Dear ATCA Colleagues

[Please note that the views presented by individual contributors are not necessarily representative of the views of ATCA, which is neutral. ATCA conducts collective Socratic dialogue on global opportunities and threats.]

We are grateful to:

. Prof E David Cook, based in Oxford, England, for "More Than Human;"
. Prof Prabhu Guptara, based in Wolfsberg, Switzerland, for "Transhumanism, Public Engagement and In-depth Scrutiny;"
. Dr Charles Rubin, based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for "The Socratic Question of Making a Good Human Life;" and
. Prof Nigel M de S Cameron, based in Chicago, Illinois, for "Transhuman Technologies pose Gravest Challenge to Democracy in the 21st Century;"

for their response to the ATCA think-piece "The Supra-Universal Consciousness and Better Humans on the one hand and Human Extinction and The Post Human Entity on the other" which includes the submission to ATCA by George Dvorsky from Toronto, Canada, "The Must-know terms for the 21st Century."

Dr E David Cook is a Fellow of Green College, Oxford and the first Holmes Professor of Faith and Learning at Wheaton College. He is also Distinguished Visiting Professor of Christian Ethics at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, and was named a Senior Fellow of The Trinity Forum in 2004. He holds a BA from Arizona State University, an MA from Edinburgh University, a PhD from New College, Edinburgh, an MA from Oxford University, and a DLitt from Gordon College, Massachusetts. He taught for six years at St John's College and the University of Nottingham and has been at Oxford since 1979 teaching medical ethics, philosophy, theology, and Christian ethics. He is founding Director of the Whitefield Institute, Oxford, which funds and supports research in theology, ethics, and education and a Fellow at the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity. He is a member of the UK Xenotransplantation Authority, the Council of Europe Xenotransplantation Advisory Group, the Archbishops' Medical Ethics Committee, The Central Oxford Research Ethics Committee, and The John Radcliffe Hospital Ethics Committee. He is a regular broadcaster on national radio and television on medical and moral issues and has written extensively in the area. His books include The Moral Maze: A Way of Exploring Christian Ethics, Blind Alley Beliefs, Dilemmas of Life: Deciding What's Right and What's Wrong, Patients' Choice, and Question Time. He is married and has two grown up children and one grandson. He and his wife are members of Abingdon Baptist Church in Oxford. He writes:

Dear DK and Colleagues

Re: More Than Human

A new face transplant is but the latest in the never-ending search for cures for the diseases and accidents that plague humankind. But what begins with the best of intentions in relieving pain, distress, and suffering can be abused and used for other ends and purposes than originally intended.

A cure that restores function and capacity can be used for enhancement and developing more-than-human being. An emerging philosophy, transhumanism, suggests that we have now reached the stage of evolution where we can decide and control not just our own destinies but what kind of human beings we should be. Its main aim is for individuals to delay death and to survive, fit and fully functioning, for four hundred years or more. Genetic engineering and the new advances in the neurosciences make it possible to change our bodies, replace failing parts, and enhance mental and physical skills long past the normal three score years and ten.

What drives medical research and its applications to the rest of life? Well, money, of course, is crucial and makes the research world possible. A cure for diabetes will enrich the company that finds and markets it. Fame, too, can motivate scientific researchers. Nobel Prizes are attainable. But also driving medical research is a deeper drive of seeking immortality and cheating death. We want to live for ever - or at least as long as is humanly possible, and science is the means to that end.

If motives matter, so do consequences. What would our world be like if we could all live for four hundred years? Imagine the impact on work. What would a reasonable retirement age be? What of pensions, social security, health care? Would not our basic institutions of marriage and family be under even more pressure than they are today? If we were married for three hundred and eighty years, how would our other relationships be affected? How long could and should we continue to have children, and what kind of relationships would we have with them? How and when would young people grow into the roles of power and responsibility that we know, enjoy and need? In a world of overpopulation, the extension of human life, while perhaps a delight to individuals, might become a social and global disaster.

Given the long lives of the Old Testament patriarchs, life seemed a gift to be enjoyed. But perhaps part of what it means to be human is to learn to live with limits. That is not just a personal challenge, but is also a challenge to the motivation, means, and consequences we engender in medical scientific research.

Research is too important to be left to big business and scientists on their own. Society and individuals need to be clear what kind of world we want, how we view what it means to be human, and how far we will go in order to pursue our dreams of full health, happiness, and eternal life.


E David Cook

This article was first published in "Provocations" by The Trinity Forum.

