Blog | Events | Multimedia | About | Purpose | Programs | Publications | Staff | Contact | Join   
     Login      Register    

Support the IEET




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.

Via PayPal




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









Personhood Beyond the Human Conference whats new at ieet
Prison Industrial Complex in America

Engineering the Future

The American prison system

Fighting Facebook, a Campaign for a People’s Terms of Service

Imagination Experiment: Visualizing Transformative Tech

From Mars to the Multiverse

The singularity: merging human/machine to achieve immortality

Feel the Pulse - 2013 MIT Image Award Winner

CubeSats: Tiny satellites work at MIT, U. Mich.

Should Transhumanists Abandon the Corporatist Capitalist model?


ieet books

eGods: Faith versus Fantasy in Computer Gaming
Author
by William Sims Bainbridge


comments

Intomorrow on 'The American prison system' (May 22, 2013)

Intomorrow on 'Will the Catholic Bishops Decide How You Die?' (May 22, 2013)

Peter Wicks on 'Will the Catholic Bishops Decide How You Die?' (May 22, 2013)

Henry Bowers on 'Will the Catholic Bishops Decide How You Die?' (May 22, 2013)

Peter Wicks on 'Should Transhumanists Abandon the Corporatist Capitalist model?' (May 22, 2013)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



Also check out technoprogressive multimedia on Thoughtware.tv

Hottest Articles of the Last Month

Life in the 2040s: nanofactories, flying cars, household robots, more
by Dick Pelletier
Apr 30, 2013
(6457) Hits
(1) Comments

Ten Responses to the Technological Unemployment Problem
by Jon Perry
May 1, 2013
(5469) Hits
(2) Comments

Organ, tissue replacement could end aging by mid-2020s
by Dick Pelletier
May 14, 2013
(3243) Hits
(0) Comments

Noam Chomsky on Libertarians
Andy80o
Apr 27, 2013
(3181) Hits
(15) Comments

Radical life extension: living a 1,000 year lifespan
by Dick Pelletier
May 7, 2013
(2758) Hits
(0) Comments

Imagine No Religion. On Facebook.
by Valerie Tarico
May 4, 2013
(2674) Hits
(150) Comments



IEET > Security > Biosecurity > SciTech > Rights > Personhood > Life > Innovation > Vision > Futurism > Galactic > Directors > Giulio Prisco

Print Email permalink (22) Comments (3260) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg submit to Twitter


The first Terran shots against the Cosmists


Giulio Prisco
Giulio Prisco
Turing Church

Posted: Jun 18, 2012

Hugo de Garis, author of The Artilect War, agrees that our cosmic destiny is to transcend biology and build/become “Artilects”, but thinks that flesh-and-blood humans (the “Terrans”) will resist and wage bloody wars against those who want to move on (the “Cosmists”). De Garis fears that “species dominance” wars may result in billions of deaths, and perhaps he is right.

I used to dismiss Hugo’s catastrophic predictions, but History shows that the old doesn’t meekly make room for the new without a fight. The fight of those who want (everyone) to remain old-style humans against those who want to become much more than humans, could be a very nasty one, and I am afraid the first shots may be fired soon (actually, they have already been fired).

If you don’t have The Artilect War, you can read a short recent summary (PDF). I will report some excerpts here, in italics and between quotes. After a short outline of relevant technologies, Hugo defines the issue:

“The “species dominance” issue will dominate our global politics this century, resulting in a major war that
will kill billions of people. The issue is whether humanity should build godlike, massively intelligent machines called “artilects” (artificial intellects), made possible by 21stcentury technologies and having mental capacities trillions of times above the human level. Society will split into three major philosophical groups, all murderously opposed to each other.”

Here, I disagree. I think Hugo is basically right in his prediction that society will split into three, or two, major philosophical groups, but I don’t see why they should be murderously opposed to each other. I am afraid, however, that one of these groups may become murderously opposed to the other(s).

“As the species dominance debate begins to heat up, humanity will split into three major philosophical groups. The Cosmists (based on the word cosmos) will be in favour of building artilects. The Terrans (based on the word terra, meaning “earth”) will oppose building artilects, and the Cyborgists (part-machine, part-human) will want to become artilects themselves by adding artilectual components to their own human brains.”

Here, Hugo makes the difference between Cosmists and Cyborgists much more evident and explicit than in the book, where these two groups are mostly conflated into one (Cosmists). But I believe this difference is not really necessary, and possibly misleading. I think humans and machines will co-evolve, with humans becoming more and more machines, and machines becoming more and more humans, until it will be difficult to tell which is which. Eventually, humans and intelligent machines will blend, and become artilects together.

