IEET > Vision > Directors > George Dvorsky > Futurism > Technoprogressivism
On the Pernicious De-Radicalization of the Radical Future
George Dvorsky   Aug 23, 2011   Sentient Developments  

Over the past several years a good number of “futurists” and all-out naysayers have systematically worked to undermine and dismiss the potential for radical change to occur in the not-too-distant future. While I’ve always been more a fan of concepts than time-lines, there is little doubt in my mind that a number of disruptive technologies that have been predicted in the past few decades will eventually come to fruition.

But it’s suddenly become very fashionable to poo-poo or sweep-aside the pending impacts of such things as the looming robotics and manufacturing revolutions, the rise of super artificial intelligence, or the migration of humans to a postbiological form. My best guesses as to why include the arrogance of the now (i.e. “we currently live at the most special of times and things will never change too significantly”), distraction (i.e. “there are other more important issues that require our attention”), fear, denial, weak imaginations, and just plain ignorance.

Here’s a quick overview of what’s coming down the pipe—developments that will forever alter what we currently think of as normalcy and the human condition:
Work for radical change

So, just keep on thinking that the future is going to be more of the same.
George P. Dvorsky serves as Chair of the IEET Board of Directors and also heads our Rights of Non-Human Persons program. He is a Canadian futurist, science writer, and bioethicist. He is a contributing editor at io9 — where he writes about science, culture, and futurism — and producer of the Sentient Developments blog and podcast. He served for two terms at Humanity+ (formerly the World Transhumanist Association). George produces Sentient Developments blog and podcast.


Most certainly, the future will not be “just more of the same.”  We, the privileged few among the technological haves, are living in transitory times. Signs of the future that will be are already apparent in our current reality.  What is generally glossed over, though, is that past and future are concurrent states. Not all of humanity is currently living in the 21st century; some have not even as yet been able to experience the advances of the 20th century.  Numerous populations have no access to adequate and reliable irrigation, sanitation, education or even rudimentary healthcare. We know this intuitively and we daily ignore it. Now our intuition also whispers “have you done unto others as you’d have them do unto you?”  Given that only a minority of a minority will likely benefit from the coming revolutionary future is it any wonder that some would ignore, reject or even fight against its coming?
The potential is there for global uplift, but there is little to scant evidence that the potential will be realized. Who among us cheerleads for our own diminishment?

Are you coming to the Singularity Summit?

If you haven’t read M. John Harrison’s “Light” and “Nova Swing” yet, then you should.

Our future will be stranger. Neither utopian nor dystopian. Just Weird beyond what we can imagine.


Publishers Weekly said ” Harrison privileges atmosphere over plot, using grotesquely beautiful narration and elliptical dialogue to convey the beautifully delineated angst of Saudade’s extraordinary inhabitants. Although not for everyone, Harrison’s trippy style will appeal to sophisticated readers who treasure the work of China Miéville and Jeff VanderMeer.” Regina Schroeder in her review for Booklist said ” with its gritty, noirish atmosphere, elements of space opera, and some impressive moments of explosive action, this is a tasty, entertaining morsel, deeply flavored to satisfy the thoughtful. Kirkus Reviews described it as “a cross between J. G. Ballard intense, static The Drowned World and Arkady and Boris Strugatsky’s terrifying Roadside Picnic. The upshot: This science-fiction noir cum literary and social criticism is memorable, perplexing and challenging in equal measure.”

“Who among us cheerleads for our own diminishment?”

