The MetroSpiritual: Creating super-humans through Transhumanism is becoming a reality – New York Daily News

DAILY NEWS CONTRIBUTOR

Friday, July 28, 2017, 4:30 PM

Super humans created by design will be a reality in the near future.

Imagine if we could create the perfect President Trump by simply upgrading him a little from a "Of the people, for the people" ethical point of view. Throw in an anti-collusion, Don Jr. malware system and weve already got ourselves a better America.

This is not fake news, so saddle up: It's called Transhumanism. If you're thinking, "Wow, this sounds like a new culture whose goal is to evolve humans physically and intellectually in order to create life extension through genetic engineering with eternal life at the core," then you are correct. Good job!

Tranhumanistic thinking means you believe that you can upgrade yourself with a little help from nanotech, which honestly sounds good to meI already bought the headphones! (I wouldn't frown at a little time management and decision making skills improvements. I freely admit I have a list of complaints for my brain's manufacturer. I'm ready for some upgrades.)

The MetroSpiritual: Does your DNA code prove youre part alien?

The general public believes we are a good 100 years away from this type of technology, but surprisewe are already there. They can already genetically create superior human beings.

One way, but not the only way, is by using CRISPR Cas- 9 kits. It is a fairly inexpensive, already available system for genome editing. The bare-bones for beginners explanation: It targets and modifies gene sequences and can be used for cloning and reproducing preferred traits as well as reprogramming our current DNA to seek out and destroy traits we don't like.

Transhumanism manipulates energy waves, which is what we and everything and anything at its core is made up of, the entire universe included. For example, running weak electrical currents through certain areas of the brain speeds up reaction time. It's called transcranial direct current stimulation, or TDCS, and is already used by the U.S. military to train snipers.

As a Metro-Spiritual, there's a layered but unique perspective that comes to mind. What if higher beings are already using a form of Transhumanism on millions of humans already and have been for some time?

The MetroSpiritual: Make meditation part of your daily journey

Scientists from the Human Genome project say that our DNA was not written on this planet and is a complex mathematical code. What if we have the ability to upgrade, but haven't in a while because we didn't know that we even could?

Without updating the How to be Human software, life would be more confusing and run much slower, don't you think? Perhaps many of us were born with semi- superhuman abilities by virtue of our past but still can't warp our minds around the system upgrades. Stay with me

If advanced entities and let's face it, there are smarter ones then us in this galaxy and universe have already encoded our DNA to allow for upgrades, unarguably this seems like a good anti- corruption software program.

But if available technology for human advancement is just a matter of simple software, is humanity better or worse off? There is likely a built-in level of accountability that is necessary for spiritual growth. I assume expecting anything less always needs to be updated.

The MetroSpiritual: 10 ways to stay spiritually balanced in 2017

Curiously, in the oldest of texts, extraterrestrials have had this Transhumanism thing down since forever ago. Biblical texts even talk about ancient Abraham having his first child when he was 80 years old, because humans supposedly lived for upwards of 200 years way back then. Eternal life might just be sophisticated technology which history, and now science, supports.

Erich von Dniken, who wrote Chariots of the Gods, was one of the first to talk about the ancient alien theory. His research and studies state that thousands of years ago space travelers from other planets visited Earth and taught humans about technology, and influenced their beliefs on religion.

The late Zecharia Sitchin was the first to decode the most ancient texts from the Sumerians. According to his translations, a race of extraterrestrials called the Anunnaki, which means those who are from heaven, came to Earth from a planet beyond Neptune called Nibiru. They have been here long before humans and are the ones responsible for creating the human race. Or so they say

The Greeks, Indians, Mayans, Romans the list goes on all believed in gods who visited Earth and advanced humanity. Their recorded history supports the ancient alien theory. (Are those who learned how to live forever considered gods? Lord help us!)

The MetroSpiritual: How to connect with extraterrestrials

Perhaps the Anunnaki were space travelers. Some believe their home planet was destroyed and their race was dying and so they began to interbreed with humans way, way back then ago. Some believe they created humans. Biblical texts support all this. There are cave drawings dating back more than 5,000 years of alien beings with tall bodies, big heads and big hands interacting with humans. An unnamed source says one looks just like Trump too. Fake news?

Ancient texts talk about the Lyrian Wars and today you can see actual NASA footage of modern day space wars on the internet. Perhaps times don't change that much when it comes to history repeating itself.

Let's skip thousands of years ahead and go to the 1930s to the 1980s. UFO sightings were at an all-time high. The scoop was hundreds of everyday common folk being abducted by aliens. Roswell helped top it off with a cherry.

Scientific evidence from notable cases where taken seriously by the general public and for the first time in ages, the taboo subject began to regain acceptance. Abductees usually described little grey humanoids with skinny bodies and big heads with bug-looking eyes. Sound familiar? They seemed to be most interested in the human reproductive organs.

The MetroSpiritual: Why finding your true soulmate is so hard

Biblical texts do talk about the fallen angels always mating with female humans. Even Enoch, Noah's great grandfather, talked about being abducted by higher beings, but he said that it was spectacular.

But that was then and this is now, and you don't really hear about those scary abduction stories anymore, right? It's more of an Enoch connection these days. So why?

Did they complete interbreeding their DNA with ours? Are they back with upgraded models of their creations, aka, us? Help from ETs is not a new thing, but it seems to be back on a familiar rise these days.

Maybe the little grey aliens we always here about are the result of robotic Transhumanism from eons ago, and humans will make similar versions in the future. We are well on our way, if not already there. Maybe the result of yesterdays abductions are the currently updated versions of human hybrid star-seeds, and maybe you are one of them!

Humanitys advancement might be included in our DNA. It does not mean you will be richer or smarter, it only means you can download universal information, once you figure it out. Maybe that will lead to your desires, but there is always a catch!

Many of the ETs are currently described as looking like us and not like the grey, bug-eyed beings described in the past. So is the future now? Time seems all messed up these days. It might be due to the modern day form of Transhumanism from the past that some of us are currently experiencing.

Downloading our brains into a computer and growing body parts for replacement is happening today in all sorts of forms. Google it! To live forever is in the works, but do we want everyone to live forever? What about the mean people?

Maybe higher intelligences are a step ahead of us, using ET-made natural selection via DNA. You can only upgrade if you get it and are worthy. Personally, I might have some cosmic figuring out to do.

If we could live forever how would most people even react? If you can get around to doing anything tomorrow, luxury nap facilities would certainly become popular establishments: the anti-Starbucks!

Then again, even forever would eventually become a race against time. Who will get there first? I doubt me. I'll be too busy daydreaming about where the finish line is at one of the many napping facilities I hopefully have some stock in.

Maija Polsley began having otherworldly experiences at a young age and began attending metaphysics classes with her mother at age 12. She has since been dedicated to finding the truth and has not stopped exploring. Co-producer of the ghost investigation web series "Paranormal Pursuit" and founder of TheMetroSpiritual.com, Maija is a natural-born, city-dwelling, soul-seeking, independent former teen mom and single woman who is also a dimensionally educated, spiritually empathic writer, actor, poet, standup comic, tarot card reader, Earth lover and quintessential MetroSpiritual.

For more DAILY VIEWS, The News' contributor network, click here. nydailynews.com/tags/daily-views

Here is the original post:

The MetroSpiritual: Creating super-humans through Transhumanism is becoming a reality - New York Daily News

Luton hate crime probe over St Thomas’s church graffiti – BBC News


BBC News
Luton hate crime probe over St Thomas's church graffiti
BBC News
The vandal also made references to transhumanism - a movement that believes in using technology to improve intellectual, physical and psychological capacities - and wrote: "Anti-Christ" and "Hell awaits". More news from Bedfordshire. St Thomas's vicar ...

and more »

See original here:

Luton hate crime probe over St Thomas's church graffiti - BBC News

Fringe movements key to changing the world – Winnipeg Free Press

"The more things change, the more they stay the same" is a common interpretation of a French quote by critic Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr. Yet, as events of the past year and a half have demonstrated, sometimes things change so much that underlying assumptions must be questioned.

Western society has always had its share of extremist, fringe activists, who are generally dismissed tolerantly or not by the mainstream culture.

British journalist and tech blogger Jamie Bartlett points out that successful radicals of the past are now heroes who changed both history and culture. For instance, in the United States: "American revolutionaries, the abolitionists, the civil rights activists, the LGBTQ rights groups."

Radicals Chasing Utopia interestingly, if unevenly, chronicles Bartletts experiences embedding himself in various radical groups.

"In streets, halls, fields, chat rooms and even parliaments, more and more people are trying to change the world. And for the last two years, Ive tried to find them."

Bartletts 2014 book The Dark Net, about underground and sketchy sub-cultures in various corners of the internet, included "transhumanism," and thats where Radicals Chasing Utopia begins.

Transhumanists "believe that technology can make us physically, intellectually, even morally better."

Bartlett accompanied other journalists and fellow travellers on Zoltan Istvans quixotic 2016 presidential campaign, in a bus "redesigned to look like a giant coffin."

Some transhumanists believe even mortality can be overcome by scientific advances and obsessively careful living.

Other chapters cover anti-immigration activists in Europe, psychedelic drug experiences, the Italian Five Star Momentum movement, and a commune in Portugal attempting to establish "a healing biotope, a template of how man could live in harmony with himself, his fellow man and his environment."

Bartletts reports on most groups achieve his stated goal of "assessing them as honestly and objectively" as possible, but retaining "a degree of scepticism."

The chapter Interlude: Prevent examines the U.K. governments difficulties attempting to "deal with the spread of radical ideas that directly seek to undermine or destroy" liberal democracy.

His chapter about taking part in direct action to protest a coal mine in Wales somewhat exposes his own bias, but the rest of the book does not come across as a polemic either for or against the radicals he observes.

That chapter, The Activists Paradox, discusses the tendency of some radicals to turn off the general public, whose participation in the machinery of change is so important to fundamental shifts in cultural or political norms.

Engaging as Bartletts coverage is, reading the book can be frustrating, partly due to the overwhelming documentation. Over 50 pages of endnotes often containing additional exposition or explanation, not just attribution compete with numerous explanatory or illustrative footnotes.

Some passages point the reader to both a footnote and an endnote. Much of that information would be less intrusive if it were included in the text, rather than interrupting it.

Bartletts observations and analyses of particular groups culminate in an especially thoughtful and challenging epilogue, discussing the dilemmas and difficulties inherent in radicals who are trying to change the world.

"Their energy, imagination and passion might save us; but those very attributes might also lead to ruin and desperation. Yet, for all this, radicals remain our best hope."

