Socrates

Her-An Visits Nikola Danaylov and Records A Unique Interview

by

The first time I met Omer Ozdemir was at my Conversations with the Future book reading when Omer drove more than 4 hours just so he can be there. So when he asked me to do an interview for the Turkish Her-An website I was very happy to do it, even if I was sick with the flu at that time.

Her-An is a platform that covers a wide range of popular topics including Transhumanism, Singularity, Advanced Technology, AI, AGI and Venture Capital, and Technology Investing. As Transhumanism and Singularity have evolved into the very center of all these topics, a big part of the articles and interviews in Her-An eventually revolve around Singularity and Transhumanism.

You can see the original article published in Turkish or you can watch the video produced by Omer Ozdemir, directed by Mahmut Taşdemir and edited by Akif Manisalı. Hope you enjoy watching this video as much as I enjoyed recording it because I think these questions managed to push me to go a lot further than usually. 😉

Here are the questions I was asked to reply to:

Part I:

0:13
1. When we analyze the Singularitarian camp through MIRI, FHI and SU, we see SU on one side, led by Kurzweil, and seemingly unconditionally prone to view any technological development as positive and accept them; on the other side we see FHI, lead by Bostrom who is academically
more on the traditional side, vocal about his concerns and what he perceives as problematic, but still enthusiastic about AGI; and on the third side we see MIRI that collaborates also with FHI despite the financial contributions of Peter Thiel’s circle of influence and Eliezer Yudkowsky’s intellectual leadership, both of whom have not been heard much from since 2013. Is this actually a simple matter of differences of opinion, or can this be seen as an attempt by figures like Kurzweil, Bostrom and Thiel to secure their respective positions in the new order they expect will be established as a result of Singularity?

5:09
2. What kind of impact would reciting the Ancient Greek aphorism “Know Thyself / Gnothi Seauton” attributed to Socrates, have on the mankind of our age who are continuously bombarded with information and faced with the technological developments of today? What should we understand from the concept of man “knowing himself”? We observe that in our time, the physical and biological attributes of Man are being discovered much more rapidly and in greater detail, but the same level of insight is not gained on matters related to “Man’s Soul”. Would you say this is a sort of incomplete “knowing of thyself”? What kind of consequences can “not knowing thyself” cause in the long run?

10:32
3. Your speech “Emperor Has No Clothes!” put into words what many had thought about but had not spoken out loud by that time. Were you able to get the reactions you were looking for? You had stated that you had received a response from Singularity University, Rob Nail had reached out and listened to your views. What do you think had changed during the considerable time that has passed since then?

16:06
4. Science and democracy do not always play by the same rules. Science produces clear answers based on information, whereas democracy is in a sense shaped by the opinions of the majority and contrary to science, progresses based on mutual agreement and compromise. How do you see the Singularitarian community shaping up in American democracy as a “science” community? Do you see Singularity University or similar entities shaping themselves according to the rules of an open society, or do you see them slipping into a community culture, where criticism or mutual agreement is hard to come by under the influence of men of power?

20:05
5. You present many with an invaluable source on Singularity/Transhumanism they cannot find anywhere else. Your questions delve into the very essence of many topics you cover. In regards to all those you have inspired with your work, what more would you like do for them if you had much larger resources and reach?

26:06
6. The common trait among technologists like Elon Musk, Larry Page and Peter Thiel is that they are entrepreneurs who embrace the motto “just do it”. If we were to define them, their business acumen, technologist characteristics and financial talents would be emphasized greatly. But the idea that they’re “philosophers” or “thinkers” may not come to others’ or even their minds in defining them. Nevertheless, due to their speed in business and the speed of the technologies they invest in, they can easily be placed at the center of any discussion concerning the future of science and technology (For example Google has a seperate company about almost all of the areas we have talked about Singularity/Transhumanism). What should be the conclusion we should reach from this? “Doing” seems to have taken a step in front of “thinking”. How do you evaluate this trend? Can we see these figures as “thinkers” of the new age?

Part II:
0:10
Russia has a strong academic tradition. It also has a large resource of educated individuals in information technologies, especially in software engineering. Russia is also home to Dmitry Itskov and his 2045 Initiative. Although their main target is immortality as opposed to Artificial Intelligence, how do you foresee the role of Dmitry Itskov and in general Russia in immortality and AI research?

5:48
India is a is a very fast growing market in software technologies that always has a cost advantage when compared to the rest of the world. Would you say, Indian software engineers not being allowed into the country as a result of the “travel ban” of post-Trump America, would lead to new formations in countries like India who provide vast human resources to the rest of the world?

11:31
If we take into account that America is the center for Ray Kurzweil’s Singularity vision and most of the technologies related to it, can the visa policies of the Trump presidency slow down the development of technologies leading to Singularity? In that sense, is it also possible for venture capital companies to increasingly head out of the United States?

15:41
How do you see the future of China? We have an idea of the Russian front through Dmitry Itskov’s work, and America seems to be the driving force in all matters related to Singularity, but we know comparatively little about developments in China. You interviewed Hugo de Garis, who along with Ben Goertzel are two figures who moved to China very early on, and place great importance towards the region. Can you share your opinions about China and its place on the road to Singularity?

22:29
You have interviewed many experts about Human Level AI, all of them experts in their respective fields. Has all this formed a personal prediction on your part about when Human Level AI can be achieved?

31:32
How do you see yourself as: A Singularitarian, a Transhumanist or maybe a Seeker of Truth?

The Devolution of Nikola Danaylov: Socrates In The Baboon Room

by

Socrates in the Baboon RoomThis Thursday I did an interview for the Baboon Room podcast and here is the YouTube video of my conversation with the host Correy Cottrell.

Synopsis from Correy Cottrell – the man behind the Baboon Room podcast:

Before: “This is easily the biggest interview we have ever had. Socrates from the Singularity 1 on 1 podcast has talked to literally EVERYONE in the Artifical Intelligence space.”

After: “Imagine every intellectual/philosophical rabit-hole you can around the idea of the technological singularity. We dove down just about all of em.”

