THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
08/29/03 -- Vol. 22, No. 9
Big Cheese: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
Little Cheese: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@optonline.net
Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
To subscribe, send mail to mtvoid-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send mail to mtvoid-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Topics:
What Time Is It? (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
ENOUGH by Bill McKibben (book review by Dale L. Skran, Jr.)
This Week's Reading (Pliny's NATURAL HISTORY)
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: What Time Is It? (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
What breed of information does nobody know absolutely correctly
yet everybody considers to be public property? Well, as you might
guess from the title of this comment, it is the time. Everybody
seems to want to know what time it is, and what is more they
consider they have a right to know the answer. It has not always
been so, but these days the current time is considered to be
everybody's entitlement to know.
In my college Honors Lounge (where, it should be explained, the
coin of the realm was more ideas than it was common courtesy) when
I was asked the time I would often catch the person asking off-
guard responding with, "what business is it of yours?" It is not
so easy to say what business a person has of knowing the time.
Lots of things are useful but are not free to everyone. People
were taken aback by the question having always assumed that the
current time was OF COURSE their business and their right. Still
they were hard-pressed to say why. (They knew that I was
responding like that out of being philosophical rather than being
nasty--at least I hope they knew.) Still people are frequently at
a loss to explain why they have a right to know the time.
(Many years later a variant on that same joke showed up in Neil
Simon's THE CHEAP DETECTIVE. Private eye Lou Peckinpaw (Peter
Falk) gets a call in the middle of the night from a woman
(Madeline Kahn) who says she must meet with him at his office in
half an hour. "What time is it now?" "I'd rather not tell you
that until I know I can trust you.")
I should at the same time add that some people have a very hard
time asking the simple question "What time is it?" In the same
Honors Lounge people would ask me, "Do you have a watch?" "Yup."
"Can you tell me what time it is?" "Yup." "WILL you tell me what
time it is?" "Probably." "What do I have to do to get you to
tell me the time?" "Ask me." "Dammit, what time is it?"
"10:27."
My passion for knowing the exact time was ignited long ago. When
I was in junior high, one morning in homeroom I heard one of the
kids counting down to zero and at zero the bell for the first
class went off. My watch was not that accurate and I was
impressed. I wanted to be able to do that with my watch and it
just was not that accurate. I have to admit to being a little bit
manic on the subject of precise time ever since.
The truth is we all feel we have a right to know the correct time,
but the world is full of people wanting to give you the wrong
time. You see more inaccurate clocks than you see accurate ones.
A clock that is off by two minutes still renders some service. A
clock that is off by two hours merely proclaims itself to be lame.
But a clock that is off by 30 minutes is a genuine menace.
I do not have this idiosyncrasy to the extent that I buy myself a
really precise watch. But I still want to be pretty sure I have a
good approximation of the right time. More recently and
frequently when working with computers I have seen inaccurate
times causing genuine real-world problems. It is commonly
important to know that one computer file on one machine was
created after another file on another machine. Each machine had
its time set by an operator and usually by no better means than
using a wristwatch. More often than you might guess that causes
trouble, particularly in issues of file distribution.
There are some places where you would think time is essential,
where people have refused to give the accurate time. Airports,
for example, have stopped putting up clocks to tell the time at
all. You would think that is where they would be really needed.
But I have heard it is a legal point. If the clock stops and
somebody misses an important flight they can sue. So airports are
less and less willing to tell waiting passengers
what the real times it.
Next week I will talk about the problem of getting not just the
time, but the right time. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: ENOUGH by Bill McKibben (book review by Dale L. Skran, Jr.)
I will warn the reader right up front that I am not likely to be
especially friendly to Mr. McKibben, a sort of "deep-green"
philosopher who seems quite pleased with himself and his cushy
life in the north New York woods. He ends the introduction with
the following, "Must we forever grow in reach and power? Or can
we, should we, ever say, "Enough"?
I on the other hand, always resonated to the concluding lines of
H.G. Wells "Things to Come" (the movie version) – (perhaps
misquoted) "It is everything, or it is nothing. Rest enough for
the individual, but never an end for man." I should also mention
that I am on good terms with some of the "bad guys" he is arguing
against. In fact, while reading the book I realized that I not
only had met several, but actually talked with one (Freeman Dyson)
while I was reading the book. Finally, I am one of those hated
entrepreneurs/engineers/scientists who are the main villains in
"Enough."
Still, McKibben is correct that these are, indeed, important
issues, and worthy of deep thought and balanced consideration.
However, I think it will be left to others to apply that deep
thought, as McKibben is not that deep a thinker, or that fair. In
fact, in some ways he seems a more slick, less rabid Rifkin, but
with some quite dangerous ideas, which I will elaborate on.