In a way we do cheerlead for our own diminishment because a genuine transhumanist senses deep down we are the 21st century equivalent of Cro Magnons, in fact relatively we are far more primitive.
Dor, we don’t want to reject our humanity too much, for that would be excessive self-abnegation. However we don’t want to overestimate our humanity, either, we don’t want to make ourselves out to be more than we are; we don’t want to make human out to be more than human is. Making ourselves out to be more than we are makes us susceptible to the very pridefulness that a well-balanced religious person and or spiritualist and or humanist would want to reject. Excessive pride is as pernicious as excessive self- abnegation.
Not merely pride but also the smarm that derives from attempting to preserve hierarchies that were necessary to some extent in the past yet are eroded by the realities & possibilities of material advancement in all realms of advancement.
Being nostalgic, I notice it in others, in those more old-fashioned (for instance the Tea Party movement wistfully looking back to Boston circa 1773) a sentimentality for when we were younger and life—for many—was simpler; however escaping to to the past in our minds by overestimating our humanity, what it means to be human, doesn’t help us much in the long run to make the difficult choices to be made, it only helps us postpone the reckoning for as long as we dare do so, often attempting/succeeding in pushing the responsibility for making decisions onto someone else. By not making decisions we make often worse de facto decisions.
There are positive attributes to conservatism, the negative are: pride, smarm, nostalgia, and much else besides. People want power to among other reasons try to ward off the diminishment of their own authority whether or not they ever deserved the authority in the first place. So it is complex & complicated; exacerbated—no easy way out. In fact, no way out, really, save to accept/tolerate our own dehumanization with all its positives and whatever negatives the disruptions will exist in the future.

Au contraire, Mike. Every day life becomes stranger than fiction 😊

Every now and then, we catch really small glimpses of what life will be like post-singular. But nothing we imagine can prepare us. By definition, it is beyond our horizon of observability.

One rather obvious irony is how religious/spiritualists are actually idiosyncratic humanists, they combine their own brands of spiritual/religiosity with humanisms that are in some ways more humanist than secular humanism: as their faiths are so apparently—and unintentionally—anthropocentric & anthropomorphic. We can try to tell them (from a distance so they don’t take it out on us) that they are setting themselves for massive confusion by not comprehending how the meaning of meaning itself will change. Value as well. What a cross for the pious to bear 😊
Today’s values are neither divine nor trans-posthuman, they are, again, outmoded humanist values. In fact we have so much more in common with Cro Magnons than future beings it (as ipan wrote) is incomprehensible to us.

I would argue for a spirit of critical skepticism about how the future will be affected by radical technological change:

[1] I understand that eminent figures among the transhumanists have made prognostications that followers have relied on. Let’s agree that any prognostication that claims to be science needs to be distinguished from high-stepping, wildly speculative promises. Promising, after all,  is what politicians do. And just as a sober citizenry ought to scrutinize its politicans’ promises so too should transhumanist assertions about the future be examined for hidden agendas concerning political and personal aggrandizement/enrichment.

[2] A certain type of magical thinking among some transhumanists reflects a fear that if too many troubling questions are put forward then these questions themselves may impede progress by instilling doubt, thus decelerating the paradigm shift toward the Singularity by losing time while people discuss the implications of adopting this or that change.  But shushing critics is not an auspicious beginning to an movement that has invoked transparency and farsightedness as its key tenets. To discourage critics in this way is merely a shame tactic meant to suppress principled opposition.  Let’s keep the debate open.  Valid ideas will survive, and may even be refined by, a critical acid bath.

[3] An insidious fatalism can be observed among both the fully-fledged euphoric transhumanists, who see a rainbow over every new development and enhancement, and a counter-fatalism that, mutatis mutandis, casts a pall over these same developments and enhancements on the part of neo-Luddites who deplore the technological advances and the paradigm change.  Such fatalism muddles the ethical issues that go hand-in-hand with radical technological change.  Responsible, if skeptical, voices on transhumanist issues are needed to counter a surfeit of pollyanna-ish assurances on the part of techno-progressives and likewise to counteract the scare tactics and fear of innovation from the neo-Luddite end of the spectrum.  To expand upon a notion from Mike Treder’s preceding comment: a cautionary realism that winnows substance from nonsense will be invaluable to general understanding, and will keep all parties honest, going forward.

Not all techno-skeptics are naysayers.  Those of us who refuse complacent affirmations about The Singularity don’t seek obstruction, but seek clarity.  Reading the Singularitarian or transhumanist literature, I think clarity would be useful, as many of the transhumanist projections are just syllogisms based on: a) analogies with recent technological successes, or b) outlandish “thought experiments.”  Transhumanist claims ought to adhere to the same elementary standards of accountability and cogency as any idea.  With regard to hypothesis testing, I see no reason to grant exemptions or special treatment to transhumanist claims simply because of the avowals of inevitability that accompany them. 

