{
"attachments": [],
"comments_archived": true,
"date": "2003-03-26T17:32:49.000Z",
"layout": "post",
"title": "The Singularity vs Human Nature",
"wordpress_id": 399,
"wordpress_slug": "singularity-vs-human-nature",
"wordpress_url": "http://www.decafbad.com/blog/?p=399",
"year": "2003",
"month": "03",
"day": "26",
"isDir": false,
"slug": "singularity-vs-human-nature",
"type": "entry",
"postName": "2003-03-26-singularity-vs-human-nature",
"html": "Apologies in advance if this post-cum-essay runs a bit long...
\nWe could conclude that modern human intelligence is an unfinished product, and something that nature hasn't quite got around to polishing yet. The problem-solving intelligence part can be tuned and revved up to high levels, but it becomes unstable like early supersonic jet prototypes that shook themselves to pieces just after reaching the sound barrier. Nature has outstripped itself, producing a freak organism with a feature that's obscenely over-developed but under-refined. We've seen examples of evolution getting ahead of itself before, like the rapid conversion to an erect, bipedal skeletal frame without properly modifying the spine to withstand the back-aching load of pregnancy. To get a better grip of human failings, and human stupidity, you have to realize that modern Homo sapiens sapiens just isn't done yet.
\n\n\n\n\n\nWhen our own instincts are inadequate, or become a hazard, and the surrogate activities to control them aren't sufficient anymore, then there certainly will be a push to change human nature to fit his new, self-crafted niche. And the answer to my original question?that man will invent something that knocks him out of his niche with fatal consequences?is yes. Homo sapien will die, and homo modified will inherit the earth.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThere's only an essay or two per month published over at Disenchanted,\nbut they're gems, each and every one. And what I read almost never\nfails to resonate with something I've been thinking or musing about,\nfrom my perspective as a geek wondering about life, the universe, and\neverything and as a fan of Kurzweil, Vinge, and all of post-humanity.\nBut my anticipation of the Singularity is constantly swayed by things\nsuch as the theses of the above quoted essays.
\nSee, as an irredeemable believer in the ways of better living through\ntechnology, I look forward to our increasing ability to further\nself-improve and bootstrap to higher levels of living, longevity,\nability, understanding, and exploration. But, there's a neopagan\nmystic and naturalist in me who keeps looking for the catch. There\nmust be natural limits we don't yet understand.
\nNo matter the precocious cleverness of our species, there's got to be\nplenty of good reasons it takes millions of years to achieve progress\nin forms and patterns of life. There are lots of little subtle\ndetails to be easily missed. We're smart, but not yet endowed with\nthe patience and wisdom that eternity grants. I both breathlessly\nawait and fear the arrival of our ability to fundamentally change\nhuman nature directly through genetic manipulation and device\nimplantation.
\nAs the first essay quoted above asserts, I believe the human species\nis unfinished. But as with the second essay, I think we've outpaced\nevolution in terms of changing the conditions under which the process\nitself occurs.
\nJust look around you. You're likely indoors, in a building composed\nof simple straight lines which register easily on your visual pattern\nrecognizers, with corridors and doorways and rooms proportioned to\nyour bodily dimensions. The air is conditioned to your respiratory\nand temperature tolerances. Things are padded and accessible. Food\nand drink are likely plentiful. The only predators you're likely to\nmeet up with during your day are of your own species. Nothing really\nchallenges your basic nature.
\nYet, this is just what the universe has been doing to forms of life\nthroughout the history of evolution. Only now, we've jumped the\ntracks, reversed the flow of control, and have reshaped our corner of\nthe universe to fit our status quo. So, where does that leave the\nnatural process of evolution with regard to us? Stopped or slowed to\na crawl, that's where. Maybe falling backward, since we have\nprosthetics, glasses, and other forms of propping up imperfections\nthat would have otherwise been faced with disincentives by natural\nselection.
