Aubrey de Grey, a great advocate of immortality, is not worried about “immortal tyrants” for three reasons. First, because tyrannicide will still be possible. Second, because the spread of democracy will preemptively forestall tyranny. Third, because one immortal tyrant may not be so bad as a succession of tyrants, where the next guy is worse than the last. Each argument shows characteristic limits of the transhumanist imagination.
As far as tyrannicide goes, like many transhumanists de Grey stops well short of thinking through the possible consequences of the change he proposes (we are all speculating here, but we can try to be thorough speculators). Remember that tyrants already tend to be fairly security-conscious, knowing that whatever happens they are still mortal. Why would the prospect of having power and immortality to lose make them less risk-averse? It seems rather more likely that the immortal tyrant will be extremely risk-averse and hence security-conscious, and therefore represent a very “hard target” for the assassin — who will have equally much to lose if his mission is unsuccessful. As it is, most people living under a tyrant just do their best to keep their heads down; tyrannicides are rare. Throw immortality into the mix, and they are likely to be rarer still.
As far as democracy goes, de Grey exhibits a confidence characteristic of transhumanists generally: he knows what the future holds. I would certainly join him in hoping that democracy is here to stay and increasingly the wave of the future, but I don’t know that to be true and I don’t know how anyone could know that to be true. The victory of democracy over tyranny in the twentieth century was a near thing. History tells us that good times readily give way to bad times. The belief that democracy represents a permanent cure to the problem of tyranny is facile, in the way that all easy confidence about the direction of history is facile.
Finally, de Grey falls back on the proposition ‘better the devil you know than the devil you don’t’ — better Lenin than Stalin, to use his example. Leaving aside the question of how different the two leaders actually were, here de Grey is apparently trying to be hard-headed: It may not be all sweetness and light when we’re all immortal after all! Like many transhumanists, he is not very good at moral realism. You have to wonder: would the character of the immortal tyrant really stay the same over time? If, as the old maxim holds, absolute power corrupts absolutely, it would seem very much more likely that life under an immortal tyrant would get worse.
Finally, the problem is not really just tyranny, it is evil. In his Wisconsin State Fair speech of 1859, Lincoln notes, “It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence, to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations. They presented him the words: ‘And this, too, shall pass away.’ How much it expresses! How chastening in the hour of pride! — how consoling in the depths of affliction!” Immortal evil means a world where the prideful will never be chastened, and the afflicted only consoled by giving up the very boon that de Grey promises us.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bloggers
Charles T. Rubin, New Atlantis contributing editor.
Adam Keiper, New Atlantis senior editor.
Ari N. Schulman, New Atlantis editor.
Brendan Foht, New Atlantis assistant editor.
Mark Gubrud, Futurisms contributor.
About

Blogroll
Related essays
by Charles T. Rubin
- Machine Morality and Human Responsibility
- Beyond Mankind
- Why Be Human?
- Our Bodies, Ourselves
- The Rhetoric of Extinction
- Man or Machine?
- Artificial Intelligence and Human Nature
by Adam Keiper
by Adam Keiper and Ari N. Schulman
by Ari N. Schulman
by Mark Gubrud
by other authors
- Humanism and Transhumanism (Fred Baumann)
- The Trouble with the Turing Test (Mark Halpern)
- Disenchanting Determinism (Caitrin Nicol)
- The Anti-Theology of the Body (David B. Hart)
- Ageless Bodies, Happy Souls (Leon R. Kass)
- Transitional Humanity (Gilbert Meilaender)
- Till Malfunction Do Us Part (Caitrin Nicol)
- Methuselah and Us (Diana Schaub)

Frequently-Used Tags
"There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom"
1984
2001
30 Rock
Aaron Saenz
Abraham Lincoln
academia
addiction
Adi Robertson
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
advertising
