• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • About
  • Blog
  • Book
singularityweblog-create-the-future-logo-thumb
  • Podcast
  • Speaker
  • Contact
  • About
  • Blog
  • Book
  • Podcast
  • Speaker
  • Contact

transhuman

Cadell Last on Nietzsche, Transhumanism and Story

June 28, 2022 by Socrates

https://media.blubrry.com/singularity/feeds.soundcloud.com/stream/1295906866-singularity1on1-cadell-last.mp3

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

I have always wanted to discuss Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy and how it relates to technology and transhumanism. The problem is that a very short list of people will make me enjoy such a challenging conversation. Luckily, Dr. Cadell Last is among the top on that shortlist. I hope you enjoy our conversation as much as I did.

During our 2-hour conversation with Cadell Last, we cover a variety of interesting topics such as his early fascination for the strange phenomenon of humanity; discovering Darwin, Kurzweil, and Transhumanism; Nietzsche as the death of philosophy and the birth of psychology; the importance of primary sources when studying the great minds; Atheism and the tragedy of the death of God; Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Cadell’s philosophy course on it; mistakes and failures as a sort of reward and a source of becoming; the Overman as a clearing for any possibility; the wise men, the rabble, and freedom;  organic vs mechanical virtues; human as a bridge from the animal to the Overman; differences and similarities between the Overman and the Transhuman; ReWriting the Human Story.

My favorite quote that I will take away from this conversation with Cadell Last is:

The path of overcoming lies between identity and difference!

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.

Cadell Last’s “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” Course Preview:

You can check out and join this course here: Thus Spoke Zarathustra — Philosophy Portal

Who is Cadell Last?

Cadell Last is a philosopher with a background in anthropology and history. He is the author of Global Brain Singularity and Sex, Masculinity, God; creator of Philosophy Portal, an online academic platform dedicated to the future of philosophy in the digital age; and a YouTuber offering interpretations of thinkers in the idealist and psychoanalytic traditions. You can find out more at cadelllast.com and philosophyportal.online

Filed Under: Podcasts Tagged With: transhuman

Francesca Ferrando on Philosophical Posthumanism

January 20, 2021 by Socrates

https://media.blubrry.com/singularity/feeds.soundcloud.com/stream/969285499-singularity1on1-francesca-ferrando.mp3

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

Though admittedly posthumanist, Francesca Ferrando‘s Philosophical Posthumanism is the best book on transhumanism that I have read so far. I believe that it is a must-read for transhumanists and non-transhumanists alike. In fact, one can argue that Ferrando’s book ranks right up there with the very best not only on the transhuman, but also on the human and the posthuman. The reason for that is simple: Philosophical Posthumanism cracks open, deconstructs, and demystifies all the major historical -isms. Furthermore, it not only lays bare words such as technology but also shows us how all the puzzle pieces fit together in the historical, ideological, theological, philosophical, etymological, scientific and decidedly political realms, like nothing else that I have read before. I hope you enjoy my conversation with Dr. Ferrando and invest the time and the effort to read her book.

During this 2-hour interview with Francesca Ferrando, we cover a variety of interesting topics such as: why I believe Philosophical Posthumanism is a must-read; why the etymological and other roots of a movement matter; child sociology and social mythology; our shared love for Ancient Greek mythology; the definitions of humanism, transhumanism, and posthumanism; why post-modernism is like the Quantum Mechanics of the humanities; the false distinction between human and transhuman; why the Hedonistic Imperative is merely a new version of the White Man’s Burden; theism and techno-solutionism; Martin Heidegger and the definition, poiesis and ontological power of technology.

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 Francesca Ferrando?

Francesca Ferrando teaches Philosophy at NYU-Liberal Studies, New York University. A leading voice in the field of Posthuman Studies and founder of the Global Posthuman Network, she has been the recipient of numerous honors and recognitions, including the Sainati prize with the Acknowledgement of the President of Italy.

Ferrando has published extensively on these topics culminating with her latest book Philosophical Posthumanism (Bloomsbury 2019) and, in the history of TED talks, she was the first speaker to give a talk on the topic of the posthuman. Those are just some of the reasons why the US magazine “Origins” named Francesca Ferrando among the 100 people making a change in the world.

Filed Under: Podcasts, Profiles Tagged With: Humanism, posthuman, transhuman, transhumanism

Why I wanted to Reawaken FM-2030’s Vision of the Future for 21st Century Audiences

June 11, 2020 by Johnny Boston

2030, a film about the life (and hypothetical future) of the futurist FM-2030 is a project that my collaborators and I spent many years working to form, fund, and create. By February of 2020, when the film was finally ready to launch into the world, the year 2030, the inspiration for FM-2030’s last name, no longer seemed so far off. 2030 was the year that FM would have turned 100 – he died in 2000 of cancer, and was cryonically preserved – but for FM 2030 was a symbol of an optimistic beginning, not an end. In juxtaposition, the months after 2030’s release felt anything but optimistic, especially as the world began to self-quarantine at home due to the Coronavirus pandemic.

2030 takes place in a present-day scenario where FM is on the brink of returning to life in the 21st Century. Sometimes people who have viewed 2030 ask me why I didn’t go the route of making a traditional bio-doc about FM. Or, if I wanted to make a film set in the present, why didn’t I focus more on the futurists and Transhumanists who are alive and working today? There are two answers to that question. First, I wanted audiences to view FM and his ideas as present and palpable, not as historical artifacts. Second, to me, FM’s ideas still resonate in a deep way, in part due to their breadth, and in part due to my long personal friendship with FM the human being.

I met FM-2030 at ten-years-old, growing up as a Jewish kid in London. I felt like an outsider in at least two ways. First and most obvious, I was one of the few Jewish boys in my social circle. Second, I possessed a wild and undisciplined nature, and the London class system and norms felt incredibly stifling to me. I spent those years searching for other visions of the world. Many of the alternatives were wholly unproductive and led me into trouble, but two of them have stuck with me over a lifetime. The first was the cinema, and the second was the vision of FM-2030.

Just before meeting FM for the first time I encountered the 1930 film “All Quiet on the Western Front.” This incredible masterpiece of filmmaking made me re-evaluate my own prejudices. As a Jewish young boy living in London with a father who lost his house and nearly his mother during the blitz, it was fair to say that I wasn’t fond of Germans. The director Lewis Milestone not only brings you into the world of the young German soldiers of the film but humanizes them in such a way that the audience is right there with them. Seeing this, I knew I wanted to be involved in making films.

And it was shortly after this that I met FM. FM offered me a different lens to regard life; his lens showed a bright future a bit beyond the horizon but within reach. My very first impression of FM was not as a fantastical futurist but simply as one of the very few adults I had encountered who was willing to speak with a ten-year-old as if they were an adult. A man who seemed genuinely curious and engaged when I told him my opinions on the world, regardless of if my opinions aligned with his.

When I got myself into trouble, he tried to help offer paths forward, but without judgment, and without actually telling me precisely what I should do. And most importantly, he offered me hope that the world would evolve to be a better place. The great difference between the world of the past and the world of the future was to be humankind’s belief that we could fix our problems, the belief that nothing was fated, no institution was eternally sacred, nothing was impossible if we set ourselves to it. In short, a radical optimism.

Making 2030 was a challenge in the sense that I wanted to make a film that I thought FM would be proud to be associated with. I believe FM would have been uneasy at best with the idea of a traditional biographical film. It is not that a telling of young FM’s journey would have been uninteresting; on the contrary. FM was born into a large and wealthy Iranian family. His father was a diplomat, FM served his country in the Olympics. The revolution then changed his family’s situation dramatically. In the United States, FM first remade himself as a novelist, weaving existentialist stories. But somewhere along the way, he seemed to decide that radical optimism was a force more likely to create positive change in the world than dark tales that explored societal hypocrisies and shortcomings.

The futurist FM explored the themes of societal problems too – but by focusing on what he thought should be, as opposed to focusing so much on what should no longer be. He often said that our futures (both collectively and individually) were to be more important than our pasts.

FM was a self-described “film-buff,” but in many ways, he was displeased with storytelling in the late 20th century. Apart from cinema’s obsession with glorifying violence, there was one big trope that he wanted to change: The future was almost always portrayed as dystopian. This was doubly the case when technology was involved; if storytelling was to be believed, any revolutions in technology and culture were sure to be fatal hubris, dooming mankind for “playing-god.” FM wasn’t naive enough to believe this style of storytelling was going to go extinct — but he strongly encouraged me and others to find new stories, new tropes, new visions of the future. I was determined to make 2030 reflect that goal.

