Sentient Developments Podcast Rebooted Friday, Jan 20 2012 

This was sent to me by George Dvorsky:

Transhumanist-themed podcast: George Dvorsky’s Sentient Developments

After a three year hiatus, George Dvorsky has rekindled his futurist-themed podcast, Sentient Developments. The show serves as a counterpart to his blog of the same name and covers similar topics, often in more detail and with accompanying clips and interviews for added depth and insight.

The Sentient Developments Podcast, which runs weekly, deals with a number of issues familiar to the readers of AF. As an explicitly transhumanist-themed podcast, Dvorsky deals directly with the potential for human enhancement, both in terms of what is possible today and in the near future. True to the tagline, “Futurism, science, life,” Dvorsky looks into those technologies and techniques available today that can improve or expand human performance and experience–from diet and exercise to nootropics and implants.

In addition, he looks to the future and considers more radical possibilities for the human species, whether it be cybernetics, genetics, radical life extension, or the technological Singularity. And as Chair of the Board for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, Dvorsky analyzes these issues through the lens of a critical bioethicist.

As a science-themed podcast, Sentient Developments covers more than just human enhancement. Concerned about animal welfare, and as the program chair for the IEET’s Rights of Non-Human Persons Program, Dvorsky often discusses his efforts to see human-equivalent rights afforded to a number of highly sapient species. He is also an expert in SETI studies and often covers the latest in cosmology, metaphysics, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. And like many AF readers, he’s concerned about technological advance and the potential for catastrophic and existential risks; geopolitics, foresight, and risk mitigation are frequently discussed on the show.

The Sentient Developments Podcast is available on iTunes (http://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/sentient-developments-podcast/id135712771). Listeners can also subscribe directly to its feed (http://feeds.feedburner.com/PodcastSentDev).

Extreme Futurist Festival was a Success! Monday, Dec 19 2011 

Check out the writeup at LA Weekly.

Rachel Haywire Describes the Extreme Futurist Festival Wednesday, Dec 7 2011 

The event is the 16th and 17th in Los Angeles. Tickets are on sale now, and the full schedule is up. This festival, the first of its kind, will feature artists, speakers, musicians, and performers.

Extreme Futurist Festival Sunday, Nov 20 2011 

My latest project is Extreme Futurist Festival, a multi-media transhumanist arts and culture festival in Los Angeles. We are billing the festival as “counterculture meets academia”.

We have a good speaker roster up, with a couple more speakers to be added, including myself. Abstracts and the final program will be posted this week.

There will be tons of live music, including Hanin Elias, formerly of Atari Teenage Riot.

The festival will be the 16th-17th at Courtyard Los Angeles Marina del Rey. Tickets are only $50, so buy them up now!

Transhumanism is such an exciting movement, but it needs to attract more artists & culture creators of every kind, and for those artists to be exposed to our traditional core memes, and for the curators of our core memes to be exposed to more art. Help me push forward this crucial dynamic by attending the festival.

See you in Los Angeles next month!

Humanity+ @ Hong Kong Monday, Nov 7 2011 

Ben Goertzel, AGI engineer and transhumanist leader/activist is organizing what he calls “the first conference on the future of humanity in the continent of Asia”.

Humanity+ @ Hong Kong
Chiang Chen Studio Theatre, Hong Kong Polytechnic University
December 3rd + 4th 2011
http://hk.humanityplus.org/

Ben explains the idea behind the conference:

Salespeople and Mavens Thursday, Oct 20 2011 

In Sonia Arrison’s book 100 Plus, in chapter 8, she discusses two groups of people spreading the longevity meme: “salespeople” and “mavens”. Let me pull the quotes that define these terms, starting with “salesperson”:

“‘All over the world and right in your backyard, there are people who are steadily pushing back the frontier of aging. They are not content to simply wither away, becoming frail and feeling worthless,’ says CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta. Dr. Gupta is one of the people leading the charge in spreading the meme that healthy life extension is not only a possibility but is also worth fighting for. A neurosurgeon and chief medical correspondent for CNN, he is on the front lines when it comes to discovering and explaining cutting-edge science. Former president Bill Clinton calls him “the world’s doctor,” and the public relies in him to separate medical fact from fiction. Aside from his regular news reports, Dr. Gupta has written a couple of books that explain how advances in science are promoting health extension. His messages is that there is a tsunami of longevity-related research in the works and that “there is nothing more important.” Dr. Gupta might think of himself as simply a doctor who is informing the public about new advances, but when it comes to explaining how the longevity meme has caught on, we could call him a “salesperson.”

Labeling Dr. Gupta a salesperson is not derogatory. He is obviously not trying to “sell” a product in return for money. Rather, the term is derived from Malcolm Gladwell’s best-selling book The Tipping Point, in which he explains how certain people and circumstances come together to make an idea unstoppable. In this context a salesperson is someone who exudes energy, enthusiasm, and charm, someone who can effectively and charismatically explain concepts and ideas. Of course, Dr. Gupta isn’t alone in this role. Society has reached a longevity tipping point because many players are involved.

