I just got a review copy of what appears to be an interesting new book. I suspect I’ll disagree with a lot of it.
12 thoughts on “The Eclipse Of Man”
From the Amazon blurb:
In Eclipse of Man, Charles T. Rubin traces the intellectual origins of the movement to perfect and replace the human race. He shows how today’s advocates of radical enhancement are—like their forebears—deeply dissatisfied with given human nature and fixated on grand visions of a future shaped by technological progress.
Moreover, Rubin argues that this myopic vision of the future is not confined to charlatans and cheerleaders promoting this or that technology: it also runs through much of modern science and contemporary progressivism. By exploring and criticizing the dreams of post humanity, Rubin defends a more modest vision of the future, one that takes seriously both the limitations and the inherent dignity of our given nature.
Well, who should be satisfied with human nature, particularly, the nasty and painful limitations of our bodies and minds? There’s this peculiar cognitive dissonance of selective personal achievement: try to be the best you can be, but only as long as you don’t use unapproved technologies in the process (where “unapproved” seems to be anything that makes the belief holder squeamish).
They have been saying that since the invention of the atlatl.
“…the movement to perfect and replace the human race…”
That’s a very interesting bit of syntax there. I know I’m kind of stupid (not being an Obamarrhoid) but to me it sure looks like the end resulting of abolishing all the flaws inherent in humanity is a certainty of still finding it wanting and abolishing the species itself in favor of something else.
I’ll keep my flaws, thanks, if it means I remain irreplaceable.
I postulate that every successful species persues self interest in some way. “Progressive” views of “perfecting” humanity all seem to involve doing away with the self interest instinct. Ergo, the “progressive” “perfected” man is unfit as a species. The uniform disaster wherever “progressive” policies prevail backs this conclusion.
“Progressive” views of “perfecting” humanity all seem to involve doing away with the self interest instinct. Ergo, the “progressive” “perfected” man is unfit as a species.
But this being would be perfect as a host for a parasite.
It depends on who gets to decide which aspects of myself I can change and how. That’s not a technology issue though, that’s just another iteration of the self-ownership vs. slavery issue.
If anyone else is allowed to go monkeying around with your mind and nature, then, unless they have some ethical principles, *of course* they are going to try to do away with your own drives and self interest and substitute their own interests.
—–
Some of this singularity stuff strikes me as a bit wildly speculative and premature. On the other hand, if any of it were developed and I could do away with something bugging me and holding me back (say, increase my impulse control so I can get a grip on bad habits, improve my memory, reduce the number of hours I need to sleep, etc), I’d do it in a heartbeat.
PS: I haven’t read the book.
There are aspects of the singularity movement that creep me out too. I’d personally like a future where we have extremely powerful tools that we all have access to to solve our problems and help ourselves: If that means we end up a little nonhuman, for certain narrow definitions of humanity, that isn’t a problem. It seems to me that some in the singularity movement are more about summoning robot Cthulhu before anyone else does so that they can decide the shape of the future before anyone bad/incompetent does.
“Y’all got on this boat for different reasons, but y’all come to the same place. So now I’m asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this – they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people… better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin’. I aim to misbehave.”
– Captain Malcolm Reynolds
What could possibly go wrong.
Originally, I took this book to be discussing ways to improve oneself. When it comes to ways to “improve” others in ways that we wouldn’t be foolish enough to do to ourselves, then we get into nasty conflicts of interest. That’s a far different game and one I should have anticipated.
I guess there’s three areas of concern. I modify myself. This is by far the most innocuous approach since any consequences affect me first. While it is possible to harm others (perhaps I go insane or generate huge medical costs for my publicly provided health care), the real consequences are likely to affect me alone.
Second is the “let’s fix everyone else” idea. This is the ugliest of the concerns since there is no limit to what harm can be inflicted when it’s all on someone else. Who knows what would have happened, if the communists or other improvers of humanity had access to the tools to make people into permanent, willing slaves? I bet though that their societies would have taken longer to fall apart and fallen much further. There probably would be a lot more human suffering too than the massive amount that was endured.
Third is the competition aspect. If one has to be “improved” in order to get certain kinds of work, then that may result in an arms race of improvements. It need not result a bad outcome, but I can see how that could get well out of hand.
Someone recently claimed to have discovered a “progressive” pattern controlling human evolution, which would lead humanity to the advent of a “perfect” society and usher in the final stage of human evolution were finally accomplished.
Who said this? Karl Marx, the original “Transhumanist”.
Oh and if anyone thinks our new robot (or cyborg) overlords are about to take over and establish a matrioshka brain, I suggest you pull back the curtain from the “cloud” or the “web” and look at all the bailing wire, chewing gum and squirrels that really make up that environment.
“futurists and activists tell us that we are drawing ever closer to a day when we will be as smart as computers”
As dumb as a ton of bricks then. Computers are as dumb as dumb can be without programmers. What does this guy wanna do transform everyone into tools?
“will be able to link our minds telepathically”
God no. Enough issues with Facebook as it is. I do not need for everyone to know when I am going to the toilet and the mere concept of a hive mind is abhorrent to me. It discards the individual strength of Man and abolishes both privacy and the inner sanctity of one’s mind.
