www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xIQgBXw9-o

Originally posted here:

Max More – Transhuman and the Singularity – Video

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFsYWF1BiK4

More:

Mass Effect 3 | EDI’s joke about transhumans – Video

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbhttQ4wUaY

More here:

The Stereonerds – Transhuman Melody – Video

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAGaZ-uNzwI

View original post here:

John Lash – Hour 2 – The Transhuman Con

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvd944TDmZE

Continued here:

Human vs Transhuman ((TruthFinder2)) by Marcell2aG – Video

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xasbfRsVog

See original here:

Human vs Transhuman ((TruthFinder2)) Lyrics in Description – Video

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XFkX6QsP1w

Follow this link:

Glasgow Truth Group Radio, the Transhuman Agenda, interview with Aaron Franz (part 2) – Video

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZLIwtumop8

View post:

Transhuman Existence – Video

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueL4F4m_7pE

Link:

Glasgow Truth Group Radio, the Transhuman Agenda, interview with Aaron Franz (part 1) – Video

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBRUtnAHeXE

Follow this link:

GTG Radio – Aaron Franz – The Transhuman Agenda Part 1/2 – Video

www.youtube.com/watch?v=djMQNnx75w8

Visit link:

GTG Radio – Aaron Franz – The Transhuman Agenda Part 2/2 – Video

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMPeTB8c_ww

See the original post here:

Aaron Franz on Glasgow Truth Group Radio – The Transhuman Agenda Explained and Exposed – Video

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhZtYievSAo

Follow this link:

Black Zenith – Transhuman Nature – Video

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbRl4lk9CKQ

Read the original post:

Morgellons Hexagons, Fibers, Transhumanism, Chemspray, New World Order – Video

The latest episode of the Sentient Developments podcast is up.

This week I discuss primal transhumanism and the seemingly contradictory trend towards ancestral health that’s happening in the futurist community. To that end I address the paleo diet, functional fitness, and the importance of sleep. In the second half of the episode I discuss the recent lawsuit launched by PETA in which they accuse SeaWorld of enslaving orca whales. In this suit, PETA claims that the US Constitution backs up their claim as the 13th mention makes no mention of the kinds of persons it’s set up to protect.

iTunes people can subscribe here. Or you can just subscribe to the RSS. You can download the episode directly here (mp3).

I tend to have a love/hate relationship with PETA. The hate part, I’d say, stems from their often outlandish, sensationalistic and highly inappropriate campaigns.Their tactics often hint at a rather underdeveloped and unsophisticated approach to animal welfare. Can it truly be said that PETA has made a difference to animals?

Regardless, every once in a while PETA does something that makes me realize that I can’t stay mad at them for long, and this is one of those times: PETA is accusing SeaWorld of enslaving orca whales—and they’re using the 13th Amendment of the US Constitution to enforce their claim. According to the PETA website:

In the first case of its kind, PETA, three marine-mammal experts, and two former orca trainers are filing a lawsuit asking a federal court to declare that five wild-caught orcas forced to perform at SeaWorld are being held as slaves in violation of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The filing—the first ever seeking to apply the 13th Amendment to nonhuman animals—names the five orcas as plaintiffs and also seeks their release to their natural habitats or seaside sanctuaries.

The suit is based on the plain text of the 13th Amendment, which prohibits the condition of slavery without reference to “person” or any particular class of victim. “Slavery is slavery, and it does not depend on the species of the slave any more than it depends on gender, race, or religion,” says general counsel to PETA, Jeffrey Kerr.

The five wild-captured orca plaintiffs are Tilikum and Katina (both confined at SeaWorld Orlando) and Kasatka, Corky, and Ulises (all three confined at SeaWorld San Diego).

“All five of these orcas were violently seized from the ocean and taken from their families as babies. They are denied freedom and everything else that is natural and important to them while kept in small concrete tanks and reduced to performing stupid tricks,” says PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk. “The 13th Amendment prohibits slavery, and these orcas are, by definition, slaves.”

