Transumanar

Anti transhumanist thought cops

In the last couple of weeks I have been participating in a discussion on Dale Carrico’s blog Amor Mundi, one of my favorite blogs. The discussion was of course about one of Dale’s favorite themes: what he describes as “Superlative Technology Discourses (and the Sub(cult)ural Futurisms to which they are regularly connected)”. Dale is really a master writer, and reading his writings is always a pleasure even when one does not agree (as it is my case). Besides “Superlative Technology”, Dale also talks of a “Robot God” worshiped by transhumanists, extropians, singularitarians, etc. Dale maintains a collection of links to his writings on this subject in his Superlative Summary. Michael Anissimov’s blog has a critique of Dale’s critique with many interesting comments at The Singularity Debate.

One of the clearest descriptions of Dale’s Superlative critique that I have seen, posted by another participant, is “I do think that those who have come to believe that their enthusiasm for the pseudo-scientific tropes of science-fiction constitute serious political and social initiatives are, at best, a priority distraction, and, at worse, a credibility danger to socially and politically progressive movements”.

Even as one full of enthusiasm for “the pseudo-scientific tropes of science-fiction”, which I would rather call “imaginative scientific and social speculations inspired by science-fiction literature”, I understand that this is a valid point (from their point of view). We transhumanists do spend part of our time in imaginative scientific and social speculations instead of dedicating it to whatever priorities they would like us to have, and it is certainly a fact that some PC ultra-rationalist and narrow-minded “serious people” can be scared of being associated with people who take immortality and uploading seriously.

If I did not care about “serious political and social initiatives, socially and politically progressive movements”, I would dismiss this argument by saying something like “Feel free to act according to your priorities, and I will feel free to act according to mine, thank you very much, and I don’t give a fuck about your credibility”. Since I do care about these things (that is why I read Dale’s blog), I hope we will find some way to ensure compatibility between transhumanism and politically progressive politics, but I am NOT going to give up ideas that are important to me because Dale says so.

Some excerpts from my own post to clarify my point of view:

Dale: The criticisms I seem to be getting are largely from people who would either deny the relevance of my own political, social, and cultural emphasis altogether (a denial that likely marks them as unserious as far as I’m concerned) or who disapprove of my political commitment to democracy, my social commitment to commons, and my cultural commitment to planetary multiculture (a disapproval that likely marks them as reactionaries as far as I’m concerned).
Me: Not my case, as I do not deny the relevance of your own political, social, and cultural emphasis, and approve of your political commitment to democracy, your social commitment to commons, and your cultural commitment to planetary multiculture.
I criticize your intolerance for those who, while basically agreeing with you on the points above, have ideas different from yours on other, unrelated things, and affirm their right to think with their own head.
Because, my friend, you will never persuade me that one who finds intellectual or spiritual pleasure in contemplating nanosanta-robot god-superlative technology-etc. cannot be a worthy political, social and cultural activists.
I can believe in Santa Claus and Eastern Bunny if I like, and still agree with you on political issues. Unless, of course, you persuade me that the two things are really incompatible. I will gladly take the Robot God and Easter Bunny then.

Dale: f you pretend your religious ritual makes you a policy wonk expect me to call bullshit; if you demand that people mistake your aesthetic preferences and preoccupations for scientific truths expect me to call bullshit; if you go from pleasure in to proselytizing for your cultural and subcultural enthusiasms expect me to call bullshit; if you seek legitimacy for authoritarian circumventions of democracy in a marginal defensive hierarchical sub(cult)ural organization or as a way to address risks you think your cronies see more clearly than the other people in the world who share those risks and would be impacted by your decisions, all in the name of “tolerance,” expect me to call bullshit.
Me: I believe I have said ad nauseam that I do not do or support any of the things mentioned besides “proselytizing for my cultural and subcultural enthusiasms”, which I think is perfectly normal. So, you should not call bullshit. Except that, of course, you will call it anyway.
And of course you are completely free to call bullshit when you want. Provided, that is, that you are not too surprised when others call bullshit on you.
But here I don’t find anything that deserves a grandiose label such as bullshit. What I see is chickenshit - the petty arrogance of narrow minded, politically correct memetic bureaucrats. For one who calls himself “a champion of multiculture, experimentalism, and visionary imagination”, you don’t seem willing to accept that points of view different from yours can be also valid.
I will go read some blogs on Robot Gods and Superlative Technologies, full of naive enthusiasm for technologies that probably won’t be developed so soon or so smoothly as we wish, but inspired by some basic mental sanity.
Singularity! Immortality! Mind Uploading! Superlative Technologies! Here is to the Robot God!!
One thing we certainly agree upon: this “is starting to look like the kind of conceptual impasse no amount of argument can circumvent between us”.

