Monthly Archives: November 2014

After a gap of three years, the State Human Rights Commission has got a chairperson. Mrs. Justice (retd.) T. Meenakumari, former Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court, will hold the post for five years or till she attains the age of 70, according to a notification issued by Public Secretary Jatindra Nath Swain on Saturday.

Governor K. Rosaiah made the appointment, after the selection committee was said to have met last week and made its recommendation.

The post has been lying vacant since August 2011, when Mr. Justice (retd.) A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy laid down the office at the end of his five-year tenure. The Commission has two members: Jayanthi and K. Baskaran. Ms. Jayanthi, a former civil servant, is the acting chairperson. In September last, the Supreme Court asked the State to fill the vacancy expeditiously.

Mrs. Justice Meenakumari was the first Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court, holding the post between March23, 2013 and August 3, 2013, when she retired. She also served as a judge of the Andhra Pradesh, Madras and Patna High Courts.

It was in April 1997 that the SHRC was constituted in Tamil Nadu under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.Justice S. Nainar Sundaram was the first Chairperson, who held the post till his death in September 2001. There had been many acting chairpersons before Mr. Justice Venkatachalamoorthyassumed office in August 2006. Under the law, a State Commission should include a Chairperson who has been a Chief Justice of a High Court; one member who is or has been a High Court judge; one member who is or has been a district judge; and two members having knowledge of, or practical experience in, matters concerning human rights.

The New Delhi-based World Human Rights Commission and Rescue Centre has welcomed Ms. Justice Meenakumaris appointment.

COMMENTS

Please Wait while comments are loading...

1. Comments will be moderated by The Hindu editorial team. 2. Comments that are abusive, personal, incendiary or irrelevant cannot be published. 3. Please write complete sentences. Do not type comments in all capital letters, or in all lower case letters, or using abbreviated text. (example: u cannot substitute for you, d is not 'the', n is not 'and'). 4. We may remove hyperlinks within comments. 5. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name, to avoid rejection.

Visit link:
After three years, rights panel gets chairperson

"I want you to hold off on your intellectual gag response," the speaker told us. "I want you to stay with me through this 'til we get to the end."

The speaker was Paul Horn, former executive director of research at IBM. He's the man behind Watson, the machine that beat humans at Jeopardy. Horn is a highly informed, deep thinker on future technology. His talk was called "The Co-Evolution of Humans and Machines." His purpose was to get us thinking more deeply about a revolution that, if it comes, would be unlike anything humanity has experienced so far in its long history.

Horn's main argument was that, in the near future, we will build machines surpassing us in intelligence. What the machines those machines then build will surpass their own creator's intelligence. This process will rapidly continue until, very soon, it yields a new force on the planet superintelligence. This runaway process is often called the "singularity" and Horn's main job was to argue that, given current trends in technology, something more or less like it is coming.

What happens next (not the subject of Horn's talk), depends on your level of optimism. If you think things will turn out badly, well, then, you know the story. Skynet. The Matrix. Robot overlords.

But if you're an optimist, then you think something wonderful is going to happen. With the help of our super-intelligent machines we become more.

"More what?" you ask. Well, more than human. We become the next step in evolution and that will mean humanity, as we know it, will come to an end. What comes next will be a new post-human era (transhumanism, the step in between, is an idea we've covered before in this blog).

But now comes the real question. Even under the most optimistic scenario where a post-human transformation is available to everyone regardless of race, creed or (the more likely stumbling block) economic status, is it still a good idea? More to the point, is actively developing technologies to put us at the intellectual level of a schnauzer relative to future post-human beings ethical, just and proper?

Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford, identifies the core value of transhumanism in the ideal of human potential. Thus, for a transhumanist, raising future generations to the heights our current potential is all that matters. As Bostrom puts it:

"This affirmation of human potential is offered as an alternative to customary injunctions against playing God, messing with nature, tampering with our human essence, or displaying punishable hubris."

Bostrom runs through the limits that can be overcome when we transcend the current version of humanity: lifespan, intelligence, bodily functionality, sensory modalities, special faculties and sensibilities. Thus, in a post-human world our children's' children may live for centuries, see in all wavelengths of the spectrum and think trillions of times faster and more deeply than we can even imagine.

Excerpt from:
Should Science End Humankind?