Deconstructing Socrates and the Future of Singularity 1on1: Nikola Danaylov Gets Interviewed by Trevor Haldenby

by

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

Deconstructing Socrates and the Future of Singularity 1on1 Nikola Danaylov gets interviewed by Trevor HaldenbyEvery once-in-a-while, it is a good thing to do a headstand and look at the world from a different perspective. In podcasting terms that would mean putting Socrates in the hotseat and making me answer questions, rather than let me hide in asking them. And I could’t think of a person better qualified to do that than Trevor Haldenby. Trevor is one of the masterminds behind the ByoLogic BRX Virus Outbreak episode I did a couple of years ago as well as a very skilled interviewer and interactive story-teller. And so I was not surprised I had so much fun answering his questions. Hope you enjoy it too.

During our 80 min interview we cover a variety of interesting topics such as: the origin story of Singularity Symposium, Singularity Weblog and Singularity 1on1; the personal fears and lack of domain knowledge I had to overcome to begin blogging and podcasting; my thesis that “technology is not enough”; my mission to create a symposium where people can give birth to their own ideas; asking questions and the dialectical method of investigation; the importance of habits; in vitro meat and the 3 reasons why I became vegan; why I am not an early adopter of transhumanist technology; my on-going attempt to interview Elon Musk; my favorite interviews or lack thereof; what I’ve learned from interviewing Karl Schroeder;  my vision for the future of Singularity 1on1; my best and worst presentation ever; why I have chosen a long anti-TED-type format for my interviews and my current crowdfunding campaign on Konoz…

As always you can listen to or download the audio file above or scroll down and watch the video interview in full. To show your support you can write a review on iTunes, make a direct donation or become a patron on Patreon.

The Emperor Has No Clothes: Socrates Deconstructs Singularity University

by

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

Singularity University is not about the singularity and is not even a university. It is not about abundance and is not an exponential organization.

Then what is Singularity University about?!

Those are the claims I made and the questions I asked, and tried to address, during my recent presentation at a local meetup organized by Singularity University in the Netherlands. Check it out and judge for yourself.

Update: About a day and a half after this was originally published, I got a call from SU President Rob Nail and was told I made some good points as well as some bad ones, without specifying which ones are which. We agreed to begin a process where I get enlightened about my mistakes. I am always happy to do that. It may take some time but stay tuned for more. Until I see the evidence, however, my argument stands as is.

This is my very boring and very personal story. But I thought I’d tell it first so that people know what are the kind of mistakes I tend to make and therefore be in a better position to judge whether my deconstruction of Singularity University is one of those, or whether there is more to it. I recommend you save your time, skip watching this video altogether and jump right into the essence of my argument with the next one:

This is the very essence of my deconstruction of Singularity University:

 This is the consequent Q&A session:

I owe special thanks to HJ from PunkMedia.nl for recording the above videos

 

Here is the gist of my presentation The Emperor Has No Clothes: Socrates Deconstructs Singularity University

 

I will slice SU in a variety of ways. Some good and some bad. Some large and some small. Some will make sense and some may not. And some my be just totally wrong. In fact, I very much hope that they are totally wrong.

I will attempt to deconstruct Singularity University’s name, business model, strategic context, mission statement and accomplishments, organizational structure and their global plan.

 

Singularity University’s Business Model in 5 words:

 

Create scarcity to sell abundance

 

…And charge an arm and a leg for it…

Some may call this a paradox. Others can call this hypocrisy. So it is up to you really what you want to call it.

Let me explain further and to do that I need the 3 most seminal books related to Singularity University: the Singularity is Near, Abundance and Exponential Organizations. [4th SU book everyone should read is Future Crimes]

Let’s see how SU fits within the space that each of those postulates:

OK, the Singularity is Near but clearly not near enough for its own titular organization to be actually about the singularity. So, again, as Salim Ismail often says SU is not about the singularity. The question is why is it not?! What is more important than that?! If an organization where Ray Kurzweil is a chancellor, where students get a free copy of The Singularity is Near, and which has the word singularity in its name, is not really about the singularity then what organization ought to be about the singularity? And why name it Singularity in the first place? That’s like saying that chocolate fudge is not about the chocolate?

But let’s not forget. Singularity University is neither about the singularity nor a university. So that’s like saying chocolate fudge is neither about the chocolate nor about the fudge. How much sense does this make to you? I mean what is it about for gods sake?! And if it really is not about the chocolate, and not about the fudge, then, why are we calling it chocolate fudge in the first place?!

OK, enough about the singularity you may say. If it is not about the singularity, it must be about abundance, right?

Remember the business model: Create Scarcity to Sell Abundance

Well, let me give 2 examples: talk about just the most recent 2 examples – David Roberts’ OCE Discovery presentation and the most recent phone call about starting SU chapters in Canada and elsewhere…

In short, in the birthplace of abundance, scarcity rules. And it is even worse because it is not the real natural scarcity one may find but it is one that is manufactured on purpose. We have those lecture videos in abundance. We have keynotes in abundance and as Chiara and the other girl admitted we have all kinds and lots of other SU videos. But not for distribution. Now, to me that sounds more like one of the big music labels from 15 years ago. Or some of the 100-year-old book publishers. But it surely doesn’t sound like the abundance mindset of an exponential organization.

So keep in mind the business model I said: Create Scarcity to Sell Abundance

But the point here is that, despite Peter Diamandis‘ brilliant book on Abundance, Singularity University clearly does not take it seriously because it has both a scarcity mindset AND a scarcity business model.

Let’s talk about the 3rd seminal book that I believe everyone must read – Exponential Organizations:

The question is simple – is Singularity University an exponential organization?

Well, let me answer it this way: To this day I have not met one faculty member or GSP student of any year who has told me that they thought SU is an ExO. In fact, in my recent interview with Salim even he said that Singularity University is not.

So the question is how long can you sell others on the idea of ExO’s if you are clearly not one?

I already touched on the name and the books, and the discrepancy thereof. Let me talk about Singularity University’s Mission Statement now i.e. its Massively Transformative Purpose:

Positively Impacting 1 billion people within 10 years

..and, we are not even close to the 125-250 million people we should be at if it is an ExO and follows its own goal’s stated timeline.

Let’s further judge Singularity University on its own record and according to its own goal to “educate, inspire and empower leaders to apply exponential technologies to address humanity’s grand challenges”

Has it been successful?! You may say “Yes” I will say “Not so fast!”

7 years after its beginning, as far as Grand Challenges are concerned I personally fail to see a single grand challenge where Singularity University has directly been able to make a measurable difference, let alone “solving” it.