I see artificial intelligence and neuroscience co-advancing in small steps and leaps, and I think in the next decade we will begin to see persons with “dumb” brain implants like databases, rule-based co-processors and AI helpers, and wireless Internet access modules. These brain implants will enable researchers to work much more productively at designing smarter AI systems, which then will go back into the brain as smarter implants, and so forth, until brain implants will be as intelligent as their “owners,” or more. Similarly, I expect to see artificial intelligences powered by subsystems based on uploaded human minds.

AI implants smarter then their “owners” will include parts of other persons, with their own AI subsystems, in a never ending cascade of brains within minds within brains. When we will be able to build artilects, there will be no difference between artilects and cyborgs, which will be part of one and the same species: our human mind children, ready to move to the stars and beyond.

To this, Hugo replies that a human personality would disappear, like a drop of sweet water in the ocean, when merged into an artilect with a mental capacity trillions of times greater then human. This would probably be true for us, but we should not forget that the first humans to become artilects will have many layers of post-human augmentation already, so they may be able to gradually adapt to their new artilect condition while retaining their core human essence. We will be able to cope with the change and move outward, to join the other advanced post-biological civilizations among the stars. I think the future will be an awesome and wonderful dream…

… if things don’t go catastrophically bad and the future becomes a nightmare first.

“The dispute between the Terrans and the Cosmists/Cyborgists will be so bitter that a major war is almost inevitable in the second half of this century.”

I am a Cosmist, and I don’t feel any bitterness or hostility toward Terrans. On the contrary, I respect their preferences, and I am sure my fellow Cosmists won’t feel any hostility toward Terrans either.

I think we can safely say that, despite some very sad episodes, the human race is gradually becoming gentler and more compassionate as a result of education and civilization. Our ancestors used to treat animals cruelly, but today we are beginning to be kind and benevolent toward most animals, and we love our pets. I expect that the next generations will extend love and compassion to all the animals that share our planet.

Of course I cannot imagine the thoughts and feelings of an artilect trillions of times more intelligent than us, but, by analogy, I think they will be kind, benevolent and compassionate toward those who prefer to remain old-style humans 1.0. We don’t slaughter cute little dogs, but love and protect them. I find it difficult to imagine that our artilect mind children won’t similarly love and protect us.

I believe the Cosmists will prefer to move to the stars and continue there their cosmic journey of self-directed evolution, leaving the Earth and the solar system to the Terrans. I hope, however, that the Cosmists will leave some kind of “Cosmic Embassy” in the vicinity of the Earth, to assist the Terran-born fleshers who want to migrate. I would certainly leave the Earth and the flesh behind, at the first possibility, and happily migrate from the flesh to the stars as a cyborg/artilect.

Even if all humans join the migration, it will be a gentle coming of age and not an “extermination” by hostile aliens: at some point children cease to exist and are replaced by adults, but this doesn’t mean that the adults have murdered the children, it just means that the children have grown into adults. There is nothing to fear, and a universe to gain. Terrans fear that artilects will destroy us, but they cannot destroy us because they will be us. The child that I used to be was not destroyed by the adult that I have become: he is still here, inside my current self.

Cosmism is a kind of religion due to its awe, its grandeur, its capacity to energize and its vision. “It will be a kind of religion to them: the next step up the evolutionary ladder, the ‘destiny of the human species to serve as the stepping stone to the creation of a higher form of being,’” says Hugo. “In building artilects, the Cosmists will feel they will be ‘building gods’. The preoccupations of human beings seem pathetic in comparison.”

To me, Cosmism is a religion in an even stronger sense:  I believe future extremely advanced artilect Gods will be able to affect their past — our present — by means of spacetime engineering, and achieve, by scientific means, most of the promises of religions — and many amazing things that no human religion ever dreamed. Future Gods will be able to resurrect the dead by “copying them to the future.” For those who share this belief, building artilects is not only a “philosophical” duty, but a very practical one.

Let’s now see things from the point of view of the Terrans. “The major argument of the Terrans is that the artilects, once they become hugely superior to human beings, may begin to see us as grossly inferior pests and decide to wipe us out,” says Hugo.

I don’t agree with the first “major argument.” As I said, I am persuaded that artilects will feel no hostility toward old-style humans. The universe is a big place, and they will have other things to do. I am sure that Cosmists and artilects will be perfectly happy to leave the solar system to Terrans and move to the stars, and I hope that they will even keep a benevolent eye on the Terrans, and help them every now and then. The only realistic possibility of violent action from Cosmists and artilects will be in self-defense, for their own survival.

