The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Ai
- Alt-right
- Alternative Medicine
- Antifa
- Artificial General Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Super Intelligence
- Ascension
- Astronomy
- Atheism
- Atheist
- Atlas Shrugged
- Automation
- Ayn Rand
- Bahamas
- Bankruptcy
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Bitcoin
- Black Lives Matter
- Blackjack
- Boca Chica Texas
- Brexit
- Caribbean
- Casino
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Censorship
- Cf
- Chess Engines
- Childfree
- Cloning
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Covid-19
- Cryonics
- Cryptocurrency
- Cyberpunk
- Darwinism
- Democrat
- Designer Babies
- DNA
- Donald Trump
- Eczema
- Elon Musk
- Entheogens
- Ethical Egoism
- Eugenic Concepts
- Eugenics
- Euthanasia
- Evolution
- Extropian
- Extropianism
- Extropy
- Fake News
- Federalism
- Federalist
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom
- Freedom of Speech
- Futurism
- Futurist
- Gambling
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Genome
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- Hedonism
- High Seas
- History
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Immortality
- Human Longevity
- Illuminati
- Immortality
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jacinda Ardern
- Jitsi
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Liberal
- Libertarian
- Libertarianism
- Liberty
- Life Extension
- Macau
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Memetics
- Micronations
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- Nanotech
- National Vanguard
- NATO
- Neo-eugenics
- Neurohacking
- Neurotechnology
- New Utopia
- New Zealand
- Nihilism
- Nootropics
- NSA
- Oceania
- Offshore
- Olympics
- Online Casino
- Online Gambling
- Pantheism
- Personal Empowerment
- Poker
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Polygamy
- Populism
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Posthuman
- Posthumanism
- Private Islands
- Progress
- Proud Boys
- Psoriasis
- Psychedelics
- Putin
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Rationalism
- Republican
- Resource Based Economy
- Robotics
- Rockall
- Ron Paul
- Roulette
- Russia
- Sealand
- Seasteading
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Seychelles
- Singularitarianism
- Singularity
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Spacex
- Sports Betting
- Sportsbook
- Superintelligence
- Survivalism
- Talmud
- Technology
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tms
- Tor Browser
- Trance
- Transhuman
- Transhuman News
- Transhumanism
- Transhumanist
- Transtopian
- Transtopianism
- Ukraine
- Uncategorized
- Vaping
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Waveland
- Ww3
- Yahoo
- Zeitgeist Movement
-
Prometheism
-
Forbidden Fruit
-
The Evolutionary Perspective
Daily Archives: June 29, 2017
New Berkman Klein Center study examines global internet censorship – Harvard Law School News
Posted: June 29, 2017 at 11:45 pm
Credit: Berkman Klein Center
A sharp increase in web encryption and a worldwide shift away from standalone websites in favor of social media and online publishing platforms has altered the practice of state-level internet censorship and in some cases led to broader crackdowns, a new study by the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University finds.
The Shifting Landscape of Global Internet Censorship, released today, documents the practice of internet censorship around the world through empirical testing in 45 countries of the availability of 2,046 of the worlds most-trafficked and influential websites, plus additional country-specific websites. The study finds evidence of filtering in 26 countries across four broad content themes: political, social, topics related to conflict and security, and internet tools (a term that includes censorship circumvention tools as well as social media platforms). The majority of countries that censor content do so across all four themes, although the depth of the filtering varies.
The study confirms that 40 percent of these 2,046 websites can only be reached by an encrypted connection (denoted by the HTTPS prefix on a web page, a voluntary upgrade from HTTP). While some sites can be reached by either HTTP or HTTPS, total encrypted traffic to the 2,046 sites has more than doubled to 31 percent in 2017 from 13 percent in 2015, the study finds. Meanwhile, and partly in response to the protections afforded by encryption, activists in particular and web users in general around the world are increasingly relying on major platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, Medium, and Wikipedia.
These trends have created challenges for state internet censors operating filters at national network levels. When an entire website is encrypted, it is not easy to detect and selectively block a particular dissidents page on Facebook or troublesome history lesson on Wikipedia. So unless a platform agrees to remove content, a country must either block the whole site, or allow everything through.
