Ana Matronic: ‘Robots confuse the boundaries between life and death’ – Siliconrepublic.com

Robotophile and transhumanist Ana Matronic took to the Inspirefest stage predicting a future where gender doesnt matter when were all cyborgs.

If you couldnt tell, the name Ana Matronic is a sure sign that someone has not just an interest in robots, but an outright fascination and love for them.

That was made clear on stage at Inspirefest 2017 when the Scissor Sisters singer, DJ and author took us back through her life from an obsession with the cult 70s TV show The Bionic Woman and writing her first self-published zine about robots, to dressing as a robot at a burlesque show in San Francisco.

However, the real focus of her talk was the fascinating philosophical questions posed to us in a present and future where the line between human and robot is becoming increasingly blurred.

And if so, what role does gender play if any when our brains are in robots or uploaded to the cloud?

During those days of creating her fanzine in college for The Bionic Woman, Matronic went as far as to create her own robot-infused religion based on the philosophies of Joseph Campbell called Bionic Love that had Jaime Sommers as its muse and messiah.

My religion playfully painted the caring and compassionate Ms Sommers as the union of opposing forces of science and nature, she said.

Shes the embodiment of the future and herald of the coming technological age and a reminder to never lose your humanity in the face of it.

It was with the work of academic and writer Donna Haraway however that Matronics real interest in the topic of cyborgs and where the concept fits in with human constructs.

What triggered Matronics many philosophical questions was Haraways surprising revelation that, for her, we dont have to wait to be a cyborg in the future as we already are cyborgs.

She wrote [a book] confirming my deification of The Bionic Woman and transformed my love of robots into something more, Matronic said.

According to Haraways argument, a cyborg doesnt have to be a half-human, half-machine entity with bionic limbs, but anyone who has had science alter their body in some capacity such as getting a vaccination.

Quoting Haraway: In the tradition of western science and politics, the relation between organism and machine has been a border war. The cyborg manifesto is an argument for the pleasure in the confusion of boundaries and the responsibility for their construction and a world without gender and world without end.

It was with Haraways work, Matronic said, that her discovery and interest in the topic of transhumanism began.

An example of transhumanism would be the uploading of a persons consciousness online so that they can continue on, something that is already underway with early brain emulation software.

Unlike things like time travel and interdimensional travel, Matronic said, robots are here and theyre real not just through physical robots, but artificial intelligence as well.

Robots confuse the boundaries between life and death; human and machine; male and female; master and servant; thinking and feeling; ability and disability; creation and destruction, she said.

I take pleasure in the confusion of these boundaries and as an artist I have a unique platform to share and study these stories and as a transhumanist, I take responsibility of this examination and the construction of new boundaries.

So what are these boundaries being broken down and built again in a cyborg future?

For people like Martine Rothblatt working on brain emulation software and as a transgender person robots and robot bodies offer a way to detach ourselves the limitations of anatomy, or more simply, personhood is about equity, not equipment.

We have an opportunity in this moment to be prepared for the arrival of mechanical and digital people and I believe it is our responsibility to be prepared, Matronic said.

When robots do occupy space in our society, when robot rights and robosexuality is not just spoken about in an episode of Futurama but when its actually here humans will be forced to look around and ask how well we have done for the rights of our fellow humans.

She continued: If you dont do that before the robo-demonstrations, we are going to have problems, and not just with the robots.

In a sense, Matronic argued, the rise of robots offers humans the chance to reboot our operating system in every sense.

It certainly seems as if we are moving into a brave, new world.

Continued here:

Ana Matronic: 'Robots confuse the boundaries between life and death' - Siliconrepublic.com

Who do we think we are? – New Scientist

We long to transcend the human condition

baona/Getty

By Joanna Kavenna

Death, be not proud, though some have called thee

Mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so;

For those whom thou thinkst thou dost overthrow

Die not, poor Death, nor yet canst thou kill me.

Here we are discussing transhumanism, defined by evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley in 1957 as the belief that the human species can and should transcend itself by realizing new possibilities of and for human nature. What relevance could the poet John Donne have to such a discussion?

A more recent explanation of transhumanism, by Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom, calls it a loosely defined movement that has developed gradually over the past two decades Attention is given to both present technologies, like genetic engineering and information technology, and anticipated future ones, such as molecular nanotechnology and artificial intelligence. This formulation resembles the poetry of English clerics even less than Huxleys did.

But though Bostrom does not express himself in quite the same fashion as Donne, the overarching sentiment is not dissimilar: Death, thou shalt die, or at least thou shalt be postponed as far as possible. Bostrom continues: Transhumanists view human nature as a work-in-progress, a half-baked beginning that we can learn to remold in desirable ways.

In other words, before death postponed or otherwise, life might be made considerably nicer: less fraught with disease and suffering, and altogether less half-baked. This is a metaphor from cooking, and transhumanist rhetoric is awash with such, at times treacherous, metaphors.

Transhumanists hope that by responsible use of science, technology, and other rational means we shall eventually manage to become posthuman, beings with vastly greater capacities than present human beings have. Bostroms lovely sentiment that the half-baked human must be improved by the responsible use of science has driven humanity for millennia, ever since we began using technologies of flint and fire and so on, and through innumerable and utterly vital developments in medicine and science. So one key question that we must pose and seek to discuss is how, specifically, the transhumanist movement will depart from or further enhance this consistent strain in human history?

Transhumanisms signature ambition, that we may become posthuman, leads us to a baroque and venerable question: what does it mean to be human, anyway? If we want to go beyond something, to transcend it, it is clear we must understand our starting point, the point beyond which we desire to go. The quest to fathom the self, to understand what it means to be human, is fundamental to almost every civilisation known to us. It defines one of the earliest works of literature, the Epic of Gilgamesh from ancient Mesopotamia, in which our protagonist embarks on a quest to understand who on earth he is and what hes meant to do with his mortal span of years. In ancient religious texts such as the Upanishads, all creation begins with the moment of becoming: I am! That is, the world comes from mind itself.

In many global religions, the human self is divided into body and soul, a material and an immaterial part. During the Enlightenment, Descartes famously tried to reconcile this ancient distinction and also placate the church by proposing that the material and immaterial somehow communicated or mingled via the pineal gland.

Skipping boldly through a few centuries of thought, we might arrive (blinking in surprise) at the philosophical novels of Philip K. Dick and his brilliant Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? This poses the ancient question again: what does it mean to be human? When is someone/something convincingly human and when are they not? Is your version of being human the same as mine? Or the same as the next humans?

As the Australian philosopher David Chalmers has said, consciousness this mysterious thing that every human possesses or feels they possess remains the hard problem of philosophy. We lack a unified theory of consciousness. We dont understand how consciousness is generated by the brain, or even whether this is the right metaphor to use. We speak of such mysteries in a funny system of squeaks and murmurs that we call language and that swiftly drops into the blackness of prehistory when we seek to trace its origins. We dont know who the first humans were: that fascinating quest likewise drives us straight into a great void of unknowing.

There is nothing wrong with unknowing: it is the ordinary condition of all humanity, so far. Yet, undeterred, we devise bold, elegant theories and advance them in many disciplines of thought. We develop beautiful and exciting almost-human machines and speculate about uploading consciousness. And in so doing, we are consistently rebaking, reheating or refrying the ancient philosophical dilemma: what does it mean to be human?