[ENDS]

-----Original Message-----
From: Intelligence Unit
Sent: 22 January 2007 14:23
To: 'atca.members@mi2g.com'
Subject: Response: Transhumanism, Public Engagement & In-depth Scrutiny - Prof Guptara; The Socratic Question of Making a Good Human Life - Dr Rubin; Gravest Challenge to Democracy - Prof Cameron

Dear ATCA Colleagues

[Please note that the views presented by individual contributors are not necessarily representative of the views of ATCA, which is neutral. ATCA conducts collective Socratic dialogue on global opportunities and threats.]

We are grateful to:

. Prof Prabhu Guptara, based in Wolfsberg, Switzerland, for "Transhumanism, Public Engagement and In-depth Scrutiny;"
. Dr Charles Rubin, based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for "The Socratic Question of Making a Good Human Life;" and
. Prof Nigel M de S Cameron, based in Chicago, Illinois, for "Transhuman Technologies pose Gravest Challenge to Democracy in the 21st Century;"

for their response to the ATCA think-piece "The Supra-Universal Consciousness and Better Humans on the one hand and Human Extinction and The Post Human Entity on the other" which includes the submission to ATCA by George Dvorsky from Toronto, Canada, "The Must-know terms for the 21st Century."

Professor Prabhu Guptara is Executive Director, Organisational Development, at the Switzerland based Wolfsberg -- The platform for Business and Executive Development, a subsidiary of UBS, one of the largest banks in the world -- where he organises and chairs the famed Wolfsberg Think Tanks and the Distinguished Speaker series of events. Prof Guptara has professional experience with a range of organisations around the world, including Barclays Bank, BP, Deutsche Bank, Kraft Jacob Suchard, Nokia, the Singapore Institute of Management and Groupe Bull. A jury member of numerous literary competitions in Britain and the Commonwealth, he has been a guest contributor to all the principal newspapers, radio and TV channels in the UK, as well as media in other parts of the world. Professor Guptara supervises PhD work at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland and is Visiting Professor at various other international universities and business schools. He is a Freeman of the City of London and of the Worshipful Company of Information Technologists; and Fellow of the Institute of Directors. He writes:

Dear DK and Colleagues

Re: Transhumanism, Public Engagement and In-depth Scrutiny

Prof Cameron has set out articulately the middle ground between committed anti-technologists on the one hand, and committed Transhumanists such as Dvorsky on the other hand. My own small contribution to the Socratic Dialogue, which I have made over some years via ATCA and other distinguished forums, is publicly available by Googling my name and elsewhere.

Here, I would only add that many governments seem to me to be in the grip of business interests. Such governments are therefore indulging in deliberate and malign neglect of the social and political issues involved. If public-spirited citizens don't take up the debate, then the future is indeed dim for humanity.

The lines of debate are clearly drawn between those who are committed to human and humane values, as against those who want to push yet another disastrous utopian vision upon us -- much as was done by the French Revolutionaries, and by Nazism, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, and so on. All these apparently positive and utopian atheistic projects ended up slaughtering many times more people than all the earlier wars in history combined.

I would invite distinguished ATCA colleagues to consider the one key learning from history which technological utopians (such as Transhumanists) tend to forget. The learning is that utopianism of all sorts is essential for humanity to progress, but utopianism's over-optimistic view of human nature has inevitably led utopianism in short order to mass murder.

May I suggest therefore that utopians, who are in my experience almost always well-motivated for the good of humanity, should ask for much more public debate and scrutiny, and should welcome the contribution of centrist humanists such as Professor Cameron, if contemporary utopianism is to end up being positive rather than negative for humanity.

Warm regards


Prabhu Guptara
____________________________________________________________________________

Dr Charles Rubin is Associate Professor of Political Science at Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Dr Rubin teaches courses about the normative aspects of policy making, including graduate courses for the CERES and Graduate Center for Social and Public Policy programs. His research and publications focus on political theory of environmentalism and urban planning, issues in science, technology and policy (eg the scientific search for extraterrestrial intelligence and the problem of Earth/asteroid collisions). He also writes in literature and politics. He is the author of The Green Crusade: Rethinking the Roots of Environmentalism and editor of Conservatism Reconsidered: Nature, Virtue and American Liberal Democracy both published by Rowman and Littlefield. He writes:

Dear DK and Colleagues

Re: The Socratic Question of Making a Good Human Life

Many thanks for the opportunity to respond to this quite interesting exchange. The Socratic dialogue on Transhumanism initiated on ATCA with contributions from Nigel Cameron and George Dvorsky is a marvellous illustration of the essential truth of a proposition presented in Neal Stephenson's classic portrait of a nanotechnology future, The Diamond Age:

"Now nanotechnology had made nearly anything possible, and so the cultural role in deciding what should be done with it had become far more important than imagining what could be done with it."

Dvorsky, updating Flaubert's "Dictionary of Accepted Ideas" with those ideas at least accepted among the transhumanists, is clearly impressed with the possibilities inherent in greatly expanded human power over nature: what could be done. He quickly leaps from imagination of what might be possible to speculations about what will happen, with very little thought beyond the obvious disastrous possibilities, to what might be desirable, and what not.

The omission is, I suspect, deliberate, predicated on "Accelerating Change" which Kurzweil uses to suggest the inevitability of the developments he advocates. This rhetorical trope makes efforts at control seem pointless at best and dangerous at worst (eg, "Radical Luddism" where Kaczynski becomes paradigmatic for opposition to transhuman aspirations). Dvorsky's focus on what could be done also may be based on "Libertarian Paternalism," or variants thereof which hold that the choices of how to employ greatly expanded powers over nature should be left to individuals as much as possible.

Cameron, on the other hand, rightly focuses on the question of what should be done -- a particularly appropriate way of proceeding for those who aspire to Socratic dialogue about pressing public issues. For unless the first successes in the use of emerging technologies are to alter human behaviour radically, they are arriving and will arrive in a familiar world of human limits and imperfection. As Bertrand Russell pointed out long since in his essay Icarus, all the hopes we might have for technology to increase our stock of kindly motives (or wisdom, for that matter) are predicated on the prior existence of kindly motives or wisdom to direct the use and development of technology. Yet, as Cameron too reminds us, good motives and kind hearts cannot be assumed to be in abundant supply.

We know as little today about what the future holds as ever, perhaps less. Therefore it is easy, perhaps inevitable, when thinking about the challenges that emerging technologies might pose, to get caught up in our hopes and fears. As emotional responses, these leave us open to hyped visions of utopia or oblivion. But of course the odds are that the future will be neither. If we reflect on our hopes and fears, we may put ourselves on the road to wisdom, because we will then consider what we want from life, and what we seek to avoid. The old and very Socratic question of makes a good human life becomes only more relevant the more Dvorsky is correct about the changes in store for us.

Best regards

Charlie Rubin

[ENDS]

-----Original Message-----
From: Intelligence Unit
Sent: 16 January 2007 11:16
To: 'atca.members@mi2g.com'
Subject: Response: Transhuman Technologies pose Gravest Challenge to Democracy in 21st Century - Prof Cameron; Supra-Universal Consciousness & Better Humans / Human Extinction & Post Human Entity

Dear ATCA Colleagues

[Please note that the views presented by individual contributors are not necessarily representative of the views of ATCA, which is neutral. ATCA conducts collective Socratic dialogue on global opportunities and threats.]

We are grateful to:

. Prof Nigel M de S Cameron, based in Chicago, Illinois, for "Transhuman Technologies pose Gravest Challenge to Democracy in the 21st Century"

for his response to the ATCA think-piece "The Supra-Universal Consciousness and Better Humans on the one hand and Human Extinction and The Post Human Entity on the other" which includes the submission to ATCA by George Dvorsky from Toronto, Canada, "The Must-know terms for the 21st Century."

Professor Nigel M de S Cameron is Director of the Center on Nanotechnology and Society (nano-and-society.org) at the Illinois Institute of Technology, where he is Research Professor of Bioethics, an Associate Dean at Chicago-Kent College of Law, and President of its affiliated Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future. Originally from the UK, he has studied at Cambridge and Edinburgh universities and the Edinburgh Business School. His chief interest lies in the implications of emerging technologies for policy and human values. He has served as bioethics adviser on US diplomatic delegations to the United Nations General Assembly and UNESCO, and was recently an invited US participant in the US Department of State/European Commission Perspectives on the Future of Science and Technology consultation in Varenna, Italy. He is a member of the United States National Commission for UNESCO, and of the advisory boards of the Converging Technologies Bar Association, the Nano Law and Business Journal, the World Healthcare Innovation and Technology Congress, and 2020 Health (UK). He writes:

Dear DK and Colleagues

Re: Transhuman Technologies pose Gravest Challenge to Democracy in the 21st Century

George Dvorsky's mind-bending list of terms and concepts from the world of "transhumanism" will no doubt stimulate the thinking of many distinguished ATCA members, and if his intent is to foster reflection and debate on the application of emerging technologies to human beings and human society I heartily endorse his posting. From where I sit, I see nothing so significant as the rapid development of these technologies, and nothing so troubling as the near-absence of healthy public engagement with their social and ethical implications. Here lies perhaps the gravest challenge to democracy in the 21st century: how we build policy and develop accountability to frame the advance of technologies that promise to be disruptive on a wholly new scale.