In chapter one "Too Much" he spends a great deal of time making
the case that if one possesses genetic enhancements, i.e. that
allow for a greater heart/lung capacity, this will surely diminish
the pleasure one feels in running a marathon. He envisions a
series of John-Henry like races between "old humans" and "enhanced
athletes," with the "enhanced" finding little fulfillment in their
victories. He dismisses that idea that there is any interest in
engineering competitions, i.e., car races, saying "But the skill,
the engagement, the meaning reside mostly in those who design the
machines. No one goes out and drives in honor of a dying sister."
Apparently McKibben’s reading has left him ignorant of the
popularity of NASCAR and Formula racing, not to mention yachting
competitions. I guess the drivers and sailors have no pride in
their efforts since those beastly engineers steal all the credit.
Even in Formula 1 racing, the drivers get the lion’s share of the
credit, but we can’t let facts interfere with rhetoric. In any
case, the main flaw I find with McKibben’s reasoning is in this
notion that there will be no personal challenge once we are
engineered. Surely the super-person will have just as great a
need to test their limits as McKibben does. And surely running is
just as "spiritual" for the enhanced runner as for the un-enhanced
runner.
Consider two runners, myself and a champion marathon runner. I am
ill suited genetically to the race, but the champion is well
adapted. We each run, and we each finish, but my time is, like
McKibben’s, rather poor. The champion sets a new world record.
We have all pushed our *personal* limits. Now add in a genetic
super-man (we’re all men here!). He runs, pushing his limits
(whatever they are) and sets a still better world record.
McKibben asks us to believe that I, McKibben, and the current
world champion will be very happy with our personal efforts to
push our genetic limits (which already vary widely) while the poor
superman will be *unhappy* as he constantly reminds himself that
he is running well only as a result of the engineering efforts of
the team at AcmeSuperGene. Yet in all four cases, there is
nothing practically important about the race. It is just for fun,
or for pride, or just for the hell of it. I find it difficult to
understand how the superman is going to be any more or less
unhappy that any of the rest of us. We have received a varying
genetic endowment via some process, natural or artificial. We all
have some ability to run, and some ability to push ourselves.
None of us had *any* control over our genetic endowment; we’re
stuck with it. Yet it is of supreme irrelevance as we can all get
in our cars and drive at a much faster pace than any of us could
ever run. Thus, this whole line of argument, which is key to
McKibben’s approach, seems a slender reed indeed to argue against
genetic engineering.
One of McKibben’s slights of hand is to constantly shift back and
forth between different kinds of genetic enhancements as though
they all had the same moral and practical stature. I would break
them down thusly:
- Sports related enhancements
- Enhancements that push toward an idealized physical appearance
- Enhancements of intellectual skills
- Enhancements of other skills, i.e. music, art, etc.
- Enhancements of a freakish nature, eyes in the back of the
head, etc.
- Chimerical enhancements, i.e. combining animal and human genes
- Changes related to emotional state, i.e. to make people
happier, less crazy, etc.
- Changes related to health, including an improved immune system
- Changes related to a uniform health baseline, i.e., everyone
has 20/20 vision
- Changes related to longevity
- Changes with military significance, i.e., better than 20/20
vision, night vision, etc.
- Fundamental changes to the human condition, like removing the
need for sleep
McKibben has read a good bit of SF, but "Brave New World" seems to
be the last word in this limited biological syllabus. The
baseline book for a realistic treatment of a genetic society
should surely be Heinlein’s "Beyond this Horizon" instead. I am
not endorsing every detail of this society, but the main feature
was that genetic engineering was regulated in sensible fashion:
1. Big changes in human nature, i.e., to make people more
peaceful, etc. were forbidden based on past bad results. Heinlein
spins a couple of cautionary tales in this regard.
2. Some part of the population is maintained as a genetic
baseline, a sort of "genetic Amish" as a check against a really
bad mistake.
3. Modest changes are gradually introduced into the larger
society, focusing on things like eliminating the common cold, etc.
These changes seem to be brought out only via the selection of
traits from a particular couple; i.e., producing the best possible
child that you and your spouse can have.
4. An experimental program exists to allow careful testing of more
radical enhancements. Heinlein’s story involves PK powers, but
this could be taken as a placeholder for any radical idea such as
raising IQ.
5. Specialization (i.e., runners with long legs, smart guys with
big brains, etc.) is frowned on, as the generality of the human
form is viewed as a survival advantage.
6. Traits that enhance human survival in a non-civilized condition
are conserved.
This kind of approach to germline genetic engineering addresses
most or all of McKibben’s practical issues, including his valid
concern about a kind of "keeping up with the Jones" competitive
escalator. It could be implemented to a large degree today using
embryo selection without any further major technical advance. It
is a conservative approach to introducing large-scale germline
engineering into the human genome with minimal to no risks.
