The best of the guests

A hearty thank you goes out to all the guest bloggers who contributed to Sentient Developments in 2009. Here are my favorite of their articles from the past year:

• Russell Blackford: On the baggage of transhumanism & Pigliucci on science and the scope of skeptical inquiry
  
• David Eagleman: Will you perceive the event that kills you?
• David Brin: Will we "uplift" animals to sapiency & How Americans spent themselves into ruin... but saved the world
• David Pearce: The Abolitionist Project: Using biotechnology to abolish suffering in all sentient life & A world without suffering
  
• Milan M. Cirkovic: Assessing solipsist solutions to the Fermi Paradox
  
• Athena Andreadis: If I Can’t Dance, I Don’t Want to Be Part of Your Revolution!
• Michael Anissimov: Dismiss Gaianism & Eliminating all pain, forever
• Natasha Vita-More: Interpretive dance of the transhumanist future
• Edward Miller: How to redesign our communities for the internet age
• Casey Rae-Hunter: The bright side of nuclear armament & Neurodiversity vs. Cognitive Liberty I & II
• Linda MacDonald Glenn: Call 1-800-New-Organ, by 2020?
  

Linda MacDonald Glenn guest blogging in November and December

I'm pleased to announce that bioethicist Linda MacDonald Glenn will be guest blogging at Sentient Developments over the next four weeks.

Linda, who studied biomedical ethics at McGill University in Montreal, is a healthcare ethics educator, attorney-at-law and a consultant. She is an Assistant Professor at the Alden March Bioethics Institute, Albany Medical Center, a Women’s Bioethics Project Scholar, a Fellow at the Institute for Emerging Technologies and a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation. Linda also completed a fellowship at the American Medical Association Institute for Ethics.

Her research encompasses the legal, ethical, and social impact of emerging technologies, evolving notions of personhood and informed consent in public health research.

Linda has advised governmental leaders and agencies and she has published numerous articles in professional journals. Some of her better-known articles include "Biotechnology at the Margins of Personhood: An Evolving Legal Paradigm" in the Journal of Ethics and Technology, "Ethical Issues in Transgenics and Genetic Engineering" at Actionbioscience, "Keeping An Open Mind: What Legal Safeguards are needed?” in the American Journal of Bioethics, and "When Pigs Fly? Legal and Ethical Issues in Transgenics and the Creation of Chimeras".

She also is the Editor-in-Chief of the outstanding and progressive Women's Bioethics Blog.

With Linda onboard for the next four weeks we can be guaranteed some interesting and provocative content; I'm very much looking forward to Linda's posts.

Casey Rae-Hunter guest blogging this month

I'm pleased to announce that Casey Rae-Hunter will be guest blogging on Sentient Developments this month.

Casey Rae-Hunter is a writer, editor, musician, producer and self-proclaimed "lover of fine food and drink." He is the Communications Director of the Future of Music Coalition — a Washington, DC think tank that identifies, examines, interprets and translates issues at the intersection of music, law, technology and policy. He is also the founder and CEO of the Contrarian Media Group, which publishes The Contrarian and Autistic in the District — the latter a blog about Asperger's Syndrome.

Casey's interest in 'music, media and metaphysics' align closely with my own -- including his perspectives on Buddhism, autism, neurodiversity/neurotypicality and psychological well-being -- so look for his posts to focus on those issues.

Edward Miller guest blogging in July

Ardent transhumanist and Humanity+ advocate Edward Miller will be guest blogging on Sentient Developments this month.

Among other things, Edward is the founder of the EmbraceUnity blog; in his mandate he states:

When attempting to combat intolerance, many have decided to “Embrace Diversity.” While fighting injustice is a noble effort, it must be based on solid ethical ground. Embracing diversity often implies that it is important to preserve separate identities based on ethnicity, nationality, religion, and so on.

Unfortunately, it is precisely those divisions that have caused much of the injustice in the first place. The human species must transcend these primitive notions and strive for unity. If we are to create a more peaceful global community, we must identify first and foremost with humanity as a whole, above any arbitrary social constructs.

The goal of this blog is to promote humanist values, and by extension, transhumanism and decentralization of power.

In addition to his work at the EmbraceUnity blog, Edward is a vocal advocate for the decentralization of power and civilizational resilience through the use of technology in innovative ways.

To this end, he is the Chief Information Officer of the Network for Open Scientific Innovation and an intern for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Edward has also been collaborating with the Open Source Ecology movement; he enjoys looking at the world from a systems theoretic perspective and using any insights toward utilitarian ends.

Edward is also practicing vegan and a self-described health nut. He just finished an undergraduate degree in Economics and currently works as a freelance software developer.