aesthetics
Agents of Shield
Agnes Heller
AI
AirLand Battle
AirSea Battle
Al Jazeera
Alan Jacobs
Alan Rubenstein
Alasdair MacIntyre
Alcor
Aldous Huxley
Alex Backer
Alex Knapp
aliens
Allen Buchanan
Alta Charo
Amy Gutmann
Ana Maria Cuervo
Anders Sandberg
Andrew Hessel
animal uplift
Anna Salamon
anti-progress
Apple
argument from inevitability
argument from infallibility
Ari N. Schulman
Aristotle
arms control
art
Arthur C. Clarke
artifacts
Artificial intelligence
artificial life
artificial wombs
Asilomar
assisted reproductive technology
assumption of mediocrity
Aubrey de Grey
Audrey Hepburn
augmented reality
authenticity
automation
autonomous weapon system
autonomy
Avatar
avian flu
AWS
beauty
behavioral science
Ben Goertzel
Benjamin Storey
Beyond Therapy
Big Dog
Bill Joy
bioart
bioethics
bionics
body image
body modification
Brad Templeton
Bradley Allenby
Bradley J. Thames
brain in a bottle
Brain Preservation Foundation
brain scans
brain uploading
brain-computer interfaces
Brandon Keim
Brave New World
breathing
Brian Christian
Brian Malow
Bryan Caplan
C.S. Lewis
Campaign to Stop Killer Robots
Caprica
Carl Woese
cats
CCW
cell phones
character
Charles Darwin
Charles T. Rubin
Charles Taylor
chess
children
chimeras
China
Christianity
Christine Rosen
Christmas
Claremont Review of Books
Clearpath Robotics
cloning
CNN
coercion
cognitive computing
cognitive enhancement
cognitive liberty
comments
commercials
communication technologies
compression
computational biology
Condorcet
consciousness
constant connection
Constiution
creativity
CRISRP
cryonics
Cuban Missile Crisis
cyborg
Cynthia Kenyon
Dale Carrico
Daniel Sarewitz
Daniel Sportiello
Darlene Cavalier
DARPA
Darwinism
David A. Noebel
David Benatar
David Brin
David Chalmers
David F. Noble
David Foster Wallace
David Gelernter
David Pearce
David Rose
death
Deep Blue
democracy
Derek Parfit
design
designer babies
despair
despotism
dictators
disability
disruption
distraction
distributive justice
diversity
DIYbio
DOD
Down syndrome
drones
dualism
e-memory
e-readers
Earth
eclipse
Eclipse of Man
economics
Ed Boyden
Ed Regis
efficiency
Eliezer Yudkowsky
ELIZA
embodiment
empathy
enhancement
Enlightenment
entropy
environmentalism
equality of access
Eric Drexler
Eric Talbot Jensen
ethics
ETI
eugenics
everyday life
evolution
evolutionary psychology
Ex Machina
existential risks
exoplanets
extraterrestrial intelligence
extraterrestrial life
extropy
eyes in the back of your head
Facebook
faith
fantasy
fashion
faux caution
fiction
Fight Aging
First Amendment
Fixed
Flannery O'Connor
flash crash
flash war
folk psychology
Foresight Institute
Fort Hood
Frances Willard
Francis Bacon
Francis Fukuyama
Frankstein
Fred Baumann
free markets
French Revolution
Friedrich Nietzsche
friendly AI
Future of Life Institute
futurism
Futurism (art)
Futurisms
futuristic distance
G.K. Chesterton
gaming
Garry Kasparov
Gary Drescher
Gary Marcus
Gary Wolf
gene editing
genetic engineering
genetics
geoengineering
George Dvorsky
George Orwell
germline gene therapy
Gilbert Meilaender
Gizmodo
global warming
gloomy
God
Gödel
Golda Meir
goodness
Google
Gordon Bell
government
GPS
Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition
Greg Benford
Gregor Wolbring
Gregory Benford
H.G. Wells
H+ magazine
H+ Summit 2010
Halloween
Hank Hyena
Hans Jonas
Hans Moravec
heartbreak
Heather Knight
Heidegger
Her
history
holism
hope
hubris
human cloning
human excellence
human extinction
human life
human nature
Human Rights Watch
human significance
humanism
humanities
humanoid robotics
humility
humor
Iain M. Banks
Ian Pearson
ICRAC
IEET
immortality
infanticide
IQ
Irfan Khawaja
Isaac Asimov
Isaac Newton
Issues in Science and technology
Itamar Arel
IVF
J. Craig Venter
J. M. Bernstein
J. Robert Oppenheimer
J.B.S. Haldane
Jamais Cascio
James Hughes
James Jorasch
James W. Wagner
Jamie Metzl
Japan
Jason Furman
Jason Robert
Jeffrey Thurnher
Jende Andrew Huang
Jeopardy
Jesse Schell
Jessica Scorpio
JFK
Jill Lepore
John Harris
John Markoff
John Ruskin
John Singer Sargent
John Smart
Jonah Lehrer
Joseph Weizenbaum
journalism
joy
Judaism
Juergen Schmidhuber
Julian Savulescu
jus ad bellum
jus in bello
just war theory
KAL007
Kathleen Lawand
Katja Grace
Ken Hayworth
Kenneth W. Anderson
Kevin Jain
Kevin Kelly
killer robots
Kindle
kissing
Kyle Munkittrick
L5 Society
lambda calculus
Lauren Silbert
law
law of accelerating returns
LAWS