This is all sorts of awesome, particularly the language being used—namely the language of nonhuman personhood. I am absolutely on board with this suit. The orca whale, along with other cetaceans, are most certainly persons (see What is a person?). Furthermore, I’d say the same consideration should be given to other nonhuman persons, including elephants and all the great apes (which would have implications for zoos and circuses).

I’m also excited to see that the US Constitution is being interpreted and applied in this way. Because the 13th Amendment makes no mention of human persons per se, it can be assumed that all persons, regardless of species, should be included. Personally, I don’t think this is a trick of language or omission; I believe it’s within the spirit of the law.

And at the heart of the matter, of course, is the issue of animal exploitation—the suggestion that highly sapient and emotional creatures are being used as slaves. As I’ve written before (see Putting an end to dolphin exploitation at aquatic theme parks), these nonhuman animals are capable of exhibiting their discontent and dissatisfaction with their conditions—whether it be through their body language, disobedience, or the expression of sheer emotional defeat. That an animal rights group is working to protect their interests with an existing body of law is exciting. It’s exactly what we’re trying to do at the Rights of Non-Human Persons Program, which is to give these nonhuman persons the same legal protections that humans have.

Now all this said, PETA and company have their work cut out for them. Just because I agree with their interpretation of the Constitution doesn’t mean that the courts will. In fact, the courts will likely err on the side of prejudice and ignorance, and proclaim that PETA’s claim is not within the “spirit” of the Constitution, or some other unimaginative drivel like that.

Indeed, a quick scan of the media’s coverage of PETA’s lawsuit is discouraging. Most outlets are using disparaging language to describe PETA’s efforts and are lumping it in with their other “outrageous stunts” (see TIME’s coverage).

It’s also obvious that the lucrative aquatic theme park industry will not go down without a fight. As highlighted in the documentary, The Cove, this is big business with global reach.

And regrettably, there is already a segment of the population that is taking great offence to this issue. Take the response of David Steinberg, a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, who called the suit “patently, absolutely frivolous”:

The 13th Amendment abolished the abhorrent, despicable practice of the slavery of human beings. PETA is demeaning the integrity and humanity of people who were owned as slaves. That is outrageous.

Steinberg’s contention, that we shouldn’t recognize nonhuman persons as slaves because it would demean those whose ancestors were once held as slaves, is deeply problematic. It is this exact sentiment that must be addressed, combated, and ultimately destroyed if the supporters of this issue wish to succeed. Nothing is preventing the furthering of animal rights more than this idea—and it’s the same idea that has prevented the broadening of rights throughout human history. It’s the seemingly endless reprise of the situation in which the “in” group, for whatever reason, is reluctant to expand the circle of rights and include the “out” group because it would somehow lessen or threaten what it means to be in the “in” group. What it is is patent nonsense.

Steinberg’s comment is particularly pernicious for three reasons.

First, it’s the seductive and easy response—the one that appeals to most people’s conservative nature and their reluctance to think too deeply about instigating change. Most people don’t like to upset the apple cart.

Second, it represents the exact opposite of what would actually happen. Protecting and broadening the rights of minority groups can only increase the dignity and integrity of both those who grant them and those who would benefit from them. It’s what makes an enlightened and progressive society exactly that—it’s what endows our species with the integrity and humanity that Steinberg claims is under threat.

Third, the claim that some people might feel lessened or demeaned by the suggestion that some nonhuman persons are slaves still doesn’t make it right or invalid. People get offended all the time. We can’t let that stop the correct course of action. Taking offence to something, or feeling “demeaned” by a piece of legislation, is not the fault of the legislation. Rather, it’s the fault of the person allowing themselves to feel that way. It’s a kind of “yuck factor ethics“, which is not really ethics at all. Furthermore, granting rights to nonhuman persons would in no real or tangible way lessen what it means to be human. We’ll retain our humanity and our rights regardless of whether or not we grant them outside the species.

