Anarchism, Transhumanism, and the Singularity

I thought this might be a perfect time to discuss this as the Singularity "movement" has been gaining ground with the opening of the Singularity Institute, and a coming, international Singularity summit in New York. For those who are unaware, "The Singularity" is a projected transformation of society and humankind. Named after a cosmological event where gravity becomes infinite. The Singularity is not a fixed concept, but has multiple interpretations. The term was first coined by author, math professor, and scientist, Vernor Vinge. All Singularity theories rest on the idea of a projected point in the future, perhaps the near future, where scientific and technological development reach a point of a kind of feedback loop and increase rapidly and exponentially.
Vinge's conception rested on the idea that the precursor to the singularity would be the creation of the first artificial intelligence that was smarter than humans, which would then theoretically be able to design "smarter" machines and so on and so forth. There is another significant school of thought which maintains that this event could take place in human beings, through artificial augmentation through either bioengineering, nanotechnology, etc., which eventually could theoretically create a human intelligence great enough to spark the aforementioned feedback loop and essentially evolve into something else altogether. This specific process is known as "Transhumanism".
Scientist and inventor Raymond Kurzwiel has described the technological progress of humankind through what he calls "The Law of Accelerating Returns", being the basic truism that scientific/technological progress enables future science and technology, etc. This is exemplified in Moore's Law, the principle that computing power essentially doubles every two years.
The Singularity has it's detractors, from neo-primativists, to people who express grave concern about the negative implications of such powerful technology, to those who simply dismiss it as "the rapture for nerds." For the uninitiated, here are a few links:
Wikipedia article explaining the Singularity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
A Singularity FAQ
http://jwbats.blogspot.com/2005/07/sing ... mmies.html
The official site of the World Transhumanist Association, now known as Humanity +
http://www.humanityplus.org/learn/philo ... eclaration

Obviously we live in a constantly changing world. While there are absolutes, and fundamentals are important, I’ve increasingly felt that Anarchist thought is somewhat stuck in the turn of the century. How do the ideas of classical Anarchism apply to these sweeping social and technological changes? How should we revise our ideas/tactics to respond to these events? What are the liberatory aspects of these new technologies, rather, how can they, or should they, be used to promote equity, liberty and increase the quality of life?

 

There is some truth to this, but I think the greater issue is the monolithic institutions (governments, corporations, etc.) who seek to employ technology to meet their objectives, which may be totally insane. A perfect example is the atomic bomb. einstein wrote the president a letter pleading with him not to use the bomb, Oppenheimer became a tireless activist against nuclear proliferation. While there should always be ethical analysis, and the consequences should be weighed heavily, honestly I think the world would be much better if it was run by the scientists than the politicians and executives.

That’s actually bogus. Cosmic rays colliding with our atmosphere or white dwarfs or whatever create much more powerful reactions, and they aren't spawning massive black holes all over the place. If one was created at all it would be microscopic and fizzle out within seconds, which is extremely unlikely in itself. So, no worries! However, I have wondered about some Dr. Strangelove-type scenario like this, that the world may not end with a bang or a whimper, but an "Oops!”

Well, it certainly has a lot of complexities and implications. This is why some of the leaders of the computing and robotics industries and related disciplines are already talking about the possible consequences, and how to proceed responsibly. Heres’ an article on just that subject that caught my attention in the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/scien ... .html?_r=1
Heres’ another one from a little further back that also mentions the Singularity:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/we...24markoff.html
Basically, as I see it, the rule of thumb should be “proceed, with caution.” We really don’t put nearly enough energy into threats to mankind, you would think it would draw more attention. These are called “existential risks”, AI could potentially be one, and one of the pioneers in that area is Oxford professor Nick Bostrom, who is absolutely brilliant, I’ll put up some of his stuff later. Another thing to consider is that AI would be philosophically and morally equivalent to a human being, restricting it’s access to data, or limiting it’s functions might be essentially slavery.