Twenty years ago the webs infrastructure was truly distributed; visiting a web site could mean corresponding with a server in a university, a private home, or a business anywhere in the world. Today, content and services are increasingly hosted among a handful of cloud providers, says Jonathan Zittrain, professor of computer science and George Bemis Professor of International Law at Harvard University and a co-founder of the Berkman Klein Center. That may have helped standardize the rollout of encryption for day-to-day communication over the web, while at the same time placing the major providers under increasing pressure to shape and censor their services by governments in markets where providers wish to have a strong physical presence.
In some respects, the shift may be reducing the blocking of communications. For example, in 2011, Saudi Arabia was blocking individual Wikipedia entries (such as one describing the theory of evolution); and individual Twitter accounts such as that of Egyptian activist Wael Ghonim, with nearly 2.8 million followers, and the human rights advocate Gamal Eid, the director of a Cairo-based regional human rights NGO. But today both of those sites use HTTPS, making such censorship practices difficult. While Saudi Arabia vigorously censors many types of content, it doesnt block Wikipedia or Twitter, which in effect allows these critics to be heard in the Kingdom.
But in other contexts, the shift has been followed by broader crackdowns. For example, in recent years Medium, the online publishing platform, has become popular among activists in Egypt. But in June 2017, Egypt blocked Medium, effectively censoring not only the activists content but also millions of other articles on the site. Similarly, Malaysia blocked Medium in January 2016 after the company refused to take down articles about a government corruption case.
And in April of 2017, Turkey blocked all of Wikipedia because censors could not block (or convince Wikipedia to remove) entries asserting that Turkey sponsored terrorist organizations. This left Turkeys population without any access to Wikipedias 290,000 Turkish-language entries. Tech companies are on the front lines; to an ever-greater extent they serve as the principal guardians of freedom of expression online around the world, says Rob Faris, a co-author of the report and research director at the Berkman Klein Center.
Among the reports many other findings is that governments are increasingly blocking content from other governments, not merely blocking internal dissidents and other non-state actors. This is particularly evident in the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) countries.
In a related trend, the MENA region is also experiencing a rise in shared internet censorship practices among allied nations. For example, Saudi-allied countries have begun to block the same websites originating from Qatar. State internet censorship practices are increasingly intertwined with intraregional political dynamics, says Helmi Noman, a report co-author and research affiliate at the Berkman Klein Center. The regional political tensions and conflicts and political alliances around them give rise to bloc-centered similar internet censorship policies, he says. As a result, more states now ban content originating from or affiliated with rival states.
Of course, governments have other means at their disposal to suppress online speech, including arresting dissidents, pressuring companies to take down content, and shaping online narratives by launching disinformation campaigns on social media platforms.
The Berkman Klein Center report is the latest of several studies and media reports from the past year documenting global censorship practices. Governments have also blocked encrypted mobile messaging apps like WhatsApp and Viber that allow users to spread information quickly and securely, and even shut all internet access within national borders at certain times.
Regimes that aggressively filter the internet typically use third parties usually private companies that specialize in selling filtering technologies to detect and carry out content blocking. State censors have extended the reasons and rationales for internet censorship. The fight against terrorism has provided one justification for expanding political censorship, and states have exploited this to target political speech they find offensive. More recently, state censors have started using claims of fake news as motive to censor the internet.
For more information and to download a copy of the report, visit the Berkman Klein Center website.
See the original post:
New Berkman Klein Center study examines global internet censorship - Harvard Law School News
Posted in Censorship
Comments Off on New Berkman Klein Center study examines global internet censorship – Harvard Law School News
A libertarian leader can save the GOP from white nationalism – The Diamondback
Posted: at 11:45 pm
Ever since William F. Buckleys death, commentators spanning the political spectrum have searched for someone to succeed the conservative intellectual leader and National Review founder.
Most recently, Washington Post columnist George Will decried the scowling primitives who populate the conservative intelligentsia and pined for a Buckley figure someone who can, with vigor and high spirits, fashion conservative thought into coherent ideology.
Will is right that conservatism needs a intellectual leader in Buckleys mold, but not for the reasons political writers often advance. I especially want to separate my motivation from the mass of left-of-center writers who are suckers for Buckley.
Many liberals bemoan the loss of educated, well-spoken conservatives and the rise of unsophisticated rage-mongers. They claim that if the GOP only had more intellectual heft, it would be compassionate and measured. Many center-left folks admire Buckley for cosmetic reasons: Because he defended conservative ideology with eloquence and literary charm, he deserves our esteem.
This is silly. Conservatism doesnt need a Buckley figure because Buckley used big words. And heaps of evidence undermine the claim that intelligence inspires virtue just look at Mitch McConnell! When it comes to the lives of Americans, it doesnt matter whether the leader of the conservative intellectual movement has the vocabulary of President Trump or William Shakespeare.