Pace Bostrom, transhumanism has not developed over the past few decades. Its predilections and concerns have developed over several millennia, and possibly further back, within civilisations we no longer recall. To go back in time to Ecclesiastes, there is nothing new under the sun. We are still here, and human, with our paradoxical longing to transcend the human condition.

More on these topics:

Visit link:

Who do we think we are? - New Scientist

Outline of transhumanism – Wikipedia

The following outline provides an overview of and a topical guide to transhumanism:

Transhumanism international intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.[1] Transhumanist thinkers study the potential benefits and dangers of emerging and hypothetical technologies that could overcome fundamental human limitations, as well as study the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies.[1] They predict that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into beings with such greatly expanded abilities as to merit the label "posthuman".[1]

Transhumanism can be described as all of the following:

Neophilia strong affinity for novelty and change. Transhumanist neophiliac values include:

Survival survival, or self-preservation, is behavior that ensures the survival of an organism.[5] It is almost universal among living organisms. Humans differ from other animals in that they use technology extensively to improve chances of survival and increase life expectancy.

Transhumanist politics

The term "transhumanism" was first coined in 1957 by Sir Julian Huxley, a zoologist and prominent humanist.[14]

Human enhancement technologies

Emerging technologies contemporary advances and innovation in various fields of technology, prior to or early in their diffusion. They are typically in the form of progressive developments intended to achieve a competitive advantage.[16] Transhumanists believe that humans can and should use technologies to become more than human. Emerging technologies offer the greatest potential in doing so. Examples of developing technologies that have become the focus of transhumanism include:

Technological evolution

Hypothetical technology technology that does not exist yet, but the development of which could potentially be achieved in the future. It is distinct from an emerging technology, which has achieved some developmental success. A hypothetical technology is typically not proven to be impossible. Many hypothetical technologies have been the subject of science fiction.

Transhumanism in fiction Many of the tropes of science fiction can be viewed as similar to the goals of transhumanism. Science fiction literature contains many positive depictions of technologically enhanced human life, occasionally set in utopian (especially techno-utopian) societies. However, science fiction's depictions of technologically enhanced humans or other posthuman beings frequently come with a cautionary twist. The more pessimistic scenarios include many dystopian tales of human bioengineering gone wrong.

Some people who have made a major impact on the advancement of transhumanism:

Here is the original post:

Outline of transhumanism - Wikipedia

The Only Way To Stop The Machines From Taking Over Is Getting … – The Federalist

With yesterdays futuristic technologies increasingly becoming todays product announcements, the progress of science seems unstoppable. Mark OConnells excellent new book To Be a Machine: Adventures Among Cyborgs, Utopians, Hackers, and the Futurists Solving the Modest Problem of Death follows the authors interactions and interviews with self-professed transhumanists.

This eclectic collection of scientists, tech giants, journalists, and enthusiasts are prophets of a coming post-human species that embraces technology as the means to transcend present biological and psychological limitations. The book itself is masterfully and humorously written, and gives the reader a thorough introduction to the ideas and people behind the transhumanist movement.

The book serves a more important purpose than simply describing transhumanism, however: OConnells interactions with transhumanists show that modern man is not prepared to argue against transhumanism. He must either accept it or find a theological alternative.

It seems that, sociologically speaking, transhumanism springs from the same part of man that desires to create religion. Man fears death, so must overcome it in some way. From this fear, the social scientists tell us, man creates fantasies about deities and paradises, resurrection and glorification. In its own way, transhumanism becomes religious insofar as it represents another in a long line of sets of belief adopted by man in hopes of overcoming his mortality. This time, man seeks help not from mystical transcendent beings but from his own will, instantiated in technology.

Some religious sects like Mormonism have made a place for transhumanist ideas, but transhumanists like Max More have made clear that traditional Christian doctrine and transhumanism are largely incompatible, given the difficulty of reconciling both sets of claims. However, on at least one point, the transhumanist and the Christian agree: death is an enemy to be conquered. The Christian New Testament claims the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. Transhumanists concur, and propose that if death can be conquered through technology, death should be conquered through technology.

I am not a scientist. I lack the knowledge to tell scientists who advocate transhumanist ideas that they are wrong about what technology can accomplish. When non-experts like myself grapple with the transhumanist ideas, we traffic in intuitions and philosophies about consciousness, personality, death, and what it means to be human, rather than in scientific arguments.

This is true of OConnell as well. In his research, OConnell encounters scientists who tell him that living to extreme ages will be possible soon, within his and his childs lifetime. Some subjects interviewed even theorize that eventually we could theoretically upload consciousness and become more machine than man. OConnell clearly sees the progression from the thought of men like Thomas Hobbes to the ideas of transhumanism. Hobbes saw man as fundamentally an organic machine, so there seems to be no reason that machine could not be upgraded.

Despite hearing the arguments and understanding their source, OConnell refuses to accept transhumanism. This is not because he thinks transhumanist ideals are unachievable, but because he cannot stomach the idea of living forever, or being himself in any other physical form. He ultimately objects not to the practicality of the transhumanist project but to the propriety of it.

OConnells resistance to transhumanism culminates in a fascinating exchange in the book where OConnell is forced to defend death and mortality as preferable to eternal life and vitality. He mounts standard arguments: Lifes brevity is what gives it value. Impending death makes our continued existence meaningful in some way. Also, life sucks; why extend it?

OConnells transhumanist companions deftly deflect his objections. There [is] no beauty in finitude, they say. They argue that OConnells qualms come from an essential human need to grapple with death and somehow justify it as good so we can avoid constant dread and despair. And, OConnell admits, the transhumanists are right. There is something palpably absurd about defending death as some sort of human good.

Despite conceding the point, OConnell concludes the book by restating his rejection of transhumanism, and the reader is left wondering why. If the transhumanists are correct in theorizing that our continued acceptance of death is just an evolutionary symptom of a disease that can and will be cured, what possible reason could we have to deny the inevitable?

In a poignant scene in the book, OConnells child begins to wrestle with mortality following the death of his grandmother. The boy is comforted when he learns that his father is writing a book on people who are trying to create a world in which people no longer have to die. What comfort is there to offer if we are to reject both religion and transhumanism? What compelling reason do we have to embrace despair when technology offers hope?

Simply put, defending death is a lost cause. Even if, as OConnell theorizes, the idea of meaning [is] itself an illusion, a necessary human fiction, man has continued maintaining that illusion for millennia and seems to persist in preferring life to death. Unless OConnell and others like him are prepared and able to convince the bulk of humanity that death is a happy end to be embraced, not fought against, it seems a choice has presented itself. This choice is between different religions that offer escape from death. Transhumanism offers the materialist a religion through which to conquer death; other religions offer the same to those who have faith in gods other than technology.

Will OConnell and others who reject both transhumanism and other religions refuse anti-aging treatments if they become available? Will they abstain from extending their lives, if given the choice? Only time, the one thing transhumanism cannot hope to overcome, will tell.

Philip is a senior political philosophy student at Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, VA, and will begin graduate study at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the fall

Follow this link:

The Only Way To Stop The Machines From Taking Over Is Getting ... - The Federalist

Vatican cardinal on a quest for the soul inside the machine – Crux: Covering all things Catholic

Artificial intelligence. Androids. Transhumanism. Once just fodder for pulp science fiction, technological advances over the past 30 years have brought these subjects to the forefront of any discussion about the future.

Italian Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, the president of the Vaticans Council for Culture, has been trying to make sure the Church is part of that discussion.

Technology runs and proposes new things at a speed that theology and other paths of human knowledge fail to follow, Ravasi told the Italian newspaper La Repubblica on Sunday.

