IEET > GlobalDemocracySecurity > Vision > Staff > HealthLongevity > Mike Treder > Futurism > Technoprogressivism > Innovation > Resilience
Are we in the future yet?
Mike Treder   Oct 28, 2010   Ethical Technology  

This is a version of the talk I delivered at the recent TransVision 2010 conference in Milan, Italy.

It’s 1980, and what an exciting time to be alive!


Listen to what these leading thinkers are saying about what the future has in store for us:

  • “Machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do.” - Nobel Prize Winner Herbert Simon, 1965
  • By the 1990s, the human lifespan will be “400 years or more.” - Dr. Paul Segall, UC-Berkeley, 1978
  • “The first space colony, Island One, could be in place before 1990. This is possible, I must emphasize, within the limits of present-day conventional materials and technology.” - Professor Gerard O’Neill, 1975
  • “If the scientific and medical resources of the United States alone were mobilized, aging would be conquered within a decade.” - Gerontologist Alex Comfort, 1978
  • “Within a generation…the problem of creating ‘artificial intelligence’ will substantially be solved.” - Marvin Minsky, 1967

Wow, that’s amazing. Can you just imagine what life will be like thirty years from now, in 2010?


Okay, now let’s pretend that we have a time machine, and that we can move ourselves ahead from 1980 all the way to the year 2010. We’ll project our vision forward into that radically different future and see what life is like for those who live in that time.

What a change! Look at how people in big cities used to travel in 1980, and how they travel now…


Hmm, that’s odd. It doesn’t seem very different at all.

Let’s take a closer look at what, in reality, have been the biggest changes during the last thirty years, from 1980 to 2010.


  • Collapse of the Soviet Union
  • End of the Cold War, Birth of a Multipolar World
  • Growth of China’s Economy
  • Creation of the World Wide Web
  • Explosion of the Internet
  • Approach of onlineallthetime
  • Expansion of Income Inequality
  • Global Warming

But, wait a minute. What about all those other things? What didn’t happen?


  • Where are the L5 space colonies with ten thousand residents?
  • Why haven’t we seen the end of aging?
  • Is there no human cloning?
  • And no molecular nanotechnology yet?
  • Are we really still waiting for strong AI?

No, I’m sorry to say that none of those things have arrived yet. In many ways, 2010 still looks a lot like 1980.

Certainly there have been some remarkable changes, including those we discussed before, and more. But the most exciting predictions of experts from thirty or forty years ago didn’t come true.

Making predictions is hard, especially about the future

What went wrong? Were all those people stupid?

No, they weren’t stupid. They were all actually very smart. It’s just that it turns out to be incredibly difficult to make good guesses about the future.

The truth is that we don’t know enough—perhaps we can’t know enough—to make consistently reliable and specific predictions about the real development and impact of emerging technologies.

But now let’s try another exercise. Let’s project ourselves forward thirty more years into the future, to the year 2040, and to a conference being held then.


I’d like to think that this is funny, and that by then, the topics listed above will not be on the agenda because they already will have been achieved.

But considering where some very smart people thought we’d be by 2010, if not sooner, it’s not hard for me to imagine a conference being held thirty years from now with speakers making those presentations.

So, let’s flip the page back to 2010 now and try to put things into perspective. Perhaps we should state it this way:

  • We might someday have designer babies…
  • We might someday have nanofactories…
  • We might someday have “friendly AI”...
  • We might someday have uploading…

We might someday have all of those things.

But meanwhile, children are dying

During the last ten minutes, while you’ve been reading this, a thousand people have died. In the next ten minutes, a thousand more human beings will draw their last breaths and will be gone forever.

And of those thousand people, almost two hundred of them will be children under the age of five. Little girls and boys and tiny babies who will never get the chance to live as you have.

Innocent children are losing their lives at this very moment.

And the saddest part of all is that most of them will die of preventable illnesses, of things that we know how to cure or how to prevent, but because of poverty and politics and greed those children’s lives will be gone. They will never get to live.

This is the existential reality in which we live:

At this moment, more than a billion of our brothers and sisters are struggling in dire poverty; far too many suffer and die from preventable diseases; huge numbers are oppressed and exploited by both governments and corporations…

...while the rich keep getting richer by making and selling weapons of war.

