Listen now | Join Malcolm and Simone as they delve into why the right must win the 'genetic war' and how their views diverge from traditional transhumanism.
Historically "transhumanism" was thought to be achieved via spirituality, the mystical streams of various religions. There are 2 aspects to most mainstream religions; Social/moral aspect and mystical aspect. All 3 Abrahamic religions have mystical streams and of course South and East Asian religions and TARs (Traditional African Religions) are world reknowned for their mysticism. The mystical path is what leads to union with God, or as the Orthodox Christians put it, theosis, becoming God-like.
For your consideration: 1. Some financial arguments. Technology, particularly when allowed to progress and not overheated or just scaled and utilized widely especially as a new core commodity establishing a new baseline, trends less expensive over time (when controlling for like vs like, same scope, quality, features, etc.) Gene technology seems to be following this trend, not overnight, and for some thinks, maybe only over a lifetime. For the slower case, the issue is often scale due to issues of risk or significant inconvenience, e.g. lack of durability/reliability. Think cats and the Model-T. It took more than one model and a number a paradigm shifts, but then some affordability followed by scale. 2. Complimenting this is better understanding of problems/needs, their possible solutions, and how to best apply them. 3. AI like trains, common carrier, telecom, and other utilities is likely to be kept inexpensive through scale and competition, partly due to tremendous need for innovation and a risk-reward pattern that best rewards companies leap frogging each other. With AI #1 and more so #2 are likely to accelerate due to scale of an artificially expanded workforce, and quite possibly in a more expanded way. 4. That is until humanity hits a wall where our prior innate instincts really start to lag behind progress. Yes we could choose or just fall into a pattern of regression, or perhaps go extinct. But, personally just realizing this now, I find that most extinction scenarios apply even better to microbes, and while some do go extinct, I can't think of many (although there may be, I haven't researched this) that managed to do this to themselves. The oxygen catastrophe comes to mind as the biggest event, but many survived, just not as plentiful. Then what had been a few large branches on the tree of life became branching trunks, eventually huge. 5. The main difference with us is self awareness, or some would say intelligence. The development of which, according to some theories, but not necessarily mainstream (last I checked) is that the ”killer feature” this brought was to accelerate progress but allowing our ideas to die and adapt faster while we continued on. I would argue this makes extinction less likely. 6. Regression, stagnation, and stagflation or rent-seeking (e.g. monopolistic pricing as the result of industry capture of government) could result in higher prices, but at the cost of pushing society toward the edge. China is more adapted to bureaucracy than perhaps any other culture, and they still have fantastic revolutions. That doesn't guarantee that prices will fall for essential items, but it sure does help avoid that outcome happening too often. 7. AI is perhaps another iteration of the cognitive revolution. One that might allow society to extend market activities and social organization into a modeling space where we can play through multiple scenarios on a societal scale, discarding those that end badly, and implementing from those that work with deep variety of complimentary approaches mitigating risks and perhaps turning our cultural structures into more of a tree. And eventually after settling distant Stars, the tree of life may become a forest. 8. This is to say that life is a powerful force driving society, and what serves a more practical expression of the principals and potential of life, once realized, may quickly become established and abundant. 9. Challenges will ensue, but no one is saying that life need be boring. 10. Hope this may provide some good for thought.
Not even 4 minutes in and I disagree with Malcolm's idea about "cultural sovereignty". Would you also say the same about cultures that circumcise girls? We call that FGM, female genital mutilation. Jewish people can maintain their cultural sovereignty without MGM. There are a million more consentual and non-violent traditions and practices that are unique to Judaism and Jewish culture that Jews can freely and safely partake in. Besides, most Jews are not orthodox and they still circumcise. Heck, even secular, non-religious and atheist Jews are circumcised and circumcise their kids so it's not even a religious observance at that point.
When the Hebrew people lived in an ancient desert without abundant water sources circumcision may have helped to keep boys and men clean and free of infection but there is just no need for it now.
