Will Saletan is the occasionally brilliant and occasionally incendiary bioethics columnist for Slate.com. He is no friend of transhumanism, but gives us some grudging appreciation this week:

I remember going to a transhumanist conference a couple of years ago. For those of you who don’t know them, transhumanists are people who believe in the technological transformation of humanity into something greater. When I first left politics to cover this beat, I took a pretty conservative line on bioethics generally, and the transhumanists sounded pretty fruity to me. Well, they’re still kind of fruity. But they certainly are interesting, if you treat them as a voice in the public dialogue rather than as a threat to dictate future policy and destroy human nature (whatever that is). And the more you listen to their assault on conservative assumptions, the more you find yourself asking questions about the way things are and whether they have to be that way. Those are good questions to ask.

Everybody is atwitter about the survey results in Nature which showed that 20% of respondents, mostly scientists, had taken cognitive enhancement drugs other than caffeine.





I especially liked Io9’s coverage, ”62 Percent of Pill-Popping Scientists Use Ritalin” Almost half of the cognition enhancing minority had used modafanil (Provigil), and 80% of all respondents in the Nature poll thought people should be allowed to take cognitive enhancers. 

Annalee Newitz on why the pregnant transman is finally hitting the big time in public consciousness, and what he portends:

So maybe medical technology is just now catching up with cultural shifts, or maybe cultural shifts are pushing us to use technologies we’ve had for a while in new gender-blurring ways. All I know is that biotechnology is making theories of gender fluidity concrete, making ideas into flesh. And we’re seeing a pattern that always emerges when we’re right on the edge of accepting a big social change. First, the ideas turn into something real that people can touch—or, in the case of Beatie, talk to. And then comes the next phase. Whatever that may be.

(Hat tip to Io9) Transhuman is a new graphic novel series from Jonathan Hickman and JM Ringuet framed as a “a mockumentary about genetic engineering, superheroes and the effort to mass-market a combination of the two. A 5-page preview of the first issue is here (PDF)

I need to find out who put this very cool self-diagnostic together for SAGE Crossroads because it is great!

Notice how they have parsed apart “BioLuddite” “Luddite” “transhumanist” “technoprogressive” and “Bioconservative”. The model makes the assumption that their will be some meaningful variance between support/opposition towards bio-tech versus nanotech. Thats probably not the case, but you can’t tell it from their results yet since three quarters of the people taking the quiz have ended up in the transhumanist corner. My results:

You Score as a Transhumanist-Biotech

Transhumanists believe that humanity can and should strive to attain higher levels of physical, mental, and social achievement through the use of technology. They seek to extend human capabilities and improve the human condition through technology- supporting the quest for immortality, the conquering of death and disease, the amplification of human intelligence, and the capabilities of the human body.

Transhumanists recognize that over time and with technological advancements, man will realize new possibilities for society and human nature and achieve a posthuman condition (becoming more than human).  Societal change is an important consequence of technological progress.

Because of this passionate trust in technological advancement, transhumanists generally see all technologies, as long as they don’t jeopardize the non-corporeal consciousness of a person, as being beneficial both to society and to the happiness and advancement of the person.  Transhumanists see benefit not only in technologies that address medical necessities, but also aesthetic or recreational demands. They support advances in cybernetics, genetic engineering in clinical settings, embryo design, and other technologies that allow individuals to take control of their biology, and the human species to take control of evolution.

Transhumanists can be either hard-technology oriented--more inclined to add microchips and machines to their lifestyle--or bio-technology oriented--preferring the softer, more natural advancements and modifications that are made available.

72.8% of people also scored as TB
7.4% of people scored as BC
1.2% of people scored as BL
0% of people scored as LU
0.6% of people scored as TC
18% of people scored as TP

Test Your Techno Tolerance!

How far will you go to live forever?

Do you envision the future as a time when your physical body will no longer be the limit to your abilities? Does the idea of living forever tantalize your mind? On the flip side, would you like to revert back to a simple, down to earth agrarian lifestyle? Should the invention of the wheel - or at most the horse and buggy- have been the final frontier in technological advancement? Take this quiz to find out where you stand!

These questions should unearth your inner feelings about technological advancement and its role in our future. While answering the questions, assume that cost is not a barrier and that the technology is widely available. Also, if a question asks you about living a great long time, assume that your years will be spent happily on the shore of your favorite beach rather than in a hospital.

These are the ten questions I developed for the WTA as a self-diagnostic, and the percent of WTA members who agreed with each one:

95% Do you believe that people have a right to use technology to extend their mental and physical (including reproductive) capacities and to improve their control over their own lives?

95% [Noes] Do you think human genetic engineering is wrong because it is “playing God”?

94% Do you think that by being generally open and embracing of new technology we have a better chance of turning it to our advantage than if we try to ban or prohibit it?

93% Do you expect human progress to result from human accomplishment rather than divine intervention, grace, or redemption?

93% Do you think it would be a good thing if people could become many times more intelligent than they currently are?

87% Do you think it would be a good thing if people could live (in good health) for hundreds of years or longer?*

83% Do you believe women should have the right to terminate their pregnancies?

82% Does your ethical code advocate the well-being of all sentient beings, whether in artificial intellects, humans, posthumans, or non- human animals?

