X-Message-Number: 30223
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:40:07 -0800 (PST)
From: 2Arcturus <>
Subject: Cryonicist F.M. Esfandiary on the year 2010

--0-1592408274-1198957207=:93487




>>>However, FM screwed up when he connected these forecasts with the prediction,
made by many other 20th Century futurists and science fiction writers, that 
manned space exploration would become our civilization's defining activity. 
   

  I wouldn't say he thought it would become our "defining activity". But I do 
  think he was right that humans will eventually spread throughout the universe,
  and this will have an obviously profound impact on our civilization. In my 
  opinion, space colonization is awaiting certain enabling technologies that for
  some reason earlier futurists overlooked: adapting the human body to live 
  simply in outer space by massive biomodification or human-machine merger 
  (requires comprehensive understanding of and ability to manipulate human body 
  and/or mind), inexpensive propulsion methods to escape Earth's gravity well or
  a space elevator, etc.
   

  >>>I don't necessarily consider this progress. Conservatives have an 
  empirically defensible case for the value of marriage in proper child rearing.
     
  But do they have an empirically defensible case for child rearing at all? :)
   

  >>>FM and other progressive intellectuals from his era received their 
  educations during the ascendancy of behaviorist theories of human nature, so 
  they tended to overestimate human plasticity when it came to pair-bonding and 
  child development. Cognitive neuroscience has changed the look of things 
  lately.
   

  Yes, you're right about that. But that just means changing human nature 
  efficiently will have to await modification of neural plasticity or 
  modification of basic mind architectures after uploading. (And THAT explains 
  why it hasn't happened as fully yet.)


>>>Perhaps, but FM back in 1981 thought that we'd have radical life extension as
a done deal by now, regardless of the proposed means.
   

  I don't value FM-2030 for his prediction dates, but rather for his vision. IMO
  Kurzweil prob has the best approach to dating. If Kurzweil's dates are wrong,
  we will know exactly why, because he pegs them to actual trends in specific 
  tech developments, etc. 
   

  Notice that scientists today don't fully or even mostly understand gene 
  effects in the human body, or the full human metabolism, or even how a single 
  cell works (look at the failed attempts to reverse-engineer life). Extending 
  lifespan and repairing all injury and disease is a tall order for doctors who 
  are still basically working in the dark. We have a LOT to learn. For now, it's
  a case of expect the best but prepare for the worse. But it is important to 
  have the vision, which is what FM-2030 gave, and Aubrey de Grey has basically 
  picked up that torch now.
   

  >>>Calling FM a prophet implies that you consider him the founder of a 
  religion. 
   

  No, to me a prophet is someone who presents a vision, an ideal hope for the 
  future that people can work toward. Science provides the means, but it does 
  not provide the goal, or the drive.
   
  Greg

       
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
--0-1592408274-1198957207=:93487

 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30223