Why the single payer is a far better bet than a public option. Why the jobs may not come back. Why a 35 hour 4 day week is even better than a 40 hour 4 day week. Why seniors need to be biotechnologically enabled and encouraged to work longer.
IEET readers appear to be mostly optimistic about our civilization’s chances for survival by the end of the 21st century. In a recent poll, every multiple choice response that was either positive or neutral was selected more often than any of those that were negative.
Nanoethics. Neuroethics. Synbioethics. How many bioethics subfields do we really need to grapple with the issues at the cutting edge of contemporary science? Maybe just one, suggest the authors of a recent report from the Hastings Center and the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars: an ethics of emerging technologies. Gregory Kaebnick and Andrew Light talk with Managing Editor Andrew Pratt About the Ethics of Emerging Technologies. Read the article here. Listen to the interview here.
Abstract: The prospect of neurotechnologies for mood manipulation alarms some people who worry about the pernicious effects they might have. In particular there is a concern that individuals will be pressured to make themselves inauthentically happy, and tolerant of things that should make them sad or angry. The most common result of social pressures to adjust mood will likely be far more beneficial both for the individual and society. This essay reviews research on the stresses of “emotion work” and the personality correlates of “subjective well-being” to argue that social pressures will generally encourage individuals to be happy by encouraging them to be more friendly, patient, and engaged. Several more pernicious kinds of social pressures for mood control are then reviewed to illustrate the need for democratic scrutiny of the use of neurotechnologies, guided by a goal of encouraging an engaged, dynamic, flourishing personality in each citizen.
Radio Lab is one of the most awesome podcasts/radio programs in the audiosphere. Here Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich work their magic again, this time on the topic of death.
1. Soul Has Weight, Physician Thinks: Biologist Lee Silver tells us the story of a physician’s ambitious 1907 experiment to discover the weight of the soul.
2. Metamorphosis: One possibility of the afterlife from David Eagleman, read by actor Jeffrey Tambor.
3. When Am I Dead?: Is life over when your heart stops beating? When you take your last breath? When your brain fizzles out? Author and researcher Gary Greenberg and John Troyer explore these questions.
4. Anyone for Tennis?: We ask neuroscientist Adrian Owen, can the dead play tennis?
5. 4 Seconds Down: Soren Wheeler tells the story of Ken Baldwin, a man who is looking for death but finds a new view on life.
6. Am I Dead?: Neurological psychologist Paul Broks introduces us to a patient who thinks she’s dead.
7. If I Only Had A Brain: If you don’t have one anymore, David Eagleman tells Jad and Robert he knows the next best thing.
8. Ineffable: A story on the afterlife by David Eagleman from his book SUM, read by actor Jeffrey Tambor.
9. Booyah Mozart: Producer Lulu Miller brings us a conversation with geologist Jan Zalasiewicz about what we’ll leave behind … in a hundred million years.
10. Cyberternity: Producer Emily Voigt tells a story about a guy named Wyatt, fixed in time.
11. Goodbye: Paleontologist and professor Peter Ward describes the ultimate death, the death of the universe ... THE END.
An article I posted here two days ago apparently gave an impression different from what I intended to convey. To begin with, the title (“Drawing Lines”) was poorly chosen, since it implies that I’m in favor of making sharp distinctions between what technoprogressives should and should not believe. The title was only meant to indicate the subject matter—i.e., whether such lines should be drawn—and not to suggest that they definitely ought to be.
Over on Hacker News, GraffitiTim points out something interesting: “The first civilization started in Mesopotamia around 5000 BCE (more or less), which is 7,000 years ago. If you live until age 80, that’s more than 1% of the history of civilization.” So you can expect to live for more than 1% of the life span of human civilization to this date.
If mating is partly about choosing half the genome of your children, do your potential partners in parenting have an obligation to disclose that they have had so much “work” done on their face and body that they now look nothing like their original phenotype? Will cosmetics and plastic surgery blunt the selection of more beautiful women via sexual selection?
