In Rise of the Planet of the Apes, James Franco plays a scientist who discovers a genetic engineering treatment, delivered via virus, that prompts the brain to repair itself in the sick and boosts brain power beyond base line in the healthy (at least, in healthy apes). In the real world, though, that sort of therapy is still relegated to mouse experimentation. According to James Hughes, the executive director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, genetic therapy is still a field with more promise than successes. It can be dangerous, as is portrayed in the Apes prequel: In 1999, Jesse Gelsinger, an 18-year-old who suffered from a rare metabolic disorder, died as a result of a gene-therapy trial, and the field is still grappling with that failure.
Brain-computer interfaces, such as implants or "hook-ups," represent an alternative path for neuroenhancement. Linking your brain to a computer chip may conjure up sci-fi nightmares of a USB slot behind your ear, but it's not quite that far-fetched: Technically, the cochlear implants that allow some hearing-impaired or deaf people to hear in a limited fashion are brain-computer interfaces, as Greely points out. But Hughes speculates that brain-computer interfaces for better cognitive skills are probably at least 30 or 40 years out. "Even if we don't have nanobots in your head, we might have simpler ways of, and perhaps noninvasive ways, of hooking the brain up to external media and doing things we can't quite imagine yet," he says.
So any blockbuster neuroenhancer is still in the lab, or just a twinkle in a scientist's eye, at the moment. But those in the field are already preparing for the ethical and societal ramifications. Some, like Greely, urge the public—and physicians—not to be too squeamish about giving healthy brains a little boost. "In a world in which human work spans and life spans are increasing, cognitive enhancement tools—including the pharmacological—will be increasingly useful for improve quality of life and extended work productivity, as well as to stave off normal pathological age-related cognitive declines," he and colleagues argued in a 2008 Nature commentary.
Showing posts with label institute for ethics and emerging technologies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label institute for ethics and emerging technologies. Show all posts
August 14, 2011
Slate reviews 'Planet of the Apes'-style research into brain boosting
James Hughes, the executive director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, is featured in Slate's article, Think Faster: A review of the Rise of the Planet of the Apes-style research into brain boosting:
April 24, 2011
One Green Planet on the IEET'S Rights of Non-Human Persons Program
One Green Planet has chimed in on our Rights of Non-Human Persons Program. In the article, The Post-Human Age? When Transhumanism and Animal Rights Collide, One Green Planet correctly observes that the IEET, as a promoter of non-anthropocentric personhood ethics, has outlined a strategy to allow nonhumans ranging from animals to future post-humans and their cognitive equivalents, such as artificial intelligences, to gain rough moral and legal parity with humans.
That said, the article goes on to list three objections to the program:
Now, in regards to the first two objections: These arguments essentially express the fear that, under the IEET's plan, sentient non-persons will continue to be exploited as property and left out in the cold. All we're really doing, they argue, is creating a new hierarchy.
This is another classic example of how you can't please everybody all of the time. The RNHP infuriates the human exceptionalists as much as it does the die-hard animal rights advocates. Our middle-ground approach, as distasteful as it may seem to some, is both pragmatic and ideologically sound. And just as importantly, it's one that will get the job done where other attempts have failed. What we're doing at the IEET is unique; we've come to the realization that the extension of rights to non-human animals is an iterative process that will, out of necessity, have to involve a hierarchical approach.
Yes, all animals are capable of suffering, but not all animals are equal in terms of their capacity to suffer. Moreover, not all animals are equal in terms of their cognitive and emotional sophistication. A strong case can be made that the initial list of non-human persons we've designated are more susceptible of experiencing emotional and existential distress, and are thus deserving of special protections.
To reiterate an important point, we at the IEET do not feel that the circle of nonhuman persons stops at Great Apes, cetaceans, and elephants (or even advanced artificial intelligence). Because personhood follows a spectrum based on capacities, I fully expect entire sets and subsets of nonhuman person types to be included as time passes. What we're doing is a start. Initially, we're looking for buy-in on the concept of nonhuman persons and to get certain species protected by human-equivalent rights. Once we reach that milestone our efforts will not stop; the IEET will continue to work towards the extension of legal protections to more and more animals.
