyone will be allowed to opt out of something they don't want to participate in. I'd like to believe that things will happen this way but, it's a messy and confusing world and I'm sure there'll be some mistakes and disasters.

The point is that, assuming we don't destroy ourselves, a lot of this stuff is unavoidable. History has shown that reliquishment and bans don't work. The future is coming whether we like it or not. It won't be all roses and it won't be all horror. It will mostly be weird and then commonplace. Here's hoping the benefits are many and the disasters are few.

Not exactly the most ringing endorsement of future technology but it's the best and most realistic one I can muster.

I have written quite a long post in response to stayhuman here. But in this thread, all I want to ask is whether it would be possible to remove the selfishness and violence from people by removing genes, or taking certain drugs... It's far-fetched and the ethics of changing people's behaviour could be debated for ever, but it's possible isn't it? Drugs will probably soon be available that change appetite or something similar. Why not remove the (mainly testosterone fueled) urge for violence along with the urge for french fries? Indeed, as I mentioned in the other thread, we should make the effort ourselves to improve our character, rather than relying on technologies, but no matter how perfect you may become, your new-born child will still be genetically designed to be selfish, short-sighted and violent. Nurture doesn't always work [in producing decent humans]; genes would.

It is true that technology magnifies our power to do both good and evil, but we are not talking about technology, we are talking about transcendence.  We are talking about The Singularity.  It's not as simple as saying technology is just a tool (that is a given), because we are talking about changing what it means to be human.  We are talking about giving people tremendous personal power without any way to make them more personally responsible.  We are not talking about restraint or character or wisdom.  That is a recipe for great evils, however you slice it.  Yes, we will exchange some personal agonies of the elite for more personal agony of the unwashed masses; we will trade vapid, selfish, personal discontents for the more general decay of society (as we have been doing at a slower pace for generations--now the pace is quickening exponentially).  Would anyone who put forth the resources to enhance himself then go on to sacrifice himself for a greater good?  Is it possible for someone so selfish to even see a good greater than his own personal "improvement?"  What will be the purpose of free-market enhancements--to better society?  Yes, a lot of this stuff is unavoidable.  But what stuff is and what stuff isn't?  Don't you care?  If aliens were coming to take over the planet in your lifetime and you knew you might be enslaved, how would you live your life?  Would you just say, "Oh, well, it's inevitable; nothing I can do.  Sorry, kids.  Here's hoping the benefits are many and the disasters are few?"  If you are a responsible human with some common sense and gumption, you might, in your own personal way, resist.  If you've read about "Shock Levels," you know that part of the "shock" value of a technology is its ability to impress you to the point of carelessness.  Are you so impressed by the singularity that you don't care what it might do to you and your family, as long as you have some thrills along the way (and maybe you might get those feathery wings you've always wanted)?  Isn't that just a little pathetic?  Are you a man or a mouse?  Are you human or just a sans-human?  It is human to protect oneself and those one loves; it is human to want to retain one's identity (wars have been fought over this).  I would die fighting for my humanity, for my right to be human, unenhanced, unspliced, unsullied...I'm fucking PROUD to be human, with all of my faults and weaknesses.  I'm damn PROUD that I have to get on a plane in order to fly, that I can't leap tall buildings in a single bound, that I can feel sorrow when I see a child crying, that I can die for what I believe in, that I can sacrifice myself for the good of others.  These things make us human.  If we enhance ourselves, we will only become LESS than human, because we will lose these innate abilities that arise out of humility ("human" and "humility" come from the word "humus," which means "soil," a concept that we have regrettably "transcended").  It may be inevitable, but it won't touch me or mine--and if there were more people like me (and there are, believe me), it wouldn't be so inevitable after all, would it?  And while we're at it, I would like to keep my "violence gene" (if it exists), since I might need it to defend myself and those I love.  Obviously, if it's there, it was put there for a reason.  Just like there is a reason we aren't born with "superintelligence."  Sorry for rambling (but I did make some good points). 

Adam,

Hey, man, I'm no biochemist or Buddhist monk or geneticist but I don't think it is possible at all to remove selfishness from human nature by any other means but spiritual conversion, because I think it is a spiritual question with a spiritual answer.  The gene-mappers have not located the human spirit; they never will.  Selfishness is deeply imbeded somewhere in that spirit.  Drugs or gene therapy (germ-line, or whatever) may have some effect on the physicochemical response to that spiritual imperative, but the drive will not be removed, and still you will be left with a person who is less than human (genes removed, drug-dependent).  Besides, it is my contention that all the genes we have are there for a good reason (excepting traditional genetic illnesses--which are not the same as genetic traits, among which I am not sure "violence" has a place).  Selfishness, short-sightedness, and violence are best treated by good education, a loving family environment, etc.  Yes, those institutions of nurture are not always empowered in individual lives, but that is the problem (not genes or lack of drugs--that is, technology).  This is not a technological problem, but a social one.  Technologists want to forget that, perhaps because they like "science" and not so much social work.  Technology has never delivered solutions to spiritual problems and it never will.  We have our feet in two different worlds here, the physical and the spiritual.  You have to realize that, unless you admit to being a full-fledged materialist.  Waitaminute!  You are a materialist, aren't you?  That's okay.  I don't have such simple beliefs myself--how about Shock Level 6: The Spirit World?  Are you afraid?

