Eikonoklastes by Michael Hartl: Category Crazy futurist stuff

Cryonics

Michael Hartl — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 09:51:00 -0700

Cryonicists aren’t crazy—they’re just really great, sexy optimists!: Gregory Benford, Alcor Conference (2002)

Since physical law allows the possibility of nanotechnology and artificial intelligence, we should take their potential development seriously. One result of their successful realization would be the ability to reverse the damage done to human tissues (including the brain) preserved at very low temperatures—a practice known as cryonics. This means that if nanotechnology and artificial intelligence are developed, cryonics will probably work. Nanotechnology pioneer Eric Drexler realized this early on, and argued forcibly for the likely success of cryonics in Chapter 9 of Engines of Creation. (Whether or not those who espouse this view are sexy, as Greg Benford maintains, we leave to the reader to decide.)

Though cryonics is commonly (and understandably, though lamentably) perceived as a fringe practice, the revival of a cryonics patient would (to apply my favorite litmus test) violate no known physical law—and it seems only a matter of time before the requisite technology is developed. Of course, to proceed scientifically we must conduct an experiment, and it has already started: at least two groups in the United States—the Alcor Life Extension Foundation and the Cryonics Institute—offer cryopreservation services to their members, paid for by a relatively modest annual membership fee and a larger cryopreservation fee (payable upon legal death and typically funded with life insurance). Among others, many scientists and technical types think that cryonics has a legitimate chance of success.

Top Ten Favorite Cryonicists

Like most of the people on the above list, I am a member of Alcor, the older and larger of the two main cryonics organizations.

Opposition to cryonics is widespread, of course: almost everyone thinks that it obviously won’t work (i.e., it’s impossible or unfeasible) or that it shouldn’t work (i.e., it’s wrong). Unfortunately, everyone seems to have his own obvious reason! Ralph Merkle’s paper The Molecular Repair of the Brain describes in detail the scientific case for cryonics; Alcor’s FAQ addresses both scientific and ethical issues. My view, in a nutshell:

Cryonics is possible because it is consistent with physical law.
Cryonics is feasible because historical and technological trends point toward the development of the necessary technology some time this century.
Cryonics is ethical because it involves individuals spending their own money in an attempt to save their own lives.

If you believe that you have a valid objection to cryonics, apply this test: could your argument be used against organ transplants in 1940? If not, it is probably new to me, and I’d like to hear your argument. (After all, I reserve the right to be wrong about anything, including cryonics.)

Artificial intelligence

Michael Hartl — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 08:32:00 -0700

(Part 3 of 4)

Just as the laws of physics allow the manipulation of matter on the finest scales, so too do they allow the possibility of machines that think. After all, (some) human beings think, and we are made of atoms just like everything else. The only relevant questions center on making a thinking machine—how hard will it be; how long will it take?

There are many scientists and philosophers who argue, for one reason or another, that artificial intelligence (AI) is impossible. What they usually mean is that it must be very hard, and they can’t imagine how to do it—that is, they imply that a problem of practice is a problem of principle. As in the case of nanotechnology, all of these arguments must ultimately fail:

Since brains follow the laws of physics, artificial intelligence is possible in principle.

(Of course, many people reject the premise of this argument: they believe that human beings transcend physical law in some way, perhaps through an immaterial “soul” or “spirit”. Such people may be right, but it is more likely that what we identify as “spirit” is information, which is still fundamentally physical in nature. In any case, there is currently no credible evidence that human beings violate known physical law.)

Artificial intelligence will have even farther-reaching consequences than nanotechnology (among other things, a sufficiently advanced AI would immediately invent nanotechnology if necessary), but the implications are harder to see—we’re simply too stupid to think of all the implications! Nevertheless, there has been much inspired speculation over the years; my favorite is Ray Kurzweil’s book The Age of Spiritual Machines.

