Transumanar

In defense of Superlative Technodevelopmental Formulations

In his comments to my Defense of Superlativity, Dale Carrico politely describes my ideas as “idiocy”. To make his point, he has produced a masterpiece of nonsensical hair-splitting at the grandest level, in the spirit of the best ideologically motivated demonstrations that 2+2=5. Some people have really elevated mental masturbation to a very creative art form.

Dale is perplexed because he would expect a “Defense of Superlativity” against his critique to make some effort to address at least one of the five charges mentioned below, and it does not seem to him that I made much of an effort to do so.

But wait a minute. I am making just one point, and a very simple one: that “superlative technologies” like immortality and mind uploading are compatible with our current scientific understanding of reality and, someday, may be developed as practical engineering options. Dale has said many times that he refuses to engage “Superlative Technocentrics” in debates on the actual, scientific and engineering aspects of superlative technologies. He only wants to discuss on his nebulous terms, about “(sub)cultural identity politics” (?), “elitist, alarmist, escapist, reductionist attitudes and rhetoric that are especially well suited to incumbent interests and anti-democratic politics” (???) and this kind of things. If he refuses to talk in my language, why the hell should I want to talk in his language?

OK Dale let’s see your points. What you have called Superlative Technodevelopmental Formulations seem to you:

One: To be hyperbolically unrealistic and sensationalist in ways that derange urgently necessary public deliberation about technoscience issues.

Well, first prove “unrealistic” instead of assuming it. Many people who know much more science and engineering than you would not agree. Second, your “Superlative Technodevelopmental Formulations” are not very much related to urgently necessary public deliberation about technoscience issues, so I still don’t see how one can derange the other. We are still far from public deliberation about civil rights for uploads, and the prospect of mind uploading has _nothing_ to do with today’s health care policy. So, I don’t see your point. If your point is that Superlative R&D can divert public research funding that should be used for more urgent things, my reply is that I do not see much evidence that a significant amount of funding is being diverted, and that one of the strength of the public research system is that it allocates moderate resources also to basic research without immediate applications. If your point is that I should follow your priorities instead of mine, then there is not much to discuss.

Two: To exacerbate irrational fears and fantasies about agency typically activated in any case by discussions of technology.

These are _your_ fears and fantasies. Technology is whatever was invented after you are born. Remember what luddites said about communication technologies in the 70s and 80s? “Dehumanizing” and all that? The younger generations have cheerfully embraced the Internet, cell phones, SMS, P2P networks and Facebook without thinking twice. Future generations will also, I think, embrace brain implants, memory transfer and indefinite lifespans without thinking twice.

Three: To lend themselves to faith-based social forms and identity-based political models that are psychologically harmful and dangerously anti-democratizing.

You can say that of everything. Should we discuss the cult-of-personality, charismatic leadership, intolerance of dissent, thought policing and internal purges sooo typical of socialist parties? Yes my friend, socialist parties have had all that and worse. Should we then dismiss socialism as psychologically harmful and dangerously anti-democratizing? Up to you.

Four: To facilitate elitist, alarmist, escapist, reductionist attitudes and rhetoric that are especially well suited to incumbent interests and anti-democratic politics, whatever the professed politics of those who advocate them.

If you mean that Superlative Technologies are Bad because they will be developed and used by military-industrial interests, wait a minute. I had formed the impression that you thought of Superlative Technologies as nonsensical and impossible delusions of sci-fi geeks or Robot God cultists. Industry and the military complex would hardly invest money and resources on impossible dreams, would they. Then Superlative Technologies are not so impossible after all? Interesting. No, I see that I was making a wrong assumption - you never discuss concrete things but “reductionist attitudes and rhetoric”. So your point is just that our Superlative Technodevelopmental Formulations are “well suited” to incumbent interests. Well. So what? Democracy is also _very_ well suited to them, since they can often buy enough votes to win. Should we throw democracy away because it (like everything else) is a double edged weapon that can be used also by the bad guys? I don’t think so.

Five: To represent in their extremity a clarifying and symptomatic expression of the basic irrationality and authoritarianism of prevailing discourses of “Global Development” and “Technoscientific Progress” in an era of neoliberal and neoconservative politics.

Similar comment as above. That neoliberals and neoconservatives like ice cream does not mean that I cannot like ice cream, it just means that ice cream is good for both. “Global Development” and “Technoscientific Progress” are _good_ things, even if also neoliberals and neoconservatives say so.

Posted by G.P. on 11/29 at 11:42 AM
English • Views • (28) Comments • Permalink • Print