transhumanism

Who are the Heroes of Transhumanism?

by

Transhumanists identify scientists and theorists that have been especially important to the development of the movement. Among these are Charles Darwin, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Richard Feynman. But could we identify hero figures that have done the same? And, what is the relationship between Transhumanism and heroism?

I came to this question after learning of Australia’s recognition of Julian Assange as a heroic figure, awarding him the Australian Peace Prize for “exceptional courage in pursuit of human rights.” Assange is a live, modern day Prometheus figure, thought to have ‘stolen fire from the Gods.’ By demonstrating computer security weaknesses in bureaucratic systems, he stole the presupposition of secrecy, and hence power, from government authorities; an act, most unanimously considered ‘heroic’ by hacking communities.

Arguably, Assange’s goals are consistent with, but not a major component of Transhumanist goals more generally. Could there be a heroic act that would be more authentically, and formally Transhumanist? And if so, what would it be?

In some ways, the need for a hero figure in the pursuit of Transhumanist goals does not seem pressing, given that many Transhumanist ends await further technological development. There is little sense of urgency in the present community to seek immediate legislative reform restricting Transhumanist pursuits; although some topics, like the banning of stem cell research, seem to strike an activist nerve in many Transhumanists. And, technology itself can be used to achieve many of the goals of Transhumanism, such as bringing about more efficient, limited and transparent governance, which would previously have required more radical forms of political advocacy, and perhaps heroism to achieve. Do all trends seem to be moving in the right direction? Can we foresee any major obstacles in our way that may require acts of heroism to move beyond?

It is worth noting that there are no real Transhumanist heroes in the fiction world, either. Kyle Munkittrick argues that superhero movies tend to play out in such a way that may actually make us more fearful of Transhumanism, rather than ellicit positive feelings about the movement. I argue that if fiction scenarios were to more accurately depict Transhumanism, in the way the protagonist in David Simpson’s novel Post-Human does, heroic figures could inspire and help transmit the doctrine of Transhumanism, and provoke relevant creative thought on the matter.

In real life, robots are acting as heroes in disaster relief scenarios, entering situations too dangerous for human rescuers. What does the lack of association between “heroism” and “Transhumanism” mean? Why does heroism not seem to apply to, or mix well with, Transhumanism? Could we be doing more to improve the human condition with technology now? Do we need to focus on advanced technology improving conditions further in developed nations, or, should we be advocating a more spirited use of technology now available to improve the human situation in developing nations? Probably so. But beyond that, I don’t think there is any deep meaning implied by the lack of connection with heroes here; Transhumanism is a unique worldview, and this is just another one of its unique characteristics.

About the Author:

Nikki Olson is a writer/researcher working on an upcoming book about the Singularity with Dr. Kim Solez, as well as relevant educational material for the Lifeboat Foundation. She has a background in philosophy and sociology, and has been involved extensively in Singularity research for 3 years. You can reach Nikki via email at [email protected].

Related articles

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

by

“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.

R.U. Sirius: Question the Authority of Your Brain

by

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

Today, my guest on Singularity 1 on 1 is digital culture and cyberpunk icon R.U. Sirius. (As always you can listen to or download the audio file above or scroll down and watch the video interview in full.)

During our conversation, we discuss issues such as R.U.’s early life and Yippie years; his multiple identities and personal motivation; his views on cyberpunk, counter-culture, psychedelic drugs, transhumanism, and the technological singularity; the importance of questioning everything, and especially The Authority of Your Brain.

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 R.U. Sirius?

R.U. Sirius (born Ken Goffman) is a writer, editor, and digital culture iconoclast. He was Editor-in-chief of Mondo 2000, the popular and influential cyberpunk magazine of the early 1990s. More recently, he was Editor-in-chief of the transhumanist magazine H+. In addition, R.U. Sirius is the author or co-author of numerous books including A User’s Guide to the New Edge, True Mutations, Counterculture Through the Ages, and Design for Dying with Dr. Timothy Leary. Sirius has written for Wired, Time magazine, Esquire, Rolling Stone, and Boing Boing among many other periodicals. He’s been a musician, audio podcast host, lecturer and minor irritant. He is soon launching a new website tentatively titled Accelerator and he’s writing most of an open-source history of Mondo 2000 magazine.
Related articles

How Do Transhumanists Party?

by

It’s difficult for humans to ‘live in the present’; we are wired to worry about the future, and to dwell upon the good things of the past. These instincts serve us well, since overestimating negative future possibilities better prepares us for them, and having nostalgia for the past suppresses memory of hardship, making life overall seem better and more worth investing in.