\nSo, where are we without a natural evolution? We're left as an\nunfinished species, with a peculiar mix of awesome abilities matched\nwith amazing disabilities. Very clever people, but with a lot of\nblind spots. There are certain ways in which it is very difficult and\nsometimes nearly impossible for us to think. We have biases toward\ngrouping things by similarity, dividing them by difference - which\nallows for a very elegant economy of memory and thought, but allows\nfor peculiarly devastating things like racism and xenophobia.\nCritical thinking is counterintuitive, yet is one of our most powerful\ntools.
\nAnd there are definite flaws in our perceptions of reality, as any\nbook of optical illusions will tell you. One thing that struck me\nlike a thunderbolt came from a human biology class: Ever try following\na common housefly with your eyes? Isn't it frustrating how it just\nseems to vanish from your sight? I can't find a reference to back\nme up, so this is just from memory: I was taught that flies have\ndeveloped a particularly zig-zaggy and erratic flight pattern to evade\njust our kind of mammalian vision system. But, studies of fly-eating\nfrogs have shown that their vision systems appear particularly tweaked\nto react to a fly's midair dance. Imagine what else slips past us, or\ncomes to our attention garbled because our very apparatus contains\nbiases of which we're yet to even conceive?
\nHere we are, then, flawed and incomplete yet with a growing ability to\nself-modify. As an amateur computer scientist, I shudder a bit at any\ncode that's self-modifying. It can be done, and it can be powerfully\nenabling, but it's just so damn easy to blow a foot off with the\ntechnique. So too with ourselves, then. There's a possiblity that we\ncan push ourselves into a richer level of thought and perception and\nability without destroying ourselves completely. But, we're going to\nmiss things, important things.
\nIf we're lucky, we'll roll with it and survive. But, as the second\nDisenchanted essay explores, we'll most certainly render the species\nas we know it extinct, and push ourselves our of a natural niche and\ninto a wholly artificial niche in need of perpetual maintenance and\nrenewal. Maybe this artifical niche will be easily sustained and\nportable enough to take with us if we want to leave the planet. On\nthe other hand, maybe this artificial niche will prove our undoing as\nit outstrips our ability to keep it up.
\nSo, given all this, I think the inevitable predicted verticality of\nthe Singularity's curve has an incredibly strong counter-force\nstemming from human nature itself. What does this mean? Not sure.\nWhat to do? Not sure. But it tells me that the Kurzweilan and\nVingian predictions of which I'm so fond face some severe reality\nchecks.
\nMore thinking to do. Thanks to Disenchanted for making me think this\nfar today. :)
\n\n\n\nshortname=singularity_vs_human_nature
\n\n\n\n",
"body": "Apologies in advance if this post-cum-essay runs a bit long...\r\n
\r\nWe could conclude that modern human intelligence is an unfinished product, and something that nature hasn't quite got around to polishing yet. The problem-solving intelligence part can be tuned and revved up to high levels, but it becomes unstable like early supersonic jet prototypes that shook themselves to pieces just after reaching the sound barrier. Nature has outstripped itself, producing a freak organism with a feature that's obscenely over-developed but under-refined. We've seen examples of evolution getting ahead of itself before, like the rapid conversion to an erect, bipedal skeletal frame without properly modifying the spine to withstand the back-aching load of pregnancy. To get a better grip of human failings, and human stupidity, you have to realize that modern Homo sapiens sapiens just isn't done yet.
\r\n\r\nWhen our own instincts are inadequate, or become a hazard, and the surrogate activities to control them aren't sufficient anymore, then there certainly will be a push to change human nature to fit his new, self-crafted niche. And the answer to my original question?that man will invent something that knocks him out of his niche with fatal consequences?is yes. Homo sapien will die, and homo modified will inherit the earth.
