A Transhumanist confronts a death in the family

[nemorathwald]

Here is a link to a wonderful letter written by artificial intelligence researcher Eliezer Yudkowski, describing his reaction to the death of his brother. It moved me to tears. I felt very similar to what he expressed, after the death of my beloved grandmother last year. Mr. Yudkowski is one of the six or seven people worldwide who I wish I could meet and personally befriend. I admire this small set of folks for consistently inspiring me to live a better life with amazing philosophy. This letter was no exception. I thought someone that insightful must be 75 years old, and was surprised when rmeidaking revealed to me that he's younger than I am.

I am a transhumanist. It would be great if you were one too, but that's OK. If you want you and your own loved ones to die and go to heaven, that's your business and I totally understand. It will suffice if you just don't want me to die, for an enjoyable two-hundred years or so, or as long as possible after that. Not so much to ask of you... but it's difficult for most people. Oh well; I'm satisfied with society taking baby steps. There's very little point in a transhumanist freakshow like me being evangelical about it in a society that is so screwed up that we depict death as a cute goth girl in Sandman comics. Please don't hate me for saying this, but I find that character obscene. The Grim Reaper is our enemy, not someone to befriend. Death is not a transition. Not a learning experience. Not justice. It is the ultimate enemy, an even worse enemy than mindkind is to itself. War pales in comparison. This is one of those issues on which even the nicest people tend to be terrifyingly misanthropic and then expect to be praised for it. "I want you and me and everyone you love to die," they are saying to me. "Eventually. Not now." "Why thank you for such generosity," I would acidly reply.

What has happened is this: the coping skills that were developed over the centuries are backfiring on us. We refuse to do the work of overcoming that with which we are coping. This is illustrated in The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant by one of the leaders of the World Transhumanist Association, Nick Bostrum PhD from Oxford.

Comments

Mindkind

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

netmouse asked me at the concom meeting today if I meant to type "mindkind" or "mankind." "Mindkind" a word I picked up from the novel Diaspora by Greg Egan, as well as from the Orion's Arm setting. These depict civilizations in which the clades and sub-species who are descended from humans, bonobos, elephants, etc. have to accomodate each other-- even software citizens that don't need a body. A mind is all that matters. "Mindkind" is not as sexist, and especially speciesist, as "mankind."

The culture of fantasy and science fiction is saturated with non-human characters who are entitled to full personhood (and others such as orcs who are not, which tells you a lot about the authors), so one would think we of all people would have realized by now that Bones' accusation that Spock is "inhuman" is pointless. As Eliezer Yudkowski wrote, all that matters morally is-- not to be human-- to be "humane." Anyone who might be invented in a laboratory during the upcoming century, and has a mind, could be a person regardless of what species it is. However, "mindkind" is also effective in that it acknowledges the difference between lifeforms that have minds and those that do not. So, Peter Singer is not going to be using this word in one of his animal-rights columns in Free Inquiry any time soon.

That concludes this newspeak education session; carry on as you were.

Re: Mindkind

[azetidine.livejournal.com]

While reading this, I couldn't help but think of the moment in Alien Resurrection (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118583/) where Ripley says about the android named Call, right after they find out that she's a robot in the process of her saving somebody else's life, "[She's] too humane to be human."

I take it as an example of a member of one of the "new species" of which you speak being rejected by other "mindkind" because she acts in this morally superior fashion--morially superior, that is, at least by the standard Eliezer mentioned.

[cosette-valjean.livejournal.com]

Live long and prosper fellow mindkind!!! :-)

[rikhei.livejournal.com]

I've been thinking about this entry since you posted it. Even though logically, I can only presume that we completely cease to exist at death, I still find myself hoping that there's an after-life for no other reason than that I've yet to come to grips with my fear of death. I don't know you well enough to know whether you had a similar fear of death to overcome, but I still think you're brave for being a transhumanist.

Your mention of Sandman reminded me of another character besides Death - Hob Gadling (http://pc59te.dte.uma.es/cdb/series/vertigo/gadling.htm).

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

Feel free to hope. Hope away. The only time I object would be if you claimed that you KNOW that you KNOW that you KNOW with a serene disregard for the lack of evidence. Which you don't. I'm quite in favor of merely hoping that the benefit of the doubt is going to pan out. I have absolutely no assurance whatsoever that technology will extend the human health-span in time to save me. So I have to cross my fingers and just contribute to funding the research. The question is, if the current research about re-setting the fuses on our telomere time-bombs were to pan out, would you take the cure for aging?

I'm not sure whether I'm brave or not. I would like to think that I would sacrifice my life if I had to do so to fulfill my highest ideals. But still, death scares me shitless. I have nothing to gain, however, by blindfolding myself and singing "la la la death isn't what it seems," because then I wouldn't do anything about it, and ironically I would be more likely to die. Now that you mention it, I guess I see how choosing to suffer fear instead of resorting to denial is kind of "sacrificing to fulfill my highest ideals." So it is courage... That's a cool way to look at it. But I don't have much to lose by being a transhumanist, except the respect of faithists and deathists who think I'm consistently insane about everything. The reason I cannot afford to change myself to please them, is that I'm so objectionable to them about so many convictions. There would be no point unless I go all the way and be a complete sellout. My emotional brain has mostly acclimated itself to the fear of dying of old age, which I have very little control over. Being an outcast is a bigger challenge of courage for me because I have more control over it. So I got cool friends who think being around weirdos and radicals is fun!

re: living long

[greyhat.livejournal.com]

.
See my entries here:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/devon/2001/03/21/
notably the second one.

Re: living long

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

Well said! I applaud you. There's no telling whether we will be ready for the end in hundreds of years, or thousands. Who knows how a personality might change during that length of time? I know this though... there's no sense in claiming in 2004 that living until 2204 would be boring, until I've actually been there and seen what happens.