See the combox here.
Would the cybercosm make people "pampered pets"? Yes:
"'...guidance through centuries into the peace and transcendence of Oneness.'" (p. 397)
"'...keeping bodies safely at home while nourishing spirits and bringing them toward fulfillment.'" (p. 398)
I think that "peace" gets a bad press. It means not passivity but transcendence of the need for armed conflict. I am for peace, transcendence, Oneness and spiritual fulfillment. However, I am against "guidance," when that means subtle control, and "keeping bodies safely at home." Of course, while some explore the galaxy, many will remain in the Solar System but not because a higher power has kept them safely there.
Some will seek peace and transcendence through meditative practices or monastic lifestyles but they will choose that and meanwhile need not cut themselves off from the news of the interstellar frontier - the real frontier. The cybercosm's attempt to distract humanity with a massive lie about an interstellar civilization cannot possibly be in mankind's best interests. We have to make our own way. My only question is: how plausible is it that a global AI would attempt such a deception?
9 comments:
"Mr. Spock, the plug must be pulled." — Captain James T. Kirk, on discovering a society mind-controlled by a computer, episode "The Return of the Archons," Star Trek
"This is a soulless society, captain. It has no spirit, no spark. All is indeed peace and tranquility – the peace of the factory; the tranquility of the machine; all parts working in unison." — Spock, earlier in the same episode, leading to Kirk's decision above
"You will be absorbed. Your individuality will merge into the unity of good, and in your submergence into the common being of the body, you will find contentment, fulfillment. You will experience the absolute good." — the computer itself
From Wikipedia:
...religious scholar Michael Anthony Corey praises the episode for realizing that the elimination of a huge number of moral evils can occur only by causing a single, massive moral evil (the loss of free will). Corey points out that the episode seems to draw heavily on German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz's "Principle of Radical Optimism", which concludes that ours is the best of all possible worlds because it contains the conditions for human existence (and not because it has a greater or lesser number of moral evils).
We need, and can reach, difference without division and unity without uniformity.
Impersonal unity versus free will is a false dichotomy.
I think.
Kaor, Paul!
Thanks for linking to my comment in the previous blog piece. I wish people who believe or hope that mankind will somehow transcend the need or temptation for strife, conflict, war, etc., would explain how they would remove the imperfections within all human beings leading to such things. And how that could be done without turning human beings into "pampered pets" (to quote myself!). I believe it cannot be done and that the best we can do is put some limits, restraints, checks, etc., on this tendency towards violence and conflict.
We don't KNOW what a global AI of the kind seen in Anderson's HARVEST OF STARS books would do because it does not EXIST. And I'm not sure such a thing is even possible. Such an AI could behave either like Anderson's cybercosm or be an obedient servant of the human race. The fact remains, we don't KNOW.
I'm in favor of opening options for the human race, for mankind moving out into first the Solar System and then reaching for the stars. And I know most people will either be content to stay home or have to stay home, but the options offered by space should remain open.
Sean
Sean,
There are many people who are never violent and there are social conditions that do not incite violence. Most people most of the time cooperate or society would be impossible. We can control social conditions, e.g., an individual cannot be incited to scapegoat immigrants for his own poverty or homelessness if he is not in fact impoverished or homeless. The "imperfections," potentials for violence etc, within individuals need not be activated. Instead, we currently have a society where hostility to immigrants who come here to earn a living is actively encouraged and regarded as normal.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And my point is that it's precisely those "potentialities" within human beings towards strife and conflict which cannot be eliminated. Heck, chess players and people playing poker engage in conflicts!
As for immigration, I fear we are not going to agree because I deny there is any right to unlimited or uncontrolled immigration. A nation, any nation, has the sovereign right of setting the terms and conditions by which foreigners are allowed in. Else it is NOT sovereign at all.
Sean
Sean,
Competition in games and sports need not, and usually does not, become violent.
Most people agree with immigration controls. Some of us don't. I question whether immigration controls can be separated from hostility to immigrants. It is all too easy to scapegoat them for everything that is wrong in society.
Arguably, armed nation-states are now redundant. Global cooperation to counteract scientifically confirmed climate change has become urgent.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course I agree most games and sports are not attended with violence.
And my view is that uncontrolled immigration will, more likely than not, lead to anger and hostility towards immigrants. Setting the terms and conditions by which immigrants can enter would be likely to LESSEN hostility towards them.
The kind of "global cooperation" you desire is not likely to happen unless a powerful conquers all the others. Some kind of "Solar Commonwealth" a la Anderson's Technic Solar Commonwealth would be better but is not going to happen any time soon.
And the only REALISTIC replacements for fossil fuels are nuclear power and space based satellites beaming down solar energy for collection and distribution on Earth. And that means opposing anti nuclear hysteria and demagoguery and getting SERIOUS about a real space program.
Sean
Sean,
No matter how much immigration is limited, the anti-immigrant lobby is encouraged to call for more. I think that they need to be opposed, not placated.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I have to disagree. BECAUSE not all the complaints and criticisms given by the "anti-immigrant lobby" are unjustified or unreasonable. The more the most reasonable demands of this "lobby" are rejected, the more likely their supporters will turn to truly extremist and unjustifiable proposals.
Sean
Post a Comment