I've been called insane, but haven't been proven a liar...

Some old post about transhumanism

This stuff comes from more than two years ago. I even remember spicing it up with some cool-looking images, but I am too lazy to find them. Also I am posting this more for archival purposes and do not expect many humans to read it. So fuck the colorful images.

See, want it or not - individuals are, and will be, greedy. Unconditionally.

Ever since the humans got sapience (more like some of them did, but whatever), they've started to use their intellect to create effective solutions for their tasks - each individual does it with different capabilities and performance. But, anyway, most of these tasks have problems common for all:

- What's the way for me to solve this problem with highest efficiency?

These are the primary drives for individuals to create more, more, more and even more potent technologies: the strife for individual success, for maximum fulfillment of said individual's interests.

OK, one could say that we just can create more & more & more potent tech, but, at the same time, we reach that point, where...

...Whoops, looks like our techies are more potent than what we can control, or more complex than what we can fathom. Or both.

That point's called Techno-Singularity.

There are few ways to get around this.

First mentioned way: Steady decline into collectivism. As technology becomes more and more difficult for an individual to fathom, the individuals, thanks to their limited abilities, experience a need to cooperate in order to keep the tech under control - and to keep creating more potent devices. As technology becomes even more complex and potent, more, more and more individuals will be required to sustain it, resulting in some kind of authoritarian collectivism, which official aim is to keep the progress running.

Why does this way suck ass?

The answer is: Collectivism harms an individual's interests.

In addition, as the technology is unfathomable for one individual, one just can't fucking know what is that he's doing - so, in order to keep the machine running, one must follow a set of instructions, generated by something else. As the individual simply can't normally analyze the system and find out what is it for (unless said individual is an ultragenius or something like this), those who run this system have a great opportunity to create whatever instructions they desire. Of course, individuals must be specifically disciplined to follow these instructions without a question. In other words, there's a need for unconditional obedience... Do I need to mention again how much possibilities does it give to those wanting to enslave individuals? But hey, if the system's running alright, and is not corrupted (Which you'll never find out if you choose this path unless you're a genius or better), then, it looks like a fine option... Right?

Wrong, because:

Let's say, the technology has a certain complexity. There's a certain limit, above which most of the humans can't understand this tech. When the tech goes past this limit, an individual's relative ability to control, or even understand it, diminishes slowly - if the individual has close-to-constant capabilities. Therefore, the technology is of limited use for said individual, all because of that individual's limited perception. And that's where the "collective" gets in: building a "bigger" purpose for that technology, beyond one's understanding. So, past the limit of benefit for an unaugmented pan-average individual, the tech starts to serve other purposes. The purposes of a collective. The tech might STILL be useful for distinct individuals, but...

Remember, the collective had become something more than just "a concotion of individuals" from the very moment they've started to cooperate closely in order to keep the technological progress running. It is, literally, another entity - and NOT so abstract. One might think of it as of "distributed intelligence" or something, where an entity is located on multiple carriers, having different parts of it within different individuals - and, when individuals interact with each other in a specific way, this entity reveals itself. And it is only rational to expect that the entity's needs will conflict with individuals' interests, and in a system where interests of a collective are prioritized over individuals' interests, this surely means a lot of harm to the individuals.

In other words, this system leads to the enslavement of all individuals. The slave-owner might be a distributed, but no longer abstract collective, or someone smart enough to use the system for own profit... But hey, if you have a choice between "Be enslaved by the collective", "Be enslaved by some individual or a group" or "Don't be enslaved at all"... What'll you choose?

On to the second mentioned way: Machine-Reign

As individuals will become less and less capable to work with evolving tech, the task might be transferred to machines. In other words, problem-solving machines may be created.

This scenario is somewhat familiar, since it was used in many sci-fi works. It usually boils down to those machines going rogue, achieving independence, and starting a revolution, or going berserk, or doing other nasty stuff.

Well, that's the general point: As machines become more and more complex, individuals have less, less and even less control over their behavior. Even now, when the machines can still be understood, malfunctions can be sometimes difficult to find, and finding a way to fix them might be a problem as well. And what's more - the more complex a system is, the harder it is to ensure that it will not do anything too dangerous. And when we're talking about a machine which can't be even understood by a pan-average individual, there may be dangers we can't even think of.