One criticism of FM that I’ve encountered, in relation to modern-day futurists, Singulatarians & Transhumanists, is that FM’s philosophy, as future-looking as it aimed to be, was still very much a product of its time. Specifically, FM and his ideas were a product of the 1960s and 1970s. And in certain respects this is true. FM’s ideas about free-love, gender-roles (or lack thereof), ethics, anti-imperialism, vegetarianism, and an egalitarian planet all dovetail nicely with the green movement and the hippies of the era. And even technologically, the extent to which FM sometimes focused on space-travel was a product of the heyday of the Space Race and Apollo program, where it seemed as if human colonization of the solar system was a simple matter of years away.

But in a way, this is precisely why I wanted to bring FM to the audiences of the 21st Century. Futurism and Transhumanism, to me, is so much more compelling when it is about more than just living indefinitely and admiring fancy technology. People sometimes debate if Transhumanism is truly a philosophy or just a set of goals and ambitions. I won’t wade into that here except to say that to me, FM himself always seemed like a philosopher. More than that, he seemed to be a human who aimed to live by his philosophy. There is no question – he deeply wanted to live forever. But he also had the audacity to question everything else about the status-quo, to try to search for a world that was radically less oppressive than our own.

My hope is for 2030 to challenge audiences not just as it relates to the specific themes of the film, but to examine their own belief systems. If we can accomplish this, we will move one step closer to the rapidly approaching 2030, which I hope will be a magical time, a time that FM would be happy to come back to.

About the Author:

Johnny-BostonJohnny Boston is a filmmaker and creative director who grew up in Europe and is now living on the East Coast. To see more of Boston’s videos please check out the Galactic Public Archives’ channel on YouTube or visit 2030thefilm.com

Filed Under: Op Ed, Profiles, Video Tagged With: FM-2030, transhuman, transhumanism

Prof. Steve Fuller on Transhumanism: Ask yourself what is human?

August 25, 2019 by Socrates

https://media.blubrry.com/singularity/feeds.soundcloud.com/stream/670734185-singularity1on1-steve-fuller.mp3

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

Prof. Steve Fuller is the author of 25 books including a trilogy relating to the idea of a ‘post-’ or ‘trans-‘ human future, and most recently, Nietzschean Meditations: Untimely Thoughts at the Dawn of the Transhuman Age. He has an incredibly broad amount of knowledge from a diversity of disciplines and I have to admit that I had a total blast interviewing him. In fact, I feel we could have easily gone for another 2 hours while still having fun. And so there is a great chance I will ask Prof. Fuller for another interview very soon indeed.

During this 2h 15 min interview with Steve Fuller we cover a variety of interesting topics such as: the social foundations of knowledge and our shared love of books; Transhumanism as a scientistic way of understanding who we are; the proactionary vs the precautionary principle; Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and the Omega Point; Julian and Aldous Huxley’s diverging takes on Transhumanism; David Pearce’s Hedonistic Imperative as a concept straight out of Brave New World; the concept and meaning of being human, transhuman and posthuman; humanity’s special place in the cosmos; my Socratic Test of (Artificial) Intelligence; Transhumanism as a materialist theology; Elon Musk, cosmism and populating Mars; de-extinction, genetics and the sociological elements of a given species; the greatest issues that humanity is facing today; AI, the Singularity and armed conflict; morphological freedom and becoming human; longevity and the Death is Wrong argument; Zoltan Istvan and the Transhumanist Wager; Transhumanism as a way of entrenching rather than transcending one’s original views…

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 Steve Fuller?

Steve Fuller is Auguste Comte Professor of Social Epistemology in the Department of Sociology at the University of Warwick, UK.

Originally trained in history, philosophy and sociology of science at Columbia, Cambridge and Pittsburgh, Fuller is best known for his foundational work in the field of ‘social epistemology’, which is the name of a quarterly journal that he founded in 1987 as well as the first of his nearly 25 books. From 2011 to 2014 he published a trilogy of books relating to the idea of a ‘post-’ or ‘trans-‘ human future, all published with Palgrave Macmillan: Humanity 2.0: What It Means to Be Human Past, Present and Future (2011), Preparing for Life in Humanity 2.0 (2012) and (with Veronika Lipinska) The Proactionary Imperative: A Foundation for Transhumanism (2014).

Prof. Fuller’s most recent books include Knowledge: The Philosophical Quest in History (Routledge 2015), The Academic Caesar (Sage 2016), Post-Truth: Knowledge as a Power Game (Anthem 2018) and most recently, Nietzschean Meditations: Untimely Thoughts at the Dawn of the Transhuman Age (Schwabe 2019). His works have been translated into around thirty languages. He was awarded a D.Litt. by the University of Warwick in 2007 for sustained lifelong contributions to scholarship. He is also a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, the UK Academy of Social Sciences, and the European Academy of Sciences and Arts.