To that end, appropriate dialogue with "transhumanists" is one of several desiderata. I was recently one of two "humanists" (if one may be permitted to use the term in that way) invited for such a purpose to the transhumanist conference hosted by Stanford Law School and co-sponsored by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies with which Dr Dvorsky is associated. It is also significant that governments are increasingly recognizing the need to reflect on the societal implications of these technologies and to engage the constructs that various parties are seeking to develop -- from transhumanists to the legatees of Ned Ludd (Dvorsky cites the sad case of the Luddite terrorist known as the "Unabomber," one of the lessons of whose murderous career was that very smart people can have bizarre -- and, in his case, deadly -- views), and also to those of us (which is certainly most of us) somewhere in between.

There are many levels to this conversation. Just last week I participated in a workshop hosted by the US government on the ethical implications of nanotechnology. Last summer I was privileged to participate in the latest round of the Perspectives on the Future of Science and Technology (PFST) series, a dialogue touching on these questions co-sponsored by the US Department of State and the European Commission (meeting on this occasion at Varenna in Italy). Some of the most interesting discussion has in fact been taking place in Europe. Three or four years back the Commission established a High-Level Expert Group (HLEG) to review societal questions raised by "converging technologies," especially in the light of what was (wrongly) perceived to be a tilt in the transhumanist direction on the part of US policy. It may well be that some of the distinguished participants in the HLEG are members of this list, and I leave them to speak for themselves. Suffice to say that they vigorously affirmed the need to develop these technologies in a manner that conforms with European values, and sought to distance themselves from a particular US conference report that was seen as transhumanist in its approach. And it should be noted that there is rising concern, both in government circles and especially within the business and investment community, as to the risk implications of the "sci-fi" branding of emerging technologies (especially nano), not least in Europe where the lessons of the controversy over genetically-modified organisms have been learned hard.

Whether some of the highly optimistic assumptions that run through Dr Dvorsky's transhumanist-friendly lexicon are ultimately justified remains to be seen. Side by side with their technological optimism transhumanists tend to assume an essentially benign view of that human nature which they wish to transcend. One of the "caveats for enhancers" that I shared with the Stanford conference last May reflected my concern that the unconstrained marketplace application of these technologies to give smarter brains and more durable bodies to those who could afford it would lead to a compounding of resources and a dramatic exacerbation of the current bimodal distribution of wealth and power, resulting in a new feudalism. Those who favour the supersession of the human (and use terms like "human racist" for those of us who take the view that human beings are uniquely special!), need to reckon not only with the renaissance vision of humanism, the depth of which many of us believe we have hardly begun to plumb, but with perhaps the most extraordinary achievement of the modern world, the enlightenment assertion of the dignity and rights of the individual -- codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the many instruments that have built upon it (most recently the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights). Some look eagerly to a posthuman future; others may indeed see Ned Ludd as their leader. But those among us who seek the centre-ground hold to the need to integrate these technologies into an increasingly complex but still thoroughly human project, in which enhancing our capacity to be human lies at the core of our moral vision and should continue to drive public policy.



Nigel M de S Cameron

[ENDS]

-----Original Message-----
From: Intelligence Unit
Sent: 15 January 2007 10:35
To: 'atca.members@mi2g.com'
Subject: ATCA: The Supra-Universal Consciousness and Better Humans on the one hand and Human Extinction and The Post Human Entity on the other; Must-know terms of the 21st Century -- Dvorsky

Dear ATCA Colleagues

[Please note that the views presented by individual contributors are not necessarily representative of the views of ATCA, which is neutral. ATCA conducts collective Socratic dialogue on global opportunities and threats.]