In addition, when it comes to the “educate, inspire and empower” mandate SU has had some notable success but I would like to suggest that when one takes into consideration the Singularity University resources – its location, trillion dollar network, revenue stream, human resources, sponsorship and so on – it does not have a very good ROI. [Other than in publicity.]

For example, Khan Academy and Wikipedia both have better ROI as far as “educate, inspire and empower” are concerned, with much less hype too. And they are both actually exponential organizations.

If there is one area where SU has been undoubtedly successful it is to feed its own growth, raise and/or charge more money, to hire more people and spread the hype of its own legend. What is worse, I will argue that SU is already starting to show diminishing returns to scale – i.e. as Singularity University grows each unit invested in it will bring about fewer and fewer units of the desired outcome, while the previous two examples arguably still show accelerating returns per units invested. And that is one of the major differences between an exponential and classic organization.

Here are some other problems with Singularity University i.e. major obstacles to achieving its own mission statement – some are tactical and some are strategic:

Tactical: Singularity University’s current model does not scale

In my view SU is not an exponential organization; it does not scale. The business model of bringing people to a location and educating them is a thousand years old. Flying over and doing customer specific seminars is better but is still only a marginal improvement on that. So, in short, the tactical problem is that Singularity University has embraced a closed garden, classic scarcity educational model.

So perhaps the biggest break-through will come in a tactically new business model and structure which scales well – just like the Khan Academy, Udacity, Courcera etc, are all scalable and structurally new in a way that SU is not. Now, I am not saying Singularity University should necessarily become Khan Academy, but I am saying that it cannot claim to be a 21st century organisation, and hope to scale up its impact, if it is embracing an old model and structure – as it currently is. So, instead of embracing what has existed for a millennia, SU must be brave in innovating and embracing a new type of institutional structure and business model.

For example, currently SU is a closed garden – i.e. the only way that people can learn any useful material is to join one of the paid programs and attend Singularity University. In this sense, SU is actually very much behind the curve of even “old fashioned” universities that have the courage to put their courses on-line for free. SU so far has been lacking any such courage which means it is even further behind than old-school universities: What’s the use of improving your curriculum every 3 months if only a tiny number of people paying big money will actually see it?! Is that the way to make exponential change?!

For example, I am hearing from a number of people that some faculty at SU are afraid to publish the gold mine of hundreds of videos that SU has been sitting on for years because they are afraid nobody will actually attend the paid programs afterwords. Now, do MIT, Stanford and Harvard not have the same problem?! Then why are they fearlessly publishing many of their own courses for free?! Why Tesla can open-source all of their amazing innovation and SU cannot?! What organization is more likely to go exponential?!  Whose ideas are more likely to spread?

In short, if SU wants to change the world it has to be the living example of an exponential organization that is clearly changing the world. The longer the gap between its preaching and its own self persists the more its credibility is going to diminish.

Other tactical flaws: 

Singularity University is elitist and top down – it seeks to make change from the top down via “leaders” rather than the bottom up via, for example, networks. [It is also convenient for SU that usually leaders can pay while masses of people cannot]

Singularity University has financial incentives not to change: both personally – where key SU people likely have a personal and/or financial stake at SU, but also institutionally – where SU takes a cut from incubated businesses, which is fine if its main mandate is to produce businesses and to make money. But as long as this is not its mandate then this mechanism is not optimal.

Singularity University has a paid model of education – i.e. it aims to educate but only those who have money to pay for it. And if you don’t then SU provides no help whatsoever.

Singularity University has a single model of implementation aimed at accomplishing its goal – have an idea, start a company, create a product or service to sell – so that SU can have their 5%, and you will change the world. Well, if the Internet, the WWW or Wikipedia were created in SU they would have failed miserably because none of them fits that simplistic Silicon valley monetization model. And it is hard to argue they did change the world and maybe they did it because luckily those entities didn’t embrace the SU model. This single model, however, also leads to a lack of structural diversity of the SU projects because they have to fit the one and only mold proposed as opposed to following a more natural evolution-type of an approach which leads to diverse outcomes.

Singularity University is centralized, bureaucratic and hierarchical and is becoming even more so. Naveen Jain himself told me a couple of years ago that SU is becoming such a bureaucracy that is impossible to get anything done.

Strategic Flaws: Embracing an old socio-economic paradigm.

Singularity University is not looking at creating a new socio-economic paradigm but instead takes the easy road of seeking the most comfortable way to fit in the current one.

Salim often says during his presentations that “SU is not a university and is not really about the singularity”.

I covered the first point already and gave examples of how in some ways even traditional universities are more courageous, more current and even more impact-full than SU currently dares to be. Others such as Udacity and Khan Academy are clearly more scalable. So if Singularity University is not a university then why is it running what is more-or-less an old university model?!

During exponential finance many speakers gave examples of shortsightedness and inability to focus on the longer term so why is Singularity University only focusing on the 5 to 15 years from now – at the most? Why do we not focus at least a little bit on the potential ways of how our current socio-economic capitalist paradigm is likely to change the closer we get to the singularity?!

To me capitalism is by far the best that we have so far but it is not different from other economic systems – it was born during the industrial revolution and is rather likely to die in our lifetime – before or around the singularity. This is what evolution is all about – nothing stays forever, nothing is ever perfect but is always changing and evolving. Thus it only makes sense that capitalism as we know it will also have to at least change or potentially even go extinct.

I am not saying Singularity University should not make money or not embrace capitalist models. It absolutely should. But it should not be limited only to those. And it seems to me that currently SU is a classically structured organization with a corporate model focused on selling, making money, spreading the Silicon Valley capitalist gospel and riding the exponential wave as much as possible rather than being the living example of creative innovation – be it structurally – as a new kind of institution, or strategically – as one focused on fundamentally different strategic goals than anyone else.

And so the main implication of all of the above is that Singularity University is not structured to actually address its own mandate. If SU wants to change the world it has to naturally start with itself and be the living embodiment of the change it seeks to spread. And this is much different from being “a benefit corporation” or whatever other legalese non-sense it currently is.

[This point was skipped due to shortage of time:]

The Singularity University Global Plan revolves around 3 elements chapters, salons and competitions.