To get a better sense of what Edward is all about, I strongly suggest you check out his excellent presentation, "The Future of Subjectivity."

The Future of Subjectivity - Edward Miller from Edward Miller on Vimeo.

Look for Edward's posts throughout the month of July.

Michael Anissimov guest blogging in June

I'm pleased to announce that Michael Anissimov will be guest blogging on Sentient Developments during the month of June. A science/technology writer and futurist, Michael produces the mind-bending Accelerating Future blog and plays a prominent role in a number of futurist and foresight related organizations.

I first met Michael in 2003 during a transhumanist conference at Yale and we've kept in touch ever since. Our visions of the future, both in terms of the risks and benefits, have always been very closely aligned -- whether it be in how we've come to define the perpetually amorphous Technological Singularity or what we envision as being the posthuman condition. We also share similar ethical sensibilities; both of us are outspoken advocates of animal welfare, vegetarianism and the abolitionist imperative.

A bit about Michael:

He is Media Director for the Singularity Institute and Fundraising Director, North America for the Lifeboat Foundation. He is the founder of the Immortality Institute, a grassroots life extension advocacy organization, and does fundraising work for the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, an organization devoted to research on safe artificial intelligence. He's also a prolific freelance science and technology writer; he has contributed over 1,600 short factual articles to WiseGeek.com, a website that promises “clear answers for common questions”. WiseGeek received over 62 million visitors last year.

Back in 2006, Michael expanded his capacity to hound others about the wonders of technology and its central significance to humanity’s future by starting his blog, Accelerating Future. Since its founding, the blog has received over 5 million visits and been featured on G4.TV’s Attack of the Show and SciFi.com. Posts of Michael’s have appeared on the front page of Digg and Reddit. Since appearing on the scene, Michael has received some light media coverage, being interviewed by Psychology Today in 2008. Since 2003, Michael has given talks on the risks and benefits of emerging technologies at conferences and seminars in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Palo Alto, and at Yale University.

The topics that Michael likes to focus on are artificial intelligence, molecular nanotechnology, transhumanism, intelligence enhancement and extinction risk. He believes that humanity could rise or fall in the 21st century depending on how we handle these technologies. His views on the dangers of advanced technology are very similar to those presented by Bill Joy in his WIRED article, “Why the future doesn’t need us”, except Michael believes that relinquishment is infeasible. Instead, he advocates selective development — the acceleration of beneficial technologies (especially intelligence enhancement and Friendly AI) so that their problem-solving capabilities can be brought to bear on the risks of other advanced technologies.

Michael is allied with the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, to which he often contributes articles. The IEET’s mission is to become a center for voices arguing for a responsible, constructive approach to emerging human enhancement technologies. The organization believes that technological progress can be a catalyst for positive human development so long as we ensure that technologies are safe and equitably distributed. The basic idea is that human enhancement technology should be cautiously embraced rather than ignored or rejected.

Michael has been a consultant for a variety of future-oriented non-profit organizations and for-profit companies including the Methuselah Foundation, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, and Kurzweil Technologies. On behalf of the Lifeboat Foundation and the Singularity Institute, Michael has has consulted for organizations such as the US Navy and spoken informally with reporters at outlets such as The New York Times, New Scientist, Financial Times, The Guardian, and the offices of US senators and congressmen.

Look for Michael to blog throughout the month of June. Should make for a fascinating exchange of ideas.

Cosmologist Milan Cirkovic guest blogging next week

I've got some exciting news for those interested in cosmology, SETI and transhumanism: Milan M. Cirkovic will be guest blogging on Sentient Developments next week starting on May 18. It's a great honor to have him contribute to the blog. His views on SETI, the Fermi Paradox and the ultimate manifestation of intelligent life have significantly influenced my own.

Milan is a senior researcher at the Astronomical Observatory of Belgrade, (Serbia) and the associate professor of Cosmology at Department of Physics, University of Novi Sad (Serbia). He received his Ph.D. in Physics from the State University of New York at Stony Brook (USA), M.S. in Earth and Space Sciences from the same university, and his B.Sc. in Theoretical Physics from the University of Belgrade.

His primary research interests are in the fields of astrophysical cosmology (baryonic dark matter, star formation, future of the universe), astrobiology (anthropic principles, SETI studies, catastrophic episodes in the history of life), as well as philosophy of science (risk analysis, observation selection effects, epistemology). A unifying theme in these fields is the nature of physical time, the relationship of time and complexity, and various aspects of entropy-increasing processes taking place throughout the universe.

Milan recently co-edited the anthology on Global Catastrophic Risks (Oxford University Press, 2008) and translated several books, including titles by Richard P. Feynman and Sir Roger Penrose. In recent years, his research has been published in Astronomy & Astrophysics, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Physics Letters A, Astrobiology, New Astronomy, Origin of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, Foundations of Physics, Philosophical Quarterly and other major journals.

