Transhumanism

[Methodician]

I enjoy discussing transhumanism so much I've searched for a forum dedicated to it. They exist but I'm not impressed. So, I started this thread.

 

[Ribald]

Essential reading. The point of it all.

 

[Methodician]

Essential reading. The point of it all.

I don't know if that's a joke or if the link is broken.... haha?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

This technological optimism makes me shrug and turn away.

Humans do not conform optimistic norms.

Technology doesn't conform any norms in itself.

Optimistic scenarios are results of approaching the technical perfection by the means of research and distribution at the cost of energy and exploitation.

Not for everyone and Not now. (Now is the past and the future) Entropy is the only breath we have.

 

[Architect]

This technological optimism makes me shrug and turn away.

Humans do not conform optimistic norms.

Technology doesn't conform any norms in itself.

I see somebody who hasn't deeply studied history, in particular the history of technology. The curves are obvious, the only defense against optimism is that the curves will (for some unknown reason) turn down, despite a steady rate for millennia.

Optimistic scenarios are results of approaching the technical perfection by the means of research and distribution at the cost of energy and exploitation.

Malthist scenarios have always been wrong. They vastly underestimate mankinds extraordinary ability for exploitation. For example, the Solar System has exa-Joules of usable hydrocarbons waiting for us.

Not for everyone and Not now. (Now is the past and the future) Entropy is the only breath we have.

In the macro pessimists are always wrong.

 

[Cognisant]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ_dZrDECUs

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Spoiler

I see somebody who hasn't deeply studied history, in particular the history of technology. The curves are obvious, the only defense against optimism is that the curves will (for some unknown reason) turn down, despite a steady rate for millennia.



Malthist scenarios have always been wrong. They vastly underestimate mankinds extraordinary ability for exploitation. For example, the Solar System has exa-Joules of usable hydrocarbons waiting for us.



In the macro pessimists are always wrong.

What's so pessimistic about entropy? I think it is objective and predictable.

I see the progress and what's that? Another order of magnitude to grow? Another mega, giga, tera, peta amount to extract? It is finite and it escapes in every direction.

 

[TimeAsylums]

This technological optimism makes me shrug and turn away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
[bimgx=200]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/PPTMooresLawai.jpg[/bimgx]

What's so pessimistic about entropy? I think it is objective and predictable.

I see the progress and what's that? Another order of magnitude to grow? Another mega, giga, tera, peta amount to extract? It is finite and it escapes in every direction.

http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=762
[bimgx=200]http://www.scottaaronson.com/complexity-lrg.jpg[/bimgx]

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I know all that, what's so special about it?

Can you show me a similar graph with the average lifespan or average human brain potential growth over time?

We are going to have some very potent machines, many things indicate that to be possible.

There will be no heaven in 20 years.

 

[TimeAsylums]

I know all that, what's so special about it?

 

[Architect]

[/SPOILER]What's so pessimistic about entropy? I think it is objective and predictable.

Because you seemingly don't understand it. What you said was the equivalent of "The universe will die in 10 billion years, so I'm giving up now"

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Assuming that this indicates that my conclusions are different from yours.
There are several possible scenarios.

What I agree with is that there is a finite amount resources required to satisfy all needs of an individual, as long as that individual doesn't see beyond that, it will be contained.

I'm not a pessimist, I just don't like glorifying and optimism in these agendas.

Because you seemingly don't understand it. What you said was the equivalent of "The universe will die in 10 billion years, so I'm giving up now"

Yes, I might have missed the scale of progress we are talking about.
Thanks for bringing me to the transhumanism.

Yes it is possible, but I don't see the greatness in it.

I can live as I am. Probably my transhuman version would also live as it is, while it would also be subject to the preachers that advocate the trans trans humanism.

Assuming we know what happens, because the common argument is that there is no meta to trans, or there are things beyond ones understanding, which works both ways.

 

[Architect]

Yes it is possible, but I don't see the greatness in it.

Well, it's been going on for a long time. Did you enjoy your shower this morning? Breakfast, the device you're typing on? In fact enjoying the language we're using to communicate, and the air your body knows how to metabolize? On that, how about that your body is able to run itself with very little supervision from you? What about the ideas that you're able and free to entertain?

Technological development isn't just a good idea, it's the law (paraphrasing an old physics shirt I used to have)

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Technological development isn't just a good idea, it's the law (paraphrasing an old physics shirt I used to have)

Yes, it's the trend, but it's not a good idea, unless someone needs it. It will happen anyway. If not here then somewhere else.

In this way there is no reason to seek the restrictions and impossibilities, because it would be giving up on new discoveries.

I dismiss the approach that something would profoundly change.

Changes are linear(continuous).

 

[Methodician]

I dismiss the approach that something would profoundly change.

Something has profoundly changed in the last 100 years. Perhaps the most profound changes have been in the past 30. Consider the arbitrary notion of the "singularity" which, to me at least, just means a moment where something other than humans becomes the dominant force of change/progress on our planet. From that very moment forward, we will all experience profound change in a very real way. Progress will become blindingly fast and 'conventional' humans will not be able to comprehend it.

Changes are linear(continuous).

There are two common categories of progression/change. Linear and exponential. They both exist. The human mind easily perceives linear change and has a very difficult time grasping exponential. Even people who study it have a hard time truly wrapping their heads around it.