“live for centuries—or maybe forever”
Overrated. I fear in this path will lie societal stagnation. I have nothing against life extension to a degree but living forever? Why? I also suspect if we ever find a really awesome way of life extension it won’t be possible to retrofit it to the ones already living.
I have no interest in becoming a Borg, or a Cyberman either. That way lies totalitarianism at its worst. The hive mind is slavery, nothing less. If I have to “upgrade” or fall behind, I’ll fall behind, thanks.
From the Amazon blurb:
Well, who should be satisfied with human nature, particularly, the nasty and painful limitations of our bodies and minds? There’s this peculiar cognitive dissonance of selective personal achievement: try to be the best you can be, but only as long as you don’t use unapproved technologies in the process (where “unapproved” seems to be anything that makes the belief holder squeamish).
They have been saying that since the invention of the atlatl.
That’s a very interesting bit of syntax there. I know I’m kind of stupid (not being an Obamarrhoid) but to me it sure looks like the end resulting of abolishing all the flaws inherent in humanity is a certainty of still finding it wanting and abolishing the species itself in favor of something else.
I’ll keep my flaws, thanks, if it means I remain irreplaceable.
I postulate that every successful species persues self interest in some way. “Progressive” views of “perfecting” humanity all seem to involve doing away with the self interest instinct. Ergo, the “progressive” “perfected” man is unfit as a species. The uniform disaster wherever “progressive” policies prevail backs this conclusion.
“Progressive” views of “perfecting” humanity all seem to involve doing away with the self interest instinct. Ergo, the “progressive” “perfected” man is unfit as a species.
But this being would be perfect as a host for a parasite.
It depends on who gets to decide which aspects of myself I can change and how. That’s not a technology issue though, that’s just another iteration of the self-ownership vs. slavery issue.
If anyone else is allowed to go monkeying around with your mind and nature, then, unless they have some ethical principles, *of course* they are going to try to do away with your own drives and self interest and substitute their own interests.
—–
Some of this singularity stuff strikes me as a bit wildly speculative and premature. On the other hand, if any of it were developed and I could do away with something bugging me and holding me back (say, increase my impulse control so I can get a grip on bad habits, improve my memory, reduce the number of hours I need to sleep, etc), I’d do it in a heartbeat.
PS: I haven’t read the book.
There are aspects of the singularity movement that creep me out too. I’d personally like a future where we have extremely powerful tools that we all have access to to solve our problems and help ourselves: If that means we end up a little nonhuman, for certain narrow definitions of humanity, that isn’t a problem. It seems to me that some in the singularity movement are more about summoning robot Cthulhu before anyone else does so that they can decide the shape of the future before anyone bad/incompetent does.
“Y’all got on this boat for different reasons, but y’all come to the same place. So now I’m asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this – they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people… better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin’. I aim to misbehave.”
– Captain Malcolm Reynolds
What could possibly go wrong.
Originally, I took this book to be discussing ways to improve oneself. When it comes to ways to “improve” others in ways that we wouldn’t be foolish enough to do to ourselves, then we get into nasty conflicts of interest. That’s a far different game and one I should have anticipated.
I guess there’s three areas of concern. I modify myself. This is by far the most innocuous approach since any consequences affect me first. While it is possible to harm others (perhaps I go insane or generate huge medical costs for my publicly provided health care), the real consequences are likely to affect me alone.
Second is the “let’s fix everyone else” idea. This is the ugliest of the concerns since there is no limit to what harm can be inflicted when it’s all on someone else. Who knows what would have happened, if the communists or other improvers of humanity had access to the tools to make people into permanent, willing slaves? I bet though that their societies would have taken longer to fall apart and fallen much further. There probably would be a lot more human suffering too than the massive amount that was endured.
Third is the competition aspect. If one has to be “improved” in order to get certain kinds of work, then that may result in an arms race of improvements. It need not result a bad outcome, but I can see how that could get well out of hand.
Someone recently claimed to have discovered a “progressive” pattern controlling human evolution, which would lead humanity to the advent of a “perfect” society and usher in the final stage of human evolution were finally accomplished.
Who said this? Karl Marx, the original “Transhumanist”.
Oh and if anyone thinks our new robot (or cyborg) overlords are about to take over and establish a matrioshka brain, I suggest you pull back the curtain from the “cloud” or the “web” and look at all the bailing wire, chewing gum and squirrels that really make up that environment.
“futurists and activists tell us that we are drawing ever closer to a day when we will be as smart as computers”
As dumb as a ton of bricks then. Computers are as dumb as dumb can be without programmers. What does this guy wanna do transform everyone into tools?
“will be able to link our minds telepathically”
God no. Enough issues with Facebook as it is. I do not need for everyone to know when I am going to the toilet and the mere concept of a hive mind is abhorrent to me. It discards the individual strength of Man and abolishes both privacy and the inner sanctity of one’s mind.
“live for centuries—or maybe forever”
Overrated. I fear in this path will lie societal stagnation. I have nothing against life extension to a degree but living forever? Why? I also suspect if we ever find a really awesome way of life extension it won’t be possible to retrofit it to the ones already living.
I have no interest in becoming a Borg, or a Cyberman either. That way lies totalitarianism at its worst. The hive mind is slavery, nothing less. If I have to “upgrade” or fall behind, I’ll fall behind, thanks.