80% Would you consider having your mind uploaded to computers if it was the only way you could continue as a conscious person?

77% Should parents be able to have children through cloning once the technology is safe?

(Hat tip to Michael Stebbins) “Scientists and Engineers for America has posted a revised Bill of Rights for Scientists that sets out basic principles that all elected officials should support. Effective government depends on accurate, honest, and timely advice from scientists and engineers. But the ability of scientists to present the best evidence and analysis possible has been eroded over time through political interference and intimidation. We should all call on our elected representatives to support these basic principles to protect the rights of scientists and engineers and science integrity within government.” If you are a US Citizen you can find your representative and ask them if they support the Bill of Rights for Scientists on SEA’s SHARP Network.

Bill of Rights for Scientists and Engineers

1. Public policy shall be made using the best available scientific, technical, and engineering knowledge.
2. No government organization shall knowingly distribute false or misleading information.
3. Government funding for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education shall only be used for evidence-based curricula.
4. No one should fear reprisals or intimidation because of the results of his or her research.
5. Scientists, technologists, and engineers conducting research or analysis with public funding shall be free of unreasonable restrictions in discussing and publishing their work, and the results of governmentally-funded research and analysis shall be made open to the public without unreasonable delay.
6. A clear, public, and transparent process shall be used to make decisions about restricting public access to information for reasons of national security. There shall be a process for challenging decisions, and remedial measures to correct mistakes and abuses of the classification system.
7. Employees exposing what they believe to be manipulation of research and analysis for political or ideological reasons shall be protected from intimidation, retribution, or adverse personnel action resulting from the decision to speak out.
8. Appointments to publicly funded advisory committees shall be based on professional and academic qualifications, not political affiliation or ideology.

“A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.” Oscar Wilde

Michael Anissimov, IEET contributor and WTA Board member, become a prominent transhumanist writer and thinker fifteen years ago or so when he was a pre-teen, and now in his twenties is beginning to come to some conclusions about risk and regulation that a lot of techno-utopians need to hear. In a recent article ”The Religion of Science” he writes:

Among scientists and the scientifically literate public, there is a strong movement that says: “if science can be done, it should be done”. That is, all possible avenues of research should be pursued because the benefits always outweigh the risks, and anyone who disagrees is being anti-science. This stance might be called the flip-side of anarcho-primitivism. I call it the Religion of Science.

A hearty huzzah! from those of us who have been decrying technolibertarianism and urging an embrace of responsible regulatory approaches to emerging technologies.

Michael concludes:

When I see people calling me a “Luddite” for worrying about future technological developments, I think one of two things. Either they greatly underestimate the transformative power of the technology they themselves advocate, or they recklessly support scientific research without considering all the consequences…

Without universally followed regulations and guidelines, things could get way out of control. I am not an authoritarian, but when you give humans a power that basically amounts to magic, ground rules have to be set and followed. Some avenues of research may even need to be abandoned.

(George notes : ) Edge.org‘s big question this year is, “What have you changed your mind about?” Sir Martin Rees answered, ”We Should Take the ‘Posthuman’ Era Seriously.” Excerpt:

Human-induced changes are occurring with runaway speed. It’s hard to predict a mere century from now, because what will happen depends on us - this is the first century where humans can collectively transform, or even ravage, the entire biosphere. Humanity will soon itself be malleable, to an extent that’s qualitatively new in the history of our species. New drugs (and perhaps even implants into our brains) could change human character; the cyberworld has potential that is both exhilarating and frightening. We can’t confidently guess lifestyles, attitudes, social structures, or population sizes a century hence.

Indeed, it’s not even clear for how long our descendants would remain distinctively ‘human’. Darwin himself noted that “not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity”. Our own species will surely change and diversify faster than any predecessor—via human-induced modifications (whether intelligently-controlled or unintended), not by natural selection alone. Just how fast this could happen is disputed by experts, but the post-human era may be only centuries away.

These thoughts might seem irrelevant to practical discussions - and best left to speculative academics and cosmologists. I used to think this. But humans are now, individually and collectively, so greatly empowered by rapidly changing technology that we can, by design, or as unintended consequences - engender global changes that resonate for centuries. And, sometimes at least, policy-makers indeed think far ahead.

The global warming induced by fossil fuels burnt in the next fifty years could trigger gradual sea level rises that continue for a millennium or more. And in assessing sites for radioactive waste disposal, governments impose the requirements that they be secure for ten thousand years.

It’s real political progress that these long-term challenges are higher on the international agenda, and that planners seriously worry about what might happen more than a century hence.

But in such planning, we need to be mindful that it may not be people like us who confront the consequences of our actions today. We are custodians of a ‘posthuman’ future - here on Earth and perhaps beyond - that can’t just be left to writers of science fiction.

Rees is the President, The Royal Society; Professor of Cosmology & Astrophysics; Master, Trinity College, University of Cambridge; Author, Our Final Century: The 50/50 Threat to Humanity’s Survival.

(George notes) PUMA takes you to the world of football in the year 2178 AD where they launch the v1.178 Speed Legs and transform the game as we know it. Oscar Pistorius, eat your heart out.





You can see a much better version at the PUMA site.