So let’s take a look at those different categories again and try
to apply some good-ole Heinlein style reasoning:
- Sports related enhancements
- The real issue here is creating a series of sub-races that are
focused on particular sports. Already (without the slightest bit
of genetic engineering!) the dimorphism between Olympic level
athletes in different areas is striking. Generally, any extreme
change in these directions would create specialization, and hence
would be banned. Clearly separate events might develop for those
with some enhancements (most folks) and for the un-enhanced 10%
baseline, although I suspect the difference in performance would
not be all that great, at least at first.
- Enhancements that push toward an idealized physical appearance
- Much as McKibben dislikes these kinds of changes, it is hard
see the harm in cosmetic improvements. Any change that is moving
toward specialization, such as ultra-tall or ultra-short folks
seems like a no-no. The big issue here is really obesity, as
humans are well-adapted to famine but poorly to feast. We need a
genetic solution that allows humans to function well in both
environments before we drop the obesity genes.
- Enhancements of intellectual skills
- The main issue McKibben raises is the mad rush of parental
competitiveness, but surely this can be regulated, with changes
rolled out systematically across the board to all interested
parties after extensive field testing. McKibben also seems to
feel that the only reason to be smart is to get into Harvard (page
34, para. II). Thus, if *everyone* is 20 IQ points smarter, then
there is no point in being smarter!!! This has got to be the most
bone-headed argument of all time. Being smart is instrumental,
and in the end a survival advantage, not just a parental trick to
get your kid into Harvard. McKibben also speculates (page 47,
para 3) that a girl with higher IQ "… won’t even be sure whether
the questions are hers." This is just silly – no technology
allows for the genetic imprinting of questions, only talents and
abilities. The questions are purely up to us. I would also
contend that being more intelligent raises the range of your life
choices – you can fill more roles in society and better deal with
unexpected disasters like an asteroid crashing into the Earth.
For a decent extrapolation of what might happen with massive IQ
boosting, take a look at Poul Anderson’s "Brain Wave," another
book McKibben apparently hasn’t read.
- McKibben also seems to think scientists are pretty stupid. He
writes "Having a good memory is better than having a poor one, so
having a perfect memory would be best of all ... But perhaps being
able to forget is one of the great gifts we’ve been given ...."
[page 118, para 4]. Anyone who has ever studied this topic knows
that there is a desirable balance between remembering and
forgetting. A "perfect memory" is perfectly terrible and is not
being sought by any scientists. Most of us could do with a
*better memory* that was deliberately not perfect. At the same
time, a computerized extension to our memory that we controlled,
i.e., a sort of enormous hard drive, seems of obvious value and is
just the logical extension of the laptop I am typing this article
on. Precisely how any of this is bad McKibben does not really
venture a case.
- Enhancements of other skills, i.e., music, art, etc.
- It is hard to see how adding well understood abilities like
perfect pitch is going to harm things but as always, freakish
specialization is to be avoided. Surely McKibben’s vision of an
ultra-specialized piano player, bred both to be good at and to
like music, perhaps with very long, flexible fingers is just
another negative example of specialization. I would contend that
all humans would benefit from increased artistic abilities (which
I have but don’t use) and musical abilities (which I completely
lack!). As anyone with these "talents" knows – they are just the
starting point – the rest is up to you.
- Enhancements of a freakish nature, eyes in the back of the
head, etc.
- This kind of stuff was banned by Heinlein, and still this seems
like a good idea. I’m sure McKibben would agree, but *for the
wrong reasons*. McKibben would claim that these sports were *not
human* which is just a kind of bigotry. The reason to not allow
these kind of changes is that we just don’t know enough to tamper
with the basic human form, and won’t for a long time.
- Chimerical enhancements, i.e., combining animal and human genes
- See argument above!
- Changes related to emotional state, i.e., to make people
happier, less crazy, etc.
- Heinlein, Dale, and Bill (McKibben) say nay. Again, McKibben
has defined these changes as making us *not human* but the real
issue is that these are lots more risky than you might think.
McKibben is right to be concerned about a kind of genetic "soma"
that creates a world of happy-talking bumpkins, ripe for
destruction when the next big disaster strikes. Heinlein tells an
interesting just-so in "Beyond this Horizon" of the final result
of attempting to breed a less violent human (as you might expect,
the surviving violent humans rapidly conquer the world and
institute a new regime).
- Improvements related to health, including an improved immune
system
- Heinlein and Dale say bring them on (after lots of field
testing, of course). McKibben says no – and as to why – "The
answer is that once you cross this line, there’s no stopping."
[page 125, para 4]. The idea that you can’t draw the line between
a fix, a good improvement, a bad "improvement," and something that
needs further study is key to McKibben’s fear of germ line
engineering, but is just a kind of intellectual laziness.
- Changes related to a uniform health baseline, i.e., everyone
has 20/20 vision
- This is similar to the time above, but more focused on removing
defects.
- Changes related to longevity
- By having children later and later, we are already doing
selective breading for longer lives. Heinlein details this idea
in "Methuselah’s Children," which also makes an excellent pitch
for long life. Clearly Dale and Heinlein favor this stuff.
