Speaking on 'designer psychologies' at the Humanity+ Conference

This coming May I will be attending and speaking at Humanity+'s conference at Parson's University in New York. The theme of the conference is "Transhumanism meets design" and to that end I will be discussing the potential for 'designer psychologies.' The abstract for my talk:

Baseline human psychology is a legacy of our paleolithic ancestry. Its current configuration is the result of very specific evolutionary pressures, but it has become poorly suited for life in the post-industrial age. Not only are humans becoming increasingly susceptible to psychological disorders, they are also reaching hard limits in terms of memory capacity, attention spans and intelligence; humans are now having great difficulties keeping up with and adapting to novel technologies. Moreover, humans are coming to realize that there can be more to human psychology than the default state. In the space of all possible viable and desirable psychologies, the neurotypical mind is but a tiny speck. As the autism rights community has shown, there is considerable value to alternative psychologies. Looking ahead, and with the assistance of converging technologies like genetics, advanced psychopharmaceuticals, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology, we will soon be able to design and create novel psychologies. This will be more than just intelligence or memory augmentation; designer psychologies will re-set and re-frame the way individuals perceive and process their environment in virtually all aspects. This design space is virtually limitless.

More about the conference:

April 12, 2011 (New York, NY) – Humanity+, the world’s leading nonprofit organization advocating the ethical use of technology to expand human capabilities, today announced its first conference in partnership with Parsons The New School for Design, a leading art and design school in New York City dedicated to the advancement of design thinking and education. Transhumanism Meets Design explores the role of design in transcending and transforming human potential, and will take place at The New School May 14–15, 2011. This groundbreaking conference features lectures and panels that bring together and explore the nexus of emerging technology, transdisciplinary design, culture, media theory, and biotechnology.

Transhumanism aims to elevate the human condition. Design is a process for problem solving. At Transhumanism Meets Design, these two domains will join forces as leading transhumanists, cyberneticists, life extensionists, singularity advocates, artificial intelligence experts, human enhancement specialists, inventors, ethicists, and philosophers gather to explore human futures, ask questions, construct ideas, and peer over the edge into the unknown.

“Translating this narrative calls for a transdisciplinarity that brings emerging technologies and creative insights to the forefront. Transhumanist aesthetics pioneers how we will design our existence and future identity,” said Natasha Vita-More, vice chair of Humanity+, who co-chairs the conference with Ed Keller, associate dean of Distributed Learning and Technology at Parsons. “We live in an era of unprecedented interest in design,” said Keller. “Recognizing that the body could be the next frontier, we are challenging designers to use the research tools developed to enhance products to engage and extend the human body.”

Featured speakers include Howard Bloom, author of Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, and Vivian Rosenthal, cofounder of New York–based Tronic Studio. Also speaking are artificial intelligence researcher Ben Goertzel, chair of Humanity+; Natasha Vita-More, artist and theorist of transhumanism; strategic philosopher Max More, CEO of Alcor Life Extension Foundation; and neuroscientist Anders Sandberg, a James Martin Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University.

For a full list of confirmed speakers and additional information about the conference, please visit the conference website: http://humanityplus.org/conferences/parsons.

To register for the conference, please visit the conference EventBrite page:
http://www.eventbrite.com/event/1089760503

- MORE -

Transhumanism Meets Design is one of the highlights of Parsons Festival 2011, which takes place May 7–23 and features exhibitions, interactive installations, and programs that showcase the full range of art and design thinking at Parsons. For more information, please visit www.newschool.edu/parsonsfestival. To learn more about Humanity+, please visit www.humanityplus.org.

Humanity+ is an international nonprofit membership organization which advocates the ethical use of technology to expand human capacities. Humanity+ supports the development of and access to new technologies that enable everyone to enjoy better minds, better bodies and better lives. In other words, Humanity+ wants people to be better than well. For more information visit humanityplus.org.

Parsons The New School for Design is a global leader in art and design education. Based in New York City but active around the world, the school offers undergraduate and graduate programs in the full spectrum of design disciplines. An integral part of The New School, Parsons builds on the university’s legacy of progressive ideals, scholarship, and pedagogy. Parsons graduates are leaders in their respective fields, with a shared commitment to creatively and critically addressing the complexities of life in the 21st century. For more information, please visit www.newschool.edu/parsons.