Actually, I have a very different perspective. First we have to broaden the scope to advances in other technologies which will be parallel to this. There is exciting progress in using nanotechnology to better harness and store solar energy. The problem now is our solar panels are sort of clumsy devices, not to mention being inadequately deployed. However, if we could capture all the solar energy that falls on earth every day it would produce 10,000X the power we presently use. That’s four zeros, I know, it’s shocking. Now, barring some existential crisis, we will eventually possess near infinite clean power, combined with advances in robotics, this might actually end capitalism, as well as most monolithic structures. To paraphrase Ozymandias from Watchmen, all major power systems are built on scarcity, once resources approach infinity this arrangement becomes untenable. Money just might become obsolete. Already more and more of the worlds’ wealth is becoming digitized, hard currency is wasteful and inefficient. The next step I think would be a post-capitalist society, which I can only imagine.

I disagree, but this is exactly the kind of thinking I was hoping to promote; taking stock of these emergent technologies, and applying secular humanist principles.

 

I agree. None of the opposition's arguments make much sense. Mostly that comes from the "quantum consciousness" camp, which is against the mainstream of neurology. To paraphrase a scientist whose name I forget, it can be done because it has been done, we are thinking machines. If you exclude superstitious mumbo-jumbo, there’s no reason the mechanism of consciousness could not be replicated. If we can build artificial hearts or dialysis machines, it would stand to reason an artificial brain is just a few steps up in that trajectory.

I'm not sure it would care as long as it didn't disturb it’s power source.

Fiction, science fiction especially, is a novel vehicle to objectively explore the human condition.

A classic. I haven't finished it yet, but it's cool.

I think an AI would be very different, the gap might be unbridgeable. Any morality might have to be programmed into it, as ours is essentially an evolved behavior mechanism which it would have no inherent need for. Love is also an evolved trait to facilitate reproduction. Such an entity very likely would not care to reproduce. Food for thought.

 

Some more Transhumanism/Singularity stuff. As promised, heres' some material from Nick Bostrom, Oxford professor and one of the founders of the world Transhumanist Association.

"Transhumanism-The Worlds' Most Dangerous Idea?", from Foreign Policy
http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/dangerous.html

A recent interview in Time magazine.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 27,00.html

A fascinating lecture on Transhumanism and Existential Risks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd9cf_vLviI

I also wanted to post a great presentation at UPENN by faculty member Dr. Susan Shneider on Transhumanism and Philosophy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7fN0xW8egc

 

I found this great introduction to Anarcho-Transhumanism on this website, which unfortunately looks like it was abandoned. (Heres' the link, because I don't want to be accused of plagarism:http://www.anarcho-transhumanism.com/)
Anyhow, I just thought it was really clear, concise introduction. Here goes...

"ANARCHO-TRANSHUMANISM:
The Ultimate Synthesis

Anarchism: The political theory that aims to create a society free of all forms of authority, particularly those involving domination and exploitation. Transhumanism: The cultural move- ment that affirms the desirability of fundamentally altering the human condition through applied science and technology.

Transhumanism: The cultural move- ment that affirms the desirability of fundamentally altering the human condition through applied science and technology.

Anarcho-Transhumanism stands for:

Political Freedom: Against the tyranny of government.
Economic Freedom: Against the tyranny of capitalism.
Biological Freedom: Against the tyranny of genes.

Anarcho-Transhumanism is not:
Libertarian: It does not believe in free-market fantasies.
Extropian: It does not believe in optimistic futurism

 

That is just a series of gross oversimplifications. First of all, you have to draw a line between the problems of humanity, with the deficiencies of the monolithic institutions in which we live.

Some of the most brilliant and respected scientists and philosophers are involved with or connected to the Singularity/Transhumanism and related fields. Raymond Kurzweil, Oxford professor Nick Bostrom, and even Stephen Hawking.

You’re leaving out artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, quantum computing, etc.

This is also the most dire, fatalistic idea. The Transhumanist movement is not extropian, nor am I. Such powerful technologies must be used with utmost care. Any action should be judged based on the amount of people it will affect, and how profoundly, so major changes should be undertaken with great care, that goes without saying. Transhumanists themselves are some of the loudest voices calling for caution and careful consideration.

Also, if you say that such profound technologies could be constructed as to create such devastating effects, you must also concede that those technologies could be just as miraculous agents for liberating mankind and improving the quality of life.

Actually, as I was saying, these technologies could essentially eliminate class structure, in total. When resources approach infinity these institutions, like government and corporations, cease to be viable.