We have videos but we are not allowed to distribute them. If you want a local speaker it has to be approved by SU headquarters AND you have to apply for licence. Think about this: are exponential organizations those who need to issue a license to have a saloon? Or are they the ones where decentralization rules?

Tightly regulated branding. Everyone in the chapters participates as a volunteer but only past graduates can be chapter leaders. Which, of course means, just like if you are a scientologist for example, that you have to pay to climb the organizational latter. Chapters must be non-profit. But they secure sponsors and run events and competitions. Roman Catholic Church is also non-profit. But all the profit, the control, the power, branding and the credit flows to the center. While all the work is, of course, done by the periphery.

“Bringing Singularity University to this place and bring SU to that place.” So SU has become the mission. Where as I thought that the mission is to improve the life of a billion people and SU is hopefully the best means to achieve that. But that is what happens to all beurocracies – their first rule is self-perpetuation and self-preservation. Roman Catholic Church done the Silicon Valley Way. With scaled franchising and all.

Singularity University is like the Catholic Church – everything material etc flows to the center and is controlled by it. More and more tightly than ever.

It is like SU is saying: The emperor is dead long live the emperor — the gatekeepers are gone so let all old gatekeepers come to SU because we are the gatekeeper of exponential technology and the Gods of disruption. And so again, in essence, it is the same old cry “the Emperor is dead long live the emperor.” My cry here tonight is rather different: “The emperor is dead. SU has no clothes. The hell with the monarchy. Long live the republic.”

At any rate, time is advancing so let me finish here with Peter Diamandis’ brilliant 6 D’s of Exponentials:

Digitalized – it is absolutely not digitized. That’s why a small-time amateur blogger like me can have more traffic on my YouTube channel than Singularity University.

Deceptive – yes it is deceptive, it sells exponential i.e. it sells something it does not have in the first place. How can you sell exponential org if you are not one?

Disruptive – Yes, it is very disruptive but mostly to people’s and organizations’ bank accounts. Started by charging around $100,000 went through $200,000 and, most recently from 1/4 to 1/2 of 1 million dollars per event. Clearly it will reach a billion dollars way before reaching a billion people. And will disrupt the balance of a number of bank accounts no doubt. Started not for profit and now it’s somewhat half way but the reality is that it is totally for profit if you actually watch what’s being done.

Furthermore, how disruptive and exponential can be a few middle-aged people who fly first class and ask for half a million to do a two day event?!  Revolutions are made by the young and the poor… I can think of a few people whose middle name is disruption and they don’t fly in first class and don’t make the big money. The people who do are business people. People who disrupt, well they just go around and disrupt… its’ what they do, whether they are getting paid or not.

Dematerialized – Singularity University is geographically clustered, based on in-person learning and funded by an artificial scarcity based business model.

Demonetized – it is the exact opposite of that. It is very monetized and trying to be even more so all the time by raising its prices and creating artificial scarcity.

Democratized or Decentralized – Singularity University is neither. It is a classic top down pyramidal structure. So there is nothing fundamentally new, democratized or decentralized about it.

And so I find it be a great irony of exponentials that 7 years later Singularity University is none of those things either.

Conclusion:

As I said in the beginning of my talk today: The Emperor has No Clothes.

Our emperor has no clothes my friends.

Singularity University is not about the singularity. SU is not a about abundance. SU is not an exponential organization. And the exponential irony is that SU charges enormous amounts of money by going to all kinds of organizations that are none of those things themselves and asks them:

Do you know about the Singularity? Do you know about abundance? Do you know about exponential organizations?

And then tells them that they should listen if they want to survive.

And of course, this is what I just did. And so I do hope that SU has a big fat check for me today – and I am happy with only $100,000 because I am giving them the warning they love and get paid to give to others. Which is simply this:

Disrupt yourself or be disrupted. Lead by example and from the front. Seek to monetize abundance, rather than scarcity. Put the mission before the organization. Live your message. Do these and you will reach your goals. Fail to do so and you will fail as an organization.

So, if Singularity University is not about the singularity, not about abundance and is not an exponential organization then the natural question is, of course:

What is SU all about?!

Well, humor me with this absolutely crazy and totally outlandish hypothesis:

Singularity University is a child of silicon valley. And silicon valley is about one thing: start a business, build it up and sell it. In other words Silicon Valley is about IPO’s. It is about taking companies public. And, the strategic drift that I have been getting based on all the observable changes and what’s been happening for the past few years is that Singularity University follows that mold and is being built up and groomed with the idea to eventually be sold to someone like Google, for example.

So, ultimately, Singularity University is about selling to the highest bidder. Most likely Google.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with that. But that is a fundamentally different purpose than impacting the life of a billion people.

And so where does all of this leave us?!

I honestly have not a clue. But I do know that when the Singularity Hub never called me back to become a staff writer for them that was like winning the lottery because I will not be here tonight if I they had called. Because it would have not occurred to me that I can do it on my own. I also know that while I do love Singularity University SU does not have a monopoly over exponential technology, disruption or the future of humanity. So while it is great to have a strong organization it is even better if we have more than one. We need many, many Singularity Universities. That is why for example when people are sometimes surprised that I allow other tech bloggers and podcasters to post on my blog, link to their sites and quote “steal my audience”, I reply that it is totally awesome. Because I believe in the mission more than I believe in my own organization. Because I believe we need many, many singularity universities, singularity blogs and singularity podcasts. And because I believe in abundance.

And so I plan to keep doing what I do best. Even if, at times, that comes at a high price. And I think that now you may have a better idea as to what that might look like. But in the end of the day I am not here to be right. And I am not here to make money. Unless, of course, Yuri has my $100,000 check somewhere there. I am here to start a conversation. I am here to tell you that our Emperor has no clothes and it is our responsibility to say it loud and clear.

And so, in that sense, I admit that I am here to make a ruckus.

But the rest is up to you.

And so, as always, the question is:

What are YOU going to do?!

Thank you very much for your time!

My Journey to Singularity and Beyond: An Evening Symposium with Socrates in Rotterdam

by

Nikola DanaylovOn November 17, 2015 Singularity University Netherlands is organizing a 3 hour evening symposium with me where I will share my personal story of leaving Bulgaria, attending Singularity University and becoming the biggest independent blogger and podcaster on topics such as the singularity, AI and transhumanism.