# # #

Media Contacts:
Hal Hefner, Humanity+
Phone:             213-713-1219      
Email: hal@humanityplus.org

Kate McCormick, The New School
Phone:             212-229-5667       x3794
Email: mccork00@newschool.edu

Rosemarie Tong: "Feminist Reflections on Looking Better and Living Longer" [CFI conference on biomedical enhancement]

Rosemarie Tong, Professor of Philosophy at UNC-Charlotte, discussing Feminist Reflections on Looking Better and Living Longer.

Betty Friedan's perspective: rejects the idea that to be old is to be spent. She instead presents an integrating process, an opportunity to live properly and make peace with oneself. No longer feeling the need to outdo others, to prove onself, "what does it really matter?"

Cosmetic anti-aging is big business and demand is through the roof.

But there are also biogerontologists. (1) They're working to prolong healthy lifespan; to extend quality of life until shortly before the moment of death, (2) They're looking to increase human lifespan significantly.

One practice is caloric restriction, but it's not likely to catch on. Another approach is in genetic manipulation.

A third group of biogerontologists are looking to halt the aging process altogether.

What do feminists have to say about this? But the problem of feminists is that they're are so many varieties. But for the most part they support the notion that we should improve and extend quality of life into old age. We should also work to ensure that the marginalized have access to these interventions, namely poor people, black people and aboriginals.

Any life-extension breakthrough that is not accompanied by attempts to improve socio-economic disparities is deficient. Also risk that women's caregiving responsibilities will only increase. Far fewer jobs for far fewer people. Perennial beauty trap.

Cosmetic surgery for women now has been so normalized that it's expected. Women are asked, "Why don't you want to look better?"

Tong makes the case that radical life extension may compel people to live indefinitely long lives for fear of what lies in the hereafter. [never heard that argument before]

Repudiation of the body is a repudiation of women. This especially holds true of women and childbirth. Thus, feminists are suspicious of transhumanism. They may "get lost in the translation."

James Giordano: "Neuroscience, Neurotechnology, and Strivings to Flourish" [CFI conference on biomedical enhancement]

James Giordano now talking about Neuroscience, Neurotechnology, and Strivings to Flourish.

One of his primary messages is that we need to be wary of anything with the prefix "neuro".

Neurotechnologic imperative: "...if you can build it, do so..."

Human flourishing prompts the questions:

1. What is it to flourish?
2. What is the "good"?
3. How is/should it be achieved? Means, ends, limits...

Contextualized to bio-psychosocial nature of our species. 

Flourishing:

• Maximizing function
• Does this mean maintaining or optimizing?
• Treatment or enhancement?
• Objectivity and/or subjectively?
• Consideration of gain vs. loss?
• Given bio-psychsocial nature, on what level(s)?

Janusian face of neuroscience: Utopian aspirations vs. dystopian anxieties

Pros and cons: A natural need to know and intervene inherent to human flourishing; inquiry and action is both right and good; partial knowledge in areas of profound impact effect broad and unforeseen consequences; there are intellectual and moral limits on inquiry. 

We should not retard progress, need to mitigate non-contemplative advancement. 

John Shook: "Philosophical Challenges for a Neuroscience of Moral Enhancements" [CFI conference on biomedical enhancement]

John Shook of the Center for Inquiry is speaking about Philosophical Challenges for a Neuroscience of Moral Enhancements.

What would a moral enhancer do? May mean making a person more 'moral.' Or like a mood enhancer, changing one's inner sense of moral qualities. Or sensitivity to situations. Or wanting to do the right thing more often. But this doesn't necessarily imply a change to conduct. Other fears and desires can have similar effects on behavior.

Issue: Matching internal and external moral standards. Two different things: What I believe is moral, what someone else believes is moral.

Fine tuning of moral enhancers may be required, creating a "boutique" style of moral enhancers. May not represent genuine cases of moral enhancement. These are internal objective standards. We have to go outside to get better moral standards.