Ravasi runs the Courtyard of the Gentiles, an initiative first proposed by Pope Benedict XVI in 2009 to dialogue with non-believers. The name comes from the space set aside at Herods Temple that was accessible to non-Jews who wanted to speak to rabbis and other Jewish authorities about God and religion.

The Courtyard is currently hosting a series of meetings on future technology, and what effect it could have on what it means to be human.

Right now, major corporations such as IBM, Apple, and Facebook are pouring money into developing Artificial Intelligence (AI). Although the idea of a conscious computer system still exists only in the realm of science fiction, one of the major tasks people want AI for is to create bots for customer service, which should respond to people in such a way that they cant tell they arent talking to a person.

In other words, a computer which isnt conscious, but no one can really tell.

Meanwhile, transhumanism is the idea of transforming the human body through technological progress.

Some of this is already happening, and can be a good thing: Pacemakers, high-tech artificial limbs, and other new medical devices have improved the lives of millions. In a very real way, cyborgs have lived among us for years.

Other examples of a transhumanist future can be seen with Google Glass, the headset which could record what you were seeing, as well as overlay information into your field of view; and the idea of permanent implants to replace credit cards (and possibly many of the functions of your smartphone), which is already being tested in some countries.

These technologies are not inherently wrong, yet may soon present serious ethical dilemmas.

If an artificial limb becomes better than the original, is it okay for a person to upgrade?

If you can record everything you see, should you? Is it any different than an enhanced memory? And who should have access to the images?

But before you can even discuss the implications of the latest technology, yet another gadget hits the market raising new questions.

Ravasi expressed concern over the overproduction of technological gadgets, and complained of an era of bulimia in the means, and atrophy in the ends.

The cardinal said one problem is schools and universities do not cover enough general anthropology, and humanity finds itself flattened in the onslaught of technological change.

If I learn to create robots with a high level of human attributes, if I develop an artificial intelligence, if I intervene in a substantial way with the nervous system: Im not only making a big technological advance, in many cases very valuable for therapeutic medical purposes, Ravasi said. Im also making a real anthropological leap, touching on issues such as freedom, responsibility, guilt, conscience and if we want the soul.

The cardinal said the digital natives who have grown up in this new era are functionally different from older people, often overlapping the relationship between real and virtual, and the traditional way of considering what is true and false. It is as if they were in a video game.

(Ravasis concern is more prescient than even he might know: Many of the technological advances, especially in the field of virtual reality, are being made in the game industry, where the ethical questions about the technological advances are often overshadowed by the cool factor.)

Ravasi also expressed concern about how biotechnology is changing the role of humanity from being a guardian of nature into being a kind of creator.

Synthetic biology, the creation of viruses and bacteria that do not exist in nature, is an expression of this tendency, he said. All these operations have ethical and cultural implications that need to be considered.

Ravasi is not the first Vatican official to speak on these themes.

In 2004, the International Theological Commission issued a document on Human Persons created in the Image of God.

The document affirms that bodiliness is essential to personal identity, and calls for people to exercise a responsible stewardship over the biological integrity of human beings created in the image of God.

The document reads:

Because the body, as an intrinsic part of the human person, is good in itself, fundamental human faculties can only be sacrificed to preserve life. After all, life is a fundamental good that involves the whole of the human person. Without the fundamental good of life, the values like freedom that are in themselves higher than life itself also expire. Given that man was also created in Gods image in his bodiliness, he has no right of full disposal of his own biological nature. God himself and the being created in his image cannot be the object of arbitrary human action.

It goes on to list conditions for any bodily intervention:

For the application of the principle of totality and integrity, the following conditions must be met: (1) there must be a question of an intervention in the part of the body that is either affected or is the direct cause of the life-threatening situation; (2) there can be no other alternatives for preserving life; (3) there is a proportionate chance of success in comparison with drawbacks; and (4) the patient must give assent to the intervention. The unintended drawbacks and side-effects of the intervention can be justified on the basis of the principle of double effect.

Yet in many ways, the document talks past the conversation now happening, especially since those having the conversation are often working out very specific problems how to fix this medical disorder, how to create a better customer interface, how to create a more realistic game and are not considering the larger picture they may be helping to create.

Ravasi is hoping the new dialogue will help everyone stand back and see that picture, and seriously consider the implications of what they are doing.

It is essential for believers and nonbelievers to re-propose the great cultural, spiritual, and ethical values like a positive shock against superficiality, the cardinal said now that we are living through an anthropological and cultural change which is complex and problematic, but is certainly also exciting.

Excerpt from:

Vatican cardinal on a quest for the soul inside the machine - Crux: Covering all things Catholic

What’s Love Got to Do with Transhumanism? – First Things

Nothing you can make that can't be made. No one you can save that can't be saved. Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you in time. It's easy. All you need is love.

The Beatles

Transhumanism is all the rage among the nouveau riche of Silicon Valley, who are investing hundreds of millions of dollars into research they expect will launch The Singularity. What is that, you ask? The Singularity is an anticipated pointas important to transhumanists as the Rapture is to Evangelical Christiansat which the cascade of scientific advances will become unstoppable, allowing transhumanists to recreate themselves as post-humans.

The transhumanist quest has two primary goals: radical life extensionwhich we will not discuss hereand the exponential increase of human intelligence (perhaps because it would better enable them to achieve the first goal). Transhumanists are obsessed with increasing cognitive functioning. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Elon Musk, founder and CEO of Tesla Inc., has started a company dedicated to developing neural technologies to cure disease and increase human intelligence by way of a direct cortical interfaceessentially a layer of artificial intelligence inside the brain. The company is also reported to be exploring cosmetic brain surgeries to make us smarter.

Musk is not alone in putting his money where his futuristic dreams are. Last year, the New Scientist reported:

The company,Kernel, was launched earlier this year by entrepreneur Bryan Johnson. He says he has spent many years wondering how best to contribute to humanity. I arrived at intelligence. I think its the most precious and powerful resource in existence, says Johnson.

Johnsons belief exemplifies why I find transhumanismessentially neo-eugenicsboth morally deficient and philosophically sterile. Theres nothing wrong with intelligence, of course. It is one of the attributes that make humans exceptional. Indeed, our speciess extraordinary intelligence enabled us to leave the caves.

But intelligence is hardly the most precious and powerful resource in existencenot even close. That place of honor belongs to love. And I find it striking how rarely transhumanists speak about love or how to enhance our capacity to express itexcept, perhaps, in the most carnal sense.

Many animals love, of course. Some birds mate for life. A mare will mourn the death of her foal. A mother bear will kill without hesitation if she thinks her cub is endangered. A dog may sacrifice his own life to save his master. But only humans have the inherent capacity to giveand apprehendLove with a capital L.

Perhaps transhumanists have little interest in the human capacity to love because its full expression transcends carbon molecules and the firing of neurons. It is no coincidence that a deeply faithful theist gave us perhaps the most profound description of loves boundless scope:

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, it is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.Love never fails.

The purer the love, the less the regard for self. And lack of self-regard conflicts with materialistic transhumanism, which is steeped in solipsism and hyper-individuality.

Heres the tragically ironic thing: The people among us who are most innately capable of loveat least, in the full sense described by St. Paulare those with Down syndrome. Every person I have ever met with that genetic condition is better than I am because of his or her greater capacity to love.