Look for Milan to blog from May 18 to May 22. While you wait, check out his excellent paper, "On the Importance of SETI for Transhumanism."

Gazing from the Orion Spiral Arm

Athena Andreadis is guest blogging this month.

I want to thank George for inviting me to contribute to his always interesting blog. When we were discussing specifics, I mentioned I favor story arcs rather than hopping around randomly or banging on a single nail. For this blog, the obvious nexus would be the promises and perils of transhumanism as viewed by a biologist -- since the vast majority of transhumanists still seem to come from the domains of either computer programming or the social sciences.

My views are refracted through the additional prisms of being a woman, a non-Anglosaxon from an ancient culture instrumental in shaping the Western world, a cultural half-breed… someone who falls between too many stools to avoid or count. Briefly, though, I believe that humans need to pay equal attention to the outer and inner world, just as stars remain stable by balancing gravity pressure against nuclear fusion tension. Too much action without introspection, and humans turn into stiff upper lips declaiming about manifest destiny. Too much of the reverse, and they become whining navel-gazers.

So, tentatively, I plan to explore the mind/body problem in transhumanism (and cyberpunk, the Watson to TH's Holmes), artificial wombs, neuroenhancers and conclude with a discussion of the false dilemma between transhumanism and space exploration. I may take sideroads along the way, if something particularly absorbing comes up. Join me for the roaming:

Let me set sail for open water,
With gun salutes and pealing bells!

Odysseus Elytis, from Sun the First

Athena
Starship Reckless
Forever Young

Image: Serenity starship, Firefly class

Athena Andreadis guest blogging in May

I'm pleased to announce that Athena Andreadis will be guest blogging on Sentient Developments during the month of May. Andreadis is a fellow of the IEET, Associate Professor of Cell Biology at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, and the author of To Seek Out New Life: The Biology of Star Trek.

Athena arrived in the United States from Greece at 18 to pursue biochemistry and astrophysics as a scholarship student at Harvard and MIT. She narrowly chose the former discipline while never fully abandoning the latter, and now conducts basic research in molecular neurobiology. Among her academic endeavors she studies the gene regulatory mechanism known as alternative splicing. The long-term goal of her research is to understand how the brain works, and contribute to the struggle against mental retardation and dementia.

When not conjuring in the lab, Athena writes (and used to review) fiction, an unexpected benefit of chronic insomnia. She has always wondered about the possibility of life on other planets and the limits of the human body/mind in radically altered environments. Combining these interests, she wrote To Seek Out New Life: The Biology of Star Trek (which I'm proud to say has a spot on my shelf) a stealth science book that explores biology, psychology and sociology through the lens of eponymous series. In the wake of the book, she got invited to give talks in venues ranging from NASA to the NIH and to write articles in such places as Astronomy Magazine and Strange Horizons.

In addition to these pursuits, Andreadis reads voraciously, collects original art and has traveled extensively.

I'm very much looking forward to seeing her contributions here on Sentient Developments.

In the meantime, be sure to check out her articles, "Why Science Needs Fiction," "E. T., Call Springer-Verlag!", and "We Must Love One Another or Die: A Critique of Star Wars."

Guest blogger David Pearce answers your questions (part 2)

David Pearce is guest blogging this week.

Here are two more replies in response to questions about my Abolitionist Project article from earlier this week.

Carl makes an important point: "Why think that affective gradients are necessary for motivation at all? Consider minds that operate with formal utility functions instead of reinforcement learning. Humans are often directly motivated to act independently of pleasure and pain."

Imagine if we could find a functionally adequate substitute for the signaling role of negative affect - a bland term that hides a multitude of horrors - and replace its nastiness with formal utility functions. Why must organic robots like us experience the awful textures of physical pain, depression and malaise, while our silicon robots function well without them? True, most people regard life's heartaches as a price worth paying for life's joys. We wouldn't want to become zombies.

But what if it were feasible to "zombify" the nasty side of life completely while amplifying all the good bits - perhaps so we become "cyborg buddhas".

More radically, if the signaling role of affect proves dispensable altogether, it might be feasible computationally to offload everything mundane onto smart prostheses - and instead enjoy sublime states of bliss every moment of our lives, without any hedonic dips at all. I say more on this theme in my reply to "Wouldn't a permanent maximum of bliss be better?" I need scarcely add this is pure speculation.

Leafy asks me to comment on an "animal welfare state, and [...] how your views about the treatment of nonhuman animals (e.g., that animals need care and protection, not liberation, and when animal use or domination might be morally acceptable) differ from those of people such as Singer and Francione".