Whether one agrees or disagrees with this conclusion, Bartletts book is an enjoyable and thought-provoking addition to the conversation.

Bill Rambo teaches at The Laureate Academy in St. Norbert. He adheres to the radical idea that knowledge of Shakespeare could arrest virtually all decay of the English language.

Read more here:

Fringe movements key to changing the world - Winnipeg Free Press

Putting Infants Down Like Dogs – First Things

The Charlie Gard tragedy has renewed public advocacy for legalizing infanticide. Writing in the New York Times earlier this month, Gary Comstock recounted the tragic death of his son, Sam, who was born with a terminal genetic condition. Many years later, Comstock believes that his son should have been killed instead of being taken off of life support:

We should empathize with Comstock in his grief. But emotion must not tempt us to reject the venerable principles of human exceptionalism. Babieseven those with dire prospectsare precious human beings whose lives have intrinsic dignity and inherent moral value beyond that of any nonhuman.

Acceptance of Comstocks premisethat parents should kill babies who are likely to diewould be culturally catastrophic. It would lead to the legalization of murder. At Nuremberg, the German infanticide program was deemed a crime against humanity. Lets not abandon that wisdom.

The death of his son is not the only motive driving Comstocks advocacy. Comstock is a moral philosopher who rejects human exceptionalism and embraces animal rights and transhumanism. From his webpage:

Judging by Comstocks Times column, it seems these practical implications include legalizing infanticide. Indeed, in my decades of work around issues such as euthanasia, utilitarian bioethics, animal rights, transhumanism, and other associated agendas, I have found that the more one rejects human exceptionalism, the more likely one is to declare that immoral and (still) illegal wrongslike infanticideare virtuous.

The evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne is an even more vivid case in point. Coyne authors ablog titled Why Evolution is True, where he extrapolates evolutionary theoryinto highly questionable conclusions of morality, philosophy, and ethics. Using Comstocks pro-infanticide column as his launching pad, Coyne argues that if we can abort a fetus diagnosed with serious health issues, we should also be allowed to kill born babies with those conditions. He then makes the predictable claim that since we euthanize our sick pets, we should also be permitted to kill seriously ill and disabled babies:

Coyne then brings in anti-human exceptionalism:

Contrary to Coyne, human exceptionalism need not rely on religion to demonstrate its validity. But heres the germane point: To reject human exceptionalism is essentially to claim that we are just another animal in the forest, which leads to the logical conclusion that killing should be an allowable remedy to illness and disability. This view has already infected the Netherlands, where babies born with serious disabilities and terminal conditions are allowed by winked-at practicenot lawto be killed by doctors.

Many no longer believe that human life has ultimate, objective value simply because it is human. With human exceptionalism cast aside, our new prime directive is to eliminate suffering, and eliminating the sufferer is now advocated in high places as a moral good rather than a pernicious harm. As a result, dying and disabled babies are in mortal danger of consignment into a killable caste that canliterallybe put down like dogs.

Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institutes Center on Human Exceptionalism and a consultant to the Patients Rights Council. His most recent book isCulture of Death: The Age of Do Harm Medicine.

Become a fan ofFirst ThingsonFacebook,subscribe toFirst ThingsviaRSS, and followFirst ThingsonTwitter.

See more here:

Putting Infants Down Like Dogs - First Things

Futuristic Thriller State of Mind Gets 15 Minutes of New Gameplay Footage – DualShockers

German publisher and developer Daedalic Entertainment has released 15 minutes of new gameplay footage via IGN of its upcoming futuristic thriller,State of Mind,which is poised to release on PC, Mac, Linux, Switch, Xbox One, and PS4 sometime in Q4 2017.

For those that dont know:State of Mindis a futuristic thriller game that delves deep into transhumanism. According to Daedalic, the games main themes are separation, disjuncture and reunification: all set in a world that is torn between a dystopian material reality and a utopian virtual reality.

It is said in the game you will employ multiple playabable characters in two separate game worlds; however, it appears the main character of the game is Richard Nolan, a father and journalist from Berlin who discovers that he has been subject to an accident. As a result, he is still living with incomplete memories.

From there, Richard sets out on a search for salvation, aiming to reunite with his family and his lost memories. On his way though, he realizes his journey is not just about him, but the future of mankind.

Its currently unclear how muchState of Mindwill cost. Below, you can check out the new gameplay footage:

See original here:

Futuristic Thriller State of Mind Gets 15 Minutes of New Gameplay Footage - DualShockers

Peter Thiel is Funding the Comeback of the Woolly Mammoth – Inverse

Will we see a woolly mammoth within our lifetimes? If PayPal founder and CEO Peter Thiel has anything to say about it, we will.

According to Ben Mezrichs upcoming book Woolly, the notoriously future-obsessed Thiel has quietly been funding an ongoing project by geneticist George Church and his team of researchers at Harvard University to bring back the woolly mammoth.

Thats right: The same Thiel whose financial support of wrestler Hulk Hogans lawsuit against Gawker Media that effectively bankrupted the company is trying to help resurface the woolly mammoth from extinction.

The Harvard researchers led by Church are using the groundbreaking gene editing technique called CRISPR to insert woolly mammoth genes into the DNA of Asian elephants. According to Mezrich, Thiel gave $100,000 to the project in 2015.

Proponents of this project say that bringing back the prehistoric animal could help turn back climate change. Part of the logic behind this argument is that large herbivores trampling permafrost could help slow the loss of this slow-to-replenish environmental resource. In the last century, permafrost loss has been a self-reinforcing feedback loop the more the climate warms, the more permafrost is lost, and the more permafrost thats lost, the faster the climate warms.

On a more conceptual level, though, bringing back the woolly mammoth would call into question the very notion of extinction. As Inverse previously reported on this project, the same techniques used to bring back the woolly mammoth could be used for other, more contemporary animals.

This isnt the first time Thiel has aimed to disrupt death. The libertarian venture capitalist has put his money behind some pretty weird projects throughout his career. Among these are bioprinted meats, transhumanism via cryopreservation, and perhaps most famously, blood transfusions to prolong life. Thats what makes this revelation perhaps not as much of one: A billionaire whos obsessed with immortality is helping to fund a project intended to turn back geological time.

With such a varied resume of funding bizarre and ambitious scientific efforts, it should come as little surprise that Thiel wants to help bring back the woolly mammoth. Also, lets be real: For a man whose net worth is $2.7 billion, a $100,000 gift to a research laboratory is not a huge sacrifice. And while there are significant technological hurdles to overcome before we see a baby woolly mammoth take its first steps using CRISPR on embryonic stem cells and growing the fetuses in an artificial womb, just to name a couple it looks like Peter Thiel is betting the woolly mammoth will be stumbling alongside us soon.

Here is the original post:

Peter Thiel is Funding the Comeback of the Woolly Mammoth - Inverse

The body electric – Arkansas Times

At the gym, The Observer understands the utopian optimization of surveillance. Each day, The Observer goes and thinks back to videos consumed on how to move the arm (locked at the elbow) to locate the muscle, and then we do our three sets of 12. Then, like the scientist with his rat, we record the data.

Though in other parts of life, The Observer freaks out a bit about the constant uploading of the self to the cloud, still we think how nice it would be to have a theoretically benevolent electronic overlord biologically monitoring all of our movements. It could track The Observer's exact flailings and calculate their burn, their productivity and their production. It would weigh this against The Observer's eating and give a clean regression of whether or not we are, or not, a fatty. Our little ombudsman. Can knowledge eradicate the sin of sloth? More importantly: Wouldn't it be nice, sometimes, to not have a body?

By uploading, The Observer can put the most basic human annoyances of the body's needs into a system. For example, The Observer keeps a log of our exercise in a phone application that is combined with a food diary. To track the food, The Observer takes photos of the bar codes of items (for example, sandwich: photo of Swiss cheese code, photo of turkey code) to create nutrient and caloric tabulations. Throughout the day, The Observer will check the caloric count, from which is subtracted calories burned by the exercise The Observer logs, to see whether we're in spitting distance of our goals. Or, The Observer will slide over to a section titled "Macros" that via pie chart lets us know if we are consuming the proper percentages. As in, is our diet 20 percent protein? All of this satisfies the part of The Observer that grew up playing video games and enjoys the setting of goals and making of lists.

Not that it's really about production. The hope is to be happy. Which is simple to say, but so inherently biological and personal that you have to figure out how your brain chemistry ticks and tocks until it hits joy. Some people really want to go all robot, go past their humanity to felicity. The Observer shares this dream only sometimes, mainly when finding the body disappointing. Or, after being grumpy all day and then running for 10 minutes and feeling calm sweep over us almost immediately.

A recent essay in the magazine n+1 talks about "transhumanism." The idea is that there will be a singularity where we, as humans, merge with technology to become "posthuman: immortal, limitless, changed beyond recognition."

Generally, The Observer is fearful of such talk, having watched the Edward Snowden documentaries and seen Facebook rants after someone reads "1984." Also, it's mostly touted by strange Silicon Valley-types like Peter Thiel (who, no joke, talks about transfusing blood from the young to live longer). The Observer has no twinkle in our eye about living to 120.

But, the essay reminds us all that these ideas about transhumanism "are a secular outgrowth of Christian eschatology." What happens after we die? Well, what if technology lets us be born again? Born better ... that's something every Bible reader can understand. If The Observer goes to the gym every day, tracks the food every day, and is persistent, can The Observer be born better, too? It's a nice thought to be able to hack happy, but probably just a thought.

Excerpt from:

The body electric - Arkansas Times

4 life-changing emerging technologies to get excited about – Born2Invest

Cutting-edge technologies and innovations are changing the way we live on our planet.

Our world is changing fast and it can get hard to keep pace with all the industrial scientific emerging technologies and high-tech breakthroughs that are surfacing every day. Here is our pick for cutting-edge technologies and innovations that could change the way we live on our planet:

This is another brainwave from Elon Musk and Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (better known as SpaceX) that hopes to improve and ultimately change the face of transportation. The design is surprisingly elegant in its simplicity. There are specifically designed pods or capsules upheld in a near vacuum that are floating on 0.05 inches of pressurized air which are then send at high speed through a steel tube. Well, it does sound a tad claustrophobic especially that this passenger capsules would travel at an average speed of approximately 600 miles per hour with potential max speeds of up to 760 miles per hour. Energy efficient and wicked fast, this innovation could change the way people get from place to place forever.

