Is everything a religion?

[Kidlicious]

Are there more?
I mean, if you can just list a single person, that more or less proves my point that it is highly unlikely to become POTUS or Senator if you don't come from a wealthy family.
(But to get more to the point I should better ask: What percentage of senators/presidents (current and former, lets say from the last half century) have come from non wealthy families?)

Yes there are more. That's not the point. Any particular person is not likely to be the POTUS even if they set their heart on it, even if you graduate from Yale. You still have elite even if more people like Maxine Waters become elite. And you have changed nothing if you were to make it so that more people like her became elite. Still the common man, like me, would still be a common man.

[Kidlicious]

Reagan was not borne into a rich family, but since he was a socialist, I guess he doesn't count for Kiddy.

It doesn't matter to me. It's bigotry to judge people for what kind of family they come from, whether that family is wealthy or poor.

[Proteus_MST]

Yes there are more. That's not the point. Any particular person is not likely to be the POTUS even if they set their heart on it, even if you graduate from Yale. You still have elite even if more people like Maxine Waters become elite. And you have changed nothing if you were to make it so that more people like her became elite. Still the common man, like me, would still be a common man.

Which is my point ... that the elite is no elite in a meritocratic sense, but more an elite due to being born into the right family

(which can also seen in another way: a professor for natural sciences or engineering has more value to society than a Donald Trump (and also has archieved more than the latter) ... yet noone would say that he "belongs to the elite" (unless he was born into one of the "elite" family clans or found a way to turn his profession into lots of money ... which rather rarely is the case in academics))

[Elok]

Okay, general thoughts:

1. The military would very much desire the ability to integrate rapid calculation with a human mind. A sniper who could do the mathematical adjustments for long shots in microseconds? A squad of soldiers who could track each others' locations in real time, coordinate in silence, and map their actions continuously against surveillance data, etc.? A special forces group who could wirelessly hack networks on the fly? All highly desirable. The ability to come to correct conclusions rapidly is more important in war than almost anywhere else (barring things like medicine and, depending on one's priorities, stock trading).

2. On a related note, the ability to control hormones would also be exceedingly valuable for the military, for a variety of obvious and dangerous reasons. If you think people, religious or otherwise, are not going to object to something that can regulate their emotions, well . . .

3. A decaying memory is more often than not a blessing. Of course, you can induce the ability to forget at will--there's been promising research in this direction already--but that's even more prone to abuse than the hormone thing, once you factor in networks. This is some Ghost in the Shell crap right here.

4. As Lori pointed out, we are already at the point where people are exporting a lot of their mental functions to machines (mainly cell phones). I would not call these results promising in terms of bringing humanity together. On the contrary, it has coincided with the balkanization of American society, since everybody can choose his own tribe without the compromise required to live in organic community. Like I told grumbler, human relations have never been shallower or more ephemeral that we know of.

5. Nobody, or almost nobody, cares about distant people as much as he does about the ones next door, let alone the ones under his own roof. Present resistance to globalization should show you the difficulties inherent in your notion of mutual sacrifice. Can you expect a woman to sacrifice her son's interests to promote a hundred strangers', enlightened self-interest or not?

[Broken_Erika]

Until your Cyborg super soldiers get hacked by some 14-year old.......

[Aeson]

1) I mentioned things like targeting ... military specific enhancements. They won't want someone who has, for instance, instant access to all the religious/philosophical works about pacifism factoring into their decision making or advisory routines. A great deal of the breadth of human knowledge is inapplicable to what they need to do so won't be included. Also, they are likely to "turn off" at least some of those enhancements outside of training and actual combat to conserve resources and increase control over the tech and how it's used. It will be much different than a general use personal enhancement would be.

2) Sure. The same tech could be used to help soldiers make better decisions in stressful circumstances. As for religious objection, that tends to be hard to predict, varies between religions, and can change over time with social norms. If you have a bunch of super soldiers oppressing the population, there's going to be a lot of resistance religious and otherwise. If you have a bunch of super philanthropists, scientists, and engineers demonstrably making everyone's lives better with cures for diseases, ending poverty and war ... it's going to be less likely people will care about what these other people have chosen to do with their bodies.