Filed Under: Podcasts Tagged With: transhuman, transhumanism

The One God Hypothesis, a Post-Singularity Scenario

July 16, 2014 by Matt Frohlich

Word Cloud "Scenario Planning"The One God Hypothesis is a potential outcome of the technological singularity/transhumanist movement which I have devised. I have written it as a challenge to the attitude expressed by many singularitarians that technology will somehow enable us to live in a post scarcity world. If anything, it shows that scarcity and competition could potentially become more severe in a posthuman society.

In summary, the One God Hypothesis describes a paradigm in which the best course of action for each and every transhuman is to eliminate all life forms with the exception of themselves, thereby ensuring that they will be the only remaining sentient being, i.e. the ‘One God’.

The One God Hypothesis is based on three arguments. The first is that scarcity and competition are physical properties, not biological ones, meaning that scarcity and competition will still be present in a posthuman society. The second is that humans in their present state require other sentient beings to meet their needs. The third is that transhumans will not have to rely on other sentient beings to meet their needs.

1st Argument: Scarcity and Competition are Physical Properties of the Universe that Affect both Humans and Transhumans

It would seem that sentient beings require some type of substrate which houses their sentience. It would also seem that this substrate requires a supply of energy to perpetuate the sentience. For a simplified example of what I am describing, consider a human being. The brain serves as the substrate upon which consciousness arises. When energy is supplied to the brain in the proper amounts, sentience exists. When the energy supply is cut off, such as during suffocation or heavy bleeding, sentience stops.

The point I am trying to make is that sentience is dependent on two components (substrate and energy), both of which are subject to scarcity according to the laws of thermodynamics. In the case of the substrate, extropy (i.e. ‘order’, the converse of entropy) is required. The human brain is made up of a relatively simple list of necessary elements (C, H, O, N, Na, K, etc.), but unless those elements are arranged in an orderly and meaningful manner, the brain will not serve as a substrate for sentience. The 2nd law of thermodynamics dictates that extropy exists in a finite quantity and is constantly decreasing. It also dictates, in conjunction with the 1st law of thermodynamics, that all the usable energy in the universe is also a finite quantity that is constantly decreasing.

By now it should be apparent that scarcity is a property of physics, not biology. There is no reason to believe that transhumans will somehow be immune to this. Furthermore, I will try to explain in the next two arguments why competition among transhumans is a very real possibility.

2nd Argument: Humans in Their Current State Require Other Sentient Beings to Meet Their Needs

Humans are emotional beings with complex needs that require other sentient beings (primarily other humans) in order to be satisfied. Death is a constant cause of concern for humans. Historically there has not been a known cure for aging, so people have had to resort to living on through their offspring created via sexual reproduction. This in itself requires the cooperation (or at least coercion) of another sentient being as humans cannot reproduce asexually. Every human in existence began as an infant which was totally helpless and unable to survive without at least its mother.

This dependency carries on into adulthood. Very few humans have the means to survive totally independent of any other sentient beings. Those that somehow do are unlikely to reproduce and will thus not live on through their offspring. Even in this instance they are not totally independent of other sentient beings as they owe much of their survival skills to those that raised them. Nearly everybody requires some form of social interaction, even if their physical needs are being met.

3rd Argument: Transhumans will not Require the Cooperation of any Other Sentient Beings in Order to Meet Their Needs

Through hardwiring of one’s brain (or whatever substrate is used for consciousness) transhumans will have the ability to create whatever emotional state they desire without having to rely on other sentient beings. The satisfaction created through hardwiring can surpass that created through the cultivation of interpersonal relationships. Transhumans will be of sufficient intelligence where they can fool themselves into valuing these hardwired emotions as if they arose from relationships. Having their emotional needs satisfied independently, there will be no logical incentive for transhumans to rely on other transhumans. Transhumans can utilize robotics controlled through a combination of their own intelligence and artificial intelligence for the resource procurement necessary to perpetuate their own sentience. These robots will be much more likely to serve the individual’s best interests than other transhumans which are prone to selfish and irrational actions.

Transhumans will still be in a state of competition with one another as stipulated in the first argument, and their emotional and physical needs will be satisfied independently. As hardwiring will allow transhumans to achieve states of euphoria currently unfathomable by humans, it would seem that it is in their best interest to maintain this high as long as possible. And since any guilt associated with violence and murder can be hardwired out of one’s brain, one must ask what the incentive is for transhumans to allow other transhumans to live? After all, other transhumans merely represent competition for scarce resources, the consumption of which will decrease the time that can be spent maintaining their hardwired high.