McKibben hates it, and wants you dead; more anon.
- Changes with military significance, i.e., better than 20/20
vision, night vision, faster clotting, etc.
- Realistically, if this becomes an issue, none of us, including
McKibben, are going to stop it. See Pournelle’s "War World"
series for a decent extrapolation of what a human intelligently
engineered for war might really be like.
- Fundamental changes to the human condition, like removing the
need for sleep
- This has been well covered in Nancy Kress’s excellent novel,
"Beggers in Spain." However, under the Heinlein/Skran cautionary
principle we would ban this kind of tinkering until it was
extremely well understood, if not forever.
Playing this game out a bit further, the Skran/Heinlein plan calls
for:
- A volunteer 10% of the population as a "genetic Amish" who
reject all germline manipulation. A higher percentage would
probably work also, so the 10% is arbitrary. At some point you
might need financial incentives to keep the number high enough.
- Embryo selection combined with carefully controlled elimination
of undesired genes would be the starting point; this is a bit more
aggressive than Heinlein’s approach, which amounts to
sophisticated selective breeding.
- A volunteer 1% (or less) of the population that takes the big
risks with new stuff. New enhancement genes are tested for two
(2) generations before a general release. Thus, we observe first
the gene as the engineered child grows to adult hood, and then we
observe *their children* growing to adulthood. This is going to
really slow any kind of rapid changes.
- A program of subsidization to ensure that approved new genes
are available to all interested parties, regardless of income.
- A system of health care that prohibits discrimination of any
kind based on genetic factors. This would be a good idea even
absent genetic engineering, but is imperative with it. Yes, those
with "good genes" will be subsidizing those with "bad genes" but
this is part of the price we will have to pay to have a larger
degree of individual freedom instead of a kind of Luddite fascism.
- Regulations of the type of allowed changes along the lines
described above, with large categories of changes off-limits
(personality changes, specialization, chimeras) but with broad
areas where improvements are allowed (health, mental abilities).
Over a long period of time, some more radical changes might be
allowed, but only after the most extensive testing regime lasting
at least 2 generations (50 years!).
- McKibbin never really deals with the "commons" argument against
certain kinds of genetic "engineering." Some changes on an
individual basis are harmless, but are a disaster on the global
scale. Consider sex selection as an example. If this led over
time to a scarcity of girls, those making this choice have
indirectly created social havoc. Thus, I propose that selection
of gender be legally required to be a random choice, or that
couples make a contractual commitment to having one child of each
sex. The need for this type of regulation may arise in other
cases, but the logic is clear, and it is surely something that can
be regulated.
- Heinlein felt strongly that the general nature of human
capabilities was key to our long-term survival and thus supported
regulation of genetic changes that led to specialization. I think
this is a good goal for the first epoch of human genetic
engineering – making a better human, but not a ten-foot-tall giant
or a big-domed midget. It is easy to envision a set of
regulations – height must be between 5 foot and 7 foot for men,
etc. that would set some common ground rules while allowing a wide
range of health related and other improvements.
- I agree with Heinlein that we need to conserve (i.e., not
eliminate from the gene pool) traits that are pro-survival in the
uncivilized state. We need to be very cautious about removing the
genes related to obesity; the ability to survive without food
during bad times and put on fat during good times is a useful
ability. Other examples might include a slow metabolic rate where
the person is less energetic but also needs less food. A final
example might be someone who wakes readily to small sounds at
night; a trait that is troublesome in modern life but clearly of
vast survival value.
- Finally, the idea of a kind of escape clause might be
considered – those who are unhappy with this sort of managed
regime are free to leave the earth (or the solar system) and do
whatever they want – somewhere else. This is probably going to
happen anyway eventually, so it seems best to make a virtue of the
inevitable.
One thing that wasn’t fully addressed is the "I’m last year’s
model" syndrome mentioned by McKibbin. A possible solution is to
(a) first recognize that some enhancements (e.g. night vision)
don’t need to be regulated that closely since they won’t be
socially significant while others (e.g., IQ) might be rolled out
in non-disruptive increments. For example, we might limit the IQ
growth per generation to 20 points, i.e., moving the average from
100 to 120. This would create enough overlap in the ranges to
avoid major social problems. Keep in mind that our current
society operates with IQs in a range from under 70 to as high as
200; this is a much wider range than is generally appreciated.
Any society that flies toward a high-tech future needs to squarely
address the issue of how to create a society where persons with a
wide range of abilities and interests can all have interesting and
fruitful lives. This is not the place to address this group of
issues, but I believe solutions can (and must) be found.
Finally, one of the big arguments raised about germline therapy is
that the engineered kids have no choice in the matter. This is,
of course, true, but neither you nor I had any choice in the genes
we got from our parents. They chose each other, and hence
completely determined the range of genes that would create us.
