Max More and Natasha Vita-More Monday, Feb 25 2008 

I was originally inspired to formally join the transhumanist movement in 2001 by Max More, the true founder, and his multi-talented wife Natasha Vita-More. They are pictured above chatting up William Shatner at Transvision 2007 in Chicago.

Basically, Max and Natasha demonstrated to me that discussing futuristic technologies is not necessarily a nerdy endeavor limited to the hacker in the basement. Other inspiring figures were Anders and Eliezer, but I’ll leave that to another post.

In my opinion, the writings of Max and Natasha are quite significant, and every geek should have exposure to the ideas. I will keep things simple and introduce just one work from each, in hopes this may increase the probability you will actually read them.

Max More: “The Extropian Principles: a Transhumanist Declaration”
Natasha Vita-More: Nanofactory or AGI: Which technology could cure humanity’s many problems?

AI & Society 2008 Monday, Feb 25 2008 

Read Jeriaska’s coverage of Eliezer Yudkowsky’s talk at the Artificial Intelligence and Society event at Santa Clara University. (Pictured: Ben Goertzel, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Melanie Swan.) This is similar to a talk he gave at the Singularity Summit. Excerpt:

“This is “The Human Importance of the Intelligence Explosion.” The term “intelligence explosion” was invented by I.J. Good, who is a fairly famous mathematician. The core idea goes something like this: suppose you could invent brain-computer interfaces that would substantially augment human intelligence. What might these augmented humans do with their newfound intelligence? Medical research? Play the stock market? One fairly good guess is that they would turn their intelligence toward designing the next generation of brain-computer interfaces. Then, having become even smarter the next generation, they could invent the third generation of brain-computer interfaces. Lather, rinse, repeat.”

Continue.

Christianity and Advanced Technologies Monday, Feb 25 2008 

Here we go with another Christianity-related post. This one solicits Christian responses to issues brought up by technological advancement. Atheists, I know you might think there’s no point in asking these questions, and if so, there’s really no point in you commenting in this thread. Let me ask my questions without dismissive or bitter comments.

Disclaimer: Nothing in this post is meant to be pro-Christian or anti-Christian. I am just asking hypothetical questions. The views expressed in this post, if any, are not necessarily the position of any organization or individual associated with the author.

Questions:

1) If man was created in God’s image, would it be blasphemous for people to radically alter their body and brain as it becomes technologically possible, through genetic engineering or nanotechnology? (See “What I want to be when I grow up, is a cloud” by J. Storrs Hall.)

2) Would it be a sin to extend someone’s lifespan indefinitely using anti-aging therapies, because that would forever prevent them from getting into Heaven? Or would indefinite life extension merely be God’s will, because if he wanted us to die anyway, he could easily make it happen at any time?

3) Say that a brain chip is invented that makes its user more morally sophisticated and theologically insightful. Would this contradict the notion that good comes from God, and show that the “soul” is actually rooted in the biochemistry of the brain? Or would this signify the brain implant is somehow better tapping into the power of God? How would we tell the difference?

4) Say that humans develop a technology to bring someone “back to life” a few hours after brain activity ceases. Could this be used to research possible visions of Heaven, such as those in “light at the end of the tunnel” and other near-death experience accounts? How would we distinguish between genuine visions of Heaven and hallucinations caused by neurological trauma?

5) Recently it was reported that the Vatican was encouraging local churches to hire more clergy adept at performing exorcisms. When a high-level Vatican official was interviewed on the topic by CNN and asked how he knew the difference between a possessed subject and one suffering from psychological problems. The priest responded, “you can see it in their eyes”. If this is true, could we determine this by taking pictures of different types of eyes and discovering distinguishing characteristics associated with possession?

World Transhumanist Association Feb. 2008 Update Thursday, Feb 21 2008 

Recently I was voted onto the Board of Directors of one of the coolest organizations around, the World Transhumanist Association (WTA). To everyone who voted for me — thank you! To everyone who didn’t, you will pay! Or maybe not. Whatever.

This is especially exciting because the WTA recently raised actual money… in excess of $50,000. All that money could be used to buy a lot of candy, or a fine automobile, but instead of that, it’s going towards something far more worthwhile — boosting transhumanism. So, as the Board of Directors, we get to decide how to spend that money.

As advertised on the fundraising page, the money will go towards four main objectives:

  • Student Outreach
  • Identity & Website Update
  • Transvision 2008
  • H+ Digital Magazine

The digital magazine project will be helmed by cyberculture icon RU Sirius, who happens to be a member of our very own local transhumanist chapter, BA-Trans. RU Sirius can be described vaguely as a cross between Timothy Leary and Howard Stern, although this certainly doesn’t do the unique man justice. I am very excited about him taking his involvement with transhumanism to the next level. Just to hop on the memory train all the way back to May 2007, here’s my interview with RU, “Give Me Immortality or Give Me Death!”

