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:

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.

Hughes: What are reproductive rights?

IEET executive director James Hughes has posted some of his responses to a journalist’s questions about reproductive rights. Highlights:

Do you really think there will be equal access for this technology? Why wouldn’t it create a caste system of the enhanced and the non-enhanced?

Equal access to any technological enablement is the result of ongoing political struggle. Societies with stronger civil liberties, trade unions and social democratic parties will provide better universal technological access, from sewers to the Net to gene therapy. In other more unequal societies genetic therapies may exacerbate inequality. The difference in outcomes will be determined by the strengthen of democratic movements and parties, however, not by policies governing the access to technologies. Because of the growth of medical tourism banning access to a technology will simply restrict access to the wealthy, and will not stem the emergence of a two-tier society.

Why do you dislike the term “designer babies”?

“Designer babies” impugns the motivations of parents, who are generally trying to ensure the best possible lives for their children. If parents provide food, exercise and education for children to ensure that they are smart and healthy we praise them as responsible. When they try to ensure the same goods for their children with reproductive technology we imply that they have twisted, malign, instrumental values.

Even in the case of reproductive choices which are cosmetic, such as eye or hair color, we do not slander parents for how they dress or groom their children, but we do if they exercise a simple cosmetic choice before birth. We should stop using the term.

Totally agree with J's point about rooting out the 'designer babies' term. It totally trivializes and demeans the pending practice. In its place I've been using the term 'human trait selection.'

More.

James Hughes interviewed by Tricycle about transhumanism, Cyborg Buddha project

Buddhist magazine Tricycle recently interviewed the IEET's James Hughes about his unique take on transhumanism and Buddhism -- and how the two seemingly disparate philosophies should be intertwined.

Excerpt:

As a former Buddhist monk, Professor James Hughes is concerned with realization. And as a Transhumanist—someone who believes that we will eventually merge with technology and transcend our human limitations—he endorses radical technological enhancements to humanity to help achieve it. He describes himself as an “agnostic Buddhist” trying to unite the European Enlightenment with Buddhist enlightenment.

Sidestepping the word “happiness,” Hughes’ prefers to speak of “human flourishing,” avoiding the hedonism that “happiness” can imply.

“I’m a cautious forecaster,” says Hughes, a bioethicist and sociologist, “but I think the next couple of decades will probably be determined by our growing ability to control matter at the molecular level, by genetic engineering, and by advances in chemistry and tissue-engineering. Life expectancy will increase in almost all countries as we slow down the aging process and eliminate many diseases.” Not squeamish about the prospect of enhancing—or, plainly put, overhauling— the human being, Hughes thinks our lives may be changed most by neurotechnologies—stimulant drugs, “smart” drugs, and psychoactive substances that suppress mental illness.

More.

Richard Eskow, who did the interview, followed it up with a rebuttal of sorts: Cerebral Imperialism. In the article he writes,

Why “artificial intelligence,” after all, and not an “artificial identity” or “personality”? The name itself reveals a bias. Aren’t we confused computation with cognition and cognition with identity? Neuroscience suggests that metabolic processes drive our actions and our thoughts to a far greater degree than we’ve realized until now. Is there really a little being in our brains, or contiguous with our brains, driving the body?

To a large extent, isn’t it the other way around? Don’t our minds often build a framework around actions we’ve decided to take for other, more physical reasons? When I drink too much coffee I become more aggressive. I drive more aggressively, but am always thinking thoughts as I weave through traffic: “I’m late.” “He’s slow.” “She’s in the left lane.” “This is a more efficient way to drive.”

Why do we assume that there is an intelligence independent of the body that produces it? I’m well aware of the scientists who are challenging that assumption, so this is not a criticism of the entire artificial intelligence field. There’s a whole discipline called “friendly AI” which recognizes the threat posed by the Skynet/Terminator “computers come alive and eliminate humanity” scenario. A number of these researchers are looking for ways to make artificial “minds” more like artificial “personalities.”

Hopefully more to come on this intriguing debate.

TransAlchemy video on postgenderism

Been meaning to post this for a while:






On the whole this video is quite good. It's packed with plenty of of pop-cultural references and supported by historic and cultural anecdotes (though the video takes some weird turns at times, including the questionable discussion of alchemy in the third part).

Much of the video is based on the whitepaper I co-authored with James Hughes, Postgenderism: Beyond the Gender Binary and my article, Overcoming Gender.

Also, be sure to check out the TransAlchemy interview with James Hughes.

Matter and Beyond explores transhumanism [video]

Matter and Beyond, an online TV show that explores the intersection of science and spirituality, has produced an episode on transhumanism that features IEET Executive Director James Hughes and renowned physicist Freeman Dyson. The 30-minute video covers such topics as human trait selection, performance enhancement and artificial wombs.

Program description:

From our ancient myths that included stories about Greek gods such as Zeus, to modern day superhuman heroes such as the bionic woman, Superman and Batman, human beings have been fascinated with the idea of being more than a mere mortal.

Transhumanism is a discipline that is concerned with the social and scientific implications of overcoming human limitations. It is now possible, with the use of technological and bio-medical innovations, to live longer, be stronger and transcend the limitations that human beings have faced since the beginning of existence. But what are the moral and ethical implications?

From steroids to designer babies to artificial wombs, our leading thinkers discuss the ethical and moral implications of bio-technology and nanotechnology. Dr. Gayle Woloschak Woloschak questions whether technologies and pharmaceuticals that enhance human abilities be available to people who don’t necessarily need them for therapeutic use – but rather simply to be stronger – as in the case of steroid use. And while we are in the process of developing bio-medical techniques that allow us to order up any kind of baby we desire, Ethicist Dr. Freeman Dyson believes we may be going too far. He points out that some people would be willing to spend any amount of money and use any means necessary to order exactly the kind of baby they desire. While some have viewed that there are obvious natural limits to what human beings should do with their biology or their brains, Ethicist Dr. James Hughes points out that the view of these natural limits has shifted historically – as in the case of invitro fertilization which 30 years ago was known as ‘test tube” babies is now considered a common practice. Join us for a fascinating look at the exciting possibilities and some terrifying concerns arising out of innnovations in biotechnology.

James Hughes: Transhumanism and Religion

Earlier this year, James Hughes, executive director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET), spoke in Tempe Arizona at a seminar on “Transhumanism and the Concept of Human Nature,” which is part of a four year exploration of Transhumanism and Religion that is being funded by the Templeton Foundation.

Hughes has significantly expanded the paper and it's now available in booklet form: “The Compatibility of Religious and Transhumanist Views of Metaphysics, Suffering, Virtue and Transcendence in an Enhanced Future” (PDF). It is being published by the Global Spiral, the Metanexus Institute journal.

Here's the abstract:

Transhumanism – the proposition that human beings should use technology to transcend the limitations of the body and brain – is a product of the Enlightenment humanist tradition. As a consequence most avowed transhumanists are secular, and many religious are skeptical or hostile towards the transhumanist project. However there are also many religious transhumanists who find the project of human enhancement at least consistent with, and sometimes a fulfillment of, their metaphysics, soteriologies and eschatologies. Transhumanism appears to be especially compatible with religious traditions that emphasize human agency and evolution to a transcendent state, such as Buddhism, or that have incorporated Enlightenment values, such as liberal Christianity. But elements of the transhumanist worldview and enhancement technologies are compatible with one element or another of most world faiths, even the most fundamentalist. We can thus expect that human enhancement technologies will be adopted creatively into the theologies of groups within all the world’s faiths, producing many flavors of “trans-spirituality.”

Download the PDF Slides Talk

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.