No, conservatism needs an intellectual leader because, without one, it will be dominated by white identity politics. Within the conservative movement, there has always been a tension between free-market devotion and the defense of white identity. For many decades, the Republican party was the party of small government and libertarian economics. But beneath the surface was a torrent of racial resentment and fear; its no accident that the GOP won back the South after Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act.
Buckley created a free-market orthodoxy to which conservative politicians adhered for years. In the inaugural issue of National Review, Buckley wrote, The competitive price system is indispensable to liberty and material progress. From Barry Goldwater to Paul Ryan, Republican leaders were forced to praise the wisdom of markets and criticize progressive government projects.
This devotion to markets restrained the worst impulses of white identity politics. To be sure, racism and libertarian economics sometimes work in tandem, such as in Reaganite attacks on Welfare Queens.
But the most destructive forms of white supremacy rely on state intervention in the economy. In his classic piece for The Atlantic, The Case for Reparations, Ta-Nehisi Coates details how governments created housing policies that denied equal economic opportunity for black people.
Pure libertarianism despises state-sanctioned racial inequality; consequently, its role in conservative orthodoxy kept white nationalism in check. Trumps 2016 campaign revealed a conservatism without libertarianism.
In 2016, Trump campaigned without the burden of free-market ideology. He promised massive government projects to benefit his followers. He promised to seize power from urban cosmopolitan elites, and return it to the forgotten men and women of our country.
It doesnt take much imagination to see this rhetoric as welcoming a redistribution campaign: take wealth from urban minorities and give it back to white folks. Trump campaigned as Robin Hood for white people.
A big caveat: Im not claiming Buckley was innocent on race issues. He once defended segregation by arguing that the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage. However, Buckley did insist on free-market orthodoxy and defend conservatism against racial loonies like Pat Buchanan. For decades, commitment to libertarian economics restrained the worst racial instincts of American conservatives.
In conservatism, the absence of free-market values attracts unabashed white nationalism. Im no libertarian, but white identity politics is the most pernicious force in American life. We should cheer anything that diminishes its clout. Whoever steps into Buckleys role Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, libertarian economist Tyler Cowen and The Federalist publisher Ben Domenech are candidates faces a mountainous challenge. Libertarianism is on the retreat, and Trumps 21st century white nationalism has the power to devour our politics.
Read more from the original source:
A libertarian leader can save the GOP from white nationalism - The Diamondback
Posted in Libertarianism
Comments Off on A libertarian leader can save the GOP from white nationalism – The Diamondback
New Hampshire Now Has Third Sitting Libertarian Party Legislator – Reason (blog)
Posted: at 11:45 pm
As of this week, New Hampshire has three sitting Libertarians in its House of Representatives. First elected in 2016 as a Republican, Brandon Phinney, representing wards 4 and 5 in the city of Rochester, announced he's joining Caleb Dyer (former Republican) and Joseph Stallcop (former Democrat) as Libertarians, giving the L.P. a three-man caucus. (In the 1990s for a period there were four sitting Libertarians in the New Hampshire House.)
Libertarian Party
"The Libertarian Party platform gives us, as legislators, the best possible framework to expand social freedoms, support a free-market economy, and ensure the checks and balances on government power are enforced," Phinney said in the Libertarian Party's press release announcing the switch.
Phinney works for the Carroll County Department of Corrections. (Being one of the 400 members of the New Hampshire House is a part-time job.) "We do what we can to rehabilitate offenders, implement new programming in the county to help addicts get treatment, and we manage inmate behavior," he described his day job in a phone interview this week after he announced his move to the Libertarian Party.
His work in corrections "has given me inspiration as far as government's role in policing" and led him to realize "we need to be ending the drug war. I know the system is broken. I know there are people in jail who don't need to be there."
Before running for office last year, Phinney had been deployed for a year to the United Arab Emirates with the New Hampshire Army National Guard working as a construction engineer.
He has also been slightly famous in atheist circles for being a rare out-and-proud atheist politician. Phinney himself doesn't like to make too much of that, and points out that it isn't his atheism per se but his atheism combined with his previous GOP membership that made it seem like news, since Republicans "have a tradition of being faith-based." (He even once sang for a metal band named Godcrusher.)