We’re polluting the atmosphere and the oceans in a way that will irreversibly alter the biosphere and harm human civilization; we’re wiping out species 100 to 1,000 times faster than natural rates found in the fossil record…

...and the rich just keep getting richer by drilling for oil and building coal-fired power plants.

When I posted the above paragraphs to my Facebook page a while ago, a commenter whom I won’t name gave this response:

“We will overcome these seemingly insurmountable challenges with powerful new exponentially growing technologies in the coming two decades.”

But wait, that’s what you said before!

Don’t you remember all those promises of decades past, that our awesome technologies soon would enable us to eliminate illness, to banish poverty, end aging, and control the weather? That everyone then would enjoy a world of abundance and opportunity? Don’t you realize that for people who are paying attention, this is déjà vu all over again?

No, it doesn’t work that way. It never has and it never will. Reality intrudes.

So let’s not continue to make the mistakes of the past. Let’s try to be a little smarter this time.

Instead of promoting exciting visions of a utopian future, we could shift our focus to discussions of how to better prepare for uncertain change, how to create sustainable and resilient human societies, how to live in better harmony with each other and with the rest of the natural world around us.

Finding the zone of policy influence

It’s vital that we make this shift, that we learn how to make our ideas and our goals more realistic and more attainable. It is important because if we are to achieve the dreams that technoprogressives have cherished for decades, we will have to be much smarter about how we present ourselves to those who can help us turn our hopes into reality.

I’m not saying that we should give up on our loftiest ideals or that we should ever surrender our dreams. Definitely not. But we have to take a more intelligent approach.

If we want to push forward, if we want to accelerate the process through which powerful emerging technologies are brought to fruition, and if we want to ensure that those new technologies are safe, effective, and widely available, then we have to be smart. We need to have a good strategy for getting where we want to go.

This is how it looks to me.


Today we have a public idea space in which most transhumanist proposals and predictions are regarded as extreme, as “out there” on the fringe.

Not that this necessarily reflects reality, as there is in fact a broad range of thought in the >H community, but it is crucial for us to understand where we are at the beginning—to know our place on the map—if we are to reach our destination. In the present day, the general perception of transhumanist thought is that it is far from the mainstream and thus is not given much credence in serious policy discussions.

To overcome this current lack of influence, to make sure that thirty years from now we are not still as far away from the things we want as we are today, it is necessary for us to take action on two fronts.

We must (1) exert steady pressure on the mainstream, to gradually extend their understanding of what emerging technologies actually might be able to achieve if given the proper focus.

At the same time, we must (2) moderate the public perception of >H, to let people see that it’s not all about freezing Ted Williams’ head, but that we are in truth serious people who think carefully about the future and who have something important to say.


If we are diligent about pursuing the two aims described above, then we should succeed in closing the gap and creating an overlap, what I call the Zone of Policy Influence.

None of this will be easy, however, and it won’t happen overnight. We should think of it as perhaps a 10-year plan. And even then, of course, it won’t mean that everything we want will come to pass. Much more work will still be ahead of us. But it is this kind of deep strategic approach that is required to make our visions a reality.

At the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, this is the work that we are doing. We welcome your support, your involvement, and your input. Thank you.

Mike Treder is a former Managing Director of the IEET.


Technologies, particularly information technologies, must first cross thresholds until new things are possible. The past just didn’t cross many thresholds. Hardware remained a limiting factor. Are we approaching any thresholds that could enable Big Changes?

I argue we already have. In my personal three-decade tech experience, vast, useful-for-more-than-text-editing computational power has landed in our laps only in the past 3650 days - or half or just quarter of that, depending on your requirements. We haven’t yet learned what to do with that abundance. Many of us are running our lives as if computers don’t exist or as if they’re the same we grew up with. We do the same stuff we did 20 years ago with less latency and no concern for storage, and play more immersive games, big deal, you say. We just don’t yet know how to empower ourselves with this abundance. Our potential remains untapped, our CPUs idle.

Once enabling thresholds have been crossed - often several fields need to advance - previously unthinkable things become thinkable, and then doable, and then they will be attempted and finally achieved. I’m confident we will cross thresholds in many technologies, some major ones, during the next 3650 days. It may take another 3650 to implement them, but then we don’t lack the determination or the political or financial will because we know they can finally be done.

One comment: so what?