Dvorsky is even-handed in presenting both the potentially dangerous and benign effects of what he sees as the coming Singularity. But reading between the lines, it seems that Dvorsky has already fatalistically called the game in the Singularity’s favor. This seems premature, although the premonitory signs cannot be discounted.

I do hope the emphasis on IEET remains open to articles on normative ethics and values, the limits of control, and consequences to humanity and the biosphere.  My feelings about this are the same as with the recent “Will You Die?” entry—I would like to see more than just an up-or-down, it’s gonna happen/it ain’t gonna happen discourse on IEET.

I see the main challenge to a radically different future to be the radically unchanged ethical compass of humanity. As the gap between rich and poor grows almost exponentially with the US ranked as 64th on the list of most equal countries and the mega rich demanding the right to get mega richer, I fear any AI produced will be programmed to protect the rich at all costs, including mass genocide of the unnecessary masses. The other areas you mention don’t alleviate that reality either.

I really think before we grow up, we will need to grow up. That will mean taking responsibility not just for our intellectual augmentation, but the development of a real ethical. You may recall in Theodore Sturgeon’s 1953 novel “More than human” that the gestalt wasn’t really more than human until it developed a higher ethos.

I embrace rational uncertainty. As such, I prefer to think in terms of possibilities and scenarios. The plausible covers a vast expanse that ranges from the total collapse of modern technological systems to a hard-takeoff Singularity. What’s critical is not telling people to suffer based on how you think the future will be.

I think the last decade, particularly the post-2008 period, has made people aware just how irrelevant most of these changes would be to their day-to-day lives. (Those that would be immediately relevant—communications and disruption, mostly as a consequence of communication—already are evident.)  Ray Kurzweil might have the money to upload his brain; 99.7% of everyone else won’t.

Ten Reasons to Take the Transhumanists, Singularitarians, Techno-Immortalists, Nano-Cornucopiasts Seriously. Fair warning, pernicious but also very fashionable futurological debunking offered.

Thanks for the laugh Dale.

Yes, but even if only a small minority turn out to be ‘true immortals’ it is worth it. As with cryonics: even if only one person is ever reanimated from cryopreservation it would be *miraculous*, worth it.
As for the unfairness, Brandon, we don’t make the rules; you would have to appeal to a higher authority than anyone at IEET. I don’t even like to talk to those in authority or be in their presence anymore, they have no intention at this time of letting go their death grip.

“... to those condemned to act accordingly
and wait for succeeding kings,
and I try to harmonize with song the lonesome sparrow sings…”
—‘Gates Of Eden’
“...the masters make the rules
for the wise men
and the fools…”
—‘It’s Alright Ma, I’m Only Bleeding’


“As the gap between rich and poor grows almost exponentially with the US ranked as 64th on the list of most equal countries and the mega rich demanding the right to get mega richer, I fear any AI produced will be programmed to protect the rich at all costs, including mass genocide of the unnecessary masses.”

Your possible scenario is something to be concerned about, Alex. One caveat is that the poor are also power-hungy and violent—so it might be worse than you think.
In America, the GOP has become the most screwed-up ‘conservative’ (anti-conservative) party in the world. The GOP has to be removed from power somehow; of course the GOP is merely a symptom rather than a cause however I’d rather vote Libertarian than GOP, if there were hypothetically no other choices. The GOP are the worst of all worlds: generally right-wing statist, sentimental, authoritarian prigs. Cripes. Perhaps God does exist and is punishing us by having created the Republican Party?

Title:We have become post-human

We made God
so that there would be
something larger, greater, grander,
to which to aspire.

We made our God perfect because
we ourselves are flawed and needed
forgiveness and understanding for
being frail, and being ugly and
being human.

We made God
so that we could
feel known while still
embracing mystery.