3) It's not a blessing in decision making. Usually the things we want to forget are things we would have avoided doing with better information to make decisions off of, better reactions to stressful situations, etc. And as you say, if it's desirable then it could be forgotten. (eg. "poop smell filter")

4) The interface is horribly slow though, and so has very little impact on most decision making. It just takes too long to properly research something. It also has absolutely no impact on controlling our "base" instincts. A weight loss enhancement could give you a nice satisfied feeling once you had ingested the proper amount of nutrients, and could make it taste good to you regardless of what it was. Thus eating healthy (for yourself and the environment) becomes extremely easy.

5) It's a false dichotomy though. If such a situation (enhancement led-movement to work together) arises her son really will be better off too. Healthcare will improve dramatically for everyone, lifespans will increase, violence will become very rare (basically reduced to crimes of passion by those who don't regulate), wars will not happen at all, better jobs w ith higher pay and better working conditions and more vacation time will be available, the air and water and land will be clean, travel will be possible everywhere safely and without immigration/safety hassles. Issues like climate change, sea level rise, terrorism, will be non-factors.

[Kidlicious]

Aeson's globalism is a religion in every way except for belief in god. It's actually a crazier religion because they say it's crazy to believe in god, but it's reasonable to think Islam is OK but communism and fascism are bad because they aren't "religions."

[Kidlicious]

1) I mentioned things like targeting ... military specific enhancements. They won't want someone who has, for instance, instant access to all the religious/philosophical works about pacifism factoring into their decision making or advisory routines. A great deal of the breadth of human knowledge is inapplicable to what they need to do so won't be included. Also, they are likely to "turn off" at least some of those enhancements outside of training and actual combat to conserve resources and increase control over the tech and how it's used. It will be much different than a general use personal enhancement would be.

2) Sure. The same tech could be used to help soldiers make better decisions in stressful circumstances. As for religious objection, that tends to be hard to predict, varies between religions, and can change over time with social norms. If you have a bunch of super soldiers oppressing the population, there's going to be a lot of resistance religious and otherwise. If you have a bunch of super philanthropists, scientists, and engineers demonstrably making everyone's lives better with cures for diseases, ending poverty and war ... it's going to be less likely people will care about what these other people have chosen to do with their bodies.

3) It's not a blessing in decision making. Usually the things we want to forget are things we would have avoided doing with better information to make decisions off of, better reactions to stressful situations, etc. And as you say, if it's desirable then it could be forgotten. (eg. "poop smell filter")

4) The interface is horribly slow though, and so has very little impact on most decision making. It just takes too long to properly research something. It also has absolutely no impact on controlling our "base" instincts. A weight loss enhancement could give you a nice satisfied feeling once you had ingested the proper amount of nutrients, and could make it taste good to you regardless of what it was. Thus eating healthy (for yourself and the environment) becomes extremely easy.

5) It's a false dichotomy though. If such a situation (enhancement led-movement to work together) arises her son really will be better off too. Healthcare will improve dramatically for everyone, lifespans will increase, violence will become very rare (basically reduced to crimes of passion by those who don't regulate), wars will not happen at all, better jobs w ith higher pay and better working conditions and more vacation time will be available, the air and water and land will be clean, travel will be possible everywhere safely and without immigration/safety hassles. Issues like climate change, sea level rise, terrorism, will be non-factors.

The NorKs and Chicoms dream of having that level of control.

[grumbler]

Aeson and Elok: fascinating discussion, and congrats on ignoring the troll.

Please keep it up - I think that you are getting somewhere both on the issues of whether this potential tech increases universality or insularity, and on whether it will first be developed to benefit the government bureaucracy or rich individuals.

[Kidlicious]

Ah yes, anyone opposed to cyborg feminazis must be a troll.

[grumbler]

This is high on my list to read:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ICN066A/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

which would argue, I think, yes

JM

Incidently, if anyone is thinking of getting this book, I'd recommend you reconsider unless you are willing to wade through a lot of misinformed bull**** and tolerate stupendous gaps in logic. For instance, he insists that modern humans are a separate species from neanderthal man and then marvels that humans could interbreed with neanderthals. Evolutionary biologists are divided on whether the two are different species or different subspecies, with the DNA evidence swinging opinion towards the latter. By refusing to address this, Harari sets up his "moment of wonder" but also wrecks his credibility.