LAWS2015
lay science
Leon Kass
Leon R. Kass
Lepht Anonym
liberalism
libertarian transhumanism
libertarianism
life extension
lifelogging
linguistics
Lisa Katayama
literature
Lockheed Martin
loneliness
Lost
love
LRASM
Ludwig Wittgenstein
MacIntyre Conference
mainstream
Malthusianism
man as beast
Marc D. Guerra
Marcus Hutter
Marilynne Robinson
Mark Blitz
Mark Gubrud
Mark Walker
Martine Rothblatt
Marvel
Marvin Minsky
Marxism
Maryanne Wolf
materialism
Matthew Crawford
Matthew Waxman
Max More
memory
Methuselah Foundation
Methuselarity
METI
Micah Mattix
Michael Anissimov
Michael Nielsen
Michael Pollan
Michael Schmitt
Michio Kaku
Mike Treder
Milan Kundera
military
Millie Ray
mind as computer
Mind Children
mind control
minds
Modern Times
modesty
molecular manufacturing
monstrosities
moral relativism
morality
morphological freedom
Morris Johnson
Moshe Dayan
movies
multitasking
nanotechnology
NASA
Natasha Vita-More
Nathaniel Comfort
National Geographic
National Nanotechnology Initiative
natural law
natural rights
Neal Stephenson
Ned Seeman
neuro-everything
neurobiology
neuroelectronics
neuroengineering
neuroscience
Never Say Die conference
New America Foundation
Nicholas Carr
Nick Bostrom
Nick Carr
Nietzsche
Nikita Khrushchev
Nikki Olson
Nikolai Fyodorov
Noah Goodman
Noel Sharkey
normativity
nuclear weapons
Oculus Rift
Olympics
ontological fortitude
Orphan Black
Orwells
Outline of History
Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics
P. W. Singer
paradox of choice
parenthood
Patrick Hopkins
Patrick Lin
Patrick McGuire
patriotism
pattern-identity
Paul Ramsey
Paul Scharre
personal identity
personhood
Peter A. Lawler
Peter Singer
Peter Thiel
philosophy of mind
photography
Pioneer
plastic surgery
plastination
Plato
politics
positive sum game
postmodernism
predation
President's Council on Bioethics
Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues
progress
progressivism
psychology
public relations
quantum computing
racism
Radiohead
Ramez Naam
Randal Koene
rationality
Ray Kurzweil
Ray Tallis
recommended reading
regulation
religion
relinquishment
René Descartes
repugnance
resentment watch
response to critics
resurrection
rhetoric of inevitability
Richard Feynman
Rick Weiss
rights
ritual
Road to Wigan Pier
Robert Ettinger
Robert P. George
Robin Hanson
robotics
robots
Rodney Brooks
Roger Scruton
romance
Ron Bailey
Ron Fouchier
Russia
Ryan Gariepy
S. Jay Olshansky
Sagan
Santa Claus
science
science fiction
scientific enterprise
scientism
scientists
secrecy
sectarianism
seduction community
self-driving cars
semi-autonomous
September 11
Seth Lloyd
SETI
sex
sex selection
sexual enhancement
Sherry Turkle
simulation
Singularitarianism
Singularity
Singularity Hub
Singularity Summit
Singularity University
Slate
sleep
smart phones
SMBC
social interaction
social robotics
society
Socrates
Sonia Arrison
Sorites paradox
space
space colonization
space exploration
sports
Stanislav Petrov
Star Trek
Star Wars
stem cell research
Stephen Cave
Stephen Hawking
Stephen Johnston
Stephen Wolfram
Steve Jobs
Steve Sailer
Steve Talbott
Stuart Hameroff
Stuart Russell
substrate chauvinism
suffering
superstition
suspended animation
synthetic biology
systems
tacos
Tao
Tea Party movement
Techno-Human Condition
Ted Fishman
Ted Goertzel
Teddy Ruxpin
Terminator
terrorism
The New York Times
The New Yorker
The Prospect of Immortality
the rhetoric of extinction
thinking
Thomas Malthus
thought experiments
Tim Tyler
Time magazine
Tocqueville
Todd May
Total Recall
totalitarianism
Transcendence
transhumanism
transhumanist tech fail
translation
travel
truth
Turing Machines
Turing Test
TV
Twitter
Tyler Cowen
tyranny
U.S. government
U.S. military
UAVs
UGVs
uncanny valley
unemployment
United Nations
United States government
uploading
USSR
USVs
utilitarianism
Utopia
UUVs
Vasili Arkhipov
Vatican
verification
Vijay Kumar
virtual reality
virtue
virtues
Voyager
Wafaa Bilal
Walker Percy
Walter Kirn
Washington Post
Watson
we are already x
whole-brain emulation
William Boothby
William Dickens
Winwood Reade
Wired
wisdom
Witherspoon Council
women's lib
work
XKCD
Yom Kippur War
Yuval Levin
Zeitgeist
Zoltan Istvan
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(69)
-
▼
November
(18)
- The New Bioethics Commission
- Looking for a Serious Debate
- The Significance of Man
- The “Anti-Progress” Slur
- Quick Links: Singularity University, Neuro-Trash, ...