Now about the, and I quote, "7 feet tall, ultra-fit, ultra-intelligent". Basically you are saying that "families" will select for more or less the same things. However in the comments under the Youtube video Simone says you guys are all about "variation". I don't see your vision as varied. Sure, you say families can select for whatever they want, but will they? What if they all want the same things? It sounds to me like you think they will want the same things with maybe some variation in insignificant factors like hair or eye color, just for a aesthetic variety. Other than that, humans will be cookie cutter ultra-fit, ultra-intelligent 7 footers.
Then there's the question of who will even have access to this technology in the first place, because you know it won't be cheap. Are you thinking of some sort of socialized, universal access or what? You say the Left's approach to Transhumanism/Eugenics was to force sterilization onto other groups but the Right's approach will be an "opt-in" amongst the in-group/families, so... how would that work exactly - financially speaking.
The USA is the "richest country on Earth" and yet still does not have universal health care for its citizens - and that's just for basic medical check-ups, nothing elaborate like you're describing here. That being the case, how do you envision this Transhuman/Eugenics future playing out for Americans who may want to participate?
Of course I would say the same of cultures that circumcise girls. If it is not providing utility it is up to those moms to stop the practice if it turns out that (as I suspect is the case) those that choose to stop the practice also have way fewer kids then we know it has utility.
We reputedly argue families don't select for the same things and we have abundant evidence of this from sperm donor studies. Families select kids like them. Very intrested in where you got that impression. Even with mental performance some optimize around math skills, some creativity, some verbal intelligence, some work ethic, etc.
And how does all this get paid for? You didn't answer that question.
I suggest you do some research into FGM. It is very unsafe, unhealthy, extremely risky/dangerous and people even die from it. Those that grow into adulthood report continuous pain and health problems throughout their lives. You call that utility? It's not practiced for the utility of havng more babies. It is practiced because they believe the clitorous (and sometimes the labia majora and minora, depending on what type of FGM is performed) are things that will compel a female to run around having sex with multiple men before and after marriage. Which if were the case, would provide more of your "utility". And if MGM as still practiced by Jews and Muslims provides the "utility" of more kids - why are both those demographics trending down, down, down with each successive generation? Israel being the current exception here bolsters my point. As stated in my original comment, the utility of MGM during ancient times in desert regions was hygiene and less infection. There is no utility of GM in today's world.
In fact, due to all the nerve endings in the clitorous and foreskin, intact females and males both report greater sexual satisfaction than non-intact. Women also report greater sexual satisfaction from intact male partners. Greater sexual satisfaction inspires people to have more sex which usually results in more kids overall.
You need to rethink all of this.
(And another friendly reminder to share your vision of the financial plan for Americans who may choose the transhuman route for their offspring.)
Sorry, I tried to reply, but ended up as a new comment (due to me adjusting my interface and still being new to SubStack.) Please see the video comments of you'd like to consider my reply. Again, my apologies.
Thank you for your online politeness. Yes, I read it. If embryonic gene editing is accepted by a culture to be a civilizational good, and beyond that, a civilizational necessity, then it's access would have to be universal, which means socialism. In order to get to that point we are going to have to socialize, gradually overtime, starting with the industry that such technology will be accessed via, which is the healthcare system.