First, let's deal with an obvious question. Millions of human infants die needlessly and prematurely in the Third World each year. Shouldn't we devote all our energies to helping members of our own species first? To the extent humans suffer more than non-humans, I'd answer: yes - though rationalists should take extraordinary pains to guard against anthropocentric bias. Critically, there is no evidence that domestic, farm or wild mammals are any less sentient than human infants and toddlers. If so, we should treat their well-being impartially. A critic will respond here that human infants have moral priority because they have the potential to become full-grown adults - with the moral primacy that we claim. But we wouldn't judge a toddler with a terminal disease who will never grow up to deserve any less love and care than a healthy youngster. Likewise, the fact that a dog or a chimpanzee or a pig will never surpass the intellectual accomplishments of a three year old child is no reason to let them suffer more. Thus I think it's admirable that we spend a hundred thousand dollars trying to save the life of a 23 week old extremely premature baby; but it's incongruous that we butcher and eat billions of more sophisticated sentient beings each day. Actually, IMO words can't adequately convey the horror of what we're doing in factory farms and slaughterhouses. Self-protectively, I try and shut it out most of the time. After all, my intuitions reassure me, they're only animals, what's going on right now can't really be as bad as I believe it to be. Yet I'm also uncomfortably aware this is moral and intellectual cowardice.

Is a comprehensive welfare system for non-human animals technically feasible? Yes. The implications of an exponential growth of computing power for the biosphere are exceedingly counterintuitive. See, for example, The Singularity Institute or Ray Kurzweil -- though I'm slightly more cautious about timescales. In any event, by the end of the century we should have the computational resources to micromanage an entire planetary ecosystem. Whether we use those computational resources systematically to promote the well-being of all sentient life in that kind of timeframe is presumably unlikely. However, we already - and without the benefit of quantum supercomputers - humanely employ, for example, depot-contraception rather than culling to control the population numbers of elephants in some overcrowded African national parks. Admittedly, ecosystem redesign is only in its infancy; and we've barely begun to use genetic engineering, let alone genomic rewrites. But if our value system dictates, then we could use nanobots to go to the furthest ends of the Earth and the deep oceans and eradicate the molecular signature of unpleasant experience wherever it is found. Likewise, we could do the same to the genetic code that spawns it. In any case, for better or worse, by the mid-century large terrestrial mammals are unlikely to survive outside our "wildlife" reserves simply in virtue of habitat destruction. How much suffering we permit in these reserves is up to us.

Gary Francione and Peter Singer? Despite their different perspectives, I admire them both. As an ethical utilitarian rather than a rights theorist, I'm probably closer to Peter Singer. But IMO a utilitarian ethic dictates that factory-farmed animals don't just need "liberating", they need to be cared for. Non-human animals in the wild simply aren't smart enough to adequately look after themselves in times or drought or famine or pestilence, for instance, any more than are human toddlers and infants, and any more than were adult members of Homo sapiens before the advent of modern scientific medicine, general anaesthesia, and painkilling drugs. [actually, until humanity conquers ageing and masters the technologies needed reliably to modulate mood and emotion, this control will be woefully incomplete.]

At the risk of over-generalising, we have double standards: an implicit notion of "natural" versus "unnatural" suffering. One form of suffering is intuitively morally acceptable, albeit tragic; the other is intuitively morally wrong. Thus we reckon someone who lets their pet dog starve to death or die of thirst should be prosecuted for animal cruelty. But an equal intensity of suffering is re-enacted in Mother Nature every day on an epic scale. It's not (yet) anybody's "fault." But as our control over Nature increases, so does our complicity in the suffering of Darwinian life "red in tooth and claw". So IMO we will shortly be ethically obliged to "interfere" [intervene] and prevent that suffering, just as we now intervene to protect the weak, the sick and the vulnerable in human society.

But here comes the real psychological stumbling-block. One of the more counterintuitive implications of applying a compassionate utilitarian ethic in an era of biotechnology is our obligation to reprogram and/or phase out predators. In the future, I think a lot of thoughtful people will be relaxed about phasing out/reprogramming, say, snakes or sharks. But over the years, I've received a fair bit of hate-mail from cat-lovers who think that I want to kill their adorable pets. Naturally, I don't: I'd just like to see members of the cat family reprogrammed [or perhaps "uplifted" so they don't cause suffering to their prey. As it happens, I've only once witnessed a cat "playing" with a tormented mouse. It was quite horrific. Needless to say, the cat was no more morally culpable than a teenager playing violent videogames, despite the suffering it was inflicting. But I've not been able to enjoy watching a Tom-and-Jerry cartoon since. Of course the cat's victim was only a mouse. Its pain and terror were probably no worse than mine the last time I caught my fingers in the door. But IMO a sufficiently Godlike superintelligence won't tolerate even a pinprick's worth of pain in post-human paradise. And (demi)gods, at least, is what I predict we're going to become...

