My Cop-Out Argument
Readers have asked me to prove that Strong AI or nanobots are impossible. But it is impossible to prove that any given technology is impossible. You won't know if a technology is possible until you actually develop it.
The reason that most technologies flop is because you invariably run into problems that no one ever thought of to begin with. This is one reason why even though no scientist has disproved Drexler's Molecular Nanotechnology or de Grey's SENS we should still be highly skeptical of their possibility.
I understand that this sounds like a cop-out on my part because I can't explicitly predict what might go wrong with the future development of technologies Transhumanists like, but there it is.
The reason that most technologies flop is because you invariably run into problems that no one ever thought of to begin with. This is one reason why even though no scientist has disproved Drexler's Molecular Nanotechnology or de Grey's SENS we should still be highly skeptical of their possibility.
I understand that this sounds like a cop-out on my part because I can't explicitly predict what might go wrong with the future development of technologies Transhumanists like, but there it is.
Can you name another technology that obeys the laws of physics but "flopped" permanently when people truly tried to develop it? Look for pre-1950 references if possible... I'm talking about a technology that literally everyone just gave up on because it sounded realistic beforehand, but after some work proved to be impossible.
Time travel and teleportation don't count because it was always obvious these disobey the known laws of physics.
If you can't name a technology with which this has ever happened, then on what grounds do you condemn future technologies to the same fate?
Reply to this
There is a difference between a technology and an idea. An idea without practical applications and without any sort of demonstration of feasibility, whatever else it might be, is not yet a technology.
Fudge this distinction and every idea for a perpetuation motion machine could be called a "failed technology", the mummification process of the pharohs aiming at giving them immortality, might be deemed failed "technologies". And as far as examples go these "failed technologies" inspired amounts of human effort that dwarf anything that transhumanists have yet attempted in comparison.
If you lower the base of scientific and technological understanding enough in any particular audience then anything may appear to be a possible technology.
Drexlerian nanotech and cryonics are NOT technologies. SENS is NOT a technology. They are at best ideas. Engineers can and do cut down bad ideas on the drawing board sometimes but it is not always worth while explaining to people who don't have scientific or technological backgrounds themselves why an idea can't work. People do not usually want to pay other people for the service of being disillusioned and engineers and analysts do like to be rewarded for their work.
I suspect existing biological science is good enough to refute any argument for cryonics given a scientifically literate reader but who amongst cryonics believers is willing to pay for the service of being disillusioned?
Reply to this
AI probably counts as a failed technology by now. The field started in the late 1940's, if you count Alan Turing as the founding figure. After consuming billions of dollars and the entire careers of some very smart people, like the nearly 80-year-old Marvin Minsky, AI has clearly bogged down with no obvious path forward. You have to wonder about the opportunity costs of wasting those resources chasing after a likely mirage.
As for Aubrey de Grey, we had fringe biologists in the 1970's who made similar predictions that we'd achieve "immortality" within 30 years -- by now, in other words. I don't understand why people old enough to know better have such a boner for the guy. I certainly have no emotional investment in SENS; if Aubrey's ideas don't work, we need to find that out sooner rather than later and then move on to possibly better ideas.
Reply to this
Nuclear powered aircraft would be a good example. The National Laboratories were largely funded after WWII on this project and it never worked.
I will better address your question in a future post. Thanks!
-HP
Reply to this
Another example: Eugenics, a biotechnology-based social philosophy that failed with horrifying consequences.
Reply to this
If development of a technology stops for political reasons, well, this is still a failure. It has nothing to do with whether or not it was possible, however.
Eugenics? That will happen as soon as the economics is right.
Reply to this
Need to clarify! I do not approve of killing (or discrimination of) people as a result of genetic diseases or physical traits or sexual orientation. It doesn't matter what it is named, the process of choosing what we want has been happening for tens of thousands of years.
Reply to this