The digital eugenicist Daniel Faggella argues that humanity should be replaced by a "worthy successor" in the form of AGI — his view is comically absurd and profoundly dangerous. (3,300 words)
This guy. 🙄 I wonder if he’s read CiXin Liu’s Remembrance of Earth’s Past trilogy (3 Body Problem). Liu tackles the moral issues of what happens to humans disconnected from Earth and it’s not good. These Silicon Valley guys are so misanthropic and disconnected from reality…it really is a special kind of psychopathy.
"This is a recipe for nightmares to come true — on a cosmic scale. And it might be exacerbated by Faggella’s own suggestion that the AGIs that colonize the universe from the starting-point of Earth would simply try to annihilate other lifeforms that it might encounter:" Ian Douglas wrote a series of books about this idea. He called them "The Hunters of the Dawn" and they were a post-biological race that killed any other species that figured out FTL travel. The last book came out in 2009. I haven't thought about it in years until I read this.
The biggest problem with his philosophy is that he decides humanity is fundamentally important and that all of our norms and morals are unimportant.
He then creates his own moral axiom of the flame and hopes that it will somehow be preserved over untold generations of artificial (and very alien) offspring. But what makes you so sure they would value this flame thing they heard about from the silly apes? It might not even be optimal!
Furthermore, why should he even try to further this flame idea? He's so dismissive of mankind and our ideas as a whole, why hold on to this one? His whole process is so close to complete nihilism that he might as well take the final plunge and fight for nothing at all.
Yeah, the hubris is off truly the charts. You find the same thing among the longtermists. In contrast to their elitist approach to the future, I advocate (and I suspect you'd agree!) for a future that's deeply democratic and inclusive. Thanks so much for reading. :-)
The problem with the torch and the flame analogy is that the flame is only possible because an oxydising agent, air, allows the combustion of fuel to create heat. In this analogy that would presumably mean the earth and all life upon it, including humans.
A proper utilitarian argument should really focus on the value of, say, a tree, which can provide hundreds of tons of oxygen (oxydising agent) for potentially hundreds of years, compared to the fuel contained within a billionaire which wouldn't burn for very long. So, by breaking down the billionaire into nutrients, fertiliser and liquids for the tree, this mysterious 'flame' has much more potential and more chance of continuing into the future.
Thanks for this update on this extremely disturbing philosophy. I was first introduced to this mindset two years ago with Adam Kirsch's excellent short book, The Revolt Against Humanity. It doesn't sound like things are getting any better. These people need to get out of their heads, take a long walk into woods and rediscover "an affirmation of life, a belief in our world." Amen sister Klein.
Yeah, Kirsch's book is great. And I agree that things have become worse since it was published. More than technology destroying the world, I'm worried about the ideologies behind technology doing that (nationalism, fascism, pro-extinctionism, TESCREAL utopianism, etc.). Thanks so much for reading. :-)
Not only Spinoza, John Stuart Mill must also be spinning in his grave. I’m grateful to be reading your work, being the master of this difficult material
No no no no! I don't endorse harassment of any sort (even online). I think the best way to counter his pernicious view is to criticize it loudly in public. I do not wish harm to anyone -- even the most egregious enemies of humanity. :-)
This guy. 🙄 I wonder if he’s read CiXin Liu’s Remembrance of Earth’s Past trilogy (3 Body Problem). Liu tackles the moral issues of what happens to humans disconnected from Earth and it’s not good. These Silicon Valley guys are so misanthropic and disconnected from reality…it really is a special kind of psychopathy.
"This is a recipe for nightmares to come true — on a cosmic scale. And it might be exacerbated by Faggella’s own suggestion that the AGIs that colonize the universe from the starting-point of Earth would simply try to annihilate other lifeforms that it might encounter:" Ian Douglas wrote a series of books about this idea. He called them "The Hunters of the Dawn" and they were a post-biological race that killed any other species that figured out FTL travel. The last book came out in 2009. I haven't thought about it in years until I read this.
I didn't know about this book series. Thanks for sharing!
The biggest problem with his philosophy is that he decides humanity is fundamentally important and that all of our norms and morals are unimportant.
He then creates his own moral axiom of the flame and hopes that it will somehow be preserved over untold generations of artificial (and very alien) offspring. But what makes you so sure they would value this flame thing they heard about from the silly apes? It might not even be optimal!
Furthermore, why should he even try to further this flame idea? He's so dismissive of mankind and our ideas as a whole, why hold on to this one? His whole process is so close to complete nihilism that he might as well take the final plunge and fight for nothing at all.
Yeah, the hubris is off truly the charts. You find the same thing among the longtermists. In contrast to their elitist approach to the future, I advocate (and I suspect you'd agree!) for a future that's deeply democratic and inclusive. Thanks so much for reading. :-)
The problem with the torch and the flame analogy is that the flame is only possible because an oxydising agent, air, allows the combustion of fuel to create heat. In this analogy that would presumably mean the earth and all life upon it, including humans.
A proper utilitarian argument should really focus on the value of, say, a tree, which can provide hundreds of tons of oxygen (oxydising agent) for potentially hundreds of years, compared to the fuel contained within a billionaire which wouldn't burn for very long. So, by breaking down the billionaire into nutrients, fertiliser and liquids for the tree, this mysterious 'flame' has much more potential and more chance of continuing into the future.
Thanks for this update on this extremely disturbing philosophy. I was first introduced to this mindset two years ago with Adam Kirsch's excellent short book, The Revolt Against Humanity. It doesn't sound like things are getting any better. These people need to get out of their heads, take a long walk into woods and rediscover "an affirmation of life, a belief in our world." Amen sister Klein.
Yeah, Kirsch's book is great. And I agree that things have become worse since it was published. More than technology destroying the world, I'm worried about the ideologies behind technology doing that (nationalism, fascism, pro-extinctionism, TESCREAL utopianism, etc.). Thanks so much for reading. :-)
Not only Spinoza, John Stuart Mill must also be spinning in his grave. I’m grateful to be reading your work, being the master of this difficult material
100%
Mad as a hatter and morally bankrupt.
Plus, the cognitive dissonance is astounding:
> If, as his first tweet suggests, the difficulty of the proposed task is "impossible", isn't his entire proposition an ill-fated fool's errand?
Oh, so this is how Chatoyance turned out. My Little Pony fanfic drama is eternal, it seems.
This is some Warhammer 40k type stuff
Let’s start with him. Where does he live?
Is what someone might say if he keeps pushing this.
No no no no! I don't endorse harassment of any sort (even online). I think the best way to counter his pernicious view is to criticize it loudly in public. I do not wish harm to anyone -- even the most egregious enemies of humanity. :-)