David Pearce
dave@hedweb.com
http://www.hedweb.com/

Philosopher David Pearce guest blogging next week

British philosopher David Pearce will be guest blogging on Sentient Developments next week.

Pearce is a seminal figure in the transhumanist movement, most notably for his work as an organizer (he co-founded the World Transhumanist Association (now Humanity+) with Nick Bostrom in 1998) and as a thought leader (particularly for his work as a negative utilitarian ethicist and abolitionist).

Pearce's contributions will fit in nicely here at SentDev. Like myself, he believes and promotes the idea that there exists a strong ethical imperative for humans to work towards the abolition of suffering in all sentient life. He has a book-length internet manifesto called The Hedonistic Imperative in which he details how he believes the abolition of suffering can be accomplished through "paradise engineering".

A transhumanist and a vegan, Pearce also calls for the elimination of cruelty to animals. Among his websites, there are many devoted to the plight of animals. [Love it when people practice what they preach]

In The Hedonistic Imperative, Pearce outlines how technologies such as genetic engineering, nanotechnology, pharmacology, and neurosurgery could potentially converge to eliminate all forms of unpleasant experience in human life and produce a posthuman civilization.

Pearce is also currently the director of BLTC Research, a non-profit research organization that seeks to elucidate the underlying physiological mechanisms of physical and mental suffering, with the intention of eradicating it in all its forms. The goals of research in Better Living Through Chemistry include determining the final common neurological pathway of both pleasure and pain in the brain. Once this process is better understood, it could be possible to more effectively design medicines and other treatments for various mental illnesses, as well as cure the painful symptoms of many diseases.

David will be blogging on Sentient Developments from April 27 through to May 1. Note: David mentioned that he'd like to address topic requests from Sentient Developments readers. Feel free to post article suggestions and questions for David in this post's comments section.

[Hmmm, just realized that my last three guest bloggers have all been named David (Eagleman and Brin being the previous two). Weird]

Should we shout at the cosmos?

David Brin is guest blogging this week.

I am assuming that some of you have gone slumming, and read my piece about METI -- the recent effort by some to transform the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence into a prolonged and vigorous effort to actively send MESSAGES to such entities.

If you haven't read it, that's okay. I can wait while you read it here.

(Cue elevator muzak. "The girl from Impanima." While the rest of us shuffle our feet and avoid staring at each other. Maybe comment on the weather...)

Ah, good, you're back. So, do you think that we little Earthlings ought to start hollering, trying to draw attention from any advanced civilizations, out there? Really? We are presumably the youngest and most ignorant race in all the galaxy, like an infant, stumbling around in a jungle we do not understand, with no knowledge at all about the situation out there. And yet, it is behooved on US to do the shouting?

As they put it in "Bored of the Rings..." Yoohoo? Beasties? Come and eat us!

Do I really expect slathering hordes of Kardassian invaders? Um, no. In fact, in all of this controversy, I have never, ever expressed fear of alien attack or invasion. Ever. What bugs me is not so much the likelihood of attack, which I deem to be fairly low - but not-zero.

No, it is the profound and cult-like arrogance that has arisen, among those within the extremely narrow, self-referential and inbred SETI community, who no longer even seem to be able to notice the unwarranted assumptions that they make. Indeed, in order never to have those assumptions questioned, they go to great lengths to isolate themselves from colleagues in other branches of science. It is that refusal to even discuss these matters, at wide-open scientific conferences, where their catechisms might be scrutinized by biologists, geologists, technologists and others, that demonstrates how far down the road of cult fanaticism they have gone.

It is a pity, because SETI is a noble undertaking. An expression of the curiosity and expansiveness and eagerness that typifies humanity, at its best. It deserves better than it's getting. It deserves adults. It deserves science.

=======

Next, George wants to talk about...

"Will a transparent society help humanity survive extinction risks?" We live in an age of increasing privacy concerns and along with it the rise of defeatism and cynicism. But a number of thinkers have turned these anxieties on their head by suggesting that a society without privacy is a safe society. David Brin calls this the transparent society, and he believes it’s this kind of openness that will help human civilization get through its most difficult phase yet – and it might just get us past a series of extinction risks and on through to the Singularity."

I never would have predicted, as a youth, that I would grow up to be "Mr. Transparency." Or that so many people would misinterpret my stance as "anti-privacy." (Actually, I love privacy! I just want citizens to know enough so that THEY can defend their freedom and privacy, instead of counting on unreliable elites to do it for them.)