Re: The Supra-Universal Consciousness and Better Humans on the one hand and Human Extinction and The Post Human Entity on the other

The top global risks and opportunities of the 21st century, depend on 'Disruptive Innovation' to address and to begin to resolve some of the seemingly intractable yet interlinked confrontations. As those inherent confrontations accelerate and feed off each other's momentum they possess the capability to damage and to disrupt the delicate global dynamic equilibrium. Faced with this unpalatable prospect for humanity, in the coming two decades or less, it is necessary to rethink strategically and to come together in joint action, which is the main aim of the high-level global dialogue established by organisations such as ATCA and The Philanthropia. We need to be moving towards a wisdom based global economy, where longevity and sustainability are at the top of the agenda. Such a push is also bringing about a new lexicon of terms. What are those must-know terms for the 21st Century and what do they collectively herald?

The must-know terms are: Accelerating Change, Anthropic Principle, Artificial General Intelligence, Augmented Reality, Bayesian Rationality, Cosmological Eschatology (aka physical eschatology), Engineered Negligible Senescence, Existential Risks, Extended Identity, Fermi Paradox, Friendly AI, Human Enhancement, Human Exceptionalism (aka human racism), Information Theoretic Death, Mass Automation, Memetic Engineering, Mind Transfer (aka 'uploading'), Molecular Assembler, Neurodiversity, Neural Interface Device, Noosphere (aka metaconsciousness), Open Source, Participatory Panopticon, Political Globalization, Post-Scarcity Economy, Quantum Computation, Radical Luddism, Remedial Ecology, Simulation Argument, Soft Paternalism (aka Libertarian Paternalism), Technological Singularity etc.

Collectively the must-know terms for the 21st Century herald our joint capacity to give rise to the discovery of The Supra-Universal Consciousness and Better Humans on the one hand and Human Extinction and The Post Human Entity on the other.

We are grateful to George Dvorsky for his submission to ATCA, "The Must-know terms for the 21st Century."

George Dvorsky serves on the Board of Directors for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. George is the Deputy-Editor of Betterhumans, co-founder and President of the Toronto Transhumanist Association, and the producer of the Sentient Developments blog and podcast. Mr Dvorsky served on the Board of the World Transhumanist Association from 2004-06 and as conference chair for TransVision 2004, the WTA's annual conference. He writes:

Dear DK and Colleagues

Re: The Must-know terms for the 21st Century

I am trying to come up with a list of the most fundamental and crucial terms and trends that are coming to define and will soon re-define the human condition. The zeitgeist is quickly changing. To me a distinguished ATCA member is an expert generalist -- a polymath who sees and understands the Big Picture both past, present and future. While I value and respect the work of specialists, they can be frustratingly out of touch with other disciplines and some of the more broader applications of science, technology and philosophy. Given the obvious truism that nobody can know everything, there is still great value in having individuals understand a diverse set of key principles. I have made a conscious effort to be as cross-disciplinary as possible. There are terms from computer science, cosmology, neuroscience, environmentalism, sociology, biotechnology, philosophy, astrobiology, political science, and many other fields of interest to distinguished ATCA members. Here is my revised list:

Accelerating Change: The pace of technological development is accelerating is now undeniable. The steady onslaught of Moore's Law and its eerie regularity is the most profound example. As thinkers like Ray Kurzweil and others have shown, the onslaught of accelerating change throws commonly held time-frames out the window. And that this rate of change is exponential implies radical social disruption around the mid-point of the 21st Century.

Anthropic Principle: Once considered a philosophical lark, the anthropic principle has become an integral methodological tool with which to best analyze the extreme unarbitrariness of the Universe's parameters. The AP, which suggests that our Universe's qualities are unavoidable in consideration of the presence of observers, has helped cosmologists, astrobiologists and quantum physicists as they work with such related concepts as the fine-tuning hypothesis, string theory, and various multiverse theories.

Artificial General Intelligence: This isn't your daddy's AI. Rather, AGI describes the kind of intelligence that you and I have -- the commonsense know-how we have when we're put into unfamiliar situations. Once developed, artificial agents endowed with AGI will be non-specialized intelligent entities that will come to represent the bona fide synthetic equivalent to human intelligence, and then move beyond.

Augmented Reality: AR describes the fusion of the real world with the virtual. By using eyetaps, eartaps and implants, individuals will be able to filter unwanted information from their sensory fields (such as annoying advertising and sounds). Alternately, users will have new information virtually inserted into their environment, including descriptions of landmarks, maps, or even an alert notification that a familiar person is approaching. Imagine the gaming possibilities...

Bayesian Rationality: Bayesian rationality is a probabilistic approach to reasoning. Bayesian rationalists describe probability as the degree to which a person should believe a proposition. They also apply Bayes' theorem when inferring or updating their degree of belief when given new information. Some scientists and epistemologists hope to replace the Popperian view of proof with a Bayesian view.