Objectivism is one path. Still people will pass their own judgement.

Should we adhere to the majority opinion? Where does culture agree on such things? Can we agree that certain conduct is impermissible? Cultural conventionalism as a way to inform morality.

But what about something like generosity? Do we really mean it?

So objectivism and cultural conventionalism are unsatisfactory.

Perhaps we need a combination of subjectivism and conventionalism.

But what items/subjects are worthy of moral consideration? Sports? Religion? Boutique modifications may not adhere to conventional opinions on what is morally acceptable.

Moral enhancement: How might it actually be done? Could be done in several ways.

1. get the right moral answer
2. enhance judgement of situations morally
3. enhance deliberation of doing the morally right thing
4. enhance the motivation choice to do what moral deliberation indicates
5. enhance volitional power to do the morally right thing
6. enhance the capacity of the act [external]

Problem, there may be no objective, definable moral judgments to begin with. Objective morality exists nowhere. And what are conscious intentions? Are they epiphenomenal? What mechanism in the brain executes the decision? Will and free will?

Brain science discovered will better inform and answer the objections. Outdated notions of decision and volition need to be discarded from the discussion.

Intentionality types; factors for free will:

1. Intentional causality (executive)
2. Deliberate intentionality
3. Thoughtful control (rational)

Do philosophers exaggerate the role that reason plays in decision making? Neuroscientific advances will improve our idea of this and what we mean to be moral agents.

Maya Sabatello: "Controlled Parenthood" [CFI conference on biomedical enhancements]

Maya Sabatello is presenting on controlled parenthood and asks: Are the rights and interests of children being considered when using reproductive technologies?

Sabatello includes such repro-tech as PGD, IVF, gender selection, and so on. The influence on the family institution is "tremendous." It has led to a real change in demographic patterns on family structure. A real boon to those couples who would have normally been infertile. Can also help single mothers, older parents, same-sex couples, and so on.

Assistive repro-tech decisions become a collective effort, and extends beyond the prospective mother and father.

Impact on children include an introduction to a world with increased pluralism. Also, genetic commonality varies depending on the type of repro-tech used (e.g. a child can have three genetic parents). The demography is changing, lots of twins and multiple-births. Children can be born to have specific genetically compatible tissue. Cloning may introduce other options and demographic shifts in the future.

Access to assistive repro-tech is based in specific laws and charters around the world. But what are the limits of using these technologies? Are part and parcel of one's right to found a family. A part of human identification and realization.

Also part of other sociological realities -- e.g. the mother who holds of having children while she establishes a career.

Because parents would have to bear the emotional, financial, and other burdens of raising a disabled child, they deserve the right to access these sorts of these technologies.

But opposition to such broad-strokes of parental freedom exists, including ideas of gender equality, access to healthcare, etc. Some believe that the state has no business ensuring that their citizens have access to repro-tech.

Sabatello feels that some courts are ignoring the interests of children in all this. We need to examine this.

A child-centered approach: There is very little information, unfortunately. Not much to go by, but we have to start investigating.

One argument is that a child deserves a right to an open future. They have some rights in trust, and deserve adult protection until they're of age. This can have an impact on non-traditional arrangements, such as gay parenting.

What about deafness and dwarfism by choice? Is the child better or worse off? Bit of grey area here.

Do some rulings put parental needs in opposition to children's needs? What about thinking of group rights and thinking about the needs of the family as a whole? International rights don't really dwell in this area, but perhaps they should perceive the family as a unit.

We need to figure out how the child's voice can inform the process. Thus, a child-center approach.

Has to start from pre-considerations:

• They don't have the capacity for informed consent
• We also need to take their web of relations into consideration (what's the context?)
• We need to re-conceptualize the notion of autonomy - children's autonomy in relation with others, and can exercise rights in relation to others (as a matter of identity); only space in which a child can express their interests and rights

Is the selection of genetic characteristics medically justified? Can they lead to greater risk of side-effects and defects? We need to educate parents about disability and suffering; inform them about difference between suffering and a disability. These are often social constructs of a specific society.