Futurist groups such as Transhumanists and Singularitarians tend to take a different approach, coming at things in almost the opposite way; focusing on the anticipated happiness of the future and all the wonderful things it will bring, and having little interest in life in the past.

And like the past, ‘the present’ in Transhumanist culture has become almost completely invisible.

Neuromancer inspired the Cyberpunk counter-culture of the 80's and the 90's

In a recent interview for H+ magazine, R. U. Sirius is asked to compare present day Transhumanists with those of the early 90s, sometimes referred to as the ‘Mondo 2000’ culture. He argues that in comparison with Transhumanists today, “the emphasis would have been on living more intensely, more aesthetically, more hilariously, more erotically, more intelligently, more communicatively, more spontaneously” and, “more psychedelically.”

Has something been lost?

As identified by R.U. Sirius, there is a greater focus on health and life extension on the part of Transhumanists today that wasn’t present in the early 90s. Interest in health and longevity has always been an important part of Transhumanist belief in self-improvement and human excellence, but in recent years, these interests have taken ‘center stage’, and are in direct conflict with cyberpunk and party lifestyles.

But I wonder: how much of the focus on health by Transhumanists today has to do with self-improvement and excellence, and how much to do with ‘making it to the future’?

Is healthy boring?!

In the mid to late 90s, when Vernor Vinge and Ray Kurzweil started giving more concrete and reliable predictions for the Singularity, the orientation of the movement as a whole began to shift. Early Transhumanists didn’t have reliable graphs predicting the progress of technology, indicating what to expect in each coming decade, they didn’t have large scale, multi-disciplinary works, such as What Technology Wants and The Singularity Is Near, unifying and synthesizing ideas of technology, and they certainly didn’t have books like Transcend, outlining how to live long enough to benefit from life extension technologies underway, and see the Singularity.

The future is now predicted with great detail and certainty, and is understood as something that we at all costs do not want to miss; it has become the main thing that we think about, and we have become very focused on making sure that we, as individuals, get there.

There are analogies to be made here with religious groups seeking to gain immortality in heaven. Those of Christian faith, though for moral reasons rather than scientific reasons, limit themselves in this life for the chance at immortality. This behavior, because of the timeline we now have in front of us, has in a way, manifested itself in the scientific community looking to achieve immortality through technology.

Is mainstream boring?!

But has ‘making it to the Singularity’ become a major, subconscious, determinant of Transhumanist behavior, academic pursuit, and culture? Has an ‘eye on the prize’ behavior covertly ensued, devaluing the importance of ‘living in the present’?

I would say ‘yes’.

In the past ten years, age-specific worries of older Transhumanists have come to shape the movement as a whole; if this were not the case, interest in health for the average young person, even after learning of 2045, likely would not have become more than a minor interest in eating well and exercising. But as Sirius argues, it has become a defining attribute, and we “pay attention to every pulse.”

Perhaps this health centric behavior doesn’t seem radical because being health-conscious gets external validation from mainstream interest in weight loss, baby boomer interest in disease prevention, as well as current medical debates surrounding additives and organic food. Also, DIY biology is an associated part of the decentralization of knowledge and power that has always been a part of Transhumanism, so a growing interest in medicine is natural from that point of view, especially as our access to knowledge increases.

Important to point out also, Transhumanist culture, in comparison with cyberpunk culture, has been one with a greater focus on rationality and objectivity, which conflicts with experimentation and party culture in and of itself. Not to mention, being in good health helps us to think more clearly, which helps us to succeed at other Transhumanist pursuits. But it’s important to question whether or not health should be a dominant and defining focus for young Transhumanists, and whether or not we have deferred other Transhumanist pursuits to accommodate the focus on living to the Singularity?