The ‘One God Hypothesis’

A war could break out where all transhumans are in competition with one another to establish themselves as the last remaining sentient being, i.e. the ‘One God’, thus enabling the individual to have full access to the remaining finite resources. This could potentially be the worst war in history. Counter to hardwiring’s ability to produce unfathomable highs, it could also be used to produce new lows. Forms of torture may be invented which completely surpass that previously known by humans.

In Conclusion

The One God Hypothesis is merely speculation. I am not saying with 100% certainty that it is going to happen, just that it could potentially happen. At best it will serve as the groundwork for future discussions. Predicting the actions of supremely intelligent transhumans is very difficult to do. That is why I think it is important to lay the groundwork principles that we know, or at least strongly suspect, will define posthuman society (such as the inevitability of scarcity). Keep in mind that the limitations of the One God Hypothesis apply to all other post-singularity predictions as well, especially the idea that technology will allow us to live in a post scarcity world.

About the Author:

Matt FrohlichMatthew Frohlich is a scientific researcher who writes about subjects related to the technological singularity in his spare time.

 

 

Filed Under: Op Ed, What if? Tagged With: post scarcity, transhuman

Transhuman: Titus Nachbauer’s Short Doc on Transhumanism

November 7, 2013 by Socrates

Transhuman: Do you want to live forever? is Titus Nachbauer‘s short documentary about transhumanism.

TranshumanSynopsis: Philosopher and Swedish computational neuroscientist Anders Sandberg does not accept death as a foregone conclusion. According to him it will become possible this century to upload your mind into a computer. He is a member of a small group that calls itself the transhumanists.

Transhuman is a short documentary film by director Titus Nachbauer. It is about radical life extension, cryonics and future technology that might change the human condition. The film also features short appearances by Nick Bostrom, Natasha Vita-More and Arjen Kamphuis.

This is the full English version, a few Dutch parts have been subtitled.

Short documentary Copyright 2011 by NFTA

 

Other cool science fiction films
  • Keloid: JJ Palomo’s Gripping Robopocalypse Short Sci Fi Film
  • The Final Moments of Karl Brant: Short Sci Fi Film about Mind Uploading
  • Shelved: Robot Comedy Shows Tragedy of Robots Replaced By Humans
  • Tears of Steel: Blender Foundation’s Stunning Short Sci Fi Film
  • Stephan Zlotescu’s Sci Fi Short “True Skin” To Become A Warner Bros Full Feature
  • ROSA: an Epic Sci Fi Short Film by Jesus Orellana
  • Legacy, Ark and the 3rd Letter: The Dark, Post-Apocalyptic Sci Fi Films of Grzegorz Jonkajtys
  • Portal: No Escape (Live Action Short Sci Fi Film by Dan Trachtenberg)
  • Cost of Living: Short Sci Fi Film by Bendavid Grabinski
  • Robots of Brixton (a short film by Kibwe Tavares)
  • Somnolence: A Short Sci Fi Film by Patrick Kalyn
  • Aaron Sims’ Film Archetype: Your Memories Are Just A Glitch!
  • Ruin: A Stunning Short Sci Fi Film by Wes Ball
  • Sight [a Short Sci Fi Film]

Filed Under: Profiles, Video Tagged With: Anders Sandberg, transhuman, transhumanism

Enough Is Not Enough: The Integration of Transhumanism into Pop Culture

May 11, 2011 by wpengine

“Hi, Silimary. I didn’t expect to see you here. I thought you’d be at your feminist group. Don’t you guys meet on Saturday nights?”

“Oh hi, Thrust. I quit that group. Outgrew it. They’re determined to let outdated, defeatist mindsets rule their bodies and minds.”

“Really? That’s odd – for a group that claims to be about equality between the sexes.”

“Yes, it’s absolutely nonsensical. Would you believe everybody else in that group believes biotech a male-driven boogeyman? That’s the reason I quit.”

“Does this have something to do with the new Pink Viagra?”

“Yep. They say it’s not normal to artificially increase their libidos. I say if they want to fit into the norm, that’s their business, but they’ll be left behind. Real feminists will embrace biotechnology’s empowering benefits, because the future belongs to the empowered female. Check out this flyer I got at the Transhuman Institute of Technological Services. (T.I.T.S)”

Women – an enhanced body is a healthy body. Free cognitive enhancement with every mammary – posterior enhancement Type T or above. Get your womanly parts enhanced and reach your full potential today – don’t be a Luddite!