Harari also tends to speak of the entire human race as though it were a single person. His discusses why humans would "want to forget" what modern man did to the other human species/subspecies, as though anyone alive today could really remember what happened 30,000-100,000 years ago, even if they wanted. He draws a parallel between how humans treat animals today with how their treated their "brothers" in the Paleolithic era.

That is not to say there isn't much that is interesting in the way he tells the story and the issues he emphasizes. His treatment of the brain as an organ competing in evolution with muscles is an interesting way to approach the issue of why intelligence developed, and his discussion of fire as a means of improving digestive efficiency and thus allowing a shorter digestive tract (freeing up energy for the brain) is speculation, but acknowledged as such, and fun speculation to boot. My problem isn't speculation, but rather speculation trying to pass as fact.

In short, Harari writes like a journalist, not like a historian. This gives his work some storytelling advantages, but leaves the reader concerned with what else he might have left out, simplified, or even fabricated.

[Kidlicious]

The New Yorker needs to check their hormone privilege

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/11/what-its-like-to-be-chemically-castrated.html

That brings up the question: Will transhumans be required to check their privilege?

[Jon Miller]

Thanks for the negative review (I still haven't acquired it). Why do you think that the other reviews I have read/heard (mostly from physicists) reviewed it so highly?

JM

[Elok]

Aeson, it doesn't take a cybernetic supermind to realize that war is grossly inefficient. First you have the expense of raising, training, equipping and supplying the army. Then you have the loss of lives, both civilian and military, along with potentially valuable skill sets, from direct violence. Then you have property damage from fire, looting and neglect. Then you have secondary effects like disease, famine, and productivity losses from extended disruption. Finally, the whole thing is difficult to control and has, at best, mixed success at actually resolving conflicts. War is a massive pit you throw productivity into. Humanity has been aware of this for a long, long time. Yet war persists.

Why? The fundamental issue is one of trust. Cooperation only works if everybody pitches in, which is extremely difficult to implement. You can enforce cooperation from above, but that only works if you can somehow find an enforcer you trust. Meanwhile, various noncooperative strategies are much easier to enact; perhaps the most obvious and simplest is noncompliance within a cooperative system, reaping the benefits without putting any into the pot. The Communists take over, and redistribute resources fairly, but "fairly" in this context tends to mean "party members get all the good stuff." The little people respond with noncompliance of their own, working as little as possible and setting up private enterprises on the side. Things only get worse from there. Even small communes--like the many started in the US in the nineteenth century--are highly unstable, because everybody wants to be in charge and always suspects everyone else of shirking, thieving, or exceeding bounds. How is cybernetics going to resolve this fundamental difficulty?

The problem would only be compounded by hormone regulation and memory modification technologies. Those two between them would make effective, permanent mind control a real possibility. The potential for abuse is almost endless. You could have an army that drops white phosphorus on a kindergarten and feels no guilt after. The spoiled sons of the rich and powerful could set random men fighting to death for their entertainment, or seduce other men's wives with a perfect success rate and no consequences. They could create or dissolve human relationships at will. And wars between them would be terrible on an unprecedented level, since the soldiers would run right into gunfire until there were no more left to fight. All of this would be obvious to all with only a very little reflection, which is why few if any people would willingly, knowingly submit to such a thing.

[Proteus_MST]

Aeson, it doesn't take a cybernetic supermind to realize that war is grossly inefficient. First you have the expense of raising, training, equipping and supplying the army. Then you have the loss of lives, both civilian and military, along with potentially valuable skill sets, from direct violence. Then you have property damage from fire, looting and neglect. Then you have secondary effects like disease, famine, and productivity losses from extended disruption. Finally, the whole thing is difficult to control and has, at best, mixed success at actually resolving conflicts. War is a massive pit you throw productivity into. Humanity has been aware of this for a long, long time. Yet war persists.

...

But on the positive side you have a testbed for your weapon systems, you can expend ammo that is nearing the end of its shelf life and the weapons industry gets the chance to produce new weapons/ammo (-> more jobs at home) (omg, I sound like an alt-right/republican typing this )
If your president has a low popularity within your population, a war will most probably lead to rising popularity (at least in a society like the USA ... less so in more pacifist societies like germany)
Also, if you have more men than women in your soociety, the war losses (which will mostly be men) will tend to equalize the ratio