Unlike adults, children do not view disabilities as abnormal. What matters is how they are treated and the attitudes that are expressed towards them. Some children attribute their 'disability' as a part of their social background more than, say, ethnicity. 

Protection of identity is crucial, and is protected by charter of rights. 

Connection between genetic characteristics and genetic identity. Can this someone impact negatively on a child? E.g. disabled identity? Gender identity? Savior sibling? Is there a less sense of worth? Living in the shadow of the other siblings? 

But too many biological factors are being considered here. What about sociological factors? How are they being socialized and treated by society? Take savior siblings, for example, in which those children are just as loved as any other. 

Stats: No differences in identity were found among children raised by hetero or gay couples. 

Children are born into a reality--the only one they really know.

The genetic tie to the family is weak, and does not matter as much as other factors like ethnicity. 

A greater appreciation of the child's voice should be increasingly considered.

Gavin Enck: "Cognitive Enhancers, Students, and Virtues" [CFI conference on biomedical enhancements]

Is using cognitive enhancers at school cheating? Gavin Enck argues that it's not cheating, but that it's unfair. He uses two primary arguments: 

1. Problem of moral luck
2. Intellectual or moral virtues

Is there any difference between cognitive enhancers and, say, laptops? Or coffee? The difference of degree is what's important. And the qualitative boost is lower relative to Adderall and Provigil. Similarly, the laptop does not impact on the 'person' to the degree that a neuropharmaceutical does. 

Enck analogizes the competitiveness in sports to competitiveness in academia. He asks, is there an intentional violation of the rules, fairness? He argues yes, that the student is deliberately seeking an unfair advantage, but is not explicitly cheating. 

[Enck has a very restrictive and strange definition of cognitive enhancement, one that greatly constrains (and even confuses) the scope of 'permissibility.'] 

He also argues that the student with socio-economic advantages will have greater accessibility to cognitive enhancers, which leads to greater unfairness. Same can be said for an academically-supportive network, but it would be ludicrous to say that the student has an unfair advantage. So again, the degree matters to Enck.

Enck talks about a virtues based approach. Some intellectual virtues are a moral good; seeking academic achievement is a moral good unto itself. In other words, we value (and reward) those who work hard at their academic goals. We value those efforts that seek true beliefs. 

[Enck fails to note that the student on cognitive enhancers (a) may be working as hard as the student not on enhances and (2) is any less dedicated to seeking true beliefs.]

Virtues are not the kinds of things that require chemical assistance. Seeking true beliefs does not require enhancement. 

Q&A

Why does chemical enhancement make a virtuous act less virtuous? Enck argues that it matters within the context of academia -- because it's a competitive environment. 

Allen Buchanan: "Breaking Evolution's Chains" [CFI conference on biomedical enhancements]

Bioethicist Allen Buchanan is today's first presenter. His talk is entitled, "Breaking Evolution's Chains." Buchanan is a co-author of the book, From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice, which is a must-read in enhancement bioethics.

Buchanan is talking specifically about genetic modifications. His concern is the "ubiquity of suboptimal design in Unintentional Genetic Modifications (UGM)." Buchanan makes the distinction between UGM and IGM (Intended Genetic Modifications).

Darwin showed that we can explain evolution and diversity without design. Buchanan shows the audience a lengthy list of examples of poor human "design," including human inability to biosynthesize Vitamin C, our poor sinus, human birth canal, lower back, pharynx (dual function, ingestion/respiration--risk of death by choking), urinary tract in male mammals (passes through, not around prostate), etc.

Why is suboptimal design ubiquitous? Answers include insensitivity of natural selection to post-reproduction quality of life, hence cardiovascular degeneration, cancer, degeneration of muscles and joints, neural degenerations, and other aging related disorders.

In UGM, selection does not imply optimality -- it says nothing about the current relation to reproductive fitness. Purely backward looking. Optimality depends on fit between organism and environment (where the environment is constantly changing). So, optimality is fleeting, always changing.

