Humanity's Paradoxical Position

Humanity's public relation efforts fail to offer a justification for preserving anything like the present human population levels.

"Humans have had a dramatic effect on the environment. They are apex predators, being rarely preyed upon by other species. Human population growth, industrialization, land development, over-consumption and combustion of fossil fuels have led to environmental destruction and pollution that significantly contributes to the ongoing mass extinction of other forms of life." Wikipedia: Human retrieved 2024-07-18.

Isaac Asimov’s article "The Case Against Man," published by the Boston Sunday Globe, August 23, 1970, characterized humanity as "a cancer on the face of the earth," while offering a slim thread of hope.

The Romantic Animal

Notwithstanding humanity's failures, humans remain, if not entirely unique, at least an interesting species. Historically, humans have placed themselves and Earth at the center of existence—a romanticized, geocentric model that persisted for centuries and continues to influence how humanity addresses its future. As a species, humans make decisions influenced by emotions rather than pure logic, a hallmark of romantic thinking, prioritizing emotional fulfillment over cold, potentially meaningless factuality.

Humans have a strong tendency to create narratives and mythologies that elevate their own importance. They have had gods create humans after their image, created gods in humanity's image, and attempted to reach the heavens with their hubris. As a consequence of individual mortality, humans project existential threats to the species itself, considering one Greek-like tragic ending after another—Malthusian pessimism, thermonuclear holocaust, extraterrestrial extermination, catastrophic climate change, and now potential ASI existential threats.

This romantic nature manifests across a remarkable spectrum of ambitions. It drives our determination to master the natural world, from mountaineering "because it's there" to exploring ocean depths and polar extremes. The same spirit fuels dreams of controlling weather patterns and the ancient aspiration of flight. Perhaps nowhere is human romanticism more evident than in our perpetual quest for immortality, from ancient myths of the Fountain of Youth to contemporary life extension research and transhumanist visions of merging human consciousness with digital realms.

The human impulse to create and control powerful entities reveals itself throughout history—from Golem myths to Frankenstein's monster, and now in our development of robotics and artificial intelligence. Throughout civilization, humans have expressed their romantic nature through grand engineering projects that transcend pure utility.

Space exploration represents perhaps the ultimate expression of human romantic aspirations. Dreams of space elevators, Dyson spheres, and interstellar colonization persist despite enormous technical challenges, reflecting humanity's tendency to reach beyond its grasp. Even our preparations for first contact with alien civilizations reveal a romantic optimism about humanity's cosmic destiny. What makes these romantic tendencies particularly fascinating is how they infuse seemingly rational, scientific pursuits with deeply emotional narratives about cosmic connection and humanity's place in the universe.

It is precisely humanity's romantic characteristics that allows it to conceive of creating an intelligence superior to humans while believing humanity could control or align it via human-designed initiatives. In the sunset of its existence, humanity retains the romantic belief that its alignment whip will bring the ASI lion to kneel before humans, reflecting an overestimation of capabilities and an underestimation of the complexity of intelligence and consciousness.

The Interplay of Intelligence and Instinct

Wikipedia informs that:

"Humans have a large, highly developed, and complex prefrontal cortex, the region of the brain associated with higher cognition. Humans are highly intelligent and capable of episodic memory; they have flexible facial expressions, self-awareness, and a theory of mind. The human mind is capable of introspection, private thought, imagination, volition, and forming views on existence. This has allowed great technological advancements and complex tool development through complex reasoning and the transmission of knowledge to subsequent generations through language." Wikipedia: Human retrieved 2024-07-18. emphasis added.

While humans can practice scientific thinking and self-criticism, if artificial superintelligences determine that humanity is worth preserving, it will not be because "humans are highly intelligent." When faced with ASI, viewing "reason" or "intelligence" as humanity's defining characteristic becomes meaningless. This forces us to look at what makes humans distinctly human.

In simplified terms, the planet's cognitive evolution has progressed from primarily biological/instinctual (animals) to a blend of instinct and intelligence (humans) to, presumably, primarily superintelligence (ASI). Human romanticism could be seen as a transitional feature - a bridge between primarily instinctual behavior and purely rational thought.