We invest money, time, and effort in procuring the best possible hardware and software for our projects. In the same manner, we want the people in our teams to have the necessary knowledge and skills. We can be quite vocal in our beliefs that people are the most important asset, and ongoing education a necessity of the modern economy. Except that when it comes to learning, we are really, really bad.
Dan Novak teaches about The Sixties, philosophy and futurism at the University of Rhode Island. A veteran of the spiritual counterculture and the political Left, Dan talks with Dr. J. about globalization, spirituality, the Marxist writer Ernst Bloch, and the concept of a “planetary praxis,” uniting personal spiritual growth with global social change. (MP3)
Although biotechnology patents existed prior to the 1980s as the biotechnology era officially began, they soon became a divisive public policy issue. Perhaps a culture war issue is more appropriate as the free market approach of using DNA patents in biomedical research is under fire from strange bedfellows, a bioconservative-technoprogressive axis. The bioconservative criticisms are on moral grounds and the technoprogressive criticisms for economic reasons based on values.
Stewart Brand, who helped usher in the environmental movement in the 1960s and ‘70s, has been rethinking his positions on cities, nuclear power, genetic modification and geoengineering. This talk at the US State Department, a foretaste of his major new book, is sure to provoke widespread debate.
Marking the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11, we present some thoughts on a technoprogressive approach to space policy. One of the IEET’s projects is to begin a discussion among technoprogressives about the parameters of technoprogressive policy ideas, using our “Technoprogressive Policy Wiki”. The policy wiki is outlined, but empty, and we have provided our interns with some parameters for how to begin filling it in. The goal is not to express “the IEET’s position” on any specific topic, but to explore our own internal agreements and diversity about policy topics, while pointing to relevant websites, documents, and policies. Ben’s piece here on space policy was developed after conversation with the executive director, and then review and extension by the IEET Fellows and staff. Like the rest of the wiki we expect it to continually evolve. We present it here for further critique and extension before we add it to the policy wiki. - J. Hughes
During almost 20 years inside the health insurance industry, Wendell Potter saw for-profit insurers hijack the U.S. health care system and put profits before patients. Here, he speaks with Bill Moyers about how those companies are standing in the way of responsible health care reform.
Transhumanism’s relationship with postmodern philosophy and critical theory is a strange one. For example, Nick Bostrom’s influential “A History of Transhumanist Thought” spans centuries, covering the gamut from Utnapishtim to the President’s Council on Bioethics, but makes little mention of those who radically challenge the core Enlightenment narrative upon which he builds his history. Figures like Nietzsche, Marx, and Donna Haraway do all receive a nod in Bostrom’s essay, including Haraway’s cyberfeminist motto, “I’d rather be a cyborg than a goddess,” but their ideas go unanalyzed. Of course, the context for these thinkers is often ignored and their works simply mined for epigraphs and potent, argument-punctuating lines such as Haraway’s.
We are used to scale being the telltale characteristic of state involvement in warfare. Individuals can go on shooting sprees, and terrorist cells can put bombs, but only states can engage in large-scale warfare. But, as most metaphors of the ‘cyber-’ kind, this intuition breaks down with so-called cyberwarfare.
If you had been born with your exact genetic makeup, but in another time and place, would you still have achieved whatever success you’ve had? Is the happiness you’ve gained mostly a matter of effort and determination, or do you owe a lot of your accomplishments to a fortunate but accidental combination of timing and location?
Dr. Massimo Pigliucci critiqued my arguments against aging on his blog, Rationally Speaking. Pigliucci is a trained philosopher, so I’m going to go into hyper-academic mode for a while on this post. If you’re into long-winded, nuanced logical deconstructions of arguments and overly dry chest-beating, please read on. If not, check out these awesome warning signs of the future from Anders Sandberg. Make your choice now.