Phinney says his initial attraction toward government work came from "issues in the past with the family court system" and a desire to reform such policies in a more father-friendly direction, though he doesn't want to discuss his personal specifics and says they are not currently an active problem in his life.
The issues he likes to front and center as a legislator that he discussed in our phone interview include some that fit well with the Libertarian Party platformsuch as marijuana legalizationand some that don'tlike increasing state programs for veterans. But he describes his overarching way of judging proposed legislation as having "three criteria, which are, will [a bill] expand government growth? Will it have a burden on taxpayers? And is it in the interest of freedom?"
Like fellow L.P. convert Stallcop, the former Democrat, Phinney at first considered running as an independent but found the ballot access issues too troublesome and thought the Republicans were the major party that were "closest to what I felt." He has since realized that the Republican platform didn't "actually represent what I thought should be the role of government in our lives."
He quickly found caucusing with the GOP wearying and "stopped going" to the meetings; "every time something controversial came up they wanted the Party to vote united." Phinney didn't always want to go along with their desires but "they didn't want to hear" any dissent from the Party line.
He says his friend Dyer helped him see the way clear to the L.P. switch. He'd been thinking about it since February and knew for weeks before the official announcement he intended to do it. The only Republican he informed beforehand was Gov. Chris Sununu, during a conversation over why he, Phinney, was not going to be able to vote for the budget the Republicans proposed since it raised spending too much. The $11.7 billion budget will put state spending on an "unsustainable" course, Phinney believes. (He found Sununu "nonjudgmental, understanding of why I felt that way" about the Party switch.)
Like Dyer, Phinney is also confident many other New Hampshire House members are philosophically more compatible with the L.P. than the two major parties, but are afraid to make the switch out of fear of losing re-election, a fear he hopes he and Dyer can prove groundless in 2018. His own town of Rochester, he says, tends to "lean purple" and he hopes name recognition from retail politicking and his incumbency will make the L.P. switch irrelevant to his constituents. Even running as a Republican he says his constituents "knew I have these philosophies, they get it, no problem."
Although he has a tendency to stutter and thus found door-to-door contact with voters sometimes nerve-wracking, Phinney says it's essential to winning in New Hampshire's small districts. He won his first race with 2,323 votes, only 117 votes more than a Democrat who Phinney says didn't even campaign. He does not yet know who, if anyone, he'll be running against next year from the two major parties. He advises would-be voters to look beyond Party labels and "see how I voted. That's what actually matters. If I voted in your best interest, keep me in. If I haven't, vote me out."
Fear of a Libertarian New Hampshire
Phinney has lived in New Hampshire since the late 1990s, predating the Free State Project, which advocates the libertarian-minded moving to New Hampshire to sway its politics in a liberty direction. While Phinney thinks it's a "great idea to get people who want to minimize the scope and power of government to come to this state" he has no specific opinion about anything any given Free Stater has said or done. He is aware that some New Hampshire residents "view them in a not-so-favorable light. I personally don't have an opinion as long as they are not hurting anyone."
The FSP's existence helps draw out concerns that make political progressives unhappy with the thought of libertarians in their midst. The folks at FreeKeene, not institutionally affiliated with the FSP, recently summed up a 90-minute anti-libertarian presentation by Zandra Rice Hawkins of the group Granite State Progress.
Hawkins is trying to get her fellow citizens of New Hampshire to believe the FSP's mission involves attempted secession from the U.S. (it does not), to worry that the FSP's internal communal self-help and attempts to help their communities' food needs are just sinister cover for their radical mission of dismantling government, and to condemn them for their alleged connection to the national website CopBlock which encourages keeping an eye on and curbing the power of police to harass citizens.
Compare those fears with how Phinney expects to guide his future as a state representative, believing that all he and his fellow Libertarians are "trying to do is minimize government interference in lives and businesses and just try to keep as much money in people's pockets" as possible.
To many Americans, that sounds like common sense. To those living in quivering fear of a Libertarian New Hampshire in which people might just, to sum up some of Hawkins' worries, keep a watchful eye on police, act undignified in court, pay other people's parking meters, or advocate for legalization of drugs and prostitution, it sounds like something that requires organized opposition, including trying to keep a public record of Free State Project associates involved in New Hampshire politics. She is especially worried that some of them even fly under the Democratic Party's banner.
As the recent moves of Phinney, Dyer, and Stallcop to the Libertarian Party show, the libertarian-minded certainly can keep using major party labels if they wish. But in New Hampshire, they may not have to. The electoral success or failure of Dyer and Phinney in 2018 will tell.