\r\n\r\n
\r\nThere's only an essay or two per month published over at Disenchanted,\r\nbut they're gems, each and every one. And what I read almost never\r\nfails to resonate with something I've been thinking or musing about,\r\nfrom my perspective as a geek wondering about life, the universe, and\r\neverything and as a fan of Kurzweil, Vinge, and all of post-humanity.\r\nBut my anticipation of the Singularity is constantly swayed by things\r\nsuch as the theses of the above quoted essays.\r\n
\r\nSee, as an irredeemable believer in the ways of better living through\r\ntechnology, I look forward to our increasing ability to further\r\nself-improve and bootstrap to higher levels of living, longevity,\r\nability, understanding, and exploration. But, there's a neopagan\r\nmystic and naturalist in me who keeps looking for the catch. There\r\nmust be natural limits we don't yet understand.\r\n
\r\nNo matter the precocious cleverness of our species, there's got to be\r\nplenty of good reasons it takes millions of years to achieve progress\r\nin forms and patterns of life. There are lots of little subtle\r\ndetails to be easily missed. We're smart, but not yet endowed with\r\nthe patience and wisdom that eternity grants. I both breathlessly\r\nawait and fear the arrival of our ability to fundamentally change\r\nhuman nature directly through genetic manipulation and device\r\nimplantation.\r\n
\r\nAs the first essay quoted above asserts, I believe the human species\r\nis unfinished. But as with the second essay, I think we've outpaced\r\nevolution in terms of changing the conditions under which the process\r\nitself occurs.\r\n
\r\nJust look around you. You're likely indoors, in a building composed\r\nof simple straight lines which register easily on your visual pattern\r\nrecognizers, with corridors and doorways and rooms proportioned to\r\nyour bodily dimensions. The air is conditioned to your respiratory\r\nand temperature tolerances. Things are padded and accessible. Food\r\nand drink are likely plentiful. The only predators you're likely to\r\nmeet up with during your day are of your own species. Nothing really\r\nchallenges your basic nature.\r\n
\r\nYet, this is just what the universe has been doing to forms of life\r\nthroughout the history of evolution. Only now, we've jumped the\r\ntracks, reversed the flow of control, and have reshaped our corner of\r\nthe universe to fit our status quo. So, where does that leave the\r\nnatural process of evolution with regard to us? Stopped or slowed to\r\na crawl, that's where. Maybe falling backward, since we have\r\nprosthetics, glasses, and other forms of propping up imperfections\r\nthat would have otherwise been faced with disincentives by natural\r\nselection.\r\n
\r\nSo, where are we without a natural evolution? We're left as an\r\nunfinished species, with a peculiar mix of awesome abilities matched\r\nwith amazing disabilities. Very clever people, but with a lot of\r\nblind spots. There are certain ways in which it is very difficult and\r\nsometimes nearly impossible for us to think. We have biases toward\r\ngrouping things by similarity, dividing them by difference - which\r\nallows for a very elegant economy of memory and thought, but allows\r\nfor peculiarly devastating things like racism and xenophobia.\r\nCritical thinking is counterintuitive, yet is one of our most powerful\r\ntools.\r\n
\r\nAnd there are definite flaws in our perceptions of reality, as any\r\nbook of optical illusions will tell you. One thing that struck me\r\nlike a thunderbolt came from a human biology class: Ever try following\r\na common housefly with your eyes? Isn't it frustrating how it just\r\nseems to vanish from your sight? I can't find a reference to back\r\nme up, so this is just from memory: I was taught that flies have\r\ndeveloped a particularly zig-zaggy and erratic flight pattern to evade\r\njust our kind of mammalian vision system. But, studies of fly-eating\r\nfrogs have shown that their vision systems appear particularly tweaked\r\nto react to a fly's midair dance. Imagine what else slips past us, or\r\ncomes to our attention garbled because our very apparatus contains\r\nbiases of which we're yet to even conceive?\r\n
\r\nHere we are, then, flawed and incomplete yet with a growing ability to\r\nself-modify. As an amateur computer scientist, I shudder a bit at any\r\ncode that's self-modifying. It can be done, and it can be powerfully\r\nenabling, but it's just so damn easy to blow a foot off with the\r\ntechnique. So too with ourselves, then. There's a possiblity that we\r\ncan push ourselves into a richer level of thought and perception and\r\nability without destroying ourselves completely. But, we're going to\r\nmiss things, important things.\r\n