Casey 

I don't think it's as simple as that. Some will be responsible with these technologies and some won't. There will be laws and rules to restrain and punish those who are irresponsible. The damage the irresponsible ones do can't always be prevented, surprises and disasters will occasionally still happen, but at least it will be rare and, in some cases, repairable.

Perhaps I am naive to assume this but it seems to me that the pattern established in the historical and biological past will continue to hold. Parasites and disease or malcontents and evil institutions may occasionally flare up and do damage but in the long run they are never stable. The ecosystem and the global civilization continue to thrive. Perhaps this is a bad metaphor but it's the best one that I can see.

I am a techno-rapture skeptic. I don't think these new technologies will usher in heaven. Heaven is boring and static. On the opposite side, I don't believe this stuff will usher in hell either. Hell is boring and static. I think the reality will be a mixed bag. Temporarily wonderful in parts, temporarily horrible in parts, yet always, always changing.

And I think you'll be free to remain so if you wish. I think it's likely that these technologies will not be forced on anyone who doesn't want them--at least not in democratic countries. If anyone is forced, I will fight in whatever way I can to prevent such abuse from happening. People's personal decisions on this stuff should be respected. Nobody should force anyone else towards a life or viewpoint they don't agree with.

I think most of us here will agree with that. No-one should force anyone.

And getting this thread back on the subject--

Is it possible to enhance wisdom? Assuming we can define it or at least parts of it adequately?

And if we do and can, does that really get us out of the woods? I don't think so. Because assuming it's possible to become superhumanly intelligent and wise, suggests to me that we'll be able to apprehend and comprend even bigger questions and problems that we can currently understand. There might be some really tough stuff just outside our ken. We think it's tough being human but, we really don't have any idea what's in store for us as we continue to evolve--do we?

Again I have to reach for metaphors because that's all I've got. Think about ants for a moment. It's probably really tough being an ant. But obviously, from our perspective as large brained mammals there are whole realms of problems that are entirely outside the powers of ants to deal with.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? This is what I mean when I say, "We will exchange the agony of the human condition for the agony of the posthuman condition" This is an agony we have no way of ever understanding. What will superhuman intelligences gripe about? We have no way of knowing. Will they gripe at all? Well, we don't really know, but biology suggests to me that, yes, they will.

I very acutely stand behind the idea of enhancing the human species. I believe we should devise a super immune system to cure us and all our future generations of disease and common colds. I believe we should eliminate genes out of the Human Genome that cause obesity, and a whole other slue of disfunctions in the species. We should make our muscles stronger, our minds more advanced and more intelligent, our bodies more stout to adapt and overcome. We should create a suped up healing factor and introduce it into the population. We should find and eliminate the genes that cause aging and deterioration of the body. I believe we should with our vast growing Technology & Science make ourselves more like unto gods.

 

For some of these things to happen, there would have to be incredible changes in how the politics and economics of the world operate. I seldom hear anyone address those issues. Where can I find some info on that?

Also, why is it most of the descriptions of what we could become sound so much like comic book heroes? What is the purpose of it all? Why do we need muscles if we have machines to do all the work for us? etc.

donmoo

www.yrhumans.blogspot.com

 

 

Personally, I don't consider superior morality to be a prerequisite for the creation of enhanced human beings. Morality is relative, and every person who wants to create "better" human beings has different ideas of what constitutes "better".

I say, let them.

I believe that the more diversity we have in "enhanced" human genotypes, the more diversity we have in design goals, the more humanity as a whole will improve. Because different designers will focus on different traits, and will use different techniques, we have the best chances of finding out what is effective-- and because of the human tendency to ignore cultural restrictions on reproduction, the more different lines of better humans we have, the more these traits will "leak" out into the non-enhanced populations.

Also, by maintaining diversity in enhancements, it leaves us far less vulnerable to genetic disaster, such as unforeseen weaknesses or gene-specific plagues.

Some people have racist ideas of what better humans are-- visions of the "pure Master Race" that will rule humanity.

Let them, too. If nothing else, it'll keep them too focused to actually hurt people-- and if they actually manage to improve upon humanity, with their misguided genetic ideals, their handiwork is also likely to benefit all of humanity. After all, enhanced human beings are just as likely as their "normal" brethren to fall in love with the wrong person.

All of the predicted pitfalls of genetically engineered people can be easily avoided by making sure that there are as many different groups pursuing genetic perfection as possible. Their different ideas, different agendas, and different priorities will prevent the genetic caste system from forming; they'll prevent rogue states (or worse, legitimate states) from creating legions of super soldier-slaves; and they'll prevent us from falling victim to some minor genetic weakness we couldn't predict.

There's no need for a utopia to meet these goals.  If anything, everyone living in perfect peace would be detrimental.  Why make something better when there's no competitor out there to make it better than.  Technological advances in the past twenty years(possibly longer but being twenty three I have seen much from before) have all been motivated by the desire to put out something better than what someone else was marketing.