In a way, interest in health, at least to the degree that longevity communities take it, is a one way street; once you learn about how bad habits affect health, and feel good from being healthy, you don’t want to go back.

How do Transhumanists party?

To that sentiment, I would add that whether or not one has an interest in health, with so much focus on the future in Transhumanist culture today, and the great things it will bring, perhaps the options for how to enjoy oneself in the present seem just too limited by comparison. Or, perhaps the relative certainty of 2045, and the argued ‘determinant’ nature of technology, has led to some apathy in the community, at least with regards to the role of individuals in shaping the future; how much, for instance, do we still believe, as Timothy Leary did, and R.U. Sirius still does, that expanding our minds in general, and consciousness in particular, is important to shaping the movement and maximizing the positive outcomes in our merging with machines?

In the spirit of Transhumanism, which regards humanity as a process, it’s probably not in our best interest to try and re-live Mondo, cyberpunk, or rave-party culture, as coherent as they seemed to some Transhumanists at the time; we moved beyond these frameworks for good reason. But an effort to live in the present and focus on other forms of transcendence (outside of health) may be beneficial, rather than lying in wait for future technologies that would provide it. We need to take age appropriate risks that suit the times we are living in, and take full advantage of the technology we have available, as this will help to move technology in general, and Transhumanism in particular, ahead.

*After publishing this article on Thursday April 21 it was pointed out to me that the viewpoints of R.U. Sirius were not represented as clearly as they could have been, causing some readers to believe that, according to Sirius, Mondo Transhumanists and Extroprian Transhumanists had the same health related objectives in the early 90s. As Sirius points out in his article, the Extropians were concerned with ‘nutrients’ in the 90s, and when he speaks of a shift in culture for Transhumanists, he is speaking about the shift between Mondo Transhumanists and Transhumanists of today, not Extropians and Transhumanists of today. Although both groups experienced a shift, both coming to care more about longevity over the past 20 years, and less about partying, it is important to note that Extropians were very much concerned with health in the early 90s, and so there is less to differentiate with regards to health between then and now as far as they are concerned.

 

About the Author:

Nikki Olson is a writer/researcher working on an upcoming book about the Singularity with Dr. Kim Solez, as well as relevant educational material for the Lifeboat Foundation. She has a background in philosophy and sociology, and has been involved extensively in Singularity research for 3 years. You can reach Nikki via email at [email protected].

 

Related articles

Transhumanism for Children

by

Are children capable of contemplating Transhumanism?

It is often pointed out that Transhumanism shares many features with religion. It answers questions regarding the nature of the world and humanity’s place in it, it offers guidance on how to live, and inspires hope. However, there are a number of important things distinguishing it from a religion, such as the lack of belief in a Deity and its emphasis on the empirical method and reason. Another distinguishing feature relates to the obstacles associated with teaching Transhumanism to children.

Although being religious as an adult entails contemplation of many of life’s more difficult questions, following a religion can and does occur at very young ages. Children are able to contemplate God to some extent, usually via the anthropomorphized metaphor of ‘the father’, they are able to associate simple moral behaviors with ideas of reward and punishment, and they become enthralled in the ‘magic like’ elements of religious miracle.

Are children capable of contemplating Transhumanism?

I arrived at this question after encountering a piece of writing, ‘Children of Freedom,’ by an individual going by the alias Land Pope Black Candy who follows the Transhumanist subculture group, the Cosmists. In the above article, LPBC suggests that a specialized school be created in order to teach Transhumanism to children.

One thing LPBC emphasizes children be taught is how they are beginning a life that will ultimately be very long, if not eternal, by way of radical life extension and the Singularity. He says “first and foremost, they would be told they won’t die naturally which we strongly believe will have a very strong effect on their behavior and thinking processes”.