 

[Methodician]

http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=762
[bimgx=200]http://www.scottaaronson.com/complexity-lrg.jpg[/bimgx]

That's interesting. On a grand, universal scale I wonder if there will be some intersection of these two ever present variables leading to an inevitable decline in complexity as the universe tears itself apart and breaks itself down and cools off into a relatively uniform cold gas...

 

[Ribald]

I don't know if that's a joke or if the link is broken.... haha?

For some reason it isn't letting me post the link without the forum's address in front of it. It is www.huxley.net.

 

[Methodician]

For some reason it isn't letting me post the link without the forum's address in front of it. It is www.huxley.net.

It's a great book. I'm not much for fiction but since I haven't read it in like 16 years, or any fiction in several years... I just might read it again...

Might I also suggest Rainbows End by Vernor Vinge...

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

There are two common categories of progression/change. Linear and exponential. They both exist. The human mind easily perceives linear change and has a very difficult time grasping exponential. Even people who study it have a hard time truly wrapping their heads around it.

My mistake in the unclear use of the term linear, the plot is more complex than simply exponential. I just wanted to say it is a line (continuum). Other than that I know what we are talking about, singularities, etc. And there is nothing constructive here so far, if not for the TA's links. I am not simply in the transhumanist wagon per se.

There is also a deconstruction of huxleys dystopia, which shows some obvious notions in the opposite way.

 

[Ribald]

It's a great book. I'm not much for fiction but since I haven't read it in like 16 years, or any fiction in several years... I just might read it again...

Might I also suggest Rainbows End by Vernor Vinge...

It's not BNW it is a review of BNW. It destroys the notion of BNW ever becoming a possibility and lays the basis for true paradise engineering in its stead.

I have been reading Rainbow's End for several months now. Honestly I find it a bit boring but maybe it just hasn't gotten good yet. I keep on picking up other things and refusing to finish it.

 

[Architect]

Yes, it's the trend, but it's not a good idea, unless someone needs it. It will happen anyway. If not here then somewhere else.

YOU are the result of a good idea, want to take that one back? No take-backs.

Changes are linear(continuous).

Not in information technology. Read The Singularity is Near and then we'll discuss it.

 

[Methodician]

It's not BNW it is a review of BNW. It destroys the notion of BNW ever becoming a possibility and lays the basis for true paradise engineering in its stead.

Noticed that shortly after my post and am reading it on the side while I work...

I have been reading Rainbow's End for several months now. Honestly I find it a bit boring but maybe it just hasn't gotten good yet. I keep on picking up other things and refusing to finish it.

Read it several years ago but I don't recall it being particularly exciting, just insightful and a bit mind bending and inspiring. Of course, a lot has changed in the past several years so maybe it feels less insightful these days.

Thinking back, it does seem like things got more interesting near the end from a fiction perspective. Again, I'm not a big fan of fiction and treated it more as a source of insight and inspiration.

 

[Methodician]

So, who here actually identifies as "transhumanist" and what's your personal definition?

 

[Auburn]

So, who here actually identifies as "transhumanist" and what's your personal definition?

*raises hand*

I think I'd define a transhumanist as an advocate of the progression of humanity into the next stage of our evolution via deliberate means (as opposed to 'natural' means).

Though one could argue that our evolution is indeed happening naturally, because it's exponentially been accelerating for millenia through memetics as opposed to genetics -- to the point where the meme-based exponential growth curve of our species will be so steep that it also alters the genetic part of us.

 

[Methodician]

*raises hand*

I think I'd define a transhumanist as an advocate of the progression of humanity into the next stage of our evolution via deliberate means (as opposed to 'natural' means).

Though one could argue that our evolution is indeed happening naturally, because it's exponentially been accelerating for millenia through memetics as opposed to genetics -- to the point where the meme-based exponential growth curve of our species will be so steep that it also alter the genetic part of us.

There's why I love this forum. Where else could I so quickly get such an adroit answer? Very good. I especially like the notion that our future technological evolution is just an extension of memetic evolution and so remains compatible with the "natural" label.

 

[Analyzer]

Technological singularity is very possible, but I am skeptical of the time frame it takes to achieve it as well as the relative productivity it brings. I don't see a point in time(2045) where humans instantly evolve to become transhumans and where technology expands drastically effecting GDP and making the boom and bust cycle obsolete - especially with current paradigm of economic thinking.

It's more of a process and I think the less barriers of regulation and control, the faster and more effective this process will become. Currently it looks favorable with how technology seems to be siding toward decentralization, but who knows the outcome of Moore's Law as well as the social engineering effects of the State. In history, technology brings great productivity and prosperity(Industrial Revolution,Gutenberg Press) but then it becomes tools of government once advancement has stabilized. Economics is something that should be greatly considered when pursing any sort of technological progression. Technology deals with the contentual problem of how to achieve goals. You still need to define the parameters as well as the regulation and it's effects. This is done more efficiently by a society that respects property rights than bureaucrats who plunder it.

 

[Auburn]

@Analyzer - I agree with your two points..

• That the progression will be gradual, not sudden.
• That economics/government has the potential to mess things up a bit and that it should be watched out for.

If you've noticed, there are a lot more transhumanists out there now, as opposed to 10 years ago. And even those that aren't transhumanist are starting to know about the idea and warming up to things like immortality as a real possibility, even if they don't count on it so much. Slowly the tables will keep turning until the majority see it as inevitable -- just as it transpired in the gay rights movement and the marijuana laws. By the time it actually happens, it won't seem like it's coming out of nowhere. This carries over to your second point.