The only random element is which chromosome comes from which
parent. Unfortunately, sometimes our parents impose on us bad or
even fatal genes. In any case, we have no choice. It is hard for
me to understand the moral difference between assortive mating
(which has been going on for millions of years and probably has
had a significant effect on the human genotype), and a technology
based process of removing bad genes or inserting good ones.
McKibbin enobles the random element of sex in such as way that he
seems to believe gene engineered children will run around in a
perpetual funk that they are limited by their "designed" genetic
structure, somehow missing the point that this is just the human
condition, which both I and McKibben will share with them – we all
have to play the cards dealt us. I would argue the opposite – if
we have the technology to remove bad genes from our children, it
is irresponsible and cruel to not make use of this blessing. Can
you imagine a circumstance in which your children would complain
about how you removed the potential for cystic fibrosis from their
genes?
McKibben is generally supportive of somatic gene therapy, which he
seems to feel is just another kind of drug. I think he completely
underestimates the long run potential of somatic gene therapy.
For one possible vision, see Charles Sheffield’s "Sight of
Proteus." The point is that we change out all the cells in our
body over a fairly short period of time (brain excepted) so that
with the right gene therapy and physical support, you can do
pretty much anything.
McKibben puts cloning "... on the far side of ... the enough
point." His supposed objection is that "... they would never have
the sense of being their own person; ...", a line of thought which
utterly fails to address how identical twins deal with this issue.
His true colors come out when he says "... the first clones would
break down the door to all other forms of genetic enhancement."
He knows full well than cloning of people is never going to be
more than a side-show; the main event is germ line genetic
manipulation.
On stem cells McKibben apes the pro-life line (albeit for
different reasons), supporting Bush’s ban on federal funding of
research on new cell lines. In the end his logic suffers the same
flaw as that of the so-called "pro-life" groups – he (and they)
are willing to sacrifice millions of living, breathing adult
humans who are sick and dieing right now in the name of abstract
philosophical propositions of a dubious nature, i.e., that
fertilized eggs with a few tens of cells ought to be assigned by
society the same set of legal, moral, and political rights as a
person walking the street.
McKibben is honest enough to argue with himself, positing in
Chapter 3 (Enough?) that there are three projects that might "…
legitimately need a quantum leap in technological power... " which
include [page 122]:
- "… helping medicine deal with illness…"
- "… aiding the vast numbers of poor around the world …"
- "… conquering death …"
I tend to agree that aiding the poor around the world does not
really justify any particular program of technology, as the issues
that keep countries poor are mainly political and cultural.
However, I find McKibben’s optimism that current medical science
can overcome disease without a major forward push simply naïve.
We are realistically decades to centuries from any humane person’s
idea of an "enough point" in terms of medial progress. We will
probably need the full fruit of the genetic revolution, nanotech,
and advanced computers to really put this set of problems to bed.
Let me just list a few things I want to see done, and done *well*:
- Cure for AIDS
- Cure for Lyme
- Effective anti-virals
- A much better set of defenses against infectious disease.
- Cure for Hepetitus C
- Malaria vaccine
- Complete eye and ear replacements, preferably biological in
nature
- Spinal cord regeneration
- A cure for MS
Also, McKibben misses a big point, which is that most of the big
killers are really just some aspect of aging itself. We need to
put down heart disease, cancer, Alzheimers, etc. and my guess is
this is just not going to happen without a direct assault on death
itself.
And it is here that McKibben joins Leon Kass on his crusade to
insist that we all ought to suffer and die the good old-fashioned
way. A lot of the argumentation assumes that being physically
immortal is the same as being invulnerable. I have read some
analysis that suggests that even if we were physically immortal
and disease-free, the average life-span would be in the 300-400
year range, with most folks dying from accidents, crime, etc.
McKibben seems to confuse the use of genetic engineering to extend
the human lifespan with the usage of nano-tech to crate robot
bodies or the usage of downloading. These vastly different
technologies have quite different moral and philosophical
implications. It is hard for me to see extending the average
lifespan from 76 years to 300 years as anything but a welcome
addition to the almost doubling of lifespan seen in the 20th
century. But this will not change anyone’s life in a fundamental
way. We will all still die – someday. On the other hand,
downloading into robot bodies or cyberspace is so far off that a
serious discussion is premature. If this becomes possible, it
will indeed be a "divorce" for those who take that path.
McKibben is surprisingly well informed for a Luddite – certainly
more so than Rifkin. He has met or is aware of most of the major
figures in the high-tech and SF communities, and generally does a
good job of presenting the actual science and technology, although
as you might expect his portraits of technophiles are less than
flattering. He has also read a fair amount of SF related to the
topics at hand, although as will be implied by the reading list at
the end of this review, he has missed many of the better efforts.
McKibben finds that SF "... now offers a glimpse into ... hell."
[page 105, para 2].