Even Elon Musk, yes, the guy who wants to control your mind, admits that AI is a really unpredictable technology. And when the guy brave enough to try to develop devices capable of taking over someone's mind says things like these, it means - If we neglect this problem, we're in some really deep shit.

Who knows? Maybe those who chose this way will regret they didn't just create a SkyNet so the terminators will emerge and simply destroy them.

Next is the third way: Abandoning all the tech.

Sounds easy, right? Abolish all the technology past the certain level. So you meatbags can live on happily, without worrying about working your ass off for some creepy collective entity without understanding why are you doing this, or living under a rule of some deus ex machina, which is not necessarily benevolent. BUT, again: individuals are greedy. They always want more. So the first step in solving that problem is... well... Trying to remove that greed from the individuals.

And that immediately leads to said individuals stopping doing anything and losing the reason to live at all. Because if there's some final frontier for those individuals, once they reach it - well, it's over, what to do next? Nothing, shutdown. Besides, individuals aren't simply giving away their own interests. The only reason to give them up is this: Unconditional failure in an attempt to satisfy these, accompanied by presence of "secondary" or "alternative" interests which take place. If at least one of these conditions isn't met, then said individual retains his interests and tries to fulfill them. In other words, one doesn't simply stop technological progress.

To get a grasp of what can be proposed to stop individuals' thirst for more tech, one can look at socialist societies. More precisely, at their attempts to establish their regime. Socialist ideals exist for around 200 years in their more or less modern form: anti-indivdualist, authoritarian ideas, based on subjugation of individuals to the collective, and turning them into absolutely obedient and dependent creatures, serving the Society. 200 years didn't help in finding any measure to try to force individuals into obedience, other than offering torture and murder as alternative - and even this doesn't work! This is all because the idea dares to try to deny critical interests of individuals: the desire for absolute security from unwanted intervention, absolute sovereignty, and maximum possible reasonable liberty. And suppression of technological growth aims for exactly this.

So there's the fourth way: Transhumanism. Improvement of individuals themselves .

The limits of individual perception matter very much - but not if the individual has the potential for self-improvement, to match with the progress.

Instead of creating insanely powerful tools which require more and more and even mo re resources, labor and time to maintain them or merely control them, why not just develop things to augment self?

Of course, various questions might arise. Some of them are:

- Who would want to turn himself into a robot?

Of course, the perspective of someone being a "robot" - no longer a person, but merely a specialized machine, designed for whatever task, doesn't look appealing for many humans. But why should you turn yourself into a robot? Why is the only widely-perspective perspective of an individual enhancing himself with technology being perceived as a fucking robot? If an individual wishes to retain his personality and associated assets, but also looks for an enhancement, why should he transform himself into a utility? The short answer is: he won't. Yes, the most likely scenario is: Humans will retain their personalities, complete with their feelings, desires, passions or whatever they call them... Only that they might acquire some buffs, or additional capabilities, if they ever augment themselves. "Being transformed into a robot" is a mere stereotype, having an uncertain origin; when the topic becomes serious, there's rarely any need for stereotypes - and this isn't the case where they're needed.

On to the second issue. As long as private property rights are respected, and there isn't any kind of coercive entity such as the state, no one will be forced to augment oneself. "Propertarian anarcho-transhumanism" wasn't chosen as a name for its fancy sounding; after all, it represents a system where private property rights are respected above almost everything else, and any kind of coercive entities - be it the state, a hive-mind composed of individuals forcibly connected to each other, or an abstract "majority" ruling the likes of YOU, or anything alike - so the ones who will try to coerce you into augmenting yourself (Or share some of your private data?) are openly treated as aggressors, and since they're trying to violate others' property and/or sovereignty, they might be destroyed by anyone. (Honestly, why can't we have such an attitude towards government and its mercs right fucking now?..) So... well, there might be someone who'll try to coerce you into... something. But hey, anyone can fight them back - even bystanders, since the aggressors lose all support of their rights from those who they want to attack, unless they agree for peaceful resolution of a problem if it exists.

The third question is, practically, "Should we follow an egalitarian path, or a propertarian individualistic one; and is there something we can do to follow the chosen route?"