As for student outreach, we got a great idea from transhumanist Todd Huffman — the same guy who implanted magnets in his fingers so he could sense magnetic fields. Huffman thinks a select group should do a “transhumanist road show” to various colleges in the US, as a way of inspiring students to think about transhumanism. This is fantastic. There’s nothing like being there in the flesh to rile up people. In the extremely near future, Huffman will be attending the free BIL conference, to be held alongside the very expensive TED. Of course, BIL is brand new and was his idea.

Transvision 2008! I’ll be keeping you up to date on this as plans unfold. Expect an announcement in the not-too-distant future. Hopefully we can bring the price down this time, so that everyone can attend. The attendance for Transvision 2007 in Chicago was disappointing (only around 100 people showed up), and I think the fee was the main reason.

Identity & Website Update — this is another one of those things being discussed behind closed doors, but as always, I’ll keep you up to date as things become public.

If you want to support the WTA, please join us, either as a paying member or basic member. We’re pushing 5000 basic members, which is a significant milestone. What I’d especially like to see are more women joining us, as men currently outnumber women in the WTA 9:1. See my post on women in transhumanism for some inspiration. (There are many other women in transhumanism besides the three I listed, including some very active ones, but I wanted to focus on the three I knew best on a personal level.)

Anyway, join join join. We’re sort of like a WoW guild, but we raid the forces of bioconservatism instead of digitized monsters that don’t really exist.

A New Age of Torture Wednesday, Feb 20 2008 

In my opinion, the most despicable thing in the world is physical torture. Not death, nor disease, nor eating junk food for breakfast. Torture, that fearful spectre that’s been haunting humanity since the dawn of time.

Torture makes me so angry that I believe national sovereignty is worth overruling to prevent it. For instance, North Korea is running a network of gulags observable by spy satellites. Hundreds of thousands of people are suffering there, with at least a few tens of thousands undergoing actual torture every year, if not many more. Punishment cells, and worse.

Why not march soldiers right into North Korea, free people from the camps, and set up a government that doesn’t imprison and torture its own people for political reasons? Well, as we’ve seen with Iraq, it’s not so easy. But if we had the money, the manpower, and reason to believe we could set up a stable government after the invasion, would it be worth it? It warrants thinking about. My answer is yes. (Assume we did actually have reason to believe we could set up a stable government, even if you believe that’s impossible. If it is impossible for an invading force to ever set up a stable government, under any circumstances, then obviously the plan wouldn’t work.)

Technological advances in the next few decades are going to make unimaginably horrible torture possible. Much worse than we’ve seen already. For one, there’s the “pain beam”, a laser pulse tuned perfectly to stimulate human pain receptors. I won’t say anything more about high-tech torture, because I don’t even want to risk the minute chance a torturer sees this page in coming decades and gets any ideas. For instance, an Iraqi citizen commented, “the day Uday Hussein discovered the Internet was a dark day for Iraq”. This is because Uday used the Internet as a source of inspiration for torture.

For me, the issue of high-tech torture is sufficient to legitimize the prospect of a trans-national body capable of violating the sovereignty of states to intervene in cases of state-sponsored torture. Police are the world’s number one torturers. Of course, this is a step towards world government, and I’m perfectly comfortable with that. I love my country, the United States of America, but I think some causes are so important they transcend statehood. Preventing torture is one of those causes.

People used to think that torture is one of those things that only bad people do. Not so. Under the right circumstances, practically anyone could become a torturer. The long-term solution is overwhelmingly obvious — modify the human genome so that we no longer have the desire to torture, no matter the circumstances. This is a case study for the generalized argument that reengineering the human species is a moral imperative. It might make some people squirmy, but because humanity isn’t perfect, there are some major possibilities for improvement. When the potential benefits become obvious, the polity will welcome them wholeheartedly.

When proposing modification of the human species, note that I advocate leadership by example, and never obligatory eugenics a la all the scaremongering sci-fi out there.

Molecular Nanotechnology Resources Wednesday, Feb 20 2008 

Places to start:

Wikipedia: Molecular nanotechnology
Eurekalert: Revolutionizing the Future of Technology
Mark Gubrud: Nanotechnology and International Security
Rob Freitas: Nanofactory Collaboration
CRN: What is Nanotechnology?
CRN: Nanotechnology Basics
CRN: “Nano Tomorrows”
CRN: Publications
CRN: Science and Technology Essays
CRN: Thirty Essential Nanotechnology Studies
CRN: Task Force Essays

Books:

Engines of Creation
Nanofuture
Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines
Nanosystems
Nanomedicine

Blogs:

Responsible Nanotechnology

Nanodot
Machine Phase
Accelerating Future

Policy:

Foresight: Guidelines on Responsible Nanotechnology Development
Foresight: Nanotechnology Policy White Papers

Engineering:

Chris Phoenix: Design of a Primitive Nanofactory
CRN: MM Primitive Systems

Movies, TV shows, games:

None of these sources offer reliable information on molecular nanotechnology.

Flourescent Minerals Under Ultraviolet Light Tuesday, Feb 19 2008 

« Previous PageNext Page »