Yes, and imagine 20 years ago, or even 10, reading

a column
like the one quoted above. In it, Susan Greenfield
writes about individuality, alludes to human brain
augmentation, and questions the meaning of identity. She
is, by the way, a professor of pharmacology at Oxford,
director of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, and
author of

Tomorrow's People:
How 21st-Century Technology Is Changing the Way We Think
and Feel.

Now, imagine 20 years ago, before the

Human Genome Project
was even begun, seeing a mainstream media series like
MSNBC's "Human
Evolution at the Crossroads." Oh, yes, 20
years ago there was no MSNBC.

In recent years, items like these have become
commonplace. Books titled

Radical Evolution:
The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our
Bodies--and What It Means to Be Human,

Citizen Cyborg: Why
Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned
Human of the Future, and

More Than Human:
Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement
appear in bookstores and libraries everywhere.

Why? Because the future is now. It is all around us
as part of our lives, and we are part of it. Change
occurs today faster than ever, and although some may
suffer from

Future Shock,
most make the transition from yesterday to tomorrow
unaware of how great a step they have taken. I call this
phenomenon "Unconscious Confirmation," the tacit
acceptance of new technologies, abilities, and ways of
life through passive assent.

Of course, not everyone is willing to agree that the
future is now. The rise of religious fundamentalism in
both

East and

West can
be seen, at least partially, as a response to
accelerating societal transformations.

CRN contends that development of distributed
general-purpose

molecular
manufacturing systems will result in an even
steeper curve of change. The shift looks so abrupt that
we commonly refer to it as "The Step" (whether the step
is up or down will depend on

decisions
that are made within the next several years). It might
be called a discontinuity, except that some form of
society, it is hoped, will still be functioning
afterwards.

This kind of talk sounds apocalyptic to many people,
and some say that CRN would be wise to

tone it down a
little (see comments). We believe it is
essential, however, to be forthright, even if that puts
us at risk of being branded as fanatics or alarmists.
Because the stakes are so high, we're willing to weather
criticism.

By the way, for an extreme example of avoiding
criticism by toning down projections, take a look at

this absurd
timetable for future human evolution. A
million years until Homo sapiens is
significantly changed? I don't think so.