The way things work is that society moves, and the government follows. If you look at history, that's always how things have been. Revolution and progress always takes place in spite of the government, not out of the government -- and the government then has to adapt. This is because the government is essentially the collective inertia of a culture. It is cautious, it is the stabilizer. It is always a few steps behind the frontier.

But it is always at the mercy of frontier progress, even if it doesn't seem like it immediately. Once something overcomes the inertia of the government, the ones in power can't sustain their position without accommodating to the majority, which have now shifted their mind.

For example, the whole internet file sharing controversy. Torrents. The government initially tried to fight against it --- but it's becoming such a norm for people, and losing its deminization, that ultimately filmmakers and artists are just having to find a different way of getting money out of what they do, rather than selling hardcover DVDs/CDs --- and they have. The government did not succeed in dampening file-sharing. Instead things like Netflix, Hulu, and Youtube took off and shifted things around, like in the way Youtube plays ads, or has a watch-movie-for-$1 feature.

The same will continue to happen every step of the way up to the Singularity. Each new issue will meet resistance, then masses of people will still be doing it anyways, the government will have to adapt, and society's definition of norm will eventually updated altogether to where it no longer resembles the old.

It won't be a sudden clash against a tyrannous force (government) that will try to stop all plans to move forward, as people often fear.

 

[Methodician]

Technological singularity is very possible, but I am skeptical of the time frame it takes to achieve it as well as the relative productivity it brings. I don't see a point in time(2045) where humans instantly evolve to become transhumans and where technology expands drastically effecting GDP and making the boom and bust cycle obsolete - especially with current paradigm of economic thinking.

Two things about this:

1) People all too often equate the transhumanism with the singularity. I'm not sure if that's what you're doing, but transhumanism is a separate, but related topic. Transhumans already exist in a sense. We find all kinds of ways to augment ourselves and become more than a native "human" could be, whether that be drugs (caffine, amphetamines, LSD, etc...) or technology. People will progress toward greater "transcendence" up until and hopefully beyond this "singularity".

2) I completely agree about the time frame. I find it pretty silly when people try to stick a specific date on it or mark it as this "moment" when things will quite suddenly change. I define it my own way: the moment/period when something other than human intelligence becomes the driving force of change. Some people say it's the time when AI becomes more "intelligent" than humans, but in many ways that's already the case. And even when they can do all we can do better, I'm not sure they will be so active in seeking OPPORTUNITY like we do, unless we program them with that motive. That's dangerous and I hope whatever mad scientist who decides to do that, does so carefully.

The way things work is that society moves, and the government follows. If you look at history, that's always how things have been. Revolution and progress always takes place in spite of the government, not out of the government -- and the government then has to adapt. This is because the government is essentially the collective inertia of a culture. It is cautious, it is the stabilizer. It is always a few steps behind the frontier.

But it is always at the mercy of frontier progress, even if it doesn't seem like it immediately. Once something overcomes the inertia of the government, the ones in power can't sustain their position without accommodating to the majority, which have now shifted their mind.

The same will continue to happen every step of the way up to the Singularity. Each new issue will meet resistance, then masses of people will still be doing it anyways, the government will have to adapt, and society's definition of norm will eventually updated altogether to where it no longer resembles the old.

I'm concerned that the government as we know it is on the verge of a collapse. Things are moving too fast for such a vast bureaucracy. Every year new things are happening and it takes a year for them to respond to the simplest thing. Perhaps our government will be replaced with a more decentralized force of self-governance... I dunno.

 

[Analyzer]

Two things about this:

1) People all too often equate the transhumanism with the singularity. I'm not sure if that's what you're doing, but transhumanism is a separate, but related topic. Transhumans already exist in a sense. We find all kinds of ways to augment ourselves and become more than a native "human" could be, whether that be drugs (caffine, amphetamines, LSD, etc...) or technology. People will progress toward greater "transcendence" up until and hopefully beyond this "singularity".

Yes two separate topics and I agree transhumanism already "exists".

I'm concerned that the government as we know it is on the verge of a collapse. Things are moving too fast for such a vast bureaucracy. Every year new things are happening and it takes a year for them to respond to the simplest thing. Perhaps our government will be replaced with a more decentralized force of self-governance... I dunno.

Yes I believe it is on the verge of collapse or it has already they are just delaying the effects with intervention such as Quantitative easing, but this can be good thing or bad depending on how people/nations react to it. A spontaneous order emerges from such a collapse similarly to how technology emerges which can lead to new ways of governance. I think technology and digital tools can provide a framework for how society will organize itself. Bitcoin could be a huge potential for how monetary systems work and ultimately all of economics - end of centralized banking.

 

[Analyzer]

@Analyzer - I agree with your two points..

• That the progression will be gradual, not sudden.
• That economics/government has the potential to mess things up a bit and that it should be watched out for.

If you've noticed, there are a lot more transhumanists out there now, as opposed to 10 years ago. And even those that aren't transhumanist are starting to know about the idea and warming up to things like immortality as a real possibility, even if they don't count on it so much. Slowly the tables will keep turning until the majority see it as inevitable -- just as it transpired in the gay rights movement and the marijuana laws. By the time it actually happens, it won't seem like it's coming out of nowhere. This carries over to your second point.

