This summer, Brian Hoffstein is attending the Singularity University Graduate Studies Program, and over at the Singularity Hub, he writes that they are “thinking exponentially,” and that this is exciting stuff: “participants have hit the ground running,” and are being repeatedly assured that amazing things are already possible, not to speak of all that is just around the corner. You see, “exponential technologies are powerful, and this power can be harnessed for good.” This power is a reflection of the fact that, in Kevin Kelly’s words, “evolution has evolved its own evolvability,” and that ability introduces a good deal of uncertainty about the future—“thinking about the future is a brain teaser,” opines Mr. Hoffstein. However, “despite the limits we put on ourselves to forecast and predict the future, we have a pretty good understanding of what we can expect in the next couple decades.”
The “limits we put on ourselves”? If he means limits we put on ourselves voluntarily, then one might have thought those were the least of our constraints when forecasting the future (though doubtless they play a role). But never mind, for we have already a pretty good idea about what to expect, because “ ‘the future is here, it’s just not evenly distributed.’ For the remainder of the summer, the goal is to distribute the future so we can flourish in the present.”
Oh, to be young again, and to face for the first time those late night bull sessions, taking up the deep existential questions like how to distribute the future so we can flourish in the present!
Actually, we did a fair amount of exponential thinking in my (relative) youth; the seventies were lousy with the stuff. Except back then it was not good news. The likes of the Club of Rome and Paul Ehrlich wanted us to learn exponential thinking in order to understand why modern civilization was going to destroy itself. You heard then the same arguments you hear today about the special effort we evolutionarily disadvantaged mere human beings need to make to think exponentially. Back then, the claim was that our very survival depended on learning how to do it. Now we are promised it is the route to flourishing.
When I started writing about environmentalism in the eighties, the more I looked into such claims the more they seemed to be a product of questionable data, questionable methods, outright hype if not hysteria, and a very problematic political agenda. So far as I can tell, not much has changed in this respect. Back then, experts lectured about how cutting-edge technologies were destroying us. Now, they lecture about how they will save us.
Or not us, exactly. We are, after all, taking about Singularity University. The transhumanists of the early twenty-first century are preaching the imminent destruction of mankind as fervently as the environmentalists of the late twentieth. The difference is that the transhumanists are rooting for it.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bloggers
Charles T. Rubin, New Atlantis contributing editor.
Adam Keiper, New Atlantis editor.
Ari N. Schulman, New Atlantis senior editor.
Brendan Foht, New Atlantis assistant editor.
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 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
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
aesthetics
Agnes Heller
AI
Al Jazeera
Alan Jacobs
Alan Rubenstein
Alasdair MacIntyre
Alcor
Alex Backer
Alex Knapp
Allen Buchanan
Amy Gutmann
Ana Maria Cuervo
Anders Sandberg
Andrew Hessel
animal uplift
Anna Salamon
anti-progress
Apple
argument from inevitability
argument from infallibility
Aristotle
art
Arthur C. Clarke
artifacts
Artificial intelligence
artificial life
artificial wombs
Asilomar
assisted reproductive technology
Aubrey de Grey
Audrey Hepburn
augmented reality
authenticity
automation
autonomy
Avatar
avian flu
beauty
behavioral science
Ben Goertzel
Benjamin Storey
Beyond Therapy
Big Dog
Bill Joy
bioethics
bionics
body image
body modification
Brad Templeton
Bradley Allenby
Bradley J. Thames
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
Caprica
cats
cell phones
character
Charles Taylor
children
Christianity
Christine Rosen
Christmas
cloning
CNN
coercion
cognitive computing
cognitive enhancement
cognitive liberty
comments
commercials
communication technologies
compression
computational biology
Condorcet
consciousness
constant connection
creativity
cryonics
cyborg
Cynthia Kenyon
Dale Carrico
Daniel Sarewitz
Daniel Sportiello
Darlene Cavalier
DARPA
David A. Noebel
David Benatar
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
distraction
distributive justice
diversity
Down syndrome
dualism
e-memory
e-readers
Earth
eclipse
economics
Ed Boyden
Ed Regis
efficiency
Eliezer Yudkowsky
ELIZA
embodiment
empathy
enhancement
Enlightenment
entropy
environmentalism
equality of access
Eric Drexler
ethics
eugenics
everyday life
evolution
evolutionary psychology
existential risks
extropy
eyes in the back of your head
Facebook
faith
fantasy
fashion
faux caution
fiction
Fight Aging
Fixed
Flannery O'Connor
folk psychology
Foresight Institute
Fort Hood
Frances Willard
Fred Baumann
French Revolution
friendly AI
Futurism (art)
Futurisms
futuristic distance
gaming
Gary Drescher
Gary Marcus
Gary Wolf
geoengineering
George Dvorsky
George Orwell
Gilbert Meilaender
Gizmodo
global warming
gloomy
God
goodness
Google
Gordon Bell
government
GPS
Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition
Greg Benford
Gregor Wolbring
Gregory Benford
Gödel
H+ magazine
H+ Summit 2010
Halloween
Hank Hyena
Hans Moravec
heartbreak
Heather Knight
Heidegger
history