Cosmological Eschatology (aka physical eschatology): CE is the study of how the Universe develops, ages, and ultimately comes to an end. While hardly a new concept, what is new is the suggestion that advanced intelligence may play a role in the universe's life cycle. Given the radical potential for postbiological superintelligence, a number of thinkers have suggested that universe engineering is a likely activity for advanced civilizations. This has given rise to a number of theories, including the developmental singularity hypothesis and the selfish biocosm hypothesis.

Engineered Negligible Senescence: Aging is increasingly coming to be regarded as a disease, and as such it is privy to treatment and therapies leading to outright eradication. Indefinite lifespans may be as little as 50 years away.

Existential Risks: The development of nuclear weapons marked a disturbing turning point for the human species: we are increasingly coming into the possession of apocalyptic technologies. Soon to join the list are such problems as a malevolent superintelligence, deliberate or accidental misuse of nanotechnology, runaway global warming, a killer artificial virus, an antimatter holocaust, or a particle accelerator disaster. Read more here and here. Adding insult to injury is the Doomsday Argument.

Extended Identity: Human activity is increasingly migrating to the digital realm. The rise in popularity of MMORPGs (Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games) such as Second Life and World of Warcraft show that the self can, to a non-trivial degree, be transferred to an alternative medium. With the maturation of these technologies will come distributed personhood and new legal protections to guarantee safe and ubiquitous online activity.

Fermi Paradox: The FP is the disturbing realization that, given the extreme age of the galaxy and the radical potential for post-Singularity intelligences (including their ability to disseminate Von Neumann replicators), our galaxy should be saturated with advanced civilizations and megaprojects by now. Yet, we see no signs of ETI's. Consequently, any predictions about the future of human intelligence must seek to reconcile this observation. Key theories to date include the Great Filter hypothesis, the migration hypothesis, and the transcension hypothesis (the idea of inward migration into increasingly sophisticated and complex MEST (Matter, Energy, Space, and Time) space).

Friendly AI: If we are going to survive the Singularity and the onset of greater-than-human AI, it had better be friendly. And if it turns out to be friendly, it won't be by accident. Computer science theorists such as Eliezer Yudkowsky and Ben Goertzel are already working on what may ultimately prove to be an intractable problem. A poorly programmed, malevolent, or misguided SAI could destroy all of humanity with a mere thought. Asimov's Three Laws will do little against incomprehensibly powerful autopotent entities (a term coined by Nick Bostrom indicating total self-awareness and ability to self-modify).

Human Enhancement: Humans are about to decommission natural selection in favour of guided evolution. Darwinian processes gave humanity a good start, but Homo sapiens can be improved. Owing to advances in genetics, cybernetics, nanotechnology, computer science, and cognitive science, humans are set to redefine the human condition. Future humans can look forward to longer lives, enhanced intelligence, memory, communication and physical skills, and improved emotional control. Humans may eventually cease to be biological and gendered organisms altogether, giving rise to the posthuman entity. Human enhancement will irrevocably alter social arrangements, interpersonal relationships, and society itself. And there's also the added potential for non-human enhancement.

Human Exceptionalism (aka human racism): Not everyone is in favour of human enhancement and the prospect of greater-than-human intelligence. Nor is everyone in favour of extending personhood outside the human sphere. These 'human exceptionalists', a group that includes anti-transhumanist Wesley Smith, argue that being human is what matters, and that to give equal moral currency to non-humans is a violation of human dignity and worth. The opposing viewpoint to this is that of Non-Anthropocentric Personhood -- the notion that nonhumans, be they animals, robots, or uploaded minds, have the potential for personhood status, and by consequence, are worthy of moral consideration.

Information Theoretic Death: New technologies will soon demand that we redefine what we mean by death. It is becoming increasingly unsatisfactory to declare death when the heart stops. As long as the information within the brain can be preserved and restored, a person should not be considered irrevocably dead. Given the potential for molecular nanotechnology and other future biotechnological advances, it is reasonable to suggest that most cognitive impairment will someday be repairable. Consequently, we will need to reconsider the status of persons frozen in cyronic stasis or hooked up to life support systems.