In addition, I will share my philosophy on blogging and podcasting, the importance of ethics and some of the personal lessons I have learned along my journey. Finally, true to my Socrates moniker, I will engage into some provocative deconstruction:

Derrida said that “deconstruction is about cracking nuts” and, since the two juiciest nuts in our community are the technological singularity in general and Singularity University in particular, those are the nuts I will attempt to crack. You be the judge of how that turns out…

I am told that the hall will be able to fit about 300 people or so and we already have 200 registered. So if you want to come join us then register for free now: http://www.meetup.com/Singularity-University-NL/events/226627815/

Nikola Danaylov on Review the Future Podcast: What Do Experts Think About the Singularity?

by

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

 

A few weeks ago I got interviewed on Review the Future podcast. Co-hosts Ted Kupper and Jon Perry did a great job in putting me on the spot and I enjoyed talking to them very much. So, if for once you are  interested in having me as “the man with the answers” then check out their synopsis below and listen to the audio interview above:

In today’s podcast we are joined by Nikola Danaylov, host of the popular Singularity 1 on 1 podcast, and a man who has interviewed 170 experts about singularity related topics. After establishing the meaning of the term singularity, we discuss the wide range of opinions held by thinkers in the field. We learn that although there is no single consensus. there are some clusterings of opinion, a few of which fall upon disciplinary lines. Nikola reveals that after doing his show for five years, he is less convinced the singularity will happen then he used to be. After walking through the various routes that could get us to a singularity, we discuss the validity of accelerating returns and the need for diversity in the future. Finally, we conclude by considering the current state of the futurist community.

Why I Call Myself Socrates

by

socrates-drawing

My name is Nikola Danaylov and I am the one who dares to call himself Socrates.

This is not an alias I have deliberately or consciously chosen myself.

Nor is it one I have always embraced because it rarely serves me well.

For as long as I can remember I have been referred to as a black-sheep; a contrarian; a misfit; an opposition; a nail that sticks out [and ends up getting hammered]; a problem-man; a man who’s always questioning; an unreasonable man; a do-it-my-way kind of a weirdo; a stubborn mule who enjoys the thorns and the whip more than going peacefully along the beaten path; a can’t-go-with-the-main-stream and can’t-fit-well-in-any-group type of a guy.

A natural outsider and/or an outcast.

A gadfly.

Being this way is not something I necessarily chose or always enjoy. But rather who I’ve always been. Even when I’ve tried my best to fit the standard mold and tow the established line I have always ended up failing and on the other side, often worse off than if I’ve simply started there.

It is why I’ve made mistakes. [And hopefully gotten to learn from them.]

It is why I’ve had people notice and remember me both in a good and a bad way since kindergarten; why I barely made it through high school; why I was sent to a punishment unit when I was in the Army; why my university record had not only exceptionally good but also a couple of exceptionally bad grades as well; why I did not pursue a PhD; why I failed to find a job after my Master’s Degree and why I am largely unemployable today.

It is also why I started Singularity Weblog and why I have not given up on it after giving it everything I’ve got for 15 years and trying to do it my way, yet again.

It is why so far I’ve failed [or refused] to monetize my blog and my podcast in the usual ways – by advertising, a freemium model, a paywall, a teaching fee, a corporate sponsor, a membership site, or by simply selling it to the highest bidder.

Why I’ve turned down several blog sponsorships, partnerships, acquisitions, and TV-show concepts.

I am in love with learning and yet somehow I seem to have refused to learn the most basic and fundamental lessons that wiser and more successful people have tried to impart to me all my life.

I am not sure if I am more stubborn or more stupid. Either way, it is who I am: an imperfect human being bent on staying true to himself. [And willing to look bad, be broke, or become unpopular, if that be the price.]

And so I don’t plan to become someone different: it is not someone else I want to be and, in all likelihood, it is not someone else I really can be.

Rather, I’d like to be just more of who I am – just a little better version of myself. Every day.

And that is why I have embraced the Socrates moniker – it reminds me of who I hopefully am and who I aspire to be. [As well as the level of steadfast commitment I have to possess and the price I have to be prepared to pay for daring to be one.]

Socrates was the one person I know of who fits perfectly pretty much all the adjectives and personal descriptions I have been called all my life.

Socrates was also the one who refused to become a “sophist” – or a prostitutor of wisdom as he called them. Instead he eked a living from the generosity of his followers just as I have largely been fortunate to do so far.

Socrates is who I was born to be and who I am.

Socrates is who I want to and have chosen to be!

And so I will be. Hopefully not only for me but also for you…

Peering into Our Future’s Black Hole: AI, Transhumanism and the End of Humanity

by

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

These are the videos of my presentation at the 2014 Podcamp Toronto.

This year I decided that it is best not to speak about podcasting but rather focus on issues familiar to readers of Singularity Weblog – artificial intelligence, transhumanism, and the technological singularity.

The session was intended to provide a brief introduction of the issues and to engage a broader audience of people who are generally not familiar with the topic.

Nikola Danaylov

You can listen to and/or download the complete audio file above, or see my 33 min presentation, followed by a 50min Question and Answer session. (If you want to help me produce more high-quality episodes like this one please make a donation!)

As always, feel free to provide your comments and constructive criticism.

Thanks again to everyone who used social media to vote for, support and spread the word for it!

 

Peering into Our Future’s Black Hole: AI, Transhumanism and the End of Humanity:

Q&A Session:

 

Peering into Our Future’s Black Hole: AI, Transhumanism and the End of Humanity (full text)

One of my favorite proverbs is a Chinese one, and it goes like this: “Seek not to know the answers but to understand the questions!”

And so, when we are confronted with an issue, one of the best things that we can start with is ask ourselves: “What is the question I should be asking?!”

Because the type and quality of the question we begin with will ultimately determine the type and quality of the answer we are going to get.

And so today I will speak to you about the importance of asking questions.

There are many questions that I will bring to your attention today but perhaps the most important one that we will have to face both as a civilization and as individuals is one of the oldest questions that has been around for thousands of years and we have still failed to find an answer that satisfies the majority of us.

The question is this – “What is human?”

And so, this presentation will not be about podcasting.

Last year my presentation was about the 15 most fundamental tips that I could give you for starting and eventually becoming a successful podcaster. I shared how I passed over 500k views and got to live for 10 weeks in NASA’s Ames Campus in Mountain View, California.