And as the ages passed,
we began to dismantle God,
first by asking “why?”
and then “how?”
and then “what if?”
and inevitably “why not?”
so that we ourselves have become
The Creator.
We, ourselves have become something larger, greater, grander.

And as we dismantle God,
gene by gene and byte by byte,
the mystery falls away
and we are left with explanations without depth,
knowing without ambiguity,
and we’ve now
only ourselves to blame.

So that in the dark,
and in the solitude,
and in the fleeting moments when we fear we are not enough,
when we face our flaws,
and face our ugliness
there is no longer forgiveness
because we have become post-human.

if you can put music to what you write, Columbia will give you a contract so you can headline with Phil Ochs at the Folk Festival 😊

What Alex wrote is in fact a cause for concern (‘concern’ is a euphemism for worry, isn’t it?); how ‘conservatives’ are going about it is clever: they may not be aware of what is going to happen but they know if they pile up mega-resources they can put their people in commanding positions to take advantage of whatever opportunities come along. They reckon though they themselves might not survive, their children & grandchildren probably will. Perhaps I shouldn’t put them down so much, they are crazy—but only crazy like foxes.
They are tough customers, Sport.

I agree with what you wrote above, however it is due to nostalgia- which might not be a good thing. ‘Conservatism’ might very well be sentimentality in disguise, which is somewhat disingenuous because it is being hidden. Speaking of dodgy:  maybe the height of deviousness; people hiding the fact they want to maneuver their posterity, their descendants to positions wherein they are poised to take advantage of whatever advancements the future holds. Two words: ulterior motives. You are a Christian, yes? doesn’t the Bible say “let no man deceive you?” What I despise about ‘conservatives’ and ‘Christians’ is their ulterior motives.
Naturally, it is not a hard one to figure, in the same way nations want to outflank other nations, civilians do similarly… whether it is post-Sputnik or post-human. Jockeying for advantage while attempting to hide it.
Your prosody is pretty good, Dor; Jeremy Rifkin doesn’t write well, yet he has a few important messages scattered in his works—pretty much the exact same points as yours though not expressed as well as yours. ‘Algeny’, for instance.

@MIke re “There is some tension within the leadership of the IEET — what I hope and believe is a friendly, productive tension — about just how radical the impacts of near-future emerging technologies will turn out to be. Some of us anticipate a full-blown Singularity within a decade or three, while others of us are more skeptical. ..Who knows who is right? That’s part of the fun…

And giving space to both these attitudes is part of the unique flavor of the IEET. As far as the actual “near-future” impact of emerging technologies is concerned, where “near future” means two or three decades, I tend to agree with Mike’s sober and skeptical views, but I tend to agree with the visionary radicals for the longer term.

Will the rdical future be by adoption or will it be by coersion? Presumably, as with all else, it is both/and. AI will come whether it is asked for or not, but the normalization of enhancements must come more from desire.

The space program of the 1960’s provides a case study. The space program was of military interest; we needed it to develop ICBMs. But that was most definitely not the story of Mission Control; what we believed was that it was humanity reaching for the stars. Kennedy made sure that the general public felt a part of the space program; it was “our” space program. The rocket launches during the cold war made us feel powerful and safe. And Tang was a staple on breakfast tables that quietly involved all in the narrative.
The emerging technologies are very different, often having a narrative diametrically opposed to the story of Apollo. When there is awareness in the general public, it is negative – Frankenfish and test tube babies are examples of the pejorative terms used to skew sentiment away from emerging technologies. Science fiction stories warn us of the (often very violent) dangers.
Missing are the here-and-now applications and an emphasis on human/humane benefits. Have we asked what is needed, what is valued, how will people come to love it? Have we explored the adoption curve at businesses or in homes to the extent that we’ve invested in the technological development? What is lacking is human-centered design product development. This is the blind spot for most innovation; commercialization is often an afterthought and the design lacks the needed utility and attractiveness. Steve Jobs has always understood that technology must serve human aspirations and it has made Apple the brand it is. It seems from my outsider position that the emerging technologies are developed by those in love with the technology itself. What is missing are communications that connect the future to the public, to real lives and real benefits.