Before you start thinking on it, remember: there is no universal "better-for-all" way. The concepts of "better" and "more reasonable" are strongly bound to a set of goals, preferences, and/or interests of distinct individuals; "better", or "more reasonable", means "it is more suitable for reaching a certain condition", or "this is a more efficient, or rational, way to achieve a certain goal". Then, there are questions like, "Why exactly should we look for a certain goal?"; or "Why must it be exactly this way?" Since a goal can only be created by a sapient, intelligent entity, there are no "universally-beneficial" goals, or "greater goods"; what is "good" or "bad", what is "reasonable" or "irrational", "wise" or "stupid", is determined by distinct individuals - strictly within said individual's perspective.

So, the question turns into "What will be the most optimal solution for every individual?"

Since we know zero things about others' interests and goals, but each individual enjoys complete autonomy and sovereignty, it is safe to assume that each individual's goals are, in general, different from the others'; there might be cases where different individuals have exactly same or similar goals, but there are zero dependencies between individuals' goals, so it's safe to assume that everyone holds to one's own standards. According to this, "the best option for all" will be the option that allows each individual to achieve his goals as closely as possible, with minimal difference between one's own goals and the real situation. (The optimal difference is zero, of course; or, more precisely an empty set).

Of course, when solving such a problem, there's a necessity to take in consideration the fact that some of said goals, interests, or desires may conflict with one another.

Collectivism usually promises the following; though some of these promises may not be present, but at least one of them is :

In contrast, individualism promises:

So... which one is better?

On one hand, equality promises that "everyone will be just the same". Or, at least, "everyone will have identical certain-something". This might be achieved through two ways: either through redistribution, which gives everyone the same amount of certain-something, or through creating artifical impediments for those who have "better" parameters or "more" property, preventing them from gaining more while letting those who have "less" run their course until everyone's equal.

On one hand, this provides for those who lack something, by artifically creating impediments for the wealthy and/or capable ones, or outright robbing them, thus propping up the "inferiors". But on the other hand, it harms those who happen to have more than others, or have something the others do not; therefore, while someone's interests are helped, others are suffering. And since there is no known way to create something out of nothing, redistribution will harm the wealthy and capable by the same amount it bring profit for the poor and retarded. Not like the wealthy ones will be happy with this, so they'll try to avoid redistribution, escape the system which tries to enforce such measures, or even engage in open conflict with the system. Which only brings more destruction until the conflict is resolved.

On other hand, individuality promises everyone to be able to keep what's theirs to themselves (unless they're violent, of course), and to be able to realize one's own potential without any artifical impediments. Of course, there is no profit from any redistribution, or shackling the successful ones, since such events are simply absent; therefore, everyone has to rely strictly on ourselves and on results of voluntary cooperation with others, which, of course, happens strictly on mutually-agreeable conditions. But at the same time, no one is harmed. Of course, collectivists may say that inability to take others' property without any risk may harm their own interests, but technically, it'll be a lie; no one created an impediment for them to realize their own potential, nor there is any damage to their property, and as such, no one really harmed them or their interests. With no threat of being robbed or shackled, there are little to no reasons to abandon one's productive work or self-improvement; on the other hnd, when such threats are present, there will be less of a reason to do something.

Aaaaaand... one more thing. I've said that only the "inferiors" - the poor and the retarded ones - are profiting from egalitarianism. But, they only profit from it as long as they're poor & retarded. And "poor & retarded" ARE relative values! Means that, once they raise their level of well-being, they'll receive less from such a system, eventually becoming those who are actually oppressed by same system; as they gain more and more, the system gives them less and less, and once they past the "average" level of well-being, the system starts robbing them! Yes, that means that egalitarianism only has short-term benefits; in long-term, it harms literally everyone. And, of course, once the wealthy and capable are robbed, there are little to no reasons to trust those who robbed them; even if an egalitarian system collapses, everyone will know that, once they gather goodies... again, the fuckers they're living with will likely try to rob them. Again. In the end, we're getting a conflict-rich system... Exactly what the collectivists do not want.

So, a propertarian system is to be preferred to an egalitarian/collectivist one, as it'll create a better environment for every individual within said system.

