io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 3:33 PM
Sun Nov 8
11 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/28/09
09/29/09
They have the same basic philosophical underpinnings: that matter is evil and that it is a prison for the mind. Of course, where the Gnostics prayed to God for the spiritual knowledge to release their mind, Transhumanists hope on the knowledge of human beings to develop the right technology.
Where Transhumanists (and Gnostics) have the hard sell is with people who don't think that matter is evil and a prison for the mind. For those people, the question is not how to escape the world but how to integrate with it so that human material and spiritual potential can be realized THROUGH nature rather than AGAINST it. We ourselves are a part of nature, dependent on it, and not detached minds occupying fleshy shells.
From that perspective, Kurzweil's comments make no sense and sound like hubris because he's treating nature like it's something we're at war with. It's also what leads certain fundamentalist Transhumanists in these comments to try and make it an either-or proposition, arguing that you're a hypocrite if you're against Transhumanism but use any kind of technology.
Theirs is a totally different perspective than most of the people here, and that gives me hope. I'm enlivened by the reaction Kurzweil has gotten. Thank you io9! ^_^
09/28/09
That's a non sequitur, Mr. Kurzwell.
Feeding them any kind of food, on a regular basis, would have prevented their blindness and most other diseases undernourished kids in Africa and elsewhere suffer from.
Yes, their blindness *could* have been solved by the introduction of genetically modified rice, but the fact that they weren't fed it, or the opposition to it, is not the reason for their blindness.
Bad reasoning, and *that* is a destructive school of thought.
09/28/09
Believing that we know enough to fundamentally change the natural world without unforeseen consequences is insane, but so is Transhumanism.
09/28/09
So the only hope nature really has is in how far we can distance ourselves from nature, and how much of our rational mind and human spirituality we can embrace.
09/28/09
09/28/09
It's a pretentious luxury to say "we shouldn't tamper with nature. It's hubris". Well if we DON'T purposefully tamper with nature, it will dissolve and we will be left with nothing thanks to all the tampering we've done so far.
09/28/09
Nature does involve suffering, but I don't see how science will cure that--for every bit of suffering it solves, it creates some new kind of suffering. The way to cure suffering lies in human understanding that nature isn't flawed--it's our belief that nature is flawed that leads to suffering.
09/28/09
Everything is flawed, humans, nature, all - for the given value of flawed ofcourse, which is a human concept. It's again in our nature to seek out flaws and deal with them. The world isn't created for our convenience, but we are making our best effort to make it better for us. This isn't a bad thing, whatever the luddites say, as the selfsame efforts have also the potential to increase the welfare of other creatures, or even entire ecosystems, if we allow them to develop far enough. We take much from our planet, but we also have the potential to pay back in kind.
09/28/09
And I think you're painting a fairly rosy picture of the last two hundred years. War has only gotten bloodier and more unpredictable since 1900--the world is in a near constant state of war these days. Poverty has not been reduced, the rich still get richer and the poor still get poorer.
I agree that we have the potential to solve many problems, and I agree that we should try, but if we're going to do that we really do have to try. The sad fact, however, is that most people--especially the people with the power to do something about it--don't care.
Does Kurzweil really believe that the agro-corporations who created these GM crops have any interest in sharing them with poor third world children? No.
What I mean is: technology can solve some problems, sure, but the real problem is how human beings treat each other. That's a social problem, not a technological one.
09/28/09
The Luddites were a group of textile artisans in England who saw the advent of mass production as an immediate and real threat to their economy, lifestyle and traditions. Now we can debate the merits of mass production over and again, but let's never, ever lose sight of a fundamental truth: the Luddites were absolutely, 100% completely RIGHT. Mass production came in and destroyed their way of life.
09/28/09
The history may well repeat itself - some will always consider a short term loss a huge deal, no matter how great the payback. I'm only glad that they can't stop the process.