“‘Conservatism’ might very well be sentimentality”

I dare say that conservatism as it exists today is anything but sentimental. There is a harshness to it, especially a failure of compassion towards the poor and elderly and concern for the global good. Rather than any kind of sadness as it relates to the shrinking of the middle class, there is almast a thrill and joy.

“What I despise about ‘conservatives’ and ‘Christians’ is their ulterior motives.”
You over-generalize, and in so doing, offend. Neither conservatives nor Christians have cornered the market on ulterior motives. Personally I believe it is part of our nature which is why trying to live an examined life is so vital; we often hide motives even from ourselves unless we try for consciousness. Yet another reason why spirituality is still needed in a transhuman age.

That said, I do believe that Dominionists who become politically active are indeed pernicious. Max Blumenthal in “Republican Gomorrah” does an excellent job of demonstrating the very real desire on the part of some to have the laws of the land based on Biblical law.

Right now the country’s narrative is foused on “the economy” but what is really at stake is the judiciary. No grand coup is required; a take-over occurs law by law and ruling by ruling. The democrats have yet to take hold of the conversation. Yes, we have 9.1% unemployment but that means the vast majority are employed. So why the anxiety? It isn’t about jobs as much as financial security in two forms: 1.) if someone loses their job, will they be able to be hired again?  and 2.)are salaries adequate to cover food, housing, healthcare and still have some left to save and spend? These are the conditions that have changed.

What has this to do with emerging technologies? It speaks directly to the pernicious Darwinist philosophy the undergirds some promoters of the coming radical future. In assuming that the future must be survival of the fittest because our history has been (presumably) based on such becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. This is not to deny evolution but to deny the fallacy that the social contract can not also evolve.

“I dare say that conservatism as it exists today is anything but sentimental.There is a harshness to it,”

they are harsh in pursuit of their sentimentality—their nostalgia for the past and for Reagan (etc.) leads them to be harsh.
BTW, notice that as soon as the Cold War ended, space interest started to diminish, as the overriding need to fight the Russians in the Space Race was no longer a motivating factor? Mission Control wasn’t so important anymore.
But for once I’ll ignore politics, would like to touch merely as a random example on one of the original naysayers, Jeremy Rifkin, and his poorly written ‘Algeny’. Through his philosophical incoherence a message did emerge: we prefer organic beings to inorganic. And it is true that at this time such is still the case. However Rifkin wasn’t looking far enough ahead. It is in fact a trade-off, we dehumanize but the positive is the dark side of what it is to be human is also lost. We have choices to make and we have to execute decisions—my judgment call would be to err on the side of dehumanization and be candid about it: we are rejecting our humanity yet not callously.
You know how when we were young we would pay attention more to the spectacular than to the subtle? I re-read Carlos Castaneda’s “Teaching Of Don Juan, a Yanqui way of knowledge”, to see a positive truism obscured by the phantasmagoria. Don Juan says at one point, “a man must be deliberate in all things”, make decisions with his eyes open. So I accept dehumanization—which is, frankly, tantamount to rejecting humanity in the long run—
deliberately, though not callously… not harshly.

“What has this to do with emerging technologies? It speaks directly to the pernicious Darwinist philosophy the undergirds some promoters of the coming radical future. In assuming that the future must be survival of the fittest because our history has been (presumably) based on such becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. This is not to deny evolution but to deny the fallacy that the social contract can not also evolve.”

It wont change for decades, not until mid-century at least;
and many will be destroyed in the process—destroyed physically, economically, psychologically, ‘spiritually’. Even Marx knew that things don’t change until all possibilities have been exhausted.
We are not spectators in a laboratory, dor: we are the lab specimens being experimented on.

The accidental process of future changing innovations:

“I visualise a time when we will be to robots what dogs are to humans. And I’m rooting for the machines.” - Claude Shannon (1916 - 2001)


Ok, more on the “weirdness” of the future, and Mike’s reference to fiction:

This is another glimpse, a taste, of how possibly strange accelerating technology is going to transform this world:


What I hope to do is to prepare people for this.