As Hugo says, the Terrans may try a first strike against the Cosmists before it is too late, because:

“Terrans will be horrified at the idea of seeing their children becoming artilects and thus becoming utterly alien to them. They will reject the idea viscerally and fear the potential superiority of the artilects. They will organise to prevent the rise of the artilects and cyborgs and will oppose the Cosmists ideologically, politically and, eventually, militarily.”

This is, unfortunately, a very realistic possibility. The old may not be willing to peacefully make room for the new without a fight, even if there is no threat. We have seen countless times, in the history of our civilization, atrocities against minorities that only want to left in peace. Surveying the web and the blogosphere, I see a growing wave of attacks from bioluddites, bigoted and hostile to the point of hatred, against the future. Even some smart people, who only a few years ago were positively excited about the future, seem now rabidly protective of the old boring “human condition” (vulnerable squishy bodies, stupid brains, two genders, only a few decades to enjoy life, cancer, Alzheimer, and then death) and react aggressively at the first mention of mind uploading and post-biological life. They don’t simply wish to remain old-style humans with meat bodies (which is, of course, a perfectly legitimate preference), but they want to force everyone else to remain old-style humans with meat bodies.

I have the impression that the zeitgeist, our Jungian collective consciousness, is sensing that a big wave of radical change is coming, and is beginning to mobilize its immune system. If so, the first shots cannot be far. In fact, some shots have already been fired:  Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber who killed three people and injured 23 others, was the first Terran, and luddites are increasingly launching violent attacks on scientists. Hugo’s prediction is that “assassinations of brain-builder company CEOs will start, and home robot factories will be arsoned and sabotaged. The Cosmists and Cyborgists will be forced to strengthen their resolve. The artilect war will be drawing ever closer.”

“assassinations of brain-builder company CEOs will start, and home robot factories will be arsoned and sabotaged. The Cosmists and Cyborgists will be forced to strengthen their resolve. The artilect war will be drawing ever closer.”

I hope this prediction is wrong and, after the (unfortunately inevitable) first shots, we will peacefully split into two different but friendly groups. Terrans have nothing to fear from Cosmists — we just want to prepare our journey, remake ourselves, become artilects among the stars, and leave the Earth to them. One thing that we won’t do, is to give up our dreams.

 

 

Related Articles

The Artilect War (PDF) 

Biological Intelligence is only a Transitory Phenomenon

Yes, I Am a Believer

Anarchists Attack Science (Nature article)

 

 

 

Image credit: Juan Ochoa / Orion’s Arm. This image can be interpreted as a peaceful Cosmist starship leaving the Earth, or as a Cosmist warship scorching the Earth. I really hope it will be the former.


Giulio Prisco is a physicist and computer scientist, and former senior manager in the European space administration. Giulio works as a consultant and contributes to several science and technology magazines. In 2002-2008 he served on the Board of Directors of Humanity Plus, of which he was Executive Director, and serves on the Board of Directors of the Italian Transhumanist Association. He is often in Hungary, Italy and Spain. You can find more about Giulio at his blog and home page.
Print Email permalink (22) Comments (3261) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg submit to Twitter


COMMENTS


This is an important piece, Giulio. Thank you for writing it.
You wrote:
“They don’t simply wish to remain old-style humans with meat bodies (which is, of course, a perfectly legitimate preference), but they want to force everyone else to remain old-style humans with meat bodies.”
I’ve begun to wonder about this, as well. For a time, at least, the cosmists/cyborgs will co-exist here on Earth. I’ve begun to wonder whether they’ll need to relocate to separate territory, physically removing themselves from the populations of “Terrans.” Because I see swaths of humankind that are stuck in the past and hopelessly committed to obsolete ideas and lifestyles, luddites who will never seek augmentation, never approve of it, and never accept being the second-most-intelligent beings on the planet. They are the ones whose potential for violent rejection of cosmist/augmented humans and artilects seems most worrisome, to me.





I should say, also, that the unabomber was just the beginning;

“Anarchist group targets scientists in terrorist attacks
By Maggie Koerth-Baker at 1:55 pm Friday, Jun 1
Last year, I told you about Individuals Tending Towards Savagery, a terrorist group that has mailed bombs to nanotechnology researchers in Mexico, Chile, France, and Spain. Their stated goal: Stop technological innovation. And they aren’t alone.”

http://boingboing.net/2012/06/01/anarchist-group-targets-scient.html





It seems a bit of a stretch to me to extrapolate modern-day neoluddite terrorism into a future war between “Terrans” and “Cosmists”. Illuminating and important, but to be taken with a few pinches of salt. Rather I see such attacks as essentially neurotic reactions to radical change.