Dale: I have such trouble playing this discursive game with Sub(cult)ural Futurists is that we seem to be playing on two separate boards altogether and I don’t think they have quite grasped this yet.
Me: Yes, we are playing on two different boards.
I wish to play on a concrete board, and focus on concrete things. You and I happen to agree on many concrete programmatic points. I am telling you, forget that we disagree on other things, forget that I am a God Robot Cultist who engages in Superlative Technology Discourse and believes that the Eschaton will upload him to a Techno-Heaven, and let’s join forces to achieve the common objectives.
According to my perception, that may of course being completely mistaken, you are playing on an abstract board and focusing on abstract issues characterized by endless questioning of others’ hidden motivations and “identity”. As I see things, I am focused on outcomes, and you are focused on identity (from a critical perspective of course, but focused on identity anyway). I think different identities should not matter much as long as there is agreement on outcomes.

Then I was, of course, attacked for having written things like “future magic will resurrect the dead!” I replied the following:

I do say things like “future magic will resurrect the dead!” on occasions, based on the writings of many thinkers including Tipler.
But such statements are to be interpreted exactly in the same spirit as the “we will win the match” that football players say to each other before a match, or the “we will win the elections” that political activists say to each other before elections.
These are not statements of fact, but rather expressions of hope and declarations of intent.
“We will win the elections” mean: “we hope to win the elections, AND we will do our fucking best to actually win the elections”.
Since these are linguistic conventions that we all use in everyday language, everyone would understand these sentences as above.
If that makes you happier: I do not BELIEVE that future magic will resurrect the dead (do you relly think I am that stupid?). I HOPE that future magic will resurrect the dead, and I INTEND to do my best to contribute.

Which is, I think, a polite and almost conciliatory reply where I did my best to make a point without insulting anyone. But I was not surprised, I am afraid to say, to receive a very rude and offensive reply from a “gentleman” that I will indicate as “an aggressive and intolerant thought-cop”. To react to this completely unnecessary attack, I could either say something like for example FUCK OFF, or withdraw from the discussion, which is what I did.

I will not stop reading Dale’s blog. I think he is a very smart person and has a certain intellectual finesse that makes me enjoy his writings, even when he does his best to be blunt and offensive. But unfortunately his blog is becoming the refuge of embittered and self-righteous bigots who, without having his rhetorical and intellectual skills, use it as an outlet for their anti-transhumanist hate pieces and, of course, insult those who dissent. So, I will continue to read Dale’s essays but stop wasting my time discussing with his cohorts. I think the best we can do is ignoring them.

Besides insulting people who may contribute to an interesting debate, and perhaps even concede some points, if shown some respect, Dale’s cohorts have a few other annoying habits. One is to claim, through some superior understanding of psychology or whatever, that they know better than you what is going on in your mind. A bit paternalistic and elitist if you ask me, coming from people who claim to be champions of diversity. But their most annoying habit is to leave their territory of abstract adademic hair-splitting and venturing in the territory of science and engineering, where they are completely clueless.

They try to “ridicule” the point of view of those of us who consider immortality and uploading as concrete engineering possibilities. They don’t say reasonable things like “these are terribly complex engineering problems and I don’t think we are even remotely close to a solution” (I would agree with this of course). No, they claim that things like immortality and uploading are impossible to achieve in practice. Wake up to modern science and engineering: immortality and uploading are not metaphysical problems, they are engineering problems. Our bodies, brains and minds are physical things, which behave according to the laws of nature, and can be reverse-engineered, copied/pasted and improved once we develop the scientific understanding and the engineering capability to do so. Some people do not accept this simple engineering approach because, I think, perhaps they have not been able to shed their religious upbringing: they have still some hidden “reverence for nature”, “respect for our limits”, and belief that there must be things forever closed to science.

Posted by G.P. on 11/01 at 07:56 AM
English • Views • (2) Comments • Permalink • Print