“So what do you think, Thrust? Pretty damn transhuman, eh?”

“Wow – that chick in the flyer – I mean that female in the flyer looks pretty damn enhanced. In a totally rational way, of course. I mean, it’s perfectly reasonable for women to make their breasts and bottoms that large. And their cognitions too, if they feel like it.”

“Yes, transhumanists support having exacting control over all bodily functions and cognitive processes. All empowered women should be enhancing themselves. Enhancement is just a natural extension of evolution. So rejecting Pink Viagra is reflexive misandry at its worst.”

“Yep. We don’t need any reflexive misandrists in the transhumanism movement.”

“I agree. That’s why I got the Pink Viagra patch. And when they come out with the Pink Viagra – producing brain implant, I’ll be the first one to have it drilled into my skull. I’ve already signed up.”

“Drilled?”

“Yes, drilled. They have to drill your skull to push the Pink Viagra-producing capsule into your brain.”

“Don’t you think that’s a bit . . .extreme?”

“Of course not. As a transhumanist, I take great pride in having 100% control over my body and my libido. There’s no way I’m going to let society dictate what I should or shouldn’t be doing with my body. I claim full ownership and full responsibility.”

“Of course. But don’t you want to wait until there’s a less invasive way to insert the Viagra? For example, I bet in a few years we’ll figure out how to manipulate our genes into instructing our bodies to produce hormonal Viagra by the bucketful.”

“If I’m not going to let society dictate my life experience, why should I let the pace of technology dictate my life experience? That would be slavery!”

“I guess you’re right.”

“Of course I’m right. And you would be a proponent of circumstantial slavery not to agree with me.”

“Well, I’m certainly against slavery of any kind.”

“Transhumanism is all about empowering individuals by giving them absolute choice and control. And T.I.T.S. is leading the new feminists by acknowledging and asserting the fact that women should be in complete control of their bodies and libidos.”

“Men too. Men should enhance their libidos to freakish – I mean ultra-healthy levels. If they want to, of course. And if I want to increase the size of my manhood to the size of my arm . . or leg, that’s my business.”

“Yes, of course. And soon libido-enhanced females – and males – will be the norm.”

“As well as males with gargantuan manparts – they’ll be the norm too, just like women with gargantuan breasts and bottoms.

“Absolutely. And if we transhumanists want to fit into the norm, that’s our business.”

About the Author:

CMStewart is a psychological horror novelist, a Singularity enthusiast, and a blogger. You can follow her on Twitter @CMStewartWrite or go check out her blog CMStewartWrite.

Filed Under: Op Ed Tagged With: transhuman, transhumanism

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • John von Neumann and the Original Vision of the Technological Singularity
  • Above the Law: Big Tech’s Bid to Block AI Oversight
  • Charles Babbage: The Forgotten Father of Computing and His Relevance to AI
  • Edsger Dijkstra and the Paradox of Complexity
  • Did the Unabomber See the Singularity Coming? Ted Kaczynski and the Dark Side of Progress

Categories

  • Articles
  • Best Of
  • Featured
  • Featured Podcasts
  • Funny
  • News
  • Op Ed
  • Podcasts
  • Profiles
  • Reviews
  • ReWriting the Human Story
  • Uncategorized
  • Video
  • What if?

Join SingularityWeblog

Over 4,000 super smart people have subscribed to my newsletter in order to:

Discover the Trends

See the full spectrum of dangers and opportunities in a future of endless possibilities.

Discover the Tools

Locate the tools and resources you need to create a better future, a better business, and a better you.

Discover the People

Identify the major change agents creating the future. Hear their dreams and their fears.

Discover Yourself

Get inspired. Give birth to your best ideas. Create the future. Live long and prosper.

singularity-logo-2

Sign up for my weekly newsletter.

Please enter your name.
Please enter a valid email address.
You must accept the Terms and Conditions.
Get Started!

Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Something went wrong. Please check your entries and try again.
  • Home
  • About
  • Start
  • Blog
  • Book
  • Podcast
  • Speaker
  • Media
  • Testimonials
  • Contact

Ethos: “Technology is the How, not the Why or What. So you can have the best possible How but if you mess up your Why or What you will do more damage than good. That is why technology is not enough.” Nikola Danaylov

Copyright © 2009-2025 Singularity Weblog. All Rights Reserved | Terms | Disclosure | Privacy Policy