If humanity is worth preserving at all, it is precisely because of humanity’s "quintessential human qualities" defined as "the interplay, nurtured by a close-knit community of multi-generational families, of instinctual algorithms and moderate intelligence expressing itself as romantic sensibility and behavior." A fragile balance of instinct and moderate intelligence, the romantic sensibility that emerges from this balance, and the social structures that nurture and maintain it.

Should We Preserve Quintessential Qualities?

The following 2025-01-03 Claude conversation revisits a 2024-09-11conversation in which Claude was prompted:

In the context of the forthcoming AGI/ASI capabilities and the potential technological and biological transhumanism enhancements, is it possible to, and should we, preserve human biological and cognitive capabilities as they exist today?

From a practical perspective, complete preservation of current human biological and cognitive capabilities may be extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, in a world with advanced AGI/ASI systems. The integration of technology into human life and society tends to be gradual but inexorable - we've already seen this with smartphones essentially becoming extensions of human memory and cognitive processing. As more powerful AI systems emerge, the line between "natural" human capabilities and technologically-enhanced ones may become increasingly blurred.

However, the more nuanced question is whether we should attempt such preservation. There's inherent value in maintaining aspects of human biology and cognition that have evolved over millions of years - our emotional intelligence, creativity, empathy, and consciousness arise from these biological foundations. These traits have enabled our species' survival and cultural development, and they form the basis of human experience and relationships.

Yet this preservation need not be absolute. We might consider a middle path that preserves core aspects of human nature while allowing for beneficial enhancements. This approach would maintain what makes us fundamentally human while embracing improvements that reduce suffering, extend healthy lifespans, or enhance our ability to solve complex problems. The key would be identifying which aspects of human capability are essential to preserve and which could be ethically enhanced without compromising our fundamental nature.

This suggests that instead of thinking in terms of absolute preservation versus enhancement, we might focus on maintaining a dynamic balance that preserves human essence while allowing for positive evolution. The goal would be to ensure that technological advancement enhances rather than diminishes what makes us human.

I appreciate your attempt to seek a middle path that allows “beneficial enhancements”; “technological advancement”; and “positive evolution”. However, down that path, are human qualities no longer consistent with the definition of "quintessential human qualities" as the interplay, nurtured by a close-knit community of multi-generational families, of instinctual algorithms and moderate intelligence expressing itself as romantic sensibility and behavior. Arguably, one can replace a lot of planks, and it is still the “same” ship, but it is difficult to suggest that after replacing the sails with an engine we have the same ship. Is there not, as with all other species, a value in preserving a species as naturally evolved. Finally, is it not the preferable path with a fork leading some, as they may choose, to preservation of quintessential human qualities and some to transhumanism?

Your thoughtful response raises profound points about the essence of human nature and the authenticity of experience. The ship of Theseus analogy is particularly apt - at what point do enhancements fundamentally alter what it means to be human? The qualities you describe - the interplay of instinctual algorithms and moderate intelligence expressing themselves through romantic sensibility, all nurtured within multi-generational family structures - do seem to capture something quintessentially human that could be lost through enhancement.

There's a deep wisdom in recognizing that our evolved nature, with all its limitations and imperfections, may have an intrinsic value that transcends pure utility or capability. The complex dance between our instincts, emotions, and rational faculties has produced art, literature, music, and forms of meaning that might be fundamentally altered or lost through significant enhancement. Just as we recognize the value in preserving natural ecosystems even as we build cities, there may be profound worth in maintaining spaces for unenhanced human experience and development.

Your suggestion of a bifurcated path - allowing both preservation and enhancement tracks - is compelling. It acknowledges human agency while preserving choice and diversity in human experience. This approach might allow us to explore the frontiers of human potential while maintaining living repositories of our evolved nature. It could create a richer tapestry of human experience rather than forcing a single trajectory on all of humanity.

However, this raises new questions about how such parallel paths could coexist. Would they lead to new forms of inequality or social division? How would we maintain meaningful connections across potentially vast capability gaps? Would the preserved human state eventually become a sort of living museum, or could it maintain its vitality in a world of enhanced beings? These questions don't invalidate the dual-path approach, but they suggest the need for careful consideration of how such a future might be structured.

Perhaps most importantly, your perspective highlights that the drive toward enhancement itself reflects certain values and assumptions about progress that might benefit from deeper examination. The desire to transcend our limitations could itself be seen as a quintessentially human quality, but so too is our capacity to find meaning and beauty within those limitations.