But they are not intelligent, at least not in the particular ways that transhumanists value. And sad to say, we are in the midst of a pogrom to wipe these beautiful and gentle people off the face of the earth. Denmark has the stated goal of becoming Down syndrome free. Ninety percent of fetuses diagnosed with Down in the U.S. are aborted, while Iceland brags that its abortionists dispense with 100 percent of diagnosed fetuses. France recently prevented Down syndrome associations from running TV advertisements about the joys of parenting Down children, because they could make those who aborted their Down babies feel guilty. These awful statistics indict us for lack of love.

Besides, love is not a quantifiable quality, as many consider intelligence to be. There is no quick fix for the love-challenged. Our hearts cannot be enhanced through brain implants or other futuristic tinkering. On the contrary, learning how to love usually requires being loved. It expands through unquantifiable human connections. Transhumanism, on the other hand, is all about effortless improvements. Its adherents seek to become extraordinarylonger life, smarter brains, superhuman capacitieswithout having to really work at it.

Heres the bottom line: No matter how much we strive to engineer ourselves into post-humanity, no matter the fortunes invested by transhumanist venture capitalists in increasing our intelligence, exponentially expanding our capacity to love is the only way we will ever truly enhance the human species.

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

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

Read the original:

What's Love Got to Do with Transhumanism? - First Things

Reg Radicals lecture encompasses far right, libertarians, and mushrooms… – The Register

Reg Lectures If the recent elections clash of centre right and a bit left leaves you cold, perhaps the prospect of libertarians versus transhumanists might make you sit up and take notice.

Those were just two of the alternatives Jamie Bartlett highlighted in his Register Lecture, covering his latest book, Radicals, which details two years of researching, and occasionally living with, a range individuals and groups proposing radically different ways to organise society.

Over the course of the talk, Jamie covered his experiences travelling with the US transhumanist party, reported from inside the echo chamber with groups like the EDL, and explained the reasons why a century-old border dispute between Serbia and Croatia could result in the worlds first ultra-libertarian state.

You can see the full lecture below.

Youtube Video

What you wont see is the Q&A, where topics like psychedelic and polyamorous communes were thrown into the mix - after the usual Reg lecture nibbles and top-ups break.

But dont worry. Were cooking up some more lectures that will run in the autumn. To ensure your space, watch this space.

In the mean time, check out our entire archive of Reg lectures here.

Read the original post:

Reg Radicals lecture encompasses far right, libertarians, and mushrooms... - The Register

Engineering Eden: The quest for eternal life – Baylor College of Medicine News (press release) (blog)

Editors note: This post is related toThe Enhancing Life Project, funded by theJohn Templeton Foundation.The project is comprised of an interdisciplinary group of scholars who examine aspirations that move individuals and communities into the future, and the intersection between spirituality and technology.

If youre like most people, you may associate the phrase eternal life with religion: The promise that we can live forever if we just believe in God. You probably dont associate the phrase with an image of scientists working in a lab, peering at worms through microscopes or mice skittering through boxes. But you should.

The quest for eternal life has only recently begun to step out from behind the pews and into the petri dish.

I recently discussed the increasing feasibility of the transhumanist vision due to continuing advancements in biotech, gene- and cell-therapies. These emerging technologies, however, dont erase the fact that religion not science has always been our salve for confronting deaths inevitability. For believers, religion provides an enduring mechanism (belief and virtue) behind the perpetuity of existence, and shushes our otherwise frantic inability to grasp: How can I, as a person, just end?

The Mormon transhumanist Lincoln Cannon argues that science, rather than religion, offers a tangible solution to this most basic existential dilemma. He points out that it is no longer tenable to believe in eternal life as only available in heaven, requiring the death of our earthly bodies before becoming eternal, celestial beings.

Would a rational person choose to believe in an uncertain, spiritual afterlife over the tangible persistence of ones own familiar body and the comforting security of relationships weve fostered over a lifetime of meaningful interactions?

From a secular perspective, the choice seems obvious. But from a religious perspective, weighing faith and science is not as clear. Its not even clear whether a choice must be made.

If youre Mormon, for example, you believe that humans should and will become Gods themselves, a view consistent with transhumanist ambitions to take human capabilities and nature into their own hands.

From a Christian perspective, too, there is no inherent contradiction between religious principles and the use of science to extend our life spans or change who and what we fundamentally are. Francis Schaeffer, credited with launching evangelicals and fundamentalists into politics in the late 1970s, said that if he were offered a pill to stop aging, he would take it in a heartbeat. Because mankinds duty is as much as its within our power to undo the work of The Fall, he said.

Schaeffer was referring to Adam and Eves rebellion and subsequent fall from divine grace in the Garden of Eden, an event believed by evangelicals to be the cause of all death, disease and suffering in the world.

Enhancing human capability and putting a stop to aging buys us more time to reverse original sin and do Gods work more effectively. Spreading compassion and love to our fellow human beings and pursuing the moral virtues extolled in the scriptures may require better tools, greater reach, and radically longer timeframes.

Perhaps youll be surprised to hear that the Catholic Church strongly supports extending life and health, citing Jesuss commandment to disciples to go forth and heal the sick, even raise the dead, in his name. Some Lutherans, too, might see no essential contradiction between religious principles and the quest for earthly longevity.

Ted Anton, who wrote a book about the science and business behind longevity research, has long been head usher at his Christian Lutheran Church. He told us, Whatever created [our technological] capabilities is endlessly interesting, beautiful, complex, and probably holds a moral requirement that we are children of God. We owe it to each other to research to the very best of our ability, with a goal of helping those who need the help first.

The futurist, Ted Peters, a professor at the Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary in Berkeley, said that his religiosity encourages rather than prohibits his support for even controversial technologies, like emotional bio-enhancements. A neuro-enhancement for compassion? A genetic fix for selfishness?

Peters said, Bioethicists want to defend human freedom, so they dont want us [bio-enhancing] against our will. He continued, But I myself would be happy to give up my freedom if my heart would be sanctified so that Im loving all day long. If you could do that with a hypodermic needle, give me a shot. Ill take it.

Loving all day long doesnt sound so bad. Still, the policy implications of an emotionally bio-enhanced populace spark fear somewhere deep in my gut. Does everyone get to sit and love all day? Or will we love in shifts, to make sure someone is running the nation, or constructing our roads? Is it possible to love while driving effectively in LA traffic? Youd never get anywhere, letting everyone pass in front.

Part of me feels lucky not having any religious beliefs to reconcile with the engine of science which, to me, just seems like it will keep running faster and faster until the wheels fly off and we begin to fly. But other times I think, what deep satisfaction people must have to understand the commotion of scientific progress within a framework that provides meaning and context for our goals and concepts of self. Without these, anticipating the future is like a vase giving shape to emptiness, to use Michael Wests poetic description.

While science may be heralded as a new religion, it is by definition devoid of values. Its a method more than a system of meaning. If we admit that meaning and discovery provide fundamentally different enhancements to the human (or post-human) experience, perhaps there is room for both in our increasingly long futures.

-ByKristin Kostick, Ph.D., research associate in theCenter for Medical Ethics and Health Policyat Baylor College of Medicine

Here is the original post:

Engineering Eden: The quest for eternal life - Baylor College of Medicine News (press release) (blog)

Controversial trial to test transhumanist theories – BioEdge

Killing off death will require research and clinical trials. But these may be difficult to do ethically, as a controversial attempt to reanimate brain-dead patients suggests.

