[soundcloud url="https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/47218199" params="color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false" width="100%" height="166" iframe="true" /]

Micah Saul: This project is built on a hypoth­e­sis. There are moments in his­to­ry when the sta­tus quo fails. Political sys­tems prove insuf­fi­cient, reli­gious ideas unsat­is­fac­to­ry, social struc­tures intol­er­a­ble. These are moments of crisis. 

Aengus Anderson: During some of these moments, great minds have entered into con­ver­sa­tion and torn apart inher­it­ed ideas, dethron­ing truths, com­bin­ing old thoughts, and cre­at­ing new ideas. They’ve shaped the norms of future generations.

Saul: Every era has its issues, but do ours war­rant The Conversation? If they do, is it happening?

Anderson: We’ll be explor­ing these sorts of ques­tions through con­ver­sa­tions with a cross-section of American thinkers, peo­ple who are cri­tiquing some aspect of nor­mal­i­ty and offer­ing an alter­na­tive vision of the future. People who might be hav­ing The Conversation.

Saul: Like a real con­ver­sa­tion, this project is going to be sub­jec­tive. It will fre­quent­ly change direc­tions, con­nect unex­pect­ed ideas, and wan­der between the tan­gi­ble and the abstract. It will leave us with far more ques­tions than answers because after all, nobody has a monop­oly on dream­ing about the future.

Anderson: I’m Aengus Anderson.

Saul: And I’m Micah Saul. And you’re lis­ten­ing to The Conversation.

Anderson: Did you get a chance to lis­ten to the con­ver­sa­tion with Reverend Fife?

Saul: I did. I’m impressed. I can’t imag­ine a bet­ter place to start this.

Anderson: For all that I was com­plete­ly ner­vous about going into this and doing the first inter­view, because this is such a sort of watery project… It’s like, what’s the first ques­tion to ask?

Saul: Right.

Anderson: But it felt like once we got warmed up, I was pret­ty hap­py with it.

Saul: You guys got to the real­ly impor­tant, big ques­tions real­ly quick­ly. You know, is the nation-state obsolete?

Anderson: Like, any one of these big fun­da­men­tal ideas is so inter­est­ing because you’re kind of going along and you’re talk­ing about it, you’re talk­ing about why this immi­gra­tion pol­i­cy feels wrong in a lot of ways. Intellectually, I can total­ly go, Yeah!” But I kind of think, what does say­ing yeah mean there? That’s when I sort of real­ized how big that idea is. I can’t imag­ine what does that world look like with­out the nation state? I don’t know any­thing else.

Saul: So let’s talk about tomor­row now.

Anderson: Yeah. And this is our first moment to real­ly fig­ure out how we bridge these conversations.

Saul: I think this is what’s going to make the project inter­est­ing, and I think we’re going to have to be learn­ing as we go.

Anderson: Yes. And for the peo­ple who are lis­ten­ing to us, I hope they sur­vive this tran­si­tion as we sort of get our sea legs and fig­ure out how to make this all work.

Saul: Even more impor­tant­ly than that, I hope they tell us where we’re screw­ing up.

Anderson: Yes. Absolutely. But in gen­tle terms.

Saul: So, tomor­row. You’re going to be meet­ing with Max More at the Alcor Life Extension Foundation.

Anderson: Yeah. So do you want to tell the peo­ple who aren’t famil­iar with Alcor what they are?

Saul: So this is, you die, you have you body sent down, and it gets cryo­geni­cal­ly frozen in these real­ly cool-looking stain­less steel tubes full of liq­uid nitro­gen, the idea being either your body or just your head is frozen in the intent that at some point in the future the tech­nol­o­gy will be there to either bring you back or to down­load your brain into a com­put­er, or some­thing along those lines. This is the way to pre­serve your consciousness.

Anderson: Right away, they’re doing some­thing that is fun­da­men­tal­ly very dif­fer­ent, and is also based on tech­nol­o­gy that does­n’t yet exist. It’s bank­ing on a cer­tain lev­el of devel­op­ment in the future. But the eth­i­cal ram­i­fi­ca­tions of what they’re doing, and more than what they’re doing but sort of what they’re hop­ing for, are real­ly big. And you can tell on their web site that they have had to deal with a lot of peo­ple not lik­ing them. I mean, they’ve real­ly thought about their posi­tion, and they frame it in good eth­i­cal argu­ments that are very per­sua­sive. And this is where I think it’s going to be incred­i­ble to talk to Dr. More tomor­row, because his back­ground is actu­al­ly in phi­los­o­phy, among oth­er things.

Saul: He actu­al­ly can claim cred­it for coin­ing the phrase tran­shu­man­ism, I believe in the ear­ly ear­ly 90s. There was an essay in which he sort of coined that phrase, at least in the way that it’s now understood. 

Anderson: So fin­gers crossed. Tomorrow should be good. Hopefully I don’t botch the con­ver­sa­tion, but I think Dr. More’s going to be amaz­ing and will prob­a­bly be very inter­est­ing despite all of my incom­pe­tent question-asking.

Saul: I guess we should prob­a­bly just put in a quick plug for the Kickstarter thing again. If this project seems inter­est­ing to you, it would be awe­some if you could kick down a few bucks to help us get this happening.

Anderson: Yeah. So let’s see where this goes.

Saul: Sounds good.

Anderson: Very cool

Saul: Alright. Take care, sir.

Anderson: Alright. Adios.

Saul: Vaya con carne.