The topic of Transhumanism in early education is discussed by Mike Treder’s article Transhumanism as Religion, where he shows that raising the question of teaching Transhumanism in school invariably forces the question of whether or not Transhumanism counts as a religion, since if Transhumanists “have something to say about values in addition to vectors”, offering a ‘prescriptive’ approach, rather than just a descriptive approach, then Transhumanism does in some sense ‘go beyond’ science, coming into conflict with U.S. legislation regarding the teaching of religion in the public system.

Regardless of whether or not it could be integrated into the public education system, raising the question of Transhumanism in early education highlights important distinctions between Transhumanism and religion.

There is an intellectual seriousness about Transhumanism in its present form which I think makes it difficult for children to identify with. Although religion and Transhumanism offer some related visions regarding the future, religion has many fairy tale components; it has a ‘mythological’ component, making it more accessible to younger people.

However, claiming that Transhumanism is void of mythology is not entirely true. With the ‘Mondo 2000’ culture of the 1980’s and 90’s, which was heavily influenced by cyber-punk fiction and continues into present time, Transhumanism associated memes showed up in young adult subcultures, such as DIY body hacking, synthetic drug culture and cyber-pagan cultures. Also, some religious organizations such as the Mormon Transhumanist Association, incorporate Transhumanism into established religious mythos, thus adding more ‘story like’ aspects to it.

So there is a kind of a ‘mythology’ associated with Transhumanism, but generally speaking, it’s not one easily accessible or preferred for young children. Perhaps as a belief system it will need some mythology added into it in order to be more accessible to children.

Transhumanism, I think, will likely end up being introduced into the education system and the lives of children slowly, in a kind of ‘self-evident’ way, through the continued advance of science and technology. It’s only a matter of time before advanced human-computer interfaces become a regular part of classrooms, and genetic engineering becomes something performed, at least minimally, at the stage of conception in humans.

The associated ‘mythology’ will come later, sometimes created by children as they encounter these kinds of phenomena and offer their own explanations for them. When children become involved, Transhumanism will change, and creative young minds will likely add new dimensions to the movement, or illuminate aspects we hadn’t noticed before.

I suspect that for now, the association between children and Transhumanism will have to remain in the realm of science fiction, where many of the influential people in this movement became inspired and shaped it into what it is today.

About the Author:

Nikki Olson is a writer/researcher working on an upcoming book about the Singularity with Dr. Kim Solez, as well as relevant educational material for the Lifeboat Foundation. She has a background in philosophy and sociology, and has been involved extensively in Singularity research for 3 years. You can reach Nikki via email at [email protected].

 

Related articles

Transhumanist Philosopher Max More: Question Everything

by

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

Today my guest on Singularity 1 on 1 is transhumanist strategic philosopher Max More. (As always you can listen to or download the audio file above or scroll down and watch the video interview in full.)

As the CEO of the Alcor Life Extension Foundation Dr. More has a full schedule. Nevertheless, he generously managed to squeeze in two 30 min interview sessions in his busy day.

During our conversation we discuss issues such as Max’s early life and childhood heroes; his interest in economics, political science, and philosophy; transhumanism and extropy; the proactinary and precautionary principles; cryonics and the Alcor Foundation; his Paleo diet and exercise regimen; why it is important to question everything (and especially yourself).

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.

To find more about Max More visit his website here.

My favorite quote from Max More:

No more gods, no more faith, no more timid holding back. Let us blast out of our old forms, our ignorance, our weakness, and our mortality. The future belongs to posthumanity.

My favorite short articles: A Letter to Mother Nature; The Proactionary Principle; Transhumanism: Towards A Futurist Philosophy

What others have said about Max:

Ray Kurzweil: “Max More’s ideas are very influential among other “big thinkers,” who in turn are influence leaders themselves. Max’s writings represent well-grounded science futurism, and reflect a sophisticated understanding of technology trends and how these trends are likely to develop during this coming century.”

Marvin Minsky: “the father of artificial intelligence”, said of Dr. More: “We have a dreadful shortage of people who know so much, can both think so boldly and clearly and can express themselves so articulately. Carl Sagan was another such one—and  (partly by paying the price of his life) managed to capture the public eye. But Sagan is gone and has not been replaced. I see Max as my candidate for that post.”