He notes that Star Trek (at least classic Trek) has banned genetic
engineering from their cozy socialist adventure future. As you
may know, this inconsistency has long been one of my beefs with
Star Trek, although the background of the Eugenic Wars in the 90s
leading to a ban on genetic engineering is at least plausible
back-story. I have never read anything about why the creators of
Trek disliked genetic engineering so much, but I would speculate
that it is for pretty much the same reason that all real hard SF
never goes very far into the future – beyond a certain point you
just can’t tell the story anymore since too much, including the
humans, have changed, and banning genetic engineering is one way
of slowing down change and allowing current day viewers to follow
the story.
McKibben’s cyberspace/nanotech reading includes Gibson,
Stephenson, Crichton and Egan. However, he often seems to miss
the point. While calling "The Diamond Age" a "nanotech dystopia"
[page 106, para 1] he seems to have missed the idea that like all
technologies, nanotech gives and takes away, and the book is more
a catalogue of wonders than horrors. I saw the "self-teaching-AI-
nano-book" aspect of the story as one of how knowledge (and
technology) empowers the downtrodden, and that this is not a bad
thing. McKibben then describes Permutation City as "a story of
epic desolation." [page 106, para 1] where I would describe it as
a tale of unbounded potentiality.
Finally we come to McKibben’s most egregious and offensive
misinterpretation of an SF novel, Clarke’s "The City and the
Stars." He completely misses the point that Diaspar (get it –
despair!) was created by people like McKibben as an implementation
of their "enough point." In Diaspar life is perfect, yet static
and recurring. People live long, and then are recycled via a
computer memory to new lives. Health is perfect, IQ is high, but
there is no progress and no invention, just endless social
chattering and art. Diaspar was created by a human race that
turned away from space, away from AI, and away from the universe
in general, closing itself down to two cities – Diaspar and Lys,
each representing one of two final human factions. Clarke is not
trying to suggest that immortality is a trap, but that Diaspar
and/or Lys (or any other static, mature environment) is a trap
humanity needs to avoid. Yet this is precisely the fate McKibben
attempts to lure the reader toward.
McKibben also mocks the reasons given by technology advocates for
moving forward, saying "The men who propose this leap into the
unbounded future don’t seem to know themselves quite why they want
to jump. ... (some quotes) … These sound like the things people
say to each other in the parking lot at a Plish concert before
they drop acid." [page 225, para 2]. If he had done a bit more
research McKibben would have discovered that far from being
focused on nebulous philosophical questions, folks like Dyson,
Drexler, and Henson (just to mention the ones that I know
personally) want nanotech, immortality, and AI mainly to advance
the cause of human survival. Some of the goals that I would want
achieved (and which I assure you, so do Dyson, Drexler, and
Henson) before any "enough point" include:
- Worldwide transition to a fully renewable, non-polluting
technosphere at a US or higher living standard
- Humanity spread across the solar system (protects against Ort
comet striking the earth; protects against "Black Plague II"
wipeout)
- Humanity spread across a 1000 light year sphere (protects
against local super nova)
- A solid answer to the Fermi paradox (since not knowing the
answer looks to be potentially dangerous), which requires
extensive interstellar exploration, probably more than the 1000
light years mentioned above.
All of these require a quantum leap (perhaps many such leaps!)
forward in technology. Thus McKibben’s "Enough" is really a
blueprint for racial suicide or a slow slide to poverty and/or
pollution.
Finally, in a more over-wrought tone, McKibben suggests that
biotech will destroy democracy itself (page 199). Here he seems
mainly concerned with changes to human nature and personality, and
although in the long run there may be some things to consider
here, I would agree with McKibben that these are not a set of
changes we ought to be messing with right now, or for a long time.
So what does McKibben propose? That "... we need to declare that
we have enough stuff. Enough intelligence. Enough capability.
Enough." [page 109, para 1]. And how is this to be accomplished?
He proposes three examples where societies have turned back from
technologies.
One is the Amish. As the Amish are not against *others* enjoying
the fruits of advanced technology, it is hard to see how this
helps McKibben much. His problem is that he can’t tolerate a
small group doing genetic engineering because ultimately he thinks
everyone would be pressured into it to keep up. Thus, like pro-
lifers who wish to ban abortion because they personally are
tempted to have abortions as long as they are legal, McKibben must
wipe out genetic engineering to a large degree to feel secure (he
acknowledges that a small number of clones and genengineered kids
will surely come; he just wants to hold back the flood).
The second example is the rejection of ocean exploration by China
about 1424. Says McKibben admiringly "The Chinese chose their
definition of meaning – progress within tradition – over the pell-
mell dynamism of the West." [page 171, para 2]. Although this
decision may have led to a couple of hundred years of inwardly
focused peace, the end was a complete disaster for China, which
fell far behind the West, and now is playing catch-up at a
terrible price in human suffering. Space advocates tend to quote
this example as well – as just the kind of thing we need to avoid
at all costs!! If anything, the Chinese example suggests that
rejecting technologies is harmful to the nations that do so, and
will not be of a lasting nature.