Another immense topic, that I cover at book-length in The Transparent Society: Will Technology Make Us Choose Between Privacy and Freedom? A topic containing vast subtleties and twists and surprises... and shame on you, if you react with just a pat, pablum answer to the quandary, instead of exploring and asking questions, the way a serious citizen would!

A number of my transparency-related articles can be viewed on my web site. For those with little time: A little allegory from The Transparent Society. Of intermediate length: my controversial Salon Magazine privacy article:

Oh... and finally...

One of my ongoing themes has been a 21st Century struggle to empower citizens, after the 20th Century's relentless trend toward the "professionalization of everything." But this may be about to change. For example, an overlooked aspect of the 9/11 tragedy was that citizens themselves were most effective in our civilization's defense, reacting with resiliency and initiative while armed with new technologies (more here).

Yeah, I've spent a LOT of time on all this stuff.... ;-(

Think. Take on and embrace complexity. dogmas are for slaves and conquistadors.

Singularity? Schmingularity? Are we becoming gods?

David Brin is guest blogging this week.

...greeted with hand-rubbing glee by fellows like Ray Kurzweil and the "extropians" who foresee transformation into higher, smarter, and more durable kinds of beings.

Needless to say, many people have ambivalent feelings about the Singularity. As I describe in the essay, “Singularities and Nightmares: Extremes of Optimism and Pessimism About the Human Future", some fear the machines will stomp on their makers. Or else crush our pride by being kind to us, the way we might pat a dog on the head.

Others feel that humanity may get to come along, accompanying our creations through the wild ride toward godhead, as I illustrate in one of the few post-singularity science fiction stories, "Stones of Significance."

(At the same site see other short stories, plus the provocative "Do we really want immortality?")

Meanwhile, others urge that we reject the coming changes, or else claim that we'll have no choice. That this Singularity thing will turn out to be a failed dream, like all the other promises of transcendence that were sung about by previous generations of mystical romantics.

Indeed, one thing about all this fascinates me -- that personality generally overrides culture and logic and reason. More and more, we are learning this. Somebody who would have been a grouch 500 years ago is likely to be one, today. The kind of person who would have been a raving transcendentalist in Roman days, foretelling a God-wrought ending time - either in flames or paradise - would today be among those who now prophecy either world destruction or redemption... by means of science. The envisioned means change, but the glorious vision of doom or glory do not.

Oh, what is a pragmatic optimist to do? We are beset by exaggerators! When what we need to moderate, step by step action... adamant, radical, even militant moderation! Progressively pursuing all the good things without allowing our zealotry to blind us to the quicksand and minefields along the way. Simplistic dogmas are dumb, whether they are political or techno-transcendentalist. It is pragmatists who will be best suited to negotiate with the rising AI entities. And it will be those who emphasize decency, not dogma, who teach the new gods to be pleasant. To be people.

And that's a VERY brief commentary on perhaps the greatest issue of our time. Wish I had more time. But I'll be commenting furthe from time to time, at CONTRARY BRIN.

====

Oh, for some cool recent science fiction about the near future, see my stories "Shoresteading" and "The Smartest Mob"

=====

NEXT... George says: "A number of years ago, David Brin contacted me to bring me up to speed on his efforts to raise awareness about the active SETI approach, also known as METI (messages to extraterrestrial intelligences). Brin argues that human civilization is not ready to call attention to itself – at least not yet -- and that we should engage in a broader discussion before doing so.

Brin writes,

'Let there be no mistake. METI is a very different thing than passively sifting for signals from the outer space. Carl Sagan, one of the greatest SETI supporters and a deep believer in the notion of altruistic alien civilizations, called such a move deeply unwise and immature....

'Sagan — along with early SETI pioneer Philip Morrison — recommended that the newest children in a strange and uncertain cosmos should listen quietly for a long time, patiently learning about the universe and comparing notes, before shouting into an unknown jungle that we do not understand.

"Brin invited me to join a closed discussion group where this issue is examined and debated. The purpose of the exercise is to not just think more deeply about this issue, but to also raise awareness and possibly prevent a catastrophe (alien invasion perhaps?). Essentially, Brin argues that METI needs to be strongly considered before any group or individual takes it upon themselves to shout out to the heavens. He is particularly concerned how some groups, including SETI, are dismissive of his concerns. His fear is that someone will unilaterally decide to start transmitting messages into the depths of space.

'I was unsure at first about whether or not I should join this group. As a contact pessimist I’m fairly certain that the fear about a METI approach is unwarranted -- not because ETI's are likely to be friendly, but because no one's listening. And even if they are listening, there's nothing we can do about it; any advanced ETI that's on a search-and-destroy mission would likely have the 'search' aspect figured out. I'm not sure how any civilization could hide in the Galaxy. Consequently, METI is somewhat of a non-issue in my opinion.