That’s’ simply wrong. Look at the internet, or cell phones. Even indoor plumbing. Some of the simplest technological innovations have had the biggest impact. Plumbing alone has probably saved millions or billions of lives. Again, technology is only inaccessible and unaffordable when it doesn’t work very well. Once it is perfected, it becomes omnipresent.

One of the founding principles of Transhumanism is individual liberty. This is part of why it is compatible with Anarchism, they share common threads; namely secular humanism, and (Small “L”) libertarianism.

If people don’t want enhancements, once they become available (Which would be very gradual.) they can decline them. We live alongside the Amish and modern Luddites. Actually, ironically, the Amish support bioengineering because the insular nature of their communities has led to inbreeding which causes a lot of rare genetic diseases.

Technology could replace, or augment whatever labor you presently do. Like the internet and cell phones it could make you more connected to a larger group of people. Technology can help save the environment in a number of ways; by developing near-infinite clean power, by replacing dirty fuels, by genetically preserving endangered species, and by getting more of us off this planet. Improving you’re intelligence and cognition might not make you happier or improve you’re life, I find it hard to believe that, but that is you’re choice. This could also profoundly help everyone around you, also. As Bostrom has pointed out, if we were able to improve the cognitive functioning of all scientists 1% (A very achievable goal.) it would be like adding hundreds of thousands of new scientists. The cumulative effect would be awesome.
As I’ve said, the human race will evolve, or become extinct. I’d rather the latter didn’t happen. If we want to survive, especially if we want to be the best equipped to handle emergent crisis and manage them, the key is through discovery. Ignorance has a pretty piss-poor track record, it’s not a good problem solver. Unlike the dinosaur, we can make the choice to survive or not.

 

No such luck...

The "singularity" is just a buzzword, I didn't choose it. Just like "left-wing", or "radical", or whatever, a broad based term to facilitate communication. We can debate the merits of it, I think it's as good as anything else.

As for the popular disinterest, I'd have to say that's evident, and unfortunate. In hindsight maybe if I'd chosen a better title like "Anarchism and Technology" or "Libertarian Socialism and Scientific Progress" or something like that it might've generated a tad more interest. It's really too bad. The world is changing and we need to be aware of these changes. Like it or not, this is going to change all our lives, you can bury your head in the sand, or you can deal with it.

We also need to look forward. Sure, there are some universal principles that still hold true today, but Kropotkin and Bakunin couldn't have even conceived of the world we presently inhabit. I think it's accepted that one of the unique features of Anarchism as a philosophy is that it is not a static structure, rather it is dynamic, changing to meet the needs of the time.

Also, genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, cloning, and transhumanism involve deep and complex ethical and philosophical issues. I think there is room for discussion as to how they relate to Anarchism. Or, more broadly;the liberatory aspects of technological progress.

I'm really surprised to hear you say that, it's too bad, you articulated yourself pretty well before. As for condescension, "those who live in glass houses.." I don't think I've been excessively harsh on anybody, if I've reacted strongly it's to something that is just total lunacy, like whomever it was who was praising the Ft. Hood murders, or someone advocating primativism, which is absolutely insane. Really, if you have any legitimate issues I'm more than willing, I think I've shown an incredible amount of patience, and I try to avoid ad hominem bullshit and personal attacks. So, if you' or anybody has an interesting interpretation then that's cool but if "Fuck you" is the pinnacle of intellectual debate there's really no point, that's not interesting or intelligent.

Since you posted the cartoon it's implied you endorse the content; I'd like to unpack some of that.

"In the next thirty years Computers will change humanity in ways incomprehensible to us now."

Absolutely. This is a very basic truisim. Go back thirty years to 1979, computing HAS radically changed our world. Barring an existential disaster we can essentially count on at least equal change in the next thirty years. For very basic logical reasons the change between now and 2039 will be considerably greater than that between 1979 and today.

"A third of the world is without electricity"

I haven't done any major research but I'll concede that's true. However, that statement has little value in this context. The implication is really bogus.

"Flying car bullshit"

Well, the flying car thing goes way back so go blame some science fiction writer from half a century ago. Actually the main reason why we don't have flying cars has to do with superconductors. Now, the ideas involved with this are amazing bordering on fantastical, but thats' the world we live in. We can grow an ear on the back of a mouse, we can send a probe to mars, and pretty soon human cloning will be possible, although ethically dubious to say the least. Five hundred years ago this would be thought of as magic, today it's real, it's science.