The way things work is that society moves, and the government follows. If you look at history, that's always how things have been. Revolution and progress always takes place in spite of the government, not out of the government -- and the government then has to adapt. This is because the government is essentially the collective inertia of a culture. It is cautious, it is the stabilizer. It is always a few steps behind the frontier.

But it is always at the mercy of frontier progress, even if it doesn't seem like it immediately. Once something overcomes the inertia of the government, the ones in power can't sustain their position without accommodating to the majority, which have now shifted their mind.

For example, the whole internet file sharing controversy. Torrents. The government initially tried to fight against it --- but it's becoming such a norm for people, and losing its deminization, that ultimately filmmakers and artists are just having to find a different way of getting money out of what they do, rather than selling hardcover DVDs/CDs --- and they have. The government did not succeed in dampening file-sharing. Instead things like Netflix, Hulu, and Youtube took off and shifted things around, like in the way Youtube plays ads, or has a watch-movie-for-$1 feature.

The same will continue to happen every step of the way up to the Singularity. Each new issue will meet resistance, then masses of people will still be doing it anyways, the government will have to adapt, and society's definition of norm will eventually updated altogether to where it no longer resembles the old.

It won't be a sudden clash against a tyrannous force (government) that will try to stop all plans to move forward, as people often fear.

Good points. Ultimately I think the problem may be people need to just accept technology and its developments. When people like Luddites come about, this is where regulation and force are inflicted as they influence policy into effect causing the disastrous consequences of statism.

 

[Methodician]

Good points. Ultimately I think the problem may be people need to just accept technology and its developments. When people like Luddites come about, this is where regulation and force are inflicted as they influence policy into effect causing the disastrous consequences of statism.

What if they don't? There will always be a resistance. Lot of people today vehemently resist technology. They'll have a more extreme reaction to transhumanism. The numbers will grow...

Assuming the technologies of transcendence become widely available, where do we stand on the masses who refuse to use it?

Worse, what about people who simply don't have access? Realistically, I don't see it becoming a universal thing. The more money, power, and intelligence a person has the more access they will have.

This creates an almost immediate divergence. Will mere humans even have a place in the world? Will we shuffle them into concentration camps or annihilate them all?

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

I see somebody who hasn't deeply studied history, in particular the history of technology. The curves are obvious, the only defense against optimism is that the curves will (for some unknown reason) turn down, despite a steady rate for millennia.



Malthist scenarios have always been wrong. They vastly underestimate mankinds extraordinary ability for exploitation. For example, the Solar System has exa-Joules of usable hydrocarbons waiting for us.



In the macro pessimists are always wrong.

Well, the point is to be realist, taking into account both the optimist's view, as well as that of the pessimist and balancing these conflicting notions.

For instance, optimistic predictions in the 50s suggested we would be living on the moon or even mars by now and have flying cars.
That didn't happen, as we all know.

Since the counterpoint is under-represented in the debate,
i will allow myself to fill in that spot.

Let's begin with examining the notion of linear progress...

Well, it's been going on for a long time. Did you enjoy your shower this morning? Breakfast, the device you're typing on? In fact enjoying the language we're using to communicate, and the air your body knows how to metabolize? On that, how about that your body is able to run itself with very little supervision from you? What about the ideas that you're able and free to entertain?

Technological development isn't just a good idea, it's the law (paraphrasing an old physics shirt I used to have)

Spoiler

​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea_of_Progress#Criticisms

In historiography and the philosophy of history, progress (from Latin progressus, "an advance") is the idea that the world can become increasingly better in terms of science, technology, modernization, liberty, democracy, quality of life, etc. Although progress is often associated with the Western notion of monotonic change in a straight, linear fashion, alternative conceptions exist, such as the cyclic theory of eternal return, or the "spiral-shaped" dialectic progress of Hegel, Marx, et al.

To the minds of most people the desirable outcome of human development would be a condition of society in which all the inhabitants of the planet would enjoy a perfectly happy existence....
It cannot be proved that the unknown destination towards which man is advancing is desirable.
The movement may be Progress, or it may be in an undesirable direction and therefore not Progress.....
The Progress of humanity belongs to the same order of ideas as Providence or personal immortality.
It is true or it is false, and like them it cannot be proved either true or false.
Belief in it is an act of faith.

The technical and scientific forces that created a life of unparalleled luxury—as well as unrivaled military and economic power—for the industrial elites are the forces that now doom us.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/myth-human-progress

Political disintegration is a persistent feature of world history.
The Collapse of Complex Societies, though written by an archaeologist, will therefore strike a chord throughout the social sciences. Any explanation of societal collapse carries lessons not just for the study of ancient societies, but for the members of all such societies in both the present and future. Dr. Tainter describes nearly two dozen cases of collapse and reviews more than 2000 years of explanations. He then develops a new and far-reaching theory that accounts for collapse among diverse kinds of societies, evaluating his model and clarifying the processes of disintegration by detailed studies of the Roman, Mayan and Chacoan collapses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNT3_qugjZU

 

[kris]

I have nothing against transhumanism, and I like it on a conceptual level, but I'm not personally interested in putting it deep into practice on myself. It depends on the concept in question though. I wouldn't integrate myself into technology or technology into myself unless it was to compensate for some lost function. For example, if I lost my vision or my dominant hand, then I'd go for functional machine prosthesis. I wouldn't try to make it look human either.

