tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post109485109142302548..comments2023-10-30T04:16:25.917-04:00Comments on Sentient Developments: Nick Bostrom's rebuttal to Francis FukuyamaGeorgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13003484633933455827noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-77383283419874952392007-09-06T22:57:00.000-04:002007-09-06T22:57:00.000-04:00>For example, if it were legal for athletes to use...>For example, if it were legal for athletes to use steroids, than anyone who did not use steroids could not compete.<BR/><BR/>They could compete in different divisions. The athletes who wanted fame and fortune could compete with enhancements. Their competitions would be spectator sports (just like today). Other athletes could compete without enhancements for the love of the game.<BR/><BR/>>Humanity would not necessarily be improved by the consumer choice of enhancements that Bostrom advocates. People will do what is necessary to succeed in our society (take Ritalin to pass tests or genetically engineer their children to be effective computer programmers) - not what will improve the species.<BR/><BR/>Isn't it *fun* to do something well? More fun means improving the species, right? It sounds like an oversimplification, but it fits well with utilitarianism.<BR/><BR/>Regarding creativity:<BR/><BR/>Ideally, with the adoption of enhancements would come an even more liberal understanding, which would allow for individuals who chose not go to school or take ritalin, and instead dream lucid dreams, write novels, and get high on psychedelics. This is a difficult problem that will have to be solved.<BR/><BR/>The sort of creativity/concentration trade off brought by ritalin may or may not be common with enhancements. If it is, then it's a problem that needs to be discussed.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02003878302329176654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-59670517412864471512007-01-14T20:26:00.000-05:002007-01-14T20:26:00.000-05:00Bostrum writes: "Transhumanists propose that every...Bostrum writes: "Transhumanists propose that everybody should have the option to use such means to enhance various dimensions of their cognitive, emotional, and physical well-being. Not only is this a natural extension of the traditional aims of medicine and technology, but it is also a great humanitarian opportunity to genuinely improve the human condition. According to transhumanists, however, the choice whether to avail oneself of such enhancement options should generally reside with the individual."<br /><br />In reality, once some people start "enhancing" themselves, the rest of us will have very little choice but to go along. <br /><br />For example, if it were legal for athletes to use steroids, than anyone who did not use steroids could not compete. If it were legal for students to use Ritalin (or other more effective drugs) to help them concentrate, then anyone who did not use drugs would not be able to pass their classes. <br /><br />This sort of enhancement does not always enhance our lives. Ritalin makes it easier to perform routine tasks but there is evidence that it diminishes creativity. <br /><br />Humanity would not necessarily be improved by the consumer choice of enhancements that Bostrom advocates. People will do what is necessary to succeed in our society (take Ritalin to pass tests or genetically engineer their children to be effective computer programmers) - not what will improve the species. <br /><br />This is a common market failure, but Bostrom doesn't have the slightest clue that it exists. Yet Bostrom claims to have the wisdom to lead us to a transhuman future. <br /><br />Of course, tranhumanism is not a natural extension of the traditional role of medicine, which is to cure diseases.C. Siegelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14432418363869314372noreply@blogger.com