09/28/09
And yes, the GM crops exist to battle hunger in the third world. Why? Because to the corporations it's better that the countries they work in are stable, happy, and produce good, healthy workforce, as well as consumers who will spend their paychecks on luxuries rather than cheap bare essential. The rip-off companies are a temporary phenomenon, like they were in the 19th century Europe - the horrible work conditions in Manchester got the British Parliament to make laws about workers' rights that were never seen before. Today similar process is going on in China, governed by the market forces.
And also, technology can help us treat each other better. It's through technology that we can communicate with each other instead of relying on hearsay about what awful bastards live across the ocean. This brings us closer to each other than the populations of the world have ever been, and even in the poorest parts of the world the communication technology is steadily spreading - there are illiterate farmers and fishermen out there who communicate with their buyers by cellphone.
In short, technology expands our possibilities. The more technology we have at our disposal, the more possibilities we have in our hands. This includes bad possibilities ofcourse, as well as good ones, but history so far has thought us that the good outweights the bad by vast amounts, even though we keep remembering the bad well, and taking the good for granted. Technology grants us possibility to expand the human condition to new spheres, to increase our understanding of this world, and at the same time allow us care more about it, and each other, as you always care more about things that you know personally.
09/28/09
I disagree with almost everything you're saying. You're talking quite a lot about potential, and ignoring the reality--or so it appears to me, and to many others.
You're entitled to your view, but you're not convincing me to change mine.
09/28/09
09/29/09
I can only consider it ironic that you're dependent on what you oppose, and would become unable to continue your existence without it.
09/29/09
What Anekanta said is that technology is a mixed bag of good and bad. There are always tradeoffs that can introduce new problems. Because it is so, we have to seriously look not only at technology, but the people who will use it. You cannot separate its use from issues of economics, politics, morality and the value of the environment.
That being so, the solutions Kurzweil provides aren't really solutions because the problems are already resolvable if the will was there to do it. Without the will, the new technology won't help anyways and still leaves lingering questions in other areas of corporate oligarchy and environmental costs.
Jeez man, get it right. Trying to make it out that everyone is either with you or with the terrorists just makes you look ridiculous.
09/29/09
And the problems that Kurzweil points out continue to exist because of the lack of will as you say - lack of will caused by the fact that fixing the problems will lead to great economic losses with no short term gains. Unfortunately this is caused by the basic human nature, which sympathises with those close to ourselves, yet is indifferent of those distant of us. And as I've been pointing out, here exactly technology can help us. It brings distant people together, and allows greater payoffs with fewer losses or compromises. Genetically modified crops can solve the food crisis in developing countries without compromising profit making in the developed ones. That's something no conventional method has been able to do. Furthermore, it increases the possibilities for self-sufficiency in food production.
I am personally quite peeved at the opposition of genetic modification on the grounds that it's wrong or "unnatural". The few legitimate concerns can be dealt with by taking them into account in the design process, and by having a functional system of monitoring available. They have the potential to save both human lives and the environment - against benefits like that I consider emotionally based opposition highly distatesful.
09/29/09
09/30/09
A case of point - Anekanta argues that new technology isn't needed to improve human conditions in the developing countries. True to a point, but it requires lowering the quality of life in developed countries, since at the current technology level the planet cannot support equal standard of living for everyone, yet I consider everyone to deserve to live comfortably, and I think that the conditions of living can be improved even further by upgrading the very human body, itself. To make that come true, technology needs to advance.
You can't put a line to technology's advancement - by doing that you only ensure that it will be first utilized by the most unscrupulous people on the planet who don't care about regulations. In order to ensure that new technology will be used for best possible purposes, it needs to be openly and freely developed with minimal secrecy. By drawing a line to what is or isn't allowed to be researched you will make certain that the development will be done in secret, and much more likely funded by those who don't care about the general human condition.
09/28/09
09/28/09
But in truth, Nature is a process. A process which gave rise to us. We have survived because our faculties enabled us to change our environment. To use tools and dress up. Our faculty is a natural thing, and we've used it. Now that same faculty has to be restrained, and turned back towards providing a sustainable balance in the world.