Energy efficient and wicked fast, this innovation could change the way people get from place to place forever. (Source)

More of an intellectual movement than an invention, Transhumanism is the belief that humans can still evolve. Its that final evolution linking our minds and bodies with advanced technology, a subject thats been popularized by sci-fi films and books for years and in fact, the term Transhumanism was coined by Julian Huxley, the brother of Brave New World author Aldous Huxley. The idea is to ultimately bring forth a post-human state of being. While the concept is unnerving at its best for many, for those who embrace the idea there has never been a more exciting time to be alive, even if that life may be linked to a hard drive.

Transhumanism is the belief that humans can still evolve. (Source)

This is the name given to the design of a method of advanced space propulsion technology, also known as a radio frequency or RF resonant cavity thruster. This electromagnetic thruster uses pent up electromagnetic radiation to achieve impetus and momentum without discharging propellant. The conservation of momentum implied in Newtons laws of motion says it should be impossible and therefore there are many skeptical scientists whove given it the nickname the impossible drive. However, if they do get it to work it would completely change how we could lift off, making space exploration and defense missions that much simpler.

The EM drive uses pent up electromagnetic radiation to achieve impetus and momentum without discharging propellant. (Source)

Samsung bought the company back in 2014 and the concept is basically in the name. The idea is to produce smart home using an open platform where your appliances and devices all interact with one another. Using the internet of things, the system would work on a hub connected straight into the houses internet router, connecting devices to one another via the cloud. Compatible things could consist of locks, lights, electrical outlets, motion sensors, speakers, moisture sensors, and thermostats. Like most innovations that lurk on the border of sci-fi and reality, this sounds like it could either be amazing or a hackers paradise.

Using the internet of things the system would work on a hub connected straight into the houses internet router. (Source)

See the original post:

4 life-changing emerging technologies to get excited about - Born2Invest

Transhumanism Is Just Fancy Sex-Shaming And Self-Loathing – The Federalist

Ever since we first took bite of the proverbial apple and were ejected from Eden, human beings have been trying to better themselves. Whether through acquiring new knowledge or attempting to revert to a more natural state, the question of how best to further human progress is always at hand. One of the latest concepts is transhumanism.

A philosophy stretching back into the last few decades of the twentieth century, transhumanism proposes that the future of humankind is to not be human at all. Proponents of transhumanism believe that by altering how humans reproduce, genetically and technologically augmenting the body, and potentially dispensing with the body altogether in favor of neurological liberation, we can take charge of our own evolution for the better. While all of that may seem a ways off, one things shines through: in the future, sex as we know it may be a thing of the past.

Human beings are well on the road to altering how we reproduce. From in-vitro to surrogacy to children born with three biological parents, we are no longer a species that requires physical sex to generate offspring. Despite removing the reproductive incentive, however, our culture is incredibly focused on sex.

Our bodies and minds clamor for this release, and our art and entertainment reflect that right back to us. While there are exceptions, sex is not usually the subject of what we consider high culture. Instead, sexual content is considered base, and so is the act itself. We condemn it, restrict it, and are shamed by it. Perhaps if we entirely remove the biological necessity of sex by doing away with the 14-day rule that limits experimenters to embryos younger than 14 days old, we will remove the stigma of sex by completely test-tubing reproduction. Will this free our higher, cognitive selves from the base physicality that binds us to our bodies and to each other?

We have invented the tools to rule our own evolution, and each is designed to liberate us from our natural bodies. Reproductive technologies and artificial wombs, medical advancements in artificial limbs, hearts, lungs, all render our natural state primitive.

Many people think artificiality enhances life. We need not look far into the annals of medical science to see that the breakthroughs in artificial limbs, reproduction, and tissue and organ replacement make life better for many people. There is a difference, however, in correcting a physical detriment and altering the physical form wholesale.

Yet I cant be the only one who gets queasy at the concept of genetic enhancement. The ethical questions abound, in terms of genetic altering for gender, skin color, height, predisposition toward a particular skill set. The argument can be made eradicating genetic illnesses is an honorable mission. But how are these illnesses defined? Is Downs Syndrome something to eradicate? What about autism? Schizophrenia? Bipolar disorder?

We are naturalists about the environment, animals, and oceans, but dismiss ourselves as beings of nature and instead think of ourselves as contaminants. Our time teaches us that everything in nature is precious except for that perennial villain, the Homo sapiens. An ancient relic of a forgotten time, the Homo sapiensthe explorer, the nomad, the homesteader, the brave, the noble, the being made in Gods imageis in danger of extinction at its own hand. We have overthought ourselves so thoroughly that we are convincing ourselves that any reality the mind can conjure, the body should imitate.

Transhumanism presupposes atheism as the only reasonable perspective. It sets us up as gods who take charge of, and direct, our own evolutionary capabilities and assumes that a more technological being is preferable to one that relies on its own body. Yet we are still unable to create life from scratch, unable to manufacture the spark of existence. Without understanding how life is made, we are attempting to remake it.

Whereas mankind previously believed we were made in the image of God, we are now meant to believe that we should make ourselves over in our own, imagined image of what humanity can be. We hold God up as an example of the good we can attain to, despite our limitations.

If we become our own gods, we will be self-hating gods, eternally dissatisfied, tweaking all nature right out of ourselves. What will we remove from our genetic make-up in pursuit of the most efficient human? Fear? Sadness? Empathy? Eroticism? It is easy to imagine the drastic measures we would take to better ourselves, only to wind up entirely disassociated from what makes life worth living.

If the Age of Reason taught us about the mind/body split, the twenty-first century is schooling us on the mind/body divorce. Divorcing the mind from the body is exactly what the transhumanists intend once the concept of neurological liberation becomes practice.

The ability of scientists to upload a consciousness to an artificial neural net is not too far off. Cut off from the body, the mind has a very limited scope. It cannot gain information through sensory input. Human beings are made up of experiences as relayed to the brain through the senses. What is a brain without sensory input, and what is a being that cannot feel, smell, taste, hear, see?

This final state, a mind without a body, eliminates sex entirely. While the mind may be the ultimate erogenous zone, it needs the body to achieve release. The brain is not just a meat computer, it is a physical entity that performs physical functions within itself. Transhumanists ask us to imagine ourselves as minds without bodies, as though that is somehow a higher state of being that our natural ones. But it isnt.

Instead of looking at sex as something beneath us, we should consider it as one of the most beautiful expressions of our humanity. Sex can bring about an emotional and physical connection, and in long-term relationships sex takes on a more profound meaning.

It can be a way to communicate and tend to the needs of a lover in ways that words, commiserations, and even a hug cant get close to. The transhumanists would have us transcend the body, but the tools of transcendence are within us.

The idea of altering the human being into something that is both human and trans, or beyond the existing concept of humanity, assumes that we fundamentally know what it means to be human. It also presupposes that it is reasonable to accelerate cognitive development at the cost of our physical selves. We must consider, and value, what we would leave behind. The body is not a dead weight that our minds lug around. The body does more than hold our consciousness, it drives it.

Sex, and the pleasure drive, is a gift. It is a gift to be able to extend our own boundaries to include another person. Sex gives us the ability to feel ephemeral and grounded all at once and to feel thoroughly connected to another human being. That is not something to give away.

Sex has been the raison detre of humanity since our beginning. No matter what we may think we will get in return, for the continuance of our life or the collective consciousness of our fellow humans, sex is not something to relinquish to technological advancement.

Visit link:

Transhumanism Is Just Fancy Sex-Shaming And Self-Loathing - The Federalist

Transhumanism: The World’s Most Dangerous Idea?

What idea, if embraced, would pose the greatest threat to the welfare of humanity? This was the question posed by the editors of Foreign Policy in the September/October issue to eight prominent policy intellectuals, among them Francis Fukuyama, professor of international political economy at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and member of the Presidents Council on Bioethics.

And Fukuyamas answer? Transhumanism, a strange liberation movement whose crusaders aim much higher than civil rights campaigners, feminists, or gay-rights advocates. This movement, he says, wants nothing less than to liberate the human race from its biological constraints.

More precisely, transhumanists advocate increased funding for research to radically extend healthy lifespan and favor the development of medical and technological means to improve memory, concentration, and other human capacities. Transhumanists propose that everybody should have the option to use such means to enhance various dimensions of their cognitive, emotional, and physical well-being. Not only is this a natural extension of the traditional aims of medicine and technology, but it is also a great humanitarian opportunity to genuinely improve the human condition.

According to transhumanists, however, the choice whether to avail oneself of such enhancement options should generally reside with the individual. Transhumanists are concerned that the prestige of the Presidents Council on Bioethics is being used to push a limiting bioconservative agenda that is directly hostile to the goal of allowing people to improve their lives by enhancing their biological capacities.

So why does Fukuyama nominate this transhumanist ideal, of working towards making enhancement options universally available, as the most dangerous idea in the world? His animus against the transhumanist position is so strong that he even wishes for the death of his adversaries: transhumanists, he writes, are just about the last group that Id like to see live forever. Why exactly is it so disturbing for Fukuyama to contemplate the suggestion that people might use technology to become smarter, or to live longer and healthier lives?

Fierce resistance has often accompanied technological or medical breakthroughs that force us to reconsider some aspects of our worldview. Just as anesthesia, antibiotics, and global communication networks transformed our sense of the human condition in fundamental ways, so too we can anticipate that our capacities, hopes, and problems will change if the more speculative technologies that transhumanists discuss come to fruition. But apart from vague feelings of disquiet, which we may all share to varying degrees, what specific argument does Fukuyama advance that would justify foregoing the many benefits of allowing people to improve their basic capacities?

Fukuyamas objection is that the defense of equal legal and political rights is incompatible with embracing human enhancement: Underlying this idea of the equality of rights is the belief that we all possess a human essence that dwarfs manifest differences in skin color, beauty, and even intelligence. This essence, and the view that individuals therefore have inherent value, is at the heart of political liberalism. But modifying that essence is the core of the transhumanist project.

His argument thus depends on three assumptions: (1) there is a unique human essence; (2) only those individuals who have this mysterious essence can have intrinsic value and deserve equal rights; and (3) the enhancements that transhumanists advocate would eliminate this essence. From this, he infers that the transhumanist project would destroy the basis of equal rights.

The concept of such a human essence is, of course, deeply problematic. Evolutionary biologists note that the human gene pool is in constant flux and talk of our genes as giving rise to an extended phenotype that includes not only our bodies but also our artifacts and institutions. Ethologists have over the past couple of decades revealed just how similar we are to our great primate relatives. A thick concept of human essence has arguably become an anachronism. But we can set these difficulties aside and focus on the other two premises of Fukuyamas argument.