What was optimal may now be fatal. Not a progressive kind of thing at all. What's optimal in evolution may not be aligned with human values. Also, under UGM, spread of desirable mutations may be too slow and too great a cost in human terms; little lateral gene transfer. Another problem of "evolution as usual" are "Pleistocene Hangovers" -- what was adaptive in the EEA may now be maladaptive (e.g. propensity to xenophobia, step-child abuse, attention deficit 'disorder'.

Master engineer? Fickle, morally blind, tightly-shakled tinkerer. Doesn't finish projects, discards much of value. Doesn't aim at human good, achieves it only by coincidence; methods have high moral costs.

Problems with the Master Engineer analogy: (a) making risky changes in the name of improvement and (b)
resting content with the status quo. But in UGM the status quo is constantly changing, precarious.

The existing human organism is not finely balanced, stable, completed product that will continue as is, absent deliberate intervention.

"We may have to enhance, in order to conserve the goods we have."

Possible examples:

• Enhanced reproduction to counteract drastic decline in fertility due to environmental toxins
• Enhancement of resistance to skin cancer if ozone layer depletes
• Cognitive and/or affective enhancements to deal with global scale problems

Bioconservatives: the individual organism is like a seamless web. Traditional social conservatives: Society is like a seamless web. Both imply fragility: Cut one thread and the whole thing may unravel. 

Evidence against seamlessness: modularity of design, redundancy of systems, canalization ("you can make the same dish using different recipes"), natural selection requires incrementalism--being able to change one trait without changing the others. 

The worry about unintended consequences: How can we take the worry seriously? And get beyond vague platitudes like "use caution", "take it slow", etc. We need something more substantive, heuristic based. Otherwise it's too vague. 

Strategy: Take the hardest case: Unintended bad consequences of IGM (germline enhancements). Think about scientifically informed responses. 

Think ontogeny. Has to be sensitive to the ontogenic process. That's the key.

Evolutionary precautionary heuristics for IGM (as opposed to the precautionary principle). 

• The IGM targets genes that lie "downstream" rather than "upstream" in the organism's developmental process
• If successful, would not produce an enhancement that exceeds the upper bound of the current normal range (e.g. boost in cognitive performance beyond anything any human has ever had)
• Effects are containable within the organism 
• Involves a highly modularized system of or subsystem of the organism (mistakes can be contained within that modular)
• Effects are reversible
• Intervention does not require major morphological changes
• If goal is to eliminate a trait, then the causal roles of the trait and of the genes targeted for elimination should be well understood

There is good reason to worry about unintended bad effects of BE in general and of IGM in particular. Reasonable precautions should be based on accurate understanding of evolution, not faulty metaphor of Master Engineer. 

A plurality of precautionary heuristics should change over time. 

The threat of loss of normal human capacities. Pseudogenization of genes needed for normal human capacities (e.g. loss of bitter taste receptors as a result of cooking food, loss of visual acuity, loss of ability to biosynthesize Vitamin C). If selective pressures are eased, mutations increase to the point of making a gene nonfunctional and the associated capacity is lost.

Q&A

Buchanan is essentially "paving the way" for more substantive enhancements; we have to start where we are and in a responsible way.

What's possible and what's sci-fi fantasy? Risky to make predictions. Not confident that we'll be able to conduct meaningful IGM for various reasons.

How can we ever test IGM and go about the ethics of experimentation? More animal testing; need to know more about genetics and implications of modifications; but we shouldn't be complacent about the status quo -- it may be more reasonable or ethical to tolerate a little bit of risk. 

Live blogging: Conference on biomedical enhancements

I'm at the University of Pennsylvania today attending a conference on biomedical enhancements. The event, titled "Transforming Humanity: Fantasy? Dream? Nightmare?" is sponsored by the Center for Inquiry, the Penn Center for Bioethics and the Penn Center for Neuroscience & Society.

I will be live blogging the event, so look for my updates throughout today and tomorrow.