\r\nIf we're lucky, we'll roll with it and survive. But, as the second\r\nDisenchanted essay explores, we'll most certainly render the species\r\nas we know it extinct, and push ourselves our of a natural niche and\r\ninto a wholly artificial niche in need of perpetual maintenance and\r\nrenewal. Maybe this artifical niche will be easily sustained and\r\nportable enough to take with us if we want to leave the planet. On\r\nthe other hand, maybe this artificial niche will prove our undoing as\r\nit outstrips our ability to keep it up.\r\n
\r\nSo, given all this, I think the inevitable predicted verticality of\r\nthe Singularity's curve has an incredibly strong counter-force\r\nstemming from human nature itself. What does this mean? Not sure.\r\nWhat to do? Not sure. But it tells me that the Kurzweilan and\r\nVingian predictions of which I'm so fond face some severe reality\r\nchecks.\r\n
\r\nMore thinking to do. Thanks to Disenchanted for making me think this\r\nfar today. :)\r\n\r\nshortname=singularity_vs_human_nature\r\n\r\n\r\n ",
"parentPath": "./content/posts/archives/2003",
"path": "2003/03/26/singularity-vs-human-nature",
"summary": "Apologies in advance if this post-cum-essay runs a bit long...\nWe could conclude that modern human intelligence is an unfinished product, and something that nature hasn't quite got around to polishing yet. The problem-solving intelligence part can be tuned and revved up to high levels, but it becomes unstable like early supersonic jet prototypes that shook themselves to pieces just after reaching the sound barrier. Nature has outstripped itself, producing a freak organism with a feature that's obscenely over-developed but under-refined. We've seen examples of evolution getting ahead of itself before, like the rapid conversion to an erect, bipedal skeletal frame without properly modifying the spine to withstand the back-aching load of pregnancy. To get a better grip of human failings, and human stupidity, you have to realize that modern Homo sapiens sapiens just isn't done yet.\n\n\nSource:Disenchanted: * Early prototype, expect instability\n\n\n\n\nWhen our own instincts are inadequate, or become a hazard, and the surrogate activities to control them aren't sufficient anymore, then there certainly will be a push to change human nature to fit his new, self-crafted niche. And the answer to my original question?that man will invent something that knocks him out of his niche with fatal consequences?is yes. Homo sapien will die, and homo modified will inherit the earth.\n\n\nSource:Disenchanted: Invent this and die\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThere's only an essay or two per month published over at Disenchanted,\nbut they're gems, each and every one. And what I read almost never\nfails to resonate with something I've been thinking or musing about,\nfrom my perspective as a geek wondering about life, the universe, and\neverything and as a fan of Kurzweil, Vinge, and all of post-humanity.\nBut my anticipation of the Singularity is constantly swayed by things\nsuch as the theses of the above quoted essays.\nSee, as an irredeemable believer in the ways of better living through\ntechnology, I look forward to our increasing ability to further\nself-improve and bootstrap to higher levels of living, longevity,\nability, understanding, and exploration. But, there's a neopagan\nmystic and naturalist in me who keeps looking for the catch. There\nmust be natural limits we don't yet understand.\nNo matter the precocious cleverness of our species, there's got to be\nplenty of good reasons it takes millions of years to achieve progress\nin forms and patterns of life. There are lots of little subtle\ndetails to be easily missed. We're smart, but not yet endowed with\nthe patience and wisdom that eternity grants. I both breathlessly\nawait and fear the arrival of our ability to fundamentally change\nhuman nature directly through genetic manipulation and device\nimplantation.\nAs the first essay quoted above asserts, I believe the human species\nis unfinished. But as with the second essay, I think we've outpaced\nevolution in terms of changing the conditions under which the process\nitself occurs.\nJust look around you. You're likely indoors, in a building composed\nof simple straight lines which register easily on your visual pattern\nrecognizers, with corridors and doorways and rooms proportioned to\nyour bodily dimensions. The air is conditioned to your respiratory\nand temperature tolerances. Things are padded and accessible. Food\nand drink are likely plentiful. The only predators you're likely to\nmeet up with during your day are of your own species. Nothing really\nchallenges your basic nature.