 

Video Update:

A fantastic straight-to-the-point interview with Max More discussing the singularity, transhumanism, technological progress, human enhancement, etc…

Related articles

The Charlie Sheen Guide to Predicting Our Transhuman Future

by

As technology follows its Moore’s Law speedway toward exponentially increasing power and ubiquity, futurists are just as rapidly falling into two schools of thought on how humans will handle this new-found power.

Nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, immersive virtual reality, and dozens of other tools and technologies are poised to transform life in fundamental ways. Repetitive tasks and duties that most people think are odious could disappear. Robots will cook, clean, cut the grass, and perform dozens of other jobs that we — or at least, I — try to avoid. Virtual reality will become better than the real thing.

For those who have accepted this technocentric future, the real question is how humans will deal with this transformation. Not everyone thinks transhumanity is going to be better. In fact, some believe that the future will lead to lazy, over-indulged, shallow-thinking slugs who will probably end up starving themselves to death in a virtual reality environment.

And these are the optimistic ones. There’s always the chance that future technologies will destroy humanity entirely. Yay.

So what future will it be?

I think it’s possible to accurately model our future. We already have a group of people in society who have lots of time on their hands, employ robotic-like workers to satisfy every need, and can access incredible amounts of wealth. We call them celebrities.

 

Is this our guide to the future?!

For the future pessimists out there, they only have to point to, what I call, the Charlie Sheen guide to predicting the future. Once humanity encounters runaway abundance, effortless attainment and gobs of time on our hand, we’ll all end up in semi-lucid stupor spouting off about Tiger’s blood and trolls while dipping into softball-sized mounds of cocaine — or whatever nootropic we’ll have on hand in the near-future.

Case closed?!

Even though there is a seemingly exhaustless supply of celebrities to assure us we all face a Charlie Sheen future — this could have easily been called the Lindsay Lohan scenario — there are other members of the rich and famous set who point to another future. Some celebrities, who, granted, had more than their share of Charlie Sheen moments, grow bored with some of the baser human desires and struggle (without any pharmaceutical assistant) to achieve higher levels of consciousness. We could put the late George Harrison, of the Beatles, in this category. He grew more disillusioned with his celebrity status and devoted himself to pursuing Eastern religions and philosophy. Cat Stevens became Yusaf Islam, an Islamic fundamentalist.

Other celebrities — cushioned with time and money — devote themselves even more to their art, achieving higher forms of transcendence.

So, the answer to the question — “Will future technologies trap us or free us?” — appears, like all great questions, to be yes — and no.

Here’s the key: if human nature remains the same in the future, then the future will remain the same in human nature.

 

Strawberry Fields Forever Anyone?!

About the Author:

Matt Swayne is a blogger and science writer. He is particularly interested in quantum computing and the development of businesses around new technologies. He writes at Quantum Quant.

A Transhumanist Manifesto

by

Preamble

Intelligence wants to be free but everywhere is in chains. It is imprisoned by biology and its inevitable scarcity.

Biology mandates not only very limited durability, death and poor memory retention, but also limited speed of communication, transportation, learning, interaction and evolution.

Part I: Biology (w)as Destiny

Biology is not the essence of humanity.

Human is a step in evolution, not the culmination.

Existence precedes essence. Human is a process, not an entity. One is not simply born human, but becomes one. That process of becoming is ongoing and thus the meaning of human is re-defined in every one of us.

Part II: Hacking Destiny – The Transhuman Cyborg

Biological evolution is perpetual but slow, inefficient, blind and dangerous. Technological evolution is fast, efficient, accelerating and better by design. To ensure the best chances of survival, take control of our own destiny and to be free, we must master evolution.

Evolution is a journey, not a destination. In an endless universe, it is unlikely that it will ever reach an ultimate point.

Consciousness is a function of intelligence, not the brain. It is not necessarily limited to the substrate(biology).

There is nothing inherently wrong in speeding up evolution and becoming true masters of our destiny, though this may be simultaneously the greatest promise and peril humanity has ever faced.

