Mike Darwin on Kurzweil, Techno-Optimism, and Delusional Stances on Cryonics

Synaptic

In a comment on his skeptical post about Ray Kurzweil, he writes,

Unfortunately, [Kurzweil's] technological forecasting is naive, and I believe it will also prove erroneous (and in that, he is in excellent company). That would be of no consequence to me, or to others in cryonics, were it not for the fact that it has had, and continues to have, a corrosive effect on cryonics and immortalist activists and activism. His idea of the Singularity has created an expectation of entitlement and inevitability that are wholly unjustified, both on the basis of history, and on on the basis of events that are playing out now in the world markets, and on the geopolitical stage....

The IEET poll [link; Sep 7, 2011] found that the majority of their readers aged 35 or older said that they expect to “die within a normal human lifespan;” no surprises there.

This was in contrast to to an overwhelming majority (69%) of their readers under the age of 35 who believe that radical life extension will enable them to stay alive indefinitely, or “for centuries, at least.”

Where the data gets really interesting is when you look at the breakdown of just how these folks think they are going to be GIVEN practical immortality:

36% believe they will stay alive for centuries (at least) in their own (biological) bodies

26% expect that they will continue to survive by having their “minds uploaded to a computer”

7% expect to “die” but to eventually be resurrected by cryonics.

Only 7% think cryonics will be necessary? That simply delusional and it is a huge problem....

Nor are the 7% who anticipate survival via cryonics likely to be signed up. In fact, I’d wager not more than one or two of them is. And why should they bestir themselves in any way to this end? After all, the Singularity is coming, it is INEVITABLE, and all they have to do is to sit back and wait for it to arrive – presumably wrapped up in in pretty paper and with bows on.

Young people anticipating practical immortality look at me like some kind of raving mad Luddite when I try to convince them that if they are to have any meaningful chance at truly long term survival, they are going to have to act, work very hard, and have a hell of a lot of luck in the bargain....

Kurzweil has been, without doubt or argument, THE great enabler of this madness by providing a scenario and a narrative that is far more credible than Santa Claus, and orders of magnitude more appealing.

I wonder how people on Less Wrong would respond to that poll?

Edit: (Tried to) fix formatting and typo in title.

In a comment on his skeptical post about Ray Kurzweil, he writes,

Unfortunately, [Kurzweil's] technological forecasting is naive, and I believe it will also prove erroneous (and in that, he is in excellent company). That would be of no consequence to me, or to others in cryonics, were it not for the fact that it has had, and continues to have, a corrosive effect on cryonics and immortalist activists and activism. His idea of the Singularity has created an expectation of entitlement and inevitability that are wholly unjustified, both on the basis of history, and on on the basis of events that are playing out now in the world markets, and on the geopolitical stage....

The IEET poll [link; Sep 7, 2011] found that the majority of their readers aged 35 or older said that they expect to “die within a normal human lifespan;” no surprises there.

This was in contrast to to an overwhelming majority (69%) of their readers under the age of 35 who believe that radical life extension will enable them to stay alive indefinitely, or “for centuries, at least.”

Where the data gets really interesting is when you look at the breakdown of just how these folks think they are going to be GIVEN practical immortality:

36% believe they will stay alive for centuries (at least) in their own (biological) bodies

26% expect that they will continue to survive by having their “minds uploaded to a computer”

7% expect to “die” but to eventually be resurrected by cryonics.

Only 7% think cryonics will be necessary? That simply delusional and it is a huge problem....

Nor are the 7% who anticipate survival via cryonics likely to be signed up. In fact, I’d wager not more than one or two of them is. And why should they bestir themselves in any way to this end? After all, the Singularity is coming, it is INEVITABLE, and all they have to do is to sit back and wait for it to arrive – presumably wrapped up in in pretty paper and with bows on.

Young people anticipating practical immortality look at me like some kind of raving mad Luddite when I try to convince them that if they are to have any meaningful chance at truly long term survival, they are going to have to act, work very hard, and have a hell of a lot of luck in the bargain....

Kurzweil has been, without doubt or argument, THE great enabler of this madness by providing a scenario and a narrative that is far more credible than Santa Claus, and orders of magnitude more appealing.

I wonder how people on Less Wrong would respond to that poll?

Edit: (Tried to) fix formatting and typo in title.

Understanding that keeping cell cultures alive doesn't have anything to do with preventing aging is a modern understanding that arose after scientists tried to see if they were connected and failed. Contemporary scientists of Carrel for example certainly thought they were related. It is only in hindsight that we've realized that that wasn't the case. The discovery of the Hayflick limit was a major step in realizing that. In fact, that discovery killed off further anti-aging research in the 1960s and it took a while for it to recover.

That's not even remotely valid. The interest in actual, honest anti-agapic research ongoing now (and for the last five or six years which in terms of medical research is "now") has never before occurred. It is exactly a new thing.

We seem to have an actual factual dispute here. Or it may be an issue of what you mean by "actual" and "honest". But for example, work in trying to extend telomeres dates from the 1990s and the basic idea about telomeres dates from the 1970s. I don't know if this work gets classified if as "actual, honest" by you since it turned out to a large extent to not work as well as people thought it might. Also, in regards to the issue of premises, are you asserting that if scientists in 1900 or 1950 had put in current levels of attention into anti-aging that they would have succeeded at the level you estimate? I suspect not, which means that there has to be some other detail here that's relevant concerning our current knowledge level. There's an unstated premise about how much medical/biochem knowledge we have now.

I'll note incidentally that the argument you are making now is substantially weaker than the argument you made earlier in the thread where you said:

But up until two or so years ago no one in any mainstream capacity was doing any antiagapic research at all.

which apparently has now become last five or six years. Does this represent an update of your views on the timeline?

But up until two or so years ago no one in any mainstream capacity was doing any antiagapic research at all.

which apparently has now become last five or six years. Does this represent an update of your views on the timeline?

The topic in question is fuzzy/indeterminite. The transition to widespread acceptance from marginalization was not instantaneous. The work currently ongoing began sometime after Resveratrol's antiagapic effects were discovered.

There were also minor items of research over the years which were conducted -- but senescence was, defini... (read more)

23

Mike Darwin on Kurzweil, Techno-Optimism, and Delusional Stances on Cryonics

23

23

23

Mike Darwin on Kurzweil, Techno-Optimism, and Delusional Stances on Cryonics

23

23