Philadelphia-based biotech firmBioquark told STAT that it plans to begin a trial somewhere in Latin America within months. The idea is to inject the patients own stem cells into the spinal cord to stimulate the growth of neurons. Other therapies could accompany this -- an injected blend of peptides, electrical nerve stimulation, and laser therapy for the brain.

As STAT points out, a description of the trial begs many questions. Who decides whether the patient is actually brain dead? How can a dead person participate in a trial? What happens if they do recover and are significantly impaired? Are the researches toying the hopes of families? Even in Latin America, will they get ethical approval?

Scientists and bioethicists are sceptical. Last year bioethicist Art Caplan and neuroscientist Ariane Lewis wrote a blunt editorial denouncing the Bioquark trial as quackery.

Dead means dead. Proposing that DNC may not be final openly challenges the medical-legal definition of death, creates room for the exploitation of grieving family and friends and falsely suggests science where none exists.

Dr Charles Cox, a pediatric surgeon in Houston who works with stem cells, was even more sceptical. I think [someone reviving] would technically be a miracle, he said. I think the pope would technically call that a miracle.

However, Bioquarks CEO, Ira Pastor, responded that the idea was daring, but possible. He points out that there are dozens of cases of patients, mostly young one, who recovered after being brain-dead. Such cases highlight that things are not always black or white in our understanding of the severe disorders of consciousness.

The experiment is part of Pastors Reanima project, which he describes in transhumanist terms on various websites.

It is now time to take the necessary steps to provide new possibilities of hope, in order to counter the pain, sorrow, and grief that is all too pervasive in the world when we experience a loved ones unexpected or untimely death, due to lesions which might be potentially reversible with the application of promising neuro-regeneration and neuro-reanimation technologies and therapies.

Go here to see the original:

Controversial trial to test transhumanist theories - BioEdge

United Nations Envisions Transhumanist Future Where Man is …

Aaron Dykes Infowars.com June 10, 2012

The Global Future 2045 International Congress, led by iconic futurist Ray Kurzweil and held in Moscow a few months back, lays out a stark vision of the future for neo-humanity where AI, cybernetics, nanotech and other emerging technologies replace mankind an openly transhumanist vision now being steered by the elite, but which emerged out of the Darwinian-circles directed by the likes of T.H. Huxley and his grandchildren Julian, who coined the term Transhumanism, and Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World. Resistance to this rapid shift in society, the 2045 conference argues, is nothing short of a return to the middle ages.

As the video points out, the group admittedly met to draft resolution that will be submitted to the United Nations demanding the implementation of committees to discuss life extension Avatar projects as a necessary tool in the preservation of humankind.

2045: A New Era for Humanity

Russia 2045 dubs itself a strategic social movement, with aims to evolve humanity and extend life towards the everlasting. The project outlines a forecast for development in the following increments:

Now: the emergence of new Transhumanist movements & parties amid the ongoing socio-economic crisis between 2012-2013; new centers for cybernetic technologies to radically extend life, where the race for immortality starts by 2014, the creation of the avatar (robotic human copy) between 2015-2020, as well as robots to replace human manufacturing & labor, servant tasks; thought controlled robots to displace travel needs; flying cars, thought-driven communications implanted in bodies or sprayed on skin. By 2025, the group foresees the creation of an autonomous system providing life support for the brain that is capable of interacting with the environment; brains transplanted into avatar bodies greatly expanding life and allowing complete sensory experiences. Between 2030-2035, the emergence of Re-Brain, a reverse-engineering of the human brain already being mapped out, wherein science comes close to understanding the principles of consciousness. By 2035, the first successful transplantation of personality to other data receptacles and the epoch of cybernetic immortality begins. 2040-2050 brings the arrival of bodies made of nano-robots that can take any shape, as well as hologram bodies. 2045-2050 will bring forth drastic changes to the social structure and sci-tech development. It is in this age that the United Nations original promise of the end to war & violence is again predicted, where instead spiritual self-improvement takes precedent. A New Era of Neo-Humanity Dawns, according to the video.

This is textbook Transhumanism, rooted in many ancient orders and the philosophy of eugenics.

At its heart, Transhumanism represents an esoteric quest for godhood among certain circles of the elite connected to masonry, occultism and science/technology wherein supposedly evolving, superior beings ethically replace lesser humans. This philosophy is portrayed in this summers blockbuster Prometheus, a sort of prequel to the Alien series, and directed by Sir Ridley Scott, who founded the film franchise. See Alexs highly accurate breakdown of the themes behind the movie below, which help illustrate the dangers of emerging technology in the hands of the elite who hold this vision:

Secrets of Prometheus Film Leaked

Fittingly, two of the attendees at the 2012 anglophile Bilderberg meeting were Russians dealing with science & technology (though neither were apparently involved directly in this 2045 conference) including the owner of a Nano technology company, while Bilderberg steering committee members like Silicon Valley exec Peter Thiel are funding private space ventures, artificial island civilizations, next-gen Internet ventures and more.

RUS Chubais, Anatoly B. CEO, OJSC RUSNANO RUS Ivanov, Igor S. Associate member, Russian Academy of Science; President, Russian International Affairs Council

See the rest here:

United Nations Envisions Transhumanist Future Where Man is ...

U.S. Transhumanist Party Discussed – Lifeboat Foundation (blog)

New article by Transhumanist Party:

Gennady Stolyarov II

The Spring 2017 issue of the magazine Issues in Science and Technology, published by the National Academy of Sciences, features an article by Professor Steve Fuller, the Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology in the Department of Sociology at the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom. This article, entitled Does this pro-science party deserve our votes? discusses the Transhumanist Party from the time of Zoltan Istvans 2016 run for President.

In this article, which offers both positive discussion and critiques of Istvans campaign, Professor Fuller writes:

What Istvan offered voters was a clear vision of how science and technology could deliver a heaven on earth for everyone. The Transhumanist Bill of Rights envisages that it is within the power of science and technology to deliver the end to all significant suffering, the enhancement of ones existing capacities, and the indefinite extension of ones life. To the fans whom Istvan attracted during his campaign, these added up to liberty makers. For them, the question was what prevented the federal government from prioritizing what Istvan had presented as well within human reach.

Read this article:

U.S. Transhumanist Party Discussed - Lifeboat Foundation (blog)

Secret to a better life? – Piqua Daily Call

Transhumanism, a controversial and interesting topic, could save the world from many things. It could lead the world to think smarter and faster. It could also make us live longer and happier lives. It could lead us to be able to take full control of our minds making us able to indefinitely remember things we enjoy and completely forget anything we dont want to remember. Transhumanism could make us who we want to be and be able to remove anything we dont like.

Technology has caused major changes throughout the human race. It has made us able to multi-task and produce things much faster than before. Transhumanism is the science of combining the human body with technology to improve many parts of ourselves. Transhumanism seeks to this as well, but there is one major difference. Transhumanism seeks to do this in your mind and body instead of in factories or computers. It will make you able to do all of the things a calculator can do but in your head.

When taken to the extreme transhumanism could make your eyes display the trajectory and movement path of a ball before you ever even throw it. This indeed could be used to cheat in various scenarios such as sports or college exams but when it comes down to it if we actually reach that level of technology and its in public hands then the majority of people would have and be using those skills.

Within the work force, a transhumanist would be at the top. They would be able to do more and get it all done more efficiently. This would push for more people to become transhumanist. Leading to people living longer and throughout their life almost always being in peak condition. This could make many people more happy and able to do whatever they want to in life.