I don't know what "spiritual significance" means. Personally I dislike the word, as I've said before. I think it's really a nonsense word that gets bounced around primarily by fuzzy-minded people. Virtually all of the philosophers and scientists involved with what we've agreed to call "the singulkarity" or "transhumanism" are complete atheists. The key distinction is religion is founded on a different kind of "faith". Religious "faith" essentially translates into complete certitude in fantastical myths that have no basis in reality. I call that "gullibility" or "stupidity", but they want to call it "faith." Ok. Genetic engineering, quantum computing, nanotechnology, etc., are all very real things that actually exist today. Are there some people who promote fantastical ideas? Very likely. However, nothing that I've said or linked to could really be classified in that way. This is really baseless. I mean, Kurzweil sometimes gets a little carried away, but he has am amazing track record. Nobody bats 1000.

Also comparing technological progress to the rapture is really disingenuous. Emeregent technologies could radically improve our lives, or it could dio really substantial harm. Even Kurzweil admits that, Nick Bostrom, who I've quoted repeatedly has written a lot about the destructive potential of emergent technologies, Bill Joy as well, although I think he tends toward being overly pessimistic. There is no garuntee. However, if you are obviously so ready to acknowledge the destructive potential of technology, you obligate yourself to admit that it has equally profound potential benefits. At the end of the day I say "drink deep", because one of the unique properties of science is while it can be used to create problems, it also helps solve them.

Is the future of the human race just a meaningless distraction? I don't think so. I think it's immensely important. Again, I'll paraphrase Bostrom, there are four big possibilities for the human race, theres' no other way to see it;
1.Extinction
2.Plateau
3.Recurring Collapse
4.Posthumanity
Therefore, it's a very ligitimate and serious issue.

 

I thought this was a really great article outlining the ethics of Transhumanism, by Eliezer Yudkowsky, one of the leaders in the field of Artificial Intelligence.

Transhumanism as Simplified Humanism
By Eliezer Yudkowsky
Frank Sulloway once said: “Ninety-nine per cent of what Darwinian theory says about human behavior is so obviously true that we don’t give Darwin credit for it. Ironically, psychoanalysis has it over Darwinism precisely because its predictions are so outlandish and its explanations are so counterintuitive that we think, Is that really true? How radical! Freud’s ideas are so intriguing that people are willing to pay for them, while one of the great disadvantages of Darwinism is that we feel we know it already, because, in a sense, we do.”

Suppose you find an unconscious six-year-old girl lying on the train tracks of an active railroad. What, morally speaking, ought you to do in this situation? Would it be better to leave her there to get run over, or to try to save her? How about if a 45-year-old man has a debilitating but nonfatal illness that will severely reduce his quality of life – is it better to cure him, or not cure him?

Oh, and by the way: This is not a trick question.

I answer that I would save them if I had the power to do so – both the six-year-old on the train tracks, and the sick 45-year-old. The obvious answer isn’t always the best choice, but sometimes it is.

I won’t be lauded as a brilliant ethicist for my judgments in these two ethical dilemmas. My answers are not surprising enough that people would pay me for them. If you go around proclaiming “What does two plus two equal? Four!” you will not gain a reputation as a deep thinker. But it is still the correct answer.

If a young child falls on the train tracks, it is good to save them, and if a 45-year-old suffers from a debilitating disease, it is good to cure them. If you have a logical turn of mind, you are bound to ask whether this is a special case of a general ethical principle which says “Life is good, death is bad; health is good, sickness is bad.” If so – and here we enter into controversial territory – we can follow this general principle to a surprising new conclusion: If a 95-year-old is threatened by death from old age, it would be good to drag them from those train tracks, if possible. And if a 120-year-old is starting to feel slightly sickly, it would be good to restore them to full vigor, if possible. With current technology it is not possible. But if the technology became available in some future year – given sufficiently advanced medical nanotechnology, or such other contrivances as future minds may devise – would you judge it a good thing, to save that life, and stay that debility?

The important thing to remember, which I think all too many people forget, is that it is not a trick question.