But the good news is:
by midcentury WMD stockpiles will be on the way to being dismantled;
computers will be running on Terahertz;
the entire Republican Party will relocate to another planet.

@ iPan—Re: Metachaos.  Cool vid, to be sure.  Great use of CGI; not-bad techno music; artistic—yeah, sure. This director and Nine Inch Nails ought to collaborate. But I don’t see the vid as having anything to do with accelerating technology per se (except perhaps on a tenuously impressionistic level).  When you write “What I hope to do is to prepare people for this,” what do you mean?  And preparing them for what— a frenetic B&W dystopia with flying blocks?

Maximal novelty.

The video convey’s the feeling of constant change at blinding speed that the future holds.

It may not be as dark or frightening an ambiance as this video, but it will be as chaotic, as uncertain. It may be friendlier, more pleasurable. I don’t know.

It’s one of the few way’s I have to communicate the Weird Times that the future really is, because people don’t seem to get it in words.

The orderly, sensible world we know is about to be turned inside out.

One thing is for sure: examine the trends and we see that though many indicators will improve, economic warfare will still exist.
That’s the baseline.

...BTW, I almost never watch clips because without good speaker cabinets the audio is tinny—for me similar to scratching nails on a blackboard.

one more comment, this comment might be more focused than my others and might speak more directly to what we are both getting at: I’m attempting to be more decisive than in the past—to say the least. As for optimism- it’s difficult to say; but being decisive is important, as vacillation can be even worse than pessimism!
The quote above from Castaneda in ‘The Teachings Of Don Juan’ on deliberation is spiritual, but not ethereal.

We might have to simply cut our losses; we ARE going to lose our humanity yet not necessarily our ‘souls’. What do we lose? one might say the Nomos (without going into what a VR nomos might be). However the gain might very well be equal to the loss; and perhaps it will be a good deal for very many.

Summerspeak is correct about scenarios; there are multiple futures ahead of us. While we think that we can in some way know when the radical future will arrive, what it will look like, how it will separate Homo Sapiens from our robotic overlords, we miss a simple truth of both history and physics: time does not exist in a linear form. We will be living side-by-side, life-by-life with extremes. I can say this with confidence because it is already true. Exponential change will only make the contrasts more stark, extending the chasms we see in societal arenas to our very biology.
The future gushes forth, knows all, is led by visions birthed in pride, raised in the certainty that that which is yet unknown will no doubt be better, more cherished, worth all the beauty and wealth of the present.  We long for the promise in part because we feel the disappointments of the present. It is humbling, then, to realize that we are the future once imagined by other generations. We were the hope that they had longed for. But we speed on ahead unaware that we are already in Eden, have always been so, if we could but choose to look to the other whom we despise (or worse, ignore) instead with love. We of short lives, of limited time to awaken, of limited time to be human often come slowly to the need to be also humane.
What concerns me, the reason why I see this as a spiritual focus, is the road from here to there. Our culture, our focus on scarcity, our belief that we have the right answers, blinds us. Spirituality reminds us that we are interconnected. It reminds us that we live in an eco-system that punishes monocultures.
The technology is amazing. Bring it on! End death, end disease, find a way help us survive the envirocide we have been committing. The tide of time will show us if the inevitable future of humanity is for us to replace ourselves with something other.
There is a world of difference between developing technology that may someday supersede us and planning for the obsolescence of humanity. If what you are concerned with is the inevitable future after humanity has already been replaced, what need is there for ethics?

Good comment, but just remember: the Old Guard will fight to ensure maximum casualties. There are always casualties, dor; it is very simple, the future is only for those who survive—many wont make it.

Too much cynicism is bad for your health!

“end of times” is merely superstition

IEET should be seeking solutions and be a positive influence for change

defeatism is not a transhuman/techno-progressive tenet is it?

The realism is, that if you aspire to defeat, then that is all you deserve to find

As rascheR duB points out, there is a need for serious debate here at IEET and not just trite criticisms of the status quo. Speculation of the possibilities and disasters is good to explore, ethics is up for debate, but defeatism is not useful.

