<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Marcus -<o:p></o:p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:82A2DA3E-DF93-43A3-A10C-BE539385E451@snoutfarm.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p>< I personally expect *practical* post/transhumanism to
continue inevitably at an accelerated rate and see no
advantage in trying to stand in it's way, but DO feel an
ethical drive to try to at least caution against the kinds of
technological-outrunning-of-headlights I believe already lead
us to things like Dustbowl, Wildfire, Infestation, and
Inundation disasters, and pointedly Anthropogenic Climate
Change (which contributes to all of the above) and
multigenerational Refugee Crises. ><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>We need better headlights: Individuals that are better able
to ingest and synthesize information and to look after
themselves as well as whatever group that remains after the
next set of catastrophes that are surely coming. Plainly,
the scientific consensus is a big joke, e.g. the Paris
Agreement. The future is private research for private
interests. Get with it!</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>We need better headlights. <br>
</p>
<p>We can turn up the brightness and narrow the focus to maximize
flux, but for many problems, that is not unlike hitting our high
beams in a snowstorm or fogbank. One of the things I hope
(mostly in vain, but not entirely) for from this list is
discussion of how to apply Complex Systems Theory to predicting
something more interesting/relevant to the human tragicomedy being
played out right. <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas%E2%80%93Kanade_method"><br>
</a></p>
<p>The second component seems to reflect your bias against
collective agency which may merely be in opposition to my own
emphasis *for* collective agency. Would you say that you have
more confidence or faith in enhancing individual agency than in
seeking the synergies and emergent possibilities through enhancing
collective agency? <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:82A2DA3E-DF93-43A3-A10C-BE539385E451@snoutfarm.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>< As an (apparent) proponent of fairly aggressive
trans-humanism, can you elaborate on what you see as the
biggest promises/cautions to the ideas involved? Do you see
my "caution" as wrong headed, or just irrelevant (in
practice)? ><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I just see your caution as irrelevant. People of means that
see sufficient promise will go wherever they need to do
perform the procedures that interest them, whether it is for
engineering their kids to be smart and attractive or for
high-risk disease intervention or enhancement for themselves.
There’s even an established market and television programs
about it – all the people that go to plastic surgeons!
Sooner or later word will get out about the successes and
failures. <br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>My Molecular Biologist daughter had a business plan for "designer
bacteriaphages" which she estimated would take about 2 weeks to
turnaround.... a wealthy (or important?) enough person could have
these being developed continuously in the background for the more
threatening components of their microbiota, to be prepared for the
unlikely but still possible chance that one of them might turn out
to be "one of the many" or "Yet another" of the constantly
mutating/emerging antibiotic resistant bacteria. As she
described it, these designer bacteriophages would be slam-dunks
for knocking down such an infection compared to any other
alternative. For Elon Musk, Warren Buffet, the Trumps, the Gates,
etc. it would be a "tiny" (by expense) prophylactic measure whose
biggest downside would be that whomever was collecting,
identifying, and sequencing samples would know a LOT about the
makeup of the subjects entire biota... a new level of "invasion of
privacy"? She shelved it because such a business model did not
align well with any of her personal values or goals *except*
having the financial freedom to do other things with her life.<br>
</p>
<p>So yes, there are no end of "Gray Goo" and "Nuclear Holocaust"
and "Singularity" Attractors on our fore horizon... and my
Pollyanna ideas about "refusing to participate" (like my daughter)
only slows it down by precisely less than one iota, and given my
competence in some things, deferring may actually speed it up if
anything!<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:82A2DA3E-DF93-43A3-A10C-BE539385E451@snoutfarm.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p> And with one more term of Trump, there just will be no
more `us’, and no meaningful concept of regulation for the
greater good.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Transhumanism is a quaint term that suggests a collective
that is improving. It won’t be the collective, it will be a
select few.
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>So I *think* I'm parsing (all) this as cynicism and pessimism,
with maybe a dose of morbid fascination, not a moral judgement
that in some way "it should be the select few"? <br>
</p>
<p>I believe we may well be about to go through a choke-point in
human diversity (genetic or cultural) as severe as the one which
gives us all the common "Mitochondrial Eve" ancestral great^n
grandmother from (was it 50k years ago on the east coast of South
Africa?) but with the difference that the likely survivors will
the those who control the highest (or most relevant of the fairly
high) tech around genetic manipulation on top of control of more
mundane resources (energy, exotic metals, technology, etc.)</p>
<p>Will this coincide with some kind of Kurzweilian/Broderick/Vinge
Singularity? I don't know. <br>
</p>
<p>I'll bet THIS message from the future drives you totally bonkers:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://theintercept.com/2019/04/17/green-new-deal-short-film-alexandria-ocasio-cortez/">https://theintercept.com/2019/04/17/green-new-deal-short-film-alexandria-ocasio-cortez/</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>- Steve<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
</body>
</html>