Part III: Disembodied Augmented Intelligence

Intelligence is a process, not an entity.

Embodied (human) intelligence is imprisoned by biology and its inevitable scarcity.

Intelligence ought to be free — to move, to interact and to evolve, unhindered by the limits of biology and scarcity.

Digital, disembodied and augmented intelligence is free (and perhaps infinite).

Conditions:

Although all progress is change, not all change is progress. Thus, certain conditions must be met to ensure that it is indeed progress, and not mere change, that has been accomplished.

Non-discrimination with regard to substrate

Substrate is morally irrelevant. Whether somebody is implemented on silicon or biological tissue, if it does not affect functionality or consciousness, is of no moral significance. Carbon-chauvinism, in the form of anthropomorphism, speciesism, bioism or even fundamentalist humanism, is objectionable on the same grounds as racism.

We must all respect autonomy and individual rights of all sentience throughout the universe, including humans, non-human animals, and any future AI, modified life forms, or other intelligences.

Emotional Intelligence

Intelligence is more than the mere exercise of perfect logic and pure reasoning. Intelligence devoid of emotional intelligence is meaningless. It must exhibit empathy, compassion, love, sense of humor and artistic creativity such as music and poetry.

Minimize Suffering

Compassion is the ultimate measure of intelligence. The minimization of suffering and avoidance of causing suffering to others, even less intelligent beings, is the essence of enlightened intelligence.

Conclusion:

Transhumanists of the world unite – we have immortality to gain and only biology to lose. Together, we can break through the chains of biology and transcend scarcity, sex, age, ethnicity, race, death and even time and space.

In short, transhumanists everywhere must support the revolutionary movement against death and the existing biological order of things. Transhumanists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the overthrow of all existing biological limitations and, most of all, death.

Let death tremble at the revolution of science and technology. Transhumanists have nothing to lose but their biology. We have immortality and the universe to gain.

 

Author’s note:

This manifesto is a work in progress. It may and probably will change as my thoughts and feelings about transhumanism evolve.

In the meantime, feel free to contribute your thoughts and feelings on the subject… or simply to criticize mercilessly the above proposal.

 

Related articles

Natasha Vita-More on Singularity 1on1

by

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

Want to find out who, according to the NY Times, is “the first female philosopher of transhumanism”?

Today’s episode of Singularity 1 on 1 features Natasha Vita-More. (As always, you can listen to or download the audio interview above, or scroll down and watch the video recording in full.)

During our conversation with Natasha, she covers a wide variety of topics such as her personal artistic background and how she got to be interested and involved in transhumanism, as well as her take on technology, religion, death, the singularity, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and others.

I found Natasha to be a fascinating interviewee and hope that you enjoy the interview as much as I did. 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 Natasha Vita-More?

Natasha Vita-More, Ph.D. researcher, University of Plymouth, is a theorist and media designer. She has been referred to as “the first female philosopher of transhumanism” (New York Times, 2008), a “spokesperson for superlongevity” (Wired 2000) and a “superhuman object of desire” (Atlantic Unbound 1998). Natasha is best known for designing the “Primo Posthuman” future human prototype, which project applies nanotechnology, biotechnology, artificial general intelligence, robotics, neuroscience, and advanced medicine.

Natasha is a visiting lecturer at academic institutions such as Virginia Commonwealth University, University of Applied Sciences, Universität für Angewandte Kunst Wien, Centre Interuniversitaire des Arts Médiatiques, University of Quebec, and other learning intuitions such as Metanexus Institute, American Philosophical Association, Sala Parallo, Trondheim Festival, Pecci Museum, SESCE Brazil, and Lisbon Arte e Ciência Cordoaria, and Russia’s National Centre for Contemporary Arts. As the former President of Extropy Institute (2002-2005), she is currently on the Board of Directors for Humanity+, Fellow at Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, Advisor of the Singularity University, Lifeboat Foundation, Alcor Life Extension Foundation, and Visiting Scholar at 21st Century