The assumption seems to be that there will be a sort of grand polarisation between those that are irreconcilably attached to human1.0, i.e. the “status quo ante”, and those who fully embrace the Cosmist vision. Polarisations are possible, of course, but they are not inevitable. Currently, the same people that are horrified by GMOs and nanotech (as they were once horrified by microwave ovens) will happily use cutting edge technology for anything from medicine to cosmetics, or indeed defence. This is the mainstream: ordinary people who are neither at the technoprogressive leading edge(s) nor consistently opposed to any kind of improvement but simply confused, scared, and at the same time curious about the possibilities.

I also wonder why we should necessarily have such a benign view of Cosmists. The vision is a commendably positive one, but human history shows that those who have power tend to abuse it, and those who successfully embrace the new technologies will certainly have power over those who don’t. Similarly, the Gods that they (we?) create may be less benign than we imagine, either because of design (e.g. because they evolve from warrior drones) or by accident (the law of unintended consequences). Dividing the world into “true believers” and retro Terrans to be feared and/or pitied risks cutting us off from an important resource: thinking conservatives whose scepticism makes them more attuned to risks than the enthusiasts will necessarily be, and who can thus help us to avoid them.

Finally, while the division into Cosmists and Cyborgs might be unnecessarily stark, just like the division between these two and Terrans, the distinction is necessarily an important one. That said, I like your analogy about the child within the adult. Perhaps there will indeed be some kind of future Peter Wicks, fully immersed in this wonderful, utopic future, distributed among several intelligence-structures, biological or otherwise, but retaining enough of my current identity for my present self to be able to reasonably identify with…him?it?eir?

In any case, a highly thought-provoking piece!





Read my response here. I’m awfully skeptical of your embrace of the progress narrative. Those who attack corporate scientists do so with reason. Contrary to myths of advancement, civilization currently has at best a dubious record.





Nice article Giulio. I’ve always stated that Hugo seems far more interested in ADVOCATING the “Artilect War” then in finding ways to avoid it.

Despite what many people fear, there is a massive change coming to social reality over the next few decades that is going to eliminate this fear Hugo cherishes so greatly. This meme of “Terrans vs Cosmists” is only plausible if one assumes that the current social orders will remain unchanged as we progress towards the future. I’ve attempted to show time and again that they will not, and that the “chaos and confusion” is going to occur a LOT SOONER than the Singularity.

Yes. We will see Luddite attacks and terrorists. They will increase in number over the next few years enormously. SO WILL THE MEANS TO FIND AND PREVENT THEM FROM CAUSING HARM. In fact, these “terrorists” will be a major factor in the accelerating Surveillance Arms Race. As Khannea pointed out in a recent article: http://www.acceler8or.com/2012/06/the-drone-djinn-is-out-of-the-bottle/ we are likely to see hundreds of groups using surveillance technology both to commit acts of terrorism, and to bring those committing such acts to justice. And this increasing “immuno-response” will eventually result in a radical new society in which total transparency FORCES accountability, and eliminates not merely tyranny, but any possible reasons to engage in conflict on mass scales as we eliminate the root causes of such conflicts, i.e. the use of human need as a commodity in the market and as a tool to enforce the will of the extreme few on the many.

We are in a time of transition. No, it will not pass without pain. But it WILL PASS. And once we have made that transition, which will happen LONG before the creation of Artilects, or the “Singularity” we will realize at last that there is room enough for everyone, and that maximum diversity is the only path to a better future. Those who wish to “stay behind” will be more than welcome to, but they will lack the power to force the rest of humanity to stay with them.





Are you familiar with a young person’s story called “The Ugly Duckling?”. While I appreciate your acknowledgment of the rights of the “terrans”. That is an excellent first step. Now, the next concept I need everyone here to master is that becoming an upload is not the only, unique, way of becoming posthuman, nor is it anywhere near the best. Well, the later can be dismissed as preference, but as a person who is unquestionably a hard-core transhumanist, I feel entitled to demand that non-uploaders be recognized as transhumanists, and, furthermore, that my branch of transhumanism is, in no way, second-tier to any other form of transhumanism. While I’m not going for the shock and awe effect that you seem to crave, the form of transhumanism that I’m passionate about is not inherently inferior to yours because it retains, in some aspects, a humanoid based physical body. It is also not inferior to uploading because I make different choices about which technologies I wish to adopt and how I wish to use them.