Read the original post:
New Hampshire Now Has Third Sitting Libertarian Party Legislator - Reason (blog)
Posted in Libertarianism
Comments Off on New Hampshire Now Has Third Sitting Libertarian Party Legislator – Reason (blog)
What Do ‘Women in Liberty’ Want? Five Female Libertarians Discuss – Reason (blog)
Posted: at 11:45 pm
Why aren't there more female libertarians? Is it because biology dictates that ladies love the state?
These are the sorts of tedious questions women in the "liberty movement" field at far too many events. So when some of us gathered last week at "Porcfest"formally the Porcupine Freedom Festival, an annual campground conference and party put on by the Free State Projectwe used a "Women in Liberty" panel to deconstruct myths about male dominance in liberty circles, the incompatibility of libertarianism and feminism, and libertarians' ability to make "emotional arguments."
Reason's Melissa Mann, along with libertarian activist and writer Avens O'Brien, Kat Murti of the Cato Institute and Feminists for Liberty, and Free the People CEO Terry Kibbe joined in a panel I moderated. Friends in the audience took video of the hour-long panel, which I have cobbled together. My editing skills might be sub-par, but my wise and off-the-cuff co-panelists make it worth your while anyway.
Go here to see the original:
What Do 'Women in Liberty' Want? Five Female Libertarians Discuss - Reason (blog)
Posted in Libertarianism
Comments Off on What Do ‘Women in Liberty’ Want? Five Female Libertarians Discuss – Reason (blog)
How doctors get sucked into inappropriate care – 6minutes
Posted: at 11:44 pm
Frailty in old age is similar to cancer in that it may be terminal, writes intensive care specialist Professor Ken Hillman in his new book, A Good Life to the End.*
Doctors are able to predict the likelihood of survival for elderly individuals and groups of patients with some accuracy. However, this does not seem to influence the use of inappropriate and aggressive medical care, writes Professor Hillman.
He says patient safety includes managing the dying and frail safely, not just preventing potentially preventable adverse events.
He is concerned that fighting old age and frailty with drugs and complex interventions is an expensive and largely ineffective exercise.
The inference is that frailty may be avoidable or even curable. Apart from giving false hope, it reinforces the current complicity between modern medicine and our society, inferring that all things are treatable or even curable.
He raises the prospect of frailty assuming a medical life of its own, with specific diagnostic criteria and an assumption that it can be treated.
We may gradually lose sight of the inevitability of frailty and be blinded by the prospect of immortality, he writes.
However, as the palliative care approach gains traction, he says a new system could look something like this:
*From A Good Life to the End by Ken Hillman. Published by Allen & Unwin. In stores now. RRP: $29.99
Visit link:
How doctors get sucked into inappropriate care - 6minutes
Posted in Immortality Medicine
Comments Off on How doctors get sucked into inappropriate care – 6minutes
The Only Way To Stop The Machines From Taking Over Is Getting … – The Federalist
Posted: at 11:43 pm
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
See the article here:
The Only Way To Stop The Machines From Taking Over Is Getting ... - The Federalist
Posted in Transhumanist
Comments Off on The Only Way To Stop The Machines From Taking Over Is Getting … – The Federalist
An Interview with Rick Rosner on Women and the Future (Part 1) – The Good Men Project (blog)
Posted: at 11:43 pm
Editors note: Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews his personal and professional friend Rick Rosner, who claims to have the worlds second highest IQ. Errol Morris interviewed him for the TV series First Person. This is an excerpt of that interview, originally some 100,000 words. Additional excerpted segments will appear here on The Good Men Project in the coming weeks.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Many, arguably most, women have greater difficulties than their male counterparts in equivalent circumstances.Their welfare means our welfare men and women (no need to enter the thorny, confused wasteland of arguments for social construction of gender rather than sex; one need not make a discipline out of truisms.).
Net global wellbeing for women improves slowly, but appears to increase in pace over the years millennia, centuries, and decades.Far better in some countries; decent in some countries; and far worse, even regressing, in others.Subjugation with denial of voting, driving, choice in marriage, choice in children, honour killings, andsevere practices of infibulation, clitoridectomy, or excision among the varied, creative means of femalegenital mutilation based in socio-cultural or religiouspractices; objectification with popular media violence and sexuality, internet memes and content, fashion culture to some extent, even matters of personal preference such as forced dress or coerced attire, or stereotyping of attitudinal and behavioral stances.All I ask of our brethren is that they will take their feet from off our necks and permit us to stand upright on the ground which God intended us to occupy.Sarah Moore Grimke said.