This does not mean however that for things such as the Olympics participants would not have to train all of their lives or for jobs in Science or Law you would not have to attend school for many years. This is because we would still need to be taught and we would still need to earn our diplomas. Likewise the years of school and training will be made much easier through transhumanism.

An important part of transhumanism is to remember that it is expanding our control of ourselves. We would be able to expand our memories and control what resides in them. We would be able to learn things and never worry about forgetting how to do them. If you ever had a traumatic experience that you never ever wanted to remember again you could delete it like junk mail in your email. The expansion of our memories could lead to better solved crimes and putting fewer people in jail that dont deserve it. This could however be used against us in cases of brain washing but if we were to think of it as if our minds were computers, we could easily make an external backup of our entire brain.

The combination of technology and body could lead to many crazy and amazing things such as taking pictures and videos with your eyes to share with your friends, or being able to play video games or read books without ever physically touching a controller or book. Transhumanism could lead to extreme virtual reality in which you are mentally removed from your own body and put into the game world.

Though many people fear that things such as this could lead to detachment from humanity or cause people to forget about reality so that they may just live in the virtual world this would be impossible due to our bodies needing nourishment making so that if certain bodily things are required we would be pulled out of the virtual worlds without worry.

In conclusion, transhumanism can be used and advanced in many ways to improve the human race as a whole. Though there is still much that is unknown about transhumanism the movement continues to grow and develop becoming safer and more advanced with every discovery. In the end, transhumanism will have its ups and downs just as any other movement does. Transhumanism has great potential and if done correctly it has the ability to change the world forever.

Kalob Watkins is a student at Edison State Community College

.

More:

Secret to a better life? - Piqua Daily Call

Is Zoltan Istvan a Libertarian? – Being Libertarian

Like many libertarians, I was initially excited when Zoltan Istvan announced his candidacy for Governor of California.

Istvan is the founder of the Transhumanist Party and author of The Transhumanist Wager, which is considered a manifesto on transhumanist philosophy. The basic premise of transhumanism is that the next step in human evolution will be to improve our bodies and expand our lifespan with radical technology, eventually leading towards immortality. While he still needs to obtain the nomination, having someone announce their intents this early gave me hope that maybe the party would have a shot at making an impact in the California mid-terms.

As I learned about his transhumanist ideas, I became increasingly hopeful that his views on radical science and medical technology would be able to appeal to the far-left base of California and introduce a wider range of people to libertarianism. However, after doing some research Im not so sure Istvan is the best candidate to represent the Libertarian party.

On the surface, the former presidential candidate seems to align with the libertarian views of bodily autonomy (transhumanists call it morphological freedom) and the non-aggression principle, he even called himself a left-libertarian on the Rubin Report.

He believes people should be able to use technology to make modifications to their body as they please, if it doesnt harm anyone else. For example, Istvan has a chip implanted in his hand which allows him to open doors in his home and will send texts to a persons phone.

Also within his conversation with Dave Rubin, he discussed regulating industries for artificial intelligence multiple times. He went so far to say I dont believe we should develop artificial intelligence thats unregulated and part of the reason AI remains an unregulated industry is because no one knows how to regulate it.

During his 2016 run for the presidency, part of his platform was to, Create national and global safeguards and programs that protect people against abusive technology and other possible planetary perils we might face as we transition into the transhumanist era.

This type of language reminds one of the paternalism and protect one from themselves legislation typical of todays Democrats and Republicans.

Finally, one of the partys proposals is to adopt a Transhumanist Bill of Rights that would advocate for legal and government support of longer lifespans, better health and higher standards of living via science and technology.

While its not clear what government support would entail, state-funded creation of life-expanding technologies would pale in comparison to what the market could create.

Article I of the Transhumanist Bill of Rights claims that every citizen has a right to technology that reduces suffering, improves upon the body and can give one an infinite life-span, which reminds one of the current leftist agenda claiming healthcare is a basic human right.

The best way to ensure that everyone can have access to the technology that would accomplish Istvans Transhumanist vision, would be to allow private companies to produce these technologies and compete with other firms and bring prices down. As weve seen with universal healthcare, entitling a service to every citizen lowers quality, and increases prices.

While his intentions are noble, requiring access to this kind of technology would decrease the number of people who could obtain it and aggress on a business owners right to sell their product. This is one of many problematic parts of his presidential bid; others included free public education, mandatory college education and preschool, and a sort of affirmative action to create an equal representation of former careers in politicians.

To give the potential candidate some credit, he does oppose the War on Drugs and wants to shrink the size of government through technology.

Istvan seems to be a situational libertarian. While he may appeal to more Californians with his views on science and seeming acceptance of some forms of regulation, he would not be the person the party would need to explain libertarian philosophies and represent us to the masses.

* Luke Henderson is a composer, economics enthusiast, and educator in St. Louis, MO. He is a budding libertarian and joined the party in 2016.

Like Loading...

Visit link:

Is Zoltan Istvan a Libertarian? - Being Libertarian

Transhumanist Wants to Run for California Governor Under Libertarian Banner – The Libertarian Republic

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

By Kody Fairfield

After realizing his chances to be President were over, Zoltan Istvan ofthe Transhumanist Party, has decided to take his platform and run for another elected office, and under a different political party.

Istvan didnt have much of a chance at being president, but that didnt stop him from campaigning as the Transhumanist Partys candidateto promote his pro-technology and science positions. Now, hes setting his sights a bit lower, and with a different party. Istvan announced this morning that he plans to run for governor of California in 2018 under the Libertarian Party, explainsEngadet.com.

In aNewsweekarticle Istvan wrote, We need leadership that is willing to use radical science, technology, and innovationwhat California is famous forto benefit us all. We need someone with the nerve to risk the tremendous possibilities to save the environment through bioengineering, to end cancer by seeking a vaccine or a gene-editing solution for it, to embrace startups that will take California from the worlds 7th largest economy to maybe even the largest economybigger than the rest of America altogether.

Engadet mentions that Istvan told the publication that he notonly identifies as libertarian, but that he also saw the benefit of working with a more established political party, instead of starting one from the ground up. The Transhumanist even mentioned to the website that should he run for President again, he would do as a Libertarian.

The most important thing I learned from my presidential campaign is that this is a team sport, Istvan said in an email to Engadet. Without the proper managers, volunteers, spokespeople, and supporters, its really impossible to make a dent in an election. Thats part of the reason I joined the Libertarian Party for my governor run. They have tens of thousands of active supporters in California alone, so my election begins with real resources and infrastructure to draw upon. Thats a large difference from my Presidential campaign, where we essentially were shoe-stringing it the whole time.

According to the article fromEngadet, Istvan has considered running for a lesser office, but has describe the competition for those lower seats a being much more fierce. Explaining that he sees an opening with disgruntled members of the two major parties, especially againstGavin Newsome, the rumored front-runner for the Democrats.

Istvan also toldEngadet that he seems a dire need for a pro-science candidate like himself, citing what he called PresidentTrumpsdisdain forfor science.

This idea that we should drop environmental science, or be cautious on genetic engineering, or focus on the revitalization of nuclear weaponry is something I disagree with, he said. I believe we should bet the farm on various radical technologies: artificial intelligence, gene therapies, 3D printed organs, driverless cars, drones, robots, stem cell tech, exoskeleton tech, virtual reality, brain wave neural prosthetics, to name a few. This is the way to grow an economywith much creative innovation, what California is famous for.

It should be noted that Istvans jump to the Libertarian Party does not guarantee him the Partys nomination for governor. He would have to face off versus any other primary challengers prior to taking that role. At this point, his comments are a mere statement of intent to seek the nomination, rather than his title.