\nYet, this is just what the universe has been doing to forms of life\nthroughout the history of evolution. Only now, we've jumped the\ntracks, reversed the flow of control, and have reshaped our corner of\nthe universe to fit our status quo. So, where does that leave the\nnatural process of evolution with regard to us? Stopped or slowed to\na crawl, that's where. Maybe falling backward, since we have\nprosthetics, glasses, and other forms of propping up imperfections\nthat would have otherwise been faced with disincentives by natural\nselection.\nSo, where are we without a natural evolution? We're left as an\nunfinished species, with a peculiar mix of awesome abilities matched\nwith amazing disabilities. Very clever people, but with a lot of\nblind spots. There are certain ways in which it is very difficult and\nsometimes nearly impossible for us to think. We have biases toward\ngrouping things by similarity, dividing them by difference - which\nallows for a very elegant economy of memory and thought, but allows\nfor peculiarly devastating things like racism and xenophobia.\nCritical thinking is counterintuitive, yet is one of our most powerful\ntools.\nAnd there are definite flaws in our perceptions of reality, as any\nbook of optical illusions will tell you. One thing that struck me\nlike a thunderbolt came from a human biology class: Ever try following\na common housefly with your eyes? Isn't it frustrating how it just\nseems to vanish from your sight? I can't find a reference to back\nme up, so this is just from memory: I was taught that flies have\ndeveloped a particularly zig-zaggy and erratic flight pattern to evade\njust our kind of mammalian vision system. But, studies of fly-eating\nfrogs have shown that their vision systems appear particularly tweaked\nto react to a fly's midair dance. Imagine what else slips past us, or\ncomes to our attention garbled because our very apparatus contains\nbiases of which we're yet to even conceive?\nHere we are, then, flawed and incomplete yet with a growing ability to\nself-modify. As an amateur computer scientist, I shudder a bit at any\ncode that's self-modifying. It can be done, and it can be powerfully\nenabling, but it's just so damn easy to blow a foot off with the\ntechnique. So too with ourselves, then. There's a possiblity that we\ncan push ourselves into a richer level of thought and perception and\nability without destroying ourselves completely. But, we're going to\nmiss things, important things.\nIf we're lucky, we'll roll with it and survive. But, as the second\nDisenchanted essay explores, we'll most certainly render the species\nas we know it extinct, and push ourselves our of a natural niche and\ninto a wholly artificial niche in need of perpetual maintenance and\nrenewal. Maybe this artifical niche will be easily sustained and\nportable enough to take with us if we want to leave the planet. On\nthe other hand, maybe this artificial niche will prove our undoing as\nit outstrips our ability to keep it up.\nSo, given all this, I think the inevitable predicted verticality of\nthe Singularity's curve has an incredibly strong counter-force\nstemming from human nature itself. What does this mean? Not sure.\nWhat to do? Not sure. But it tells me that the Kurzweilan and\nVingian predictions of which I'm so fond face some severe reality\nchecks.\nMore thinking to do. Thanks to Disenchanted for making me think this\nfar today. :)",
"needsBuild": true,
"prevPostPath": "2003/03/25/i-want-a-gp32",
"prevPostTitle": "I want to trade my Gameboy Advance for a GP32.",
"nextPostPath": "2003/03/26/a500-not-3g",
"nextPostTitle": "The A500 ain't 3G"
} ![](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=c462705b91eebbf6281cbe1dccab88e0&size=32&default=http://mediacdn.disqus.com/1320279820/images/noavatar32.png\"/)
\r\n Lief Clennon\r\n It occurs to me that creating a situation we're not entirely prepared to face would, in fact, be tantamount to forcing ourselves back into Darwinian evolution. There may be a holocaust, but I find it highly unlikely that there will be too few survivors for Earthly sentience to continue.\r\n\r\nWe may not like it very much. But then, neither did the trilobites. Just depends on how personally you take it all. And of course, as would any selfish little gene, I plan on doing my damnedest to figure out the niche.\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n ![](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=32df985eb18f8b06ded913879773f886&size=32&default=http://mediacdn.disqus.com/1320279820/images/noavatar32.png\"/)