Everyone owes women.International obligations and goals dictate straightforward statements such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of the United Nations (UN) in addition to simple provision of first life.MDG 3, 4, and 5relate in direct accordance with this proclamation in an international context mind you.MDG 3 states everyones obligations, based on agreed upon goals, for promotion of gender equality and theempowerment of women. MDG 4 states everyones obligations for reduction ofinfant mortality rate. MDG 5 states everyones obligations towards improvement ofmaternalhealth.All MDGs proclaim completion by 2015.We do not appear to have sufficed in obligations up to the projected deadline of 2015 with respect to all of the MDGs in sum.
In addition to these provisions, we have the conditions set forth in theThe International Bill of Rights for WomenbyThe Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women(CEDAW) of the United Nations Development Funds (UNDF) consideration and mandate of the right of women to be free from discrimination and sets the core principles to protect this right. Wheredo you project the future of women in the next 5, 10, 25, 100 years, and further? In general and particular terms such as the trends and the concomitant subtrends, what about the MDGs and numerous other proclaimed goals to assist women especially in developing areas of the world?
Rick Rosner: Predicting gender relations beyond a century from now is somewhat easier than predicting the short-term. In the transhuman future, bodily form, including sex, will be changeable. People will take different forms. And when anyone can change sexes with relative ease, there will be less gender bias.
Lets talk about the transhuman future (100 to 300 years from now) in general, at least as its presented in science fiction that doesnt suck. Three main things are going on:
Theres pervasive networked computing. Everything has a computer in it, the computers all talk to each other, computing costs nothing, data flying everywhere. Structures are constantly being modified by swarms of AI builders. A lot of stuff happens very fast.
Your mind-space isnt permanently anchored to your body. Consciousness will be mathematically characterized, so itll be transferrable, mergeable, generally mess-withable.
People choose their level of involvement in this swirling AI chaos. Most people wont live at the frenzied pinnacle of tech its too much. There are communities at all different levels of tech.
Also, horrible stuff old and new happens from time to time bio-terror, nanotech trouble, economic imperialism, religious strife, etc.
For more about this kind of thing, read Charles Stross, Cory Doctorow, David Marusek, or Neal Stephenson.
So, two hundred years from now, gender wont be much of a limiting factor, except in weird throwback communities. In the meantime, idiots will continue to be idiots, but to a lesser extent the further we go into the future. No one whos not a retard is standing up for the idea of men being the natural dominators of everything. If it seems like were not making progress towards gender equality, it may be because theres a huge political/economic/media faction that draws money and power from the more unsavoury old-fashioned values, with its stance that anyone whos concerned about racism or sexism is nave and pursuing a hidden agenda to undermine American greatness.
Dumb beliefs that arent propped up by doctrine eventually fade away, and believing that men or any elite group is inherently superior is dumb, particularly now and into the future as any purportedly superior inherent abilities become less significant in relation to our augmented selves. Across the world, the best lazy, non-specifically targeted way to reduce gender bias is to open up the flow of information, serious and trivial (however you do that).
In the very short run, maybe the U.S. elects a female President. Doubt this will do that much to advance the cause of women, because Hillary Clinton has already been in the public eye for so long shes more a specific person than a representative of an entire gender. Is thinking that dumb? I dunno. I do know that her gender and who she is specifically will be cynically used against her. I hope that if elected, shes less conciliatory and more willing to call out BS than our current President.
In the U.S., theres currently some attention being paid to rape. Will the media attention to rape make rapey guys less rapey? I dunno. Will increaseattention to rape in India reduce instances there? I dunno. A couple general trends may slowly reduce the overall occurrence of sexual coercion and violence. One trend is the increased flow of information and the reduction of privacy cameras everywhere, everybody willing to talk about everything on social media, victims being more willing to report incidents, better understanding of what does and does not constitute consent. The other trend is the decreasing importance of sex. My baseline is the 70s, when I was hoping to lose my virginity. Sex was a huge deal because everything else sucked food, TV, no video games, no internet and people looked good skinny from jogging and cocaine and food not yet being engineered to be super-irresistible. Today, everybodys fat, and theres a lot of other fun stuff to do besides sex.