Democratsgavin newsomeGovernor of Californialibertarian partyRepublicansscienceTranshumanist PartyZoltan Istvn

See the original post here:

Transhumanist Wants to Run for California Governor Under Libertarian Banner - The Libertarian Republic

Michael O’Connor : Does He See Himself being a Transhumanist? – Mobile Magazine


Mobile Magazine
Michael O'Connor : Does He See Himself being a Transhumanist?
Mobile Magazine
But first, let me tell you what transhumanists are. Transhumanists ought to exist since the 80's however they have come to be more noticeable in the past years as technology progresses and made our imagination seem more realistic. They are people who ...

Follow this link:

Michael O'Connor : Does He See Himself being a Transhumanist? - Mobile Magazine

Top 5 Transhumanist Technologies With Major Implications …

Transhumanism is one of those technologies that boggles most peoples minds. Do not be mistaken in thinking this has anything to do with being transgender, as transhumanists seek to improve their human capacities beyond what is assumed to be possible. They do so by using top-of-the-line technologies, rather than gadgets or other electronics. Most of these technologies go by unnoticed, which is why we have compiled a brief list below.

Some people may have heard of this technology before. Cryonics is a high-fidelity preservation of the human body after death. The primary reason why anyone would enter a cryogenic sleep is to anticipate a potential future revival. This technology has been widely available for some time, albeit it is rather on the expensive side. Through cryonics, it is feasible to stop cells from decaying. Moreover, the process requires no electricity to do so.

Tampering with the human bodys genes sounds rather risky, but significant advancements have been made in recent years. Gene therapy effectively replaces bad genes with good ones, which allows us to manipulate our genetic code. Scientists have discovered a way to remove genes coding for specific metabolic proteins, ensuring the host remains slim and fit at all times.

Anti-aging therapy is heavily influenced by gene therapy as well and it is believed scientists will eventually reach the longevity escape velocity soon. As a result, humans may become subject to indefinite lifespans. Whether or not that is a positive development, remains to be seen, though.

Introducing cyber enhancements to the human body remains a very risky business to this very day. Implants and other electronics can address a lot of problems our bodies are faced with. Cybernetics are designed in such a way they will be invisible to the casual observer, as they reside beneath the hosts skin. Most current bio modifications are all external, as we have covered in a previous article. Cybernetic systems will improve our everyday experience and even boost the economy as humans will be able to do more work in less time.

While a lot of people are concerned over what the future will bring in terms of robotics, self-replicating robots may be the least of our concerns right now. Replacing manual labor with robots doing the task for us seems like a no-brainer, albeit it will cause some job losses. Self-replicating robots, on the other hand, would be quite beneficial. For example, they can turn uninhabitable areas into living spaces, clean up waste generated by us humans, or even pave the way for human colonization of space.

As creepy as this concept may sound at first, mind uploading or nonbiological intelligence can be quite valuable to our society. Implementing cognitive processing on anything that is not human would be a massive breakthrough. The general public is not too keen of this concept, even though our minds are by far our greatest assets. Synthetic brains are not impossible to achieve by any means, although a lot of research is required before this can become a reality.

If you liked this article, follow us on Twitter @themerklenews and make sure to subscribe to our newsletter to receive the latest bitcoin, cryptocurrency, and technology news.

See more here: Top 5 Transhumanist Technologies With Major Implications The Merkle

Here is the original post:

Top 5 Transhumanist Technologies With Major Implications ...

The Transhumanist’s Quest for Godhood: ‘Remember, Thou Art Mortal’ – CNSNews.com


CNSNews.com
The Transhumanist's Quest for Godhood: 'Remember, Thou Art Mortal'
CNSNews.com
History tells us that when victorious generals in ancient Rome returned home, they would hold triumphal processions through the streets. Singers, dancers, and adoring citizens would shower the general with effusive praises. But to guard him against ...

Here is the original post:

The Transhumanist's Quest for Godhood: 'Remember, Thou Art Mortal' - CNSNews.com

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

"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.

'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

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.

See the rest here:

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

‘They want to be literally machines’ : Writer Mark O’Connell on the rise of transhumanists – The Verge

The strangest place writer Mark OConnell has ever been to is the Alcor Life Extension Foundation where dead bodies are preserved in tanks filled with nitrogen, in case they can be revived with future technology. There was a floor with the stainless steel cylinders and all these bodies contained within them and corpses and severed heads, he tells The Verge. That imagery is something that I will take with me to a grave, whether thats a refrigerated cylinder or an actual grave.

OConnell, 37, visited Alcor while writing To Be a Machine, which comes out February 28th. The nonfiction book delves into the world of transhumanists, or people who want to transcend the limits of the human body using technology. Transhumanists want to be stronger and faster; they want to be cyborgs. And they want to solve the problem of death, whether by freezing their bodies through cryonics or uploading their consciousnesses. Transhumanists have been around since at least the 1980s, but have become more visible in the past decade as technology advances have made these ideas seem more feasible and less like sci-fi.

OConnell had known about transhumanists for years, but they stayed in the back of his mind until his son was born and he became more preoccupied by questions of mortality and death. I was looking for a topic that would allow me to write about these things, he says. Even when I was writing specifically about the movement, I was also writing about just how weird it is to be alive in a body thats decaying and dying.

He ended up visiting the Alcor cryonics lab, talking to researchers who want to save us from artificial intelligence, hanging around with biohackers in Pennsylvania, and following transhumanist presidential candidate Zoltan Istvan on his campaign trail. The Verge spoke to OConnell about the philosophy behind the movement, his experiences in the transhumanist world, and whether his own beliefs and hopes for humanity have changed since writing the book.

How exactly do you define transhumanism? Doctors, for example, are interested in extending human life, but you could hardly say that all doctors are transhumanists.

Right, theres a way of defining transhumanism thats so broad that youre almost just describing a scientist. There are lots of different definitions, but for me its someone who thinks that we should incorporate technology into ourselves, to use technological evolution to push forward the evolution of the human animal. These people want to not be human in a very sort of radical and thoroughgoing way. They want to be literally machines.

I can identify with wanting to not die, but I cant with wanting to live indefinitely.

Its a disparate movement with many different beliefs. For example, not all of them buy into cryonics. Its almost like talking to a Catholic who goes, I dont take communion, dont go to Mass, but Im still basically Catholic. They believe in the general principle but dont sign up for all the things along the way. [Then} you get people saying, I should really sign up for Alcor, should get the paperwork done and provide for my future almost like you talk to people of my generation who are like, I really need to get started on a pension.

Its common to be frustrated by what our bodies cant do. But its another thing to implant electronics under your skin, or plan to preserve your body after you die. What drives people who consider themselves transhumanists?

They all have a similar origin story, all came to it in a similar kind of way. When you talk about their childhoods, most of them were already obsessed with not just death, but the sort of general limitations of being human, of the frustrations of not being able to do certain things, not being able to live infinitely, not being able to explore space, not being able to think at the level they wanted. All obsessed with human limitations. And most of them shared a similar moment where they went online, they discovered that there was this whole community of people who had the same concerns and philosophies, and they became transhumanists, even though they were without knowing the name.

Theyre all largely tech people and science people. Its hugely a white male thing and it tells you a lot about privilege. Its very difficult to be concerned that youre going to die someday if youre dealing with structural racism or sexism or just feeding your family. Transhumanism seems to come from a position of privilege. Big proponents like Elon Musk have sort of conquered all the standard human problems through technology, and they have infinite amounts of money to spend.