The claim that only individuals who possess the human essence could have intrinsic value is mistaken. Only the most callous would deny that the welfare of some non-human animals matters at least to some degree. If a visitor from outer space arrived on our doorstep, and she had consciousness and moral agency just like we humans do, surely we would not deny her moral status or intrinsic value just because she lacked some undefined human essence. Similarly, if some persons were to modify their own biology in a way that alters whatever Fukuyama judges to be their essence, would we really want to deprive them of their moral standing and legal rights? Excluding people from the moral circle merely because they have a different essence from the rest of us is akin to excluding people on basis of their gender or the color of their skin.

Moral progress in the last two millennia has consisted largely in our gradually learning to overcome our tendency to make moral discriminations on such fundamentally irrelevant grounds. We should bear this hard-earned lesson in mind when we approach the prospect of technologically modified people. Liberal democracies speak to human equality not in the literal sense that all humans are equal in their various capacities, but that they are equal under the law. There is no reason why humans with altered or augmented capacities should not likewise be equal under the law, nor is there any ground for assuming that the existence of such people must undermine centuries of legal, political, and moral refinement.

The only defensible way of basing moral status on human essence is by giving essence a very broad definition; say as possessing the capacity for moral agency. But if we use such an interpretation, then Fukuyamas third premise fails. The enhancements that transhumanists advocate longer healthy lifespan, better memory, more control over emotions, etc. would not deprive people of the capacity for moral agency. If anything, these enhancements would safeguard and expand the reach of moral agency.

Fukuyamas argument against transhumanism is therefore flawed. Nevertheless, he is right to draw attention to the social and political implications of the increasing use of technology to transform human capacities. We will indeed need to worry about the possibility of stigmatization and discrimination, either against or on behalf of technologically enhanced individuals. Social justice is also at stake and we need to ensure that enhancement options are made available as widely and as affordably as possible. This is a primary reason why transhumanist movements have emerged. On a grassroots level, transhumanists are already working to promote the ideas of morphological, cognitive, and procreative freedoms with wide access to enhancement options. Despite the occasional rhetorical overreaches by some of its supporters, transhumanism has a positive and inclusive vision for how we can ethically embrace new technological possibilities to lead lives that are better than well.

The only real danger posed by transhumanism, it seems, is that people on both the left and the right may find it much more attractive than the reactionary bioconservatism proffered by Fukuyama and some of the other members of the Presidents Council.

[For a more developed response, see In Defense of Posthuman Dignity, Bioethics, 2005, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 202-214.]

Go here to see the original:

Transhumanism: The World's Most Dangerous Idea?

The Reality Principle – Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies

Amongst the criticisms often directed at transhumanist ideas, one of the most common is the prediction that access to the technologies on which it depends will mostly be limited to a small affluent minority. This veritable apartheid by technology would create a divide into the commonality of the human race, and produce two or more human classes moving at different speeds, which would be the source of inequality and new forms of exploitation.

Originally published in French on Technoprog

The proponents of a democratic transhumanism, or technoprogressivism who claim that access to the largest number of NBIC technologies is possible, are in turn accused at best of wishful thinking [1], naivet [ 2] or, at worst, literal collusion with the interests of the ruling oligarchies. [3] Actually, they would tend to be a straw man, or a sort of Trojan horse, whose objective is to convince restive populations to changes intimately felt as an attempt at collective manipulation.

And, I consider the latter risk real. I would like to strongly draw the attention of those of my friends who recognize in technoprogressivism the necessity of being guided by a principle of reality. One common characteristic of nearly all of the transhumanists I know is an unbridled enthusiasm for technology. This is a source of dynamisme, often of creativity, of fulfillment, and dare I say, sometimes of happiness. But it mustn't be forgotten that, for the forces involved - the masses around the planet; social and cultural groups; to ruling oligarchies, an eventual transhumanist evolution of humanity is a key issue. Each of these actors is going to do everything in their power to affect the outcome.

Changing things so everything stays the same!

In 2006, Jacques Attali published a prospective essay: A brief history of the future. Written within a wide historical context, it leads us through a perspective of an evolution in two phases. To start, he posits a paroxysmal collapse of the current system ( "hyper-empire"), after dissolution of States; then a global democratic renaissance. During this evolution, one of the emerging trends in society would be transhumanism.

Reflecting on the possible sources of hope, he offers a silver lining. Being outside the mainstream today, he could prepare a conceptual alternative for tomorrow. Yet barely a year later, he chaired a commission convened by N. Sarkozy, whose work advocated a strengthening of the current system: 300 ideas to change France? Is it some Attalie mysteries or a Marxist sense of history: is it necessary to reach the absurd endpoint of a given economic system before the conditions are met for the emergence of another system?

History teaches us that a longstanding and effective system of power (slavery, monarchy (especially absolute), the capitalist oligarchy, ...) has virtually no ability to transcend itself. At best (at worst), it seeks to mutate to adapt to new circumstances, to survive for its own sake. "Changing things so everything stays the same," said Giuseppe di Lampedusa, via the hero of The Leopard, an old aristocrat witnessing the collapse of the old regime. And the aristocracy married the triumphant bourgeoisie.

Another generation, another technocrat. I am an admirer of the work done for years by Jean-Paul Baquiast (Intelligent Machines; Philosciences; and many other written works [4]). I owe him a thinking, among other things, from his thesis on anthropotechnic" companies, and according to which, collectively, we are still essentially blind and irresponsible about the decisions we make. In other words, there is no captain at the helm of the ship of humanity, while icebergs abound on the horizon.

Continuing the metaphor: It's not that the ship has no direction. Looking out from the bridge, it seems that there has been, especially in the last three centuries, a definite trajectory, thanks to technological progress and the Enlightenment .... Is that due to a great and ceaseless accumulation or concentration of wealth and power? Or is it due to an ever increasing and more important liberation of human beings, as much in a philosophical sense as a biological one? Whatever the case, no one single driver has chosen consciously. To be sure, I do not believe in conspiracy theories of how those in power want again to shift things in their favor. The situation is actually, in a sense, more agonizing than if the leaders really were manning the helm, because in this vessel of humanity, where different crews of sailors haul the lines to and fro, the risk of shipwreck is considerable.

However, no one wants to smash into the rocks.

This huge risk alone justifies a change in approach to a more planned one, to the greatest degree possible. If it is not possible to restrain how everyone, and each and every cultural or social group, utilizes technological advances, it is perhaps conceivable to instead channel their intent.

But once again, the Reality Principle obliges, lets not forget, faced with the ideas of technoprogressivism - that of a democratic transhumanism, for all, chosen, progressive, measured, respectful of humanity in transition, respectful of the necessary ecological and social balance, etc. stands the logic of the systems of power currently in place.

But it is obvious that this system promotes a transhumanism in his image, from the origins of this movement, to serve his purposes. And the system in question puts all his weight, colossal, to develop transhumanism that suits him.

This is perhaps something which Jacques Attali did not expect to see coming so soon. That transhumanism would immediately be used by the Empire. That it would be so quickly taken out of the fringe to be cast as a new source of power or a new method of control. We see as soon as today how its first achievements are reflected in new mainstream consumption, new weapons, or new means of surveillance. [5]

In fact, every major technological development carries essentially two possibilities: acquisition by the largest number or acquisition by the elite. And at the root of the extremely complex social, ethical, psychological causes, etc., that determine this outcome is the tension between the need for solidarity in a social species, and the desire for selfish gain - a contradiction that runs through all of us. For almost the entire history of humanity, this tension has played out mainly around material advantages: from food, to warmth, to security. These material advantages then became associated with social symbols which themselves have become issues of contention: titles of nobility, celebrity, ...

Today, a growing part of the world population makes choices primarily on the basis of symbols and perceptions, to obtain material, moral, social, psychological prestige .... while actual access to material goods gradually becomes of secondary concern, because basic goods are accessible to many. Because of global technological progress, the last two centuries have been marked by increasingly broad access to basic goods and a subsequent decrease in differences in this regard[6] and, contrary to common perception, by a decrease in the use of violence. [7]

But unfortunately, this relative abundance has not, or hardly, diminished the desire or the need for dominance. [8] The desire to "maintain the upper hand" persists, even while in 2014, countries in the Northern hemisphere, and the majority of Southern hemisphere nations, have at least a smaller proportion of their populations who are still forced to live in deep poverty.

In this way, a necessary and inevitable outburst is coming, one leading to a reconstruction which replicates in general terms the same structural inequalities of the past. That is in any case what is predicted by a good number of those people who venture to look through the crystal ball at our uncertain future [note: ultimately, is alarmism not a comforting refuge?].

Pessimistic question: Is there really anything we can do?

Technoprogressive transhumanist perspectives?

So, what will be left in the fringes to come up with genuine alternatives?

Some old fashioned ways to go, undoubtedly, but thats just the beginning. Free distribution of knowledge on a mass scale, open sharing and non-commercial in general. Peer to peer support, solidarity. Hacking, in the form of an unexpected and subversive diversion of the machine of consumerism. Revolt 2.0 also, which can mobilize a huge number of people around definitive or symbolic actions within days using the speed of digital networks, catching political or media elites off-guard and leaving them dumbfounded. The reappropriation of the means of production? Who knows...

Many people today dream of the complete reshuffling of the cards enabled by the widespread adoption of 3D printing. What economic and social consequences will the dissemination of this technology have? In a classic Marxist analysis, control of the means of production is a key factor in the social order. Will this translate into a genuine democratization, or will the dominant system succeed again in seizing global control, by putting its hand on the key levers: raw materials, and especially algorithm design?

From the perspective of social mobilization, widespread automation is both a source of concern and a source of hope. Designed by the global oligarchy, it can - through the organization of unemployment, economic dependence, combined with the dictatorship of entertainment - lead our societies to a further decline of real freedoms. But via the freeing up of a large amount of time, it can conversely allow the flourishing of creativity, and a diversification of our experiences. Devoted transhumanists would waste no time in taking the opportunity to explore all avenues of techno-biological evolution.

In fact, if history is any guide, we can imagine that these various trends will play out at the same time.

Finally, I will mention one last source of individual and social transformation which is much less discussed - probably because it is still primarily scientific and philosophical speculation - that of moral enhancement. A possible "moral enhancement" by technology will be possible only after considerable progress in our understanding of brain function. We can already foretell some of the ethical issues that the technology will pose regarding freedom of conscience. As with any technology, we can easily imagine that it will involve the same issues of power relations. In a neoliberal and capitalist context for example, I think the pursuit of maximum profit will surely be a motivator to discover the most effective methods of controlling individual behavior. Moral enhancement, taken as an ideal endpoint of advertising logic, could result in veritable mind control. This logic would probably find favor with government policy makers in light of their concern for order and security. A bit of dystopian imagining takes us quickly to conjure scenarios from Orwells 1984.