I'd also consider digital consciousness transfer as "Fuck it; why not?" afterlife if such a thing existed when I was much older.

Apart from that, technological augmentation doesn't interest me too deeply if it involves physical integration. I don't even really like user interfaces that try to learn my habits and anticipate me (such as spelling prediction, at the very basic level). I like having my innate, biological eccentricities as they are in the packaging in which they came.

 

[Analyzer]

What if they don't? There will always be a resistance. Lot of people today vehemently resist technology. They'll have a more extreme reaction to transhumanism. The numbers will grow...

It really depends on how/if the ruling class influences the masses. I could see it going both ways - extreme support, almost dogmatic like or rejection, total Luddite thinking. Looking at pop culture such as movies is good indicator as well overall trends. It's possible their's a backlash against technology in the US as an agenda to control people, while the "elites" enjoy what it can offer. Ever see that movie Elysium? I think that the US is falling behind in the world when it comes to innovation/prosperity so this could be irrelevant as countries like China catch up or even surpass them.

This is why I believe the economical/philosophical question is the most important.

Assuming the technologies of transcendence become widely available, where do we stand on the masses who refuse to use it?

They could either revolt causing further conflicts or just let it be. The later option is obviously the more desirable one, but too many folks are literally zombies who soak up propaganda and listen to whatever the old media tells them to. With the power of the internet and other decentralized technologies, governments in general are behind and only the older generation(40+) buy into the whole system as lot of them depend on entitlements(welfare/SS). A lot of young folks use technology and they lived with high computing power since they were born, I believe they will mostly accept peoples right.

Worse, what about people who simply don't have access? Realistically, I don't see it becoming a universal thing. The more money, power, and intelligence a person has the more access they will have.

This creates an almost immediate divergence. Will mere humans even have a place in the world? Will we shuffle them into concentration camps or annihilate them all?

If we still believe governments can solve this problem in the 21th century, then that is something I fear could happen. It's mind-numbing that people still believe they can or that some sort of Global Government can solve this as governments in the 20th century killed over 260 Million not including in wars.

 

[Analyzer]

I believe one of the main reasons why civilizations and societies have had so many conflicts and have used the State apparatus as means of trying to resolve these issues, is due to an information problem.

If you look at relatively peaceful and prosperous societies(Indus Valley,Ancient Iceland, even early America) all the individuals or tribes have all been on a similar page. The reason is they all knew what was expected and natural, private laws were established. Many times it was a case of a small population so it was easy for people to voluntarily accept the cultural standards. Other civilizations that were widely spread out (think Roman Empire,Soviet and the like) all failed due to a stretched out system that was impossible to be mutually agreed upon by the people encompassing the geographical region in control. This is one reason why central planning fails as the economic calculation problem states how it's impossible to calculate the prices or cost of capital goods if it not controlled by private individuals. How does a monopolist of means of production(Soviet Union) set prices rationally, if in that system they would just be transferring goods to others not exchanging in trade?

Now why do people accept governments and their atrocities time and time again in history? Is it because certain individuals believe a lack of information is present so having a monopoly on force, is the only way to deal with social problems? Possibly.
But with everyone having access to information thanks to the Internet I cant see the validity and reputation of government systems holding up much longer. The more people have access to information the less they need magical leaders in suits organized in a room telling them what to do. How can the State try to start a war if people now can go on Twitter and tell them exactly what's going on in the ground. Before we relied on 10 Clock news that was controlled and owned by the government, this is no longer the case.

Information is something that is highly valued and several inventions like the printing press led to social revolutions, showing the importance of technology. You have more information in a phone then the president did 10-15 years ago, why do you need a president?

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

A few problems with your information approach:
1. The amount of information available and the speed at which new information is created prevents or at least complicates analysis
2. Information overload
3. For every information, there is a contestant disinformation
4. Disinformation in the digital sphere is easier than in the physical world
(For a recent example, check out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amina_Abdallah_Arraf_al_Omari)

I would agree with your points more, if we were talking about culture.

 

[Analyzer]

A few problems with your information approach:
1. The amount of information available and the speed at which new information is
created prevents or at least complicates analysis

Yes, this is exactly why I believe societies have relied on monolithic governments to maintain social order. This is a problem just like the calculation problem which renders it impossible to plan economies. Time and time again certain individuals and groups use state power as a means of perverting the natural order of property rights. People will accept it just like they accepted Socialism in the Soviet Union because it's an idealized collectivist solution, which brings promises of organizing the information people need.

2. Information overload

Possibly but the best way to manage this is privately. The more access each individual has to information, the more efficient and voluntary trade and commerce become. The amount of information isn't the main concern but how much people can have access to.

3. For every information, there is a contestant disinformation
4. Disinformation in the digital sphere is easier than in the physical world
(For a recent example, check out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amina_Abdallah_Arraf_al_Omari)

I agree and I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. At least in the digital sphere information can be easily spread and processed. Another thing you are forgetting about though is the physical world is heavily regulated. While disinformation is easier to inject in the digital sphere, in the physical world you are limited by scarcity as well controlled markets. TV, Radio, and other old media outlets are owned by corporations that are basically the arm of the State. Anybody can put up information on the Web and a meritocracy exists morose than in the physical world.

John Kerry on the Internet: "This little thing called the Internet… makes it much harder to govern,”

I would agree with your points more, if we were talking about culture.

