H+: The Digital Series is a web series produced by Bryan Singer and created by John Cabrera and Cosimo De Tommaso. The series is based on the subject of Transhumanism. This series is talk about future where one-third of the world’s population has an implanted computer based chip, named H+. It connect each implanted human mind to the Internet permanently. The implant was developed an Irish biotechnology company founded with the intent of improving the medical sector with technology but the main story begins when H+ implant infected from a virus.
As per Nick Bostrom latest TED Talk: Artificial intelligence is getting smarter by leaps and bounds — within this century, research suggests, a computer AI could be as “smart” as a human being. A philosopher and technologist, Bostrom asks us to think hard about the world we’re building right now, driven by thinking machines. Will our smart machines help to preserve humanity and our values — or will they have values of their own?
In December 2013, I published an article on this Blog with the title, Singularity – From the Eastern Perspective. More than 16 months on, I now present before the world, on this very Blog, along the same lines and principles as the article on Singularity, as the title herein indicates, the Eastern take on Transhumanism. Before conversing about the Eastern take on Transhumanism however, it is necessary to visit the East versus West discourse on Singularity, as the topics are intertwined or interrelated, in both schools of thought.
Ultimately, in the Eastern Perspective, Transhumanism, is about being human, but living life, by transcending the limits of the human form, with knowledge, wisdom and thought; pretty much the power of the mind.
Several founder/inventor of tech giant like Google, Facebook, eBay, Napster, Netscape using their billions to rewrite the nation’s science agenda and transform biomedical research. They are using technological tools like the chips, artificial intelligence software programs, sophisticated algorithms and machine learning in creating an information revolution — to understand and upgrade what they consider to be the most complicated piece of machinery in existence: the human body.
The Entrepreneurs are continuing working toward inventing new ways and toll to rebuild, regenerating and reprogramme better and robust organs, limbs, cells and DNA which will enable people to live longer and better. They also trying to understand complex mechanism of human body and it’s living organisms and seeing engineering solution such as microscopic nanobots that can fix your body from the inside out, figuring out how to reprogram the DNA you were born with, and exploring ways to digitize your brain based on the theory that your mind could live long after your body expires.
Read the full story at Washington Post: The Human Upgrade
“I’m not saying let’s live forever,” says Zoltan Istvan, transhumanist author, philosopher, and political candidate. “I think what we want is the choice to be able to live indefinitely. That might be 10,000 years; that might only be 170 years.”
Istvan devoted his life to transhumanism after nearly stepping on an old landmine while reporting for National Geographic channel in Vietnam’s demilitarized zone.
“I’d say the number one goal of transhumanism is trying to conquer death,” says Istvan.
Reason TV’s Zach Weissmueller interviewed Istvan about real-world life-extension technology ranging from robotic hearts to cryogenic stasis, Istvan’s plan to run for president under the banner of the Transhumanist party, the overlap between the LGBT movement and transhumanism, and the role that governments play in both aiding and impeding transhumanist goals.
We could get to the singularity in ten years says AGI pioneer Ben Goertzel, but we needed a strategy to reach this goal. Such goal can be achieve if right kind of people focus on right things. He gave some ways and examples to achieve this goal like….
Dantzig’s solution to ‘unsolvable’ statistics problems, where Dantzig’s solved a unsolvable problem juts because he thought problem was a part of assignment and he need to submit soon. In the same way of thinking can solve some of unsolvable problem in Singularity too and a positive Singularity get launched in 10 years from now.
Some of high end technology to achieve Singularity is Nanotechnology, Genome Engineering, Artificial Intelligence(AI) where AI is more like software work than hardwork work but of course very hard and two of most basic approach according to Ben Goertzel is Copy the human brain, which seems so far as it needed understanding human brain itself which may take next 10 years or Come up with something cleverer which seems to more feasible approach but also uncertain but right hit could help us to achieve singularity in next 10 years.
Ben Goertzle gave a detail prospective on this at TransVision 2006 futurist conference
Dr. José Cordeiro is a member of Nasa’s Singularity University and global think-tank The Millennium Project, and one of an increasing number of researchers encouraging everyone from schoolchildren to business leaders to think big – very big – about the future.
He said, do you want mental powers of calculation that make the most powerful supercomputer of today seem like an abacus? No problem. Do you want to beam your thoughts directly into the minds of others? Technology will provide the means to do so. It will even, Cordeiro proclaims, grant us immortality. What’s more, it may be coming sooner than many of us ever imagined.
It’s the first time you’re reading/hearing the terms like technological singularity, transhumanism, life extension, cryonics, mind uploading and artificial intelligence, then check out this list of articles. It provides great starting points for exploring each topic:
Reference : This blog is originally published by “Singularity Weblog“
The internet is rife with chatter about the transhumanist age we are entering, where radical science and technology are already changing the way we live. Everything fromrobotic hearts to personal drones to mind-reading headsets are here. The new tech coming in just a few years will touch nearly every aspect of our lives, including one of the most personal ones: sex.