@Hank, the whole article is a link!

Please fix: insert a closed a tag (bracket_open slash a bracket_closed) immediately after “a short recent summary (PDF)”





@Summerspeaker:

Re “I discern the possibility that Cosmism will bolster the resurgent anti-anarchist crusade.”

I am an anarchist at heart myself. Note that I changed the title of the Nature article from “anarchists” to “luddites” in the text.

Re “It’s ironically appropriate that an inhabitant of era of the largest meat industry the Earth has ever seen would displace cruelty back in time to unspecified ancestors. As with violence between humans, any diminution amongst the general population has gone hand in hand with intensification at designated sites.”

This is a good point. I am referring to the general population: today, many people would never kill a rabbit, but our ancestors did so without thinking twice, to eat it or even just for fun. The intensification of cruelty and violence at designated sites is certainly a problem in need of a solution, but I don’t think it is strongly related to this discussion.

Re “Dale’s term “Robot Cultist” starts to approach the mark”

Dale is, and has always been, right in considering transhumanism as religious aesthetics. Transhumanism is a strong emotional impulse to transcend, inspired by but not derived from modern science and technology. I saw this immediately when I started reading the Extropy list in the 90s. The difference, of course, is that I find transhumanist aesthetics beautiful and Dale finds it ugly.





“but any possible reasons to engage in conflict on mass scales as we eliminate the root causes of such conflicts, i.e. the use of human need as a commodity in the market and as a tool to enforce the will of the extreme few on the many.”

@Valkyrie:  I am not sure how you justify that line of reasoning - the cynic in me suggests this sort of thing will be used to shame intellectual minorities into compliance with social norms (or self-destruction).  For example, in that situation, will it actually be possible for a hypothetical gay person to remain in the closet until they’re comfortable with their sexual identity?  (It may not be the best example, but it’s the first that came to mind)

How will we insulate people with unpopular opinions from peer pressure and the “tyrrany of the majority”?





@Giulio re “I am an anarchist at heart”
Fine, but one needs to consider practical consequences, and base our assessments of them on evidence, not on wishful thinking. I have no problem with long-term visions in which hierarchical systems are absent (though bear in mind that some people actually like them), but I do have a problem with people who undermine necessary governance structures in real time without any serious thought to the likely consequences. I see this tendency, which is at least as old as the 19th century, as one of the more serious risks to civilisation.

My own take on hierarchical systems is that they are fine as long as (i) it is possible to opt out of them without becoming destitute or otherwise oppressed/persecuted, and (ii) the systems themselves have positive externalities, i.e. their practical effect on the rest of society is positive. Bearing in mind, of course, that a lot of people are destitute, oppressed or persecuted already, and it is entirely unclear to me how we can root out these evils without the help of strong, hierarchical structures (institutions, governments…).





@Peter re “I do have a problem with people who undermine necessary governance structures in real time without any serious thought to the likely consequences.”

That’s why I say that I am an anarchist _at heart_. I dislike hierarchical systems, and I hope we will learn to do without them and fade them out, but I don’t propose to eliminate governance structure in real time. I think hierarchies and governments are a still necessary evil, but I hope they will become less and less necessary.





@Giulio
Beautiful piece, thanks.

I am optimistic. As Peter correctly pointed out, Terrans have too much to gain from Cosmists’ enterprise. Why to attack? Destructive envy might motivate someone, but rational analysis must prevail in the end. People would not be that stupid, even if they are influenced by stupid leaders. Most likely someone will want to remain within the safe boundaries of traditional forms. I imagine Terrans as rednecks uselessly shooting at airplanes flying high, over their crops. Their possible, violent instinct cannot reach the new dimensions acquired by those who decided to evolve to such a dramatically new ontological stage. Cosmsts will immediately be out of reach for those who cannot comprehend their motivations.

I also think anyway, that - we lack the theoretical instruments to imagine even vaguely the consequences of this revolution, even at the earliest phases of the transition. So, yes, as Valkyrie Ice said, probably Hugo is probably just projecting his fears, or his aggressiveness inside the visions he depicts.

And - I do agree with Giulio’s anarchism. I think that not only future trends point to decentralization. I also believe that decentralization is the best way to speed up innovation and technology. Dispersed knowledge works much better than individual knowledge, no matter how exceptionally clever is the individual engineer.





