Slashdot Mirror

Women often say no to men. Men have had to conquer foreign lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets, paint cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in rock bands, and write new computer software in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them. Men have built (and destroyed) civilization in order to impress women, so that they might say yes.

That a single scientific discovery owes its origin to sex is a disgrace to the entire scientific enterprise. Who cares if women say no to men? Certainly not a single worthy scientist or programmer. In the words of the poet

Science must be pursued for its own sake
And never to impress potential mates!

Likewise for military conflict. What reproductive advantage is gained by an elite of aging politicians somewhat past their reproductive prime if they send the youth to war? The notion of honor is a tawdry embarrassment, if it has anything whatsoever to do with reproductive fitness. No self respecting warrior would have anything to do with it.

The correlation, for humanity, between reproductive fitness and economic effectiveness is a bug, not a feature. This observation goes back to Nietzsche, whose criticism of English psychologists in the Genealogy of Morals is pertinent to the obtuse Psychology Today article.

These English psychologists--what do they really want? We find them, willingly or unwillingly, always at the same work, that is, hauling the partie honteuse [shameful part] of our inner world into the foreground, in order to look right there for the truly effective and operative force which has determined our development, the very place where man's intellectual pride least wishes to find it (for example, in the vis inertiae [force of inertia] of habit or in forgetfulness or in a blind, contingent, mechanical joining of ideas or in something else purely passive, automatic, reflex, molecular, and completely stupid)--what is it that really drives these psychologists always in this particular direction?

It is not merely politically incorrect to attribute scientific and technological advance, and the productions of art and literature to the correlation between economic effectiveness and reproductive fitness. It leads to the intellectually abhorrent notion that the measure of scientific theory is reproductive success. If reproductive success is the measure of a scientific theory, how reproductively successful were the creators of the theory referred to in the Psychology Today article? How successful could they have been, given the highly non-normal distribution of wealth?

Worse, it leads to a self-defeating, fatuous complacency, for example, over the highly non-normal distribution of wealth, itself viewed as a wonderful consequence of the correlation between reproductive fitness and economic effectiveness. To explain why this putative correlation is sinister and insidious and not wonderful, I will need to cite a source that won't be written until some time in the future, after the vaunted technological singularity of the Transhumanists will have occurred. By then, the readership Popular Psychology and Slashdot will be Transhuman. The naive excerpt from the Popular Psychology article I included above will have been updated, as follows.

Reproductive behavior is expensive, inefficient and irrational, if rationality is epitomized by otherwise isolated agents who maximize their expected utility in their only interaction, the exchange of commodity vectors, ab

A distinction can be made between protoscience and pseudoscience. Cryonics: http://www.alcor.org/AboutCryonics/index.html
Extropianism: http://www.transhumanism.org/resources/faq.html
MNT: http://www.crnano.org/whatis.htm

Make up your own minds.

Will the voter notice? I don't think so. If I were hacking the election machine, I would make the paper ballot match whatever the voter put it.

As for the paper tally, I don't think there will be one. If there were any in the previous elections, I am not at all aware of them. The reason people want to do electronic voting, is so that they don't have to perform a paper tally.

Is it far fetched? "As if someone is going to be able to insert code into the GCC compiler?" No, I'm afraid it is not far fetched. Just think about the amount of money that goes into election campaigns. A mere $1,000,000 is way more than enough to subvert the electronic system.

You asked me, if I think it's worth it to people to rig the vote by hacking a compiler and making sure that it is the compiler that is used (not hard!): How does it compare to the ease of replacing paper ballots? Or just throwing them away?

And here's where we get to the solution that I propose: Video tape all handling of ballots, and the counting of ballots. It is now easy to record all ballot access, and place those records on the Internet. People should always access ballots in full view of both cameras, and members of parties, and whoever else wants to be an observer. The observers can then verify the video records. ("Yes, that is really what happened. This is not a false video.") Etc., etc., etc.,. This is much harder to fake out.

No, it's not true that "no matter how you look at it, this system is better than paper."

Electronic voting is not as trustworthy, because we've seen demonstrations of just how easy it is to subvert these guys. You have not presented any reasons why the hack I linked to is not reasonable. This is a remarkably simple hack, and Ken Thompson described the basics of how to write it. It is not expensive, it is very easy to perform. All you need to know is how the compiler will be aquired. Somebody will have the authority to choose the compiler. All you need to do is to be that person, or to find out what that person will do, or to intercept the request to retrieve the compiler; There are many ways to put the bugged compiler in the right place.

You could even subvert the commands "mv," "cp", or have the operating system of the machine it's compiled on perform a well timed switch, when nobody's looking. There's a million ways to do this.

Do not mistake my criticism for luddite conservatism. You are speaking with a hardcore transhumanist programmer. I've been programming since I was 7, and I look forward to the day when I can detach my brain from my body, and load it into an electronic cube. That is until we have the technology to siliconize the brain. You can confirm that I think this way because I'm Internet bonded. I am totally into tech.