This article makes an important point. Transhumanists need to keep uncertainty in mind and no live only in our imagined future. There’s a nonzero chance that each those developments will have happened by 2040, but it’s just a chance. The problems of today demand attention right now with what we’ve current got available. Existing technology offers enormous promise. For abundance, in particular, there’s no reason to wait.

I’ve written a book that explains why we don’t have all of this stuff today.

In short, the key is more free software and Python.

more children will continue to die…

Does not follow. How can hoping that we might someday have all of those things [AI, uploading etc.] result in children deaths? Really now. If anything, feeling great expectations for a wonderful future can give people more drive and energy for going out and achieving some goals, including saving children here and now.

I think this is our core disagreement. You see our transhumanist aspirations as distractions, I see them as motivations.

we must (2) moderate the public perception of >H…

I can agree with this, but with one important caveat about “moderate”. We (I mean we transhumanists in the IEET) must not and will not give up our transhumanist ideas, hope and aspirations, but we must and will also be serious people who think carefully about the future and who have something important to say.. Not only uploading, but also here-and-now issues.

Our culture rewards entertainers and sports “heroes” and investors with such ludicrous sums that no wonder we aren’t getting anywhere. For advancement we need none of that; we need science, period. 1000-fold funding increase for science might be in order. It might not be enough. 100M salaries for scientists, I say.

The Nobel Prize is Nobel Paltry.

You’re both right, but Giulio communicates in a more explicit and straightforward manner, which I think is more motivating. Mike, with his general style and attitude, was sort of asking for the “So what?”

Video of Mike’s talk in Milan. This is recorded from Teleplace, a HD version recorded in the conference hall will be available soon.

Other LD videos recorded at TransVision 2010:

The question begs.. Why does Transhumanism/H+ feel that it is fringe idealism?
Techno-progressives are non-exclusive from modern and developing societies are they not?
Is it the case that Transhumanists subconsciously see themselves as some esoteric philosophy, (or prefer to?) and therefore see themselves as fringe and exclusive?

Quote - “Instead of promoting exciting visions of a utopian future, we could shift our focus to discussions of how to better prepare for uncertain change, how to create sustainable and resilient human societies, how to live in better harmony with each other and with the rest of the natural world around us.”

So how can we do this?
How can/should we promote this?
What is the method statement?

The mission statement we know.

Ps. I like your use of the London Tube pictures, but it’s worse than that Jim! Some parts of the modern London underground is still using valve/tube electronics designed in the 1960’s, and this is despite almost two decades of upgrades! However there is some progress, if you notice the “Yellow Safety line” on the platform - Health and safety is a wonderful thing.

They told us in school that by now we’d all have robots, more free-leisure time, flying cars, (although this is now a reality and licensed by the US Aviation authorities), and trips to the moon.. (sighs), but all we seem to have is more political and diplomatic complexity, economic chaos, and many, many, many disillusioned, abject and unemployed peoples.

The divides between the rich and poor seem to be accelerating and becoming greater - why I ask myself?

Massive £200,000-a-week deal puts Rooney among football’s super rich

“Yesterday he became the highest-paid English footballer of all time after a week-long stand-off with his club Manchester United.”


I very much agree with you, Mike. However, from my perspective, there is an element of solution that is lacking, not only to transhumanism but also to our whole culture. It is a discipline concerned with suffering, a discipline that I call an algonomy. It takes an algonomic strategy for putting together our efforts toward a better world. But if I judge according to my experience, nobody, not a single person in the world, is effectively interested in that proposition of an algonomy. That’s why I am pretty sure that nothing will change, basically, until a few of us find that they have nothing better to do.

In the last hundred years, technological developments have been, if anything, more far-reaching in their social implications than those of the previous hundred years.

At the beginning of the 20th century there were no motor cars or lorries and no road system which could have supported today’s mass of high-speed traffic.

There were no aeroplanes or helicopters. There were no farm tractors, combine harvesters, milking machines or tuberculosis-free cattle. There was little domestic gas and virtually no domestic electricity so that there were no household machines such as vacuum cleaners, refrigerators, washing machines, or food mixers. Electronic engineering, with its wide range of applications from radio and television to computers, microwave ovens and automatic control systems, had not yet begun. There was no automation, no laser and fibre optics, no space engineering, no biological engineering, no atomic engineering, no man-made fibres or plastics, no stainless steel or even aluminium. It was a society of horse drawn vehicles, domestic servants, heavy manual work, cast iron and steam power.