No sure what you mean by that.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Yes, this is exactly why I believe societies have relied on monolithic governments to maintain social order. This is a problem just like the calculation problem which renders it impossible to plan economies. Time and time again certain individuals and groups use state power as a means of perverting the natural order of property rights. People will accept it just like they accepted Socialism in the Soviet Union because it's an idealized collectivist solution, which brings promises of organizing the information people need.

I would agree with your first statement.
I have a little trouble with the second.
What exactly are property rights?
Would you agree that the Americas were at one time owned by the indigenous people?
How did the "transfer" of property to the Europeans take place?
And why did only the property right of the expropriators have the legal power of the state behind it?
A right is nothing, when there's nobody in positions of power willing to enforce it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre

Possibly but the best way to manage this is privately. The more access each individual has to information, the more efficient and voluntary trade and commerce become. The amount of information isn't the main concern but how much people can have access to.

Probably true on a micro-scale.
But on the macro-scale, algorithmic trading pretty much removed both information processing and decision-making from the will of the parties involved (precisely in order to circumvent information overload).
This inevitably has a feedback effect on the decision-making process on the micro level.
What is the next logical step?

I agree and I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. At least in the digital sphere information can be easily spread and processed. Another thing you are forgetting about though is the physical world is heavily regulated. While disinformation is easier to inject in the digital sphere, in the physical world you are limited by scarcity as well controlled markets. TV, Radio, and other old media outlets are owned by corporations that are basically the arm of the State. Anybody can put up information on the Web and a meritocracy exists morose than in the physical world.

Hm, i can't really follow you on the "corporations are the arm of the state" train of thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership
I think you might be interested in the following information:
http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?p=429841#post429841
(Second video, about the first 15 minutes)

But i would generally agree that the internet can be a useful tool to counter-balance mass media disinformation with,
or help getting information that has not much exposure to audiences "out there".

John Kerry on the Internet: "This little thing called the Internet… makes it much harder to govern”

For the moment, that may be.
Once everything is regulated, that will be a problem of the past.
Until then, the counter-measure of the state is the massive domestic and global spying apparatus, which can be operational and effective without regulations.

No sure what you mean by that.

Just a little anthropological joke.

 

[Methodician]

Wow a lot came up here. I'm seeing a Libertarian vs Statism debate cropping up. although I'm not sure @Salmoneus is a proponent of Statism, he's making interesting counter-libertarian arguments... I will resist the urge to butt in because I like where the debate is going. You two keep at it.

Ever see that movie Elysium?

No. The trailer looks awesome but the ratings are harsh. Not one for the masses, perhaps? Is it worth paying $3 to watch on Amazon prime tonight?

I have nothing against transhumanism, and I like it on a conceptual level, but I'm not personally interested in putting it deep into practice on myself. It depends on the concept in question though. I wouldn't integrate myself into technology or technology into myself unless it was to compensate for some lost function. For example, if I lost my vision or my dominant hand, then I'd go for functional machine prosthesis. I wouldn't try to make it look human either.

I'd also consider digital consciousness transfer as "Fuck it; why not?" afterlife if such a thing existed when I was much older.

Apart from that, technological augmentation doesn't interest me too deeply if it involves physical integration. I don't even really like user interfaces that try to learn my habits and anticipate me (such as spelling prediction, at the very basic level). I like having my innate, biological eccentricities as they are in the packaging in which they came.

This is a pretty rational non-transhumanist viewpoint and yet I still have trouble grasping where you're coming from. I'm just not understanding why you would fix something broken (even replace it with something better and/or non-humanish) but would not fix something that's just not optimal... To me, the human form is an amazing one to take and I feel lucky to be in this body. At the same time, given its innumerable limitations, I'm enthusiastic at the prospect of improving/upgrading. I don't like the idea of putting myself into a machine so-to-speak; that's no longer "me". However, steadily integrating machines and bio-engineering into my own body seems only human.

Given the opportunity to remain you but, say, be able to jump over a 10 foot wall at a running pace, what would possess you to pass on that? I can understand some hesitation to do any cognitive integration with machines (though I'm all for it) but passing on the ability to simply improve upon your physical form escapes me.

 

[Jennywocky]

No. The trailer looks awesome but the ratings are harsh. Not one for the masses, perhaps? Is it worth paying $3 to watch on Amazon prime tonight?

It's probably worth $3 (if you can't get it for free somewhere), but "District 9" was much better while "Elysium" was rather "by the numbers" and didn't really add much of value to the conversation. The ending was kinda predictable, but some of the ride was fun, and Matt Damon is solid. Jodie Foster wasn't really given as much rein as she should have been, she's a better actor than her part was written for.

 

[Analyzer]

I would agree with your first statement.
I have a little trouble with the second.
What exactly are property rights?
Would you agree that the Americas were at one time owned by the indigenous people?
How did the "transfer" of property to the Europeans take place?
And why did only the property right of the expropriators have the legal power of the state behind it?
A right is nothing, when there's nobody in positions of power willing to enforce it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre

Yes the Americas were much owned by the indigenous population and many times their land was stolen, but I am sure there were instances of voluntary transfers. The importance of this issue is largely irrelevant though since it happened hundreds of years ago. The ancestors of both groups have been dead for quite some time. Pre-modern civilizations in Europe were around before any Roman or English Empire, how do you go about determining who is the original owner there? In cases like the Sand Creek massacre, if extended families can prove held ownership by original appropriation than they should be entitled to their property.