How I got to meet many amazing people such as Ray Kurzweil, Peter Diamandis, astronaut Dan Barry, and visit cutting-edge companies such as Google, Facebook, and Tesla.

This year I could have told you how my Singularity 1 on 1 podcast passed 1 million downloads. But the principles that I used and continue to use to this day are the same. So going from half a million in 3 or 4 years and then doubling to over 1 million in 12 months required nothing more than some momentum, that I have gathered the years before, and the application of the very same fundamentals.

So, let me say this again, this presentation will not be about podcasting.

If you do want to find my tips and hear my personal podcasting story you can go to SingularityWeblog.com and search for Podcamp Toronto. Then you will find the video, the audio and the text of last year’s presentation.

As you can see – my friend Josh from JoshGloverPhotography.com is recording today’s session so you don’t need to take notes but just sit down, relax and enjoy. Give me a week or so and I will publish both the full text and the video on SingularityWeblog.com.

Finally, feel free to also come up with questions because I will leave time for a brief Q&A at the end.

You see, I believe that asking good questions is one of the most important and most fundamental skills that any intelligent being can acquire. And so, while I did say that this will not be about podcasting, let me give you a couple of tips on the questions you should be asking when reading session descriptions at Podcamp Toronto.

Q1: How qualified is the person holding the session?

You see, Podcamp Toronto is a fantastic open unconference. This is both a good and a bad thing. It is good because, given its low barrier to entry, anyone can take the stand and hold a session. So, I don’t care who you are, what you do, or what your topic is, you are given an amazing opportunity to contribute to the public discourse on a topic of your choice.

The bad thing is that again – given its low barrier to entry, anyone can hold a session. And thus in past years, the quality of those sessions has varied widely: from mind-blowing professional to dismal.

This year, we had a new social media voting system implemented. And while it was not perfect it was a great step forward. And so I expect that this will be the very best Podcamp Toronto as of yet.

Still, it helps to ask yourself: How qualified is the person holding the session?

So, my tip is this: if you have someone who will be talking about blogging – go and check out their blog. So, from the getgo, unless your name is Seth Godin, if you see a blog hosted on a wholesale domain platform such as Blogger, Typepad or WordPress.com, then that person likely has no clue about blogging. Other signs confirming that conclusion include, but are not limited to, low or no social sharing, low or no comments, lack of unique branding and design…

Q2: What is the metrics and how accurate is it in measuring their expertise?

If the person is talking about YouTube and/or video-production – go check out their channel and look at their videos. If you see only low-quality videos with no or low traffic, without any comments and so on, you may be better off going to another session.

If the person claims to be a social media guru go look at their social media count of their Podcamp Toronto session. If there is no or only one tweet – most likely their own, don’t bother wasting your time.

Last year someone was giving tips on blogging. And they said that they had 30k hits for the past 5 years.

My tip here is to be skeptical, ask questions and dig deeper!

So, let’s take this example. First of all, what is a hit? In most cases, a hit is either a page view or a visit. So, if I go load up my own blog on my own computer this will give me one hit. If I click the refresh button this will give me usually two hits. And so on. Thus, just one among several better ways to estimate traffic will be for example – unique visitors per month, rather than hits. This way, you get a more accurate estimate of the audience size and the blogger’s authority.

So, let’s do the math with the example I just gave: 30k divided by 5 years of blogging will give you roughly 17 hits per day. Since this is not unique visitors but hits, one can get 17 of those per day very easily just with the help of a couple of friends.

Therefore, I dare claim that you are wasting your time “learning” from such a popular blogger.

And so, to recap: today’s tip for podcasting as well as most other things in life is:

“Be skeptical, ask questions, measure and dig deeper!”

OK, let’s move to the main reason we are here today.

Peering into Our Future’s Black Hole: Artificial Intelligence, Transhumanism and the End of Humanity

In my session description I promised to share my answers to 5 questions:

1. What are the most important technological trends shaping our civilization?
2. What is the technological singularity?
3. What is transhumanism?
4. Can science really make us immortal?
5. Why humanity is doomed to go the way of the dinosaurs?

Let’s not waste any time but jump into tackling the questions in order:

1. What are the most important technological trends?

Since we can spend a whole day discussing those trends here but only have 45 minutes to so and I am planning to cover the other 4 questions too, I would focus on giving you what I believe is by far the most important one:

Exponential growth!

This is also the easiest and the hardest trend to grasp.

It is easy because unless you have been living in a cave somewhere for the past 50 years, you already know that the world is changing faster than ever before. Not only that but the change that we can clearly see is speeding up and accelerating in its own right. I believe that this is more or less obvious and easy to see for everyone here.

But exponential growth is very hard to grasp because our brains have evolved to make linear rather than exponential projections.

And so to help us grasp it better let me use an ancient Indian chess legend as an example.

The legend goes that the tradition of serving Paal Paysam – or what I understand is rice pudding, to visiting pilgrims started after a game of chess between the local king and the Lord Krishna himself.

The king was a big chess enthusiast and had the habit of challenging wise visitors to a game of chess. One day a traveling guru was challenged by the king. To motivate his opponent the king offered any reward that the sage could name. The sage modestly asked just for a few grains of rice in the following manner: the king was to put a single grain of rice on the first chess square and double it on every consequent one.

Having lost the game and being a man of his word the king ordered a bag of rice to be brought to the chess board. Then he started placing rice grains according to the arrangement: 1 grain on the first square, 2 on the second, 4 on the third, 8 on the fourth and so on:

Following the exponential growth of the rice payment, the king quickly realized that he was unable to fulfill his promise because on the twentieth square the king would have had to put 1,000,000 grains of rice. On the fortieth square, the king would have had to put 1,000,000,000 grains of rice. And, finally, on the sixty-fourth square, the king would have had to put more than 18,000,000,000,000,000,000 grains of rice which is equal to about 210 billion tons and is allegedly sufficient to cover the whole territory of India with a meter thick layer of rice. At ten grains of rice per square inch, the above amount requires rice fields covering twice the surface area of the Earth, oceans included.

It was at that point that Lord Krishna revealed his true identity to the king and told him that he doesn’t have to pay the debt immediately but can do so over time. That is why to this day visiting pilgrims are still feasting on Paal Paysam and the king’s debt to Lord Krishna is still being repaid.

