Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies


The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.


Search the IEET
Subscribe and Contribute to:


Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view




whats new at ieet

The one percent discovers transhumanism: Davos 2016

The wonderful and terrifying implications of computers that can learn

“McMindfulness”: is Buddhism contaminated by capitalism?” - interview with Terry Hyland

Stefan Sorgner co-organizing 8th Beyond Humanism Conference in Madrid

The Value of Deep Work and How to Prioritise It

Should you be able to patent a human gene?


ieet books

Keywords for Environmental Studies
Author
eds. Joni Adamson, William A. Gleason, David N. Pellow


comments

RJP8915 on 'Ray Kurzweil’s Basic Ideas' (Feb 6, 2016)

spud100 on 'Is Cheap Oil a Bad Thing?' (Feb 6, 2016)

John G Mess on 'Ray Kurzweil’s Basic Ideas' (Feb 6, 2016)

RJP8915 on 'Ray Kurzweil’s Basic Ideas' (Feb 6, 2016)

Barbara546 on 'My Gay Marriage in USA Prediction was Incredibly Wrong, by 20 Years - Hooray!' (Feb 6, 2016)

g3reth on '"McMindfulness": is Buddhism contaminated by capitalism?" - interview with Terry Hyland' (Feb 6, 2016)

almostvoid on 'The Value of Deep Work and How to Prioritise It' (Feb 6, 2016)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



JET

Enframing the Flesh: Heidegger, Transhumanism, and the Body as “Standing Reserve”

Moral Enhancement and Political Realism

Intelligent Technologies and Lost Life

Hottest Articles of the Last Month


“Technology Could Bring Heaven on Earth, or Create Hell” - interview with futurist Gerd Leonhard
Jan 9, 2016
(9092) Hits
(1) Comments

Becoming the First Transhuman: A Call For The Right Stuff
Jan 17, 2016
(7131) Hits
(2) Comments

First Successful Gene-Editing in Live Mammals Brings Us Closer to Human Treatments
Jan 22, 2016
(4799) Hits
(0) Comments

The Singularity: Fact or Fiction or Somewhere In-between?
Jan 13, 2016
(4374) Hits
(17) Comments



IEET > Security > Military > Life > Enablement > Innovation > Implants > Vision > CyborgBuddha > Technoprogressivism > Staff > Mike Treder

Print Email permalink (2) Comments (4173) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


Getting Past Us vs. Them


Mike Treder
By Mike Treder
Ethical Technology

Posted: May 6, 2009

A stone age hunter-gatherer, coming upon a conflict where danger was present, didn’t have time to carefully analyze the situation, look for nuances, or seek points of commonality between combatants. Instead, driven by adrenalin, heart pumping, thoughts racing, pupils dilated—within seconds a choice was made: pick a side and join the fray, or turn and run away.

On the blog Overcoming Bias, sponsored by the Future of Humanity Institute, economics professor Robin Hanson writes:

As fiction authors know, compelling stories need conflict; readers love to root for good guys against bad guys. As college professors know, students perk up when academic topics are posed as conflicts.  Sophomores love to hear each subject posed as a conflict between several possible isms, especially a long bitter conflict.

Then, describing his experience in dealing with blog readers, Hanson says:

...most commenters did not want compromise; they instead wanted to take sides and seek better ways for their side to win the war. Generation after generation, some old tell the young to seek internal peace; no internal side has the strength to win a clean victory, so all out war risks all out destruction. But the young will not hear.

It seems that one of humanity’s strongest ideals is actually war, i.e., uncompromising conflict. In our culture we are supposed to oppose ordinary bloody war, preferring peace when possible there. But we do not generalize this lesson much to other sorts of conflicts. We celebrate those who take sides and win far more than we do peacemakers and compromisers. But the principle is the same; every side can expect to get more of what it wants from compromise deals than from all out conflict.

Professor Hanson is clearly right that humans have a built-in bias to look at complicated situations and reduce them to simple binary choices. It wouldn’t be hard for someone to develop a thesis from evolutionary psychology to support this argument.

Think about it for a minute. If you’re a stone age hunter-gatherer (which 99% of your humanoid ancestors were), and you come upon a conflict where danger is present, you don’t have time to carefully analyze the situation, look for nuances, seek points of commonality between combatants, etc. If you try this approach, you’re quite likely to end up dead. Instead, driven by adrenalin, your heart pumps, your thoughts race, your pupils dilate, and within seconds, if not sooner, you make a choice, pick a side, and join the fray. Either that or turn and run away.

I don’t think a comparatively few centuries of Enlightenment will quickly overcome two thousand millennia of this sort of evolutionary development.

So, what’s the solution? We’ve come a long way already through the spread of freedom, equality, education, and the benefit of a fossil-fueled prosperity. Yet, as Hanson points out, we’re still inclined to look for right sides and wrong sides, good sides and bad sides, ready to choose up and fight.

As a transhumanist, I wonder if the availability—and, perhaps, popularity—of enhancement therapies to increase our intelligence, moderate our psychology, and maximize our wisdom will someday open a door into new ways of thinking and living without the reflex need for us vs. them conflict.


Mike Treder is a former Managing Director of the IEET.
Print Email permalink (2) Comments (4174) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


COMMENTS


I suppose that even “peacemakers and compromisers” battle fiercely for their positions to win. At least the politicians I’m thinking of.

Concerning the ancient hunters and gathers, do we really have any idea as to what extent they had the capabilities of “analyzing situations, looking for nuances, seeking points of commonality”? Just because they may not have had time to use them in extreme situations does not mean that they didn’t have (or evolved to diminish) those capabilities. It could be that those very faculties, when applied to /other/ situations, are what helped those people survive. I really doubt anyone can make an assertion about this that rises above speculation.





Hector is right; our ancestors must have many occasions where immediate response was not the issue, so that cannot be the main explanation for our us/them ways.





YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Nanofactory Regulation Revisited

Previous entry: Make me a superhero: The pleasures and pitfalls of body enhancement

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | AFRICAN FUTURES PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

East Coast Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
56 Daleville School Rd., Willington CT 06279 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-428-1837

West Coast Contact: Managing Director, Hank Pellissier
425 Moraga Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611
Email: hank @ ieet.org