Our Posthuman Future?

Francis Fukuyama has pondered the consequences of biotechnology in his book from 2002 called Our Posthuman Future. Again it is kind of the end of something. The air of the book is skeptical. He sees problems where I see opportunity.

The progress in molecular biology continues to be record breaking. One way of improving our situation, that might still be a little science fictionesque, is to speed up evolution of positive traits. How would it be, for example, to start producing humans that lack aggression at the current levels. In my humble mind and with my experience this could actually be done today by neuropharmacology, which Fukuyama might be calling the technology that no one dares to talk about.

If you are a fan of Hegel, however, this might mean that we rob future men of the experiences that deepen their personalities. It would, as Fukuyama points out, be dangerous to remove too much of human nature without saving some of the old varieties.

Another development is Artificial Intelligence. Fukuyama is pessimistic on the birth of consciousness in computers. I also have a feeling that the water-based computation that the brain does might be necessary and unique but I would really like to see us reaching the "singularity", where it would be possible to download one's mind in a computer and continue living forever with a potentially sharper intellect and a tremendous memory. A shortcut in evolution. Human nature will change and a new species would be born. A political concern would be who should be in control. The new species or the old one.

It remains very interesting to speculate on what regular evolution would do with our intellects. What kind of human we would have in 1m years. It is 60,000 years since Homo sapiens left Africa the first time and most people do not think there is any significant genetic differences between now and then. The work they are doing in Germany on the Neanderthal DNA might shed some light on this. Is there an upper limit in the intelligence that is possible to create on the current platform? This would be interesting to know because perhaps the new man made evolution via computers would be the only way of significantly improving our position.

Stem cell research has great potential but is hampered by problems with so called innocent life. The use of embryos for research should in my opinion not be problematic. Due to the unfortunate atrocities of war, we have learned that mental retardation in children from mothers living through the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings happened between week 8 to 15. This should mean that the nervous system is assembled during this time and that no functioning brain which could give rise to human life, ie pain and sorrow, could be present earlier than this period. An embryo is just cells like those in your finger, which actually also has potential for life today via cloning. The Catholic Church actually has a dogma that stipulates that life begins with sperm/egg fusion which is problematic today anyhow because life can be produced via cloning bypassing the fusion of sperm and egg.

Despite a continuous rise of the GDP per capita in the West people have not become happier. Are we wasting GDP or is science benefitting from the improvement and can deliver solutions to the stagnation in experienced happiness? Fukuyama describes how we take drugs like Prozac to improve our life. Stability is a problem these days and it is interesting that Fukuyama predicted the Arab Spring in principle by stating that demographic research says we would have old women deciding in Europe with angry young men in the Middle East. It is problematic, of course, with a giant computer dispensing wellbeing to the masses of Europe to prevent people from demonstrating in the streets and to care less about hardship. The question is how tempting it would be in the name of Peace.

Universal Human Rights?

How Different Cultures Shape the Brain - Sharon Begley - Newsweek.com: "Especially when it shows how fundamental cultural differences are—so fundamental, perhaps, that 'universal' notions such as human rights, democracy, and the like may be no such thing."

I have not seen this notion debated actually but it is important and raises important questions. Especially in the current school curriculum debate in Sweden. Sharon Begley discusses some differences in brain function between Asians and Westerners. It seems like we are born with a certain so called "hard wiring" of the brain that is malleable by culture to a certain extent. A phenomenon called neuronal plasticity.

The crucial question is if this cultural change of brain function and thus of personality represents a new type of racism? Because at the same time you conclude that there is a difference, it does not matter that it is not genetic, the problem of which culture, if any, is most superior arises. It is fairly clear that Christianity in Europe led to the development of modern science which represents a world record for achievement at the time.

However, is the management of these assets better performed by the Asians with their collective-tuned personalities? It is a little like the difference by liberals and conservatives in the West. It is perhaps a little easier to make new discoveries that break with past rituals than if you are hard-wired to the collective. At least this represents evolutionary thinking on the problem. Faster progress is possible.

The above discussion is of course not simplified with the current research on the human genome from different areas of the world. James 'DNA double helix' Watson ran into a heavy turbulence over some statements in this general direction the other year. The topic is so sensitive that it basically cannot be discussed in the open. However, it is fair to assume that small, and perhaps significant, differences exist in the neural hard-wiring of different races. Especially now when functional, culture induced, differences apparently are possible to discuss in the fine salons of the world.