I think that some forms of sexual misbehaviour serial adultery, some workplace harassment will be seen as increasingly old-school as more and more people will take care of their desire for sexual variety via the vast ocean of internet porn. Of course, sexual misbehaviour isnt only about sex its also about exercising creepy power or a perverse need to be caught and punished so, unfortunately, that wont entirely go away. During the past century, sexual behaviour has changed drastically the types of sex that people regularly engage in, sex outside of marriage, tolerance for different sexual orientations, freely available pornography and sexual information, the decline in prostitution you could say, cheesily, that sex is out of the closet. And sex thats not secretive or taboo loses some of its power.
But I could be wrong. According to a 2007 study conducted at two U.S. public universities, one fifth of female college students studied suffered some degree of sexual assault.
A version of this post was originally published on In-SightJournal.com and is republished here with permission.
Get the best stories from The Good Men Project delivered straight to your inbox, here.
Photo Credit: Getty Images
See the rest here:
An Interview with Rick Rosner on Women and the Future (Part 1) - The Good Men Project (blog)
Posted in Transhuman
Comments Off on An Interview with Rick Rosner on Women and the Future (Part 1) – The Good Men Project (blog)
Dubai’s Autonomous Flying Taxi Service Will Be Ready for Takeoff This Year – Futurism
Posted: at 11:41 pm
In Brief Dubai is set to shake up the taxi and travel sector at the end of the year by introducing an autonomous airborne taxi service that will transport passengers along set routes. Given the growing population, innovative transportation solutions like Dubai's will be an integral part of future society.
As part of Dubais bid to be a city of the future, they plan to have 25 percent of their public transport autonomously controlled by 2030. An exciting aspect of this is the autonomous aerial taxi (AAT) service they announced in February.
Now, theyve provided an updated timeline for the services implementation, announcing that testing will begin toward the end of this year. It will continue for approximately five years until legislation is in place to facilitate a larger expansion.
The goal of the AAT is to eliminate the growing problem of traffic within the city. The service was due to launch at the end of Julywith the single-seater EHang 184, but theplan now it to use the two-seater Volocopter. Implementation has been delayedto ensure the technology is as safe as it possibly can be.
Dubai will be the first city to use air taxis, and its experiment will have a profound effect on the future of transport, as other cities and companies will be judging the applicability of the idea based on Dubais successes or failures. A particularly interested party will be Uber, which is planning to develop an autonomous airborne taxi service of its own.
A key question the transportation industry currently faces is how to deal with the congestion caused by an ever-increasing demand on infrastructure. Although air taxis are one solution, Elon Musk has been boring tunnels under cities, Dubai is developing a hyperloop, and autonomous cars are being programmed specifically to prevent traffic jams.
Whether one of these approaches proves better than the others or we end up using some combination of two or more, well need to be innovative when planning the transportation of the future.
Disclosure: The Dubai Future Foundation works in collaboration with Futurism as a sponsor and does not hold a seat on our editorial board.
See the original post here:
Dubai's Autonomous Flying Taxi Service Will Be Ready for Takeoff This Year - Futurism
Posted in Futurism
Comments Off on Dubai’s Autonomous Flying Taxi Service Will Be Ready for Takeoff This Year – Futurism
Wind Energy Has Officially Become Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels – Futurism
Posted: at 11:41 pm
In Brief Industry leaders have estimated that the cost of producing energy using wind farms has dropped to around $100 per megawatt hour, making the energy source as cost effective as coal and nuclear energy. The Plummeting Price of Wind Energy
Bent Christensen, who is responsible for cost projection for Siemenss wind power division, has estimated that Europes offshore wind industry has reached a milestone three to four years ahead of schedule: achieving wind energy at 100 ($113) per megawatt hour (MWh). This means that offshore wind farms could be built without government subsidy because they are economically viable without additional support.
In wind energy, there has been a fast reduction in price over the last three years, falling 27 percent since 2014. According to a Lazard survey in 2016, this means that the energy source has become either cheaper or equal to coal-fired generators, nuclear reactors, and rooftop solar arrays.
Some even predict a further reduction in price estimating that in the future it will be possible to deliver wind energy at 75 ($84) and 62 ($70) MWh. But this hopeful advancement depends on turbine, cable, and converter technology developing much further. Siemens Gamesa and MHI Vestas Offshore Wind plan to have such technology in place in time for the 2024-2025 North Sea projects completion.
Wind powers fall in price marks a major victory for renewable energy because it makes the power source attractive economically as well as environmentally, which is crucial for its widespread adoption. Other promising news that could advance the trend for adopting wind-power is Denmark providing all their power for a day using the source, and the development of record-breaking turbines capable of producing 216,000 kWh of energy in a 24 hour period.