My suspicion is that the fear driving this sentiment is that we’d lose our exalted human place on top of the food chain. Well, to that I say: Too bad. Rights and protections need to be granted to those who both deserve and need them.

Best of luck to PETA as they move to push this law suit forward.

Nice quote from Hanson:

“When machines are really powerful and can do lots of things you only need to own a few machines to be able to own a lot and survive and be prosperous and wealthy. So, once machines are so good that people can’t compete with them we will have a vastly [more] prosperous world where we have all these productive machines and owning some of these machines will be enough. We need to make a smooth transition so that people start to buy capital so that they can own these machines and be productive and wealthy.”

The episode is from the PBS show, “Ideas in Action”, which in this segment features a half hour discussion about information technology — in particular robots/AI — and its impact on the future job market and economy. The show will air on PBS stations beginning this Sunday, but is available online now.

The New York Times has published an article about how robotics, automation and information technologies are increasingly impacting on the dwindling job market. The article was posted in consideration of a new book titled Race Against The Machine: How the Digital Revolution is Accelerating Innovation, Driving Productivity, and Irreversibly Transforming Employment and the Economy by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee. Excerpt from the NYT article:

Technology has always displaced some work and jobs. Over the years, many experts have warned — mistakenly — that machines were gaining the upper hand. In 1930, the economist John Maynard Keynes warned of a “new disease” that he termed “technological unemployment,” the inability of the economy to create new jobs faster than jobs were lost to automation.

But Mr. Brynjolfsson and Mr. McAfee argue that the pace of automation has picked up in recent years because of a combination of technologies including robotics, numerically controlled machines, computerized inventory control, voice recognition and online commerce.

Faster, cheaper computers and increasingly clever software, the authors say, are giving machines capabilities that were once thought to be distinctively human, like understanding speech, translating from one language to another and recognizing patterns. So automation is rapidly moving beyond factories to jobs in call centers, marketing and sales — parts of the services sector, which provides most jobs in the economy.

Here’s a description of the book:

Why has median income stopped rising in the US?

Why is the share of population that is working falling so rapidly?

Why are our economy and society are becoming more unequal?

A popular explanation right now is that the root cause underlying these symptoms is technological stagnation– a slowdown in the kinds of ideas and inventions that bring progress and prosperity.

In Race Against the Machine, MIT’s Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee present a very different explanation. Drawing on research by their team at the Center for Digital Business, they show that there’s been no stagnation in technology — in fact, the digital revolution is accelerating. Recent advances are the stuff of science fiction: computers now drive cars in traffic, translate between human languages effectively, and beat the best human Jeopardy! players.

As these examples show, digital technologies are rapidly encroaching on skills that used to belong to humans alone. This phenomenon is both broad and deep, and has profound economic implications. Many of these implications are positive; digital innovation increases productivity, reduces prices (sometimes to zero), and grows the overall economic pie.

But digital innovation has also changed how the economic pie is distributed, and here the news is not good for the median worker. As technology races ahead, it can leave many people behind. Workers whose skills have been mastered by computers have less to offer the job market, and see their wages and prospects shrink. Entrepreneurial business models, new organizational structures and different institutions are needed to ensure that the average worker is not left behind by cutting-edge machines.

In Race Against the Machine Brynjolfsson and McAfee bring together a range of statistics, examples, and arguments to show that technological progress is accelerating, and that this trend has deep consequences for skills, wages, and jobs. The book makes the case that employment prospects are grim for many today not because there’s been technology has stagnated, but instead because we humans and our organizations aren’t keeping up.

The latest episode of the Sentient Developments podcast has been posted.

This week I discuss bulletproof coffees, my visit to Occupy Toronto, Propaganda 2.0 and the rise of narrative networks, Ray Kurzweil’s response to Paul Allen, and the potential link between ETI’s and time travel.

iTunes people can subscribe here. Or you can just subscribe to the RSS. You can download the episode directly here (mp3).