- The Human Factor
- The more you know... (about radical life extension...
- Long Live the King
- The problem with defending death
- Robotic sports writers
- Someone is WRONG on the Internet!
- Unmanning the Front Lines
- Singularity Summit videos
- The Myth of Libertarian Enhancement, Cont'd
- Defining ‘Cyborg’ Down
- In texted time
- On being in the world
- Useful Singularity overview
-
▼
November
(18)

Thanks for engaging with actual transhumanist arguments!
ReplyDeleteI'll go ahead and note that it is a world of mortality, not immortality, where in fact the prideful are never chastened; there's no evidence that anyone ever held Genghis Khan to account, and he's certainly not around now to be judged (though, by this age, he might be effectively a different person).
The story of "This too shall pass" is much older than Lincoln; Wikipedia confirms my memory that this was originally a Jewish legend involving King Solomon.
Of course time goes on passing even if you're immortal. It is only memory that lasts.
Mr. Yudkowsky, of course the story of 'this too shall pass' long predates Lincoln; not only is that common knowledge, but Lincoln even said as much.
ReplyDeleteMore importantly, your invocation of Genghis Khan suggests that you miss the point of the Lincoln quotation (and of Charlie Rubin's final paragraph). A cruel tyrant, surveying his realm, might perhaps be humbled if he were to understand that someday, his works will all be undone. ("Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far away.") But if he could cling to power interminably, if he knew he need never reckon with mortality, there would certainly be no such chastening. And those under his heel would have far less consolation and far less hope of relief.
If you are immortal, what is the point of being a tyrant? Also, as technology progress, people will also communicate more easily and at faster speed. This let people organize a lot faster and make the transfer of information and ideas easier. The fact that I'm writing here is just one example of that concept. Wouldn't it make tyranny tougher to manage to the point where it doesn't make any sense to become a tyrant? Then, you have to wonder, is there any proof that staying mortal would help our cause in any way? It's like never inventing the car in case we ever lack oil. I might be wrong however.
ReplyDeletePlease, accept my apologies, I'm not as fluent in english as most of you. I'm doing my best to share my ideas correctly in language different than my own.
A tyrant *might* be chastened? That's a scanty thread on which to hang your hopes of fairness. Still less a justification for embracing Death itself and all the loss it brings.
ReplyDeleteSad fact: Genghis Khan had fun and died without ever realizing what he had done. Life isn't fair. Death doesn't make it any fairer.
I'll go ahead and note that immortality would indeed be hollow without intelligence enhancement; what good is memory without learning? That might be something on which to pin a hope for the end of tyranny - much better than wishing, probably futilely, that the most evil people of this world are sad about dying. How does that even make life any fairer if the good people are sad too?
Simon, don't worry, I honestly couldn't tell that English wasn't your first language!
ReplyDeleteI don't see why "the point of being a tyrant" would be affected by immortality. Assuming that we're limiting the scenario to life extension and not the full-blown Singularity (as kurt9 has been happy to do in previous discussions), there will still be a limited range of things from which people gain pleasure, and 'having power over others' will certainly still be one of them. The terrifying quote from 1984 -- "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever" -- would be a lot more likely to come true, if structures could stabilize as Rubin suggests.
Unless, of course, you're right about technology helping the opposition organize. The use of Twitter by protesters in Iran was widely-touted, and indeed it was very helpful to them. But since the initial protests, Iran has brought in consultants from China to help them manage their response: and it's all the more effective precisely because of technology. Along with Basiji batons, the government is using video cameras to identify protesters and quietly arrest them weeks later; Twitter followers and Facebook friends have been used to catalogue and attack networks of students who are likely to share the same political views. And that's just direct repression. People have long predicted that the internet would democratize China. While the most tech-savvy have found ways around government firewalls, though, for the most part the regieme seems very much in control of the situation -- certainly more so than in 1989. At the very least, you must admit that tech is a two-edged sword.