Hmm, interesting, but I'm not sure that all of us would need to do this. First, I partially agree with one point to the extent that I could see what you suggest as being one path that comes about a in number of ways, including that at least some aspects of the medical industry are socialized. (Personally, I have hopes for the experiments around focusing more on wellness, i.e. balancing optimization against restoration. Aligning incentive structures seems key to moving past current limits as even if money was no object, having enough people during need may be hard if they predominantly keep working themselves out of a job. Currently the point where inputs cost more than the outputs comes much earlier than the point where a virtuous cycle might sustain itself.) However, it seems like this is an issue facing the world, humanity as a whole. And, thus doesn't humanity already have socialized medicine. No, not everywhere, and even where implemented, not the same models. Nevertheless, and giving this is already the case, does it not make sense to consider how we might make the most of our current situation? This leads to my second point; let's consider a hypothetical: Let's assume for a moment that AI can substantially improve the human condition, but that I'm order to do this we need individuals who are more capable in certain areas, a range of specialists if you will. Moreover, as these specialists still rely on the rest of humanity to do their jobs, they don't become all powerful kind, but rather more like elite professionals or athletes. Initially this may be achieved with conventional means. Say that works for 20-30 years, but it's hard and many who do this work become burned out despite it being rewarding given the benefits they achieve for themselves, but especially others (i.e. psychological/moral compensation). In that timespan, and in no small part due to the payoffs from this collaboration, progress is made on preventing disease (including generic predispositions) and we gain significant knowledge and experience on how to improve human wellness and functioning. It seems likely that some may focus on how to improve themselves with a mind toward better collaboration with AI thus benefitting humanity while finding purpose and fulfillment even though the most critical work would likely be quite hard and taxing and those individuals (otherwise many more would be doing it). Would this be messy, yes. But, this seems like progress, a tide that may raise all boats. It also seems likely that we may get better on addressing the messiness. In other words, I'm not sure that the development of these opportunities, even when uneven in parts, doesn't produce better and more even results for everyone overall, and I even suspect, may do this better than most other approaches. Furthermore, this relies on aspects of human nature that have been proven out in the past, yet served us well in the unique, often chaotic hyperbolic transformations of the last few of centuries. Finally, such a baseline seems actually closer to, i.e. a more stable place for, approaching the less obvious alternative refinements and approaches
Sorry, there was a bug where the text I had drafted suddenly disappeared when my phone switched from daylight to dark mode. However, the submit button was still available, so my apologies for not being able to edit more. I managed to convey what I'm trying to say, albeit messy (and a bit long). The only thing I'll add is that part of the question here may be a matter of order of operations, I.e. determining a naturally reigniting order of precursors and successors.
Historically "transhumanism" was thought to be achieved via spirituality, the mystical streams of various religions. There are 2 aspects to most mainstream religions; Social/moral aspect and mystical aspect. All 3 Abrahamic religions have mystical streams and of course South and East Asian religions and TARs (Traditional African Religions) are world reknowned for their mysticism. The mystical path is what leads to union with God, or as the Orthodox Christians put it, theosis, becoming God-like.
Also, IMHO this is the best AI song yet. The art scenes are very inspiring as well.
For your consideration: 1. Some financial arguments. Technology, particularly when allowed to progress and not overheated or just scaled and utilized widely especially as a new core commodity establishing a new baseline, trends less expensive over time (when controlling for like vs like, same scope, quality, features, etc.) Gene technology seems to be following this trend, not overnight, and for some thinks, maybe only over a lifetime. For the slower case, the issue is often scale due to issues of risk or significant inconvenience, e.g. lack of durability/reliability. Think cats and the Model-T. It took more than one model and a number a paradigm shifts, but then some affordability followed by scale. 