However, it is possible to use such technology positively, such that it is useful to everyone, liberating, and truly progressive. One could say that it is precisely because of our still primitive moral evolution that we continue to perpetuate predatory behavior that causes so much ill. At our core, we are probably all more or less predisposed toward dominating behaviors, and eventually aggressiveness, hence an intrinsic inability to show real empathy for what goes beyond the narrow circle of our "clan" [8], which is perhaps a result of our Darwinian adaptation to survival in the pre-Neolithic world. A wisely managed dampening of biological factors that play an important role in the development of our most negative attitudes might get us out of this seemingly endless cycle: endless accumulation of power, harsh challenging, perpetual recreation.

One member of Technologos, an organization that is usually very critical of what they consider to be a headlong technological rush, recently pointed out to me that in his view transhumanists have not taken into account the considerable ideological role they have taken on and which they will still have to play.

The challenge seems to me enormous. A priori, the poorest and the weakest may sense that they have little hope of escaping the clash having come away with something. The power of the multinational billionaires of NBIC, allied with that of governments may seem unstoppable. Yet I hardly see another alternative. We must continue this fight if we want the essence of our humanity to be preserved through the transhumanist evolution to come.

Instead of remaining prisoners of an insurmountable reality principle, we must start to build right now another reality.

Marc Roux

For AFT:Technoprog

(Thanks to Didier Coeurnelle and Cyril Gazengel, among others, for their collaboration)

[1] Jean-Didier Vincent, Bienvenue en transhumanie [Welcome to transhumanism], 2011

[2] Jean-Michel Besnier, in the context of a debate on Newsring: Faut-il condamner le transhumanisme ? [Should transhumanism be denounced?]

[3] Notably, this is the position of the association Pice et Main dOeuvre.

[4] Jean-Paul Baquiast, Pour un principe matrialiste fort [Toward a robust materialist principle], Ed. JP.Bayol.

[5] Despite the international scandal provoked by the revelations of E. Snowden, the Obama administration is considering only a minor reform of the NSA

[6] Rapport du PNUD sur le dveloppement humain 2011 [UNDP Human Development Report]

[7] Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature, 2011

[8] The need for dominance was notably theorised by Henri Laborit who said: Tant quon naura pas diffus trs largement travers les hommes de cette plante la faon dont fonctionne leur cerveau, la faon dont ils lutilisent et tant que lon naura pas dit que jusquici que cela a toujours t pour dominer lautre, il y a peu de chance quil y ait quoi que ce soit qui change. [Until we have widely disseminated to the men of this planet the workings of their brains, the manner in which they use them and as long as we havent said that until now it has always been to dominate others, there is little chance that anything will change.]

[8] Ingmar Persson And Julian Savulescu, Unfit for the Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement, 2012

See the article here:

The Reality Principle - Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies

Transhumanism Conference at Samford University

Theological Reflections on Technology and Human Enhancement

Technology has changed our world dramatically over the past century and promises to change it more rapidly in coming years. Emerging computer and biomedical technologies have the potential to revolutionize our bodies and perhaps our understanding of human nature. Transhumanism is the name for the movement that enthusiastically embraces the opportunity to transcend bodily limits with new technology, especially the possibility of extending the human lifespan and increasing mental and physical abilities. Its most optimistic advocates predict a future where death has been defeated through the power to reverse biological processes or offload mental states onto computers. What should be the response of the church to Transhumanism and the technological possibilities for human enhancement that are on the horizon?

In September 2015, the Samford Center for Science and Religion held a conference on Transhumanism and the Church as a way to promote critical reflection and public understanding on an issue that will become increasingly important in future decades. The keynote lectures for the conference can be found in the video player and playlist at the top of this page.

Pittsburgh Theological Seminary Editor of Transhumanism and Transcendence: Christian Hope in an Age of Technological Enhancement

The College of New Jersey Author of Cyborg Selves: A Theological Anthropology of the Posthuman

Arizona State University Author of Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodiesand What It Means to be Human

Samford University Author of Dimensions of Faith: Understanding Faith Through the Lens of Science and Religion (forthcoming)

Oxford University Author of Eschatology and the Technological Future

St. Louis University Co-Author of Chasing After Virtue: Neuroscience, Economics, and the Biopolitics of Morality (forthcoming)

Emory University Author of Biblical Theology: Problems and Prospects

Wheaton College

Author of Prophets of the Posthuman: American Literature, Biotechnology, and the Ethics of Personhood

Read more from the original source:

Transhumanism Conference at Samford University

Touring transhumanism ‘To Be a Machine’ – Maine Edge

Book explores the tech subculture waging war on death

In a world where the growth of technology is exponential, the span of time between science fiction and science fact becomes increasingly shorter. Things that seem like the height of speculative fantasy become commonplace in just a generation or two.

That rapid expansion of scientific capability has led to the development of a subculture devoted to accelerating human evolution and ultimately conquering death itself - through technological means. These people, with varied ideas and attitudes regarding what that acceleration means, are loosely grouped under the umbrella term transhumanism.

Journalist Mark OConnell spent some time with assorted members of this movement; the result is his new book To Be a Machine: Adventures Among Cyborgs, Utopians, Hackers, and the Futurists Solving the Modest Problem of Death (Doubleday, $26.95). Through encounters with people that run the gamut from Silicon Valley billionaires to basement-dwelling hackers OConnell discovers the wide array of motivations that drive this unique (and often strange) group.

Much of the book revolves around the notion of the Singularity. The term - coined by mathematician and physicist John von Neumann in the 1950s and popularized in recent years by the futurist Ray Kurzweil represents the hypothesis that the development of artificial intelligence springing from scientific acceleration will trigger a technological explosion far beyond anything that we can currently comprehend.

Those who believe in the inevitability of the Singularity can go to drastic (and drastically different) lengths to prepare for it. But all share some variation on a particular belief that the human body is a machine, one which technology will someday allow us to move beyond. And almost all of them truly believe that their path can lead them in escaping death itself.

Theres the Alcor cryonics facility in Arizona, for instance. Alcor perhaps best known as the final resting place of baseball legend Ted Williams believes that they are capable of freezing a person in a state between life and death, preserving them until such time as science has determined a way to bring them back. OConnell also speaks to people who have devoted their lifes work to the notion of mapping the human brain to such a detailed extent as to be able to digitally replicate a persons consciousness.

OConnell meets with people devoted to preparing for the worst-case-scenario of artificial intelligence, believing AI to be a potentially existential threat to humanity, and young self-styled biohackers whose rough-and-ready work is based around turning themselves into literal cyborgs.

To each of these encounters, OConnell brings a keen and empathetic journalistic eye that conflicts nicely with his personal distaste for the concepts being presented. Thats not to say that hes judging these people. Hes not. Quite the opposite his interest, engagement and even admiration for their passion comes through.

Essentially, he allows his own feelings about what it means to be human to help balance the singular zeal presented by the people he dubs (not without affection) Singularitarians. That balance turns something that could have been fairly dry into a compelling narrative, one populated with outsized characters who are brilliant, eccentric or most often both.

To Be a Machine is flat-out fascinating. OConnells journey is a laymans adventure through the technological looking glass, an opportunity to meet with a subculture existing on the fringes of the tech scene and a compelling peek at one possible future. Sharply-written and thought-provoking, To Be a Machine is a book that will undoubtedly set your mind to racing and your gears to turning.

Follow this link:

Touring transhumanism 'To Be a Machine' - Maine Edge

‘To Be A Machine’ Digs Into The Meaning Of Humanity – WPSU

"Flesh is a dead format," writes Mark O'Connell in To Be a Machine, his new nonfiction book about the contemporary transhumanist movement. It's an alarming statement, but don't kill the messenger: As he's eager to explain early in the book, the author is not a transhumanist himself. Instead, he's used To Be a Machine as a vehicle to dive into this loosely knit movement, which he sums up as "a rebellion against human existence as it has been given." In other words, transhumanists believe that technology specifically, a direct interface between humans and machines is the only way our species can progress from its current, far-than-ideal state. Evolution is now in our hands, they claim, and if that means shedding the evolutionary training wheels of flesh itself, so be it.

O'Connell, who comes from a literary rather than a scientific background, plays up his fish-out-of-water status, which is one of the book's great strengths. To Be a Machine isn't written as an insider-baseball account of transhumanism; instead, it's framed as an investigation. With a winning mix of awestruck fascination and well-chilled skepticism, he tracks down various high-profile transhumanists on their own turf, immerses himself in their worlds, and delivers dispatches wryly humorous, cogently insightful that breathe life into this almost mystical circle of thinkers and doers.

Big names in the tech field such as Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Bill Gates, and Ray Kurzweil are part of the story, but O'Connell digs deeper. His quest takes him to Anders Sandberg, a monklike proponent of cognitive enhancement; Max More, founder of the world's foremost cryonics company, who freezes the heads of deceased clients in the hopes they can one day be revived; and Arati Prabhakar, former director of the Pentagon's DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), whose competitive development of robotics has fostered everything from killer robots to those designed, eerily enough, to hug people.

Not only does O'Connell apply a healthy curiosity to his subjects, he places them in illuminating context. Amid vivid firsthand reportage, he dwells on the history and ramifications of transhumanism: economically, anthropologically, sociologically, theologically and culturally. He deftly probes the existential risk to humans in regard to the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence. He balances the impulse for self-betterment with the potential recklessness of runaway innovation. And he uses the transhumanists' current efforts to transfer the human mind to a digital vessel as a way of rephrasing the age-old philosophical question, "What is consciousness?"

Unexpectedly, faith becomes a large component of his query he cites the writings of Saint Augustine and the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas alongside the physicist John von Neumann and the science fiction visionary Philip K. Dick, and a conversation with a Buddhist transhumanist reveals a profound unity in how ancient religions and modern futurists view suffering.

To Be a Machine packs in a lot, but it never feels overstuffed. O'Connell lays the book out like a travelogue, going from one tech conference to another and never failing to tap into his own mix of awe and incredulity in the face of what he calls the "metaphysical weirdness" and "magical rationalism" of the transhumanist scene. He injects just enough personal background and anecdotes into his story to help humanize it up to and including some beautifully funny and poignant insights into his own everyday struggle with technology, fatherhood, and mortality.

