„Eugenik auf Steroiden“: das giftige und umstrittene Erbe des Oxford Future of Humanity Institute | Technologie | Der Wächter
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/apr/28/nick-bostrom-controversial-future-of-humanity-institute-closure-longtermism-affective-altruism
6 Kommentare
Two weeks ago it was quietly announced that the Future of Humanity Institute, the renowned multidisciplinary research centre in Oxford, no longer had a future. It [shut down without warning on 16 April](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/apr/19/oxford-future-of-humanity-institute-closes). Initially there was just a brief statement on its website stating it had closed and that its research may continue elsewhere within and outside the university.
The institute, which was dedicated to studying existential risks to humanity, was founded in 2005 by the Swedish-born philosopher Nick Bostrom and quickly made a name for itself beyond academic circles – particularly in Silicon Valley, where a number of tech billionaires sang its praises and provided financial support.
The idea of eugenics isn’t inherently evil. There’s nothing wrong with the idea of making people healthier and more capable. It was the methods used by many eugenicists were unimaginably evil and the great danger of eugenics is that evil people can use it to justify the horrors they want to see inflicted on others.
Pay as much attention to the methods someone is willing to use to achieve their stated goals as you do their stated goals. Those methods tell you more about the kind of person you are dealing with (and what they will do with power) than their stated goals ever can.
That is a clear-cut smear campaign.
„Eugenics“ is an unredeemable word. Creating a fancy word to describe good breeding—a value that predates civilization—was a bad idea. Giving it a name corrupts it and makes it become a label.
It doesn’t help that there are an excessive number of edgelords on Twitter who will use that term, put on any hood that fits, and paint a target on their own back.
It appears that the author of the piece had a very limited knowledge of effective altruism. It exists before the FHI and is largely unrelated to artificial intelligence. It’s simply the notion that, in situations where resources are scarce, you should use an evidence base to determine how best to use them, which may involve conducting experiments and pilot projects.
The Guardian article is disappointing. The title is clearly click bait and while it is based on a quote from this Torres person who helped pressure the university to shut the institute down, there is nothing in the article that lends support to the quote being true, either in terms of additional context from Torres or otherwise.
Regardless, it’s a major bummer the institute had to shut down based on what appear to be superficial social justice related pressures. It was one of the few global institutions doing truly thoughtful research into some of the most difficult challenges we are facing as a species, and which we will increasingly face over even just the next few decades.
It has been providing philosophical cover for accelerationist and eco fascists for way too long. Good riddance.