Now, “maven”:

“While salespeople work to popularize a new meme, those who help build it can be called “mavens.” These are the people who are committed to collecting and disbursing information. They are like databanks, almost compulsively collecting and offering data to others who show interest. In the longevity movement, there are a lot of these types of people, ranging from those who are seen as either cutting edge or “fringe” to those who are more mainstream.

One well-known maven is Aubrey de Grey, whom we learned a bit about in Chapter 2. A computer scientist turned gerontologist, de Grey describes himself as a “fighter at heart.” He battles aging, he says, because of the suffering it causes. “Aging is just like smoking: It’s really bad for you. It shortens your life, it typically makes the last several years of your life rather grim, and it also makes those years pretty hard for your loved ones.”

The Mundanity of Physical Enhancement Saturday, Oct 8 2011 

Although physical enhancement is what most people associate with transhumanism, it’s not particularly interesting. A man with tentacles and wings who can fly and breathe underwater is still just some dude. Humans are primitive beings, with conspicuously primitive minds — we just recently evolved from un-intelligent apes that used the same stone tools for millions of years.

Everything truly exciting about the transhumanist project lies in the mental realm. Only through opening up and intervening in the brain can we really change ourselves and the way the world works. Anything else is just the surface.

What approaches can we take to cognitive enhancement?

First, take brain surgery. It is extremely unlikely that cognitive enhancement will be conducted through conventional brain surgery as is practiced today. These procedures are inherently risky and only conducted under necessary circumstances, when the challenges of surgery outweigh the huge cost, substantial risk, and long recovery time of the procedures.

More subtle than brain surgery is optogenetics, regarded by some as the scientific breakthrough of the last decade. Optogenetics allows researchers to control the precise activation of neurons through the introduction of light-sensitive genes to animal brain tissue.

Optogenetics is unlikely to be applied to humans before 2030-2040, for two reasons. The first is that it involves the introduction of foreign genes into human brain tissue, and gene therapy is in its infancy — treatments derived from gene therapy are extremely rare and highly experimental. People have been killed by gene therapy gone awry. When gene therapy research moves in the direction of human enhancement, a massive backlash seems plausible. It may be banned entirely for enhancement purposes.

At the very least, the short-lived nature of gene therapy and problems with viral vectors ensure that gene therapy will stay experimental until entirely new vectors are developed. Chromallocytes are the ideal gene delivery vector, but those are quite far off. Is there something between current vectors and chromallocytes that produces safe, predictable gene therapy results? That is a great big question mark. What is needed is not one or two breakthroughs, but a long series of many breakthroughs. I challenge readers to find anyone in biotech who would bet that gene therapy will be made safe, predictable, and approved for use in humans within 10 years, 20 years, or 30. Developing new basic capabilities in biotech is a long, drawn out process.

The second reason optogenetics will not bear fruit for cognitive enhancement before 2030-2040 is that it requires slicing off part of the scalp and mounting fiber optics directly on the skull. This is all well and good for animals, which we torment with abandon, but it seems unlikely to be popular among the Homo sapiens crowd. Mature regenerative medicine would be necessary to heal tissue damage from this procedure.

According to Ray Kurzweil’s scenario, “nanobots” will be developed during the late 2020s which will be injected into the human body by the trillions, where they can link up with neurons and augment the brain from the inside.

However, given the near complete lack of progress towards molecular nanotechnology since Eric Drexler wrote Engines of Creation in 1986, I find this hard to believe. Nanobots require nanofactories, nanofactories require assemblers, and assemblers would be highly complex aggregates of millions of molecules that themselves would need to be manufactured to atomic precision. Today, all objects manufactured to molecular precision have negligible complexity. The imaging tools that exist today — and for the foreseeable future — are far too imprecise to allow for troubleshooting molecular systems of non-negligible size and complexity that refuse to behave as intended. The more precise the imaging method, the more energy is delivered to the molecular structure, and the more likely it is to be blown into a million little pieces.

It is difficult to understate how far we are from developing autonomous nanobots with the ability to perform complex tasks in a living human body. There is no reason to expect a smooth path from today’s autonomous MEMS (micro-electro-mechanical systems) to the “nanobots” of futurist anticipation. Autonomous MEMS are early in their infancy. Assemblers are probably a necessary prerequisite to miniature robotics with the power to enhance human cognition. No one has designed anything close to an assembler, and if progress continues as it has for the last 25 years, it will be many decades before one is developed.

So, that is three technologies that I have argued will not be applied to cognitive enhancement in the foreseeable future — brain surgery, optogenetics, and nanobots.

Transhuman Evolution Design Thursday, Sep 29 2011 

This image was created by Aaron Saenz of Singularity Hub. Pretty cool!