The third example is the rejection of gun-powder in the early
1600s by Japan. The results were not quite as bad for Japan as
for China, but as we all know, in the end Japan rejected this
view, re-armed, and started World War II. McKibben does not
mention that Japan pushed out Christianity at the same time as
gun-powder, with more lasting results. This suggests that
rejecting technology is actually harder than rejecting a powerful
religion.
Even McKibben admits (page 172) that these two examples were of
limited scope and carried out by rather harsh authoritarian
regimes. Still, I do agree with him that "progress" is not "an
inexorable force outside human control." In fact, it is my
concern that he will be too successful which motivates my efforts
in writing this review.
He then pats us all on the back for restraining nuclear, chemical,
and biological weapons. He congratulates the environmental
movement for stopping DDT, dams, and Freon. However, none of
these technologies represented a wholesale rejection of a whole
line of technology, as McKibben proposes in his rejection of
germline engineering, nanotech, and AI. There are, after all,
many other pesticides than DDT, many other ways to make
electricity than dams, and other substances to make refrigerators
cool than Freon. The closest thing to real rejections of
technological possibility are (a) nuclear power and (b) the SST.
But even here, we are rejecting a loud, expensive, fast airplane,
not the *idea of airplanes*. We are rejecting an expensive and
potentially dangerous power source, not the *idea of electricity*.
And I am not aware of any medical technology that actually worked
being rejected – ever.
In his heart, McKibben is profoundly anti-intellectual and in
practice would instigate a reign of terror against technologists
and their supporters. Among other things, McKibben really has a
Jones for those evil engineers and scientists:
"It’s a challenge even to think such heretical thoughts, for we’re
used to bowing and scraping before the engineers." [page 117,
para 2]
"Journalists are, like the rest of us, intimidated by scientists."
[page 180, para 3]
"But there’s a deeper reason to give no special weight to the
judgment of scientists: in truth, .... The devil is not in the
details; it’s the basic thrust of these technologies that’s
diabolical." [page 182, para 2]
"Perhaps childhoods devoted to rewriting computers had no room for
such tales, but one wishes that, say, King Midas was as well known
as HAL 9000."
"In fact, say the proponents, the politicians will be behaving in
totalitarian fashion only if they try to stop anyone from breeding
their own little Einstein." [page 189, para 2]
"Human beings, in other words, can be more complex than the
engineers give them credit for." [page 207, para 2]
"But if Brooks [a robotics engineer] pursues his quest to the end
– well, it’s not just an eccentric and charming notion. It’s one
that erases everyone else’s vision." [page 214, para 2].
I find McKibben’s distaste and fear of technologists disturbing.
The fact that Watson is a jerk (something McKibben and I agree on,
and which McKibben does not begin to do justice to; Watson is a
mega-jerk!) does not make Henson a jerk, or Dyson a menace, or
Drexler a twit. McKibben seems to push this further than mere
animus against engineers and scientists – he is especially
disturbed at the thought of people "breeding their own little
Einstein." He has apparently implicitly bought into the idea that
more intelligent people are heartless and less concerned about the
human condition, so intelligence is an undesirable trait.
On some level, McKibben is upset that people other than him and
his fellow journalists may have a significant impact on the future
of the human race. In fact, the greater the impact, the more
upset McKibben becomes. He must also be concerned about his own
kids being relegated to "taking out the trash" in the world of the
future. He is not content to join the Amish (which would be a
honorable choice) but instead calls for a Butlurian Jihad (see
Herbert’s "Dune") against AI, against Robotics, against germline
research, and against nanotech.
Given McKibben’s high level of concern with these new
technologies, you might have thought he would focus on the
following problem:
- Over time, each of these technologies will increase in power
until a single deranged individual, or a small group can destroy
the world
- Some have suggested that this may be the real solution to the
Fermi Paradox – the apparent lack of intelligent civilizations
elsewhere in the galaxy.
He does make some mention of these issues, but almost in passing,
since his main concern is the possible loss of meaning associated
with the new technologies. Personally, I am most concerned with
the potential loss of my own life!!!
Clearly, biotech is the great risk here. A student gets a copy of
the influenza genome, makes few key changes, uses his or her mega-
gene-assembly gizmo to make the virus, infects themselves, buys a
plane ticket, and – good by world. Trying to suppress the
technology seems of limited value as the capability to do this
seems to either exist today, or to be extremely close to being
ready. It is possible to manage access to some of this, but in
the end, over a long period of time, this *is* going to happen.
Making sure we survive requires one of the two below events
happening, both of which require very advanced technology:
1. Improvements to the human immune system (by whatever means)
with the result that such attacks have little effect
2. Disbursement of the human race throughout the solar system,
allowing distance and time to prevent a wipe-out blow against the
human race. This would work better with interstellar
colonization.
