Nick Bostrum interview
Kay
by Mark Vernon -- Researching a piece on philosophy, ancient and
modern, for the FT Magazine, I spoke to a number of big hitters.
Here's something of my exchange with Nick Bostrom, Director of the
Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford.
MV: Your vision of a post-human future seems very driven by science.
What role has philosophy to play in this?
NB: Philosophy has several important roles in this. First, to address
questions of value and ethics. Second, to clarify vague concepts and
articulate diffuse concerns relating to posthuman possibilities.
Third, to invent new methodological tools and frameworks for thinking
about big picture questions for humanity. Fourth, to critically assess
arguments and assumptions used in related scientific disciplines or
public discourse. Fifth, to question the status quo and develop
visions for how conditions could be improved.
MV: Can you envisage whether a philosophical reflection on some post-
human technology might ever advise against the pursuit of it? If yes,
what sort of thing might that be?
NB: There are technologies that humanity would be better off without -
some weapons and torture technologies for example. The majority of
technologies, however, may be beneficial or harmful depending on how
they are used, and in such cases the focus should not be so much on
the technology itself but rather on the social policies and individual
actions that modulate its impacts. It is also important to be clear
about who the actors are to whom the advise is addressed. If you were
giving advice to a hypothetical benevolent world government, you might
recommend against the pursuit of any new military technologies. This
would be quite different from recommending to individual democratic
nations that they cease military research.
MV: The post-human future often seems to be geared against embracing
mortality. What do you make of the ancient's thought that philosophy
is learning how to die?
NB: We are already remarkably successful at dying. I don't see that we
need any special training for that. We do have problem staying alive,
and we need help with that. Basically, of course, this is a task for
medical research and biogerontology. But philosophy can also help, in
particular by challenging the deathist assumption - the idea that
death and aging are natural and therefore good. Throughout human
history, there was nothing that could be done to prevent aging. It is
understandable that people created systems of belief that helped
reconcile them to the inevitable physical and mental decline they knew
they would experience. Today, we still cannot prevent aging, but we
see avenues of research that will eventually lead to means of delaying
and reversing aspects of aging. The deathist assumption, which used to
be harmless, now leads to dangerous passivity and impedes the
development of life saving therapies. So while we are spending
billions trying to cure individual diseases, we spend only tiny
fraction of what we ought to be spending on understanding and
reversing human senescence - despite the fact that aging is by far the
biggest cause of disease, disability, and death... an enormous
humanitarian as well as economic tragedy. What good is philosophy if
it only serves to rationalize the status quo?
MV: What is philosophy to you?
NB: I see philosophy and science as overlapping parts of the same
continuum. Philosophy tends to deal with bigger, more abstract or more
fundamental questions, especially ones that have not yet been
clarified sufficiently to be susceptible to scientific investigation,
but I don't make a sharp distinction. Certainly, on the questions that
most interest me, I gain important insights from both philosophers and
scientists.
MV: Do you think the task of philosophy is changing, say as a result
of scientific advances?
NB: The tasks of philosophy have changed over time. Physics and
psychology were once part of philosophy but have since been outsourced
as independent scientific disciplines. Likewise for logic, which has
become a branch of mathematics. Yet, philosophy of physics, for
example, is a flourishing specialization in philosophy, in which
physicists and philosophers come together to address foundational
matters in physical theories. Some traditional concerns remain central
in philosophy - epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, and so forth. But
new philosophical tasks also arise over time, sometimes as a result of
scientific advances: bioethics and neuroethics are examples of
specializations that have been added in recent decades thanks to
scientific and technological advances.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. Contents do not necessarily
represent the opinions of the poster.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -