Bostrom's paper is very effective in highlighting the supposed benefits of trans-humanism... I would like to pose a few question however, regarding some draw backs that I personally have against a few points he made in the paper.
I cannot argue with the fact that happy, healthier, more intelligent people is something that we should, and for the most part do, strive for. I myself strive for all of these things, and while it may not be as effective as if I were implementing post humanism technology, I still get personal benefit and self motivation from doing so. Without following trans-humanism, most of us, or maybe simply the small group of the population who are similarly minded to us Mines students, tend to take the problem-solving approach to problems. Bostrom seems to imply that this is a trans-humanist quality, as they tend to "think it better to take the initiative to 'do something about it' rather than sit around complaining". It seems that this is quite a bold statement to make, implying that normal humans aren't focus on solving problems and sit around waiting for someone else to do. I highly doubt that everyone studying engineering, medicine, the sciences, etc follows the trans-humanist doctrine.
What are your thoughts on this?
Another argument that Bostrom made was that "technological progress is closely linked to economic development, economic growth - more more precisely, productivity growth...". I would argue that this is not always the case. While researching for my discovery paper I found an article from The Economist relating to the subject, which quoted economics professor Robert Gordon who argued that "invention since 2000 has centered on entertainment and communication devices that are smaller, smarter, and more capable, but do not fundamentally change labor productivity or the standard of living in the way that electric light, motor cars, or indoor plumbing changed it" (Buttonwood).
I'm aware this statement applies mostly to the civilian sector, but what are your thoughts on technological development and direct benefit and economic growth the to the general population? Does this always hold true? Is there a difference between the effects in westernized countries as opposed to those who are currently industrializing, or even developing?
Alex,
ReplyDeleteTo answer your first question, I must simply state that I don't know. Furthermore, I don't think that we will ever know. In engineering we are taught to look at a problem and it's givens and find an answer. In literature, (I am assuming this) they read a passage and then analyze the effects of each of the steps instead of looking directly at the a-to-b progress. However, look at us McBriders. We know how to combine both. The same goes for the literature minded people who dabble with the sciences. I think that, in regards to trans-humanism and Bostrom's thoughts, his assumptions are based off of the idea that literature and science are split. Maybe those dealing with pure technology do think his way, but I believe that putting that putting arts back into STEM will delineated his view. If the world existed as black and white his premise may hold true, but, thankfully, we are starting to make a lot more gray.
For your second part, I do believe that technology is closely related to economic growth. Granted I have no economics background (I haven't even taken the 201 course yet), but I do see a correlation between the two. You point towards the fact that technology has recently been created for entertainment purposes and these don't necessarily correlate to productivity. I disagree. The cell phone helps communication. Television helps us relax and thus potentially increases focus when doing real tasks. These technologies make life easier and that translates into all realms of society. There are reasons why fertile lands and non-fertile lands could have the same amount of production. Technology has allowed this. So, although the connection may not be direct, they do greatly influence each other.