7 ms·

As expected, I see the Economist leading the charge against transhumanism here in a near-future scenario I'll call 'the pointless war for a natural and well-reg

by ud_0 5y ago

As expected, I see the Economist leading the charge against transhumanism here in a near-future scenario I'll call 'the pointless war for a natural and well-regulated humanity': "The question now is whether governments can put the genie back in the bottle through concerted, co-ordinated action. Many politicians say the power to tinker with biology is too dangerous to have in the hands even just of doctors and must be regulated." Similar arguments are being made regarding the public's access to general-purpose computing, 3D fabrication equipment, AI agents, and indeed: drugs (both psychoactive and medical). Putting this increasing number of "genies back in the bottle" is infeasible and I would argue harmful. We'll be putting an ever-growing amount of our civilization's resources into controlling technologies and behavior just so we can act as if it's still 1975, while unaccountable mega corporations reap all the benefits of modern technology. I am utterly unconcerned by what people choose to do to their own bodies and minds. What does keep me up is the potential harm to bystanders, both in premeditated acts of terrorism as well as uncontained accidents. I really don't have an answer to this, but I do know that iron-fisted government control of citizen technology is not going to prevent these horror scenarios.

ashtonkem 5y ago
> Similar arguments are being made regarding the public's access to general-purpose computing, 3D fabrication equipment, AI agents, and indeed: drugs (both psychoactive and medical). Putting this increasing number of "genies back in the bottle" is infeasible and I would argue harmful. I’d argue that the only way to put that many genies back into their bottles is an authoritarian government, which is never worth it no matter what promises a would be tyrant makes.
- kennywinker 5y ago
  I would push back on this framing. Do you consider the FDA or the FCC to be authoritarian? There's a lot of genies they put back in bottles - and while there are some places where people might feel they've infringed on general freedom (the regulation of the content on the airwaves, for example) the fact that our home electronics don't mess with our wifi is something we all take for granted. Another good example is how you can't photocopy money. Did that stop counterfeiting... no. but it sure did tamp down a lot of casual counterfeiting - and i don't think it actually did harm people's liberty very much.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    For the record, I do consider the war on drugs (mentioned by OP) authoritarian. How else can you describe a system of laws that has locked up more people than anyone else? Furthermore, there is a clear difference between “you can’t do this to other people” and “you can’t do X or Y to your own body”, the latter of which is at play here. Photocopying money, selling dangerous medicine, and spamming the radio waves with noise actually affects other people. Personal experimentation with mRNA does not. Regulating mass market mRNA products before they can be sold? Sure. Banning individual experimentation? Hell no.
- dTal 5y ago
  "Never" is a big word. Let's extend this to its logical conclusion - imagine a world where every person had a button that would glass the planet. How long would humans last? Seconds? An authoritarian government would be acceptable in comparison to the immediate extinction that would follow. We've already accepted as a society that some technologies are too big and dangerous for private individuals to have access to, for the sheer pragmatic reason that there are people crazy enough to do literally anything. Technology that allows a single human to kill every other human on Earth is a really good candidate for restriction. Biohacking is such technology. It's real-life nanobots.
- tzs 5y ago
  For an interesting take on this, find and read the Isaac Asimov short story "The Dead Past".
an_opabinia 5y ago
> I am utterly unconcerned by what people choose to do to their own bodies and minds. I don't know, do you think the world would be better if people could sell their organs? "Voluntarily?" Also, I'm confident you think there should be limits on what children can choose to do with their bodies and minds, and I'm confident the line you draw would be as unsophisticated as an age.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- krastanov 5y ago
  How is age not a sophisticated enough of a line (up to medical conditions and scams)? If someone has the right to vote and the right to bodily autonomy or basically any of the rights in the Bill of Rights, then that person should be able to do whatever they want (biohacking on themselves or even suicide included). Their decisions might be stupid, but as long as they are affecting only themselves, then I have no problem with it. Compare this to mass scams: If many people are tricked (by a person or by a mass histeria) to do something, then it makes perfect sense to have a regulatory agency step in (e.g. FTC, FDA, SEC, etc). And compare that to people with a medical disability: if someone is permanently or temporarily mentally impaired, then some of these rights are curtailed.
  - rileymat2 5y ago
    >Their decisions might be stupid, but as long as they are affecting only themselves, then I have no problem with it. I suspect people generally agree with this, but will extend the "affecting only themselves" a degree out. Did a Father who orphans a child due to drug use only affect themselves? Did the narco terrorists who were funded by his purchase only affect himself?
    - echelon 5y ago
      Every choice in life ripples through eternity. Taking a job, quitting to start a company, walking back on a contractual relationship, marrying a partner. While it's true that the direction of impact has outsized and measurable impact on children and dependents, there are other interactions we can't even begin to fathom. Barry Marshall was criticized in the 80's for his H. pylori hypothesis. Then he drank some to prove his point, and now we know the cause of peptic ulcers and several stomach cancers. mRRNA self-experimentation is undoubtably risky and I wouldn't do it myself, but it may yield dividends even if it does induce disease state or kill some of those that attempt it. I don't think we should police it. Not when you can legally buy a car and drive it off a bridge. There are far worse things a person can do.
swiley 5y ago
I could imagine them saying something similar about self hosting compilers.
uoaei 5y ago
In times like these it is important to recall the literal definition of "conservative" and recognize how such an approach hinders society's progress.
- mandelbrotwurst 5y ago
  There are times when changing things up is an improvement as well as times when it's not.
  - DubiousPusher 5y ago
    Yeah, the oldest school of conservatives, the ones who saw industrialists as upstarts and who said, "don't chop down primeval forests to build factories do seem a little less absurd given where the biospbere is headed. Even if they mostly felt that way because industry threatened their power structure.
- h0l0cube 5y ago
  It's no axiom that applications of conservatism hinder progress. For instance, being conservative towards something that presents an existential threat to humanity could be enabling of progress. I say this as someone who's predominantly 'liberal'
halhod 5y ago
I am curious that you read this piece as arguing for any particular position. I did not write it with a particular argument in mind. My personal bias is the same as yours