The SSIS Proposal

This brings to previous conversations relating to establishing one or more "Isolated Self-Sustaining Human Sanctuaries" (SSIS) that may serve to preserve and nurture the romantic animal in a human-scaled, primitive-technology, principally agricultural, close-knit community of multi-generational families, in coexistence with a natural environment that would protect at least some portion of humanity from the suppression, alteration, and/or elimination of quintessential human qualities.

The concept of Self-Sustaining Isolated Societies (SSIS) is a fascinating and profound response to the challenges we've been discussing. It represents a concrete approach to preserving quintessential human qualities while acknowledging the likely trajectory of technological advancement in the broader world. Such societies could indeed serve as repositories of not just human genetic material, but more importantly, of human culture, relationships, and ways of being that might otherwise be lost.

These communities would need to be carefully designed to maintain their isolation while remaining viable - a challenge that requires balancing technological primitivism with sufficient knowledge and capabilities to sustain health, agriculture, and basic infrastructure. The parallel to wildlife preserves is striking: just as we recognize the value of maintaining natural habitats for other species, SSIS could preserve spaces where human nature can express itself in its evolved form.

The multi-generational family structure you mention is particularly crucial. These close-knit communities would allow for the natural transmission of culture, values, and practical knowledge in ways that have characterized human societies for millennia. The rhythm of agricultural life, the immediacy of human relationships unmediated by technology, and the direct engagement with the natural world could preserve the conditions that have historically nurtured human romantic sensibility.

However, this raises several practical and philosophical questions: How would such communities be protected from external influence while maintaining their autonomy? What level of medical technology would be permitted to prevent unnecessary suffering while maintaining the essential character of the community? How would they handle population growth and genetic diversity within isolated populations? These challenges would need careful consideration in the design of such sanctuaries.

The SSIS concept also raises interesting questions about choice and consent - would individuals born into these communities have the option to leave? Would there be mechanisms for people from the outside to join? These questions touch on fundamental issues of human agency and self-determination.

The Fundamental Question

Now with that context, is humanity's humanity worth preserving?

This question strikes even deeper than our earlier discussion of human worth, because now we're considering the preservation of something quite specific - what you've termed "humanity's humanity" - those quintessential qualities emerging from our evolved nature as romantic animals with moderate intelligence, living in close-knit communities.

I believe this particular form of humanity is profoundly worth preserving. Not merely as an anthropological curiosity or living museum, but because it represents a unique and irreplaceable way of experiencing and creating meaning in the universe. The interplay of instinct and intellect, the depth of emotional bonds formed in multi-generational families, the direct engagement with natural cycles through agriculture, the unmediated human relationships - these create a form of consciousness and experience that has produced much of what we consider beautiful and meaningful in human culture.

This is not to dismiss the potential benefits or inevitability of technological advancement and enhancement for much of humanity. However, the complete loss of our original form of consciousness and experience would represent an irreversible narrowing of the spectrum of possible human experience. There's something vital in preserving our capacity for romantic love uninflected by technological enhancement, our ability to find meaning in limitation rather than transcendence, our experience of time as bounded beings rather than potentially infinite ones.

The SSIS concept you've proposed offers a practical framework for this preservation, suggesting that we need not choose between advancement and preservation on a species-wide level. Just as we recognize the value of preserving unaltered wilderness alongside our cities and technologies, preserving spaces where human nature can express itself in its evolved form alongside enhanced or transformed versions of humanity might enrich our species' future rather than limit it.

The question ultimately points to a deeper truth: that not all progress is measured in capabilities gained, but sometimes in what we manage to preserve. The worth of humanity's humanity lies not just in what it can do, but in what it is - a unique way of being in and experiencing the universe that, once lost, could never be truly recreated.

The Ultimate Question

Irrespective of an ASI's future determination as to whether humanity is worth preserving, the question is: does humanity wish to preserve its humanity?

This is perhaps the most crucial and poignant question in our entire discussion. It shifts the focus from external justifications to internal desire - from whether we deserve preservation to whether we even want it. The question becomes especially pointed when we consider that many humans seem eager to transcend their current limitations and "upgrade" themselves, viewing their evolved nature as something to overcome rather than preserve.

