Basically: humans will find ways to hurt each other real bad and will produce vicious cycles of misery no matter how you frame their interactions; there’s no magic bullet of human social organization. If we want Eutopia—after we make our common shithole a little less bad within the limits of our nature (otherwise we’ll slide into dystopia real easy, no UFAI needed) - we have to rewire stuff on the biological level. Transhumanism of some kind is logically inevitable and ethically neccessary no matter your objections to it.
For most types of morals, it’s not possible to get into a state of moral satisfaction while remaining ourselves.
we have to rewire stuff on the biological level. Transhumanism of some kind is logically inevitable and ethically neccessary no matter your objections to it.
Weren’t you trying to argue in another thread that merely using sufficiently strong social pressure to change someone’s behavior constitutes torture?
Well, some people find execution more humane than prolonged torture! Me, I’d rather, say, be implanted with a chip that makes me want to sodomize cattle than “persuaded” to do the same thing by endless “kind” speeches, guilt-tripping, Dark Arts pontification, etc.
And, hell, if it takes a CEO to decide what “modification kits” to produce, and a scientist to produce them, it might turn out slightly better than any random people with random ideas trying to impress those upon their social lessers and dependents. I’m still afraid of technocratic rule, but ordinary everyday cruelty can be even worse, especially when it’s not understood to be cruelty.
And, hell, if it takes a CEO to decide what “modification kits” to produce, and a scientist to produce them,
This is different than what you seemed to be implying in the grandparent since in this scenerio no one’s forced to apply the modification kits to themselves.
it might turn out slightly better than any random people with random ideas trying to impress those upon their social lessers and dependents.
Well, that depends, is the CEO subject to market pressure with respect to the kind of “modification kits” his company produces?
If so, then this basically amounts to self-modification, and has all the associated benefits and problems, e.g., wire-heading.
If the CEO isn’t subject to market pressure and the modification kits are forced then I would find this much worse than mere social pressure.
Basically: humans will find ways to hurt each other real bad and will produce vicious cycles of misery no matter how you frame their interactions; there’s no magic bullet of human social organization. If we want Eutopia—after we make our common shithole a little less bad within the limits of our nature (otherwise we’ll slide into dystopia real easy, no UFAI needed) - we have to rewire stuff on the biological level. Transhumanism of some kind is logically inevitable and ethically neccessary no matter your objections to it.
For most types of morals, it’s not possible to get into a state of moral satisfaction while remaining ourselves.
Weren’t you trying to argue in another thread that merely using sufficiently strong social pressure to change someone’s behavior constitutes torture?
Well, some people find execution more humane than prolonged torture! Me, I’d rather, say, be implanted with a chip that makes me want to sodomize cattle than “persuaded” to do the same thing by endless “kind” speeches, guilt-tripping, Dark Arts pontification, etc.
And, hell, if it takes a CEO to decide what “modification kits” to produce, and a scientist to produce them, it might turn out slightly better than any random people with random ideas trying to impress those upon their social lessers and dependents. I’m still afraid of technocratic rule, but ordinary everyday cruelty can be even worse, especially when it’s not understood to be cruelty.
This is different than what you seemed to be implying in the grandparent since in this scenerio no one’s forced to apply the modification kits to themselves.
Well, that depends, is the CEO subject to market pressure with respect to the kind of “modification kits” his company produces?
If so, then this basically amounts to self-modification, and has all the associated benefits and problems, e.g., wire-heading.
If the CEO isn’t subject to market pressure and the modification kits are forced then I would find this much worse than mere social pressure.
I agree completely but downvoted for ranting with dubious pertinence as an ideologue.