In one of the book's most shocking chapters, he visits a collective of biohackers, or "grinders," in Pittsburgh who surgically implant sensors into their flesh in order to more intimately interface with the machine world. The details are both horrifying and strangely noble, and O'Connell depicts them with sensitivity, sympathy, and a novelist's eye for narrative. Rather than a dry treatise on science, To Be a Machine is a lucid, soulful pilgrimage into the heart of what humanity means to us now and how science may redefine it tomorrow, for better and for worse.

Jason Heller is a senior writer at The A.V. Club, a Hugo Award-winning editor and author of the novel Taft 2012.

Read more here:

'To Be A Machine' Digs Into The Meaning Of Humanity - WPSU

Buddhism and Transhumanism – Lankaweb

According to some versions of Buddhist apocrypha, the condition of our species mankind varied tremendously across vast ages. We live in an age of decadence and finitude wherein life is short and mankind is inexorably menaced by pain and death. Under these conditions, The Compassionate Buddhas bearing a salvific message appear before us and preach the sublime doctrine of total liberation from the forces of Karma and endless reincarnation.

All is not gloom and doom however because of the cyclicity of nature and its processes there were periods in the grand history of the Cosmos when our kind Homo sapiens were long-lived giants leading a salubrious existence with pain and suffering a distant shadow. Such beings, perforce, were unreceptive to the noble message of salvation and total release from the bondage of Karma hence The Buddhas did not appear to solace a grieving cohort of mankind and the healing truth lay in abeyance for long periods.

The great question to be answered is whether such periods of existential joy can be recaptured by the clever use of the science and learning now available for the advancement of our species when heavens and hells are forgotten and Planet Earth albeit briefly becomes the New Elysium.

The Transhumanists led by such stalwarts as Ray Kurzweil and Noah Harari believe that Homo sapiens can be made Homo deus by the clever use of the science and technology currently available if this goal is assiduously pursued. They pose the question What is it to be God-like? They find and most will agree that immortality, bliss and the power to do things at will are key attributes of divinity.

These seemingly divine attributes can be made part of the equipage of Homo sapiens with a sufficiently advanced science and the collective will to make the best of what we know and have. Heavens and Hells become paltry and negligible when divinity becomes commonplace.

Most futurologists believe that the life-span of Homo sapiens can be indefinitely extended and our knowledge base made God-like so that we can have what we wish. The issue of bliss is tricky because conventional Gods are debarred from the Four Fs and spend their idle days contemplating a non-functional navel.

Transhumanists believe that Homo deus can do much better with a form of active divinity based on a study of virtual worlds and computer simulations. In brief, death and the terrors of the associated afterlife can be actively expunged while all that is good and gracious can be made the norm.

If such a beatific scenario is a possibility our best efforts must be attuned to its realization religions must fade away and the torture-chambers called hells that disfigure all religions will become emblematic of a false spirituality that sees the suffering of others as a kind of sounding board for the boastfully virtuous.

Disclaimer: The comments contained within this website are personal reflection only and do not necessarily reflect the views of the LankaWeb. LankaWeb.com offers the contents of this website without charge, but does not necessarily endorse the views and opinions expressed within. Neither the LankaWeb nor the individual authors of any material on this Web site accept responsibility for any loss or damage, however caused (including through negligence), which you may directly or indirectly suffer arising out of your use of or reliance on information contained on or accessed through this Web site. All views and opinions presented in this article are solely those of the surfer and do not necessarily represent those of LankaWeb.com.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2017. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response.

Original post:

Buddhism and Transhumanism - Lankaweb

Zoltan Istvan on transhumanism, politics and why the human body has to go – New Atlas

Zoltan Istvan is a transhumanist, journalist, politician, writer and libertarian. He is also running for Governor of California for the Libertarian Party on a platform pushing science and technology to the forefront of political discourse. In recent years the movement of transhumanism has moved from a niche collection of philosophical ideals and anarcho-punk gestures into a mainstream political movement. Istvan has become the popular face of this movement after running for president in 2016 on a dedicated transhumanist platform.

We caught up with Istvan to chat about how transhumanist ideals can translate into politics, how technology is going to change us as humans and the dangers in not keeping up with new innovations such as genetic editing.

New Atlas: How does transhumanism intersect with politics?

Istvan: For me you can never make any headway in the universe, or on planet Earth, if you don't involve politics because so much money for innovation or research and development comes from the government and so many laws about what you can do. Genetic editing, chip implants, can you get a brain implant that makes you smarter than other people? These things are often directed by the government determining whether it's illegal or not. You can either be thrown in jail or not thrown in jail so you must have a political footprint, you must have attorneys on the ground, you must have that kind of legal position that can explain things in terms that a government will understand.

One of the things that happened to me was that when I became a public figure in the movement, I realized very quickly there was zero political framework for this entire movement. It was one of the reasons why I founded the Transhumanist Party and also then went through the process to become the 2016 nominee.

As part of his 2016 Presidential campaign Zoltan Istvan traveled through the United States in a bus shaped like a coffin(Credit: Zoltan Istvan)

You've recently announced your run for California governor as a libertarian. How do you reconcile the small government "hands off" ideals of a libertarian ideology with your transhumanist goals of keeping technological innovations accessible to all?

Well, tranhumanism began as a libertarian philosophy really, with most early people who though about it having the point of view that we should have the right to merge with machines, we should have the right to overcome death.

To actually make real headway in politics it would takes years, maybe decades, to get the transhumanist party with enough funding and infrastructure to make a difference. But with the libertarians you walk directly into a party that got four million votes for Gary Johnson, its 2016 presidential nominee. Four million votes is a lot of votes.

That's one of the reasons why I am running for the libertarian party. Its not that in any way am I changing my science or technology beliefs. It just happens to be that the libertarian philosophy is pretty equivalent with tranhumanism and it fits very well for the next journey of my life.

What do you see the government's role is in preventing technological inequality between the rich and poor?

In my opinion the government should obviously be around to make sure we don't create a dystopia. Everyone thought the transhumanist party was totally optimistic of technology and while it totally is, it is also very fundamentally concerned with things like being able to go onto eBay and for a thousand dollars buy some kind of a virus making kit where you can create a virus that could take out millions of people. Or the idea of artificial intelligence, some people just want to let AI run wild whereas I'm not really sure we want a species on Earth that is smarter than human beings. I'm not sure that makes any sense.

So despite the optimism of the transhumanism party and that political element, we were also very conscious that inequality was growing because of technology. That said the standard of life was improving around the world even if inequality was growing. But still, I think the role of transhumanism in politics is not just to say, 'this is the greatest thing ever, let's go full force with whatever new technological development is happening.' We need to be concerned about these things.

Transhumanists can play a political role by stepping up and saying there are limits to where technology goes, and at the same time some things like genetic editing are things that we should put our foot down and say this should be open market. We should find out where this takes us and seek to improve ourselves as human beings. As you probably read all the time, Christian America is literally trying to shut down genetic editing and they are only getting certain types of things going. It's just like when George W Bush ran the government and stopped stem cell funding for seven years. They are trying to do the same thing now with genetic editing, which is perhaps the most promising science of the 21st century. This is where transhumanists have to stand up and just say no, this has to be determined by the market. If people start creating monsters and those monsters do evil things that's a whole different story, but what we're trying to do right now is eliminate cancer, augment our intelligence so we can become smarter, and do away with hereditary diseases. Very few people in congress are talking about it, yet it is probably the most important science of our time.

So for example in terms of genetic editing that creates IQ boosting - how do you manage that so it's not just an expensive process only available to the rich? Do you agree there needs to be a heavy regulatory hand from the government to ensure we don't move towards a dystopian future?

Tough question. I would've answered in the past that certainly some regulatory hand has to be involved, and I still think some regulatory hands have to be involved. I just think at this point in time we're not really talking about the rich becoming super smart and the poor not getting these kinds of technology. We're just fighting for the right to even do experiments.

I do believe that there's a libertarian version of universal health care and universal income out there that would be good. I just think at the very top of the food chain is where we really need to let people, those very rich and super innovative people, do exactly what they want to do. But as a left-leaning libertarian I'm probably always going to say that some regulatory hand has to be in there to protect the poor.

My entire goal, and one of the things I'm standing behind is that we all have a universal right to indefinite lifespans. That's something I can promise you in the 21st century will become one of the most important civil and ideological rights of humanity. That everybody has a right to live indefinitely. Right now we still think death is natural but that's gonna be changing over the next five, ten, fifteen years.

I want people to feel entitled to an indefinite lifespan where if they choose to live for a long period of time they will. And to get there we're gonna need some type of government hand that says, enough with the bandaid medicine, enough with your Christian antics where you must die to meet God and it's okay to age. I believe aging is a disease. I believe the government needs to classify it as a disease. We need to tackle aging, let's stop it.

It's not really libertarian or democratic or republican. It's a humanitarian point of view. People should have the right to live as long as possible. We should stop trying to fix the human body when we need to realize that moving beyond the human body is probably the very best scenario for getting rid of some of the maladies and diseases we suffer from. And you can call this universal health care, the libertarians may get all grumpy and angry, but the reality is I think there is a very libertarian nature to it. The most important thing about the libertarian point of view here is private property, and this private property extends all the way to yourself. If you see yourself as something that wants to be left alone, then you want to be left alone, not only from other people, but from the ravages of nature, from the ravages of disease and I think the libertarian calling could be to come up with these solutions that could change humanity forever so we really could live a truly libertarian life where you're not constantly attacked. We're all being bothered by biological issues so I'd like to take that libertarian philosophy one step further and apply that to the human body.

You've done a little biohacking yourself. Can you tell us about the chip in your hand and what it does?

On my bus tour recently, the very first stop on that four month tour was this place called Grindfest. All the biohackers across the country fly in and they do things to themselves. They put chips in, they electrocute each other, they party, they do drugs, it's a very free society. One of the things I did was I got chipped. I got a tiny little implant in my hand. It's about the size of a grain of rice and it allows me to open my front door. I'm trying to get the software right now to get my car to start with it. It also sends out a text message if you get close enough to me and have the right software. It can do all sorts of little things.

The biohackers are some of the most important people in the transhumanist movement. They're some of the ones that are really out there beyond the academics of it. They're doing things, they're testing things. I'm a big believer that a lot of people will get chip implants soon. I'm a surfer and when I go surfing I don't have to hide my keys underneath my car somewhere or worry about them getting wet. I just go because the housekeys are in my hand.

Do you think there is a line in how far human enhancement and augmentation can go before we can't really classify ourselves as humans anymore?