The nature of the family has changed.  Single parenthood is becoming more common.  Most women no longer stay home to take care of children.  Social institutions like schools are more and more doing the parenting.  More people are engaging in homosexual and bisexual relationships.  More people are having less or no children.

Globalisation is resulting in the increasing integration of all national economies with the development of global governance structures.

Capitalism operates under the law of value, and human labour is the source of all value.  Hence, it only through the employment of human intellectual and physical skills can goods be made and sold.  If no one was employed there would be no market for goods and services produced by machines, unless everyone was provided with an income without having to work.  But this would no longer be capitalism.  Hence, it is the historical social formation called capitalism which maintains this structure.  The present economic and environmental crisis is leading to a change in this historic social formation which will usher in a new type of society.

Agriculture has become increasingly industrialized and mechanized. Genetic engineering is changing and has changed the nature of the plants and animals that we eat in terms of size, appearance and reproductive abilities and frequency.  Plans are being developed to grow meat in lab facilities.

Human lifespan has been increasing steadily since the 20th century.

Inequality is maintained by an outdated social system which is increasingly coming under pressure to change through the developments in science and technology.

Racial and gender equality have greatly improved (Obama is president) and will improve even further under a different type of social system.

“There have been relatively few international wars since the second world war, and no wars between developed nations. Most conflicts now consist of guerilla wars, insurgencies and terrorism - or what the political scientist John Mueller of Ohio State University in Columbus calls the “remnants of war”. He notes that democracies rarely, if ever, vote to wage war against each other, and attributes the decline of warfare over the past 50 years, at least in part, to a surge in the number of democracies around the world - from 20 to almost 100. “A continuing decline in war seems to be an entirely reasonable prospect,” he says.”

In concluding, society has changed immensely over the last hundred years than in all the preceding years of human existence in terms of the nature of the modern family, national sovereignty, the nature of work and the economy, agriculture, human lifespan, the potential for eliminating inequalities, war, and the growth of rationality.

The current social order is a fetter on the further development of these positive trends.  However, the technological developments which are now occuring and that will take place in the near future, in tandem with political action, will accelerate these trends leading to a technological and social singularity.


Giulio, that’s exactly what I wrote in the article

Mike, I know. But I would not be posting similar comments so frequently if I were not persuaded that your position can be (deliberately) misunderstood and mispresented. Without naming names, you know as well as I do that some of our critics are intellectually dishonest liars.

“But meanwhile, children are dying”

US Military Spending: 895 billion USD

Final Comment:

It is better to focus on technological innovation rather than the problems of society, as the following article demonstrates:

A chemist’s discovery breathes new life into the old South
August 18th, 2009

One chemist plus one new scientific discovery yields. . . an economic and environmental miracle. Almost overnight, a whole new industry springs up and breathes life into an economically-devastated region of the country. It creates millions of new jobs and pumps billions of dollars into the economy. Thousands of miles away, the discovery helps avert the potential decimation of old growth forests, where millions of spruce, fir, poplar, and other trees were being cut each year.

“That scenario actually happened and it is a history lesson about the value of chemistry research to the real world economy,” Georgia chemist Donald Hicks, Ph.D., said here today at the 238th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society. Hicks was describing how a little-known discovery in 1932 by Georgia chemist Charles Holmes Herty engendered the huge pulp and paper industry in the southeastern United States. In doing so, it revived the South’s economy, devastated by the Great Depression and damage to its mainstay cotton crop by the boll weevil.

Herty, then 64, turned conventional scientific wisdom on its ear by showing that high quality paper could be made from rapidly renewable southern pine. At the time, paper for newspapers and other applications that required white paper was made from slow growth trees in the North. Demand was slowly decimating northern forests.

“Herty planned to use fast growing southern pine trees to create the very high value commodity white paper as well as cellulose and rayon,” Hicks explained. “But when he said that he wanted to use a sulfite solution chemical pulping process, every expert in the paper-making field said it couldn’t be done because of too much sticky resin in these trees.”

All of the experts were wrong. Herty’s innovative theory, which proved to be valid, was that older pine trees might secrete resin as a defense mechanism, and, thus, young pines might contain much less resin.