Now, I hope you agree with me that this is an interesting and powerful story that helps us understand exponentials. But some of you may point out that it is a myth; a legend; it’s not real.

Well, let us look at the best-known example of exponential growth from the world of technology – Moore’s Law:

Moore’s law is named after Gordon Moore – co-founder of Intel Corporation.

It was published in 1965 and simply put it states that the number of transistors that can be placed on an integrated circuit for the same price will double every 18 to 24 months.

And we all know that already, right? We know that computers are obsolete the moment you buy them and that the next computer will be at least twice faster. But today everything is a computer. Your phone, your tablet, your camera, your car, even your toothbrush. And so we all have come to expect that the next generation of almost any product we buy is at least twice better than the previous generation.

And so, in a universe going digital where everything becomes information we are increasingly able to manipulate and mold that information. Thus, as far as the digital universe is concerned we are Gods. We can do whatever we want. But we have to remember that what used to be material is now digital. Take books and music records – they used to be material objects but now they have dematerialized and gone digital. The thing is that this is only the beginning. Everything is becoming information today.

Take biology, biology used to be analog but with the decoding of the human genome it is quickly going digital and now we can decipher and even 3D print biological tissues, even organs by design. And this is only the very beginning. We are well on the way of designing life on the computer screen and then pressing the print button to bring it to live.

And so, as Stuart Brand says we have become Gods and we might as well get used to it.

We, humans, are biological creatures. We are made of atoms. So more powerful computers allow us to learn and manipulate smaller and smaller particles in ever more precise ways. Thus there will be a day when we can create new bodies and even new brains. But I will talk more about that later.

Other major fields benefiting immensely from exponential growth include, but are not limited to, robotics and artificial intelligence; genetic engineering and synthetic biology; nanotechnology and 3D printing.

And so, all of the above has often been described by futurists such as Ray Kurzweil and Vernor Vinge who believe that exponential growth trends such as Moore’s Law will eventually lead to a Technological Singularity.

2. What is the technological singularity?

The term singularity has many meanings:

In simple language, it means the state of being singular, distinct, peculiar, uncommon or unusual.

In mathematics, it means a problem with an undefined answer – e.g. 5 divided by 0?

In physics a singularity is a black hole – a place where the fabric of time and space is ruptured and the laws of the universe don’t seem to hold true anymore.

And so we borrow this metaphor from physics to represent the accelerating changes that we can observe in technology.

And so, if I am to put the technological singularity in just two words I would say that it is “intelligence explosion”.

But there are numerous schools of thought on the definition, with subtle but important differences.

So, now that we heard the short version, let me throw a bunch of quotes at you to make things interesting:

“the ever accelerating progress of technology … gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.” John von Neumann

“Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an “intelligence explosion,” and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make.”

I.J. Good

“Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended. […] I think it’s fair to call this event a singularity. It is a point where our models must be discarded and a new reality rules. As we move closer and closer to this point, it will loom vaster and vaster over human affairs till the notion becomes a commonplace. Yet when it finally happens it may still be a great surprise and a greater unknown.” Vernor Vinge in a classic NASA paper from 1993

“… a future period during which the pace of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human life will be irreversibly transformed. Although neither utopian nor dystopian, this epoch will transform the concepts that we rely on to give meaning to our lives, from our business models to the cycle of human life, including death itself.” Ray Kurzweil

Kevin Kelly, senior maverick and co-founder of Wired Magazine

“Singularity is the point at which all the change in the last million years will be superseded by the change in the next five minutes.”

Sean Arnott: “The technological singularity is when our creations surpass us in our understanding of them vs their understanding of us, rendering us obsolete in the process.”

So what happens to us when we stop being the smartest entities on the planet?

What happens when your toothbrush is smarter not only than you and me but smarter than all of us, all of humanity?

While we are pondering this issue let us move on to the next question I promised to address:

3. What is Transhumanism?

Transhumanism is both misunderstood and feared. Francis Fukuyama famously called it “the most dangerous idea.”

Put simply Transhumanism is the belief that technology can allow us to improve, enhance and overcome the limits of our biology.

More specifically, transhumanists such as Max More, Natasha Vita-More and Ray Kurzweil believe that by merging man and machine via biotechnology, molecular nanotechnologies, and artificial intelligence, one day science will yield humans that have increased cognitive abilities, are physically stronger, emotionally more stable and have indefinite life-spans.

This path, they say, will eventually lead to “posthuman” intelligent (augmented) beings far superior to man – a near embodiment of god.

Some of the main issues here are:

Can humanity continue to survive and prosper by embracing technology or will technology eventually bring forth the end of the human race altogether?

Will humanity get polarized into neo-Ludditetechnophobes and transhumanist technophiles?

Does that mean that wide spread global conflict may be impossible to avoid?

Who will be the dominant species?

What is the essence of being human?

4. Can science make us immortal?

Let me ask another question – What is death?

The definition of death may not be so simple and obvious as you may think. In fact, as our knowledge and technology improve, the definition of death shifts.

And so, in a way, death is just another way of somebody – usually a doctor – “I can’t do anything else for her!” But what we can or can’t do has changed over time. And thus the definition of death has changed too.

It used to be the case that death was declared when one stopped breathing on their own. But today we have respirators that can keep us alive even if we are unable to do that on our own.

It used to be the case that death was declared when one stopped having a pulse i.e. perceivable heart rate. But today we routinely stop heart beating during surgery.

And so one of the latest ways to measure and/or define death is measuring brain activity. As our knowledge and technology improve, in time this is also likely to change.

And so can science make us immortal?

Let me start addressing this issue by saying that science has made substantial progress with respect to ageing and life expectancy.

And so a brief historical survey of longevity throughout the ages will read like this:

Cro-Magnon Era: 18 years
Ancient Egypt: 25 years
Ancient Greece: 28 years
1400 Europe: 30 years
1800 Europe and USA: 37 years
1900 USA: 48 years

And so when around 1900 social security was introduced at 65 it was simply because most Americans never actually made it to 65. Thus it didn’t cost that much to introduce the program.

The problem is that today we are victims of our own success because almost everybody makes it over 65 today.

2002 United States: 78 years

A child born today is expected to live over 93 and right now every 1 year our life expectancy improves by 3 months.

There will be a point when every year our life expectancy will improve by another year: this is what Dr. Aubrey de Grey calls Longevity Escape Velocity.