I thank Mr. Dufour for one of the clearest and most thoughtful responses I have seen on this blog so far. Let me respond to his points in reverse order.
ReplyDelete1) Immortality would not be like the normal run of human inventions; I think it fair to say it would be without precedent. So the usual "we'll deal with that problem when it arises" approach that is ok in the case of a car does not do justice to immortality.
2) Knowing that communication among their subjects is a threat to them, tyrants make efforts to disrupt it. In the Soviet Union, the Moscow telephone directory was a classified document. The Iranians disrupted the Internet during this year's massive election protests. The Stasi's huge network of informants made even personal conversations dangerous. Such efforts may be a cat-and-mouse game, but the net result is that the quality, reliability, and safety of communication can be significantly degraded. There is no reason to think the good guys will have the edge just for being good guys.
3) Your first point about the motives for tyranny goes very deep, and I would be interested in hearing arguments that elaborate on it. I will not do justice to the topic here myself. Broadly speaking, though, whether his motives are personal or ideological, the tyrant seeks the maximum freedom to do as he wills. In that sense, he is close kin to our transhumanist libertarians, so we might already begin to wonder why tyranny would not be even more frequent in their future than our present. We are told that one should be able to do as one wills so long as it does not harm others, or some like argument. The tyrant is simply more consistent, and has no desire to let others restrict his will at all.
Mr. Yudkowsky - I don't recall saying anything about fairness. But thank you for introducing here the subject of 'intelligence enhancement'; there are huge and interesting assumptions embedded in your suggestion that it might somehow reduce the likelihood of tyranny.
ReplyDeleteMessrs. Dufour, Boyd, and Rubin - On the subject of tyranny and communication technology, you might enjoy this recent piece from the Weekly Standard. It walks through some of the hyperbole about Twitter and last summer's protests in Iran. It also quotes Gordon Brown making this pronouncement:
"You cannot have Rwanda again because information would come out far more quickly about what is actually going on and the public opinion would grow to the point where action would need to be taken."
Prime Minister Brown is saying about genocide the same thing that Mr. Dufour said about tyranny: a lack of information is what lets it happen. But having more and faster information will not necessarily give people what they need to fight tyranny, or give states what they need to fight genocide: the moral clarity to know action is needed, and the courage to act. Sometimes, more and faster information can even detract from the moral clarity and courage needed to fight evil.
I don't think we should "deal with that problem with it arise". However, we have to wonder if it's really a different problem than having a mortal tyrant. Immortality itself don't promote tyranny in any way. It doesn't even hint to it. In fact, it gives incentive against it. If you are immortal, it would make sense to slowly progress toward your goal with the lowest risk possible to avoid loosing everything. Taking risk to achieve rapid gains seem counter-productive to me. We must also add that a lot of things would completely disappear.. the classic wish to be part of history, to be remembered after your death become a moot point, don't it.
ReplyDeleteAgain, this is all very speculative. Immortality would bring more changes than we could ever think of. I'm an optimistist however and, to me, there seem to be more value in prolonging life than to die.
I confess to being mystified why assertions of how Genghis Khan felt about himself when he died should make a difference to my argument. For some people, a confrontation with their mortality may induce moral seriousness; for others it may not. But in terms of our discussion of tyranny, the salient point is that Genghis Khan is dead. We no longer have to worry about his plans and ambitions. There have since arisen new tyrants with their own grand plans and ambitions for world conquest or thousand-year Reichs. So let's think about two options for starters. Which would you rather live under? Which situation would provide more consolation? The first is the tyrant who, like most tyrants, is not that good at dealing with the problem of succession and continuity (successors being potential rivals). So when he dies, who knows what will happen? The second is the immortal tyrant, who wants a thousand-year Reich and will be around to rule it. A thousand years of habits of command and obedience, of jaded appetites, of willful behavior — and who knows: he may just be getting started. There's a happy thought.
ReplyDeleteI thank Mr. Yudkowsky for letting the cat out of the bag with respect to intelligence enhancement being required along with immortality. But that lovely idea sounds to me like more whistling in the dark. Life experience and reading history has taught me that there is a slim correlation between intelligence and decency, and I'm not even sure it is slim — it may be none. It would hardly seem necessary to belabor this point given all the recent stories about the harm the smartest guys in the room are capable of.