Major Transhumanist/Immortalist Activism in Moscow Monday, Sep 26 2011 

Called “the first political meeting on immortality in history”, around 100 Russian transhumanists met in the center of Moscow, across the street from the Bolshoy theater, to “support immortality, creating new technologies, regenerative medicine, genomic research and everything related to fighting aging and radical life extension.”

The meeting was organized by Danila Medvedev, Valeria Pride, Mikhail Batin and others from the Russian Transhumanist Movement.

Great job, guys! This is really cool. This is an important and exciting event both for Russian transhumanism and the worldwide transhumanist movement.

What Does it Mean to be a Transhumanist? Friday, Sep 9 2011 

To me, transhumanism is a temporary movement — transitional. Its role is to help individuals and society transition to living in a world where some portion of society technologically transforms their minds and bodies on both incremental and fundamental levels. This might range from getting a Google-connected neural implant to uploading one’s consciousness into a virtual world. We transhumanists consider (cautious!) developments along these lines to be a good thing, and feel that the most pressing objections and concerns have been adequately addressed, including:

- What are the reasons to expect all these changes?
- Won’t these developments take thousands or millions of years?
- What if it doesn’t work?
- Won’t it be boring to live forever in a perfect world?
- Will new technologies only benefit the rich and powerful?
- Aren’t these future technologies very risky? Could they even cause our extinction?
- If these technologies are so dangerous, should they be banned?
- Shouldn’t we concentrate on current problems…
- Will extended life worsen overpopulation problems?
- Will posthumans or superintelligent machines pose a threat to humans who aren’t augmented?
- Isn’t this tampering with nature?
- Isn’t death part of the natural order of things?

The key is to see “Transhumanism” as a philosophy being just a temporary crutch, a tool for humanity to safely make the leap to transhumanity. Transhumanism is really only simplified humanism. Eventually, transhumanists hope to see a world where a wide variety of physical and cognitive modifications are available to everyone at reasonable cost, and their use is responsibly regulated, with freedom broadly prevailing over authoritarianism and control. When and if we arrive at that world in one piece, everyone will become de facto transhumanists, just as today, most people are de facto “industrialists” (benefit from and contribute to modern industrial society) and de facto “computerists”.

It is also possible to imagine someone who doesn’t anticipate taking advantage of transhumanist technologies being in favor of “transhumanism” nonetheless. That is, insofar as transhumanists competently and openly discuss the potential upsides and downsides of certain ambitious technological pathways such as extreme life extension and artificial intelligence, and make progress towards beneficial futures. Since widespread cognitive and physical enhancement is something that will soon effect everyone, including the unmodified, everyone has an obvious stake in the trajectory of enhancement technologies even if they do not personally use them.

Transhumanism can also be viewed as a discussion primarily among those who anticipate taking advantage of enhancement technologies before most others. As such, transhumanism forms a beacon that alerts the rest of society to likely changes and informs society about the kind of people who are most interested in human enhancement. Since certain “transhumanist” technologies, particularly intelligence enhancement, may prove to have decisive power over the course of history in the centuries ahead, it is important to examine the groups pursuing it and their motives.

For instance, DARPA is a hotbed of enhancement research. So, the role of the transhumanist is to alert society to that fact, ask them if they care, and if so, what they think about it. Is it a good thing that the development of human enhancement is being spearheaded by the United States military?

A transhumanist elicits opinions and perspectives of human enhancement from a variety of commentators who might not spontaneously offer their opinions otherwise. This includes critics of enhancement such as The New Atlantis, representing the “Judeo-Christian moral tradition”.

Another purpose of the transhumanist is to be a concentrated source of facts and opinions on the concrete details of proposed enhancements, with facts and opinions clearly distinguished from each other. In theory, if the long-term dangers of a particular new technology or enhancement therapy plausibly exceed the benefits, transhumanists are responsible for discouraging the development of those technologies, instead developing alternative technologies that maximize benefits while minimizing risks. It would be easier for transhumanists to divert funding away from dangerous technologies, than, say bio-conservatives, because researchers under the influence of the extended transhumanist memeplex are the ones developing the crucial technologies and bio-conservatives are not.

A transhumanist is not just a blind technological cheerleader, enraptured by the supposed inevitability of a cornucopian future. A transhumanist should acknowledge the hazy and uncertain nature of the future, accepting beliefs only to the degree that the evidence merits, guided not by ideology but by flexible thinking, always welcoming criticism and views contrary to standard orthodoxies.

Dale on Superlativity Tuesday, Sep 6 2011 

“Superlativity in my view is a discourse not a research program, it relies for its force and intelligibility on the citation of other, specificially theological/ transcendentalizing discourses, it is a way of framing a constellation of descriptions taken for facts, embedding them into a narrative that solicits personal identification, and forms the basis for moralizing advocacy.”

Agree or disagree? What is superlativity to you?

In the comments, turn off the overcharged emotions, please.

For more, see The Superlative Summary.

Immortalist/Transhumanist Music Video by “Sole and the Skyrider Band” Wednesday, Aug 10 2011 

Next Page »