Transhumanism is simpler – requires fewer bits to specify – because it has no special cases. If you believe professional bioethicists (people who get paid to explain ethical judgments) then the rule “Life is good, death is bad; health is good, sickness is bad” holds only until some critical age, and then flips polarity. Why should it flip? Why not just keep on with life-is-good? It would seem that it is good to save a six-year-old girl, but bad to extend the life and health of a 150-year-old. Then at what exact age does the term in the utility function go from positive to negative? Why?

As far as a transhumanist is concerned, if you see someone in danger of dying, you should save them; if you can improve someone’s health, you should. There, you’re done. No special cases. You don’t have to ask anyone’s age.

You also don’t ask whether the remedy will involve only “primitive” technologies (like a stretcher to lift the six-year-old off the railroad tracks); or technologies invented less than a hundred years ago (like penicillin) which nonetheless seem ordinary because they were around when you were a kid; or technologies that seem scary and sexy and futuristic (like gene therapy) because they were invented after you turned 18; or technologies that seem absurd and implausible and sacrilegious (like nanotech) because they haven’t been invented yet. Your ethical dilemma report form doesn’t have a line where you write down the invention year of the technology. Can you save lives? Yes? Okay, go ahead. There, you’re done.

Suppose a boy of 9 years, who has tested at IQ 120 on the Wechsler-Bellvue, is threatened by a lead-heavy environment or a brain disease which will, if unchecked, gradually reduce his IQ to 110. I reply that it is a good thing to save him from this threat. If you have a logical turn of mind, you are bound to ask whether this is a special case of a general ethical principle saying that intelligence is precious. Now the boy’s sister, as it happens, currently has an IQ of 110. If the technology were available to gradually raise her IQ to 120, without negative side effects, would you judge it good to do so?

Well, of course. Why not? It’s not a trick question. Either it’s better to have an IQ of 110 than 120, in which case we should strive to decrease IQs of 120 to 110. Or it’s better to have an IQ of 120 than 110, in which case we should raise the sister’s IQ if possible. As far as I can see, the obvious answer is the correct one.

But – you ask – where does it end? It may seem well and good to talk about extending life and health out to 150 years – but what about 200 years, or 300 years, or 500 years, or more? What about when – in the course of properly integrating all these new life experiences and expanding one’s mind accordingly over time – the equivalent of IQ must go to 140, or 180, or beyond human ranges?

Where does it end? It doesn’t. Why should it? Life is good, health is good, beauty and happiness and fun and laughter and challenge and learning are good. This does not change for arbitrarily large amounts of life and beauty. If there were an upper bound, it would be a special case, and that would be inelegant.

Ultimate physical limits may or may not permit a lifespan of at least length X for some X – just as the medical technology of a particular century may or may not permit it. But physical limitations are questions of simple fact, to be settled strictly by experiment. Transhumanism, as a moral philosophy, deals only with the question of whether a healthy lifespan of length X is desirable if it is physically possible. Transhumanism answers yes for all X. Because, you see, it’s not a trick question.

So that is “transhumanism” – loving life without special exceptions and without upper bound.

Can transhumanism really be that simple? Doesn’t that make the philosophy trivial, if it has no extra ingredients, just common sense? Yes, in the same way that the scientific method is nothing but common sense.

Then why have a complicated special name like “transhumanism” ? For the same reason that “scientific method” or “secular humanism” have complicated special names. If you take common sense and rigorously apply it, through multiple inferential steps, to areas outside everyday experience, successfully avoiding many possible distractions and tempting mistakes along the way, then it often ends up as a minority position and people give it a special name.

But a moral philosophy should not have special ingredients. The purpose of a moral philosophy is not to look delightfully strange and counterintuitive, or to provide employment to bioethicists. The purpose is to guide our choices toward life, health, beauty, happiness, fun, laughter, challenge, and learning. If the judgments are simple, that is no black mark against them – morality doesn’t always have to be complicated.

There is nothing in transhumanism but the same common sense that underlies standard humanism, rigorously applied to cases outside our modern-day experience. A million-year lifespan? If it’s possible, why not? The prospect may seem very foreign and strange, relative to our current everyday experience. It may create a sensation of future shock. And yet – is life a bad thing?

Could the moral question really be just that simple?

Yes.