Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies


The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.


Search the IEET
Subscribe and Contribute to:


Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Overview of technopolitics


whats new at ieet

BlockCon 2017

Why the politics of the future is technology and technology is the future of politics

How to Plug the Robot Responsibility Gap

Facing a future of technologic wonders: Artificial Intelligence

IEET Affiliate Scholar John Danaher on TED

How to Talk with Your Kid about Abortion—Especially Your Abortion


ieet books

Surviving the Machine Age: Intelligent Technology and the Transformation of Human Work
Author
Kevin LaGrandeur and James Hughes eds.





JET

Enframing the Flesh: Heidegger, Transhumanism, and the Body as “Standing Reserve”

Moral Enhancement and Political Realism

Intelligent Technologies and Lost Life


Comment on this entry

A New Focus for the IEET


November 03, 2016

Dear IEET friends and supporters. It is time for the IEET to undergo a major change of course.


...

Complete entry


COMMENTS



Posted by clfh  on  11/03  at  11:12 PM

I’m not a member of your community, just a casual observer, but I think the logic of your proposed repositioning is correct.

This would put you on a parallel trajectory to Yanis Varoufakis’ Diem25 (Democracy in Europe by 2025 movement), which is seeking to reform / rescue Europe by developing new bottom-up democratic mechanisms.

Diem25’s emphasis at the moment appears to be on building new patterns of political organization at the city level; I could see your community working on technological enhancements to democratic processes and ways of defending the integrity of and access to knowledge (sadly, in this ‘post factual’ climate, where knowledge and expertise are under attack from the alt-right, this may become a vital, defensive role for progressives).

I can forsee some productive cross-fertilization of ideas between progressive movements such as these.

Oh, and please don’t drop the ethical / spiritual dimension of your work. It’s essential that this kind of community endorses, protects and enhances what I take to be a core progressive creed of the ‘goodness’ of people working co-operatively to serve others.





Posted by BTZero  on  11/08  at  02:14 PM

I believe that a new democratic consensus is the most difficult and most essential component of the realization of a technoprogressivist future; focusing more exclusively on consensus-building makes sense to me. After reading Cyborg Democracy, I think that the economic elements of such a future deserve significant attention, as it’s quite likely that technology-biased skills change and the culmination of the Industrial Revolution will come about sooner than nonhumans with the capacity for citizenship or perhaps even humans born of artificial wombs.

This recent Project Syndicate article [https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/basic-income-funded-by-capital-income-by-yanis-varoufakis-2016-10] floats an idea for funding a universal income through the semi-nationalization of capital growth by appropriating funds raised through IPOs. Not only do I think that is a much-needed iteration on the UBI policy proposal generally, I think it provides a good frame for thinking about the type of mixed economy that is necessary to support a society of rapibldy-diversifying persons without much toil available to them to generate income. If we look at economic growth as a fundamental result of adding value to capital stock (natural resources, energy collection and production, new inventions and discoveries) through the application of sentient effort and intelligence, accept the use of currency as a means for homogenizing a network of social interactions understood to have persistent value (cf David Graeber), and build in risk and fault tolerance through social insurance (health insurance, unemployment, income insurance through term life), we begin to see a system of sentient interaction able to grow, learn, and adapt efficiently and apart from any specific value system (such as capitalism). The intersection of a technoprogressive, perhaps postcapitalist, economic system and a transhuman system of rights and responsibilities is something we likely only have a decade or two to figure out, and is something that if neglected can bring real harm even before transhuman technological advances are fully realized.

What I’m having a hard time conceptualizing in particular is a consistent treatment of real estate in a sentience-focused postcapitalist economy. Technological and materials-based advances and innovations can quickly be brought into a public sphere in a way that both benefits the owner or creator and society at large, and raw materials themselves can be sold on a market. Real estate, often inherited, usually a source of rent (not really a progressive artifact of capitalism), subject to highly variable measurements of value, can’t really be made fungible. What to do with it?





Posted by instamatic  on  11/08  at  07:05 PM

The intersection of a technoprogressive, perhaps postcapitalist, economic system and a transhuman system of rights and responsibilities is something we likely only have a decade or two to figure out

Likely more than two decades.

What I’m having a hard time conceptualizing in particular is a consistent treatment of real estate in a sentience-focused postcapitalist economy. Technological and materials-based advances and innovations can quickly be brought into a public sphere in a way that both benefits the owner or creator and society at large, and raw materials themselves can be sold on a market. Real estate, often inherited, usually a source of rent (not really a progressive artifact of capitalism), subject to highly variable measurements of value, can’t really be made fungible. What to do with it?

That is a real hard one to figure. It is IMO quite interesting- yet it is also a very broad question. You’d need a genius to come up with something suitable.
———————————

At any rate, IEET changed for the better immediately after Buddhist Right Speech was instituted: thus Buddhist topics relatable to the future (e.g. Western-Asian connections) could every six months or so be the subject of an article.
As a reminder that we ought to pay more attention to the East.





Posted by dilgreen  on  11/20  at  06:02 PM

Having been spending increasing amounts of time over the past year immersing myself in a variety of Futurist scenarios, and melding this with my long term interest in complexity. Systems thinking and AI, I found myself coming to a clear conclusion, which it seems the IEET arrived at some time ago - that a sufficiently robust and fit-for-purpose ethical framework is the sine-qua-non for building viable responses to the questions that arise when thinking in this area.
Further, it seems clear that an ethical framework which is not widely shared, easily communicable and well formed for useful application is just another talking point, and therefore functionally weak.
I proposed a project to develop such an ethics, and David Wood of Transpolitica challenged me to develop the idea.
The result is here: https://transpolitica.org/2016/10/16/project-for-a-progressive-ethics/
I think this has some resonance with the new direction for the IEET suggested in the article.






Add your comment here:


Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:


HOME | ABOUT | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET 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.

Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
35 Harbor Point Blvd, #404, Boston, MA 02125-3242 USA
Email: director @ ieet.org