What were some of the transhumanist ideas that seemed the strangest to you? Did any of that change after writing the book?

When I started to look into what the basic ideas were around transhumanism, the thing that I found most alienating and weird and completely speculative was the idea of becoming disembodied and uploading your brain. Its called whole brain emulation. Its the endpoint of a lot of transhumanist thought.

But then I met Randal Koene [who runs Carboncopies, a foundation that supports research on whole brain emulation]. I find him incredibly charismatic. I was really struck by the tension between what seems to be the complete insanity of what he was saying to me the madness of the idea that he might be able to eventually convert the human mind into code and talking to this normal, really smart guy who was explaining really clearly his ideas and making them seem, if not imminently achievable, quite sensible. I was quite swayed by him and in a weird way Randals work seems like some of the least crazy stuff.

Were you swayed by the overall philosophy? You mention in the book that you dont consider yourself a transhumanist. Why?

When I was with the Grindhouse biohackers in Pittsburgh, one night we were in the basement trying to envision our futures. One of them talked about wanting to become this disembodied infinitely powerful thing that would go throughout the universe and encompass everything.

When you talk to transhumanists, in one way or another, they all aspire to knowing everything and to being gods basically. And I just sort of thought, this is actually something I cant relate to at all. The idea of being that all-powerful and omnipresent, its almost indistinguishable from not existing and I cant quite justify that.

Theyd say, youve got Stockholm syndrome of the human body. But that kind of idea is very unappealing to me. I cant see why that would be your idea of your ultimate human value. I was always trying to come to grips with these ideas and come to grips with what it meant for these people to be post-human, and just wind up getting more confused about what it meant to be a human at all in the first place. I can identify with wanting to not die, but I cant with wanting to live indefinitely.

Hanging out with all these people and spending time with all these weird ideas about mechanism and human bodies forced me into a position [to identify myself] as not even a human, but as an animal, a mammal. To me, what it means to be human is inextricably bound with the condition of being a mammal, being frail and weak and loving other people for their frailty and weakness.

Speaking of limitations of the human body, what about disability? When youre so focused on transcending the human body and its limitations, does that mean denigrating disability?

Transhumanists see disability in a completely opposite way. The people I talked to said, Look, were all disabled in one way or another. For example, there was a proposal to make Los Angeles cities more wheelchair accessible. And [transhumanist presidential candidate] Zoltan Istvan wrote this bizarre, wrongheaded editorial about how this was a crazy use of public funds, which should be putting it into making all humans superhuman. What he was getting at was that being physically disabled should not be a barrier to being superhuman anyway, so whole-body prostheses should be the thing that were investing money into. A huge number of people in the disability community were horribly offended and he couldnt quite see why.

Do you think transhumanist ideas are going to gain credence and become a lot more mainstream?

I have no crystal ball, so I dont know any more about the future now than when I started looking into this. But I can see that maybe human life will change so radically in the future that all of this will come to pass. And it wont have come to pass because of transhumanists agitating for it but just because technology has this internal momentum that keeps moving, and theres nothing we can do about it.

Writing the book felt like writing about a very particular cultural moment. Its a very specific cultural phenomenon that has gained quite a foothold in Silicon Valley for reasons that seem quite obvious. My sense is that there are a lot of people out there who would never call themselves transhumanists but share a lot of these ideas about the possibilities for the human future. Silicon Valley has generated this amazing amount of money and cultural power and this sense of possibility around technology. We think we can fix anything with technology, so the idea that we would be able to solve death the human condition seems to be the natural outflow of that.

View original post here:

'They want to be literally machines' : Writer Mark O'Connell on the rise of transhumanists - The Verge

Transhumanists, biohackers, grinders: Who are they and can they really live forever? – ABC Online

Updated February 23, 2017 13:17:22

Can transhumanists, biohackers and grinders live forever?

The answer is maybe soon at least according to them.

Ok. So what's a transhumanist?

Like some scientists, they believe that ageing is a disease, and they are not afraid of taking human evolution into their own hands by harnessing genetic engineering, nanotechnology and artificial intelligence.

Sydney-based IT innovation manager and self-described transhumanist Peter Xing says Australians aged in their 20s and 30s could now end up living long enough to live forever.

It is called "longevity escape velocity".

"That means staying healthy for as long as you can until such a point that there's the technology to enable you to live indefinitely," Mr Xing explains.

Fellow transhumanist Meow-Ludo Meow-Meow (yes, that's his real name, changed by deed poll) believes he could be one of the first generations of humans to live forever.

"I'm 31. I think with technology improving exponentially I have a very good chance of living forever."

"We know a lot of the causes of ageing and we're actively working on technology to address them.

"If we can increase our life span by more than one year for every year of our lives, then we become functionally immortal."

Have you got a question? Join the live QandA with Peter Xing and Margot O'Neill on Facebook tonight at 8:00pm (AEDT).

In the last couple of years, researchers have extended the life of mice by up to 40 per cent through various means including gene therapies.

Human trials are a long way off because of tight government regulations, but many researchers have started experimenting on themselves.

In 2015, American genetics activist Liz Parrish flew to Colombia to avoid US regulatory constraints.

Once there she says she injected herself with an unproven anti-ageing gene therapy.

Ms Parrish, the CEO of biotechnology company BioViva, is now known as Patient Zero.

She says results show the treatment rejuvenated part of her DNA, called telomeres, that shorten with age, and she claims her telomeres have now grown by 9 per cent, or about 20 years.

Many scientists question her claims.

Grinders or biohackers are people who augment their bodies with technology.

This could be as crude as implanting magnets under your skin a procedure that can be done at some tattoo and body piercing studios or slightly more high-tech like getting microchips placed inside your body.

Mr Meow-Meow has a micro-chip implanted in his left thumb and has downloaded some smartphone functions directly into his body.

"I can open doors, authenticate myself to my credit card, activate my phone, activate drones and I can program the chip in my thumb from my phone anytime," he said.

US grinder Rich Lee has more than seven implants, including magnets in his finger tips which twitch in response to electro-magnetic fields.

"You can feel it because all those nerves in your fingertips have grown around the magnet and it has a texture and you're feeling this otherwise invisible world," he said.

Mr Lee also has magnets in his ears which serve as earphones: "being able to hear through walls is cool."

Yes.

And Mr Meow-Meow warns would-be biohackers against trying to implant themselves with DIY kits.

"Anything that's put under the skin provides an environment in which bacteria can grow," he said.

"This is why it's very important that you go and see a professional."

Hmmm.

Aside from physical modifications, the race is also on to reach a new, super intelligence.

Billionaire Elon Musk wants to develop a neural lace which would layer onto the human brain and connect digitally to AI.

Without it, he says humans will risk becoming like a "house pet", because AI will eventually outstrip human intelligence perhaps this century.

Mr Xing says all this is vital so humans don't lose their jobs to robots and it will also help us adapt to space travel.

"The question is at what point does the incorporation of all this technology make us a different species and what are the ethics behind that?"

Watch Margot O'Neill's report tonight on Lateline at 9.30pm on ABC News 24 or 10.30pm on ABC TV.

Topics: science-and-technology, pseudo-science, biology, robots-and-artificial-intelligence, australia

First posted February 23, 2017 06:02:40

Visit link:

Transhumanists, biohackers, grinders: Who are they and can they really live forever? - ABC Online