'That being said, however, I did reach the conclusion that there is a non-zero chance that we could run into trouble should we change our approach from listening to messaging. For example, resident berserkers could be waiting, for what ever reason, for this sort of change in our radio signals. Perhaps they are waiting for a sign that we've passed a certain developmental threshold.

'I think this argument is extremely weak and improbable, but it's not impossible; it should not be ruled out as a potential existential risk.

'Which leads me to the precautionary principle. Since no one is listening, there is no harm in not sending messages out into the cosmos. Again, if a friendly ETI wanted to do a meet-and-greet, they should have no trouble finding us. But because there is the slim chance that we may alert a local berserker (or something unknown), we should probably refrain from the METI approach for the time being."

Thoughts? Don't leap to conclusions! Read up: "Shouting at the Cosmos."

Brin#2 Thoughts on the Singularity

David Brin is guest blogging this week.

Again, thanks George for inviting me to participate. Any of you who wish to pursue me with questions and issues can find me at my own blog, CONTRARY BRIN.

The commentators last time, alas, seemed smugly dismissive of a concept (uplift) that surely SOME of humanity will zealously pursue, in the next generation. Their blithe shrugs -- e.g. "why would anyone want to do this?" and "What's the benefit?" are genuinely good questions, but only if posed by people who actually try to answer them first!

Seriously, that is how you engage an issue. You paraphrase what you expect that your opponents BEST arguments might be, before knocking them down. In the case of Uplift, there are so many obvious reasons to try it -- such as the inherent human curiosity, gregariousness and hunger for diverse voices. A hunger expressed in science fiction, but rooted in the exogamous mating impulse and the everpresent yearning to acquire allies far beyond the boundary of the tribe.

If there aren't aliens, then building our own sounds cool. Anyway, how better to see our human assumptions questioned than by expanding our tribal circle to include new perspectives. Even if neodolphins and neochimps were partly uplifted twoward human thought modalities, they would inherently bring with them ways of viewing the world that were different than ours, and that might inform our art, our science, philosophy, or even spot many of our false assumptions and mistakes.

Anyway, sapience is clearly HARD. Earth only achieved it once. (And if you hold with the hoary old mythology that dolphins already have it, can you offer a scintilla of proof? If they are our equals, how come we're the only ones trying?) Me? As I expressed in my novel EARTH - Mother Gaia would probably do well to have more than one caretaker species to serve as frontal lobes. Complexity can equal wisdom.

These are among many reasons TO do uplift. And I am ornery and contrary enough to perceive some flaws in them, myself! All of them are answerable. But the point is that smug dismissers of a concept ought to at least play fair and move their minds across the natural and obvious opposing arguments, paraphrasing and proving they are familiar enough with them, before using real logic to knock them down.

We deserve better thinking... certainly if we're going to be a species that deserves to do uplift.

=====

On to the next topic... George says:

The Technological Singularity describes a future nexus point when the capacities of an artificial intelligence (or a radically augmented human) exceeds that of humans. It is called the “Singularity” because it impossible to predict what will follow such an event. A Singularity could usher in an era of great wisdom, prosperity and happiness, or it could result in the end of the human species.

David Brin believes that we are likely en route to a Singularity, but that its exact nature cannot be known, nor that such an event is inevitable. In his article, “Singularities and Nightmares: Extremes of Optimism and Pessimism About the Human Future,” Brin posits four different possibilities for human civilization later this century:

1. Self-destruction
2. Positive Singularity
3. Negative Singularity
4. Retreat

Brin, in a personal email to me, recently wrote, “[My] singularity friends think I am an awful grouch, while my conservative friends think I am a godmaker freak.” Indeed, Brin has expressed skepticism at the idea of a meta-mind or a Teilhard de Chardin apotheosis, while on the other hand he hasn’t shied away from speculations about transcendent artificial intelligences who shuffle thorough the Singularity without a care for their human benefactors.

A fascinating -- and HUGE topic... and I'll let folks click over to that essay in order to get up to speed on the range of astounding futures that may be involved.

Tomorrow we can nibble at the edges of a singularity!

With cordial regards,

David Brin

David Brin guest blogging here next week

Science fiction writer, scientist and renowned futurist David Brin will be guest blogging here on Sentient Developments next week.

Brin is a best-selling author whose future-oriented novels include Earth and Hugo Award winners Startide Rising and The Uplift War (a part of the Uplift Series -- and yes, he coined the term).

He is also known as a leading commentator on modern technological trends. His non-fiction book, The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us To Choose Between Privacy And Freedom?, won the Freedom of Speech Award of the American Library Association. Brin consults and speaks for a wide variety of groups interested in the future, ranging from Defense Department agencies and the CIA to Procter & Gamble, Google and other major corporations. He has also been a participant in discussions at the Philanthropy Roundtable and other groups seeking innovative problem solving approaches.

