On September 26, 2009, World Wide Views on Global Warming organized the first-ever, globe-encompassing democratic deliberation in world history. WWViews enabled roughly 4,400 citizens from 38 countries all over the world to define and communicate their positions on issues central to the U.N. climate change negotiations, which will take place in Copenhagen from December 7–18, 2009.
We have all heard the term “Nutty Professor,” which brings to mind the highly intelligent yet socially inept individual; excelling in the academic world, yet failing miserably in the realm of common sense. Is there an evolutionary explanation for why this phenomenon exists?
We stand at a nexus of unimaginable technological potential, and unprecedented global challenges. How we develop and use science and technology over the coming decades will determine the quality (and possibly even the quantity) of life for coming generations.
Among the silliest arguments against the reality of global warming are anecdotal reports that “our weather here has been colder than usual,” or “it’s snowing way earlier than most years,” or “look at all this rain!”
I’ve often said that transhumanism is supported and strengthened by three basic impulses, namely the upholding of our reproductive, morphological and cognitive liberties. Should any one of these be absent, the tripod cannot stand. We transhumanists stand divided on any number of issues; put us in a room together and you’re guaranteed to get an argument. But one aspect that unites virtually all of us is our steadfast commitment to biolibertarianism —the suggestion that people, for the most part, deserve considerable autonomy over their minds, bodies and reproductive processes.
On October 8-9, roughly 150 invited guests—graduate students, researchers, government officials, and consultants gathered in North Carolina to discuss priorities and provide recommendations to businesses and policy makers to ensure the safe development of nanotechnology.
Consumption, goes the tale, is the great driver of ecological disruption. Hence, green consumers will save the planet (a safe planet being one with sustainable ecological and energy systems). Right? Wrong.
Recently the fight between the two transhumanist groups in Italy has spilled over onto English language blogs. One side is accused of harboring fascists, the other of being conservatives and closet Papists. I’ve asked one of the individuals at the center of the controversy, Stefano Vaj, to present a statement of his political stance here which will hopefully help clarify this very confusing and troubling situation.
I am often asked what is the single most important issue that needs to be resolved in order to insure that health care reform moves forward in America. The answer is actually quite simple. If the key reason to reform the health care system is to extend health insurance coverage to the tens of millions of Americans who have none, then all those promoting reform but especially President Obama must drive home the ethical position that health care is a right.
As a political theorist who works on issues that intersect the biological sciences and medicine, I frequently get puzzled looks when I tell students and colleagues I am working on aging and longevity science. Their puzzlement is understandable, as these topics do not currently receive much attention in the discipline.
Science and spirituality in Western civilization began to go their separate ways centuries ago, when astronomy, biology and other observational and experimental disciplines showed in no uncertain terms that the religious world-view inherited from the Bronze Age religions of the Middle East did not correspond to the world that could be measured. The Earth most definitely revolves around the Sun, and not the other way round.
We are very pleased to announce that Dr. Arthur Caplan, one of the world’s foremost bioethicists, has agreed to serve on the IEET’s Board of Trustees. The other current member of the Board is Martine Rothblatt. We are in the process of gathering a few more members for this body to help the IEET establish a serious philanthropic base, and promote our technoprogressive policy options in the marketplace of ideas.
Would a person whose immune system starts declining after puberty, and finally gives up before 123, be normal? This statement largely sums up my transhumanist view that “normal” is misunderstood. The physiological (cognitive and the somatic) state of human existence “normality” ought to be a state of enhancement.