Animal rights folks are welcome to argue this approach with me all they want. But what they have to acknowledge is that, to date, virtually all strategies by animal rights groups to grant animals meaningful legal protections have utterly and completely failed. Traditional strategies are simply not working. What we at the IEET are offering is baby-steps approach that will eventually help us achieve our mutual goals.
That said, the article goes on to list three objections to the program:
- Sentient beings will continue to be regarded as property
- This presents a new hierarchy that simply replaces an old one
- This will result in more animal experimentation
Now, in regards to the first two objections: These arguments essentially express the fear that, under the IEET's plan, sentient non-persons will continue to be exploited as property and left out in the cold. All we're really doing, they argue, is creating a new hierarchy.
This is another classic example of how you can't please everybody all of the time. The RNHP infuriates the human exceptionalists as much as it does the die-hard animal rights advocates. Our middle-ground approach, as distasteful as it may seem to some, is both pragmatic and ideologically sound. And just as importantly, it's one that will get the job done where other attempts have failed. What we're doing at the IEET is unique; we've come to the realization that the extension of rights to non-human animals is an iterative process that will, out of necessity, have to involve a hierarchical approach.
Yes, all animals are capable of suffering, but not all animals are equal in terms of their capacity to suffer. Moreover, not all animals are equal in terms of their cognitive and emotional sophistication. A strong case can be made that the initial list of non-human persons we've designated are more susceptible of experiencing emotional and existential distress, and are thus deserving of special protections.
To reiterate an important point, we at the IEET do not feel that the circle of nonhuman persons stops at Great Apes, cetaceans, and elephants (or even advanced artificial intelligence). Because personhood follows a spectrum based on capacities, I fully expect entire sets and subsets of nonhuman person types to be included as time passes. What we're doing is a start. Initially, we're looking for buy-in on the concept of nonhuman persons and to get certain species protected by human-equivalent rights. Once we reach that milestone our efforts will not stop; the IEET will continue to work towards the extension of legal protections to more and more animals.
Animal rights folks are welcome to argue this approach with me all they want. But what they have to acknowledge is that, to date, virtually all strategies by animal rights groups to grant animals meaningful legal protections have utterly and completely failed. Traditional strategies are simply not working. What we at the IEET are offering is baby-steps approach that will eventually help us achieve our mutual goals.
February 11, 2011
IEET launches program to further the rights of nonhuman persons
The Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies has announced a new program, Rights of Non-Human Persons, that will argue in favor of applying human-level rights to certain other species.
“Defense of human rights, applied as fully as possible, is one of our core principles,” said IEET Executive Director James Hughes. “As our understanding of what constitutes a ‘person’ continues to grow and change, we’re convinced it is time to expand that definition.”
George Dvorsky, a Canadian futurist and bioethicist who serves on the IEET’s Board of Directors, will head the new program on Rights of Non-Human Persons.
“It is increasingly clear that some non-human animals meet the criteria of legal personhood, and thus are deserving of specific rights and protections,” said Dvorsky. “Recent scientific research has revealed more about animal cognition and behavior than ever before, so we really have no choice but to take this prospect seriously.”
This new initiative will be included within the broader Rights of the Person program, managed by Kristi Scott. “The general thrust of human history is toward the progressive inclusion of previously marginalized individuals and groups,” said Scott. “Now we’re reaching the point where this imperative compels us to cross the species barrier so we can protect some of the most vulnerable and exploited animals on the planet.”
“Species like bonobos, elephants, dolphins, and others most certainly fall into a special class of beings, namely those deserving of the personhood designation,” added Dvorsky. “While we might recognize this instinctually, or even scientifically, it’s time we start to recognize this in the legal sense.”
“The Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies is well positioned to work on behalf of this cause,” said Hughes. “Philosophically, the IEET has always recognized the value of looking beyond mere human-ness when it comes to our consideration of ethics and morals. With our non-anthropocentric approach to personhood and our impressive body of advisors, the IEET will work actively to promote the idea of legal non-human personhood and see it come to fruition.”