And yes I know we are to believe that there are all different kinds of intelligence; if Mr. Yudkowsky wants to say enhanced moral intelligence let him do so. That would move us down the path towards what I think is the ultimate reason transhumanists are not worried about immortal evil: because they think that what we know of humans will not tell us anything about posthuman behavior.
With regard to information preventing tyranny, Stephen Colbert put it best on his show on Tuesday. In reference to last year's Iranian Green Revolution: "It was a heady time, when we believed that right could overcome might, and that Twitter actually mattered."
ReplyDeleteThe problem of tyrants is one that the developed and much of the developing world is likely passed for good. One does not need a Kurtzweilian singularity to have the decentralization of technology and communication make it such that tyranny becomes logistically impossible. As you have probably figured out by now, I don't believe in the singularity. However, there is the more "mundane" singularity that Brian Wang has described on his website that definitely will happen. I think that the decentralization of technology, especially biotech and manufacturing, is going to make any such tyranny scenario logistically impossible in the next few decades anyways. So, the immortal tyrant argument against radical life extension is not valid.
ReplyDeleteBesides, Thomas Jefferson (or was it Ben Franklin?) once said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilence. You don't think that some of us transhumanists take this admonishment to heart? Of course we do. The fear of a potential adverse consequence is no reason to give up on a long term dream or goal. Especially when it is existential in nature. As I said before with regards to this matter, failure is not an option.
I stand by my point that the only legitimate argument against radical life extension (assuming we never do space colonization) is that of over-population. I provided a link to a presentation based on future population projections for the rest of this century that comprehensivesly debunks this argument.
Once again Mr. Dufour has hit some nails on the head. But he has not (if I may mix metaphors) hit the ball out of the park. I agree that we should not expect exactly the same behaviors from mortal and immortal tyrants; immortal tyrants may indeed be less inclined to seek the rapid gains necessary to enjoy as much power as possible in a brief life. Perhaps they will be more measured in seeking tyranny, more patient. Will such traits make them less tyrannical or more insidious tyrants? (One might consult Xenophon here.) As for immortal glory, already tyrants want to be always in the eyes and minds of their subjects, and death in this respect is a great leveler. Those left behind have, at the very least, the consolation of watching pigeons crap on the statue of the Great Leader. Why would I want to be any less in the thoughts of my subjects if I knew I had all the time in the world?
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing that at root Mr. Dufour and I disagree on the following. I see the desire for tyranny as coeval with our humanity. We all share the tyrannic impulse to do as we please, the impulse encouraged by transhumanism. Our circumstances and abilities will constrain us, more or less (transhumanism wants less). Many will learn not to let this tyrannic desire dominate their lives (often based on ethical systems that transhumanists regard as outmoded). Some will only be able to tyrannize over family, or neighbors, or coworkers. A very few will reach the greatest heights and rule large numbers. Immortality does not have to create incentives for tyranny; they are built in. But it can make tyranny worse, and transhumanism can contribute to liberating the core desire that stands behind it.
I'm sorry but I can't see how the ideologies behind transhumanism encourage tyranny. The end of human suffering, the extension of life, technogaianism all seem to be noble ideologies. To me, antimodernism and radical environmentalism seem way more dangerous routes. I might not be tailored for this debate.
ReplyDeleteSimon, it doesn't. The immortal tyrant argument is a red-herring. The kind of technologies that make post-mortality and other transhumanist technologies possible will lead to empowerment of individuals and self-interested small groups relative to the power of large corporations and nation-states (this more than any other reason makes transhumanism worthy of support). This is inherently decentralizing in nature and, thus, makes any kind of tyranny increasing impossible for logistical reasons alone. I believe that, at least places like the U.S. and even China, we're past the point where anything like a return to Maoism is even possible.
ReplyDeleteThe immortal tyrant argument is a silly one.
I don't see how an individual tyrant accumulating more and more life experience gives me a worse chance than old tyrants passing the reign to young tyrants. But in any case, we're overrunning the assumptions I actually believe in here. I'm expecting an AI scenario and that's a whole different order of story. That said, if an AI was noninterventionist to leave non-dying humans in a state where it was possible for one of them to become a tyrant, I don't think I'd be fearing it much more because everyone was immortal. The problem of tyranny is not bound to particular tyrants. Humanity has started moving past tyranny but not because people are shorter-lived, etcetera.
ReplyDelete