Bioconservative and biomoderate singularitarian positions

From a rhetorical point of view, the biomoderate singularity probably works better than the non-moderate version since it contains less outrageous and "silly" elements. It even fits with the "machines of loving grace" ideas about AI worlds that got crowded out by the superintelligent AI memes somewhere in the late 80's.

In practice I doubt people attracted to bioconservatism would go for singularity thinking, simply because they might be dominated by the ingroup, authority and purity moral foundations in Jonathan Haidt's system. If you think that there exists a natural order or a historical structure that shouldn't be overthrown, then a singularity may not be what you want.

I think a common assumption is that singularities are highly contingent affairs, where the range of potential outcomes is enormous. That makes it sensible to try to get a singularity with the right dynamics to get to the outcome set one likes. This assumption is likely based on the fact that the smarter a being is, the more behavioural and mental flexibility it exhibits, and singularities presumably involve lots of smarts. But there could be strong attractors in singularity dynamics, essentially imploding the range of outcomes (e.g. something akin to Robin's cosmic common locusts). In this case the choice might be between just a few attractors - if we even can know them beforehand.

Moral progress follows human nature more than it does people's mistaken or imprecise ideas about human nature. Ancient Greeks shouldn't get to fix slavery as a law of nature, no more than bioconservatives should get an ability to enforce their views, no more than anyone else.

A person's current moral position in the present shouldn't (and, in a related sense, can't) determine the outcome of establishing FAI. You don't vouch for the particular features of the outcome, you don't predict the exact Kasparov's moves, you only predict that the outcome is a win.

This makes bioconservative and singularitarian positions completely independent, the same as the cases of altruist singularitarian, hedonist singularitarian or nazi singularitarian.

However, there is a bonus: whatever moral position you currently hold, you can find motivation in the fact that to the extent your position is correct, it'll get implemented by the dynamic set forward by FAI (this dynamic might consist in the people's activities), and it'll get protected from existential risk and more subtle moral death spirals (including blind modification of human nature).

Great post Roko, here's my response, which is supportive.

Nick Bostrom's paper says that in the long run we should expect extinction, stagnation, posthumanity, or oscillation. But he describes a global state that uses social control technologies (ubiquitous surveillance, lie detectors, advanced education techniques) to maintain a steady technology level without generally superintelligent machines as falling into the radical change category.

What strong bioconservatism needs to work is a global order/singleton that can maintain its values, not necessarily superintelligent software entities.

Also, while I like the post, I wonder if it would work better for your own blog than Less Wrong, since it doesn't really draw on or develop rationality ideas very much.

I feel as though if you are hoping to preserve the specific biological scope of humanity you have some significant roadblocks on the way. Our species was generated in millions of years of shifting genes with selection factors blatant to subtle, and more recently we've stripped as many selection factors out as we can. (For good reason, natural selection is a harsh mistress...)

Malaria etc still is a selecting factor as has been documented but they're greatly reduced. In Dawkin's 'The Ancestor's Tale', he tells the story of the Russian Silver Fox breeding experiment in which wild foxes were selected for tame characteristics, resulting in foxes that behaved like border collies.

He hypothesizes that if humans were subject to a similar non-natural sexual selection, picking for the 'tamest' humans (adult male chimpanzees will kill each other and definitely don't work well with groups, while adolescent chimps can work together in large groups no problem -- this is another suggestion w/ the skeleton and other claims for the whole idea of species right after the human-chimpanzee concestor being pushed toward neoteny in order to work in larger groups.)

The border-collie-foxes ended up having floppy ears, liked being pet, yipped and enjoyed playing with humans. If Dawkins is correct, we're a bunch of domesticated humans in a similar fashion. When you throw a wrench into natural selection like that, things start to go out of whack instantly like the constant birth problems Pugs have, bloat in Bassett hounds to back problems in daschunds. It's difficult to predict -- a part of the naturally selected whole that had one purpose, modified to another, can have all kinds of unexpected repercussions. Anything that can 'loves' to do double or triple duty in the body.

So unless you snapshot the human genome the way it is and keep people from randomly reproducing as they like to do, you don't get to maintain a 'pristine' human condition.

Is it preferable to slowly wreck and junk up your genome and species via a more or less unguided (at least in the center of the curve) process, or attempt to steer it in a humane way without eugenics by genetic engineering even though the consequences could be drastic?

The bottom line is that our species will change no matter what we do. I don't know for sure, but I would prefer thought going into it over neglect and leaving the whole thing up to chaos.

Do you manage a community of fish, ants, or microorganisms, providing them with a safe and enjoyable environment, and eliminating as much disease and suffering for them as you can? If you have dogs, do you provide them with a wooded 100-acre lot to run free and hunt on?

If not, why not?

Or do you, maybe, have one dog or one cat that you keep locked up alone all day in your house while you're gone?

Even those animals we claim to love - say, dogs and cats - are very much living for our enjoyment. They live according to our convenience, not in conditions they would have chosen.

the singleton takes care to ensure that this world is not "disturbed" by too much technology being invented by anyone

I don't see how that would work without periodic "hard resets" (meaning apocalypses). Wanting to innovate and improve things is pretty fundamental to all populations of humans (with the possible exception of the Piraha).

humans could live in almost perfect harmony with nature.

This seems too vague to be anything but an applause light.

This is quite an interesting piece advocating that not everything about the Singularity will be wonderful and there might be reason to show some restraint. It is sort of the same way that genetic engineering and cloning holds great promise and great peril, and acceptance by some while rejection by others. I do not really believe that the Singularity will ever occur, but I am glad that there is this kind of discussion within the community.

http://antisingularity.wordpress.com/

People on this site love to use fiction to illustrate their points, and a "biomoderate singularity managed by a superintelligent singleton" is very novel-friendly, so that's something!

"our pristine, unenhanced human form is to be held as if it were sacred"

Bioconservatives ARE theists. They just elevate current evolutionary results to godhood.