The decreasing price of renewable energy, however, is not just reserved for wind-power: similar victories are also taking place in the solar energy sector. A recent report by Bloomberg has estimated that in four years solar will be cheaper than coal worldwide, having dropped in price by 58 percent within the last five years.
It is unlikely that our world will use less power as populations increase and industry hasto keep up. Therefore, in order to save our planet from pollution and the progression of climate change,we must tinker with the other side of the formula making the energy we use cleaner and greener. Advances in wind and solar power, in particular, are especiallypromising, as they lay the path for renewables creating both individual and collective gain.
Continue reading here:
Wind Energy Has Officially Become Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels - Futurism
Posted in Futurism
Comments Off on Wind Energy Has Officially Become Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels – Futurism
There May Be No Limits to How Long Humans Can Live – Futurism
Posted: at 11:41 pm
In BriefIn 2016 researchers said that there is a limit to the humanlifespan, of about 115 years. Meanwhile, 5 teams of scientists havepublished rebuttals to the 2016 study, and other researcherscontinue to push the aging envelope with new technologies. The Claim And Criticisms
In October 2016, molecular geneticist Jan Vijg published a paper claiming that the human lifespan was limited to 115 years. This kindled a vigorous controversy among scientists, and on June 28 of this year, five groups of scientists published formal rebuttals to the claim.
Vijgs work analyzed demographic data from the 20th century, taken all over the world, and demonstrated that peak age plateaued at about 115 years starting in the mid-1990s. Based on their results, the authors concluded that the natural human age limit is 115 years old and that there is the probability of less than 1 in 10,000 of living to be more than 125 years old.
You could probably guess, not everyone in the scientific community agrees. Most criticisms arise from the way the Vijg team handled their data, and their process for drawing conclusions. First, the Vijg team tested their data to prove whether or not the plateau they felt they observed after 1995 was in fact present. In other words, they generated a hypothesis and then tested it using the same dataset, which is typically unacceptable, as it causes inaccurate results due to severe overfitting, a fit based on error or noise, not a real relationship.
Second, the teams actual data set was very small because in each year they counted only the oldest person who died. They then subjected this inordinately small sample to standard linear regression techniques, which was not appropriate based both on the small sample size, and the additional fact that the individuals being counted were outliers who should have been subject to extreme event analysis. In fact, the decline suggested in the 2016 conclusions appears to be suggested by a single death in the data set.
Moreover, other scientists reanalyzed the data and found it consistent with multiple lifespan trajectories, not just the one reported in 2016. Finally, several scientists in their rebuttals point to the overall body of work on the biology of aging over the past few decades which suggests that the human lifespan has been far more flexible than previously believed; which alone indicates that the proposed limit should be viewed with extreme caution.
The authors of the original study stand by their work and disagree with the criticisms of the statistical methods used. Vijg also believes that the real cause of the outcry is not the data, which is convincing, but the fact that aging cant be stopped and there is a limit to human life: I guess the main message is that a lot of people have difficulty accepting that everything now points toward an end in the increase of maximum lifespan, Vijg told The Scientist.
University of Illinois at Chicago professor of public health Jay Olshansky, who was involved in neither the original study nor the rebuttals, thinks the criticizing scientists are missing the real point of the 2016 study, which he clarified for The Scientist: The most important message to get across, in my view, is that we should not be trying to make ourselves live longer, we should only be trying to extend the period of healthy life.
However, there are many others pushing the limits of human longevity right now who disagree strongly enough to put their money where their philosophy is. Since research has demonstrated that transfusions of younger blood, or parabiosis, was able to rehabilitate cognitive abilities in mice, a startup called Ambrosia has started to offer a human clinical trial of parabiosis for paying clients. Peter Diamandis of the genotype research facility, Human Longevity, Inc., is searching for the key to using nanomachines or stem cells to regenerate our bodies. And Metformin, which has been shown to prevent cancer and extend life in animals, began clinical testing as an anti-aging drug in February.
There are so many possibilities in motion that it does seem hard to agree with a firm limit to the human lifespan. In the end, time will resolve the controversy once and for all. Ironically, well only be here to see it if the critics are right.
Read more:
There May Be No Limits to How Long Humans Can Live - Futurism
Posted in Futurism
Comments Off on There May Be No Limits to How Long Humans Can Live – Futurism