And in truth, nothing is either good or bad. But without humanity, nature would have no genuine value. No one would exist to give it value.
09/28/09
We can be more than a footnote in this planet's history, if we want to be. Too bad that that's exactly what so many small minds want, in fear of a wider perspective.
09/28/09
This is the first time I've seen anyone coming close to accusing religions of not having ENOUGH rules.
All that stuff that Jesus taught, for example, was about how to become more than we are. It's just that His idea of being more meant being better people, not just building better machines. His, as well as Buddha's and Ghandi's and Rumi's and so on, is a MUCH wider perspective than Kurzweil's narrow technophilia.
09/28/09
I wonder how many of those critics are huge fans of Joss Whedon's ridiculously implausible and inaccurate Firefly?
The whole point of science fiction is to speculate about the Future.
09/28/09
I think the reason that what Kurtzweil does seems so offensive to us is for a couple of reasons. a) it's extremely presumptuous: this kind of presupposing that we will be "here" in X number of years, GUARANTEED leaves no room for question, no room for interpretation. It's him posing himself as a prophet with a vision of the future. A vision which I find absolutely untenable. I mean... 30 years to download a BRAIN? That's just inane. It's just really silly, really stupid speculation. 20 years for working bloodstream nanobots? Based on what?
and b) his philosophy, and that of a lot of futurists, seems to treat people like objects in a giant technical system. This is much the same reason why Marxism, though an invaluable tool of literary and cultural criticism, when thought of as a system of government is ridiculous and shockingly offensive.
09/28/09
09/28/09
And if Science Fiction imparts that kind of skeptical spirit in its fans, then that is awesome.
09/28/09
Well said. I'd also add hammering Moore's law until it transformed from a business practice/engineering rule to a societal paradigm/futurist insurance.
Is there a technology equiv for biologism?
09/28/09
09/28/09
We are part of nature and we have always manipulated nature. Farms, Pets, cross-breeding fruit.
Nature should be studied, admired, and understood. But not treated like a perfect enity that will always look after us.
We have already taken the reigns of this planet, and we should use our scientific knowledge and systems of deduction to make this world as good as possible for as many as possible.
There is always a slight danger in everything we do, but to let that fear result in far worth in-action at best, or badly thought out alternatives at worse, is shear stupidity.
Genetic Engineering has its downsides yes.
But it hasnt come remotely close to the devestation we know has been caused by pesticide overuse, and the even bigger devestation caused by introduceing forign species into an area.....and yet these are happily proposed and used as alternatives.
09/28/09
That's cause we're special...
Short bus kind of special.
09/28/09
And who is paying for all this wonderful technology? With a few exceptions, the corporations who invent this stuff are hardly giving it away to 3rd world countries. They mostly use it as a way to enslave people. Monsanto loves to tout the nutritional benefits of Monsanto soy beans. What they don't mention is that farmers who buy Monsanto soy bean seeds are contractually obligated to keep buying their seeds from Monsanto. They aren't allowed to save left over seeds or give them to their neighbors. If they do and Monsanto finds out about it, they destroy that farmers crops and make him buy new seeds. So the objection to the GM rice Kurzwell brings up was probably less to do with the fact that it was GM rice and more to do with the business practices of whatever company created and was selling the rice.
09/28/09
09/28/09
Not only we have the power to change nature but we have the obligation to do it.
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
Even Simpler Kurz: It's not me, it's you.
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
Everyone knew that Technology was a whore.
09/28/09
09/28/09
From what I hear, Religion's wanted Technology to do those things cause it's a pretty sick fuck at times. You do not want to know what it's into. Sick twisted stuff. Beyond butt stuff.
09/28/09
And somewhere a Scientologist's head is exploding.
09/28/09
And thirty minutes later in the movie, you end up with a zombie plague.
09/28/09
bingo! (with some super-complex and deeply semantic caveats) but essentially, bingo!
09/28/09
Children in Africa are in danger of going blind because of malnutrition, most likely and prominently, vitamin A. The potential blindness is a function of the lack of the nutrient, not the lack of some laboratory manipulated agri-business product.