Center for Inquiry conference on biomedical enhancements

We are now less than two weeks away from the Center for Inquiry's conference on biomedical enhancements. With the title, "Transforming Humanity: Fantasy? Dream? Nightmare?", the event will bring together leading scholars to address technological, moral, and legal questions relating to biomedical enhancements:

Enhancements of human capacities, such as an increased lifespan or improved cognitive abilities, are a source of significant controversy. Some see them as a welcome development; others are much more skeptical. What is the realistic potential of enhancements? What are the ethical limits, if any, on enhancements? How should they be regulated?

Speakers include Art Caplan, Allen Buchanan and many others. The event, which will be held at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia from December 3-4, is also sponsored by the Penn Center for Bioethics and the Penn Center for Neuroscience & Society.

I will be there along with my colleagues from the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. We'll be sure to represent.

Personalized Life Extension Conference, October 9-10

Foresight Institute's Christine Peterson recently announced that the Personalized Life Extension Conference will be held at the San Francisco Airpot Marriott Hotel from October 9 to 10. The list of speakers looks phenomenal, as does the program.

Keynote speakers include Esther Dyson and Peter Thiel. They'll be joined by Terry Grossman, Greg Fahy, Sonia Arison, Bruce Ames, Gregory Benford, Melanie Swan, Patri Friedman and many others.

And if you thought there isn't really much you can do or talk about in the ways of personalized life extension, check out the list of strategies and tactics to be discussed:

• Supplements
• DNA Testing
• Telomere Protection
• Blood Testing
• Finding a Life Extension Doctor
• Gadgets
• Inflammation
• Calorie Restriction & Intermittent Fasting
• Sleep
• Stress reduction
• Self-experimentation
• Exercise
• Enhancement & Brain Function
• Eating
• Standards of Information Quality
• Mood

Be sure to register today.

Singularity Summit 2008 videos now available online

The first batch of Singularity Summit 2008 videos are now available online, and the SIAI says there's more to come.

Global Catastrophic Risks talks now available online

Via the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies.

All the talks from the November 14, 2008 Global Catastrophic Risks: Building a Resilient Civilization seminar, co-sponsored by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology and the Lifeboat Foundation, are now online, thanks to Jeriaska.

Welcome and Introductions

WATCH - LISTEN

Anders Sandberg PhD, Oxford University “Global Catastrophic Risks: An Overview, and Caution about Risk Assessments”

WATCH - LISTEN

Jamais Cascio, IEET Fellow, and research affiliate, Institute for the Future “Building Civilizational Resilience”

WATCH - LISTEN

Eliezer Yudkowsky, Research Associate. Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence “Cognitive Biases in the Assessment of Risk”

WATCH - LISTEN

Martin Hellman PhD, Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University “Risk Analysis of Nuclear Deterrence”

WATCH - LISTEN

Bruce Damer, CEO, DigitalSpace & Director, Contact Consortium “Asteroids and Comets: Mitigating Impact Risks and Stepping Stones to a Sustainable Space Program”

WATCH - LISTEN

Mike Treder, Executive Director, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology “Nanotechnology’s Global Risk and Promises of Resilience”

WATCH - LISTEN

Tad Hogg PhD, Social Computing Laboratory, Hewlett Packard “Distributed Surveillance with MEMS or Nano-scale Sensors”

WATCH - LISTEN

Kattesh V. Katti PhD, Director, Cancer Nanotechnology Platform, Professor of Radiology, University of Missouri “Green Nanotechnology: An Economic And Scientific Initiative For the Future Of Human Civilization”

WATCH - LISTEN

Alan Goldstein PhD, CEO of Industrial Nanobiotechnology “The A-Prize: Tracking The Global Race To Break The Carbon Barrier”

WATCH - LISTEN

J. Storrs Hall PhD, author Beyond AI “The Weather Machine: Nano-enabled Climate Control for the Earth”

WATCH - LISTEN

George Dvorsky, Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies “Risks Posed by Political Extremism”

WATCH - LISTEN

James J. Hughes PhD, Exec. Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies “Strengthening Transnational Governance to Mitigate Risks”

WATCH - LISTEN

Jamais Cascio, IEET Fellow, and research affiliate, Institute for the Future
“Strategies for Civilizational Resilience in the Face of Global Catastrophic Risks” WATCH - LISTEN