There's a lot of simpatico between Brin's work and my own, so his contributions will be right at home here. David will be writing about biological uplift, the Singularity, Active SETI (messages to extraterrestrial intelligences), and how a transparent society might work to help us mitigate catastrophic risks.

You can follow David's blog at Contrary Brin. Be sure to check out his home page.

Neuroscientist David Eagleman guest blogging on Sentient Developments next week

I've got a real treat in store for you guys: renowned neuroscientist David Eagleman will be guest blogging here for one week starting this coming Monday February 16.

Dr. Eagleman is a neuroscientist at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, TX, where he directs the Laboratory for Perception and Action as well as the Initiative on Neuroscience and Law.

His interests focus largely on how the brain constructs reality and how different brains do so differently. To this end he uses psychophysics, neuroimaging and computational simulations.

He is the author of several books, including the upcoming Dethronement, an exploration of the work the brain does behind the scenes, and Wednesday is Indigo Blue, a book about synesthesia, a condition in which the senses are mixed.

His research has been featured on Discovery Channel, History Channel, BBC, ABC, PBS, and in major print media. Dr. Eagleman is the founder of several companies, and three years ago founded the Eagleman Prize in mathematics and physics.

Dr. Eagleman has long been interested in transhumanism and the concept of 'silicon immortality.' He was a recent contributor to the Edge.org's Big Question, "What will change everything?," to which he responded:

"While medicine will advance in the next half century, we are not on a crash-course for achieving immortality by curing all disease. Bodies simply wear down with use. We are on a crash-course, however, with technologies that let us store unthinkable amounts of data and run gargantuan simulations. Therefore, well before we understand how brains work, we will find ourselves able to digitally copy the brain's structure and able to download the conscious mind into a computer."

His book of fiction, Sum, debuted internationally this month.

It's going to be an exciting and provocative week with David Eagleman on board. Don't miss it.

Thanks, Russell!

Many thanks go out to Russell Blackford for guest blogging here last week. I'm sure my visitors enjoyed his contributions as much as I did.

This was an interesting and valuable experience for me. Russell will go down as the first person other than myself to contribute content to this blog. And I have to admit -- it was a strange feeling seeing someone else's work appearing alongside my own.

But this turned out to be a very good and healthy thing. It was an opportunity for me to offer my readers some new 'transhumanist' perspectives, and it helped me re-contextualize my own writing and the type of content I plan to post in the future.

Again, sincerest thanks to Russell. It was a delight having him here last week.

Here's the listing of Dr. Blackford's posts:

• Where's my alien civilisation? Part 1
• Where's my alien civilisation? Part 2
• Implications of the atheist bus
• Freedom of religion (or freedom of belief, conscience, and worship)
• Freedom of religion (belief, conscience, and worship) Part 2
• Now that we know each other a little bit better...
• Freedom of religion (belief, conscience, and worship) Part 3
  
• We interrupt transmission
• How to avoid a spiral of nonsense; or, the transhumanists strike back
• Update on Voices of Disbelief
• A short course in Geek Philosophy
• On the baggage of transhumanism
• The position statement by the Order of Cosmic Engineers
• So long for now
  

And as promised, I plan on having a new guest blogger appear here next month. I've already got a writer booked for February, so stay tuned for more.

Russell Blackford guest blogging here next week

Starting next week I'll be introducing a new feature on Sentient Developments: guest bloggers. Each month I will invite a writer and thinker who I admire and respect and whose work speaks in someway to SentDev's subject matter. Guests will be encouraged to post at least one article a day for an entire week.

I'm proud to announce that progressive Australian bioethicist, attorney and science fiction writer Russell Blackford PhD LLB will be the first guest blogger on Sentient Developments. Look for Russell's posts to begin next week on Monday January 19.

Here's Russell's bio:

I am an Australian writer, philosopher, and critic. I'm editor-in-chief of The Journal of Evolution and Technology, an on-line, peer-reviewed journal. As a creative writer, I specialise in science fiction and fantasy. My non-fiction work frequently deals with issues involving the human, or posthuman, future. I am interested in the ethics, and possible regulation, of emerging technologies, and the future of religion, morality, art, literature, political organisation, and human nature itself. Some of my articles are available on my web site. My formal qualifications include First Class Honours degrees in Arts and Law, a Ph.D on the supposed return to myth in contemporary literature, and a Master of Bioethics degree. I have now qualified for a second Ph.D (in philosophy this time); this may seem extravagant, but I have my reasons!

In addition, Dr. Blackford is a Fellow at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies and he blogs over at the excellent Metamagician and the Hellfire Club. Be sure to check it out.