“Herty succeeded, driven by an idea he believed in and by the nobility of the cause of helping the poor economy of his native South, and with no personal financial investment gain ever coming from his work,” Hicks said. Fifteen southern pulp and paper mills were reported built from 1935 to 1940, resulting in thousands of new jobs.

Hicks, a retired chemistry professor with Georgia State University, said that the Savannah, Ga., mill alone created 4,400 jobs, and 70 years later, 11 percent of the jobs in six states were connected to this industry. Paper mills proved the southern USA industrial potential, and led to the region’s rapid industrialization by the 1950s. Herty’s 1932 paper-making efforts also created the tree farming industry with 4.5 million citizens involved in 2002, and decimation of the great northern hardwood forests was slowed dramatically.

To test his theory, Herty performed chemical analyses on trees of varying ages to prove that pines less than 20 years old had no more sticky resin than old northern trees used then for making white paper. He used a well-known sulfite solution pulping process he had heard about 30 years earlier.

Based on common chemistry separation principles, the analysis procedure involved first dissolving the resin in a weighed sawdust sample into a volatile organic solvent that did not dissolve other wood components. After filtering and gently evaporating the volatile solvent, the resin containing residue was weighed and its percentage calculated. This chemical analysis provided the “eureka moment” that created tens of thousands of pulp and paper industry jobs in the depression era South.

Source: American Chemical Society

Also a grain of truth from an article, the spirit of which, I was not in agreement with:

“Just imagine if the most creative and productive people had taken seriously and consistently embodied the “ideal” of self-sacrifice. Rather than having electric lighting, cars, and computers (not to mention thousands of offshoot inventions), we would have Thomas Edison the soup kitchen lineman, Henry Ford the social worker, and Bill Gates the Peace Corps volunteer.”


“...society has changed immensely”
Yes, but not basically, as far as suffering is concerned.

“However, the technological developments which are now occuring and that will take place in the near future, in tandem with political action, will accelerate these trends leading to a technological and social singularity.”
Wishful thinking. Moreover, the singularity itself, if it ever comes, might be ill oriented at the start and ultimately harmful unless we do establish first, now, beforehand, a clear basis for the management of suffering in the world.

Nice article, Mike! You pretty much just convinced me to donate to the IEET here - been listening to the twitter feed for a while.

To me, this is the best critique I’ve seen of the breathless talk surrounding living forever, uploading, AI, etc - not that these things aren’t worth pursuing, and not that they’re not exciting. But we need a futurism that doesn’t ignore or gloss over current social issues, or blindly state ‘moar technologieses’ will automagically correct socially-created ills. Though technology has a role to play, we can’t wait for some deus ex homo AI will swoop and save us from ourselves.

@Charlie - I agree that we need a futurism to address current social issues and propose realistic solution that can be implemented in the short term. As you say, this does not mean giving up transhumanist aspirations. Mike agrees (comment above).

The prospect of transcending our current human1.0 condition via transhumanist ultratech is, indeed, exciting in the sense that it can provide the drive to get out of bed in the morning and do something worth here and now. Feel free to dream of immortality, mind uploading and space colonization for future generations, and find in your dreams the energy and motivation to make this world a better place for this and the next generation. Transhumanism and technoprogressivism are not alternative worldviews, but complementary approaches.

We don’t have the flying cars and the cities on the Moon that we were promised in the 60s. The Moonbase that we have seen in Clarke and Kubrick’s 2001 (in 1968) has never materialized… but our global telecom system is better than in the film.

This supports Mike’s main point, that predicting the future is difficult and in the real world things tend to unfold in very unexpected ways. As Mike says, we might someday have transhumanist ultratech, and it is a goal worth pursuing, but we must not assume that transhumanist ultratech will materialize by itself, and in the meantime we have today’s problems to solve. The transhumanist and technoprogressive approaches are complementary and, to me, mutually reinforcing.

I have written a response. Where to find the future

Look at politics today, though; gives you the dry heaves:
“the New York Times, ‘It’s a New York, Jewish, Communist, left-wing, homosexual newspaper…
And that’s just the sports section’ “

[cue in Laff Trak]

Are we in the future yet?

Well here is something “positive” to say and promote for a change regarding transhumanism , (or is it merely techno-progression?)

This “is” the future, and anyone that denies this kind of technical achievement or it’s use and application must, quite frankly, be mad! (and ethically regressive).