Property rights are based on the homestead principle - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle

The State can't protect property rights that is an illusion. An exporprating property protector (which is the State through taxation) is a contradiction in terms. Rights should be enforced, but it is a non-sequitur to believe you need the State to enforce them.

Probably true on a micro-scale.
But on the macro-scale, algorithmic trading pretty much removed both information processing and decision-making from the will of the parties involved (precisely in order to circumvent information overload).
This inevitably has a feedback effect on the decision-making process on the micro level.
What is the next logical step?

Not sure but if by macro-scale you mean large popluations or regions then there is no perfect answer. Complex systems like economies are self-organizing and can't be controlled or planned from the top down.

Hm, i can't really follow you on the "corporations are the arm of the state" train of thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership
I think you might be interested in the following information:
http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?p=429841#post429841
(Second video, about the first 15 minutes)

But i would generally agree that the internet can be a useful tool to counter-balance mass media disinformation with,
or help getting information that has not much exposure to audiences "out there".

Today's corporations use the legal power of the State to establish their power. The link you posted about a concentration of media ownership is an example of oligarchy. These are created through legislation or lobbying and they receive special privileges as well. Also how many people affiliated with these companies indirectly or directly support/fund political institutions? They are the propaganda machine of the State.

For the moment, that may be.
Once everything is regulated, that will be a problem of the past.
Until then, the counter-measure of the state is the massive domestic and global spying apparatus, which can be operational and effective without regulations.

Sure but by that time the State could be deemed an irrelevant institution by most, in turning loosing it's power and influence. I believe this is the way it seems to be heading. Just like how they have "Kings" and other royalty in Britain, nobody takes them seriously even if they acknowledge their existence.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Yes the Americas were much owned by the indigenous population and many times their land was stolen, but I am sure there were instances of voluntary transfers. The importance of this issue is largely irrelevant though since it happened hundreds of years ago. The ancestors of both groups have been dead for quite some time.

But their descendants are alive today, and often in a quite miserably deprived state, not only in terms of property.

Pre-modern civilizations in Europe were around before any Roman or English Empire, how do you go about determining who is the original owner there?

Well, that's the question.
When 97% of all wealth on the globe is in the hands of 3% of the population, can they possibly be the "rightful" owners?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)

In cases like the Sand Creek massacre, if extended families can prove held ownership by original appropriation than they should be entitled to their property.

Just one example of thousands around the world.

Property rights are based on the homestead principle - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle

I guess i will have to quote the argument made in
"Confiscation and the Homestead Principle":

The homesteading principle means that the way that unowned property gets into private ownership is by the principle that this property justly belongs to the person who finds, occupies, and transforms it by his labor.

This is clear in the case of the pioneer and virgin land. But what of the case of stolen property?


Suppose, for example, that A steals B’s horse. Then C comes along and takes the horse from A. Can C be called a thief? Certainly not, for we cannot call a man a criminal for stealing goods from a thief. On the contrary, C is performing a virtuous act of confiscation, for he is depriving thief A of the fruits of his crime of aggression, and he is at least returning the horse to the innocent “private” sector and out of the “criminal” sector. C has done a noble act and should be applauded. Of course, it would be still better if he returned the horse to B, the original victim. But even if he does not, the horse is far more justly in C’s hands than it is in the hands of A, the thief and criminal.

But what if everybody steals from everybody?
Wouldn't that make everybody "unrightful" owners of "their" property?

The State can't protect property rights that is an illusion. An exporprating property protector (which is the State through taxation) is a contradiction in terms. Rights should be enforced, but it is a non-sequitur to believe you need the State to enforce them.

I don't see a contradiction.
If someone expropriates someone else, he has an interest in protecting his newly "acquired" property.
So, he will either invent or modify existing law to cement his expropriation for the future and make any attempts of reversing the transition unlawful.
A very good example, that is not too complex and thus bluntly illustrates the process can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YexsPpNmLh0

Do you think corporations should enforce the law?

Not sure but if by macro-scale you mean large popluations or regions then there is no perfect answer. Complex systems like economies are self-organizing and can't be controlled or planned from the top down.

What's with sanctions and subventions?

Today's corporations use the legal power of the State to establish their power. The link you posted about a concentration of media ownership is an example of oligarchy. These are created through legislation or lobbying and they receive special privileges as well. Also how many people affiliated with these companies indirectly or directly support/fund political institutions? They are the propaganda machine of the State.

Okay, i agree on that they lobby to make the state an enforcer of their corporate interest, and the state receives some favours in return.
It's a two-way relationship.
Given that they use the power of legislation, granted by the state,
how would any actor, who tries to stay out of their power dynamics be able to establish or protect their property?

Sure but by that time the State could be deemed an irrelevant institution by most, in turning loosing it's power and influence. I believe this is the way it seems to be heading. Just like how they have "Kings" and other royalty in Britain, nobody takes them seriously even if they acknowledge their existence.

From how i see it, the state has continually lost its power from the late 1960s onward,
and that's the reason why multi-national corporations dictate politics today.
If the state were to be abolished, given this current trend,
who would then be in control?

(P.S.: The royal families of the world are not as powerless as you might think.
P.P.S.: The Vatican is also quite wealthy and powerful, as we know.
http://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-biggest-landowners-2011-3?op=1)

Oh, and i am not a statist, just to be clear.