Rights of Non-Human Persons Mission Statement:
Owing to advances in several fields, including the neurosciences, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the human species no longer can ignore the rights of non-human persons. A number of non-human animals, including the great apes, cetaceans (i.e. dolphins and whales), elephants, and parrots, exhibit characteristics and tendencies consistent with that of a person—traits like self-awareness, intentionality, creativity, symbolic communication, and many others. It is a moral and legal imperative that we now extend the protection of ‘human rights’ from our species to all beings with those characteristics.Feel free to contact me if you want to contribute; and join our new mailing list.
The Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, as a promoter of non-anthropocentric personhood ethics, defends the rights of non-human persons to live in liberty, free from undue confinement, slavery, torture, experimentation, and the threat of unnatural death. Further, the IEET defends the right of non-human persons to live freely in their natural habitats, and when that’s not possible, to be given the best quality of life and welfare possible in captivity (such as sanctuaries).
Through the Rights of the Non-Human Person program, the IEET will strive to:
- Investigate and refine definitions of personhood and those criteria sufficient for the recognition of non-human persons.
- Facilitate and support further research in the neurosciences for the improved understanding and identification of those cognitive processes, functions and behaviors that give rise to personhood.
- Educate and persuade the public on the matter, spread the word, and increase awareness of the idea that some animals are persons.
- Produce evidence and fact-based argumentation in favor of non-human animal personhood to support the cause and other like-minded groups and individuals.
November 5, 2009
IEET's Biopolitics of Popular Culture Seminar
The Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies is holding a seminar on the Biopolitics of Popular Culture at Eon Reality in Irvine California on December 4, 2009. This seminar will precede the Humanity+ Summit, December 5-6 at the same venue.The IEET has put together an impressive groups of speakers, a list that includes io9's Annalee Newitz, Jamais Cascio, film maker Matthew Patrick, Natasha Vita-More and science fiction writer Richard Kadrey.
From the IEET website:
Popular culture is full of tropes and cliches that shape our debates about emerging technologies. Our most transcendent expectations for technology come from pop culture, and the most common objections to emerging technologies come from science fiction and horror, from Frankenstein and Brave New World to Gattaca and the Terminator.
Why is it that almost every person in fiction who wants to live a longer than normal life is evil or pays some terrible price? What does it say about attitudes towards posthuman possibilities when mutants in Heroes or the X-Men, or cyborgs in Battlestar Galactica or Iron Man, or vampires in True Blood or Twilight are depicted as capable of responsible citizenship?
Is Hollywood reflecting a transhuman turn in popular culture, helping us imagine a day when magical and muggle can live together in a peaceful Star Trek federation? Will the merging of pop culture, social networking and virtual reality into a heightened augmented reality encourage us all to make our lives a form of participative fiction?
During this day long seminar we will engage with culture critics, artists, writers, and filmmakers to explore the biopolitics that are implicit in depictions of emerging technology in literature, film and television.
Other speakers include:- PJ Manney
- Alex Lightman
- Kristi Scott
- J. Hughes
- Mike Treder
- Michael LaTorra
- Jess Nevins
- RJ Eskow
- Brian Cross
- Edward Miller
- Michael Massuci
- Jeannie Novak
January 5, 2009
Global Catastrophic Risks talks now available online
| 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
November 9, 2008
Goin' to California for a pair of conferences
Later this week I'll be off to Mountain View CA for a pair of conferences: the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies' symposium on Global Catastrophic Risks: Building a Resilient Civilization, followed by Humanity+'s Convergence08.I'll be giving a talk at the IEET event on Friday November 14 titled, "Democracy in danger: Catastrophic threats and the rise of political extremism." The purpose of my presentation will be to examine the role that existential and catastrophic threats will have in influencing the rise of political extremism and the potential for extremism to:
Other speakers at the Global Catastrophic Risks conference will include:emerge and play a pivotal role in future geopolitics and human organization erode democratic institutions and ideals facilitate or instigate catastrophes (either through influence, action or inaction) prevent catastrophes and help with disaster recovery represent existential risks unto themselves
I hope to see you there!Anders Sandberg PhD, Oxford University: “Global Catastrophic Risks: An Overview, and Caution about Risk Assessments” Eliezer Yudkowsky, Research Associate. Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence: “Cognitive Biases in the Assessment of Risk” Feng Hsu PhD, Head, Integrated Risk Management, NASA: “Critical Issues of Global Catastrophic Risks - a Worst Case Scenario Assessment” Martin Hellman PhD, Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University: “Risk Analysis of Nuclear Deterrence” Bruce Damer, CEO, DigitalSpace & Director, Contact Consortium: “Asteroids and Comets: Mitigating Impact Risks and Stepping Stones to a Sustainable Space Program” Mike Treder, Executive Director, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology: “Nanotechnology’s Global Risk and Promises of Resilience” 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” Alan Goldstein PhD, CEO of Industrial Nanobiotechnology: “The A-Prize: Tracking The Global Race To Break The Carbon Barrier” J. Storrs Hall PhD, author Beyond AI: “The Weather Machine: Nano-enabled Climate Control for the Earth” Jamais Cascio, IEET Fellow, and research affiliate, Institute for the Future: “Building Civilizational Resilience” James J. Hughes PhD, Exec. Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies: “Strengthening Transnational Governance to Mitigate Risks”
July 29, 2007
Photos from the IEET's Longevity Symposium
Click to see the entire slideshow. The IEET's Longevity Dividend Symposium was held at the Fairmont Hotel in Chicago, July 23, 2007.