Max More: I’ve been a mem­ber of the Alcor Life Extension Foundation for about 26 years, but I became CEO and President just about a year and a quar­ter ago. I’ve got a long his­to­ry with life exten­sion and tran­shu­man­ism and cry­on­ics, real­ly get­ting inter­est­ed in the idea of dras­ti­cal­ly extend­ing the human life even before I fin­ished grow­ing. I was still in my mid-teens when I got very seri­ous about this idea. Really, its roots go even fur­ther back than that because I’ve always been fas­ci­nat­ed with over­com­ing lim­its. When I was 5 years old I watched the Apollo moon land­ing and every one of them after that when peo­ple lost inter­est, I was still watch­ing. So this idea of get­ting off the plan­et, beat­ing the grav­i­ty well, extend­ing the human lifes­pan. I’m also inter­est­ed in increas­ing human intel­li­gence, being able to solve hard­er prob­lems and think bet­ter. So all this kind of com­mon theme of over­com­ing limits.

So life exten­sion and cry­on­ics is a nat­ur­al part of that. My main goal is not to die in the first place. I hope to keep liv­ing, hope­ful­ly long enough that sci­ence will have solved the aging prob­lem and I won’t have to die. But since I don’t know how long that’s going to take, cry­on­ics is the real back­up pol­i­cy for me. It’s like real life insur­ance in the true sense of the term. So if I don’t make it, it at least gives me a chance of com­ing back again in the future.

Anderson: What is tran­shu­man­ism? I real­ized we were talk­ing about that and peo­ple lis­ten­ing may not know.

More: Transhumanism is essen­tial­ly the idea that it is both pos­si­ble and desir­able to use advanc­ing tech­nolo­gies to fun­da­men­tal­ly alter the human con­di­tion for the bet­ter. Humanism had the same fun­da­men­tal val­ues of a belief in the pos­si­bil­i­ty of progress, that by our own efforts, regard­less of whether there’s a high­er pow­er or not, we could make the world bet­ter. The cham­pi­oning of sci­ence and rea­son to do that means a view that also requires good­will. It requires over­look­ing arti­fi­cial dis­tinc­tions among peo­ple and focus­ing on our com­mon humanity.

So tran­shu­man­ism has incor­po­rat­ed that and built on that, it just takes it fur­ther with the idea that we have new tech­no­log­i­cal tools that’re emerg­ing that can do that on a more fun­da­men­tal lev­el and alter the human con­di­tion itself. So that’s where the tran­shu­man­ism comes in. That real­ly is the idea that the human con­di­tion is not a fixed point. It’s some­thing we can alter, and we’re now begin­ning to decode our genome, under­stand our neu­rol­o­gy better. 

All those things that’ve been mys­ter­ies in the past, things we could­n’t change, we are now just at the begin­ning point of mak­ing mod­i­fi­ca­tions to those. We can extend our lifes­pan, we can maybe improve the func­tion of our brain, solve a lot of the prob­lems that evo­lu­tion­ary design has brought along. So it’s real­ly the idea that we’re at a pret­ty unique point in his­to­ry. We are now just begin­ning to take charge of our own evo­lu­tion and decide on our own constitution. 

Anderson: So this is a his­tor­i­cal­ly unique moment.

More: Yeah, and that moment of course is smeared over sev­er­al decades—

Anderson: Right.

More: But his­tor­i­cal­ly speak­ing, it’s a moment.

Anderson: Yeah. It’s just a point on the big­ger scale. I always try to look at the present and say, What is some­thing we want to improve about the present?” before mov­ing on to the ques­tion of, How do we real­ly want the future to look?” It’s fun­ny. It sounds like such a fun­da­men­tal thing, the idea of death. Is that the issue of the present, the thing that you are most inter­est­ed in addressing?

More: Yes. I think over­com­ing aging and death to me is the cen­tral issue. Because if we solve that one, we have time to solve all the others.

Anderson: Okay, so that’s more press­ing than chang­ing one­self in terms of intel­li­gence or…

More: I think they all mat­ter, and they’re not nec­es­sar­i­ly exclu­sive. I think these may need to go togeth­er. But yeah, extend­ing life seems to me a para­mount issue, oth­er­wise peo­ple are going to be lost for­ev­er. It’s in a sense a ser­i­al holo­caust. One by one, mil­lions of peo­ple are dying every year and that’s pret­ty appalling. I think peo­ple will look back from the future and say it was just hor­ri­fy­ing that peo­ple weren’t tak­ing this prob­lem more seriously. 

I think essen­tial­ly what we are is psy­cho­log­i­cal con­ti­nu­ity. I’m not real­ly my body. I mean, I have to have a body right now to exist because my per­son­al­i­ty resides in my brain essen­tial­ly, and that requires a body. But it’s not the par­tic­u­lar atoms I’m made of because those get changed over over time, any­way. So I’m not my atoms. I’m real­ly the way they’re struc­tured. But even that’s not fun­da­men­tal­ly true, because you can do var­i­ous thought exper­i­ments. What if I tried replac­ing my neu­rons with syn­thet­ic neu­rons, which is already start­ing to hap­pen right now. Then grad­u­al­ly you might end up with a brain that’s entire­ly syn­thet­ic, but the syn­thet­ic neu­rons do the same job as the bio­log­i­cal ones but they’re made out of dif­fer­ent material.

So I’m not even essen­tial­ly bio­log­i­cal. It’s real­ly the pro­cess­ing that goes on that sup­ports my mem­o­ry, my per­son­al­i­ty, my val­ues and so on. I think that’s the core of who I am. And so that poten­tial­ly can sur­vive chang­ing bod­ies. It could survive…possibly I won’t even be revived in a body through cry­on­ics. Maybe my brain will be scanned and a new copy will be made or a vir­tu­al self will be cre­at­ed. And I would con­sid­er that to be survival.

Anderson: That seems like that ulti­mate­ly rests on a world­view that’s very mate­ri­al­is­tic. Yesterday I was talk­ing to a rev­erend and he was real­ly excit­ed about devel­op­ments in tech­nol­o­gy. But for him the ques­tions of how tech­nol­o­gy will be used are ulti­mate­ly set­tled in a moral realm. And I know you can address that philo­soph­i­cal­ly. You can also address that the­o­log­i­cal­ly. But for him, he has a point where he can…the argu­ment stops when you get to this point of there are the­o­log­i­cal val­ues, and there is the idea of a soul. And so I’m won­der­ing, with­out a soul in a mate­ri­al­is­tic world­view, where do you get those val­ues about how we use technology?

More: Okay. I do have a soul. Actually, I have two soles, but they’re on the bot­tom of my feet. Those are the only soles I believe in. The term mate­ri­al­is­tic I would­n’t use because actu­al­ly in phi­los­o­phy the term phys­i­cal­ist” rather than mate­ri­al­ist is pre­ferred. Materialist of course has the oth­er mean­ing that—

Anderson: Of consumption.

More: Yeah, of con­sump­tion, mon­ey, that kind of thing. Whereas my view cer­tain­ly says noth­ing about lack of val­ues. It’s com­plete­ly com­pat­i­ble with hav­ing strong mean­ing in life and pur­pos­es and goals and val­ues and morals. But it’s fun­da­men­tal­ly a meta­phys­i­cal view that says I see no rea­son to believe in super­nat­ur­al enti­ties, super­nat­ur­al forces. I can’t prove there aren’t such things, but you real­ly can’t prove a neg­a­tive like that. But I don’t see any evi­dence for them. So I’m essen­tial­ly a phys­i­cal being, and if you destroy every copy of my phys­i­cal self then I’m gone. I don’t see any rea­son to think there is a soul that goes some­where else.

Values are extreme­ly impor­tant when it comes to think­ing about advanced tech­nolo­gies and where we’re head­ed. And cer­tain­ly in the tran­shu­man­ist move­ment, we do spend a lot of time not just cheer­ing on tech­nol­o­gy, although that needs to be done because there are a lot of anti-technology peo­ple around, but we also do a lot of crit­i­cal think­ing about the kinds of tech­nolo­gies we’d like, how to guide the devel­op­ment of tech­nolo­gies so that they actu­al­ly are ben­e­fi­cial rather than harmful.

Because obvi­ous­ly tech­nol­o­gy has harm­ful side-effects. Whenever we cre­ate something…the auto­mo­bile being a clas­sic exam­ple. It freed up a lot of peo­ple, allowed them to change their lives. But it kills an awful lot of peo­ple. So while I think in gen­er­al tech­nol­o­gy’s a good thing, it’s an exten­sion of human rea­son and cre­ativ­i­ty and pro­duc­tiv­i­ty, that does­n’t mean that any tech­nol­o­gy and any use of tech­nol­o­gy is good. So cer­tain­ly my views are we want to use tech­nol­o­gy to improve our health, to improve our intel­li­gence, to become bet­ter peo­ple, even to improve our emo­tions and the way we react. We’ve evolved a cer­tain way. Our bod­ies and brains pro­duce cer­tain hor­mones and aggres­sive reac­tions and ter­ri­to­r­i­al behav­iors, and we just nat­u­ral­ly have this in-group/out-group response. Those are all things that poten­tial­ly could be mod­i­fied, and we may do that in that future very cau­tious­ly. But we may become bet­ter peo­ple, per­haps in a way that’s not real­ly pos­si­ble with­out tech­no­log­i­cal intervention.

Anderson: So as we look for­ward and we look at maybe improv­ing as a species, how do we decide which attrib­ut­es are good or which attrib­ut­es are bad, and what do we want to cul­ti­vate in ourselves?

More: Well, that’s a very dif­fi­cult ques­tion. It’s a dif­fi­cult ques­tion to answer. I think the fun­da­men­tal answer is that we each have to think about that very care­ful­ly and make our own deci­sions. And to me it’s crit­i­cal that nobody make those deci­sions for us. If you go back ear­ly 20th cen­tu­ry and going up through the cen­tu­ry, you see a lot of tech­no­crat­ic peo­ple, start­ing with peo­ple like H.G. Wells, that had this view that the sci­en­tists should be in charge, they should make the deci­sions for every­body, they should decide how soci­ety is run. And you see even in the United States, eugen­ics move­ments were basi­cal­ly some elite group say­ing what kind of peo­ple they should be. I’m fun­da­men­tal­ly opposed to that approach. My approach is that it’s good to cre­ate these options, but then you have to let peo­ple choose which of those options they want.

And that’s very dif­fi­cult. There are some very touch ques­tions. There’s the exam­ple of some peo­ple in the blind com­mu­ni­ty who actu­al­ly want to have chil­dren who are blind, who would delib­er­ate­ly cre­ate blind chil­dren when they did­n’t have to. So that rais­es a very dif­fi­cult ques­tion. Is that some­thing where we could step in and say, You’re caus­ing harm. We could pre­vent that.” Or is that some­thing that should be their choice, as some­one bring­ing new life into being. That’s a very tricky issue. I’m not sure what my answer is on that one.

Anderson: So it seems like there does have to be some sort of con­ver­sa­tion about…actually like I was talk­ing with the rev­erend yes­ter­day, he was think­ing about, his char­ac­ter­i­za­tion was an umpire. Someone who can sort of on a glob­al lev­el think about things that are not per­mis­si­ble uses. I know there’s always that ten­sion between that indi­vid­ual lib­er­ty and col­lec­tive good. How do we have the con­ver­sa­tion about the umpire?

More: Well, I would hope it’s not actu­al­ly a glob­al umpire, because one rea­son we have the United States rather than the United State here is that we can actu­al­ly have dif­fer­ences. If you don’t like the way one state oper­ates, you can go to a dif­fer­ent state and there are some­what dif­fer­ent rules. 

Now again, there may have to be some kind of glob­al rules. You can’t allow peo­ple, per­haps, to pos­sess indi­vid­ual weapons that could destroy the entire plan­et very eas­i­ly. That may be some­thing you have to stop. But for the most part I think it’s good to allow diver­si­ty and have dif­fer­ent com­mu­ni­ties which set their own rules to var­i­ous degrees. So I think with­in those com­mu­ni­ties you’ve got to then decide what the rules are and how to enforce them and what your lim­its will be.

Anderson: I’ve read a bit about your think­ing about the pre­cau­tion­ary prin­ci­ple. Could you tell me a lit­tle bit more about that?

More: Yeah, I’ve cre­at­ed some­thing called the proac­tionary prin­ci­ple as an alter­na­tive to the pre­cau­tion­ary prin­ci­ple. The pre­cau­tion­ary prin­ci­ple comes in a num­ber of dif­fer­ent forms, but essen­tial­ly it says that before any new tech­nol­o­gy or process is allowed, you must be able to prove that it’s safe. Now, to me that’s kind of an insane require­ment. It’s an impos­si­ble requirement. 

Imagine apply­ing that to fire, the first time we had fire. Could fire cause prob­lems? Well, yes. You could burn your hand, you could burn your house down, you could have big prob­lems. Okay, so no fire. You could go through all the major tech­no­log­i­cal advances in his­to­ry and show the same thing. So basi­cal­ly it’s a recipe for pre­vent­ing tech­nolo­gies, and as such its pro­po­nents real­ly use it selec­tive­ly, because they don’t want to do it with every­thing but they want to be able to decide which tech­nolo­gies are okay. So if they don’t like genet­ic engi­neer­ing they’re going to say this fails the test, but oth­er things they do like they’re going to allow. So to me it’s very arbi­trary and real­ly allows ene­mies of var­i­ous tech­nolo­gies to claim a prin­ci­pled way of oppos­ing them that actu­al­ly is real­ly quite arbitrary. 

So the proac­tionary prin­ci­ple I devel­oped is an alter­na­tive which is a lot more objec­tive and bal­anced and basi­cal­ly con­sists of ten sub-principles which require you to think objec­tive­ly about the con­se­quences, not just look for the pos­si­ble down­sides, but also to look for the ben­e­fits and to bal­ance them. To use the best avail­able ratio­nal meth­ods that we know of instead of rely­ing intu­ition and pub­lic fears about what might hap­pen, use the best crit­i­cal and cre­ative methods.

Anderson: Can it be that with new­er tech­nolo­gies, because they are more and more pow­er­ful and they have greater impact on us, the deci­sions to use them are per­haps not in every­body’s hands? So are we get­ting to a point where the pre­cau­tion­ary prin­ci­ple becomes more sen­si­ble because you can maybe have a small group make a tech­no­log­i­cal deci­sion that has a large ram­i­fi­ca­tion that the peo­ple who are deal­ing with it maybe did not want?

More: I don’t think the pre­cau­tion­ary prin­ci­ple is ever a good deci­sion rule, because it’s so arbi­trary and is open to manip­u­la­tion and to emo­tion­al think­ing. A sep­a­rate issue is who makes the deci­sions? I mean, you can decide whether it’s going to be every­body as a whole, which is not real­ly fea­si­ble, or cer­tain gov­ern­ment groups or pres­sure groups, inter­na­tion­al pol­i­cy­mak­ers. Whatever the lev­el is, they get to choose between the pre­cau­tion­ary prin­ci­ple, the proac­tionary prin­ci­ple, or some­thing else. So it’s not real­ly a mat­ter of who’s decid­ing, it’s a mat­ter of which deci­sion rules they’re using, and I think some­thing like the proac­tionary prin­ci­ple struc­tures peo­ple’s think­ing in a way that is more like­ly to lead to good outcomes. 

So who makes the deci­sions is a whole sep­a­rate thing, and I’m gen­er­al­ly in favor of max­i­mum input but you also have to be care­ful that a lot of peo­ple express­ing opin­ions may know noth­ing at all about the tech­nol­o­gy. So it’s real­ly not real­is­tic to say every­body should have an equal say. I think every­body should have a say, but you do need some kind of way of putting those opin­ions togeth­er and actu­al­ly weigh­ing up the like­ly truth. And that’s a very tough thing to do.

Anderson: With a project like this, that’s some­thing I’m real­ly inter­est­ed in, because every­body has to live in what­ev­er future we’re cre­at­ing. I mean, this sounds sort of like you think some peo­ple should have more of a say in the future because they are more informed about the tech­no­log­i­cal choic­es we’ll be making.

More: Well, I think they will tend to. People who are more informed will tend to be more per­sua­sive than those that are not informed. But if it’s at the lev­el of sim­ply vot­ing in a democ­ra­cy, that’s kind of scary because every­body has an opin­ion, every­body gets one vote. That that does­n’t real­ly lead to ratio­nal out­comes. Now, if we could some­how encour­age politi­cians to base deci­sions not just on polit­i­cal pop­u­lar­i­ty but on some more struc­tured process, you might get bet­ter outcomes. 

Anderson: You men­tioned ratio­nal­i­ty, the idea that we can make more ratio­nal deci­sions or maybe that say, one per­son one vote will not lead to ratio­nal out­comes, but is there some­thing to be said for the irra­tional? If peo­ple want the irra­tional, say they want to gov­ern them­selves bad­ly or make deci­sions that hon­est­ly seem against their best inter­est, to what extent should we seek a future in which soci­ety can sort of make those irra­tional, maybe self-destructive, decisions?

More: Well, I would­n’t want to be in that soci­ety, but I’m quite hap­py if peo­ple want­i­ng to make real­ly irra­tional deci­sions, if they want to go off and form their own com­mu­ni­ty they’re wel­come to do so, as long as they don’t start send­ing bombs back my way or some­thing like that.

But sure, I’m all in favor of that kind of diver­si­ty and there are already plen­ty of com­mu­ni­ties that I think are quite crazy, based on crazy ideas, and I’m not going to inter­fere with their way of liv­ing. But if it’s some­thing they’re going to impose on me, then yeah that’s a prob­lem. In a real philo­soph­i­cal sense, I don’t think there real­ly is any place for the irra­tional. But I have to qual­i­fy that by say­ing that that does­n’t mean every­thing has to be ratio­nal, because they’re not exclu­sive. There’s also things that are aratio­nal, or non-ratio­nal, where it’s real­ly a mat­ter of taste or…where there’s no real objec­tive stan­dard. If I ask you what your favorite col­or is and you say, Oh, blue,” and I say, Wrong!” Well that does­n’t make any sense, right? It’s just pure­ly a preference.

But when there’s some­thing that you can actu­al­ly test, when some­one says, This ener­gy source will be less expen­sive,” or, This vac­cine will pro­duce more ben­e­fit than harm,” those are things that you can actu­al­ly test objectively.

Anderson: But there are moral assump­tions beneath them.

More: Sure, yeah.

Anderson: So rea­son is a tool lead­ing you towards an idea of the good.

More: It’s a way of test­ing your idea of the good. I don’t think rea­son can gen­er­ate the idea of the good. I think we have to start with what we want, much of which is com­plete­ly non-ratio­nal, it’s just based in the way we’ve evolved and our back­ground. Reason comes in by say­ing, okay giv­en that I have this desire, does it make sense? Let me ask some ques­tions about it. Let me con­sid­er alter­na­tive pos­si­bil­i­ties. Let me ask what kind of fac­tu­al assump­tions might influ­ence my belief. So rea­son could come in there. It can kind of test our beliefs. But you can’t just start from the thing and decide what val­ues are ratio­nal. I don’t think that’s possible.

Anderson: And that’s a real­ly intrigu­ing thing, the idea that we’re using rea­son as a tool to test how to achieve a goal that may actu­al­ly just be sort of non-rational…

More: Yeah. Like want­i­ng to live, that’s non-rational. I can’t give you some kind of deduc­tive argu­ment that you must want to live. Either you do or you don’t. 

Anderson: Is that the fun­da­men­tal desire guid­ing your vision of the future?

More: That’s hard to say because in some sense yes, but I’m not sure that that’s a desire that you can take on its own.

Anderson: Right.

More: It has to go along with oth­er things. Would I want to live under any cir­cum­stances? No, def­i­nite­ly not. If I thought the rest of my life, for how­ev­er long I was going to be, was going to be agony and pain and mis­ery and inabil­i­ty to do any­thing pro­duc­tive or cre­ative or enjoy rela­tion­ships, then no. I would see no point. 

So it’s got to be that I want to live because I see a life that has the pos­si­bil­i­ty of joy and plea­sure and pro­duc­tiv­i­ty and cre­ativ­i­ty and good rela­tion­ships and learn­ing and improving.

Anderson: Okay, so that’s sort of the good. Okay.

I know I’m going to be talk­ing to some deep ecol­o­gists down the line in this project, and I imag­ine that they would ask what we’ve lost in terms of the nat­ur­al world, which of course has always been changed by us as long as we have been in it. But is there some intrin­sic val­ue to a rel­a­tive­ly unmod­i­fied nat­ur­al sys­tem? Can that con­fer mean­ing in some way?

More: I don’t think think so. I don’t know what an intrin­sic mean­ing is. I think mean­ing is only rel­a­tive to con­scious beings, and so it has mean­ing but only in the sense that we choose to bestow mean­ing upon it or find mean­ing in it.

Anderson: I guess I’m think­ing because we were talk­ing about want­i­ng to live, that being a sub­jec­tive, ara­tional desire. I’m think­ing maybe here’s a deep ecol­o­gist who has a sub­jec­tive ara­tional desire to some­how exist in this sort of holis­tic ecosys­tem that is rel­a­tive­ly unchanged by man.

More: Again, that kind of thing to me is a per­son­al choice. I’m a mem­ber of the Nature Conservancy. I actu­al­ly do place a val­ue on hav­ing large areas of undis­turbed wilder­ness. I like that. I don’t think some­body else has to val­ue that them­selves, but it’s good that we have an orga­ni­za­tion that does­n’t force you to pay for it through your tax­es but actu­al­ly goes out and solic­its mon­ey and buys up areas of land and pro­tects them. I like that. I like to just know they’re there and per­haps occa­sion­al­ly go vis­it and go hike and enjoy nature. So it’s not that I see there’s an intrin­sic val­ue there, it’s just some­thing that I val­ue, and quite a few oth­er peo­ple val­ue and so we choose to sup­port it.

Anderson: Okay.

More: Fundamentally, I don’t see that there’s a val­ue in the nat­ur­al state as it is.

Anderson: As it is. 

If peo­ple have changed them­selves in some way, do they become dif­fer­ent as peo­ple, and do they apply that same atti­tude towards peo­ple who haven’t changed, in the same way that we maybe con­serve nature when we enjoy it but aren’t too wor­ried about it? when I think about the para­noia that I’ve encoun­tered a lot when I’ve read about futur­ist ideas, it seems like there’s a lot of wor­ry of that.

More: Oh, I guess you’re think­ing of the kind of wor­ry that a new species will emerge and look down upon what we left behind [crosstalk]

Anderson: Or maybe it’s even not quite that dra­mat­ic, but like say we have a high­er class of peo­ple who have greater intel­lect and greater abil­i­ty to maybe man­age and con­trol soci­ety, and there actu­al­ly is a real difference.

More: Yeah, that’s quite a com­mon theme. I know there’s one biol­o­gist who wrote a book actu­al­ly where he real­ly devel­oped that theme in detail, where some peo­ple genet­i­cal­ly engi­neer their chil­dren over a cou­ple of gen­er­a­tions, soci­ety kind of divides into two quite dif­fer­ent groups. I tend to think that’s not so like­ly to hap­pen. There might be some tran­si­tion­al issues there if peo­ple who are wealthy or more edu­cat­ed are the first to use these new tech­nolo­gies and they start off being expensive. 

But I think just as again with oth­er tech­nolo­gies, if that fol­lows the same trends we’ll tend to find peo­ple will catch up pret­ty quick­ly. It’s like with mobile phones, you could’ve said, Well, we real­ly should let peo­ple have mobile phones because the wealthy guys are going to have them first and they’re going to have all these advan­tages in terms of com­mu­ni­ca­tion and oth­er peo­ple will be screwed.” 

But what hap­pens is in a rather short peri­od of time, we go from a very few peo­ple car­ry­ing these suitcase-sized cell phones to every­body, it does­n’t mat­ter how poor they are. You can go to the poor­est parts of the city and you see peo­ple car­ry­ing cell phones. Maybe by actu­al­ly encour­ag­ing the accel­er­a­tion of that devel­op­ment, you can spread that tech­nol­o­gy. And I would expect and hope that advances in life exten­sion and intel­li­gence increase will go the same way.

Anderson: There’s sort of an eco­nom­ic theme that we haven’t real­ly talked about yet that seems to weave a lot of this stuff togeth­er in terms of per­son­al choice. And it seems to be very free mar­ket. I’m think­ing with the cell phone exam­ple, specif­i­cal­ly. That’s some­thing that tele­scopes out very quick­ly across the pop­u­la­tion because of the mar­ket incen­tive to have every­one have some kind of phone. Do you think that’s pos­si­ble with oth­er tech­nolo­gies, maybe that are more lucra­tive to keep with­in groups? It makes good com­mer­cial sense to give every­one a cell phone. Does it make good com­mer­cial sense to offer the sort of tech­nol­o­gy to extend life to everyone?

More: I think it clear­ly does. I think of a pop­u­la­tion of peo­ple who live longer and health­i­er and are smarter and more pro­duc­tive clear­ly is going to raise every­body’s lev­el of wealth. People who are smarter are going to be more fun to inter­act with. If you’ve made your­self super smart you don’t real­ly want to spend a lot of time talk­ing to some­one who seems very dull by com­par­i­son, you know. If you can say, Here. Here’s fund­ing for your own aug­men­ta­tion,” I think a lot of orga­ni­za­tions will sub­si­dize those, just as we had peo­ple like Bill Gates spend­ing many mil­lions of dol­lars, bil­lions of dol­lars, to bring clean water to dif­fer­ent parts of the world, which will improve their economies just because they won’t be dying so ear­ly and young. I think a lot of peo­ple will rec­og­nize that kind of almost Nietzschean approach to benev­o­lence, if you like. Nietzsche basi­cal­ly said that the pow­er­ful per­son who’s over­flow­ing with pow­er will give to oth­er peo­ple not out of oblig­a­tion but because they feel they ought to in some sense because they can.

Anderson: Are you opti­mistic about the future?

More: Yes. My view is if you look at the long run of human his­to­ry, things over­all tend to get bet­ter. It’s very pop­u­lar and fash­ion­able to com­plain about how awful the world is and how it’s going to hell. I’d like to take peo­ple who do that and just put them back in time a hun­dred years, two hun­dred years, a thou­sand years. At any point in the past, they’re going to find that they wish they could come back to the present. Even a sim­ple thing like the inven­tion of anes­the­sia I think has made a huge dif­fer­ence in life. It’s hard to imag­ine liv­ing with­out that now. That was every­body’s expe­ri­ence. A quar­ter of women dying in child­bear­ing. That was a com­mon expe­ri­ence. It’s pret­ty hard to imag­ine how hor­ri­ble the past was, frankly.

So yeah, we have these irri­tat­ing things. We have com­put­ers that break down and dri­ve us crazy and waste our time. But over­all we’re liv­ing longer, we’re health­i­er, we’re less vio­lent. In fact there’s been a cou­ple of inter­est­ing books come out recent­ly that look at that in detail. The lev­el of vio­lence in human soci­ety has gone down con­tin­u­ous­ly. I think many mea­sures of human well-being are improving. 

Even things like pol­lu­tion. People always pick on cer­tain areas and say, Oh it’s get­ting worse.” But over­all, if you actu­al­ly look sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly at the trends, things are get­ting bet­ter. Partly because as we get wealth­i­er and our tech­nol­o­gy improves we can afford to make it bet­ter. We can afford to have clean­er air. When you’re poor and starv­ing and just try­ing to get by, you’re not going to care about clean­ing up the air or pol­lu­tion. That’s not your top priority. 

So I think the bet­ter off we get the more we take care of our envi­ron­ment. The longer we live, hope­ful­ly the more fore­sight we devel­op. And I think if we start mak­ing some fun­da­men­tal changes in the human con­di­tion that make us more intel­li­gent and more refined in our emo­tions, then things can get bet­ter still.

If I was to wor­ry about the future, my main con­cerns are not that things will get worse, it’s that they could if we do stu­pid things. We have almost had some pret­ty big dis­as­ters in the past, with the nuclear com­plex and so on, which we’ve man­aged to avoid. It could be that we’re going to invent some hor­ri­ble pathogen that’s going to wipe out a large part of the species. One big con­cern that’s get­ting a lot of atten­tion right now is maybe we’ll devel­op a super­in­tel­li­gent arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence that will just kind of take over, and in the crude Terminator sce­nario just going to wipe us all out, or just take con­trol and make all our deci­sions for us in a way that we may not want. I think that kind of a thing is a real con­cern. We have to be quite care­ful about that. 

Anderson: That’s inter­est­ing, because I always asso­ciate those sort of crit­i­cisms with peo­ple who are kind of hav­ing a knee-jerk reac­tion most­ly based on watch­ing The Terminator.

More: Yeah. I think a lot of the sce­nar­ios are high­ly unlike­ly, but—

Anderson: But you do take those seriously.

More: Yeah. It’s some­thing I have to watch out for. So we look at how we design these arti­fi­cial intel­li­gences and try to make sure that they actu­al­ly are going to be benev­o­lent. Friendly” is kind of the com­mon term being used.

Anderson: So clos­ing in here on the idea of the Conversation, we’ve got some amaz­ing ideas on the table about tech­nol­o­gy and the future. Do you think we’re talk­ing about these ideas ade­quate­ly enough now?

More: Not real­ly, no. I think it’s start­ing to improve, but for the most part when peo­ple talk about future stuff it’s gen­er­al­ly in terms of fic­tion. It’s real­ly what some sci­ence fic­tion movie has said. Which is unfor­tu­nate because those tend to be very dystopi­an. They’re obvi­ous­ly writ­ten to be dra­mat­ic, not to be real­is­tic. So peo­ple tend to get a very fear­ful view of the future. I think we need a lot more properly-informed ratio­nal dis­cus­sions of future pos­si­bil­i­ties, both the pos­si­ble ben­e­fits and the dan­gers. And we’re begin­ning to see more of that. Back in the late 80s when I start­ed Extropy mag­a­zine, which is real­ly sort of the first com­pre­hen­sive pub­li­ca­tion about tran­shu­man­ist futures, that was very much all about the pos­i­tive pos­si­bil­i­ties because those weren’t being empha­sized so much. But that’s grad­u­at­ed to a more crit­i­cal con­ver­sa­tion. So that’s hap­pen­ing a lot more. I think peo­ple tend to be too polar­ized, still. They’re still too for or against.

Anderson: Do you think we’ve spe­cial­ized so much that it’s actu­al­ly impos­si­ble to have that sort of com­mon conversation?

More: It’s pret­ty tough, and I think one prob­lem is that even if you real­ly do iden­ti­fy an expert, the trou­ble is they’re going to be an expert in one spe­cif­ic area. And almost all the inter­est­ing ques­tions we can dis­cuss are nev­er lim­it­ed to that one nar­row area. I mean, even a ques­tion like What kind of ener­gy source should we be favor­ing right now?” Well, you may be an expert in physics. You might bet­ter know about the prop­er­ties of solar pan­els, but do you know your eco­nom­ics? Do you know inter­na­tion­al affairs and strate­gic con­sid­er­a­tions? Do you real­ly have a good idea of how to think about how things change in the future, which requires a dif­fer­ent method­ol­o­gy. So all the big inter­est­ing ques­tions real­ly require a multi-disciplinary focus, and most peo­ple don’t have that. And the more expert they are in one area, the less time they may have to be well-informed in others. 

So I think what we need is rather than find­ing just the right peo­ple, we actu­al­ly most­ly need to focus on the process. Even some­thing a sim­ple as if we could just insti­tu­tion­al­ize the dev­il’s advo­cate process, we’d be a lot bet­ter off. But in almost every gov­ern­ment deci­sion, every cor­po­rate deci­sion, every per­son­al, indi­vid­ual, fam­i­ly deci­sion, gen­er­al­ly we think we know what we want, we argue for it, and then we go for it. How often do we actu­al­ly delib­er­ate­ly invite some­one to make their best case against it? And to encour­age that, to hon­or the per­son who does that, sep­a­rat­ing our per­son­al­i­ties from our ideas. That’s a very sim­ple one.

Anderson: So I’m think­ing about our big hypo­thet­i­cal round table here about the future. How do we bring groups like tran­shu­man­ists, or Reverend Fife who I was speak­ing to yes­ter­day who’s real­ly net­worked in with faith com­mu­ni­ties? It seems like both have sort of meta­phys­i­cal­ly dif­fer­ent ways of look­ing at the world, and dif­fer­ent sort of val­ue schemes. Both are think­ing about the future in dif­fer­ent ways. How do we bro­ker a con­ver­sa­tion there, know­ing there are a bunch of oth­er com­mu­ni­ties that are sim­i­lar­ly off in dif­fer­ent direc­tions? Do you think there can be com­mon ground, or do you think that’s one of these things where there’s some­thing that’s so fun­da­men­tal­ly dif­fer­ent it’s going to be very dif­fi­cult to bridge?

More: I think that you can nev­er be too sure until you work at it. You may just assume from the begin­ning that there isn’t any com­mon ground, and some­times there won’t be. I mean, it’s very hard for me to find any com­mon ground with any kind of fun­da­men­tal­ist. But it’s not always clear who’s a fun­da­men­tal­ist. They may not use that term, they may not think of them­selves that way, but you may after a while of inter­act­ing and so on real­ize that they tru­ly are a fun­da­men­tal­ist, that there are things they just absolute­ly will not question.

