3 ms·
> The whole thing is incoherent rambling where he simultaneously considers these grand conspiracies of tech billionaires to be far fetched and completely imposs
by csdvrx 3y ago
> The whole thing is incoherent rambling where he simultaneously considers these grand conspiracies of tech billionaires to be far fetched and completely impossible, and simultaneously inevitable and terrifying.
I found the whole article very bizarre, I couldn't pinpoint why, but you nailed it.
What bothered me the most was that part:
> I don’t think we have to wait for the Singularity to see the moral downside of the transhumanist project: the idea that humans should transcend their current natural state and limitations through the use of technology. This is because whatever problems we currently have with social inequality will be multiplied exponentially by the kinds of biological enhancements Thiel and others are seriously contemplating.
Antibiotics, cancer drugs etc "multiply exponentially" the social inequality: some people may die sooner than others, just by being able to offer the drugs they need.
Should we then ban drugs and medical research?
- erulabs 3y agoThis is an elaborate version of a modern zero-sum-game ideology. It’s immoral to build a shelter past absolutely bare necessity because of all the folks who have no shelter period. It’s instantly understood in this mental framework that anyone with wealth is de facto immoral and fundamentally responsible for those who do not have wealth. How a professor or anyone with access to the history of the 19th and 20th centuries can believe this is absolutely astonishing. I don’t think it’s a huge over reaction to call it “anti-liberalism”. There are other more accurate terms for this (fundamentally wrong) economic model, but saying them detracts from the actual problem.