I would say that when we start really merging with machines, maybe over the next five or ten years, that's when mainstream people will say yes, we are fundamentally crossing that line of becoming less human.

I think when we start affecting our thoughts, and that's gonna come through the neural laces or the neural prosthetics. When you start getting into the matrix you're really no longer a human being, but the reality is that we're probably going to keep the best of our human traits with us for a long time. There's this idea that we may not ever even see that change because it happens so slowly and it will be hard to diagnose when it does. We'll always just think, oh, we're who we are.

So you're not afraid that we're moving into a phase where we are potentially losing an essential sense of self or individuality through this augmentation? You're embracing a future with a new type of human?

Oh I'm totally embracing it! I have called for the end of humanity as we know it and I don't mind mincing the words at all. The reality is that I think the human body is frail. I don't want to say the human body is evil, but I don't like it. I'm not a fan of the human body. I think it's something that is designed to be replaced and replaced as quickly as possible.

When you tell me that a third of everybody I know dies from heart disease and my father has had four heart attacks, I'm not saying the human body is something wonderful. I'm saying look, the heart is a terrible frigging mechanism. Awful mechanism. Terrible. We need to replace it and we need to replace it quickly. Frankly you could say the same thing about the human body as a whole. Every single part on the human body has to go and can be substantially improved. And will be substantially improved over the next 25 years.

We need to get over this idea that the body is something holy. Of course this is classic Christian ideology teaching us that, the human body is holy, marriage is holy, all these things are holy. Listen, none of that is holy. The only thing that really makes sense is what's most functional to increase our living standards for ourselves, for our families and for our community and humanity as a whole. And frankly, to do that, the most functional thing is to upgrade ourselves. To get rid of limbs. To get rid of blood. To get rid of breathing air. To get rid of eating and pooing. I mean if you were to create a machine, you had all the power in the world, you would never create a human being. You would never create the human mind, three pounds of meat. It's nowhere near as sophisticated as the Empire State building having servers lined up to the windows. Here, in just a few years we're gonna see exactly how complex a machine we can create.

The human mind is something that's just evolved over a period of 150,000 years from being essentially apes and we think we're really smart, but we have no idea the sophistication we can get to. If you look at the trajectory of how intelligence is increasing in the machine world. If you take that out a hundred years, just on that trajectory, the artificial intelligence would probably be approximately one trillion times smarter than a human being. We have no idea what a trillion times smarter than our brains would look like. I think we should do the best to be that change and go with it rather than be left behind.

Do you see it as an imperative to augment ourselves so as to make sure that AI doesn't speed past us and render us irrelevant? Elon Musk recently said that artificial intelligence could at some point view us as house cats in terms of usefulness.

Hah, house pets would be lucky! We would be much more like ants! If an ant sees a human being it has no idea what that human being is. It just sees something moving in its vision. In fact I've often speculated that this is why we have never made contact with any other species out there or any other kinds of intelligence. Any other intelligence out there is almost certainly going to be some kind of machine, perhaps even more complex than we even know.

Elon Musk is 100 percent right. That is why the Transhumanist Party never advocated for artificial intelligence to go beyond the human being. I would not be surprised whatsoever if machines suddenly decided, why would we want to keep humans around?

What I have advocated is that we need to spend more time working on neural prosthetics so that when we create an AI that can become smarter than us we can directly tie ourselves into that AI and become an intrinsic part of it. So that anywhere the AI goes, we also go. That's the only way I'd like to let loose a machine like that, where we were a huge part tied directly into it.

Just finally, is there a specific area of research or technological development that is happening right now that excites you?

To me the most important development of the last decade, or even century, is genetic editing. It's here, it's real and it's now. It's not just about giving babies blue eyes or brown eyes or blonde hair or black hair. It's about going in and eliminating cancer before you ever get it. It's going in and saying, this is something that Einstein had in his brain and we're going to create a genetic component so that you have it and then all of a sudden you are 20 percent better in physics than you would have been.

And this is something that the Chinese have been working on and leading the way. They're moving forward on it in ways that America is totally stopped on because we have all these laws in place. So we're very much stuck at a point where the most important science, being genetic editing, we could lose our entire teeth on it while Asia takes the lead.

What does it matter if a couple of hundred million Chinese kids have augmented intelligence that makes them twenty to thirty percent smarter than us, but for religious reasons Americans aren't? What happens in the fifteen years after that? There is no way to compete against them.

It becomes a great controversy not only between rich and poor but between Chinese citizenry and American citizenry. This is a very real civil rights debate that America and the world has to have. Everybody knows how thorny it is, but none of the politicians want to discuss it because it is so thorny. There is no right way about it and yet the technology is here and we all know it has the potential to completely change human nature.

Ed's note: This interview has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.

Read the rest here:

Zoltan Istvan on transhumanism, politics and why the human body has to go - New Atlas

Sociologist: ‘Capitalism 2.0’ about to slay liberalism’s sacred cow – WND.com

A sociologist in the United Kingdom is citing advances in technology that enablepeople to fulfill their potentialin contrast to a metaphysical assumption shared by liberals, that humans are equal.

Steve Fuller, who holds the Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology at the University of Warwick, explained in the business review section of a blog for the London School of Economics that under capitalism,people have been free to exchange goods and services, which he calledan inalienable right.

There were dangers, he noted, from exploitation, and Marxists say the asymmetrical power relations in the marketplace run roughshod over human rights.

Now comes transhumanism, he wrote, challengingboth capitalism and socialism, which had created a sense of humanism with the balance of a right to work and participate in the marketplace, yet a right not to be controlled by another.

Transhumanism is the idea that humans can evolve to physical and mental capacities beyond those that exist now, especially by means of science and technology.

Investigate the growing trend of blending human and machine, called transhumanism, at the WND Superstore.

Computers now mediate both work and non-work aspects of life, and the markers that oncedivided themhave become smaller and smaller, Fuller said.

An obvious case in point is the idea of working from home. People who operate this way typically shift back and forth between performing work and non-work activities on screen in an open-ended and relatively unstructured day. Meanwhile, all the data registered in these activities are gathered by information providers (e.g. Google, Facebook, Amazon), who then analyze and consolidate them for resale to private and public sector clients, he wrote.

Is this exploitation? The answer is not so clear. The information providers offer a platform that is free at the point of use, enabling users to produce and consume data indefinitely. Of course, such platforms are the source of both intense frustration and endless satisfaction for users, but the phenomenology of these experiences is not necessarily what one might expect of people in a state of exploitation.

On the contrary, there is reason to think that people increasingly locate meaning in their lives in some cyber-projection (avatar) of themselves, notwithstanding the third-party ownership of the platform hosting the cyber-projection, he said.

Ones personhood, he wrote, strongly implicates transhumanism, which can involve a person changing genetically or prosthetically.

On the other hand, in the case of transfer, the person might do more than simply bequeath various assets to already existing individuals and institutions say, in a will which comes into force upon ones death. Rather, the person might in his or her own lifetime invest energy and income in support of virtual agents, second lives. with the effect of turning ones physical self into a platform for launching the more meaningful cyber-selves.

The result, Capitalism 2.0, he called it, is morphological freedom.

It is the freedom not only to do what you want but also to be what you want. It is worth observing that this sense of freedom violates a key metaphysical assumption shared by liberals and socialists, namely, that humans are rough natural equals, not in the sense that everyone is naturally the same but that everyone has roughly the same mix of assets and liabilities, which in turn justifies a harmonious division of labor in society.

The violation of this assumption implies that whatever problems of social justice relating to material inequality have emerged over the history of capitalism are potentially amplified by transhumanism, as the prospect of morphological freedom explodes stopgap liberal intuitions about the natural equality of humans, he said.

WND has reported about opposition to the general transhumanism movement, most recently by the Family Research Council.

FRCwas objecting to a plan last year by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under Barack Obamato have taxpayers fund the mixing of human stem cells with animal embryos to create chimeras, creatures that have part animal and part human elements, in pursuit of better lives.

WND has previously reported on such goals. In one case, a U.S. biotech company was given permission to obtain 20 brain-dead patients to test if parts of their central nervous systems could be regenerated.

The company, Bioquark Inc., plans to use a soup of stem cells and peptides on the brains of the patients over a six-week period to see if it can jump-start their functions.

Philadelphia-based Bioquark asks on its website: What if your body came with a restart button?

WND also reported last winter on the growing promise of anti-aging or gene therapy science, a technology known as CRISPR/Cas9. It purports to deliver immortality to human beings and has attracted support from some of the worlds richest men, including Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal; Ray Kurzwell of Google; Oracle founder Larry Ellison; venture capitalist Paul Glenn; and Russian multi-millionaire Omitry Itskov.

Carl Gallups, a Christian pastor, radio host and author of several books, including Be Thou Prepared and Final Warning, said there are moral and ethical dilemmas.

What entity or governmental power will make the decisions concerning who gets their death reversed and who must die? Gallups asked at the time.

Investigate the growing trend of blending human and machine, called transhumanism, at the WND Superstore.

Read the original here:

Sociologist: 'Capitalism 2.0' about to slay liberalism's sacred cow - WND.com

Trexit?: Transnationalism and Transhumanism and why They …

TREXIT?: TRANSNATIONALISM AND TRANSHUMANISM AND WHY THEY ARE THE REAL ISSUES OF 2016

NASHVILLE Are you ready to cede your body to the global body and to Transhumanist technology under Transnationalistss control? Or, are you looking for the Trexit?

U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, recently invited a group of Northeastern University commencement students to see the future with him. As they peered into his crystal ball, Kerry urged his audience to see a world with no nations or borders.

Imagine. One world. No boundaries. It sounds wonderful, futuristic, hopeful; like an apple anyone would wish to pluck from a tree.

This is the transcendent world vision of the Transnationalists.

Transnationalism is a new type of consciousness. Also called Globalism, it is a social agenda, or revolution, grown out of the accelerating technology-driven interconnectivity and interdependence between people and the receding economic and social significance of boundaries among nation states.

Free flows of capital and people (legal and illegal) across the sphere of earth is one goal of Transnationalism. The unity of all of the rolling stones of humanity into a monolithic rock is the other.

As Kerry noted, hiding behind walls in this new borderless world will be impossible.

The walls reference was a shot at Donald Trump, who wants to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

What Kerry did not say is that this wall-less world will happen via technologywhich sooner than later will be implanted in our bodies. The technology we now depend on for our very lives in the online world will soon mesh with our flesh and make our flesh and blood lives a transparent and open book. No physical walls will be necessary.