And how to reach it - and keep the robbers at bay?

The general idea is horribly simple: First, make no impediments for individuals arming themselves with various weaponry; as individuals will gather firepower, anyone trying to assault someone for any reason, or rob someone, risks more and more harm; Second, accept no central authority; if someone really really wishes to live in an authoritarian environment, they may simply... Buy themselves a dictator which'll rule over their territories. Or elect one. Or simply choose the strongest guy with a lot of muscles and worship and fear him. This way, they'll get a society free of "filthy liberals" who will simply choose another jurisdiction, and have the regime of their choice. And, third one: Get rid of fear. That's where the augmentations come in handy: suppressing the impulsive emotional response making an individual afraid to stand for one's own interests, they'll leave only rational thinking which then will capable of effectively defining how exactly should said individual defend own interests and property against potential threats. When fear is no longer a factor, dangerous-looking aggressors lose their scaring effect and are perceived as regular adversaries with certain capabilities. Makes them think more than twice before even planning an assault over those peaceful towards right-bearing individuals.

The question with jobs is horribly simple: First thing to be mentioned, individuals aren't looking for the job because getting the job is their primary interest. At least this is true in many enough cases. Individuals are looking for a job to provide themselves with whatever they need. As the systems become more effective, certain jobs become obsolete... Because individuals are able to produce something they need without relying on an external manufacturer, or simply because these jobs are no longer efficient enough. What happens is

  1. New, more efficient jobs appearing. Now, while it is expected that most of the individuals build up their skills' worth through experience and constant training, it is a problem for them: once their skills are no longer desired, they might have to learn the new ones - which takes time and effort. For them, often a lot time and a lot of effort. But, what if those skills could be learned, say, simply by uploading a set of executables into a worker's mind? The environment changed... Well so be it, the employer just released a set of dynamic libraries I need to do the job. Upload them - and go back to work! (Nobody denies the possibility of workers developing own techniques upon existing ones, or completely different ones... Individuality is not harmed therefore.)
  2. Some jobs might not even require a worker. These are usually non-inventive, non-artistic procedures based upon repeated execution of a set consequence of operations. As technologies (and individuals, expectedly) will move further, the spectrum of such jobs being assigned to automated executors will only widen over time, leaving mostly creative and artistic jobs for individuals. The best part of it? Machines don't need money, or any resources besides what is necessary to keep up their proper functioning! So everything they produce goes to their owners. Yes, even if you're a lazy motherfucker, there are good perspectives for you - without resorting to mass-robbery known under the alias of "redistribution". ;) Just push a few buttons, and your personal mining robots will extract resources from the land you own, convert them into something useful, and provide you with goodies for free. These robots will likely be cheap, as well.

--

Of course, this still leaves a potential threat of being hacked... Probably. There's one overlooked, but VERY significant condition most of us are in now: Our hardware and most of software are pretty much uniform. I mean, the only thing unique about your PC is its configuration. Billions of humans use mass-produced hardware, made using a blueprint, and the amount of said blueprints is horribly, horribly low in comparison with the amount of individuals using techies. Which means: A good hacker just has to learn the most popular devices' architecture, and he'll probably be able to find some weaknesses in it, or invent a way to exploit some certain sequence of events to hack into your typical system. Of course, not like manufacturers reveal the architecture of their devices. But hey, no one says there isn't a single person willing to do some reverse-engineering. Or at least learn the behavior of a device in detail.

But...

As more and more jobs will be assigned to machines, and individuals will have more time (and, potentially, more powerful brain enhancers), they might try working on their own designs of personal augmentations. This might result in completely unique designs of augs for each individual user. With some protection of personal data against hackers, there's almost no way for hackers to figure out their design fast enough - and if they have no knowledge of your system's architecture, they can't do sheeeeeeeeit to it. And, one more thing: I am perfectly aware of the fact that someone might design a tiny spying device to spy on others and send data... But again. Who said there is no potential to build something like an immunity system, which will function like a combination of antivirus software, firewalls, signature reducers, and physical devices exterminating any foreign element found spying on an individual? Of course, these are fields on which we need to work to achieve personal privacy and security... But again, does it mean we won't be out of jobs, as fight for personal privacy & security is pretty much perpetual? =)