Feedback -- Posthuman Dreams, or Being Both More and Less than Human... -- Dark, SF, Soc, Super
*
An anonymoust poster offered the following commentary, and I thought I'd print my reply.
One of the ideas I try to emphasize on this site is that we don't really know which direction this "transhuman evolution" will take. A trap many futurists fall into the idea of One Technology Uber Alles. In other words, the notion that a single technology or field of research is inherently the only one that matters. This tendency shows up even in people who don't embrace a "Rapture Technology" view of the future or the Singularity.
That's partly a result of intense specialization, and one of the reasons I'm maintaining this website. I strongly suspect that many researchers would find it heartening to understand the extent of modern augmentation research -- not only what is on the horizon, but what is already here. I also suspect that most researchers (and other "enthusiasts") worth their salt would find it very useful to be able to augment their intelligence to a greater or lesser degree using those methods which are already here, as well as those that seem to be almost upon us.
As to your question about how it will all turn out, honestly, any of the possibilities you mention could happen. Or all of them. Just as the key technologies can't be declared from our standpoint, neither can we conclude how humanity will react to and utilize them.
Another reason I have this site is the belief that whatever decisions humanity ultimately makes about these technologies, our final decisions will be far, far better if we can maximize the number of people who can intelligently contribute to them. This doesn't just mean democracy, but intelligent, informed democracy, with a real emphasis on education and careful experimentation. Not just experimentation in terms of discovery, but in terms of wisely assessing risks as well as opportunities.
So how will it all turn out? Why don't you tell me? =)
Future Imperative
An anonymoust poster offered the following commentary, and I thought I'd print my reply.
You, my friend, are wise in many things. My picture of the coming future
parallels yours with uncanny precision. The only question is: is this a good
development or a bad one? Could it go both ways, with one version a more
positive reality than the similar yet slightly different alternatives. Will the
entire globe encompass a hive-mind? Will it be centrally directed or emergent?
Will it be more or less the picture that Aldous Huxley painted, with an
inherently utterly locked hiearchy? How many human beings will get left behind
as the species evolves?
Natural selection can create wondrous things, but she's not known for her
empathy.
One of the ideas I try to emphasize on this site is that we don't really know which direction this "transhuman evolution" will take. A trap many futurists fall into the idea of One Technology Uber Alles. In other words, the notion that a single technology or field of research is inherently the only one that matters. This tendency shows up even in people who don't embrace a "Rapture Technology" view of the future or the Singularity.
That's partly a result of intense specialization, and one of the reasons I'm maintaining this website. I strongly suspect that many researchers would find it heartening to understand the extent of modern augmentation research -- not only what is on the horizon, but what is already here. I also suspect that most researchers (and other "enthusiasts") worth their salt would find it very useful to be able to augment their intelligence to a greater or lesser degree using those methods which are already here, as well as those that seem to be almost upon us.
As to your question about how it will all turn out, honestly, any of the possibilities you mention could happen. Or all of them. Just as the key technologies can't be declared from our standpoint, neither can we conclude how humanity will react to and utilize them.
Another reason I have this site is the belief that whatever decisions humanity ultimately makes about these technologies, our final decisions will be far, far better if we can maximize the number of people who can intelligently contribute to them. This doesn't just mean democracy, but intelligent, informed democracy, with a real emphasis on education and careful experimentation. Not just experimentation in terms of discovery, but in terms of wisely assessing risks as well as opportunities.
So how will it all turn out? Why don't you tell me? =)
Future Imperative
posted by Ralph Cerchione | Sunday, December 04, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home