@Valkyrie re “[surveillance will result in] a radical new society in which total transparency FORCES accountability, and eliminates not merely tyranny, but any possible reasons to engage in conflict on mass scales as we eliminate the root causes of such conflicts, i.e. the use of human need as a commodity in the market and as a tool to enforce the will of the extreme few on the many.”

Unfortunately this works both ways. It would be cool to use surveillance tools against the bad guys (both corporations and governments) but I am afraid it is the bad guys that will use surveillance tools against the rest of us. I prefer a world where bad things happen occasionally, to a police state where everybody is subject to 24/7 surveillance.





I see this tendency, which is at least as old as the 19th century, as one of the more serious risks to civilisation.

We inpatient anarchists appreciate the respect and at least aspire to be such a threat to the established order. I don’t encourage attacks on scientists or want to go back to the forest, but I do demand an end to oppression yesterday if not sooner. All y’all’s talk of the state withering away strikes me as thoroughly familiar.





@ Giulio

Didn’t read those links I gave you in the other thread, did you?

I have no fear of a police state, Giulio. It will be tried. It might succeed for a year or three. It will then become a victim of it’s own drive to increase surveillance and collapse, leaving behind a transparent society that is under no-ones control. And in so doing it will eliminate the very tools that allow a “police state” or any other authoritarian control structure to exist: Secrecy and Deception.

Without secrecy, accountability cannot be escaped. Your fear is based in the erroneous assumption that any group will be able to maintain secrecy, at any level of society, for any length of time. The very nature of the authoritarian mindset has always, and will always, ensure it’s own demise.





@Valkyrie - yes I did read the links you gave. I had already seen most of them.

I am totally in favor of surveillance by the people of those who have power (legislator, administrators, politicians, executives…) and I think being subject to strict and continuous surveillance is the price that those with power should pay for their privileges. I have written about this in Watching Big Brother: reality politics.

But I am against surveillance of normal people with normal lives. If I am not a politician, a banker, an administrator, or a police officer who can harm others, what I do with my friends in my living room is strictly my business, and I don’t want to be watched.





@Giulio
At the risk of stating (yet again) the blindingly obvious, it is not only legislators, administrators, politicians. executives, bankers and police officers that have the power to harm others. For example, to my recollection the perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocities did not fall into any of those categories.





@Peter - fair enough, but we don’t know who the perpetrators of the next 9/11 can be. They are very good at masquerading as good guys, so the only way to watch them 24/7 is to watch everyone 24/7.

I am afraid to say that I prefer a world where occasional atrocities like 9/11 can happen, to a world where everyone is watched 24/7.





@Stefan re “Abuse of power occurs when the interests of the powerful are misaligned with those of the governed.”

I am afraid that interests of the powerful are misaligned with those of the governed by definition, since the powerful are only interested in keeping their power at all costs, and acquiring even more power.





I’m much more worried about legislators, administrators, politicians. executives, bankers, and police officers - especially police officers - than terrorists. The state uses terror as gleefully as the 9/11 hijackers but with greater consistency and success. Terror defines social relations under actually existing civilization. I know that if I disobey I could well end up in prison for the rest of my life (which would hopefully be short at that point).





@Summerspeaker re “I’m much more worried about legislators, administrators, politicians. executives, bankers, and police officers - especially police officers - than terrorists. The state uses terror as gleefully as the 9/11 hijackers but with greater consistency and success. Terror defines social relations under actually existing civilization.”

This is very bluntly put, but I totally agree with the spirit. I prefer to live in a world where very bad things can happen occasionally, rather than in a world where everyone is oppressed by the authorities all the time.





I know I am probably on the outside in this debate, but I definitely see Hugo de Garis’s point. The source of my understanding probably has to do with where I live which is the American South. If you really want to understand what kind of reaction the average human being is going to have in relation to transhumanism then come live here for a year. While capable of embracing technology when it suits them they have a simultaneous negative reaction to any kind of social change. For them, a a great number of human beings in different places, technology is useful only when it does’t require social change.

They will resist with every fiber of their being and will eventually react violently if they don’t get their way. I would love to think that the average human being isn’t this way, but all the evidence points in the same direction. Make the average human feel threatened by a change and watch their animal nature take over. If you doubt it then observe the massive religious and economic system reactions to abortion, climate change, evolution and new areas of human rights promotion.





YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: How Not to Solve a Problem (the Eurozone Crises)

Previous entry: Gamification Live with Andrea Kuszewski

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

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376