Robert Ettinger’s surprise at the incompetence of the establishment:
Robert Ettinger waited expectantly for prominent scientists or physicians to come to the same conclusion he had, and to take a position of public advocacy. By 1960, Ettinger finally made the scientific case for the idea, which had always been in the back of his mind. Ettinger was 42 years old and said he was increasingly aware of his own mortality.[7] In what has been characterized as an historically important mid-life crisis,[7] Ettinger summarized the idea of cryonics in a few pages, with the emphasis on life insurance, and sent this to approximately 200 people whom he selected from Who’s Who in America.[7] The response was very small, and it was clear that a much longer exposition was needed— mostly to counter cultural bias. Ettinger correctly saw that people, even the intellectually, financially and socially distinguished, would have to be educated into understanding his belief that dying is usually gradual and could be a reversible process, and that freezing damage is so limited (even though fatal by present criteria) that its reversibility demands relatively little in future progress.
Ettinger soon made an even more troubling discovery, principally that “a great many people have to be coaxed into admitting that life is better than death, healthy is better than sick, smart is better than stupid, and immortality might be worth the trouble!”
Maybe if I publish a clear scientifically minded book they’ll listen?
Following publication of The Prospect of Immortality (1962) Robert Ettinger again waited for prominent scientists, industrialists, or others in authority to see the wisdom of his idea and begin implementing it.
He is still waiting!
I write this because a prominent claim of the SIAI founders (Vassar especially) is that we vastly overestimate the competence of both society in general, and of the elites who run it.
Another example along the same lines is the relative non-response to the publication of nanosystems, especially the National Nanotech Initiative fiasco.
First: I think a historical narrative can be constructed, according to which a future unexpected in, say, 1900 or even in 1950 slowly comes into view, and in which there are three stages characterized by an extra increment of knowledge. The first increment is cryonics, the second increment is nanotechnology, and the third increment is superintelligence. There is a highly selective view; if you were telling the history of futurist visions in general, you would need to include biotechnology, robotics, space travel, nuclear power, even aviation, and many other things.
In any case, among all the visions of the future that exist out there, there is definitely one consisting of cryonics + nanotechnology + superintelligence. Cryonics is a path from the present to the future, nanotechnology will make the material world as pliable as the bits in a computer, and superintelligence guided by some utility function will rule over all things.
Among the questions one might want answered:
1) Is this an accurate vision of the future?
2) Why is it that still so few people share this perspective?
3) Is that a situation which ought to be changed, and if so, how could it be changed?
Question 1 is by far the most discussed.
Question 2 is mostly pondered by the few people who have answered ‘yes’ to question 1, and usually psychological answers are given. I think that a certain type of historical thinking could go a long way towards answering question 2, but it would have to be carried out with care, intelligence, and a will to objectivity.
This is what I have in mind: You can find various histories of the world which cover the period from 1960. Most of them will not mention Ettinger’s book, or Eric Drexler’s, or any of the movements to which they gave rise. To find a history which notices any of that, you will have to specialize, e.g. to a history of American technological subcultures, or a history of 20th-century futurological enthusiasms. An overkill history-based causal approach to question 2 would have a causal model of world history since 1960, a causal model of those small domains in which Ettinger and Drexler’s publications had some impact, and finally it would seek to understand why the causal processes of the second sort remained invisible on the scale of the first.
Question 3 is also, intrinsically, a question which will mostly be of interest to the small group who have already answered ‘yes’ to question 1.
You can find various histories of the world which cover the period from 1960. Most of them will not mention Ettinger’s book, or Eric Drexler’s, or any of the movements to which they gave rise
On the other hand, does anyone who has seriously thought about the issue expect nanotech to not be incredibly important in the long-term? It seems that there is a solid sceptical case that nano has been overhyped in the short term, perhaps even by Drexler.
But who will step forward having done a thorough analysis and say that humanity will thrive for another millennium without developing advanced nanotech?
A good illustration of multiple discovery (not strictly ‘discovery’ in this case, but anyway) too:
While Ettinger was the first, most articulate, and most scientifically credible person to argue the idea of cryonics,[citation needed] he was not the only one. In 1962, Evan Cooper had authored a manuscript entitled Immortality, Scientifically, Physically, Now under the pseudonym “N. Durhing”.[8] Cooper’s book contained the same argument as did Ettinger’s, but it lacked both scientific and technical rigor and was not of publication quality.[citation needed]
Robert Ettinger’s surprise at the incompetence of the establishment:
Maybe if I publish a clear scientifically minded book they’ll listen?
He is still waiting!
I write this because a prominent claim of the SIAI founders (Vassar especially) is that we vastly overestimate the competence of both society in general, and of the elites who run it.
Another example along the same lines is the relative non-response to the publication of nanosystems, especially the National Nanotech Initiative fiasco.
There are many momentous issues here.
First: I think a historical narrative can be constructed, according to which a future unexpected in, say, 1900 or even in 1950 slowly comes into view, and in which there are three stages characterized by an extra increment of knowledge. The first increment is cryonics, the second increment is nanotechnology, and the third increment is superintelligence. There is a highly selective view; if you were telling the history of futurist visions in general, you would need to include biotechnology, robotics, space travel, nuclear power, even aviation, and many other things.
In any case, among all the visions of the future that exist out there, there is definitely one consisting of cryonics + nanotechnology + superintelligence. Cryonics is a path from the present to the future, nanotechnology will make the material world as pliable as the bits in a computer, and superintelligence guided by some utility function will rule over all things.
Among the questions one might want answered:
1) Is this an accurate vision of the future?
2) Why is it that still so few people share this perspective?
3) Is that a situation which ought to be changed, and if so, how could it be changed?
Question 1 is by far the most discussed.
Question 2 is mostly pondered by the few people who have answered ‘yes’ to question 1, and usually psychological answers are given. I think that a certain type of historical thinking could go a long way towards answering question 2, but it would have to be carried out with care, intelligence, and a will to objectivity.
This is what I have in mind: You can find various histories of the world which cover the period from 1960. Most of them will not mention Ettinger’s book, or Eric Drexler’s, or any of the movements to which they gave rise. To find a history which notices any of that, you will have to specialize, e.g. to a history of American technological subcultures, or a history of 20th-century futurological enthusiasms. An overkill history-based causal approach to question 2 would have a causal model of world history since 1960, a causal model of those small domains in which Ettinger and Drexler’s publications had some impact, and finally it would seek to understand why the causal processes of the second sort remained invisible on the scale of the first.
Question 3 is also, intrinsically, a question which will mostly be of interest to the small group who have already answered ‘yes’ to question 1.
On the other hand, does anyone who has seriously thought about the issue expect nanotech to not be incredibly important in the long-term? It seems that there is a solid sceptical case that nano has been overhyped in the short term, perhaps even by Drexler.
But who will step forward having done a thorough analysis and say that humanity will thrive for another millennium without developing advanced nanotech?
A good illustration of multiple discovery (not strictly ‘discovery’ in this case, but anyway) too: