Should we be afraid of the world to come?

[Exnihiloest]

Interesting show on France-Culture last Saturday. Alain Finkielkraut received Luc Ferry and Michel Onfray on this subject, following two new works by each, in particular by Ferry: "The transhumanist revolution", including subjects such as uberization or genetic revolutions.
http://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/r ... qui-vient#
The podcast unfortunately does not seem to be available yet, or only available on itunes (which I refuse to install).

Surprisingly, Michel Onfray, in whom I have seen a solid thought so far, apart from the question of Islam, seemed to me not to have mastered these subjects and to take a timid position. Thus it seems to challenge the right of individuals to exchange, for example their housing, pretending to compete with professionals whose state will pay the price because of non-collection of taxes, these taxes which he says, allow build hospitals or high schools. Obviously that tax is necessary, and that a balance must be obtained with professionals who are also imposed safety standards or rules which individuals are exempt. But the role of the political is not to prohibit changes in society linked to massive trends among citizens, such as the use of these sites which put them in relation to one another. It is to accompany them, to supervise them, even to promote them (car sharing for example), and to obtain wealth for the progress of the country. In short Onfray seemed to me reactionary, in the name of a rather dogmatic ethics.

In contrast, Luc Ferry. He has obviously studied these developments particularly well, especially the progress that genetics will allow, including their scientific and technical aspects. He mentioned in particular this lengthening of a third of the life of mice obtained by researchers at the University of Rocester, lengthening where the quality of life had remained excellent: the mice kept in good shape until their end. Everyone agreed, of course, that this was of the utmost importance, the goal not being to push death away and drag it to it in a state of physical or intellectual decay. Some time will pass before transposition to humans, but it can be predicted that this will happen. Luc Ferry saw in this increased longevity a completely unexpected interest: that of "wisdom", which we know well tends to grow with age. Have we ever seen Islamist fifties blow themselves up in the midst of innocent people? No, at this age we don't get excited for nothing. "To die for ideas, yes but which ones" said Brassens. The excited are almost always young people under 30 years old, and even 25. The new longevity would therefore rebalance the weight of the wisest against the others.

Alain Finkielkraut, host of the program, was not directly involved in the debate. But from his few interventions, and against the clichés against him, I seemed much less reactionary than they say, less even than Michel Onfray. I had the impression rather of a nostalgic one, a nostalgic one not opposed to progress, not stuck in a sclerotic ethics, and wishing that what one preserves, it is more the methods of thought which have proven that what they apply to.

[sen-no-sen]

Thank you for the info.

Luc Ferry saw in this increased longevity a completely unexpected interest: that of "wisdom", which we know well tends to grow with age. Have we ever seen Islamist fifties blow themselves up in the midst of innocent people? No, at this age we don't get excited for nothing. "To die for ideas, yes but which ones" said Brassens. The excited are almost always young people under 30 years old, and even 25. The new longevity would therefore rebalance the weight of the wisest against the others.

It's a somewhat dubious analysis ...
I believe that there is a confusion between the decision makers (people often of a certain age) and the actors (often young individuals, mainly males under 30 years old).
If it is indeed young individuals who act in the operational sense, the capacity for nuisance at the fundamental level seems to me to be rather present in older individuals.
Wise people like E. Teller,Henry Kissinger,BW Bush ou Ayatollah Khomeini!

Finally Luc Ferry, "Finky"; and Onfray, it's very average as a tray!

[Exnihiloest]

It's a somewhat dubious analysis ...
I believe that there is a confusion between the decision makers (people often of a certain age) and the actors (often young individuals, mainly males under 30 years old).
If it is indeed young individuals who act in the operational sense, the capacity for nuisance at the fundamental level seems to me to be rather present in older individuals.
Wise people like E. Teller,Henry Kissinger,BW Bush ou Ayatollah Khomeini!

Objection upheld!
It should be seen statistically.

That said, passion is youth, but from the moment you are of age, you are responsible for your actions. The performers are no less responsible than their clients, or we decide to put the majority at 28 years of age. We cannot both claim emancipation and deny responsibility.

Finally Luc Ferry, "Finky"; and Onfray, it's very average as a tray!

I find you difficult. These people are nevertheless enlightening. Luc Ferry surprised me several times. Intellectuals are to the brain what cyclists are to calves. You cannot hope to have a lot of material from those who do not think or little. They are constantly training. It does not imply their infallibility. But beware of their ideas when I find them silly or mundane. It is often that we have not seen what motivated them, and which is not what we can believe and certainly not of the first degree.

[sen-no-sen]

That said, passion is youth, but from the moment you are of age, you are Oenology of your actions. The performers are no less responsible than their clients, or we decide to put the majority at 28 years of age. We cannot both claim emancipation and deny responsibility.

Of course, but young people are extremely malleable, it is not for nothing that most revolutions are born within student movements.
Responsibilities and guilt are somewhat different things.

Luc Ferry quotes are father who said that if the men were more than 65 years old there would be less war ... it has little to do with an alleged wisdom but rather with the capacity to dissipate energy.
The more an individual dissipates energy, the more it increases its power of nuisance, and therefore in fact violence.
An old man will therefore logically have less tendency to engage in direct confrontation for lack of physical capacity ... hence the need to manipulate youth through cognitive ...
In fact, transhumanism and the supposed increase in life expectancy will not bring more wisdom on the contrary ...

I find you difficult. These people are nevertheless enlightening. Luc Ferry surprised me several times. Intellectuals are to the brain what cyclists are to calves. You cannot hope to have a lot of material from those who do not think or little. They are constantly training.

Sorry but I find his thinkers particularly "classic" in their approaches.
I think that a young bachelor would produce substantially the same type of criticism on the transhumanism.
Luc Ferry rather in the thesis and Onfray in the antithesis ... yet neither of them launches into a deep analysis, namely why transhumanism? Why? What historic engine? Purpose? etc ...

Public chat the uberisation, this is just another version (2.0) of exponential economism...

[Obamot]

Here is the personal attack that was addressed to me indirectly by Exnihiloest:

Fortunately, I see that there are some who follow, it's a pleasure.

If intelligence is not necessarily accompanied by humor, on the other hand without intelligence, there is no humor. I no longer know who said that "humor is saying it without saying it".
A model is this sentence from a text by Jean Giraudoux: "A horse passed, the hens followed, full of hope."

Whoever does not have the intelligence to understand the unsaid of this wit, will not see humor and will take it literally. But much more damaging, among these, some will not even imagine that there could be some who would exceed them: "but how, the hens do not follow the horses, and then there are no more horses nor chickens on the roads ... "they will tell us, and here they are, calling the message completely silly. Dunning-Kruger when you hold us ...

There is no point in explaining it to them, because then it is no longer funny. It is the discovery of the suggestion that is exhilarating. Those who are confined to fat laughter will never benefit from it. If they still did not show off their misunderstanding or manipulate it with a spearhead, we would be grateful to them.

Below is a corrigendum, following the toast which preceded, since it was therefore necessary to rectify to the extent that Exnihiloest felt targeted

...
To get Exnihiloest out of ["paranoid" mode ON] I must therefore publish part of the content of my personal message, and it will see that it was in no way concerned (except for the basic remark, where I maintain that it's light)

"Of course I'm saying that it's not the fault of the poster, who probably did not know that the cliché was an illegal montage [...]".

But here is what succinctly took up from Exnihiloest, by voluntarily removing the initial meaning which was rather in a positive direction for him (and this to try to pass me off as the "Ugly Duckling which is quite shameful ")

...
To get Exnihiloest out of ["paranoid" mode ON] ...

Parano?
Ce forum has many positive sides. We meet interesting people there [...] pedrodelavega, izentrop and a few others ... but I note that most of those I enjoy reading, and myself, are systematically taken to task, by name, by Obamot (I can produce all the posts in question in support of my statements).
I have the impression that any discussion of good level is ransacked, and the better the level, the more it is ransacked, and that these actors who have tried them are followed in each of their interventions to be denigrated.

Is it possible to have a plurality of interventions here, without this little recurrent intellectual despotism, without these personal attacks?

It is disloyal to take partial remarks (humor section) to make them say something other than what they were planned for!

For someone who complains of pseudo personal attacks, those of Exnihilo are rather sustained! Let the mods take note.
It is more than certain that if Exnihiloest stopped its derailed provocations, it would see how everything is going well.

► View Text

As for the names of the posters, some of whom are notoriously under fictitious nicknames after having already been fired, I find the example rather ill-chosen. And besides, it is rather curious that the same unfair practices are shared by those he cites: family link no doubt? (which once again confirms the validity of my PM)

[Christophe]

The coming world?

Well I already started trying to be a whore ...

It's difficult ... but I understand that it is easier for some than for others ...

[moinsdewatt]

In contrast, Luc Ferry. He has obviously studied these developments particularly well, especially the advances that genetics will allow, including their scientific and technical aspects.

this is this:

The transhumanist revolution

"Do not think it is science fiction: April 18, 2015, a team of Chinese geneticists set out to" improve "the genome of eighty-three human embryos.
How far will we go on this path? Will it be possible one day (soon? Already?) To “increase” at will such or such trait of character of his children, to eradicate in the embryo the genetic diseases, even to stop the old age and the died by shaping a new species of “augmented” humans? We are not (quite) there, but many “transhumanist” research centers are working there all over the world, with colossal funding from web giants such as Google. Technoscience advances are unimaginable speed, they still escape any regulation. In parallel, this “infrastructure of the world” that is the Web has allowed the emergence of a so-called “collaborative” economy, that symbolized by applications like Uber, Airbnb or BlaBlaCar. According to the ideologist Jeremy Rifkin, they herald the end of capitalism in favor of a world of gratuitousness and concern for the other. Is it not, quite the opposite, towards hyperliberalism, venal and deregulator, that we are heading? Some perspectives opened up by technoscientific innovations are exciting, others frightening. This book seeks first to make them understand, and to rehabilitate the philosophical ideal of regulation, a concept that is now vital, both in medicine and in economics. "
Luc FERRY
Philosopher, former Minister of National Education, Luc Ferry is the author of many bestsellers: Learn to live, Plon (2006), The wisdom of myths, Plon (2008) The revolution of love, Plon (2010 ), Destructive innovation, Plon (2014).

[Exnihiloest]

What's the problem ? Is everyone scared?

The question is not even to be for or against, it is useless, it is a rearguard fight.
Those who are against will forget that they are against if they are given the pill that will get them back into shape after 70 years.
Those who are against will forget that they are against when they are offered an intelligent robot capable of shopping for them.
Those who are against will forget that they are against if their sick child is cured, even by gene therapy.

The question is rather that of framing this inevitable development, which moreover most young people do not fear, and they are the future.

What alternative have those who are against? They seem to refuse everything and want to impose the old recipes of the past, as if the current situation was worse than in the 19th century while the comfort of life has greatly increased, as if the situation was not the result of our ancestors having them also wanted to improve their lot, and having succeeded.
Phobia of genetics, phobia of robots, phobia of nanotechnologies, phobia of uberization, phobia of I don't know what yet, it is impossible to build anything on fear. This attitude is doomed to failure. If the French revolution has succeeded, if May 68 has (partially) succeeded, it is because there were new ideas and the message was positive, unifying, winning support. Today we have anti-Komri, anti-Notre-Dame-des-Landes, anti-growth, anti-meat ... and we can see that nothing comes out, who would think that l anti-thing or anti-thing will give us the keys to a better life?

By denying that scientific, social and technological advances have contributed to progress, or by wanting to be limited to those of today or the past, such as the Amish limiting themselves to those of the 18th century, do we really believe that we can produce an attractive world?
Innovation needs to be framed but framed does not mean eradicated in the bud. And to frame it, you have to appropriate it. It is only when we understand how it works, that we can control evolution and make progress.
And of course the sine qua non condition is not to deny the social and technical progress made over the centuries. To deny this progress is to prohibit the idea that there would be one. Why then should we believe fabricators telling us of a better future, even in ecology, if the millennia which preceded us knew no progress because today our fate would not be more enviable than that of the caveman?

[Exnihiloest]

Here is the personal attack that was addressed to me indirectly by Exnihiloest:

Fortunately, I see that there are some who follow, it's a pleasure.

If intelligence is not necessarily accompanied by humor, on the other hand without intelligence, there is no humor. I no longer know who said that: "humor is saying it without saying it" ....

It is not a personal attack, since I speak in general.
That Obamot feels targeted when I speak of those who lack the intelligence to understand humor is his problem.
Personally, I wouldn't feel targeted at all if he spoke of "paranoid" in general.
But the fact is that he puts my nickname on it.
That's the difference, that between attack personal and general. Form matters!
"Elite minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, mediocre minds discuss people."
Jules Romains

[Obamot]

Hey, what about your little pants? And the title of your thread is not to do in " paranoid hook " perhaps ?

Anti manipulation moderation

The truth is that French is so approximate (in general) that I did not "understand" everything. And since (in general) you take your interlocutors for noodles and hardly believe a word of what you write. All that interests you here - in the philosophy section - is not so much discussing " what would it be for a better future for humanity ”? That yes it would have been constructive (and would have interested me ...).

But apart from trying to ultra-shock ("in general" without succeeding), I've never read anything like this from your pen.
So stop taking people (in general) for hams, thank you.

I'm not even talking about xenophobic reflexes (in general), or even eugenics because it really stinks herr General.