Technology drives change. And, by definition, change turns the world upside down. So it takes a perfectly good blue-blood nobleman and turns him into a pauper. It takes a king and, at best, makes him a ceremonial figurehead with no real power. It takes a shepherd and makes him a laborer, hopefully a member of the middle-class or, occasionally, a capitalist. And so, in the end, technology, as a bringer of change, is about politics. Because, as my undegraduate textbook defined it, politics is about “who gets what, from whom, under what condi...
James Hughes on Night White Skies Podcast
Bernie Has Some Questions For Trump’s Education Pick…
The world doesn’t need more nuclear weapons
Moral Machines: From Machine Ethics to Value Alignment
A political party for women’s equality
US Government ‘Preparing for the Future of Artificial Intelligence’ Discussion with James Hughes
Aaron Wright on Blockchains and the Law
Toyota’s $1 Billion AI Investment
Growing Bricks From Bacteria
The Coming Transhuman Era
Can a divided America heal?
How the Internet of Things Will Change the World
Create Anything You Want With Programmable Matter
How STEM Was Born: And Why Scientists Needs Humanists
Subscribe to IEET Lists Daily News Feed
Longevity Dividend List
Catastrophic Risks List
Biopolitics of Popular Culture List
L’élection de 2017 approche, et le transhumanisme reste peu présent dans le débat politique. Pourtant, l’humanité est capable de grandes choses quand elle s’en donne les moyens : envoyer un homme sur la Lune ou, plus récemment, le Human Brain Project en Suisse (visant à simuler un cerveau humain complet).
In December and January we surveyed the IEET audience about a wide range of topics, and 455 of you responded. This was a follow up to a 2013 survey we conducted (for instance “Who are the Technoprogressives?” “Who are the IEET’s audience?”). As we continue to focus the IEET on building the emerging technoprogressive ideological current, we are again looking at what the self-described technoprogressives believe.
Singularity.FM Podcaster and author, Nikola Danaylov was recently recognized as an Amazon #1 International Best Seller for his new book, “Conversations with the Future: 21 Visions for the 21st Century.”
Freedom is important. Modern liberal societies are built around it. Citizens fight for their fundamental freedoms — rights to speech, thought, religious expression, education, work and so on — and governments are evaluated relative to their success in securing these freedoms. But liberal freedom is a highly contested concept.
Amongst the criticisms often directed at transhumanist ideas, one of the most common is the prediction that access to the technologies on which it depends will mostly be limited to a small affluent minority. This veritable “apartheid by technology” would create a divide into the commonality of the human race, and produce two or more human classes moving at different speeds, which would be the source of inequality and new forms of exploitation.
It is a noticeable feature of intellectual life that many people research the same topics, but do so using different conceptual and disciplinary baggage, and consequently fail to appreciate how the conclusions they reach echo or complement the conclusions reached by others.
We asked “How should technoprogressives resist the rise of global fascism?” You were divided in your preferred strategies.
IEET Fellows Martine Rothblatt and Douglas Rushkoff, and IEET contributor Lawrence Krauss, have endorsed the “Science Missionary” campaign of the Brighter Brains Institute that is sending technology to rural Uganda. The charitable drive will focus on solar energy, clean water, eco-briquettes, medicine, and internet access.
(The following is, roughly, the text of a talk I delivered to the IP/IT/Media law discussion group at Edinburgh University on the 25th of November 2016. The text is much longer than what I actually presented and I modified some of the concluding section in light of the comments and feedback I received on the day. I would like to thank all those who were present for their challenging and constructive feedback. All of this builds on a previous post I did on the ‘logical space of algocracy’)