In simple words that means that we will be able to prolong life indefinitely.

5. Why humanity is doomed to go the way of the dinosaurs?

We are often told that humanity is the pinnacle of evolution. But it is not hard to see that we are a beta product. We have numerous problems and we are far from perfect. In fact, what has allowed us to survive and prosper is our intelligence which has given birth to our technology. Strip away all of our technology and the vast majority of us will not survive.

Moreover, evolution never stops. So, there was a time when dinosaurs ruled the Earth. But as it is always bound to happen – things change. And what was previously a niche organism – namely mammals, took over and flourished, while dinosaurs when extinct.

Well, evolution is also accelerating. It took perhaps 10 billion years to form the galaxies and our planet. It took another couple billion years before we had the first simple single cellular life. Then it took hundreds of millions of years to get plants and eventually dinosaurs. Hominoids have been around for perhaps something like 6 millions years and then homo sapiens has been around between 50 and perhaps 200 thousand years.

And so everything is accelerating. But also everything is changing. And today the fastest pace of evolution is the one we can observe in technology. Thus technology is supplanting biological evolution and technological creatures are likely to replace biological ones just like mammals replaced the dinosaurs.

In fact, this has already happened because our civilization is a technological one and it cannot survive without its technology.

And so I hope that by now you would agree that in the long run it is inevitable that humanity as we know it, is doomed to go the way of the dinosaur. As we saw, evolution doesn’t stop and, despite of what we are being told, we are not unique in any way. And just like all species before us Homo Sapiens will eventually go extinct.

However, this does not have to be necessarily bad news. For as long as humanity evolves and there is continuity between what we are today and what we have to become to survive and prosper, there is hope. In fact, this as Ray Kurzweil claims is the very essence of what makes us human – our ability to evolve and transcend.

And so this is the choice: evolve and transcend our biological limitations or go extinct.

This choice is in turn, derived from one of the most fundamental questions we still have to confront – both collectively as a civilization, and personally – as individuals.

“What is human?”

This session was not meant to provide definitive answers, but rather, to set the stage and ask some questions in an attempt to generate discussion, to provoke thought and to stir the imagination. My goal is to spark a conversation about the impact of technology, exponential growth and artificial intelligence.

My name is Nikola, my blog is SingularityWeblog.com and my blogging alias is Socrates.

Today I have tried to share with you my journey to discover who I am as a being, who we are as a species and most of all how does technology change the meaning of both the above questions and answers.

And now I would like to invite you to join me in this journey and start asking your own questions:

So let us open the Q&A session and thank you very much for your time!

Related articles

Without You There Will Be No Singularity Weblog!

by

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

Singulati15333852Today I just want to take a minute and say “Thank You!”

Thank you, because without you there will be no Singularity Weblog.

Thank you, because without you there will be no Singularity 1on1.

Thank you, because without you I can call myself neither a blogger nor a podcaster.

Thank you, because, without your support, comments, and criticisms, I would have neither the means nor the motivation to continue doing my work.

Thank you for giving me a reason and always being there for me.

Thank you!

 

Socrates Gets Interviewed on the Futurology Podcast

by

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

A few weeks ago I got interviewed on the Futurology Podcast.

During my one hour conversation with show host Jason Peffley we discuss a number of topics such as: how I got to do blogging and podcasting; my time and take on Singularity University in particular and education in general; the wait-and-see vs the proactive approach to the future; the definition of the technological singularity; slow vs hard take-off scenarios; whether I am a futurist or not; my favorite singularity books; the political and economic reality in the US; why life extension technology is so exciting; why I hate Prometheus; pessimism vs optimism…

Here is the original podcast description written by Jason Peffley:

“Instead of running through the top 5 links, this episode is dedicated to interviewing Nikola Danaylov. His site (singularityweblog.com) is periodically discussed here and his podcast has featured some of the biggest names in technology.  Nikola has also studied at the Singularity University.  He now makes his living by blogging, podcasting, and attending singularity related events around the world.”

 

Related articles

Socrates on the Wow Signal Podcast: Be Unreasonable!

by

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

I know how hard it is start a podcast. So when budding podcasters ask me for an interview, I am always looking for reasons to say “Yes.”

This is a re-post of my month-old interview for the Wow Signal Podcast recently started by Paul Carr. Since this is only the 3rd episode ever, the recording is still a bit rough around the edges. Never-the-less, I enjoyed talking to Paul and you might enjoy listening to it too.

During our conversation with Carr we cover a variety of topics such as: transhumanism and the technological singularity; hard and slow take-offs and why I bet on the latter rather than the former; mind uploading and the two major criticisms thereof; pro-sports, performance enhancing drugs, Lance Armstrong and regulation; the Fermi paradox, our civilization’s chance of surviving and colonizing the universe…

I end up the interview with one of my favorite quotes of all time:

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

Geroge Bernard Shaw, “Maxims for Revolutionists,” Man and Superman, 1903

And so that is why I say: Go, be unreasonable!!!

 

P.S. My comments about Lance Armstrong were made a few weeks before his Oprah interview, and during a period when Lance was still vehemently denying any doping whatsoever.

Related articles

Lincoln Cannon: Are Science and Religion Mutually Exclusive or Complimentary?

by

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

Lincoln Cannon is not only a software engineer with degrees in philosophy and business but also the president of the Mormon Transhumanist Association.

In my first interview with him, we talked about the compatibility between Mormonism and Transhumanism. In this special edition of Singularity 1 on 1, we debate whether science and religion are mutually exclusive – as I believe, or complementary – as Cannon argues that they are.

So, check out our friendly discussion and judge for yourself but don’t be shy to let me know what you think.

As always you can listen to or download the audio file above or scroll down and watch the video interview in full. To show your support you can write a review on iTunes, make a direct donation, or become a patron on Patreon.

 

Who is Lincoln Cannon?

Lincoln Cannon is a philosopher and programmer, promoting change toward radical flourishing in creativity and compassion through technology and religion. He has over fifteen years of professional experience as a software engineer, Internet marketer, information technologist, and leader of technical teams in the development and integration of web, mobile and management information systems. Lincoln holds degrees in business administration and philosophy. He is married to Dorothée Vankrieckenge, a French national, and is father to three bilingual children. In his spare time, Lincoln serves as president of the Mormon Transhumanist Association.

Related articles