Mammals use sex as a means to generate offspring, to experience pleasure, and for bonding with partners. Throughout the last few centuries, humans have embraced tools, drugs, and even surgical operations in an attempt to improve sex.
To date, the list of transhumanist-themed tools and apparatuses our species has created for sex is practically endless. Perhaps the best known one is the condom, where descriptions of their use and composition begin to appear in 16th century writings. The writings of 16th century physician Gabriele Falloppio includes one of the first documented references to condoms, and describes them as linen sheaths soaked in a chemical solution. Today, the condom is one of the leading life extension tools in the world, due to the protection it offers from disease, such as HIV.
Over 300,000 Americans underwent breast augmentation via plastic surgery, which typically aims to enhance sex appeal, in 2011. In the last century, one of the most sensationalized applications for sex is Viagra, whose name is almost as recognizableas Coca-Cola or Rolls Royce. Along with other options like Levitra and Cialis, erection drugs have helped return sexual health to millions of men (and their partners) around the world.
Today, sex—and technology for sex—is all around us, 24/7. The internet provides a continual stream of pornography, for better or worse, to millions of users everyday. AForbes article citing neuroscientist Ogi Ogas says that between July 2009 and July 2010, 13 percent of web searches were for erotic content. It’s not just computers, though. Many people routinely use their cell phones for sexting. And the sex toy industry is a multi-billion dollar business, with thousands of workers and engineers dedicated to it.
Yet, whatever has happened so far in the history of sex is not going to be nearly as exciting or bizarre as what’s coming next. Whether by drugs, technology, or surgery, the future of sex is set to explode. Look for virtual sex and foreplay to become commonplace, where partners are linked into brain wave headsets and virtual reality goggles.
Some will take it further, and use full body haptic suits—a friend of mine called it the future hump suit—to experience full sexual immersion. Virtual worlds and Second Lives will keep people experiencing sexual acts they might not feel comfortable doing in real life—all without the risk of pregnancy or STDs.
I recently was asked by my wife what I wanted for Christmas. I replied: I want an exoskeleton suit. They’re going to be all the rage soon.
Indeed, exoskeleton technology is significantly improving every year. Panasonic is getting ready to sell the first mass-produced robotic exoskeleton for just under $5,000. They are still crude, but in 5-10 years time, they are likely to make us faster runners, stronger climbers, and better athletes. I surmise an entire sporting and recreational culture will develop around them, similar to motorcycles and ATVs. Can you imagine the growing discipline of Parkour in one? Eventually, exoskeleton suits will look like the ones in the blockbuster movie Elysium starring Matt Damon.
But what about sex? Will they help? Yes! Potentially, a lot. Especially for disabled, obese, or unfit persons. Harvard is working on a soft exoskeleton suit. Someday soon, we will strap on exoskeleton suits and put ourselves in sexual positions once only possible for Bikram yoga experts—and then go at it. And we won’t be tiring very easily, either, not with the suits doing much of the work.
Almost as strange is the new internal skeletal stuff being developed, which combines structures inside your body to external artificial limbs. In a recent article forExtremeTech, engineer and neuroscientist John Hewitt writes:
In order to wield any artificial limb with full strength and confidence we are going to need to plug it in properly, so that it becomes a real part of our musculoskeletal system. Researchers at the Royal National Orthopedic hospital have now created an implant that does just that by interfacing a leg prosthesis directly to your endoskeleton.
We’ve already seen penile implants and surgical modifications of sexual organs. But this new musculosketelal technology is much more revolutionary. If scientists can connect internal human parts to external bionic parts, (and they’re already connecting robotic arms to the nervous system) then the age of the cyborg is truly here. Surely biohackers will remove body parts and limbs in an attempt to become a stronger, more agile entity.
Read full story at http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-transhumanist-future-of-sex
A critical note on transhumanist organizational structure. I am always a bit amused upon hearing other people’s concerns about transhumanism and even transhumanists themselves (depicted as influential, intimidating and even dangerous). Although many transhumanist ideas may sound disruptive and revolutionary to the average citizen, transhumanists themselves are far less the doers, but rather passive observers and theorists.
I am always a bit amused upon hearing other people’s concerns about transhumanism and even transhumanists themselves (depicted as influential, intimidating and even dangerous). Although many transhumanist ideas may sound disruptive and revolutionary to the average citizen, transhumanists themselves are far less the doers, but rather passive observers and theorists. The actual science and especially decisions – often against the very science – are done mostly by others.
A considerable majority of transhumanists seem to be “armchair transhumanists”, i.e. observers, theorists, waiting and hoping for the “singularity” to happen. So where are the transhumanist politicians, multi-billion company executives, high-level consultants and socio-economic elites?
Where are the forces busy with starting the transformation of society into a rational, meritocratic11, innovation-friendly and enlightened entity where transhumanist ideas can flourish?!