Vision chip restores sight to blind man

“The chip, which contains 1,500 light-sensitive elements, replaces damaged cells in a blind person’s retina”

“A man left blind by a devastating eye disease has been able to read letters, tell the time and identify a cup and saucer on a table after surgeons fitted him with an electronic chip to restore his vision.”

Read more here >>

Is this about the meaning of life ?

What I like about your article, Mike, is that you point out the importance of understanding the now. I think there is a great lack of that in our time. The way masses of people use new technologies demonstrate that very clearly. We still have no global structure that makes people wish to understand what and how they are using technology and how to do it responsibly. I think we have to go beyond telling people that the earth isn’t flat, they are ready for the next stage. Hopefully one day the internet can help to accomplish this important philosophical task. Of course, education must be pursued and spread more uniformly, and this requires a certain amount of wealth, so political and social sciences are very important indeed. People will support science without criticism if it offers convenience or entertainment, not because of ethical values. Currently I have the feeling that entertainment is replacing religion in many societies. In the end the masses dictate the general direction of scientific progress, not genial minds and their thoughts themselves. As an example it probably was not Einstein’s intention to help building nuclear bombs and Henry Ford did not aim for oil spills in the gulf of Mexico. Nevertheless one should try to make a difference.-The real strength is ‘believing’ without believing.
However, I certainly disagree that we are not in the future yet. Juging from the now we will never be in the future, which is a shame 😉. I was born in 1980 and I remember that there were no people living and starving in cyberspace (WoW), one couldn’t become a millionair for uploading some stupid video (Youtube), one couldn’t call people on other continents and talk to them unlimited and free of charge (Teamspeak), one couldn’t afford to fly to other continents on a yearly basis, grow parts of the human ear on the back of a mouse, convict a murderer because he lost a hair at the crime scene, watch babies grow with ultra sonic or image cancer with CT. Et cetera.
What did not change much though for the last 2000 years or so is the stupidity and recklessness of mankind as a whole, coexisting in ‘harmony’ with our main motivations of power and reproduction, the meaning of life, it’s just a delta function on the astronomic time scale anyway (as Monty Python suggests).
While most of the time we can not feel as a collective being, we always were, including everything individuals might jugde as mistakes. There is nothing unnatural and I think most of the comments people wrote were right. But saying “So what” in a rhetorical way and not as an honest question is certainly worse than being Hitler, who himself at least fought for the sick conviction that nobody must speak or be free and became a huge anti pole. In his case I would have preferred a conversation with an assassin to a direct encounter, but I can speak with national socialists. What counts in the end is to support communication by being tolerant and to contribute own thoughts (yin and yang). If a person is too stupid for a vivid discussion, that it is perfectly legitimate, he/she might loose the discussion or outnumber me. If a person is ignorant, even if unknowingly, I will fight it because it is an immediate enemy of life. Nevertheless, the genes that cause ignorance might be indispensable.

Hope somebody reads this. Spend so much time on it.

Has anyone realized that more people come to the world than they die…

it is overpopulation if you have more people, more people will die. DUH

But the way in certain way (sorry for some people) people dying is kinda good, the more people there are the more resources we are sucking from the dry planet.

Stop being egocentric, (or human egocentric) think about the species.

ok I post again, maybe if people stop having kids like ~insert organism here~.
there would be less people to feed, more food for (me) everyone.
less pain, less work, but no (women) people only think in having a family, and (men) people only think on sex (thus more population)

no-one will ever understand my mid-offensive sense of humor :/

Anyway nobody has realized that there has been advances in medicine, that human lifespan is now longer, that not many people will die for stupid diseases like they did long time ago, today a human dying is a tragedy, it is like the worst thing that can ever happen, I mean that for obvious evolution causes people will only think on themselves. you know I can accept that people are selfish, but if they are in small quantities, but there are 7,000,0…. (I really don’t know) people on the world, and everyone want the best for themselves, and they don’t realize that you can’t have the best for everyone because there is just too many people dammit! Or you can think in others (quite hard even for me, I must say) and bla bla bla bla (If you understood what i said before i think you know what the bla’s means) LOL.

as I said no one understand this strange sense of humor.

YOUR COMMENT Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Faith and Science pt1

Previous entry: What you can’t say about Islam - The backlash against Elizabeth Moon