Transhumanist Strawman Argument
I few of you have emailed me about my refutation of Kurzweil claiming that I am saying that Homo sapiens was not the inevitable product of evolution rather than higher intelligence. This convenient misinterpretation of what I have been saying is a Strawman argument.
I want to be very clear in saying that I believe that there is no scientific way you could prove that a technology-creating species is (or isn't) the inevitable product of evolution. Higher intelligence, whether in bipedal mammalian form or crustacean form or insect form or any other form is an evolutionary fluke, just like every other species in the history of the planet.
The only way you could scientifically prove that a technology-creating species is inevitable is by creating multiple planet earths (like in Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy) and running them in parallel and seeing how many of them produce technology.
The belief that a technology-creating species is inevitable is a matter of faith, which is why Transhumanism is a religion.
Nature doesn't give a damn about us and in fact saying so is anthropomorphic. Why don't you have a survey? I think you might be right about this since their are far more religious folks who believe evolution was guided by a higher power than atheists/rationalist in the general population who want technological enhancement. That is, the set who potentially accepts transhumanism and is religious is much higher than athiests who don't believe in a divine order. But since we both agree human enhancement can't happen by itself, well, your belief that we can't understand some phenomena (in a reasonable amount of time) is faith too. Why not be agnostic instead in reguards to strong AI and even molecular nanotechnology rather than too much of a skeptic? Shouldn't you know better? Although getting a good designed survey would be very difficult. Until then its just an opinion, unlike the fact that its wrong to believe something is impossible without showing why (without pointing to ones own ignorance).
Reply to this