Having, among others, a professional background in organizational sociology and management I was interested in figuring the reasons for the transhumanist passivity towards external occurrences.
First of all, one striking condition of the transhumanists is their quite huge internal heterogeneity that consequently shows in external incoherence. As far as my observation concerning social movements, political parties or corporate structures goes, internal differences and quarrels are finally weakening the movement, organization or company.
On the other hand, if an organization can overcome internal differences with the goal of achieving a common goal, even small movements can become influential and inspiring to others. The environmental movement, for example, started small and has gained huge impact over time, managing to convince an increasing number of people along the way. However, indecision, fragmentation and internal opposition seems to increase the probability for decline, as according to my observation happened with the German Pirate Party, Greens and the European Union (without going into deeper analysis here).
If wanting to achieve change and transformation, a focused laser beam with the power to forge a chunk of metal is far more effective than a widely dispersed, incoherent and weak flashlight that only makes somewhat visible the surface of the object to be transformed.
Thus I wonder what is more important to the transhumanist communities (I intentionally use the plural): discussing and defending individual ideological and political views or agreeing on a smallest common denominator that sets their overarching goal apart from opponents of a transhumanist-friendly environment?
My recommendation to transhumanists is to realize that although science and technology are progressing, citizens as consumers, business as producers and politicians as lawmakers are those who are finally deciding over the degree of technological implementation and the set-up of socio-economic frameworks. If wanting to achieve something one needs to get into a position where change can be implemented or people with decicion-making power can be influenced.
But maybe transhumanists are actually not interested in getting really involved. Either out of the belief that “the singularity will happen” anyway by treating “Moore’s law’ like a law of physics – which it isn’t, or perhaps because of their ideologies that are actually standing in their way. If the first one is the case I wonder what transhumanism is more than a philosophy club. If it is because of the second reason, the case may be more interesting to assess.
Here are my views about it. In general, despite considerable differences in views especially about economics, transhumanists generally value individualism and personal liberty. Thus transhumanist communities are rather encounters of individuals that happen because people are online within an overlap of time zones. Without the internet, transhumanist exchanges would rarely happen.
This is not only due to the comparatively small size of the communities but also due to the fact that they do not seem to proactively seek the formation of a coherent organization and interest group. Most social movements benefit from digital and mobile communication, but for many of them it is rather an amplifier for effective coordination. It is difficult to lobby as a bunch of individuals who are internally arguing.
As we are not living in a transhumanist society yet, in my view it is premature to quarrel about details like the preference of uploading vs. biological immortality or potential robot rights at this point, as long as we do not have any form of useful smart robots or immortality.
Except for some small actions of life-extension communities (that also seem to be politically most active and try to get some influence), there has never been a real transhumanist demonstration, e.g. for demanding more funding for R&D, legal changes that may benefit life extension, regenerative medicine and cryonics, a separation of state and religion, scientific competence and rationality as the guiding principle of policy (as others demand it for environmental protection)?
How many transhumanists are actually seeking to convince their superiors and bosses to support transhumanist goals (at least indirectly)? How many are searching for ways to further existing developments and legal decisions accordingly?
Also because of the lacking coherence of transhumanist communities, it is difficult for individuals to take action in face of opponents who all tend to be quite well organized (e.g. religious groups, media or public technology assessment). If transhumanism is planning to become a force to be reckoned with – and really as influential as some people are concerned about – it needs people to have the “will to power”, as Nietzsche put it, “the main driving force in humans: achievement, ambition, the striving to reach the highest possible position in life”2. I find my observations interesting that seem to suggest that ironically transhumanists who are from external side often associated with Nietzschean philosophy actually seem to lack the “will to power” that other entities like businesspeople, politicians and social activists are displaying.
I admire most transhumanist’s concern with peace, social equality, personal liberty and individual rights, absence of suffering for all feeling entities and advocating responsibility for ones actions. I will certainly not criticize those traits at all – as they will make up the essence of a functioning and non-destructive transhumanist society. But still we are living in a different reality.
In this reality one needs the ability to conduct common actions by putting aside internal differences and focus on the common goals to be achieved. One needs to allow for a degree of pragmatism, forging alliances and developing “masterplans”. One needs to adapt to the current socio-political reality and rules of play to achieve something.
If you think that “the singularity” will happen regardless of ones actions, if scientific discoveries will suffice or if philosophizing about a potential human future is enough, a safe and intellectually stimulating environment may be enough. But if you think that the things you want them to be only happen through your actions, you need to put aside your differences, work together and strive for a position where your impact is likely to be greater. Therefore I am glad about the recent moves in the US of transhumanists getting into politics and recommend full backing. I hope Brussels will follow.
I find it somewhat ironic that I have learned so much from critics of transhumanism about the potential of the movement and its people. Maybe I should close with a quote from Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’: “better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both” – and transhumanism is not loved yet, so make the best out of being feared.