 

[Analyzer]

But their descendants are alive today, and often in a quite miserably deprived state, not only in terms of property.

Right and they along with everyone else, should be able to secede from the US and create their own "nation".

Well, that's the question.
When 97% of all wealth on the globe is in the hands of 3% of the population, can they possibly be the "rightful" owners?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)

Probably not but we don't live in a free market so it doesn't surprise me.

I guess i will have to quote the argument made in
"Confiscation and the Homestead Principle"

But what if everybody steals from everybody?
Wouldn't that make everybody "unrightful" owners of "their" property?

That is a life-boat situation but if it can be determined whoever originally appropriated the property, that person has the right to maintain ownership. You can go on forever with "what if" statements that can only be determined within the context of the situation at the time. Regardless, there is no other rule that can rationally determine ownership.

I don't see a contradiction.
If someone expropriates someone else, he has an interest in protecting his newly "acquired" property.
So, he will either invent or modify existing law to cement his expropriation for the future and make any attempts of reversing the transition unlawful.
A very good example, that is not too complex and thus bluntly illustrates the process can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YexsPpNmLh0

If an entity such as the State claims to protect property rights of individuals by expropriation(taxation, eminent domain) they are going against what they are claiming to do(protect property). Sure they will come up with Machiavellian ideas and a legislative process to put a curtain over themselves doesn't mean it is justifiable.

Do you think corporations should enforce the law?

They already do. The State is the biggest corporation, monopoly on the planet. In in a private legal system however, they would enforce the law in afree and competing market. I could see insurance companies being a central tenement for protection services - https://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf

What's with sanctions and subventions?

Restrict trade and mis-allocate capital.

Okay, i agree on that they lobby to make the state an enforcer of their corporate interest, and the state receives some favours in return.
It's a two-way relationship.
Given that they use the power of legislation, granted by the state,
how would any actor, who tries to stay out of their power dynamics be able to establish or protect their property?

Yeah its very difficult in an environment with these power dynamics. This is also why we see a recurring cycle as actors are aware that the only way to stay ahead or compete is through using the power of the State. Technology companies espeically in the Internet realm, are the some few don't have to deal with this as bad as in other sectors.

From how i see it, the state has continually lost its power from the late 1960s onward,
and that's the reason why multi-national corporations dictate politics today.
If the state were to be abolished, given this current trend,
who would then be in control?

(P.S.: The royal families of the world are not as powerless as you might think.
P.P.S.: The Vatican is also quite wealthy and powerful, as we know.
http://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-biggest-landowners-2011-3?op=1)

Oh, and i am not a statist, just to be clear.

Yes we live in a sort of corporatist/soft-fascist world. If the State were to be abolished today I don't believe much would change. The ruling class(Bankers,Corporations) would still have the resources and influence to dictate the direction of society. What I believe the best route is a bottom up revolution. Start at a local level and test different systems of social order and commerce without relying on the State.

Yeah it makes sense that royal families have so much wealth. Maybe they were smarter in their own interest to loose political influence, but keep power.

 

[Methodician]

Yes we live in a sort of corporatist/soft-fascist world. If the State were to be abolished today I don't believe much would change. The ruling class(Bankers,Corporations) would still have the resources and influence to dictate the direction of society.

When private sector, profit-hungry corporations (particularly financial institutions such as banks and insurance companies) "have the resources and influence to dictate the direction of society" where does that leave the direction of society?

If the state were abolished, what about public goods? What about infrastructure spending? The only roads will be toll roads. Even pre-existing ones will be stationed with big angry toll trolls. Who enforces payment of the toll? Corporations with big guns? What about all the things the govt. pours cash into because there's no real motivation for private investment?

If our rights were protected by insurance companies, that sounds like law-enforcement-for-hire in a lawless world. Each company makes up its own laws/contract and you just pick the one you want? The best protection comes from the biggest guns, doesn't it? Then, THEN, when the insurance companies clash on their "legal" documents (contracts are protected by law) and there's no central government, no superior court to raise disputes in... what then? The biggest guns...

What I believe the best route is a bottom up revolution. Start at a local level and test different systems of social order and commerce without relying on the State.

This makes sense. We'd better get started though. Surely there's some way a world without central government could work but I find it pretty unlikely we'll just happen to evolve into the right type of society just as the government eeps its last gasp of withering power.

 

[USA2Elsewhere]

Because you seemingly don't understand it. What you said was the equivalent of "The universe will die in 10 billion years, so I'm giving up now"

I don't think anything is written in stone in terms of the universe.

 

[USA2Elsewhere]

Assuming that this indicates that my conclusions are different from yours.
There are several possible scenarios.

What I agree with is that there is a finite amount resources required to satisfy all needs of an individual, as long as that individual doesn't see beyond that, it will be contained.

I'm not a pessimist, I just don't like glorifying and optimism in these agendas.

Yes, I might have missed the scale of progress we are talking about.
Thanks for bringing me to the transhumanism.

Yes it is possible, but I don't see the greatness in it.

I can live as I am. Probably my transhuman version would also live as it is, while it would also be subject to the preachers that advocate the trans trans humanism.

Assuming we know what happens, because the common argument is that there is no meta to trans, or there are things beyond ones understanding, which works both ways.

:::shrug:::: transhumanism is for those who care about continuing life in this universe.