2. Complimenting this is better understanding of problems/needs, their possible solutions, and how to best apply them. 3. AI like trains, common carrier, telecom, and other utilities is likely to be kept inexpensive through scale and competition, partly due to tremendous need for innovation and a risk-reward pattern that best rewards companies leap frogging each other. With AI #1 and more so #2 are likely to accelerate due to scale of an artificially expanded workforce, and quite possibly in a more expanded way. 4. That is until humanity hits a wall where our prior innate instincts really start to lag behind progress. Yes we could choose or just fall into a pattern of regression, or perhaps go extinct. But, personally just realizing this now, I find that most extinction scenarios apply even better to microbes, and while some do go extinct, I can't think of many (although there may be, I haven't researched this) that managed to do this to themselves. The oxygen catastrophe comes to mind as the biggest event, but many survived, just not as plentiful. Then what had been a few large branches on the tree of life became branching trunks, eventually huge. 5. The main difference with us is self awareness, or some would say intelligence. The development of which, according to some theories, but not necessarily mainstream (last I checked) is that the ”killer feature” this brought was to accelerate progress but allowing our ideas to die and adapt faster while we continued on. I would argue this makes extinction less likely. 6. Regression, stagnation, and stagflation or rent-seeking (e.g. monopolistic pricing as the result of industry capture of government) could result in higher prices, but at the cost of pushing society toward the edge. China is more adapted to bureaucracy than perhaps any other culture, and they still have fantastic revolutions. That doesn't guarantee that prices will fall for essential items, but it sure does help avoid that outcome happening too often. 7. AI is perhaps another iteration of the cognitive revolution. One that might allow society to extend market activities and social organization into a modeling space where we can play through multiple scenarios on a societal scale, discarding those that end badly, and implementing from those that work with deep variety of complimentary approaches mitigating risks and perhaps turning our cultural structures into more of a tree. And eventually after settling distant Stars, the tree of life may become a forest. 8. This is to say that life is a powerful force driving society, and what serves a more practical expression of the principals and potential of life, once realized, may quickly become established and abundant. 9. Challenges will ensue, but no one is saying that life need be boring. 10. Hope this may provide some good for thought.
FYI, as I informed the other commenters above, this was meant as a reply in contribution to their discussion.
Not even 4 minutes in and I disagree with Malcolm's idea about "cultural sovereignty". Would you also say the same about cultures that circumcise girls? We call that FGM, female genital mutilation. Jewish people can maintain their cultural sovereignty without MGM. There are a million more consentual and non-violent traditions and practices that are unique to Judaism and Jewish culture that Jews can freely and safely partake in. Besides, most Jews are not orthodox and they still circumcise. Heck, even secular, non-religious and atheist Jews are circumcised and circumcise their kids so it's not even a religious observance at that point.
When the Hebrew people lived in an ancient desert without abundant water sources circumcision may have helped to keep boys and men clean and free of infection but there is just no need for it now.
Now about the, and I quote, "7 feet tall, ultra-fit, ultra-intelligent". Basically you are saying that "families" will select for more or less the same things. However in the comments under the Youtube video Simone says you guys are all about "variation". I don't see your vision as varied. Sure, you say families can select for whatever they want, but will they? What if they all want the same things? It sounds to me like you think they will want the same things with maybe some variation in insignificant factors like hair or eye color, just for a aesthetic variety. Other than that, humans will be cookie cutter ultra-fit, ultra-intelligent 7 footers.
Then there's the question of who will even have access to this technology in the first place, because you know it won't be cheap. Are you thinking of some sort of socialized, universal access or what? You say the Left's approach to Transhumanism/Eugenics was to force sterilization onto other groups but the Right's approach will be an "opt-in" amongst the in-group/families, so... how would that work exactly - financially speaking.
The USA is the "richest country on Earth" and yet still does not have universal health care for its citizens - and that's just for basic medical check-ups, nothing elaborate like you're describing here. That being the case, how do you envision this Transhuman/Eugenics future playing out for Americans who may want to participate?
Of course I would say the same of cultures that circumcise girls. If it is not providing utility it is up to those moms to stop the practice if it turns out that (as I suspect is the case) those that choose to stop the practice also have way fewer kids then we know it has utility.
We reputedly argue families don't select for the same things and we have abundant evidence of this from sperm donor studies. Families select kids like them. Very intrested in where you got that impression. Even with mental performance some optimize around math skills, some creativity, some verbal intelligence, some work ethic, etc.
And how does all this get paid for? You didn't answer that question.