Mass Automation: The robotic revolution has only just begun. Robots, AI and automated systems are poised to dramatically reduce the amount of manual labour performed by humans. For example, we are less than 10 years away from the advent of self-driving cars. What will that mean for taxi and bus drivers? Checkouts at grocery stores are already becoming automated as are a significant number of factory jobs. The good news is that a lot of demeaning, difficult and dangerous work is about to be eliminated, the bad news is that it will likely cause serious employment issues.

Memetic Engineering: This is the radical and controversial idea that the propagation and quality of information should be monitored and managed. Memetic engineering is a term coined by Richard Dawkins, and has been elaborated upon by such thinkers as James Gardner, Robert Wright, Daniel Dennett (who calls for increased cultural health) and William Sims Bainbridge (to enhance group and societal outcomes). For example, advocates of ME would argue that some religious memes are viral and and need to curbed. I have also argued along these lines. On a related note, a burgeoning movement is afoot to help people overcome their biases.

Mind Transfer (aka 'uploading'): Uploading is the theoretical prospect of transferring cognition and consciousness to a digital medium, namely supercomputers. Recent advances in neuroscience are increasingly coming to re-enforce functionalist interpretations of mind. Given the Church-Turing theory of universal computational compatibility, there is strong reason to suspect that the mind's processes can be duplicated in computers. This has led to speculation about massive societal uploads, entire civilizations living within massive supercomputers, extreme life extension, and entire lifespans lived in open-ended virtual reality environments and simulations. A number of thinkers, including roboticist Hans Moravec, have outlined various uploading techniques. Personally, I believe the jury is still out on whether or not we will be able to code an algorithm for consciousness.

Molecular Assembler: If you're familiar with a Star Trek replicator you know about molecular assemblers. These devices could take a clump of matter and reconstitute it into anything we desire, so long we have the molecular schematics. The device would work in a similar manner to the way in which genes and ribosomes function to produce protein. Needless to say, the impacts of an assembler would be monumental. The humanitarian impact would be great, creating unprecedented material wealth and access to resources. At the same time however, it would be the most dangerous invention ever devised, capable of creating any kind of apocalyptic device and even self-replicating entities that could cause global ecophagy.

Neurodiversity: Pending biotechnologies will create a multiplicity of psychological modes of being. Today, recreational drug users and the autistic rights community contend that the obsession with maintaining 'neurotypicality' is a form of oppression. In the future, technologies such as neuropharmaceuticals, cybernetics and other cognotech will offer individuals an unprecedented opportunity to experience alternative subjective mental states. Like anything, however, neuroenablement and cognitive liberty are rights that will have to be fought for.

Neural Interface Device: An NID is any device that enables the brain to interface with a computer. Today, paraplegics use NID's to move computer cursors with their thoughts alone. Eventually this will lead to advanced prostheses, novel remote control concepts, and even the almighty brain-jack as portrayed in such sci-fi films as The Matrix.

Noosphere (aka metaconsciousness): Human communication and interaction may eventually advance to the stage where even conscious thought may be globalized and massively shared. This will lead to the rise of the so-called noosphere.

Open Source: This is a term that most people are familiar with, but it's worth re-stating. The open source revolution, where information is freely distributed and editable, is already reshaping a number of industries and upsetting traditional economic and intellectual property models. Wikipedia has very quickly become the world's largest repository of encyclopaedic information. Linux and other open source software continue to rival the big players. And looking further down the line, there's the potential for open source science, culture, and the disturbing potential for open source warfare.

Participatory Panopticon: An offshoot of David Brin's transparent society, Steve Mann's sousveillance, and Charlie Stross's panopticon Singularity, the Participatory Panopticon is a proposed strategy for dealing with the onset of ubiquitous surveillance. Coined by environmentalist and forward thinker Jamais Cascio, the PP is the suggestion that all citizens will soon have the tools with which they can watch each other and keep themselves accountable for their actions.

Political Globalization: Though it lags behind economic and cultural globalization, political globalization and the thrust towards world federalism is happening nonetheless. While it may be a while before borders completely dissolve, nations and institutions are already developing co-operative and positive-sum arrangements. This process may unfold quicker than expected. It was only 60 years ago that Europe tore itself apart; today Europe forms the world's most powerful economic and political union.

Post-Scarcity Economy: A post-scarcity economy is a hypothetical form of economy or society in which things such as goods, services and information are free, or practically free. Such a future could come about due to abundance of fundamental resources (think nano, AI, alternative energy, etc.), in conjunction with sophisticated automated systems capable of converting raw materials into finished goods (namely by molecular assemblers). In such a world, manufacturing would be as easy as duplicating software.