Now, if one had spent the probable many millions and possibly billions that were spent on genetically engineering super-duper-fraken-rice, and just gotten the kids in Africa (for a comparitive pittance), some good cod-liver oil, or some respectable organic, non-GMO, carrots. Well, nature would actually seem to be able to handle that "problem" quite ably.
It is not nature that is "broken", it seemed to have provided Mr. Kurzwiel's parent's with an extrememly intelligent, if somewhat megalomanical child. Note nature acheived this feat by, presumably, "common" and "flawed" methods.
Don't get me wrong, I am no Luddite, I mean, after all, I too, "come from the future". I have read, probably, Mr. Kurzweil's most popular book, "The Age of Spiritual Machines", in which he makes a lot of cogent and very plausible arguments for the positive impact of science and technology in our lives. It's sort of rife with hyperbole, but hey, I like hyperbole.
But let's not let the blinding light of science nor it's brightest stars, lead us down some primrose path where science auto-magically manifests golden apples and flying cars for us all. I mean who better than io9 readers to see the "what could possibly go wrong?" nuances of this kind of "science is omnicient and omnipotent " point of view.
Again, nature is not broken, but the relationship between nature and human beings is merely profoundly misapprehended by...human beings.
promet
"Give a monkey a brain and he'll swear he's the center of the universe."
-Fishbone
09/28/09
09/28/09
Youd have a one-off solution. Not a perminate one.
You need them to be able to grow stuff easily, not to keep shipping supliments over.
That said, I dought theres much GM investment for their benefit anyway.
Its all about getting the biggest yields for the west; they are a side-benefit.
09/28/09
Yeah I gotcha, I am only posing that as a direct refutation of Kurzweil's "Blind African Kids" argument, not as an actual solution. Though, I am also confident that a locally sourced solution wouldn't be especially difficult, given the sorts of capital we're talking about.
I mean, Kurzweil's Super-Rice seed would have to be brought in right? The only difference being, that the farmers wouldn't have to be under the yoke of Monsato, ADM et al.
09/28/09
The trick is to learn how to improve your own lot without harming the biosphere so much that it costs you in the long run. Very difficult to get away from entropy.
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
For choices like making more food, or helping more people live better lives, there shouldn't be too much argument. The problem is that we don't always have the full picture. When we're dealing with modifying genetics, or using artificial chemicals, there are side effects we cannot, do not foresee. That's the reason for the fear when it comes to "unnatural" technological advancements.
Obviously, this doesn't mean we have to go back to cave-dwelling, but having some caution when replacing natural products and processes with man-made tech isn't necessarily an overreaction. And with companies, countries, and individuals who are uninterested in long term effects because they aren't directly affected or won't be in their lifetimes, technology can be fairly easily abused.
09/28/09
If -is- fundamentalist naturalist opinion that remains, because GM food is the most tested stuff we have ever eaten.
Not millions of years of testing, no. But moreso then typical medicines and cosmetics we use happly.
The genetic changes to fruit are often absolutely tiny compared with natural mutations and cross-breeding anyway; which dont have testing.
No, the problem is people dont trust science.
09/28/09
Theres -always- unforeseen possibility's.
Introducing species to deal with pests has been historically disastrous on many occasions.
Its not that we shouldnt take care in everything we do. We absolutely should.
Its the idea that "natural is better/safer" is a wrong one.
09/28/09
Am I the only one who would do this? I sense there are a lot of risks (infinite insanity) but I'm reasonably certain I would do so.
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
We already live with this 'debate' every day. If all the cells in your body die and are replaced... did the old self 'die'?
09/28/09
I don't. But if the teleporter is the functional equivalent of "make a copy on the receiving end and drop the original into a vat of acid and gnashing metal teeth on the transmitting end" I'm still not getting into one. Sorry.
Step into the vat. There's a perfect fidelity duplicate on the receiving end. Really. Trust me.
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/29/09
09/29/09