4 ms·

His vision of modifying human behavior is pretty much the plot of "Brave New World". I'm not sure why this goal of forcefully improving the human race is so app

His vision of modifying human behavior is pretty much the plot of "Brave New World". I'm not sure why this goal of forcefully improving the human race is so appealing to people. It seems strange to me to want other people to guide the direction of our species.

jimbokun 17y ago
Agreed. "Nevertheless, I am sure that during the next century, people will discover how to modify both intelligence, and instincts like aggression." No stopping to ponder whether removing "aggression" from humans might have some unexpected negative consequences? I find this kind of technological utopianism troubling from the likes of Kurzweil, as well. The people who debate him tend to question the feasibility of the advances he predicts. But to me the more important question is whether some of these "advances", and their possible repercussions, are even desirable.
- fnid 17y ago
  What if, like physics, each "improvement" to mankind has an equal and opposite negative impact on the world? If we think about benefit and harm, these are usually with respect to energy. It takes time to heal wounds, it takes more energy to overcome injury. Benefits, like the car for example, enable humans to expend less energy, but they take more from the environment. If we extrapolate that to the world around us, then for example, taking a prescription drug will have a corresponding negative impact on the environment. If what I suggest here is true, then any improvement we could make to human evolution is merely an illusion. Perhaps the improvements we do make are merely improvements, or perceived to be improvements, because we can't see the harm created somewhere else, like the destruction of landscape, deaths in mines, pollution, etc...
  - jimbokun 17y ago
    I suspect the truth is somewhere in between what you are saying and the utopians I was talking about.
billybob 17y ago
Yes. C.S. Lewis makes an interesting argument in "The Abolition of Man." IIRC, he says this: imagine a generation which has absolute power to shape the following generation to its will. Every generation that follows will then be puppets of that generation. So humanity's power cannot continue growing indefinitely. If it reaches a high enough point, it will immediately drop to 0. From Wikipedia: "The final chapter describes the ultimate consequences of this debunking: a distant future in which the values and morals of the majority are controlled by a small group who rule by a perfect understanding of psychology, and who in turn, being able to "see through" any system of morality that might induce them to act in a certain way, are ruled only by their own unreflected whims. The controllers will no longer be recognizably human, the controlled will be robot-like, and the Abolition of Man will have been completed."
- jimbokun 17y ago
  I like C.S. Lewis, and this quote definitely makes me want to read this book soon. It seems timely and relevant to the "Singularity" kind of thinking. Thanks for the tip!

jimbokun 17y ago

Agreed. "Nevertheless, I am sure that during the next century, people will discover how to modify both intelligence, and instincts like aggression." No stopping to ponder whether removing "aggression" from humans might have some unexpected negative consequences? I find this kind of technological utopianism troubling from the likes of Kurzweil, as well. The people who debate him tend to question the feasibility of the advances he predicts. But to me the more important question is whether some of these "advances", and their possible repercussions, are even desirable.

fnid 17y ago
What if, like physics, each "improvement" to mankind has an equal and opposite negative impact on the world? If we think about benefit and harm, these are usually with respect to energy. It takes time to heal wounds, it takes more energy to overcome injury. Benefits, like the car for example, enable humans to expend less energy, but they take more from the environment. If we extrapolate that to the world around us, then for example, taking a prescription drug will have a corresponding negative impact on the environment. If what I suggest here is true, then any improvement we could make to human evolution is merely an illusion. Perhaps the improvements we do make are merely improvements, or perceived to be improvements, because we can't see the harm created somewhere else, like the destruction of landscape, deaths in mines, pollution, etc...
- jimbokun 17y ago
  I suspect the truth is somewhere in between what you are saying and the utopians I was talking about.

billybob 17y ago

Yes. C.S. Lewis makes an interesting argument in "The Abolition of Man." IIRC, he says this: imagine a generation which has absolute power to shape the following generation to its will. Every generation that follows will then be puppets of that generation. So humanity's power cannot continue growing indefinitely. If it reaches a high enough point, it will immediately drop to 0. From Wikipedia: "The final chapter describes the ultimate consequences of this debunking: a distant future in which the values and morals of the majority are controlled by a small group who rule by a perfect understanding of psychology, and who in turn, being able to "see through" any system of morality that might induce them to act in a certain way, are ruled only by their own unreflected whims. The controllers will no longer be recognizably human, the controlled will be robot-like, and the Abolition of Man will have been completed."

jimbokun 17y ago
I like C.S. Lewis, and this quote definitely makes me want to read this book soon. It seems timely and relevant to the "Singularity" kind of thinking. Thanks for the tip!