Quantum Computation: Today's computers run on what's called a Von Neumann architecture. This basic idea has existed for decades, but there is a new concept under development -- an idea for computation in which bits (or qbits) are stolen from alternate universes. Seriously. The basic principle is that the quantum properties of particles can be used to represent and structure data, and that quantum mechanisms can be devised and built to perform operations with this data. The long-and-the-short of this means that future computers running on such a platform would be ludicrously powerful and fast. As an example, some modern simulations that are taking IBM's Blue Gene supercomputer years would take a quantum computer only a matter of seconds. The prospect of quantum computers throws projections of an upper bound on computation out the window. Thinkers like David Deutsch have suggested that our universe may be a kind of quantum computer, while Stuart Hameroff notes that brains may also be a type of quantum machine.

Radical Luddism: Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski may have been the first of a new breed of radical anti-technology terrorists. In his manifesto, titled Industrial Society and Its Future, he argued that his actions were a necessary (although extreme) ruse by which to attract attention to what he believed were the dangers of modern technology. Given the extreme and disruptive potential for biotechnology, AI, nanotechnology and cybernetics, it is safe to assume that a fringe segment of society will take it upon themselves to prevent their development by any means necessary.

Remedial Ecology: Humans have really messed up this planet, but that doesn't mean we can't fix what we've broke. Remedial ecology is the notion that with the right tools and know-how we can repair the damage that's been done. By using bioremediative processes, for example, we can use genetically engineered microorganisms to remove toxic or unwanted chemicals from the environment, or break down hazardous substances into less toxic or nontoxic substances in soil, groundwater, sludge and sediment. And looking further into the future there's the added potential for not just repair but also redesign. Bruce Sterling's Viridian movement is a step in this direction.

Simulation Argument: The SA, which suggests that we may be living inside a computer simulation, is important from metaphysical, cosmological, and philosophical perspectives in that it sweepingly upsets conventional notions of existence and our place in the Universe. It also gives us a potential glimpse into the activities of superintelligences. The SA, aside from its Cartesian epistemological implications, gives rise to a host of ethical issues, including the ethics of simulating conscious beings and their potential moral worth. This has already given rise to the reactionary concept of substrate chauvinism, which is the conviction that only biological matter can carry moral worth. Substrate chauvinism is also used to dismiss the idea that self-aware robots could ever be regarded as persons.

Soft Paternalism (aka Libertarian Paternalism): States are increasingly working to protect their citizens from themselves. People have bad habits, are prone to ignorance, and are often capable of self-destruction. Instead of using coercion, however, states are softly encouraging their citizens to take better care of themselves and their affairs. For example, in such an "avuncular state" employees would be signed up for company pension schemes by default. Freedom of choice is maintained, but default policies protect the ignorant and lazy from the consequences of their mistakes.

Technological Singularity: Accelerating change may lead to an existential paradigm shift for the human species. How this will look like and how it will come about is still a mystery, giving rise to a social event horizon known as the Technological Singularity. In all likelihood it will come about through the advent of superintelligence. It has also been referred to as a potential 'intelligence explosion,' or a time when the speed of technological development reaches maximal levels. Such an event could lead to human extinction or the advent of posthuman existence.

Best wishes



George Dvorsky

[ENDS]

We look forward to your further thoughts, observations and views. Thank you.

Best wishes


For and on behalf of DK Matai, Chairman
Asymmetric Threats Contingency Alliance (ATCA)
____________________________________________________________________________

ATCA: The Asymmetric Threats Contingency Alliance is a philanthropic expert initiative founded in 2001 to resolve complex global challenges through collective Socratic dialogue and joint executive action to build a wisdom based global economy. Adhering to the doctrine of non-violence, ATCA addresses opportunities and threats arising from climate chaos; radical poverty; geo-politics, organised crime & extremism; advanced technologies -- bio, info, nano, robo & AI; demographic skews; pandemics; and financial systems. Present membership of ATCA is by invitation only and has over 5,000 distinguished members from over 100 countries: including several from the House of Lords, House of Commons, EU Parliament, US Congress & Senate, G10's Senior Government officials and over 1,500 CEOs from financial institutions, scientific corporates and voluntary organisations as well as over 750 Professors from academic centres of excellence worldwide.

The views presented by individual contributors are not necessarily representative of the views of ATCA, which is neutral. Please do not forward or use the material circulated without permission and full attribution.
____________________________________________________________________________
Intelligence Unit | mi2g ATCA The Philanthropia Φ

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)