I suggest you do some research into FGM. It is very unsafe, unhealthy, extremely risky/dangerous and people even die from it. Those that grow into adulthood report continuous pain and health problems throughout their lives. You call that utility? It's not practiced for the utility of havng more babies. It is practiced because they believe the clitorous (and sometimes the labia majora and minora, depending on what type of FGM is performed) are things that will compel a female to run around having sex with multiple men before and after marriage. Which if were the case, would provide more of your "utility". And if MGM as still practiced by Jews and Muslims provides the "utility" of more kids - why are both those demographics trending down, down, down with each successive generation? Israel being the current exception here bolsters my point. As stated in my original comment, the utility of MGM during ancient times in desert regions was hygiene and less infection. There is no utility of GM in today's world.
In fact, due to all the nerve endings in the clitorous and foreskin, intact females and males both report greater sexual satisfaction than non-intact. Women also report greater sexual satisfaction from intact male partners. Greater sexual satisfaction inspires people to have more sex which usually results in more kids overall.
You need to rethink all of this.
(And another friendly reminder to share your vision of the financial plan for Americans who may choose the transhuman route for their offspring.)
Sorry, I tried to reply, but ended up as a new comment (due to me adjusting my interface and still being new to SubStack.) Please see the video comments of you'd like to consider my reply. Again, my apologies.
Thank you for your online politeness. Yes, I read it. If embryonic gene editing is accepted by a culture to be a civilizational good, and beyond that, a civilizational necessity, then it's access would have to be universal, which means socialism. In order to get to that point we are going to have to socialize, gradually overtime, starting with the industry that such technology will be accessed via, which is the healthcare system.
Hmm, interesting, but I'm not sure that all of us would need to do this. First, I partially agree with one point to the extent that I could see what you suggest as being one path that comes about a in number of ways, including that at least some aspects of the medical industry are socialized. (Personally, I have hopes for the experiments around focusing more on wellness, i.e. balancing optimization against restoration. Aligning incentive structures seems key to moving past current limits as even if money was no object, having enough people during need may be hard if they predominantly keep working themselves out of a job. Currently the point where inputs cost more than the outputs comes much earlier than the point where a virtuous cycle might sustain itself.) However, it seems like this is an issue facing the world, humanity as a whole. And, thus doesn't humanity already have socialized medicine. No, not everywhere, and even where implemented, not the same models. Nevertheless, and giving this is already the case, does it not make sense to consider how we might make the most of our current situation? This leads to my second point; let's consider a hypothetical: Let's assume for a moment that AI can substantially improve the human condition, but that I'm order to do this we need individuals who are more capable in certain areas, a range of specialists if you will. Moreover, as these specialists still rely on the rest of humanity to do their jobs, they don't become all powerful kind, but rather more like elite professionals or athletes. Initially this may be achieved with conventional means. Say that works for 20-30 years, but it's hard and many who do this work become burned out despite it being rewarding given the benefits they achieve for themselves, but especially others (i.e. psychological/moral compensation). In that timespan, and in no small part due to the payoffs from this collaboration, progress is made on preventing disease (including generic predispositions) and we gain significant knowledge and experience on how to improve human wellness and functioning. It seems likely that some may focus on how to improve themselves with a mind toward better collaboration with AI thus benefitting humanity while finding purpose and fulfillment even though the most critical work would likely be quite hard and taxing and those individuals (otherwise many more would be doing it). Would this be messy, yes. But, this seems like progress, a tide that may raise all boats. It also seems likely that we may get better on addressing the messiness. In other words, I'm not sure that the development of these opportunities, even when uneven in parts, doesn't produce better and more even results for everyone overall, and I even suspect, may do this better than most other approaches. Furthermore, this relies on aspects of human nature that have been proven out in the past, yet served us well in the unique, often chaotic hyperbolic transformations of the last few of centuries. Finally, such a baseline seems actually closer to, i.e. a more stable place for, approaching the less obvious alternative refinements and approaches
Sorry, there was a bug where the text I had drafted suddenly disappeared when my phone switched from daylight to dark mode. However, the submit button was still available, so my apologies for not being able to edit more. I managed to convey what I'm trying to say, albeit messy (and a bit long). The only thing I'll add is that part of the question here may be a matter of order of operations, I.e. determining a naturally reigniting order of precursors and successors.