PS.. concerning Irene

I take it Mike has delegated his responsibility as moderator this weekend? Either that, or he may still be boarded up in NYC somewhere’s?

If you are sitting in the dark with a laptop reading and moderating these lame comments, then I commend you sir! For that is true commitment indeed.

.. On the other hand it is only a tropical storm, so I guess I needn’t be too concerned about his welfare?

Good show! I didn’t expect any comments moderated this weekend!


Some lyrics from Rush - (a positive or negative message? - you decide!)


If we burn our wings
Flying too close to the sun
If the moment of glory
Is over before it’s begun
If the dream is won
Though everything is lost
We will pay the price
But we will not count the cost

When the dust has cleared
And victory denied
A summit too lofty
River a little too wide
If we keep our pride
Though paradise is lost
We will pay the price
But we will not count the cost

And if the music stops
There’s only the sound of the rain
All the hope and glory
All the sacrifice in vain
(And) If love remains
Though everything is lost
We will pay the price
But we will not count the cost

From the Album “Roll the Bones” (1991)

“The realism is, that if you aspire to defeat, then that is all you deserve to find”

Few genuine defeatists blog at IEET because a defeatist would be better served visiting an Apocalypse-oriented site for thrills.
However it is important to be aware of not only the positive, yet also the negative so to prevent one from becoming the diametric opposite of a defeatist: a Pangloss. If you think on it you can immediately remember a few over-optimistic people you have known in the past or know at this time—I only became aware of this because I tend to veer not towards pessimism but towards exaggerated optimism and have to self-correct by examining not only solid projections for the future but also carefully examine the outside world for evidence of misinformation and disinformation concerning prognostication.

This is all over G+:

The Eyeborg Documentary

“To celebrate the launch of critically acclaimed video game DEUS EX: HUMAN REVOLUTION, Square Enix has commissioned filmmaker Rob Spence aka Eyeborg (a self proclaimed cyborg who lost an eye replaced it with a wireless video camera) to investigate prosthetics, cybernetics and human augmentation. How far are we from the future presented to us in DEUS EX: HUMAN REVOLUTION?”

Listen up you primitive screwheads (quote from Army of Darkness - not an insult 😉

Learn how to surf the noise, because I can promise you all your carefully thought out, meticulous plans to organize the future are about to be nam-shubbed.

This is our final approach to the Singularity

“I can promise you all your carefully thought out, meticulous plans to organize the future are about to be nam-shubbed.”

“Organize” the future? who at IEET wrote anything about organizing the future?

Last time I heard anyone speak seriously on organizing the future was 1968- ‘69 when hippie activists would say we would someday organize communes & collectives to grow organic produce in and we would all smoke organic marijuana.
Can’t recall anybody since then who has sincerely advocated to “organize” the future.

“Organize” the future? who at IEET wrote anything about organizing the future?


What sort of policy positions can be recommended to promote the best possible outcomes for individuals and societies?

IEET’s Mission

The IEET’s mission is to be a center for voices arguing for a responsible, constructive, ethical approach to the most powerful emerging technologies. We believe that technological progress can be a catalyst for positive human development so long as we ensure that technologies are safe and equitably distributed. We call this a “technoprogressive” orientation.

IEET’s Background and History

We also aim to shape public policies that distribute the benefits and reduce the risks of technological advancement.

{The above quotes are not complete - they are selected excerpts, but this is the ‘about’ page on this site, and the link is there - the parts I selected were for brevity and to keep this response short and to the point}

My goal is to anarchify and open source all H+.

IEET is certainly no JDAG, but you don’t seem me writing to them.

The people at IEET still have hope of sorting this all out and coming out on top.

Yet one more step closer to A.I. and autonomous robotics, supercomputers, A.G.I. And, of course.. Mind uploading - IBMsynapse


YOUR COMMENT Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Seasteading: Some problems on the way to Castle Sovereign

Previous entry: Pay the Young to Build the Future