\r\n Jeremy Dunck\r\n I've been struggling with this idea for a while.\r\n\r\nI've thought about learning some base-level skills such as hunting with bow or woodworking \"just in case\".\r\n\r\nIt does seem a matter of time until nuclear winter, airborne, long-incubating fatal virus, smart-enough microbes, or natural selection in the form of a cataclysm.\r\n\r\nAgile development has taught me many things, and one of those is that communication and small changes are much more effective than isolation and marksmanship precision.\r\n\r\nThe human race has been shielding itself for a long time, and I suspect the potential difference will arc before we finish building our happy cocoon.\r\n\r\nWhat to do?\r\n\r\nIt's a tough question. Suggestions, such as \"allow the diabetics to die\", are viewed as morally flawed. I am conflicted with myself over it, but really... are we -that- confident that we've got a handle on this whole thing? \r\n\r\nAren't we better off with Darwinism (viz. agile evolution)?\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n ![](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=e93df1af8d2f460ae04ac265e416e09c&size=32&default=http://mediacdn.disqus.com/1320279820/images/noavatar32.png\"/)
\r\n Andrew Kisielius\r\n Has anyone ever shouted FIRE in a crowded theatre? How many people kept their calm and asked where it was? \r\nIt puzzles me that we as a species are so fatally attracted to confidence; a single leader with charisma and conviction can take a group anywhere. Obvious examples include Nazi Germany, Soviet Communism, American Democracy... The idea that there is something fundamentally wrong with our society circulates in whispered tones, always hesitant lest we should say something immoral or politically incorrect. I shudder to think of the barrage of hate mail when someone seriously suggests that we eliminate the diabetics ... and yet I also shudder to think what we will do when the man on horseback rides into our theatre and shouts \"Darwin.\"\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
Archived Comments
\n\n- \n
\n\n![](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=c462705b91eebbf6281cbe1dccab88e0&size=32&default=http://mediacdn.disqus.com/1320279820/images/noavatar32.png\")
\nLief Clennon\n \n\n\n \n\n\nIt occurs to me that creating a situation we're not entirely prepared to face would, in fact, be tantamount to forcing ourselves back into Darwinian evolution. There may be a holocaust, but I find it highly unlikely that there will be too few survivors for Earthly sentience to continue.\nWe may not like it very much. But then, neither did the trilobites. Just depends on how personally you take it all. And of course, as would any selfish little gene, I plan on doing my damnedest to figure out the niche. \n\n\n \n- \n
\n\n![](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=32df985eb18f8b06ded913879773f886&size=32&default=http://mediacdn.disqus.com/1320279820/images/noavatar32.png\")
\nJeremy Dunck\n \n\n\n \n\n\nI've been struggling with this idea for a while.\nI've thought about learning some base-level skills such as hunting with bow or woodworking \"just in case\".\nIt does seem a matter of time until nuclear winter, airborne, long-incubating fatal virus, smart-enough microbes, or natural selection in the form of a cataclysm.\nAgile development has taught me many things, and one of those is that communication and small changes are much more effective than isolation and marksmanship precision.\nThe human race has been shielding itself for a long time, and I suspect the potential difference will arc before we finish building our happy cocoon.\nWhat to do?\nIt's a tough question. Suggestions, such as \"allow the diabetics to die\", are viewed as morally flawed. I am conflicted with myself over it, but really... are we -that- confident that we've got a handle on this whole thing? \nAren't we better off with Darwinism (viz. agile evolution)? \n\n\n \n- \n
\n\n![](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=e93df1af8d2f460ae04ac265e416e09c&size=32&default=http://mediacdn.disqus.com/1320279820/images/noavatar32.png\")
\nAndrew Kisielius\n \n\n\n \n\n\nHas anyone ever shouted FIRE in a crowded theatre? How many people kept their calm and asked where it was? \nIt puzzles me that we as a species are so fatally attracted to confidence; a single leader with charisma and conviction can take a group anywhere. Obvious examples include Nazi Germany, Soviet Communism, American Democracy... The idea that there is something fundamentally wrong with our society circulates in whispered tones, always hesitant lest we should say something immoral or politically incorrect. I shudder to think of the barrage of hate mail when someone seriously suggests that we eliminate the diabetics ... and yet I also shudder to think what we will do when the man on horseback rides into our theatre and shouts \"Darwin.\" \n\n\n \n
\n\n\n\n
\n
\n