Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog

Category: transhumanism – Page 100

U.S. Transhumanist Party Discussed

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 Istvan’s 2016 run for President.

In this article, which offers both positive discussion and critiques of Istvan’s 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 one’s existing capacities, and the indefinite extension of one’s 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 more

Ghost in the Shell Thrills, But Ducks the Philosophical Questions Posed by a Cyborg Future

I do not think, at least at first, that any brain interfaces for the masses will be anything other than organic. Possibly a synthetic virus that can be inserted and removed without the invasion of instruments. Those things we might have to deal with either way are summarized here.

How closely will we live with the technology we use in the future? How will it change us? And how close is “close”? Ghost in the Shell imagines a futuristic, hi-tech but grimy and ghetto-ridden Japanese metropolis populated by people, robots, and technologically-enhanced human cyborgs.

Beyond the superhuman strength, resilience, and X-ray vision provided by bodily enhancements, one of the most transformative aspects of this world is the idea of brain augmentation, that as cyborgs we might have two brains rather than one. Our biological brain—the “ghost” in the “shell”—would interface via neural implants to powerful embedded computers that would give us lightning-fast reactions and heightened powers of reasoning, learning and memory.

First written as a Manga comic series in 1989 during the early days of the internet, Ghost in the Shell’s creator, Japanese artist Masamune Shirow, foresaw that this brain-computer interface would overcome the fundamental limitation of the human condition: that our minds are trapped inside our heads. In Shirow’s transhuman future our minds would be free to roam, relaying thoughts and imaginings to other networked brains, entering via the cloud into distant devices and sensors, even “deep diving” the mind of another in order to understand and share their experiences.

Read more

Is Zoltan Istvan a Libertarian?

This is a fair enough article, though I believe I’m more Libertarian than it paints me. I think a lot of people forget or simply don’t know my book The Transhumanist Wager (how I started my futurist career back in 2009) is known by many as transhumanist libertarian manifesto. Also, ideas from my past political campaign do not always correspond to my current gubernatorial run:

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 I’m 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.

Read more

A comprehensive new article on #transhumanism and my work by Prof. Steve Fuller is out in Issues, one of the major magazines of the National Academy of Sciences

It’s now out in print. It’s great to see my past presidential campaign for the Transhumanist Party getting this type of formal recognition. The Transhumanist Bill of Rights, the Transhumanist Wager concept, Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson considering me as a running mate, Immortality Bus, and my #libertarianism are all mentioned. http://www.academia.edu/32185481/Does_this_pro-science_party_deserve_our_votes

Read more

Robot Nannies Are Here, But Won’t Replace Your Babysitter — Yet

Robot nannies in Forbes today. Interesting story! https://www.forbes.com/sites/centurylink/2017/03/29/robot-na…e6632c56b7 #transhumanism

Would you let a robot care for your child?

As our population ages, these caregiver robots will also be useful for the old as well as the young.
As our population ages, these caregiver robots will also be useful for the old as well as the young.

This is not a rhetorical question. So-called robot nannies are already a hit in Japan and China, and are now beginning to appear stateside.

The numbers show why this is an attractive proposition. According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 4 million babies are born annually in the United States. That’s almost 11,000 daily births.

Read more

Why Aging Is a Disease

The first of my major #Libertarian policy articles for my California gubernatorial run, which broadens the foundational “non-aggression principle” to so-called negative natural phenomena. “In my opinion, and to most #transhumanist libertarians, death and aging are enemies of the people and of liberty (perhaps the greatest ones), similar to foreign invaders running up our shores.” A coordinated defense agianst them is philosophically warranted.

Many societies and social movements operate under a foundational philosophy that often can be summed up in a few words. Most famously, in much of the Western world, is the Golden Rule: Do onto others as you want them to do to you. In libertarianism, the backbone of the political philosophy is the non-aggression principle (NAP). It argues it’s immoral for anyone to use force against another person or their property except in cases of self-defense.

A challenge has recently been posed to the non-aggression principle. The thorny question libertarian transhumanists are increasingly asking in the 21st century is: Are so-called natural acts or occurrences immoral if they cause people to suffer? After all, taken to a logical philosophical extreme, cancer, aging, and giant asteroids arbitrarily crashing into the planet are all aggressive, forceful acts that harm the lives of humans.

Traditional libertarians throw these issues aside, citing natural phenomena as unable to be morally forceful. This thinking is supported by most people in Western culture, many of whom are religious and fundamentally believe only God is aware and in total control of the universe. However, transhumanists —many who are secular like myself—don’t care about religious metaphysics and whether the universe is moral. (It might be, with or without an almighty God.) What transhumanists really care about are ways for our parents to age less, to make sure our kids don’t die from leukemia, and to save the thousands of species that vanish from Earth every year due to rising temperatures and the human-induced forces.

An impasse has developed among philosophers, and questions once thought absurd, now bear the cold bearing of reality. For example, automation, robots, and software may challenge if not obliterate capitalism as we know it before the 21st century is out. Should libertarians stand against it and develop tenets and safeguards to protect their livelihoods? I have argued, yes, a universal basic income of some sort to guarantee a suitable livelihood is in philosophical line with the non-aggression principle.

Read more