by ud_0 5y ago

ashtonkem 5y ago

> Similar arguments are being made regarding the public's access to general-purpose computing, 3D fabrication equipment, AI agents, and indeed: drugs (both psychoactive and medical). Putting this increasing number of "genies back in the bottle" is infeasible and I would argue harmful. I’d argue that the only way to put that many genies back into their bottles is an authoritarian government, which is never worth it no matter what promises a would be tyrant makes.

kennywinker 5y ago
I would push back on this framing. Do you consider the FDA or the FCC to be authoritarian? There's a lot of genies they put back in bottles - and while there are some places where people might feel they've infringed on general freedom (the regulation of the content on the airwaves, for example) the fact that our home electronics don't mess with our wifi is something we all take for granted. Another good example is how you can't photocopy money. Did that stop counterfeiting... no. but it sure did tamp down a lot of casual counterfeiting - and i don't think it actually did harm people's liberty very much.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  For the record, I do consider the war on drugs (mentioned by OP) authoritarian. How else can you describe a system of laws that has locked up more people than anyone else? Furthermore, there is a clear difference between “you can’t do this to other people” and “you can’t do X or Y to your own body”, the latter of which is at play here. Photocopying money, selling dangerous medicine, and spamming the radio waves with noise actually affects other people. Personal experimentation with mRNA does not. Regulating mass market mRNA products before they can be sold? Sure. Banning individual experimentation? Hell no.
dTal 5y ago
"Never" is a big word. Let's extend this to its logical conclusion - imagine a world where every person had a button that would glass the planet. How long would humans last? Seconds? An authoritarian government would be acceptable in comparison to the immediate extinction that would follow. We've already accepted as a society that some technologies are too big and dangerous for private individuals to have access to, for the sheer pragmatic reason that there are people crazy enough to do literally anything. Technology that allows a single human to kill every other human on Earth is a really good candidate for restriction. Biohacking is such technology. It's real-life nanobots.
tzs 5y ago
For an interesting take on this, find and read the Isaac Asimov short story "The Dead Past".

an_opabinia 5y ago

> I am utterly unconcerned by what people choose to do to their own bodies and minds. I don't know, do you think the world would be better if people could sell their organs? "Voluntarily?" Also, I'm confident you think there should be limits on what children can choose to do with their bodies and minds, and I'm confident the line you draw would be as unsophisticated as an age.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
krastanov 5y ago
How is age not a sophisticated enough of a line (up to medical conditions and scams)? If someone has the right to vote and the right to bodily autonomy or basically any of the rights in the Bill of Rights, then that person should be able to do whatever they want (biohacking on themselves or even suicide included). Their decisions might be stupid, but as long as they are affecting only themselves, then I have no problem with it. Compare this to mass scams: If many people are tricked (by a person or by a mass histeria) to do something, then it makes perfect sense to have a regulatory agency step in (e.g. FTC, FDA, SEC, etc). And compare that to people with a medical disability: if someone is permanently or temporarily mentally impaired, then some of these rights are curtailed.
- rileymat2 5y ago
  >Their decisions might be stupid, but as long as they are affecting only themselves, then I have no problem with it. I suspect people generally agree with this, but will extend the "affecting only themselves" a degree out. Did a Father who orphans a child due to drug use only affect themselves? Did the narco terrorists who were funded by his purchase only affect himself?
  - echelon 5y ago
    Every choice in life ripples through eternity. Taking a job, quitting to start a company, walking back on a contractual relationship, marrying a partner. While it's true that the direction of impact has outsized and measurable impact on children and dependents, there are other interactions we can't even begin to fathom. Barry Marshall was criticized in the 80's for his H. pylori hypothesis. Then he drank some to prove his point, and now we know the cause of peptic ulcers and several stomach cancers. mRRNA self-experimentation is undoubtably risky and I wouldn't do it myself, but it may yield dividends even if it does induce disease state or kill some of those that attempt it. I don't think we should police it. Not when you can legally buy a car and drive it off a bridge. There are far worse things a person can do.

swiley 5y ago

I could imagine them saying something similar about self hosting compilers.

uoaei 5y ago

In times like these it is important to recall the literal definition of "conservative" and recognize how such an approach hinders society's progress.

mandelbrotwurst 5y ago
There are times when changing things up is an improvement as well as times when it's not.
- DubiousPusher 5y ago
  Yeah, the oldest school of conservatives, the ones who saw industrialists as upstarts and who said, "don't chop down primeval forests to build factories do seem a little less absurd given where the biospbere is headed. Even if they mostly felt that way because industry threatened their power structure.
h0l0cube 5y ago
It's no axiom that applications of conservatism hinder progress. For instance, being conservative towards something that presents an existential threat to humanity could be enabling of progress. I say this as someone who's predominantly 'liberal'

halhod 5y ago

I am curious that you read this piece as arguing for any particular position. I did not write it with a particular argument in mind. My personal bias is the same as yours