July 27, 2007
Crafting the practical case for life extension in Chicago
Among the many alarming statistics presented by Olshansky, he noted that as a person ages their risk of dying doubles every 7 years. And as the expense required to keep people alive continues to escalate, society could be in for some serious economic trouble. Olshansky estimates that by 2030 the medical costs in the
To deal with this pending crisis, Olshansky suggests that we need to keep people healthy by working to develop more meaningful interventions in life extension, whether it be genetics, insights gained from the effects of caloric restriction, or the development of compounds with properties that appear to slow aging. Ultimately, the goal is to extend maximum healthy life span and drive medical costs down.
At the same time, Olshansky critiqued the tendency towards an explicit “anti-aging” sentiment. Quite interestingly, he sees aging as a positive and wisdom-endowing process. His goal is more modest than those of the transhumanists who which to eliminate death altogether. Instead, Olshansky urges that we should simply strive to extend maximize healthy lifespan as much as possible.
But not everyone at the symposium agreed with Olshansky. Gerontologist Aubrey de Grey, while supportive of Olshansky’s work, was skeptical that a focus on the longevity dividend would result in a decrease in medical costs. As de Grey argued, there will still be costs -- if not considerable costs -- even in a world in which senescence has been greatly retarded. The goal, says de Grey, is to work towards the development of anti-aging interventions intended to eliminate death altogether. The case for radical life extension continues to mature.
Read Ronald Bailey’s recap of the symposium.
May 27, 2007
My Longevity Symposium and TransVision 2007 presentations
This coming July I will be giving presentations at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies' Longevity Symposium and the World Transhumanist Association's TransVision 2007 conference.
For the Longevity Symposium, an event titled "Securing the Longevity Dividend: Building the Campaign for Anti-Aging Science," I will be addressing and reconciling the most popular arguments both for and against radical life extension. Other speakers at this event will include S. Jay Olshansky, David O. Meltzer, Aubrey de Grey, James Hughes, Nick Bostrom, Ronald Bailey, and Anders Sandberg.
For TransVision 2007 I will making the case for postgenderism -- the idea that gender should be eliminated in the next iteration of the human species. My presentation is tentatively titled, "The Best of Both Worlds," and I will argue that posthumans should not abandon all gendered traits, but integrate the best that males and females have to offer. This will be my first opportunity to present these ideas in public and I'm very much looking forward to it.
Other speakers at TV07 will include Ray Kurzweil, William Shatner, and Max More.
Register now for TV07 and look for me there.
May 15, 2007
IEET featured in NY Times article on disabled sprinter
I was quoted today in a New York Times article about disabled sprinter Oscar Pistorius. The piece is titled, "An Amputee Sprinter: Is He Disabled or Too-Abled?" Excerpt:"A sobering question was posed recently on the Web site of the Connecticut-based Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. 'Given the arms race nature of competition,' will technological advantages cause "athletes to do something as seemingly radical as having their healthy natural limbs replaced by artificial ones?" wrote George Dvorsky, a member of the institute's board of directors. 'Is it self-mutilation when you're getting a better limb?'"The quote was sourced from my article, "Is the world ready for cyborg athletes?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)