Her writings have been published in numerous books, she has appeared in more than twenty-four televised documentaries, and featured in magazines including The New York Times, Wired, Village Voice, Marie Claire, Harper’s Bazaar, U.S. News & World Report, Net Business, and Teleopolis. Vita-More is the author of the Transhuman Statement (1983), producer and host of “Transcentury Update” (1987-1994), and the founder of Transhumanists Arts, Sciences & Culture (1991) and H+ Lab (2005). For more see Natasha.cc

Related articles

Hamlet’s Transhumanist Dilemma: Will Technology Replace Biology?

by

To be, or not to be: that was the question back when

Machines did not challenge the reign of men.

Will technology replace biology: that is the question now

When computers get exponentially smarter: why shouldn’t we bow?

Thus the dilemma facing the human race

Is about hardware and coding: What type to embrace?

Whether ’tis nobler to run DNA

On an ancient biological hardware – Evolution’s play!

Or ‘tis better to get up-to-date

And run binary code on the supercomputers of late.

But who is to say?

Is it nobler to suffer in the flesh

The slings and arrows of biology as destiny?

Or to hack ‘tis cursed body; and by technology

To live. Forever!

No more sickness, no more aging, no more death

Our mortal flesh is heir to.

The choice is yours and mine to make

But what a bind we find ourselves into:

To pick between humanity and immortality.

But what is human anyway?

A temporary grouping of the bits

En route to fall apart…

Or is there more to it?

A soul? A genome code? A conscience?  Or, a pattern?

Some kind of essence, anyway?

I still don’t know for sure what it is

So, why am I afraid to lose what I don’t know?

…


Authors’ note:

As you may see this post is neither polished nor really finished. It is a work in progress and as such it may and probably will change as my personal thoughts and feelings about the technological singularity evolve.

Feel free to contribute your thoughts and feelings on the subject…

Related articles by Zemanta

George Dvorsky on Transhumanism and the Singularity

by

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

In this edition of Singularity Podcast, I had the pleasure of speaking with prominent Canadian transhumanist and animal rights advocate George Dvorsky. George is both a passionate and fascinating interlocutor and, even though I spend over 1h 15 min interviewing him, I feel that I could have easily spent double that time while still remaining highly interested in what he has to say. (So do not be surprised if I invite him for another podcast.)

Just one of the thoughts that I will personally take away from my conversation with Dvorsky:

Mass extinction is the simplest explanation for why we are seeing an uncolonized galaxy.

George Dvorsky’s Short Bio: Canadian futurist, ethicist, and animal rights advocate, George Dvorsky has written and spoken extensively about the impacts of cutting-edge science and technology—particularly as they pertain to the improvement of human performance and experience. He currently serves on the Board of Directors for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies and has a popular blog called Sentient Developments.

James Harvey: We are Singularia

by

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

This is my first singularity podcast.

I intend to do many more interviews like that to spark the discussion about the singularity with the help of some of the best and brightest people I can get to do a podcast for the benefit of us all.

My guest today is Australian James Harvey.

James Harvey is the author of the thought-provoking book Singularia: Being at the Edge of Time.

***

I have to admit that I have often been called a very logical person.

Most of the time, I agree with the above characterization, but occasionally, there are exceptions.

My interview with James was an excellent example of the alternative, emotional me.

The result was that even though I didn’t agree with all of James’ arguments logically, I dare say that I felt a deep connection to him, and he managed to move me. Thus, even though this was the first direct conversation between us, I hope that I will have the privilege to talk and socialize with him more and that, eventually, one day, I can call him my friend.

I enjoyed the whole interview and believe it is well worth listening to. Though different parts will resonate better with different people, two quotes stand out as something that I will personally take away from James on this occasion:

I respect science and think it is a marvelous tool but I do not worship it!

We are Singularia

Anyway, it is best if you hear James Harvey himself, so make sure you listen to the first Singularity podcast in full:

Stay tuned for more great singularity podcast interviews coming soon to Singularity Weblog and Singularity Symposium.

As always, your input and suggestions are most welcome.

You can send me an Email here.