So are human rights universal? Most people in the West seems to think so. They seem to work better in Japan than in China which would then perhaps be ascribed to a cultural effect. One additional problem might be that even if one culture is superior at a given time, it might not be all the time. Then there is the question if there is equal suffering in China and the West, a characteristic that is actually measurable?

(FP)'s "landsmöte"

Per Altenberg – ett liberalare Sverige » Blog Archive » Fp tar ett steg till höger: "De flesta besluten på landsmötet som betecknas som höger, t.ex. moderniseringen av LAS, är dock i själva verket ett tecken på att Folkpartiet frigör sig från den socialdemokratiska världsbilden. Det är en bra utveckling."

There was one of Björklund's reforms that seem to be a step in the direction of the Social Democrats namely the job loss protection insurance. In Jan Björklund's speech there was no information as to the level of support that a person would receive. Helle Klein is hitting real hard because of the reforms taken by Alliansen on the loss of "A-kassa" coverage that is happening right now. Klein is bordering rude when she complains on this matter. I guess this is tactics to prevent loss of social liberals to (FP) from the social democrats.

The question is on what level it is economically reasonable to keep people after they lose a job or get sick. It is perhaps more stimulating for the reemployment to have lower compensation levels than that of the A-kassa. People will muster a higher degree of motivation to return to the job market? After all the system seems to be in trouble since we have the highest taxes in the world and still have to lower tax for creating jobs. Is it possible to lower taxes by saving on the job loss reimbursements? In this case it might help in creating more jobs and thus lower the time in orbit.

Lowering job loss reimbursements would also cause a blending of the people in the outsideship. It would not only contain the most desolute. This might have stimulating effects one job creation as well. There might also be less problems with violence in suburbs.

Birger Schlaug writes about our society as driving on the freeway in either the right or the left lane with the green so called "utvecklingssamhälle" in the bushes beside the road. There might be people that prefer using the machete to clear their way in the bush but I prefer my car on the freeway. A new outsideship according to the above might suffice for such a detour and they would not need so much money.

However, such a life will not lead to the goals provided by the life on the freeway. Most people would in all probability not fit into Schlaug's new way but would rather work than having free time, digest culture and spending time with their families which is all fine at a reasonable dose.

Rand was probably wrong?

Objectivism (Ayn Rand) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "Rand's explanation of values presents the view that an individual's primary moral obligation is to achieve his own well-being - it is for his life, and his self-interest in it that an individual ought to adhere to a moral code. Egoism is a corollary of setting man's life as the moral standard. A corollary to Rand's endorsement of self-interest is her rejection of the ethical doctrine of altruism—which she defined in the sense of Auguste Comte's altruism (he coined the term), as a moral obligation to live for the sake of others."

Compte was more correct in his assumption than Rand, because doing good, i.e., like helping others, is beneficial to an individual by stimulating the reward centers in the brain. Apparently Rand called her ethics "Rational Egoism" which means that an action is rational if it maximizes one's self-interest. Thus it could mean helping others, if self-interest is explained as maximizing the feeling of reward. However, it does not seem like Rand meant this?

Happiness, like money, comes to you

Lyckan kommer - Per T Ohlsson - Sydsvenskan - Nyheter dygnet runt: "Maria Wetterstrand tänkte nog inte på det när hon gjorde sitt lyckoutspel. Hon hade nog inte heller tagit del av Norbergs redogörelse för hur många av dagens lyckoforskare febrilt distanserar sig från fattigdomsidealen och från försöken att förvandla lycka till politik. Dessa forskare verkar dessutom vara överens med stora delar av den allmänna opinionen: i en BBC-undersökning svarar 65 procent av britterna att de skulle vara lyckligare om politikerna slutade prata om lycka."

I'm not sure that I understand why politicians would not use people's reactions on matters as guidance for their politics. There are any amount of polls these days that measure if people are content with an issue or not. The word happiness does not have to be featured under these circumstances.

In my humble opinion, what is perhaps more important to discuss is in what way politicians are assaying their people. How much integrity that is lost in the process.