The technical term for meshing our flesh with technology is Transhumanism. Not every Globalist advocate is a Transhumanist, but sooner or later, they will realize that turning humans into cyborgs IS the globalist agenda and certainly is the key to its success. If Google, Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, SONY and other mega corporations driving Globalism have their way, this technology will soon come off your desktop and inside your body. Soon equals 2020-2030.

Clearly, Globalism offers unparalleled new opportunities matched only by its potential for unmatched tyranny. This is its great danger. Combined with Transhumanism, the results could be catastrophic for humanity. In fact, it is the end of the human race as we know it.

WE are the ones who are deciding the future for all of humanity. Many seek a Trexit. Others embrace a Trentrance or the Transhuman/Transnationalist route.

AGENDA 2030

One World government and one economy is the globalists next great leap forward in what the UN calls the new universal agenda for humanity that it hopes will be fulfilled by 2030. Called Agenda 2030, this far-reaching program was unanimously adopted on September 25, 2015 by the United Nations General Assembly. Its noble goal is to improve the lives of poor people the world over.

According to the Agenda, by 2030, the majority of us will cease identifying ourselves with the nationality or country of our birth and will instead get religion and see ourselves as global citizens living in the light.

Massive redistribution of wealth is the cornerstone of the Agenda.

Whether or not the 1% who control 85% of the worlds wealth will voluntarily give their billions away is yet to be seen.

Whether or not Agenda 2030 is a positive development is also yet to be determined.

Agenda 2030 has raised alarm bells among analysts who do not see it as a way for all of us to love each other. They see it as a move toward a global totalitarian state.

Membership is mandatory. Non-negotiable. It is already a done deal.

Some believe this plan can only be achieved by absolute dictatorial power or at the point of a gun. My belief is that no guns will be involved. Microchips will do the job. The UN has already begun giving biometric identity cards to refugees in order to track them as they make their way to their new homes. Agenda 2030 calls for ALL of humanity to have biometric cards in their hands by 2030. These cards may literally be IN our hands, YOUR hands. This is why Transnationalism and Transhumanism are linked.

If we the people do not like the Agenda, now is the time to speak.

Silence is consent.

Britains June 23, 2016 vote to Brexit the Globalist EU will have a lot to say about the rise of Transnationalism and Transhumanism across the globe and the fulfillment of the UNs agenda.

Americas vote in November will amplify the feelings on both sides of Brexit.

The larger choice here is to take the Transnational / Transhuman path or to Trexit.

SMARTEN UP

Socialist Democrats in America have the global body or Global U (a pun on you) of Agenda 2030 in mind. They aim to unify the human body. Their message is come together. Smarten up.

Donald Trumps popularity is partly attributed to his stand against Transnationalism. Instead of eliminating walls, Trump is promising to build one between US and the World. Donald Trumps America First strategy is as mosaic as his autocratic lawgiver tendencies and he is wrong about building the Wall, but not completely. Personally, I think we need gates, not walls. Trumps stand-ins are providing further warnings or insight into the possible dark side of the light of Transnationalism or Globalism, which they equate with Fascism. The perceived global stakes of Trumps America First strategy are spelled out in a May 12, 2016 USA Today editorial by Senator Jeff Sessions who wrote: For the first time in a long time, this November will give Americans a clear choice on perhaps the most important issue facing our country and our civilization: whether we remain a nation-state that serves its own people, or whether we slide irrevocably toward a soulless globalism that treats humans as interchangeable widgets in the world market.

Sessions is partly right about globalism being soulless. Some believe the process of globalization will result is a religion-less world. Others think it will lead to greater understanding among the worlds religions. Globalisms relationship with religion and spirituality is complex. Sessions is totally right about the globalist agenda to treating humans as widgets, which means mechanical devices, in the globalist marketplace. For clarity, what I believe Sessions should have said is that soulless globalism treats humans as interchangeable smart or transhumanist widgets in the world market. Smart widgets or things are electronic objects connected to and communicating with the Internet. Sessions and Globalists alike must realize that, since 2003, the U.S. Government has been promoting the transformation ofour bodies into widgets via smart technology and the evolution of humanity into a hive mind. This is the core of globalist apple. By smart is not meant more intelligent. It means interfaced with computer technology that makes us more watchable, programmable, trackable and controllable.

PLAYING GOD In my 2015 book, The Skingularity Is Near, I documented how this smart technology is now in the wearable phase, but ULTIMATELY is aimed at our skin.

In the wearable phase body-born devices are being used to augment the human body. These include smart watches and sensors.

These devices will become less and less about performing functions such as biometric measuring for us and more and more about our identity. These devices will resemble jewelry with an extraordinary array of functions.

The ultimate wearable is Googles proposed nano-nutrient garment that is designed to promote longevity. This robe of many colors will send nano bots into every orifice of your body on missions to seek and destroy pathogens in your blood and keep your arteries clean as a whistle. The result will be dramatically extended life spans. It echoes the miracle garments or robes of power of the ancient gods. It is the coat of light once worn by Adam and Eve, who were hermaphrodites or two-sexed.

The wearable phase will not last long. This technology will shrink in the immediate future so that systems can be embedded or implanted in the body. The smart phone in your hand will sooner-than-you-think be implanted in your ear.

SkinTrack, a new wearable technology developed at Carnegie Mellon University, basically turns the entire lower arm into a touchpad. It differs from previous skin-to-screen approaches because SkinTrack requires the user to wear a special ring that propagates a low-energy, high-frequency signal through the skin when the finger touches or nears the skin surface. Blink. Blink. Blink. Blink.

In another few blinks of the eye, smart contact lenses that will give us super-human vision and will offer heads-up displays, video cameras, medical sensors and more. These are safest of these new technologies. Sony, Samsung and Google have all filed patents for smart contact-lens technology in the early months of 2016.

2020 here we come!

Or is it 2030?

By safe I dont mean they wont have potential harmful effects. Rather, I mean that like other implantables, smart lenses can be removed or inserted by the user. They are not under or in the skin permanently.

Googles Verily Life Sciences is leading the way to bring the IoT to your eyeball. In the new cognitive era, as IBM calls it, human beings will hike over to Best Buy, or some other electronics outlet, to pick out your new lens. Your natural lens will be removed from your eyeball. A fluid will be injected into your eye. In a few moments this fluid will fuse with your eyes lens capsule. As it solidifies your new eye contains storage, battery, sensors, a radio and other electronics. When you leave the store you will now be a transhuman being who will have perfect vision, the ability to see in the dark, sensors to detect blood glucose levels and other applications we havent yet dreamed of.

Of course, with super vision glasses comes supervision. The great fear is that the implantation of this technology will come at a cost greater than our organic eye lenses. It will cost us our free will and will turn us into emotionless cyborgs.

Another Google start-up, Magic Leap, has raised a billion dollars to create an implantable contact lens that injects computer-generated images or floats virtual objects into the real world field of view. Called the worlds most secretive startup, its aim is to bring magic back into the world by rethinking the relationship technology has with people. Its aim is remove the shackles binding humanity by tossing away the boxes on our desk by uniting the brain and body with technology. Actually, Google may want you to think about eliminating your physical body altogether.

Its chief futurist, author Neal Stephenson, is most famous for the concept of Metaverse from his 1992 sci-fi classic Snow Crash. Stephenson imaged a virtual universe where users create avatars to communicate and interact. Who needs a physical body when your avatar is so much better?

TRANSHUMANISM Brexit just put a wrench in that plan, just like the rejection of Google Glass slowed down Googles aim to control your body, mindand soul. Transhumanism promises to take the potentials of this right to new levels. Life extension via synthetic organs, drugs and other new technologies eliminate the barriers to our pursuit of life, liberty and immortality.

Transhumanism is a human re-engineering project based on the meshing of human flesh with smart technology or electronic devices. Born out of NASAs realization in 1962 that we will not be able to transcend earth in our flesh and blood suits, the U.S. Government began working on the transformation of humans into cyborgs (a term coined by NASA).

Transhumanism is aimed at perfecting the human body by seeding it with or ceding it to Artificially Intelligent technology, giving it a new layer of skin, and connecting every human on the planet to the Internet of Things (IoT). In less than ten years every organ and body part will be replaceable by a technological version.

These new technologies comprise the Internet of Things (IoT) that drives Transnationalism / Globalism. The IoT is presently composed of 20 billion+ smart things or widgets phones, toasters, refrigerators, cars, computers that will balloon to over 50 billion such smart things by 2020.

The IoT will essentially become an Artificially Intelligent global brain of which each individual human brain is a neuron.

How the Internet of Things Will Change Everything-Including Ourselves.

Presently included among these things are nearly four billion human beings, who are rapidly shedding all that is human and adopting the transhuman upgrades devised by the wizards of Silicon Valley. If you wonder how dependent, if not addicted, we are to these technologies we are just try to take our cell phones away. Just try to run a One World without them.

Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerburg, has made it is his life to goal to have every human being online as a human being thing. Facebook will be the portal or conduit linking all human being things.

Hundreds of millions, if not billions, of these present and future Facebook users do not have toilets or clean water. They are the poor the UN seeks to uplift. How turning them into smart things and wiring them to IoT will make them better humans is an, as yet, unanswered question.

However, it is certain that the Internet is a great leveler. Take a look at this Microsoft Empowering commercial. Today, more than half the worlds population does not have access to the Internet. We believe that everyone deserves the social and economic opportunities afforded by connectivity.

Ultimately, the global citizen view promoted by transnationalism is a transient step toward a trans-earth or multi-planet civilization with transhumans (machine-enhanced humanoids) transcending the boundaries of earth life and coming and going between earth, the moon, Mars and beyond.

I am for helping the poor to elevate their lives and for transcending the boundaries of earth. But Im just not sure about doing so as man-chines.

As I discussed in The Skingularity Is Near, Transhumanism is the fulfillment of both the Christian prophecy and ethos of a new, perfected human and Americas we can do anything with the right technology attitude.

Ever since Adam and Eve were evicted from Eden, humanity has sought to redeem itself and reclaim our original perfect status.

Some Globalists and Transhumanists believe our species should embrace our transition to smart human being things as part of our hive evolution and our return to perfection. For them, a new human race connected by implanted technologies is a quantum leap. Others believe this vision is trumped-up.

However, human rights advocates, including this author, warn that as technology becomes more and more invasive and merges with us we become and more transparent. Privacy (or hiding) will become impossible. Homo sapiens as a species will cease to exist.

In this way, the 2016 American election is a vote for Transhumanism and Transnationalism or against it. Will we make a Trentrance or a Trexit?

You decide.

Read more here:

Trexit?: Transnationalism and Transhumanism and why They ...