So some­one who’s tru­ly a fun­da­men­tal­ist in the sense say, Christian or Islamic fun­da­men­tal­ism, it’s going to be very very hard for me to have any kind of use­ful, pro­duc­tive con­ver­sa­tion about any­thing of inter­est because their answer’s always going to be, Well, let’s see what it says in the holy book.” And that’s just not the way I’m going to work. I want to say, Well, let’s go look at real­i­ty. Let’s devise a test and see what real­i­ty says.” 

So that’s a pret­ty fun­da­men­tal dif­fer­ence. But hope­ful­ly that won’t usu­al­ly be the case. Usually while we seem to be rad­i­cal­ly dif­fer­ent, if we work at it a lit­tle bit, we can find some kind of com­mon­al­i­ty, some shared assump­tions, and then clar­i­fy where we do dis­agree and then try to work on those and see if there’s not some way of resolv­ing those differences.

Aengus Anderson: So that was the con­ver­sa­tion I had today.

Micah Saul: Wow. I envy you. That sound­ed just fantastic.

Anderson: It was an amaz­ing, amaz­ing talk. It kind of start­ed with Alcor and then sud­den­ly we were into a lot of philosophy.

Saul: Yeah. That was def­i­nite­ly some­thing I was hop­ing to get from him. It could’ve been also an inter­est­ing con­ver­sa­tion to just be talk­ing specif­i­cal­ly about Alcor, but I think both of you real­ly quick­ly got to the deep­er philo­soph­i­cal ques­tions that actu­al­ly in many ways made the specifics a lit­tle unnec­es­sary to even talk about.

Anderson: That’s kin­da what I was actu­al­ly hop­ing. There’s been so much writ­ten about Alcor, as with any thinker who’s doing some­thing that real­ly push­es bound­aries like this. 

Saul: Right. 

Anderson: There’s a lot of cir­cus around it. For me that was­n’t the con­ver­sa­tion to be having.

Saul: No, exactly.

Anderson: I want­ed to get into the impli­ca­tions of the ideas. So I was try­ing to steer clear of the specifics. But in terms of things that worked and things that did­n’t, there are a cou­ple of things that struck me—I real­ly felt like Dr. More had a lib­er­tar­i­an foun­da­tion to a lot of his stuff, and a lot of sort of the per­son­al empow­er­ment of choice. And I was kind of like, as we were going through the inter­view and actu­al­ly as I was rid­ing home from it, I was think­ing about, we real­ly need­ed to talk more about community.

Saul: Absolutely. That’s going to be a big theme run­ning through all of these, is the rela­tion­ship between the indi­vid­ual and com­mu­ni­ty. And espe­cial­ly when we’re talk­ing to the more indi­vid­u­al­ist, lib­er­tar­i­an thinkers, com­mu­ni­ty is some­thing that we need to push them on, in the same way that I think when we’re talk­ing to the more com­mu­nal­ists we should be push­ing them on indi­vid­ual rights.

Anderson: Yeah. If you’re kind of map­ping which side the scale is towards, gen­er­al­ly our soci­ety is feeling…we lean more towards the lib­er­tar­i­an right now than the communal.

Saul: I think so.

Anderson: I want to ask more hard ques­tions about the val­ue of com­mu­ni­ty. When we were talk­ing about the past, I kind of regret not try­ing to seek out if maybe the past had some kind of com­mu­ni­ty val­ue. Sure, mate­ri­al­ly much worse, short­er qual­i­ty of life, but maybe there is some­thing com­mu­nal there and maybe that’s some­thing we can talk to oth­er inter­vie­wees about later. 

Saul: I agree. A cou­ple things that jumped out at me. One of them, he actu­al­ly cor­rect­ed you on, which I thought was use­ful. In our con­ver­sa­tions and our plan­ning for this, we’ve sort of been using the word mate­ri­al­ist” and strip­ping away a lot of the bag­gage that word car­ries when you and I are talk­ing to each oth­er, but the seman­tics of some of these words still matter—

Anderson: Yeah. I had that sort of embar­rassed moment when I said mate­ri­al­ist and he was like, Well, you know, in phi­los­o­phy we don’t quite use that word,” and here I am hav­ing these visions of shop­ping. And I’m like, yeah, mate­ri­al­ist does con­jure to mind shop­ping. So phys­i­cal­ist, I think that makes more sense.

Saul: The oth­er one I was think­ing about is when you were talk­ing about the intrin­sic val­ue of nature and he was sort of push­ing back against the con­cept. The notion of intrin­sic val­ue is very often tied with a holdover from a reli­gious way of think­ing, because Western cul­ture is pre­dom­i­nant­ly Christian cul­ture. Those things still have weight. But if you’re talk­ing with athe­ists, intrin­sic val­ue is a loaded con­cept, and we need to come up with a bet­ter way to talk about that. Because there is a way to talk about it with some­one who does­n’t believe in any sort of intrin­sic val­ue in a spir­i­tu­al sense.

Anderson: Right. Let’s def­i­nite­ly think more about those and hope­ful­ly as we get these things post­ed our par­tic­i­pants online will help us think through them as well.

Saul: I def­i­nite­ly like that idea.

Anderson: So onwards and upwards. Next we’ll be doing Peter Warren.

That was Dr. Max More, record­ed May 3, 2012 at the Alcor Life Extension Foundation office in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Saul: This is The Conversation. You can find us on Twitter at @aengusanderson and on the web at find​the​con​ver​sa​tion​.com

Anderson: So thanks for lis­ten­ing. I’m Aengus Anderson.

Saul: And I’m Micah Saul.

Further Reference

This inter­view at the Conversation web site, with project notes, com­ments, and tax­o­nom­ic orga­ni­za­tion spe­cif­ic to The Conversation.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.