There will be an “Amish” preserve for people who want a society without the next wave of enhancements. It already has a name. It is called Earth.
Is there a Bureau of Amish Affairs in our future?
I think the question of coersiveness is moot until we know if and what kinds of enhancements will be possible.
This sounds like the typical sort of luddite doublespeak, along the lines of a terrorist who shoots a hostage and yells at the negotiator “SEE WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!”
I find Lawler’s examples of “coercion” remarkably dubious because one can easily find similar existing features of those careers that don’t involve transhumanist technologies (well, at least recent transhumanist technologies). For example, is it “coercion”, if the doctor or professor has to actually know the field they work in? Even more basic, why do we consider it a good idea that doctors and professors know how to read and write?
Fundamentally, this guy is really complaining about competition. All of his examples come from someone desiring to compete in a difficult arena, be it physicians or professors. But the secret here is that transhumanism has been around for a very long time. The same jump in competition has happened every time someone has come up with a technological advantage (which has happened many times over the past ten thousand years). And that has been to our collective advantage.
So it appears to me that Lawler is saying that he doesn’t want competition in these fields, or to at least have it limited so that people can’t get too much of an advantage from technology. But where should we draw this line? As I note above, the same argument can be made for literacy (which is probably the primal transhumanist technology, if you will). Should we make things so that people who can’t read and write are allowed to compete equally as doctors or college professors? Of course not.
That made me go back and re-read the Unabomber’s manifesto, or at least skim over it. He made a lot of interesting points about how modern society channels, controls, and restricts our notions of freedom, and it probably should be a part of any discussion of “transhumanism”. (Frankly, that word gives me the willies.)
He made a lot of interesting points about how modern society channels, controls, and restricts our notions of freedom
Some of this is by necessity. If I have a fast food restaurant, I’m set up to deliver a limited menu of foods to people. Anything beyond that limited menu (aside from relatively trivial food substitutions and the like) greatly increases costs to me. And I can’t sell washing machines and offer brokerage services on the side. So I am limiting the opportunities available to my customers.
It’s worth noting that the Unabomer also restricted the freedom of his victims by killing and maiming them. So he wasn’t practicing what he preached.
Plumbers who refuse to carry cellphones used to make the same stupid arguments. Argh, I’m being forced to be contactable by people who want to pay me money!
f’ing coercive laws of nature!
What gets me is how people just assume they have the moral right to dictate to others. Everything is coercive but not everything is right.
[When persuasion isn’t enough… make a law. /sarc ]
There will be an “Amish” preserve for people who want a society without the next wave of enhancements. It already has a name. It is called Earth.
Is there a Bureau of Amish Affairs in our future?
I think the question of coersiveness is moot until we know if and what kinds of enhancements will be possible.
This sounds like the typical sort of luddite doublespeak, along the lines of a terrorist who shoots a hostage and yells at the negotiator “SEE WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!”
I find Lawler’s examples of “coercion” remarkably dubious because one can easily find similar existing features of those careers that don’t involve transhumanist technologies (well, at least recent transhumanist technologies). For example, is it “coercion”, if the doctor or professor has to actually know the field they work in? Even more basic, why do we consider it a good idea that doctors and professors know how to read and write?
Fundamentally, this guy is really complaining about competition. All of his examples come from someone desiring to compete in a difficult arena, be it physicians or professors. But the secret here is that transhumanism has been around for a very long time. The same jump in competition has happened every time someone has come up with a technological advantage (which has happened many times over the past ten thousand years). And that has been to our collective advantage.
So it appears to me that Lawler is saying that he doesn’t want competition in these fields, or to at least have it limited so that people can’t get too much of an advantage from technology. But where should we draw this line? As I note above, the same argument can be made for literacy (which is probably the primal transhumanist technology, if you will). Should we make things so that people who can’t read and write are allowed to compete equally as doctors or college professors? Of course not.
That made me go back and re-read the Unabomber’s manifesto, or at least skim over it. He made a lot of interesting points about how modern society channels, controls, and restricts our notions of freedom, and it probably should be a part of any discussion of “transhumanism”. (Frankly, that word gives me the willies.)
He made a lot of interesting points about how modern society channels, controls, and restricts our notions of freedom
Some of this is by necessity. If I have a fast food restaurant, I’m set up to deliver a limited menu of foods to people. Anything beyond that limited menu (aside from relatively trivial food substitutions and the like) greatly increases costs to me. And I can’t sell washing machines and offer brokerage services on the side. So I am limiting the opportunities available to my customers.
It’s worth noting that the Unabomer also restricted the freedom of his victims by killing and maiming them. So he wasn’t practicing what he preached.
Plumbers who refuse to carry cellphones used to make the same stupid arguments. Argh, I’m being forced to be contactable by people who want to pay me money!
f’ing coercive laws of nature!
What gets me is how people just assume they have the moral right to dictate to others. Everything is coercive but not everything is right.
[When persuasion isn’t enough… make a law. /sarc ]