Dash on Nostr: FYI we are going to do a show on transhumanism this week. I would be interested in ...
FYI we are going to do a show on transhumanism this week. I would be interested in any feedback on the subject that those on here may have.
For me you have two extremes when it comes to the subject: ultra Luddites a la Ted Kaczynski who see an urgent need to stop the train of scientific "progress" and tech optimists a la Elon Musk who think getting to Mars and embracing AI as being the only chance for humanity not to go extinct in the near future.
It seems transhumanism crosses across political divides. You'd hardly call Musk a leftist, and much of the tech optimism comes from apolitical "tech bros" in Silicon Valley. At the same time Ted Kaczynski could be described as an extreme eco warrior.
Where as progressives are more naturally inclined, imo, to embrace new technology as an opportunity to "engineer a more equitable society", a sizeable amount of leftists worry about energy use, for example. So it isn't clear to me this is a left/right partisan issue.
You can trace the divide back to at least the Industrial Revolution. Much of Dostoevsky's and Neitzche's work is a reaction to the progressive idea of the time that everything was mechanical and it was just a matter of applying the scientific method to derive the laws of the universe and every mystery would be solved. Both Dostoevsky and Neitzche were greatly troubled by this idea and its implications. But despite the fact that the Newtonian ideas proved naive, and the "laws of the universe" much more complicated and, yes, even "mysterious" than anybody thought, we are still divided today along the lines of those who cheer on "technological progress" and those who feel unease towards the cliff we might be driving ourselves off.
Personally I am trying to find middle ground. I think as a natural right wing/conservative my impulse is that we should fear the unintended consequences of our meddling with the natural order, and proceed with the utmost caution as a result. On the other hand I see that pushing back like some kind of Amish is ultimately futile.
So I ask myself, what is the responsibility of the moral man? For me it can be put in somewhat Petersonian terms of "rescuing your father from the belly of a whale". That is, revivifying and making relevant the traditions of our ancestors to stand up and be useful in the modern environment, such that they provide a structure of support to help us and our offspring get "through to the other side". (That is, survive and thrive or at least get through life without going insane). So then the challenge to the right is to get over any silly/naive idea that we are ever going to slow down technological progress or that we are ever going back to the "good old days" of our youth/ our parent's youth/ the British Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, etc. etc.
What does that mean practically? Maybe it means not ruling out computer brain interfaces. Maybe an interface which would allow one instant access to bible verses and historical facts and such like would be of great advantage to those tasked with revivifying traditions within a modern context. Maybe viewing God's command to man to "subdue the earth" would extend to a mandate to subdue the universe with faithful Christians taking the good news to the four corners of the cosmos.
To conclude, I think I am at the conclusion that some kind of AI/human merging is inevitable, and that those right inclined should embrace it, with the explicit goal of using the technology to revivify and make relevant the traditions of our ancestors to the modern world. I think we should look to augment out cognition with AI and embrace interstellar travel as much as we are able with a view of taking out ancient culture to the four corners of the universe. I think by directing our embracing of technological progress to the cause of preserving our ancestral and cultural legacy we can anchor ourselves and give ourselves the best chance of not going completely mad / destroying ourselves through leftist entropy.
Thoughts?
For me you have two extremes when it comes to the subject: ultra Luddites a la Ted Kaczynski who see an urgent need to stop the train of scientific "progress" and tech optimists a la Elon Musk who think getting to Mars and embracing AI as being the only chance for humanity not to go extinct in the near future.
It seems transhumanism crosses across political divides. You'd hardly call Musk a leftist, and much of the tech optimism comes from apolitical "tech bros" in Silicon Valley. At the same time Ted Kaczynski could be described as an extreme eco warrior.
Where as progressives are more naturally inclined, imo, to embrace new technology as an opportunity to "engineer a more equitable society", a sizeable amount of leftists worry about energy use, for example. So it isn't clear to me this is a left/right partisan issue.
You can trace the divide back to at least the Industrial Revolution. Much of Dostoevsky's and Neitzche's work is a reaction to the progressive idea of the time that everything was mechanical and it was just a matter of applying the scientific method to derive the laws of the universe and every mystery would be solved. Both Dostoevsky and Neitzche were greatly troubled by this idea and its implications. But despite the fact that the Newtonian ideas proved naive, and the "laws of the universe" much more complicated and, yes, even "mysterious" than anybody thought, we are still divided today along the lines of those who cheer on "technological progress" and those who feel unease towards the cliff we might be driving ourselves off.
Personally I am trying to find middle ground. I think as a natural right wing/conservative my impulse is that we should fear the unintended consequences of our meddling with the natural order, and proceed with the utmost caution as a result. On the other hand I see that pushing back like some kind of Amish is ultimately futile.
So I ask myself, what is the responsibility of the moral man? For me it can be put in somewhat Petersonian terms of "rescuing your father from the belly of a whale". That is, revivifying and making relevant the traditions of our ancestors to stand up and be useful in the modern environment, such that they provide a structure of support to help us and our offspring get "through to the other side". (That is, survive and thrive or at least get through life without going insane). So then the challenge to the right is to get over any silly/naive idea that we are ever going to slow down technological progress or that we are ever going back to the "good old days" of our youth/ our parent's youth/ the British Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, etc. etc.
What does that mean practically? Maybe it means not ruling out computer brain interfaces. Maybe an interface which would allow one instant access to bible verses and historical facts and such like would be of great advantage to those tasked with revivifying traditions within a modern context. Maybe viewing God's command to man to "subdue the earth" would extend to a mandate to subdue the universe with faithful Christians taking the good news to the four corners of the cosmos.
To conclude, I think I am at the conclusion that some kind of AI/human merging is inevitable, and that those right inclined should embrace it, with the explicit goal of using the technology to revivify and make relevant the traditions of our ancestors to the modern world. I think we should look to augment out cognition with AI and embrace interstellar travel as much as we are able with a view of taking out ancient culture to the four corners of the universe. I think by directing our embracing of technological progress to the cause of preserving our ancestral and cultural legacy we can anchor ourselves and give ourselves the best chance of not going completely mad / destroying ourselves through leftist entropy.
Thoughts?