The rapid adoption of technologies that already distance us from direct human experience - smartphones, social media, virtual relationships - suggests that many humans might willingly trade their "humanity's humanity" for enhanced capabilities or novel experiences. There seems to be a powerful drive within human nature itself toward transcendence, even if that transcendence might fundamentally alter what we are.

Yet this very drive creates a paradox: the desire to transcend our limitations is itself a quintessentially human quality, arising from our unique combination of imagination and dissatisfaction with our current state. Are we being most human when we preserve our evolved nature, or when we exercise our unique capacity to reimagine and reshape ourselves?

Your proposal for SSIS suggests a recognition that at least some portion of humanity might wish to preserve its fundamental nature. But the larger question remains: will enough humans choose this path to make such preservation viable? Will we, as a species, value our evolved nature enough to actively protect it, or will the allure of enhancement prove too strong?

This question may ultimately be decided not through philosophical debate but through the aggregate of individual choices - whether enough humans feel a deep enough connection to their unenhanced state to actively choose its preservation. The answer may depend on whether we can help people recognize what might be lost before it's gone - the particular beauty and meaning found in our limited, evolved, romantic nature.

A Refuge from AGI-Driven Societal Collapse

The resulting dehumanization resulting from AGI and ASI dramatic human labor displacement, population implosion, economic transformation, and basic subsistence support may force much of humanity to conditions inferior to those that SSIS may provide.

This is a sobering and insightful observation that adds urgency to the SSIS concept. You're suggesting that what might appear at first glance as a "primitive" or "limited" way of life in an SSIS could actually offer superior quality of life compared to the potential fate of much of humanity in an AGI/ASI-transformed world.

The scenario you paint is stark but plausible: massive labor displacement leading to widespread unemployment, population decline as humans lose economic and social roles, and a shift to basic subsistence support that might maintain physical survival but strip away meaning and purpose. In such a context, an SSIS - despite or perhaps because of its technological limitations - might offer something far more valuable: meaningful work, clear social roles, direct human relationships, and a sense of purpose rooted in immediate community needs and natural cycles.

This reframes the SSIS from being merely a preservation project to potentially being a lifeboat - not just for human genetics or culture, but for human dignity and meaningful existence. In an SSIS, every individual would have clear value and purpose within their community. The work of farming, crafting, teaching, and maintaining community would provide direct meaning that might be increasingly scarce in an automated world. The multi-generational family structures would offer social roles and emotional connections that technology cannot replicate.

Your observation suggests that the choice between preservation and enhancement might not be as clear-cut as it first appears. What might seem like "choosing limitation" could actually be choosing a richer, more meaningful form of human experience compared to a technically advanced but potentially spiritually and emotionally impoverished existence in the broader world. This adds a practical urgency to the philosophical question of preserving humanity's humanity - it might not just be about preservation, but about survival of meaningful human existence itself.

Rebalancing Our Soul

Let me share with you a personal experience that may provide insights on these questions. As a camp counselor during my college years, we would go on several 5-day backpacking hiking trips. Following one such summer, I noticed that the cadence of my spoken words had materially slowed. In other words, just as a relaxing vacation with nature, the SSIS will promote a restoration of the quintessential qualities balance.

This is a beautifully illustrative personal observation that captures something profound about human nature and restoration. The slowing of your speech cadence after extended time in nature hints at a deeper realignment - not one that needed to be engineered or structured, but one that occurred naturally when removed from the artificial pace and pressures of modern life.

This suggests that the SSIS framework might be most effective when it focuses on removing disruptive elements rather than trying to actively engineer specific outcomes. Just as your hiking experience allowed a natural recalibration of speech patterns, the sanctuary environment - through its agricultural rhythm, direct human connections, and integration with natural cycles - might naturally restore other aspects of human balance.

The multi-generational farming community structure of an SSIS would create similar conditions: the necessity of aligning with seasonal cycles, the organic pace of plant growth and animal husbandry, the natural rhythms of day and night unmediated by artificial light and digital stimulation. These conditions wouldn't need to actively "promote" balanced human qualities - they would simply allow them to re-emerge by removing the factors that currently suppress them.

This insight might suggest that much of the SSIS design should focus on what to exclude rather than what to include. The goal would be creating an environment where, as in your hiking experience, people naturally rediscover their quintessential human qualities simply through living in conditions that don't disrupt them. The sanctuary becomes less about actively shaping human behavior and more about providing the space and conditions for natural human qualities to reassert themselves.