Stross makes a few different claims, but they don’t seem to add up to any kind of substantial critique of singularity-belief. The simulation argument is just a tangent: it doesn’t actually have anything to do with the probability of a technological singularity. He basically says he doesn’t think uploading is likely and then describes why it is undesirable anyway.
The argument that religious opposition to uploading will prevent it from being introduced is parochial, since there are huge countries like Korea, China, and Japan which are overwhelmingly secular, and where the technology could very plausibly be developed. In addition, secularism is increasingly dominant in North America and Europe, so that viewpoint is short-sighted as well. More to the point, I sincerely doubt religious people would really have a problem with (other people) uploading in the first place. Stross’s view that people would launch holy wars against uploaders seems like paranoia to me.
More to the point, I sincerely doubt religious people would really have a problem with (other people) uploading in the first place.
I think you underestimate the ability of some religious people to have problems with things, and overestimate the ability of many other religious people to speak against their pushy, controlling brethren. See, e.g., gay marriage.
I’m honestly not sure that the social conservatism we associate with religion has all that much to do, in the average case, with religion per se. Fundamentalism is kind of a special case, but most of the time what we see is religious opinion reflecting whatever the standard conservative-leaning package of social beliefs is at that particular place and time. Change the standard and religious opinion follows, perhaps after some lag time—it’s just that religiosity is correlated with a bundle of factors that tend to imply conservatism, and that church events give you a ready-made venue for talking to other conservatives.
For that matter, most of the analysis of fundamentalism I’ve read treats it as a reaction against secular influences, not an endogenous religious phenomenon. Its phenomenology in the wild seems to be consistent with that—fundamentalist strains first tend to pop up a decade or two after a culture’s exposure to Enlightenment values.
it’s just that religiosity is correlated with a bundle of factors that tend to imply conservatism, and that church events give you a ready-made venue for talking to other conservatives.
That is probably an important contributor to the phenomenon; there is a certain “social conservative” mindset. However, I think that religion leads to some social norms, such as the idea that it’s acceptable to pick one’s morality out of old books, which provide fuel to socially conservative movements and attitudes.
Gay marriage is actually a good example of the secular side winning, since gay marriage is spreading to more states and countries, and everyone thinks it will continue spreading in the future. That is in spite of the fact that their scriptures are totally opposed to homosexuality, whereas I don’t believe brain uploading is mentioned.
It’s a good example that the secular side wins eventually, but it’s not a good example of religious people not having problems with something. Abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, either.
Abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, either.
Although God did allegedly slay someone for the act of spilling semen on the ground during sex rather than impregnating the mate. May be best to err on the side of caution!
The secular side only has to win “eventually” in order for it to argue against Stross’ point. In any case, even in the case of abortion, which triggers powerful disgust reflexes, there isn’t anything like a holy war against abortion, let alone a holy war with a good chance of succeeding everywhere in the world.
I do agree that the “holy war to end holy wars” phrase was hyperbolic, but it’s also hyperbolic to expect no objection from religious people. When Stross first addresses the issue, he says:
However, if it becomes plausible in the near future we can expect extensive theological arguments over it. If you thought the abortion debate was heated, wait until you have people trying to become immortal via the wire. Uploading implicitly refutes the doctrine of the existence of an immortal soul, and therefore presents a raw rebuttal to those religious doctrines that believe in a life after death. People who believe in an afterlife will go to the mattresses to maintain a belief system that tells them their dead loved ones are in heaven rather than rotting in the ground.
That’s not an extreme conclusion. It’s only in the “in summary” section at the end that the rhetoric really picks up.
I wouldn’t call Korea “overwhelmingly secular” in the same way Japan is. Christianity is very common in South Korea, and Japan is...more religious than you might think; the local mix of Shinto and Buddhism that prevails works rather differently than Christianity in the West.
I agree he had a number of arguments that were not related to his thesis concerning a hard take-off and he didn’t really provide very good support for that thesis.
Stross makes a few different claims, but they don’t seem to add up to any kind of substantial critique of singularity-belief. The simulation argument is just a tangent: it doesn’t actually have anything to do with the probability of a technological singularity. He basically says he doesn’t think uploading is likely and then describes why it is undesirable anyway.
The argument that religious opposition to uploading will prevent it from being introduced is parochial, since there are huge countries like Korea, China, and Japan which are overwhelmingly secular, and where the technology could very plausibly be developed. In addition, secularism is increasingly dominant in North America and Europe, so that viewpoint is short-sighted as well. More to the point, I sincerely doubt religious people would really have a problem with (other people) uploading in the first place. Stross’s view that people would launch holy wars against uploaders seems like paranoia to me.
I think you underestimate the ability of some religious people to have problems with things, and overestimate the ability of many other religious people to speak against their pushy, controlling brethren. See, e.g., gay marriage.
I’m honestly not sure that the social conservatism we associate with religion has all that much to do, in the average case, with religion per se. Fundamentalism is kind of a special case, but most of the time what we see is religious opinion reflecting whatever the standard conservative-leaning package of social beliefs is at that particular place and time. Change the standard and religious opinion follows, perhaps after some lag time—it’s just that religiosity is correlated with a bundle of factors that tend to imply conservatism, and that church events give you a ready-made venue for talking to other conservatives.
For that matter, most of the analysis of fundamentalism I’ve read treats it as a reaction against secular influences, not an endogenous religious phenomenon. Its phenomenology in the wild seems to be consistent with that—fundamentalist strains first tend to pop up a decade or two after a culture’s exposure to Enlightenment values.
That is probably an important contributor to the phenomenon; there is a certain “social conservative” mindset. However, I think that religion leads to some social norms, such as the idea that it’s acceptable to pick one’s morality out of old books, which provide fuel to socially conservative movements and attitudes.
Gay marriage is actually a good example of the secular side winning, since gay marriage is spreading to more states and countries, and everyone thinks it will continue spreading in the future. That is in spite of the fact that their scriptures are totally opposed to homosexuality, whereas I don’t believe brain uploading is mentioned.
It’s a good example that the secular side wins eventually, but it’s not a good example of religious people not having problems with something. Abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, either.
Although God did allegedly slay someone for the act of spilling semen on the ground during sex rather than impregnating the mate. May be best to err on the side of caution!
The secular side only has to win “eventually” in order for it to argue against Stross’ point. In any case, even in the case of abortion, which triggers powerful disgust reflexes, there isn’t anything like a holy war against abortion, let alone a holy war with a good chance of succeeding everywhere in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
I do agree that the “holy war to end holy wars” phrase was hyperbolic, but it’s also hyperbolic to expect no objection from religious people. When Stross first addresses the issue, he says:
That’s not an extreme conclusion. It’s only in the “in summary” section at the end that the rhetoric really picks up.
I wouldn’t call Korea “overwhelmingly secular” in the same way Japan is. Christianity is very common in South Korea, and Japan is...more religious than you might think; the local mix of Shinto and Buddhism that prevails works rather differently than Christianity in the West.
I agree he had a number of arguments that were not related to his thesis concerning a hard take-off and he didn’t really provide very good support for that thesis.