It just happens that, in this case, the best technology is called paper & pencil & video recorders broadcasting and archiving onto the Internet.

The problem that still exists is that conventional "futurists" (they don't do futurology anymore, they do technology foresight) don't look farther than 2030 (in Japan). This is time where you can largely ignore the cumulative effect of technologies and concentrate on obvious and immediate implications. Kurzweil and other transhumanist thinkers concentrate on what happens in a slightly longer term - the technological singularity (2030-2050). But the first group largely ignores the inspired visions of the second group. And we don't have a coherent picture of how, for example, man and machine will merge. We can imagine the obvious stuff (that you can read in many tech stories), but it doesn't go very far. For example, we can envision bionic legs, but they are already here. We rarely talk seriously (outside of the science-fiction movies) about further developments. For example, people don't discuss seriously giving an artificial body to Stephen Hawkings (outsides of the realm of bad Slashdot jokes), even though it's almost inevitable, assuming he doesn't die very soon.

We still have major journals, such as Science, are glossing over the possibility^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hinevitability of immortality, arguing disingenuously that anti-ageing therapies will have "profound social effects... [such as] upsetting actuarial tables and retirement plans".

So in a sense we do have this agreement over the future. But in reality only a tiny minority of thinkers agree (or have the courage to speak openly about this future), the rest still entertain their delusional ideas that future is not a big deal.

• World Transhumanism Association
• Singularity Institute
• KurzweilAI.net
• Extropy Institute
• Transtopia
• Better Humans

• Anders Transhuman Page - a comprehensive directory of transhumanist resources
• Transhumanism at del.icio.us

It's not an ad hominem attack. It's just an old-fashioned insult (and a sincere expression of my attitude). Speaking about your counter-argument, it's silly. The frequency with which people spout it demonstrates it's irrationality. You are not really worried about overpopulation (admit it, you don't really think about demographics all that often in daily life), it's simply that it was programmed into your brain by our deathist society.

I mean, literally everyone does it. It's not even funny anymore. Ask someone if he wants to live forever and he repeats that gibberish about overpopulation, as if he was a card carrying member of Greenpeace or a member of some Gaia cult. It's really odd how people instantly forget all problems (future and present) and act as if we were literally running out of space on this planet right now.

Anyway, for a longer answer look at The Transhumanist FAQ. For a short answer from me, the people will simply stop making more babies, whether you want it or not, whether you like it or not, and whether you think it is feasible or not. But may be you'd like the longer answer better. :)

For your reference, laser surgery is already used to give patients better than normal vision. I don't know if the clinics are allowed to advertise that, where you live, but ask your ophtalmologist and you'll find out.

As for where it's going, the answer is to wonderful times. Through the accelerating pace of technological development and scientific understanding, we are entering a whole new stage in the history of the human species.

You are probably closer to the SL1 right now, but the fact that you ask these questions gives hope. It's quite easy to find the information about where it's all going nowdays, have fun learning.

Actually, life is not shorter, it's longer than most people think. As is obvious to transhumanists, the present generation is likely to live forever. Considering this, how much sense does it make to waste the precious years of your humanity on working? What difference would that make to you in 200 years? That's what people should be thinking about, not whether the job is screwing their personal lifes.

Quit the job if you are not making the difference in the world.

Advancements like these

Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence

Fundación Tecnohumano

World Transhumanist Association

KurzweilAI.net

www.BetterHumans.com

BG

cyber punk film

Please, Dude: The preferred nomenclature is transhumanist.

Terraforming other planets is fun, but first we really need to terraform Earth. Between desertification, global warming, overfishing, pollution, habitat destruction, slash&burn traditional farming, chemically-enhanced modern farming, genetic engineering of plants, moving species between ecological niches, sooting up the polar regions in ways that reduce the planet's albedo, and a lot of other things those pesky primates have been up to, this planet is becoming significantly less Earth-like. It's time to look at changing that. There have been a range of proposals to do things about it, from the Kyoto politics to Giant solar reflector shields in space to Bruce Sterling's Viridian Manifesto.

Also, maybe you should try to be a little less mean spirited in your replies.

Good point. Though my style varies depending on how many luddite posts I read before replying. :) Still, sorry for being too harsh.

Regarding the main point, first and foremost, I don't think there is anything wrong with being a cyborg. Just think for a moment - where are you getting your cyborg-related ideas from? My bet would be on sci-fi books and movies. Am I right? If so, than you must realise that the authors had very little reason to be objective and all the reasons to be entertaining. There are very few authors who tactfully handled this issue, very few books which were nautral and matter-of-factual towards the cyborgisation. Too much attention was paid to how cyborgs would be different and too little to how they would be the same (in a good sense). So if your concerns about it are really based on fiction, better think again about the pros and cons.

Next, your partially (or overall) positive attitude towards tech doesn't mean you are not at all a luddite. The people led by Ned Ludd in early 19th century might have been extremely positive towards such exciting developments as steam locomotive, city lighting, photography, battery but would like engineers and scientists to leave the textile industry alone, thank you very much. So, excuse me, but you still look very much like a luddite, and there is no principal difference between you and christian fundamentalist opposing stem cells research. Because of your personal beliefs (cyborgs are BAD) you oppose the technological developments. I don't like that, but the worst thing is that you are doing this because you are not informed very well. :(

BTW, Dictionary.com, which I used to look up the years when luddites first appeared, had a very fitting ad:

Supersize your brain (tm)
Subscribe to Dictionary.com Premium for exclusive features & services!

Don't you think it would be great if we had instant access to Dictionary.com and thousands of other reference sources? Would that make us inhuman? Should we stop trying to do that? Even though some people like the idea?

From the article:
He said the company would now go back to its roots, focusing on building blocks and abandoning its forays into multimedia and film products.

To me that is potentially a big mistake. It is pretty obvious that the bricks product line can't be maintained forever. And a good guess is that kids are going to switch to digital entertainment. Thus the solution would be to revitalise the building blocks arm of Lego to continue milking the market for cash, but also continue the efforts to find new digital markets. I don't pretend to know the kids better than Lego market researchers, but I am quite sure that in 2010 5 y.o. kids will not enjoy play traditional Lego very much. Yes, creativity is important and yes, 3 y.o. kids are probably not smart enough to play advanced Lego replacements, but
a) this might change in a few years, just like kids became more comfortable with computers in the past.
b) 5-7 y.o. can be creative enough to use more advanced toys. May be something like advanced version of Second Life MMOG is the answer? :) Unlimited creativity, simple (in the future) interfaces, a lot of fun.

Come on, people, you can pretend as much as you want that "creativity" allows you to see 2 triangles as a Star Destroyer, but how many of you would settle for these for your kids? Times change, get over it. We humans tend to use more and more complex technology because we learn to do it. And if your kids stick to low-tech building blocks, how will that help them become transhumans when they grow up?

Next hundred years? What? Apparently, you think that either
a) It's more difficult to come from QRIO to a general-purpose intelligent robot than from radio to Internet, from Wright's Flyer to 1000+ passenger jets, solar-powered planes and UAVs, from Model T to GM's Autonomy.
or
b) The rate of progress is decreasing.
is true. But I think both a and b are false. And we will have intelligent robots in a few decades, not centuries.
Check this out.

I wish someone would send this general up right now to protect the American interests there, preferably with a very limited supply of oxygen.

There is no reason why space should become a battleground. We used to understand this in the past, thanks in part to the Soviet Union. Now that it is no longer with us, there is no counterbalance to the US militarists. And in their desire to prevent appearance of such counterbalance, the generals want to occupy space themselves (it never occurs to them that there might be enough space for everybody). And of course, space exploration and military projects are the largest money-sinks next only to military space programs.

P.S. My second wish is that when we ascend to posthumanity we retain our revengefulness for a while. People like this general deserve to spend a subjective eternity in a virtual hell, personally experiencing the simulated death of every soldier who ever fought on Earth.

Which is why I am a transhumanist :p

I use amazon's featured The Page You Made for possible books. Or (inefficiently) pickup random books at the library and thumb through them (not good for recent books).

You might even be able to pick up some tips from that code generation book.

tongue-in-cheek...very funny :)

Doesn't sound like my rant is good for anything, eh? Actually, I believe /. to be an untapped resource for this kind of stuff...if only there was a better way...a better system...a better...I'll stop before you regurgitate your previous meal ;)

This is ridiculous and you sound like a neo-luddite. Ask anyone who has lost the use of a leg if they were happy to recieve a prosthetic leg or something that allowed them to continue on with their life as it was before. Of course they are more happy. If you haven't heard much of this talk, you'll be really shocked to see the World Transhumanism Association site!

Regarding Nick Bostrom, see my related post here. I'd like to think that he has some academic honesty (and I am grateful to him for writing/editing the Transhumanist FAQ), but his simulation ideas are bullshit , indeed.

In ten or fifteen years I'd expect these same multi-millionaires to be among the first paying for a much more valuable "Brain Map". Wouldn't you much rather know how each and every one of your neurons is interconnected, NOW, than know your DNA's seed-AI sequence to grow a new blank one? I would.

I know it seems crazy to think about, but biological genes won't really mean much to post-humans. Eventually every atom in my body (and in the solar system) will be brain substrate.

--

Thoughtful discussions (rather than the usual doom and gloom predictions) regarding the consequences of genetic engineering and technological progress in computers, AI, etc. may be found in the Extropy Institute's Mailing List. There are many years of discussions in the Archives.

Some additional sources of useful information include the The Transhumanist FAQ and the Journal of Transhumanism . The World Transhumanist Association is an umbrella organization for many regional transhumanist groups.

The people involved in these organizations actively discuss and investigate the many issues and concerns related to our future evolution as a species.