I have never thought this would end well, and continue to hold
that view. There will be a struggle for the soul of America, with
the technology companies, libertarians, technologists, and many
average Americans that want an expansive future opposing a
fiendish joining of environmentalists, religious fundamentalists,
and left-wing intellectuals. If we are lucky it will not result
in a civil war, but I wouldn’t count on it. And then the way
America goes may well decide the fate of the world, with greened
Europe joining the conservative Muslim world in fighting the new
technologies, opposed by China and the Pacific Rim.
McKibben and I do agree strongly on one more thing – this fight
will be for all the marbles, every damn one. Welcome to the 21st
century!
Reading list (the good stuff!!):
- Futurism
- Profiles of the Future by Arthur C. Clarke (the classic,
best ever)
- The Spike by Damien Broderick (not perfect, but required for
thinking about the Singularity)
- The Future and Its Enemies by Virgina Postrel
- Motivation
- Rain of Iron and Ice by John S. Lewis (excellent book on the
danger of asteroid/comet collisions with the Earth)
- Genetic engineering
- Beyond this Horizon by Robert Heinlein
- Methuselah’s Children by Robert Heinlein
- Beggers in Spain by Nancy Kress
- Schismatrix by Bruce Sterling
- Crystal Express by Bruce Sterling (Shaper/Mech stories)
- Sight of Proteus by Charles Scheffield
- Cybertech/Cyberspace
- True Names by Vernor Vinge (short story that is the real
start of cyberpunk, not Gibson’s overly stylized Neuromancer,
and a great piece of prophecy)
- Hardwired by Walter Jon Williams
- Aristoi by Walter Jon Williams (great speculation on what we
would really do with all this amazing stuff)
- Nanotechnology
- The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson
- Slant by Greg Bear
- The Golden Age by John Wright
- Deception Well by Linda Nagata
- Vast by Linda Nagata
- The Singularity
- Marooned in Real Time by Vernor Vinge (the very best)
- The Gentle Seduction by Marc Steigler (short story - the
other must read)
- The Cassini Division by Ken MaCleod (good nanotech thought
piece)
- The Stone Canal by Ken MaCleod (related to Cassini Division)
- The Fermi Paradox
- Forge of God by Greg Bear
- Anvil of Stars by Greg Bear (sequel)
- Orphans of Earth by Sean Williams and Shane Dix
- Echoes of Earth by Sean Williams and Shane Dix (sequel)
- Immortality
- Emortality Series by Brain Stableford (Inherit the Earth,
Architects of Emortality (very good), The Fountains of Youth
(very good), The Cassandra Complex, Dark Ararat, The Omega
Expedition)
- Mars Series by Kim Stanley Robinson (Red Mars, Blue Mars,
Green Mars)
[-dls]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
A few months ago, I claimed, "Plutarch ... is not chock-a-block
with humor." Some people claimed that he did have humorous
passages, but I had missed them. However, Pliny the Elder *is*
definitely full of humor, albeit unintentional. Like Herodotus,
Pliny seems to have believed everything he heard--or at least he
included it in his "Natural History".
(I'm doing my readings from Penguin's NATURAL HISTORY: A
SELECTION, translated by John F. Healy. The blurb describes the
full work by saying, "It certainly includes more than 20,000 facts
derived from over 2,000 earlier texts, which makes it *the* major
source for ancient beliefs about every form of useful
knowledge....")
Some of what Pliny says is certainly true. And some of what he
says may be true; for example, it may be true that babies don't
smile until they are forty days old (VII:2). However, he also
claims that Man has to be taught how to walk and how to eat
(VII:4). I'm skeptical of the former, and flat-out disbelieve the
latter. He also claims "Man alone of all living creatures has
been given grief" and that only Man fights with his own kind
(VII:5). The latter is known to be false (and probably was then
as well). The former is typical anthropocentrism--Pliny has no
real evidence of this, but it *seems* true to him.
Sometimes he is clear that he is just reporting other people's
claims. For example, he says, "Megasthenes records that on Mount
Nulus there are men with their feet reversed and with eight toes
on each foot.... Ctesias writes that in a certain Indian tribe
women bear children only once in their lifetime...." (VII:22).
(Apparently he doesn't note that Ctesias's observation doesn't
make sense arithmetically.) But often he doesn't give an
attribution at all.
I can remember my mother saying that if you measure a child's
height on their third birthday, their adult height will be twice
this. I don't think she read Pliny, but that's what he says
(VII:73).
This is all a bit unfair to Pliny, who did the best he could with
the science (and reportage) of his time. And he was certainly an
early martyr to science--he died overcome by fumes when he tried
to get too close to Vesuvius to report on its eruption in 79 C.E.
[-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Boredom is a vital problem for the moralist,
since at least half the sins of mankind are
caused by the fear of it.
--Bertrand Russell
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LIdGAA/qnsNAA/J.MolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mtvoid-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/