holism
hubris
human excellence
human extinction
human life
human nature
human significance
humanism
humanities
humanoid robotics
humor
Iain M. Banks
Ian Pearson
IEET
immortality
infanticide
IQ
Irfan Khawaja
Isaac Asimov
Isaac Newton
Itamar Arel
IVF
J. M. Bernstein
Jamais Cascio
James Hughes
James Jorasch
James W. Wagner
Japan
Jason Furman
Jason Robert
Jende Andrew Huang
Jeopardy
Jesse Schell
Jessica Scorpio
Jill Lepore
John Ruskin
John Singer Sargent
John Smart
Jonah Lehrer
Joseph Weizenbaum
journalism
joy
Judaism
Juergen Schmidhuber
Julian Savulescu
Katja Grace
Ken Hayworth
Kevin Jain
Kevin Kelly
Kindle
kissing
Kyle Munkittrick
L5 Society
lambda calculus
Lauren Silbert
law of accelerating returns
lay science
Leon Kass
Leon R. Kass
Lepht Anonym
liberalism
libertarian transhumanism
libertarianism
life extension
lifelogging
linguistics
Lisa Katayama
literature
loneliness
Lost
Ludwig Wittgenstein
MacIntyre Conference
mainstream
man as beast
Marcus Hutter
Marilynne Robinson
Mark Gubrud
Mark Walker
Martine Rothblatt
Marxism
Maryanne Wolf
materialism
Matthew Crawford
Max More
memory
Methuselah Foundation
Methuselarity
Michael Anissimov
Michael Nielsen
Michael Pollan
Mike Treder
Milan Kundera
military
Millie Ray
mind as computer
Mind Children
mind control
minds
Modern Times
molecular manufacturing
moral relativism
morality
morphological freedom
Morris Johnson
multitasking
nanotechnology
NASA
Natasha Vita-More
National Geographic
National Nanotechnology Initiative
natural rights
Neal Stephenson
Ned Seeman
neuro-everything
neurobiology
neuroengineering
neuroscience
Never Say Die conference
New America Foundation
Nick Bostrom
Nick Carr
Nietzsche
Nikki Olson
Nikolai Fyodorov
Noah Goodman
normativity
nuclear weapons
Olympics
ontological fortitude
P. W. Singer
paradox of choice
parenthood
Patrick Hopkins
Patrick Lin
Patrick McGuire
pattern-identity
personal identity
personhood
Peter A. Lawler
Peter Singer
Peter Thiel
philosophy of mind
photography
plastic surgery
plastination
politics
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
repugnance
resentment watch
response to critics
resurrection
rhetoric of inevitability
Richard Feynman
Rick Weiss
rights
ritual
Robert Ettinger
Robin Hanson
robotics
robots
Roger Scruton
romance
Ron Bailey
Ron Fouchier
S. Jay Olshansky
Santa Claus
science
science fiction
scientific enterprise
scientism
scientists
secrecy
sectarianism
seduction community
self-driving cars
September 11
Seth Lloyd
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
Sonia Arrison
Sorites paradox
space
space colonization
space exploration
sports
Star Trek
Star Wars
stem cell research
Stephen Cave
Stephen Johnston
Stephen Wolfram
Steve Sailer
Steve Talbott
Stuart Hameroff
substrate chauvinism
suffering
superstition
suspended animation
systems
tacos
Tao
Tea Party movement
Techno-Human Condition
Ted Fishman
Ted Goertzel
Teddy Ruxpin
terrorism
The New York Times
The New Yorker
The Prospect of Immortality
the rhetoric of extinction
thinking
thought experiments
Tim Tyler
Time magazine
Tocqueville
Todd May
totalitarianism
transhumanism
transhumanist tech fail
translation
travel
Turing Machines
Turing Test
TV
Twitter
Tyler Cowen
tyranny
UAVs
uncanny valley
unemployment
uploading
USVs
utilitarianism
Utopia
UUVs
virtual reality
virtues
Wafaa Bilal
Walker Percy
Walter Kirn
Watson
we are already x
whole-brain emulation
William Dickens
Wired
wisdom
women's lib
XKCD
Yuval Levin
| 






The vast majority of the participants at Singularity University are fervently striving towards the endurance of mankind, rather than its destruction. It is just that many of them feel that exponential thinking and technological advance are vital tools for humanity's survival and advancement.
ReplyDeleteFurther, for better or worse, most participants at Singularity University are not transhumanist. Some are indeed present, but most people are there because of the diverse community of free-thinkers.
I myself am not a transhumanist, but am involved at Singularity University because it is one of the few places where I can openly discuss just about any idea and freely cross disciplines. My own work in Human Dynamics, which is developing a physical science of human history, is an example of such an idea.
Transhumanists have some good ideas, but so do the environmentalists, libertarians, progressives, feminists, engineers, policy wonks, etc. These viewpoints are all alive and well at Singularity University, and it is the vibrant, free-thinking, humanistic atmosphere there that has helped restore some of my enthusiasm for the future of humanity.
Thanks to Mr. Ciotola for clarifying for me the diversity of the participants at Singularity U. And yet I can't help but continue to wonder if these free-thinking humanists and transhumanists might not look more diverse in their own eyes than in the eyes of an outsider such as myself, who suspects that being united by a belief in the saving powers of "exponential thinking and technological advance" might produce its own kind of tunnel vision or group think. Is there not, for example, a common reductionism in treating human bodies as "meat machines", as transhumanists so typically do, and treating human history as an instantiation of the laws of physics? Indeed, I'm sorry to say that when Mr. Ciotola characterizes Singularity U as being populated by "environmentalists, libertarians, progressives, feminists, engineers, policy wonks, etc.," it sounds an awful lot to me like just about any other University today, at most of which intellectual diversity is notorious for spanning the wide range of A to B.
ReplyDelete