When we sit back and think about how matter in its simplest stable macro form like protons, neutrons, and electrons, with properties that have the ability to retain information about how to carry on its complexity within different environmental factors, we reach a point where we can imagine these stable forms of matter becoming processes of life. We naturally use our mind to create conceptions of the nature of physical and chemical processes.
We don’t live in scientifically or technologically advanced times. We live in a scientifically and technologically patchy world, one in which different societies, industries, individuals, and even specific roles of individuals have all adopted widely separated levels of technology.
I am attending today’s session of the transhumanist conference, Euro-style, where I will speak this afternoon. I will also offer brief reports throughout the day on other presentations.
This article is not about nihilism, but about epistemology and ontology, the end result in the form of scientific value of existence. Ethics from a nihilist-like world makes sense in light of current theories of existence. Human V2.0, or posthumans, will have to deal with the same scientific paradigms as we do today. Their sped-up cognition may allow for paradigms to come and go quickly, but let’s imagine that the meaning to existence is still not answered, that it all comes down to agnostic, atheistic value.
Dr. Patrick Lin, a Fellow of the IEET and an assistant professor of philosophy at California Polytechnic State University, was a featured guest on a recent edition of the NPR program “Talk of the Nation,” discussing the ethics of robot warfare.
This week saw the return of Caprica. In its world with technology not too far beyond our own, Caprica jumped right back into action with a premiere remarkably relevant to transhumanism. While Sister Clarice seeks to attract followers to her religion with an artificial heaven, Daniel Graystone wants to win back his company with software to remove the pain of a loved one’s death.
IEET Director George Dvorsky was a featured guest on a recent edition of “The Mark Radio,” talking about transhuman-tech developments we can expect to see in the coming decades.
Why do people believe different paradigms and memes over others? At this point in time there are a number of theories that can be utilized to answer this question but they remain crude in nature.
Hungry? Want to devour a monstrous meal of chicken, pork, beef, orange juice, soybeans, coffee, corn, bananas, and chocolate [cacao & sugar]? Scoop it out of your iron skillet while wiping your saliva with a cotton napkin? And afterwards… relax with some tobacco and a drive in your ethanol-powered auto?
Nearly 70% of those who answered an IEET poll question say the human libido is here to stay. Though it may become adjustable and even optional, enhanced humans or posthumans are likely to retain some form of the libido for its social bonding function “” not to mention its pleasure factor!
While traveling to the World Economic Forum meeting in China, I came across a new paper that piques my interest. The paper is by David Keith at the University of Calgary (published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science), and is a theoretical investigation of how injecting large quantities of precisely engineered particles into the upper atmosphere might provide a cost-effective tool for climate intervention - geoengineering.
Nature’s Nicola Jones asked me to comment on Singularity University for an article she was putting together; that article is now available. She included a couple of brief observations of mine, but I thought it would be useful to show the full context of my thoughts.
How is gay marriage in America proceeding down the aisle? This question concerns all transhumanists because persecution of homosexuality is an anti-Enlightenment human rights violation that is rooted in archaic religious superstition and anti-scientific thought. Actively supporting gay marriage is the ethically responsible position for all progressive transhumanists.
The ongoing debate between PZ Myers and Ray Kurzweil about reverse engineering the human brain is fairly representative of the same debate that’s been going in futurist circles for quite some time now. And as the Myers/Kurzweil conversation attests, there is little consensus on the best way for us to achieve human-equivalent AI.
A clear plurality, though not a majority, of respondents to a recently concluded poll agree that no matter how far ahead we look, the exercise of politics will remain vital.
Imagine this sci-fi scenario: A small tribe with unique literature, customs and myths believes they’ve been “chosen” for a glorious destiny. But they’re driven out of their native land, forced to wander the globe for aeons, persecuted and annihilated, until they’re impelled by a utopian novel to return to their homeland. They name their new city after the inspirational book and their country becomes a technological powerhouse… but still, they’re surrounded by enemies. They wage eternal war, they hover between hope and apocalypse”¦ their contributions to humanity are astounding but they continue to fear total extinction. Familiar? Of course. I’ve described Israel and the Jews.
The ongoing debate between PZ Myers and Ray Kurzweil about reverse engineering the human brain is fairly representative of the same debate that’s been going in futurist circles for quite some time now. And as the Myers/Kurzweil conversation attests, there is little consensus on the best way for us to achieve human-equivalent AI.
The attitudes of IEET readers toward spending time in a future idealized version of virtual reality cover a broad spectrum, from very little interest to a readiness for 100% immersion.
Radical transhumanists, singularitarians, and other technophilic transcendentalists are sometimes heard to say things like, “Soon we’ll see the end of politics.” Are they right, or are they clueless?
Recently I was contacted by a reporter for a major newspaper and asked to answer a few questions about “future trends in emerging technologies.” Here is what I said.
Given the current state of technology, reproductive cloning is not a safe and effective means of human reproduction. Cloning reduces genetic diversity, is beneficial neither for the child nor the parent, and without restrictions could create many legal and social problems.
If you could live in a world that was just the way you wanted it to be, with specifications you’d chosen, customized and personalized to meet your every need and fulfill your fondest desires, would you spend all your time there? Or would you prefer to stay here, in the real world?
Unless you were born about five minutes ago (in which case you’re probably not reading this article), odds are that in 90 years you will not still be alive, based on current life expectancy figures. But could something happen between now and then to give you a chance, no matter how old you are today?
When assessing the likelihood of human extinction before the end of this century, respondents to a recently concluded IEET reader poll fall into three distinct camps.
IEET Blog |
email list |
newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.
Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT
06106 USA
Email: director @ ieet.org phone:
860-297-2376
IEET Blog