Re: Anders Sandberg in Second Life on converging cognitive enhancement, uvvy island in SL, May 23 2007 10am PST

From: Larry (
Date: Fri May 11 2007 - 12:01:09 MDT

On Fri, 11 May 2007, Mike Dougherty wrote:

> On 5/11/07, <> wrote:
>> My analogy is lost, but Second Life still sucks. There have for years been
>> more accessible and efficient methods for an online seminar. It's a shame
>> that being marginally shinier and having a lot of users who build stupid
>> crap should cement its pervasive application.
> The dark side of "Shock Level 4" is not all the advanced technological
> benefit that enlightened individuals can conceive, but the perversions
> that they will be applied to for/by those less enlightened.

This has to be taken as a given, technology doesn't change basic human
drives. Come up with a neat new piece of technology, and people are going
to think "how will this get me more money, get me laid, get me high, give
me power". Even given the power to change the genome, it will likely be
these urges that influence the changes.

The place everyone makes a mistake is thinking "oh thats horrible!", and
trying to be above it all. Humans are the most dangerous animals
on the planet, if you owned a lion you'd make sure it was well fed and
well treated. Yet humans who are the most dangerous animal of all,
we starve and abuse the poor animal inside while pretending to be
something special and pure above having an animal nature. The
fundamentalists show where this leads, despising life and the
world, praying for global suicide to put them out of there misery.

I'll argue for the intentional antimonian approach.

If the first use of true virtual reality means being able to go online
and having mind blowingly realistic sex with someone 1/2 way around the
planet, thats a great thing. It means that persons going to be nice to
people that day, and being well satiated may be thinking about the future
of the human race rather than getting revenge on the person who just cut
them off. That person who cut them off won't be stressed out, and will
think more carefully about the rational for war.

Human nature will win in the end, we can feed the lion on our own terms,
or ignore it and it will feed on its terms. Given the power that is coming
into our hands, I don't see a choice. We must stop the purity game, else
we put our power in the hands of angry wild animals.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:57 MDT