Science is (like) man- controlling by nature

I agree with Holdrege on many levels. I often emphasize that scientific theories are by definition not facts. Theories are guesses that are hopefully plausible and should be based on some research. Their creators claim that science provides deeper insight into naturally occurring thing but in reality scientific explanations only create artificial things. I will admit scientific explanations do provide a sense of comfort and control. Although I will never be able to guarantee my life or the life of my loved ones, I gain a level of reassurance from hearing a man in a white coat explain to me why the death of someone occurred. This is true even if I do not understand the explanation! I find comfort because the explanations are crafted by humans; and I am human. Scientific explanation is primarily useful as a coping mechanism for the ego. If I can explain it in my own terms, I have founded it, created it, invented it and mastered it! It is in this wise that I understand the concept of “delicate empiricism” and the idea that man seeks to become “utterly identical” with natural phenomena he experiences. I agree with Holdrege that scientific explanation should adapt itself to higher forms of knowing and not seek to encapsulate phenomena in limited paradigms. While this can (and does) lead to higher levels of understanding; in the end, scientific theory will always serve to confine the abstract. Even philosophy and its proverbial question, “what is the meaning of life?” does little more than present questions that if answered place confines on the abstract.

Guidelines for acceptable reproductive cloning

Where to draw the line is a very difficult question. Whether or not there is a free market should not be the standard. The demarcation should take into account the effect on cloned individuals and the long term effects on the social interaction between humans in general.

There should definitely be government regulation and an entire body of laws governing genetic manipulation. If reproductive cloning is allowed, it should not be a right. Individuals should have to undergo psychological examination and therapy. Therapeutic and reproductive cloning should be limited to 1) the DNA of no more than two individuals and 2) human genes. Both of these restrictions would help to prevent the manufacture of super babies- babies that benefit from the DNA of more than two individuals (which is not possible with traditional sexual reproduction) or that benefit from the genes of animals (enhanced sight, hearing, strength, etc.,).

Singularity and the Law of Accelerating Returns

From the ‘Future for all’ website I clicked on a link that took me to: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0134.html There I read a read a very long article by Ray Kurzweil titled “The Law of Accelerating Returns”

The law of accelerating returns in lay terms states that progress leads to exponentially greater progress. Faster and smarter computers allow us to revolutionize future computers faster and more intensely than current technology. Hence, progress is not linear, as he suggests that most people believe, but exponential. His prediction is that the law of accelerating returns will lead to ‘the Singluarity”. The Singularity is technological change so rapid and so profound that it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history.

My first thought was to dismiss this theory techie gospel, mostly because I tend to reject all theories that paint the present as the turning point in history as self-centered and irrational (people in the year 1000 had the same apocalyptic convictions of people in the year 2000, not to mention the years 500 and 1500 and every other year regardless of whether or not man believed he was the center of the earth).

However, this article is special in that it does not simply state that this time is special inspite of history but relies on history to show how technological progress has always been approaching a crescendo. He provides an analogy about the inventor of chess who asked to the emperor of China to give him one grain of rice on the first square and then double the number of grains in each succeeding square. By the 64th square the man would have accumulated 18 million trillion grains of rice! Very significant is that for the first 32 squares the numbers of rice grains are relatively insignificant. This is an analogy for the law of accelerating returns applied to technology. In which, technology has always been increasing exponentially but it is not until a certain point that this exponential growth becomes noteworthy! Framed in this manner it becomes more feasible for me to imagine technology expanding to a never before calculated frenzy.

At that event horizon, known as Singularity, mankind merges with technology to become smarter thereby remaining the wielders of technology and infinite intelligence. Also of interest was his prediction of how computer intelligence will surpass human intelligence. He says that the human brain is inefficient but its computing capabilities come from three dimensional operation. Hence, Nanotubes, with circuits forming pentagonal arrays of carbon atoms, three-dimensional silicon chips, optical computing, crystalline computing, DNA computing, and quantum computing all have the potential intelligence millions of times more powerful than the human brain.

More Mahotma Mania!!!

In New York City we already have cameras at traffic lights and police surveillance cameras all over the city. The benefit of surveillance as a tool of the government to record criminal activity is real. However, video surveillance does not lead to more equal justice. Police cameras are disproportionately placed in poor and minority neighborhoods just as police officers are disproportionately placed in poor and minority neighborhoods. Hence, security cameras will be used as “objective” proof that certain communities are more prone to violence and crime without considering the disproportional application of the technology (i.e.: more cameras in certain neighborhoods will almost certainly result in more crimes being recorded in those neighborhoods). Hence, cameras will serve as a tool of the establishment to further demarcate certain communities under the guise of neutral technology.
I find comical Taylor’s assertion that people will behave normally after accepting that they are being watched. I am aware that there is a psychological experiment that revealed that people will only temporarily change their behavior when they know they are being watched (with no long lasting change). However, that experiment did not intrude on the privacy of the subjects. Perpetual surveillance implies distrust of the people and will therefore engender under Newton’s Law (equal and opposite force) distrust of the government. Mechanical overseers disassociate officials from the people and will thus result in a disenfranchised population. Most of all, the proliferation of cameras will represent power and control by the government and not by the people, which will lead to resentment and radical political upheaval- either the people will get rid of the cameras or the cameras will enslave the people in a police state.