Nanotechnology

Michael Hartl — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:06:00 -0700

(Part 2 of 4)

Nanotechnology—also called molecular manufacturing—is the precise manipulation of matter at the atomic and molecular level. Mature nanotechnology will bestow almost magical powers on its possessor:

The pollution-free production of any material structure consistent with physical law, at virtually zero cost
Palm-size computers vastly superior to current supercomputers
Nanomedicine capable of curing all known diseases and ailments, including aging, leading to indefinite lifespans in a state of permanent health
Many things we haven’t thought of yet

Because of nanotechnology’s far-reaching implications, many people have difficulty accepting its feasibility. Before dismissing nanotechnology as mere fantasy or science fiction, it is important to note that most of our contemporary technology already approaches magical levels by historical standards: manufactured goods are incredibly plentiful and cheap compared to those in (say) antiquity; today’s palm-size computers have already surpassed early room-size computers; modern medicine has already achieved miraculous results in the curing of disease and the extension of healthy human lifespan. In many ways, nanotechnology represents the next logical step.

The web is an incredibly rich source of information on nanotechnology, including the classic visionary book on the subject. Some good places to start:

There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom: a famous talk by physicist Richard Feynman on the small-scale manipulation of matter, given at Caltech during the 1959 meeting of the American Physical Society
Engines of Creation: Eric Drexler’s articulate and accessible introduction to nanotechnology (alluded to above), built on the foundation of Feynman’s vision
Ralph Merkle’s nanotechnology page: a brief introduction to nanotechnology with lots of links to further information
Foresight Nanotech Institute: an organization dedicated to preparing society for anticipated advanced technologies (especially nanotechnology)

Crazy futurist stuff

Michael Hartl — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:27:00 -0700

(Part 1 of 4)

Warning: may cause future shock

I’m interested in a variety of (possibly not-so-)crazy futurist stuff. Most of it falls under the category of “transhumanism”, a philosophy that emphasizes the value of human beings (as in classical humanism) together with the transformative power of technology (which may eventually allow humans to transcend their current biological and cognitive limitations). The World Transhumanist Association FAQ is an articulate and mind-bending introduction to transhumanism and related ideas, and it greatly repays careful study and contemplation. My favorite brand of transhumanism is extropianism, which emphasizes the spontaneous emergence of order and the importance of individual liberty.

The Two Big Things in this area (in my view) are nanotechnology and artificial intelligence. In both cases, there is an essential theme:

Many proposed advanced technologies (including nanotechnology and artificial intelligence) are consistent with physical law. Their successful realization is hence a problem of practice, not principle—and therefore probably a matter of when, not if.

Often, arguments against the “feasibility” of nanotechnology and artificial intelligence—that is, against the possibility of the short-term development of these technologies—imply that the technologies themselves are impossible. This is reminiscent of early arguments against heavier-than-air flight or rocketry: well-meaning scientists and engineers pointed out that, e.g., a heavier rocket would need more fuel, which would further weigh down the rocket, requiring still more fuel, etc., etc. These arguments were perfectly correct, since the technical barriers were indeed high, but they obscured the underlying issue: no physical principle prohibits the existence of airplanes or rockets. Eventually, advances in technology answered all their objections, and many ended up looking foolish.

Of course, simply because a technology is possible doesn’t mean that it will be developed on a reasonable timescale. Making timelines and projections is a tricky business, but there are many reasons to believe that the technology envisioned by transhumanists will arrive some time this century. A good web resource on this subject is Ray Kurzweil’s essay on the Law of Accelerating Returns; I also highly recommend Kurzweil’s books The Age of Spiritual Machines and The Singularity Is Near. I would be surprised if Kurzweil’s predictions are correct in their details, and he may be off by decades in some of his bolder claims, but he marshals convincing arguments in support of his central thesis: our naïve linear intuition leads to systematic underestimates of exponential technological change. As a result, many dramatic technological advances will happen much sooner than most people expect.